EMFacts Blog

Australia Fires And Technology’s Climate Vampire: Why The Environmental Impact Of 5G Expansion Could Be Massive

By Dr. Devra Davis

The ravaging fires of Australia’s drought-riddled bush provide a global warning. Amidst the largest mass evacuation in its history with no relief in sight, thousands of� Australians� are now forced to shelter-in-place,� while others are crammed into seashores where they await rescue by naval ships. Their only hope is to wait till much-needed rains quench the extraordinary raging blazes erupting amidst the hottest and driest year on record. Uncontrolled burning of coal and other fossil fuels has left the past decade the warmest in modern recorded history, scorching an area down under that is larger than the size of Denmark, and rendering the� air of Canberra� the worst in the world.� Millions are at the mercy of searing temperatures and wicked winds. Ecologists estimate half a billion� animals� have been killed since the bushfires started in September. Sadly, much of this was predicted by United Nations experts of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, in which I was honored to participate.� In 1997, I presented an analysis showing that airborne coal soot from fossil fuels globally would result in 700,000 avoidable deaths every single year and the death toll would rise to about 8 million by 2020.� However, that study never imagined the devastating and heartbreaking impact of fires like now sweeping through Australia….SNIP

5G underwhelms in its first big test in South Korea

Excerpt: On December 27 2019 An opinion piece was published by the Canberra Times by Paul Fletcher, the federal Minister for Communications, Cyber Safety and the Arts. In his opinion piece, he assures the readers that “Australians can trust in safety of 5G network” and goes on to enthusiastically describe the many claims made by the promoters of 5G. However, before unquestionably spruiking the industry line, Fletcher should consider the problems encountered in the South Korea 5G rollout. He should also read the well over 400 submissions to the recent government 5G inquiry, the majority of which point out unintended consequences of 5G. But I suppose, for the federal government, soon to auction off parts of the 5G spectrum and rake in many $ millions for the treasury, knowing too much is not what Fletcher and his government really wants to know.

Video of Leszczynski lecture in Nelson, New� Zealand

December 27, 2019
A video of Dariusz Leszczynski’s 5G lecture in Nelson, New Zealand as well as slides of all of his 4 NZ lectures and interviews are now available on his BRHP blog website. Links to slides of his 4 lectures in New Zealand (Auckland, Hawke’s Bay, Wellington, Nelson) can be found from these links (each lecture was slightly different):… SNIP

Moratorium on 5G: American Scientists, Doctors and Healthcare Practitioners’ Letter to President Trump

Excerpt
Experts are urging for reductions in exposure to protect human health and the environment. From the Environmental Health Trust and published in Global Research. A broad coalition of scientists, doctors and advocates sent a National 5G Resolution letter to President Trump demanding a moratorium on 5G until potential hazards for human health and the environment have been fully investigated by scientists independent from the telecom industry. The 5G Resolution was developed during the first three-day US medical conference fully dedicated to this topic, Electromagnetic Fields Conference on Diagnosis and Treatment, which convened in Scotts Valley, California in September.� The letter references the published scientific studies demonstrating harm to human health, bees trees and the environment from current wireless technology and posits that 5G will both increase exposure and add in new technology never safety tested for long-term exposure…SNIP

ARPANSA claims 5G is safe by referring to bogus provocation studies.

ARPANSA is scraping the botton of its scientific credibility barrel in its latest claims that 5G is safe by dredging up a double blind provocation study (from ACEBR) which found no evidence that exposure to electromagnetic fields was a cause of electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS). In the best of Hogwarts’ School of Wizardly, ARPANSA manages a

Open Season on 5G Critics First NY Times, Now Scientific American

From Microwave News

December 6, 2019
Excerpt: Simply saying that more health research is needed on 5G –the latest generation of cell phone technology– can be hazardous to your reputation.Last May, the New York Times tried to take down David Carpenter, a public health physician and the country’s most prominent 5G critic. Veteran science writer William Broad painted Carpenter as a willing tool of a disinformation campaign promoted by RT America, a TV network which he described as “the cat’s paw of Russian president, Vladimir Putin.” The page-one story ran under the headline, “Your 5G Phone Won’t Hurt You But Russia Wants You To Think Otherwise.”Two months later, on July 16, Broad was back for another hit on Carpenter. This time, he was given most of the front page of the Times’ Tuesday science section, to portray Carpenter as a fringe player working “hard to revise established science.”Much of what Broad wrote was fiction. (See “A Fact-Free Hit on a 5G Critic.”)Now Scientific American has ambushed Joel Moskowitz, one of the few other academics willing to state the obvious: No one knows whether 5G is safe…. SNIP

November 5G posts by Dariusz Leszczynski including his New Zealand tour

1) Leszczynski: 5G presentation at the Auckland University Posted on November 19, 2019. Here are slides of my lecture on November 2019 at the Auckland University, Nov. 19, 2019. Titled: 5G AND HEALTH –IS IT SAFE? WHAT THE SCIENCE TELLS US

2)Asking the right questions: Guest Blog from Julius Gorm Graakjær Grantzau, former member of The Danish Parliament Posted on November 23, 2019 Excerpt: Below is the next in a series of Guest Blogs on BRHP. The opinions expressed in this Guest Blog are of Julius Gorm Graakjær Grantzau himself. Publication of these opinions in BRHP does not imply that BRHP automatically agrees with or endorses these opinions. Publication of this, and other guest blogs, facilitates an open debate and free exchange of opinions on wireless technology and health.

3) presentation at the Victoria University in Wellington: Here are slides of my lecture at the Rutherford House Lecture Theatre, Victoria Business School, Victoria University of Wellington, Nov. 27, 2019. In my lectures, I am presenting science with all its limitations. I am trying to educate listeners that not every peer-reviewed study is a good quality study. That the design of the study may, and will, pre-determine the outcome of the study. Also, I am often pointing out that not every study is useful, or of value, for determining human health policies.However, I found it interesting that there are listeners, who come to me after lectures, and complain that my opinions are not good ones because some other scientist(s) think differently and claim that there is plenty of studies proving health harm. Hence, in the listener’s opinion, my opinions, claiming lack of sufficient evidence to prove health harm due to exposures to wireless radiation, are incorrect.However, when I ask these listeners what education and expertise they have to scientifically judge which of the expert opinions is the correct one, they are often offended.But this is a simple fact life. How, non-scientist with no education in this area of research, can decide which scientific expert opinion is correct? It seems that the only way the non-scientists make judgement is based on whether scientist’s opinion fits/agrees with their existing already belief what the heath hazard is, instead of listening with the open mind.

And there’s more…

City of Sydney’s submission to the government’s 5G inquiry: Sacrifice trees for network performance and overwhelming numbers of small cells…

In stark contrast to the ACEBR/Vodafone/Telstra submissions (see last message) the city of Sydney has expressed very valid concerns over the introduction of 5G in the city. To quote in part from submission #310 from Sydney: “We know, for example that 5G millimetre wave radio spectrum is adversely affected by trees and that other physical assets and this adds a critical reason to collaboratively decide on cell heights and locations. We will not be willing to sacrifice trees in favour of network performance. Similarly, we need to consider the aesthetic and physical impacts of a potentially large volume of physical infrastructure which is located based on network performance only. We must find sustainable ways to advance the use of technology and we can do this only if we are an active part of the decision-making process within our city”…SNIP