By Catherine J. Frompovich

Cell phone towers dot the landscape every so many hundred or thousand feet in most places, especially along interstate highways and on higher or hill-top locations.  Because there is such a demand for cell phone service—more cell phones now than the total global population—more and more technology means of providing service have to be implemented.  However, cell towers cost around $150,000 each to erect.  Consequently, cell providers want less expensive ‘infrastructure’ to be able to provide faster and ‘better’ service, therefore, the introduction of “5G”, which no one knows what that “generation of service” will do to humans, wildlife and the environment.

One of the more resolute EMR/RF/cell phone radiation researchers is Lloyd Burrell of Royan Poitou Charentes, France, in the European Union.  Lloyd does an exceptional job of researching, providing a newsletter and also interviewing other researchers on his weekly Internet show, which can be accessed at ElectricSense and [email protected].

Recently Lloyd produced an extremely informative document about “Cell Tower Radiation & Cancer, The Facts” wherein he listed 17 References and/or citations from scientific journals pointing out connections between cell towers and cancer.  I’ve taken the liberty to reproduce those References below, as they point to apparent health hazards that are ‘overlooked’ in favor of implementing cell phone and tech services.

If the research below indicates problems, especially cancer, what can we expect from 5G?  No one really knows!

References [Hat tip and many thanks to Lloyd Burrell]

Bhatt CR, Redmayne M, Billah B, Abramson MJ, Benke G. Radiofrequency-electromagnetic field exposures in kindergarten children. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol [Internet]. 2017 [cited 2018 Feb 1]; 27: 497–504. doi: 10.1038/jes.2016.55. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27759027

Baan R, Grosse Y, Lauby-Secretan B, El Ghissassi F, Bouvard V, Benbrahim-Tallaa L, Guha N, Islami F, Galichet L, Straif K. Carcinogenicity of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. Lancet Oncol [Internet]. 2011; 12: 624–6. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(11)70147-4. http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(11)70147-4/fulltext

Wolf R, Wolf D. Increased incidence of cancer near a cell-phone transmitted station. Trends cancer Prev. 2007; 1: 1–8. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/ee87/d78a4b9c12983b0cbeff1df69e535a6a6f6a.pdf

Horst Eger, Klaus Uwe Hagen, Birgitt Lucas, Peter Vogel, Helmut Voit. The Influence of Being Physically Near to a Cell Phone Transmission Mast on the Incidence of Cancer. Umwelt·Medizin·Gesellschaft [Internet]. 2004 [cited 2018 Feb 1]; 17: 326–32. Available from: http://www.wifiinschools.com/uploads/3/0/4/2/3042232/eger_2004.pdf

Selvin S, Schulman J, Merrill DW. Distance and risk measures for the analysis of spatial data: A study of childhood cancers. Soc Sci Med [Internet]. 1992; 34: 769–77. doi: 10.1016/0277-9536(92)90364-V. http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/027795369290364V

Dolk H, Elliott P, Shaddick G, Walls P, Thakrar B. Cancer incidence near radio and television transmitters in Great Britain. 2. All high power transmitters. Am J Epidemiol. 1997; 145: 10–7. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8982017

Hocking B, Gordon IR, Grain HL, Hatfield GE. Cancer incidence and mortality and proximity to TV towers. Med J Aust. 1996; 165: 601–5.  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8985435

Zothansiama, Zosangzuali M, Lalramdinpuii M, Jagetia GC. Impact of radiofrequency radiation on DNA damage and antioxidants in peripheral blood lymphocytes of humans residing in the vicinity of mobile phone base stations. Electromagn Biol Med [Internet]. Taylor & Francis; 2017; 36: 295–305. doi: 10.1080/15368378.2017.1350584.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15368378.2017.1350584

Ahlbom A, Green A, Kheifets L, Savitz D, Swerdlow A. Epidemiology of health effects of radiofrequency exposure [Internet]. Environmental Health Perspectives. National Institute of Environmental Health Science; 2004 [cited 2018 Feb 4]. p. 1741–54. doi: 10.1289/ehp.7306. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15579422

Weinberger Z, Richter ED. Cellular telephones and effects on the brain: The head as an antenna and brain tissue as a radio receiver [Internet]. Medical Hypotheses. 2002. p. 703–5. doi: 10.1016/S0306-9877(02)00298-0.  http://www.avaate.org/IMG/pdf/resonancia_craneo_Israel.pdf

180 scientists. Scientists warn of potential serious health effects of 5G [Internet]. [cited 2018 Feb 2]. Available 2018 Feb 2, from https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B14R6QNkmaXuelFrNWRQcThNV0U/view

Hayes DL, Wang PJ, Reynolds DW, Estes M, Griffith JL, Steffens RA, Carlo GL, Findlay GK, Johnson CM. Interference with cardiac pacemakers by cellular telephones. N Engl J Med [Internet]. Massachusetts Medical Society; 1997 [cited 2018 Feb 5]; 336: 1473–9. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199705223362101. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9154765

Naziroǧlu M, Yüksel M, Köse SA, Özkaya MO. Recent reports of Wi-Fi and mobile phone-induced radiation on oxidative stress and reproductive signaling pathways in females and males [Internet]. Journal of Membrane Biology. 2013 [cited 2017 Dec 25]. p. 869–75. doi: 10.1007/s00232-013-9597-9. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24105626

Divan HA, Kheifets L, Obel C, Olsen J. Prenatal and postnatal exposure to cell phone use and behavioral problems in children. Epidemiology [Internet]. 2008 [cited 2017 Dec 27]; 19: 523–9. doi: 10.1097/EDE.0b013e318175dd47. http://journals.lww.com/epidem/Abstract/2008/07000/Prenatal_and_Postnatal_Exposure_to_Cell_Phone_Use.1.asp

Hutter H-P, Moshammer H, Wallner P, Kundi M. Subjective symptoms, sleeping problems, and cognitive performance in subjects living near mobile phone base stations. Occup Environ Med [Internet]. BMJ Publishing Group Ltd; 2006 [cited 2018 Feb 5]; 63: 307–13. doi: 10.1136/oem.2005.020784. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16621850

Augner C, Hacker GW. Are people living next to mobile phone base stations more strained? Relationship of health concerns, self-estimated distance to base station, and psychological parameters. Indian J Occup Environ Med [Internet]. 2009 [cited 2017 Dec 25]; 13: 141–5. doi: 10.4103/0019-5278.58918. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2044283

Augner C, Hacker GW, Oberfeld G, Florian M, Hitzl W, Hutter J, Pauser G. Effects of exposure to GSM mobile phone base station signals on salivary cortisol, alpha-amylase, and immunoglobulin A. Biomed Environ Sci [Internet]. 2010 [cited 2017 Dec 25]; 23: 199–207. doi: 10.1016/S0895-3988(10)60053-0. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20708499

WebMD. 10 Stress-Related Health Problems That You Can Fix [Internet]. [cited 2018 Feb 3]. Available 2018 Feb 3, from https://www.webmd.com/balance/stress-management/features/10-fixable-stress-related-health-problems#1

GSMAs real time tracker. [cited 2018 Feb 3]. Available 2018 Feb 3, from https://www.gsmaintelligence.com/

Currently, 5G is being “trial run” at the 2018 Winter Olympics in South Korea where it is being used to deal with wild boar that roam the countryside and pose threats to those frequenting Winter Olympic venues.

Fortune Magazine published a report by Bloomberg News about how 5G was being used “to ward off the porcine pests who roam the mountainous region around the Games with fast-acting systems that shoot rays…”  What?  That should not come as a surprise, as the military has used 5G as “weaponized frequencies.”

In the online article “5G Weaponized Frequencies: A Ground Based Web System”

Barbara Johnson, an electrical engineer and star wars tactician, discusses 5G weaponized frequencies and the dangers of this unproven and untested energy field that will engulf much of the US.  She examines the unavoidable health risks associated with 5G and questions why our government is all too eager to roll this out throwing caution to the wind. Unlike conventional wireless technology, the 5G ground based web system generates an energy “field” vs. a wave transmission despite the fact many refer to this as millimeter wave technology. Fields are constant and create a grid like topography, whereas waves do not. Waves can be cancelled whereas fields can not without creating an equal but opposite field – so what’s gained or negated?

Within the above website, there’s a most informative video, which I cannot embed into this article, but certainly hope readers will access and watch.  You will understand a lot more than you probably do about 5G.  Around 20 minutes on that video timeline, you will hear about some studies done on 5G by a few countries which now are questioning rolling out 5G.  Learn the differences between frequencies and fields.

One of the cautions I think that needs to be offered is that 5G and much of the high tech devices and services being forced upon society will wind up being similar to that of nuclear science and nuclear fission:  ‘Science’ introduced and implemented a horrendously destructive technology which cannot be neutralized and becomes a death sentence when it gets out of control or experiences an ‘accident’ [1].

What happens when a nuclear power plant blows?  Does anyone think Fukushima has been made safe [2]?  What did they have to do to Chernobyl?

https://youtu.be/l_CMfa4MzYc?t=66

Who will be the guardians of those radioactive sites for thousands of years?

Buyer and High Tech Consumers Beware!

What everyone really has to understand and process is this:  Any product, service or device that sends and/or receives voice, data, photos or other information uses MICROWAVES to do so, which means you are subject to radiofrequency radiation and non-thermal wave radiation.  That means such appliances as your smart TV, refrigerator, iPhone, and utility company AMI Smart Meters pump out frequencies you may not want to have penetrating your body and brain.

We’ve read above about cell phone tower exposures, but nothing is being said about 5G health and safety issues.