Planetary EMF pollution - Perception of Risk - 5G Rollout - Mobile Phones SAR standard breached - ORSAA Advisors - Autonomous Cars
1. Planetary electromagnetic pollution: it is time to assess its impact.
Dr Priyanka (Pri) Bandara (ORSAA) and Prof. David O Carpenter (Institute for Health and the Environment, University at Albany, Rensselaer, NY, USA) have written a commentary on electromagnetic pollution (download below) which unlike tobacco smoking is not visible to the naked eye. This has become a public issue around the globe as the start of the 5G (and additional 4G LTE) antenna rollout is now becoming visible on street poles outside people's homes, in some cases meters away from bedrooms. This new addition to the streetscape is being done sometimes without property owners or occupiers being advised, or if advised, buried amongst the junk mail in our letterboxes as non-personal letters “to the homeowner”.
2. Perception of Risk - Property values with nearby base stations and EMR-5G antennas have been reviewed by owners in New Zealand.
Fighting for Fair NZ Published on Aug 26, 2019
NZ telco 2degrees claims that cell phone towers do not devalue property prices! Is this true? Or just industry propaganda designed to make you feel better about the fact that 2degrees are going to install a mobile phone base station just meters from your bedroom? In this video the available research tells us about cell phone towers and property devaluation and put their claim to the test. A short video - Debunking 2degrees - Cell Phone Towers and Property Devaluation claims
Rajapaksa 2017, Affusso 2017, Filippova 2011,
Freybote 2015, Jackson 2010,
3. 5G - There are a number of stages.
This IEEE video (6 minutes) is a good summary of how 5G will progress.
Once you accept the first stage you will ultimately get all future rollout stages. There is no discussion of bio-effects and how this will affect your health. ARPANSA and Telcos tell us it’s just radio or “new radio” and that 20 Gigabits per second is just an extension from what we already know is safe. That is simply not correct - the signals and pulses are very complex and vary wildly in intensity so some spots may be quite different from average readings over time. These polarised RF waves can constructively and destructively interfere and as a result can create hotspots (in the far field). When you hold a mobile phone to your head you are in the near field (the photon mathematical model doesn’t apply) and the interaction with biological tissue is much more complicated as variables of interaction increase. In fact, at these high data rates we may enter in to a new form of wave propagation called the brillouin precursor which means the potentially of much deeper penetration into the body and agreements like "Its just absorbed in the skin" rhetoric seem a little like hubris in the lack of research.
The current standard is set on heating of tissue for short periods (ignoring bioeffects that are not related to heating) and as shown below even meeting the flawed heating-based short-term exposure standard may not occur. If you regularly hold a phone to your head over 30 minutes per day ORSAA advises a precautionary approach: use hands free or with corded headphones while not holding the phone in close proximity to your body.
Unfortunately, scientists have not performed anywhere near enough research to give any firm guarantees and assurances about safety. In fact, what we know to date actually challenges safety claims and strongly suggests we should be advising consumers to take a precautionary approach when using this technology. Wireless technology is not risk free.
4. Phones don’t meet the Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) standard. What does this mean?
The Specific Absorption rate (SAR) is a measure of the amount of power (energy per second) deposited in tissue units (Watts/kg) and can generate confusion. In Australia, that standard is 2 W/kg and in the USA it’s 1.6 W/kg averaged over 1 gm of tissue for a 6 minute exposure. Okay, this is where it gets really confusing because there is no universal consistency in levels or approaches, we average SAR over 1 gm of tissue while in Europe it's 10 gm of tissue. See letter (download below) to the FCC from Marc Azari and Devra Davis in March 2018.
To quote from the attached letter “A mobile phone compliant with the ICNIRP standard of 2.0 W/kg SAR in 10 g of tissue may lead to a 2.5 to 3 times excess above the FCC standard of 1.6 W/kg in 1 g of tissue (i.e., 4-5 W/kg in a cube of 1g of tissue).” Gandhi, Lloyd and Davis 2012.
Bottom line: Manufacturers should be warning people that their short-term heating standard (SAR rating) maybe breached when used in close proximity to the body, especially against the head.
What does this mean?
See Commentary : FCC needs to update its cellphone tests for radiofrequency radiation. By Devra Davis in the Chicago Tribune.
Apple and Samsung appear to be now involved in a class action over handset RF emissions.
This evidence means the current risk factors are incorrectly represented and being actively downplayed. More than ever we need to tell people who use phones for long periods up to their ear to change their habits. The at-risk group are those who do this for more than 30 minutes per day, which is still a lot of people today including some children and adolescents.
Texting is safer than a phone to the head but the Baby Safe Project, performed in conjunction with some researchers at Yale University, recommended that pregnant women not text over their abdomens; see Baby Safe Project.
5. ORSAA Advisor speaks to NZ Planet radio.
Sue Grey (ORSAA advisor) talks to NZ Planet FM about man-made radiofrequency radiation. This is an hour-long episode.
6. ORSAA Advisor publishes on Children’s Health.
Prof Yuri Grigoriev - Russian National Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (representing Russian Federation at the UN agencies) has published a chapter in a new book.
Chapter 10. A Longitudinal Study of Psychophysiological
Indicators in Pupils Users of Mobile Communications in Russia (2006–2017) Children Are in the Group of Risk
By Yury G. Grigoriev and Natalia I. Khorseva.
Prof. Yuri Grigoriev has been very concerned over the last two decades (2002) that RF mobile phones have effects on the central nervous system of children and adolescents. Therefore, as part of the recommendation by the RUSSIAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE ON NON-IONIZING RADIATION PROTECTION (RNCNIRP), Russia set a scientifically based limit 100 times lower than the ICNIRP
To quote Grigoriev “The establishment of a threshold level on pathological effects makes the assumption that in an organism compensative or adaptive reactions will be in effect. We strongly disagree with this assumption! People very rarely have contact with ACUTE exposures in everyday life. All populations in the world have daily contact with low levels of RF-EMF and are chronically exposed! Unfortunately there are no publications that present ways of extrapolating from the various existing standards recommendations to properly assess real environmental conditions for the population. There are currently no proposals on how to estimate danger by using existing International standards recommendations: from acute influences to chronic exposure, and from thermal levels to non-thermal levels. “
7. Autonomous Cars – Plans for 5G?
While autonomous vehicles would need to be able to operate independently of outside assistance, especially in the city, they would need to communicate with information and directive sources within a given environment, whatever the communications protocol – 5G or other. However, that does not mean that automated vehicles will depend on or even use 5G communications. See below for what IT professional Kent Fitch in Canberra has to say on this issue:
“…there is no way that a reliable autonomous vehicle will use information not already "on board" for driving/navigation because that would make them very fragile and unable to operate in area with poor or no reception. All the current front-runners in producing autonomous systems have the same basic model: a very large "back-end" system to generate models and/or neural networks, which are then downloaded into the car's own computer and which then runs effectively "off line". Even with 5G, the latency is too high and the data rates are too low to use computing not on-board for making driving decisions. All the front-runners use local sensors (cameras, radar, sonar, and must use lidar) and vast "on-board" computing resources (Tesla's recent autonomy presentation went into how and why in great detail: Video presentation is long (1h30) and very technical in content. As that presentation discusses, even GPS is not relied upon - it is too coarse, frequently inaccurate or unavailable and worst of all, pre-generated maps get out of date instantly and cannot be used for driving decisions (lanes get closed, things fall off the back of trucks, trees fall over, detours get put in place). Some people think vehicle-to-vehicle communications will be useful for optimising flows, but some think that is inherently the wrong approach (as transmissions will fail, and a large set of road uses will not transmit, so you have to solve the problem with sensors anyway).
On the other hand, it is certain that autonomous cars will use the wireless networks for "admin" purposes, such as reporting their current location and receiving pickup requests, but these transfers will be relatively small in volume and not subject to "real-time" requirements, and will be relatively low bandwidth users (and certainly 3G or 4G has plenty of bandwidth for this, and having much greater range than 5G, they are going to be around for a long while). I have seen presentations from both Telstra and Huawei spruiking 5G for autonomous cars, but they fail to make a coherent argument as for "why", except one Huawei presentation I saw said 5G was necessary for remote driving: in this case, they had operators in some control room driving and controlling a back-hoe - hmm.. what could go wrong with that! … ” Kent Fitch, 29Jun19