In mid 2018 I began to take an interest in the WIFI/5G debate. This is more especially so in relationship to mobile phones. I have never been interested [or competent] to talk to the technical issues pertinent to the debate. I have only ever been interested in the politics surrounding the issues involved. This is principally in Australia and the European Union.
Over time I have written a number of articles about my research efforts and conclusions. I have been widely criticised in the process. This includes by members of the medical profession. Such critics refuse to accept that my motivation to conduct research is political rather than technical! Out of frustration I ceased to attempt to explain my position. In despair I trashed many of the items that I wrote back then.
For reasons discussed in the apology I have elected to post the first paper that I wrote in late 2018. You will find it in the attachment. It is not a scholarly piece of work. Not all the links remain active. It was never intended to be published as it is today.
In my opinion the safety or otherwise of non-ionising radiation [in the radio frequencies used in 5G, wifi and similar technologies] is almost solely centred upon this subject of thermal and non-thermal effects [if non-thermal effects exist] of such radiation.
I pose the question why it is that the relevant industry regulators and manufacturers seem so determined to set aside this important question within the industry.
With these words in mind I suggest that you read my post. I also suggest that you consider the following quotation as well as this medical reference. This link might be of interest too. This link is about Understanding 5G as it will soon relate to the same topic in our lives.
“…National Library of Medicine [USA government]…”
The introduction of the fifth generation (5G) of wireless communication will increase the number of high-frequency-powered base stations and other devices. The question is if such higher frequencies (in this review, 6–100 GHz, millimeter waves, MMW) can have a health impact. This review analyzed 94 relevant publications performing in vivo or in vitro investigations. Each study was characterized for: study type (in vivo, in vitro), biological material (species, cell type, etc.), biological endpoint, exposure (frequency, exposure duration, power density), results, and certain quality criteria. Eighty percent of the in vivo studies showed responses to exposure, while 58% of the in vitro studies demonstrated effects. The responses affected all biological endpoints studied. There was no consistent relationship between power density, exposure duration, or frequency, and exposure effects. The available studies do not provide adequate and sufficient information for a meaningful safety assessment, or for the question about non-thermal effects. There is a need for research regarding local heat developments on small surfaces, e.g., skin or the eye, and on any environmental impact. Our quality analysis shows that for future studies to be useful for safety assessment, design and implementation need to be significantly improved.”
I emboldened the above text
I care to say no more. My words today should be read in context with this latest Reuters report. There seems to be growing international interest with the allegations being made by Reuters.
I hope that I have sown a seed or two for you to consider and perhaps run with. You may also find the information contained within this 2018 document of interest. I wrote it. Although dated I believe much of the contents therein remains at least partly relevant. I have also attached a much longer document that I wrote around the same time. It has never been published. It lacks refinements. I never saw it as having been completed and for wellness reasons I now know it will probably never be completed. It seems that most of the hyperlinks are working. You may find that the information therein enhances other items that I have invited you to consider today.