5G IS IT SAFE: Academics Vs The Inve$tor$ Viewpoint.

Is 5G a concern. If you do a quick google of mainstream corporate news outlets: the answer is clearly NO!!

Those who say other wise are uneducated ignorant tin foil conspiracy theorists. The kind of people who probably think Jeffrey Epstein did not commit suicide and Prince Andrew never went to orgy Island and Bill Clinton did not have sex with Monica Lewinsky. They probably even think news from Corporate controlled organistions should be treat as suspect to begin with. Worse they crazily think corporation can’t be trusted and are driven by their goal of profits alone.

Trust us its the best science money can by.

Related image

If you do a Google search of ALL the answers in terms of the conclusion reached by corporate, government and mainstream academics, as listed in atricles, blogs, news reports, is ‘probably not’. Its at the end of the electromagentic spectrum so what could possibly go wrong.

Related image

If you do a search of academic papers in which the long term exposure to electromagnetics of 5G are specifically adressed the results begin to differ as select academics note the the long term of 5G is simply unknown. As it has not being studied only speculated upon. These academic voices also note correlations which do indicate an association 5G frequency and cancers. Unlike the other voices they focus on legnth of exposure and proximity to radio frequency radiation (RFR).

Image result for 5g frequency cancers correlation rats

Ben’s World simply list the links of such academic and address their summarys for you. We recommend you do your own research and draw your own conclusions;

Were not saying it safe or unsafe but there does appear to be issues which are being sidelined or down played in the interest of commerce and conflicts of interest.

Report of Partial Findings from the National Toxicology Program Carcinogenesis Studies of Cell Phone Radiofrequency Radiation in Hsd: Sprague Dawley® SD rats (Whole Body Exposures)

Michael Wyde, Mark Cesta, Chad Blystone, Susan Elmore, Paul Foster, Michelle Hooth, Grace Kissling, David Malarkey, Robert Sills, Matthew Stout,  View ORCID ProfileNigel Walker, Kristine Witt, Mary Wolfe, John Bucher

Image result for THE NATIONAL TOXICOLOGY PROGRAM CARCINOGENESIS STUDIES OF CELL PHONE RADIO

“This report presents partial findings from these studies. The occurrences of two tumor types in male Harlan Sprague Dawley rats exposed to RFR, malignant gliomas in the brain and schwannomas of the heart, were considered of particular interest and are the subject of this report. The findings in this report were reviewed by expert peer reviewers selected by the NTP and National Institutes of Health (NIH). These reviews and responses to comments are included as appendices to this report, and revisions to the current document have incorporated and addressed these comments”

A low incidence of malignant gliomas and glial cell hyperplasia was observed in all groups of male rats exposed to GSM-modulated RFR (Table 1). In males exposed to CDMA-modulated RFR, a low incidence of malignant gliomas occurred in rats exposed to 6 W/kg (Table 1). Glial cell hyperplasia was also observed in the 1.5 W/kg and 6 W/kg CDMA-modulated exposure groups. No malignant gliomas or glial cell hyperplasias were observed in controls. There was not a statistically significant difference between the incidences of lesions in exposed male rats compared to control males for any of the GSM-or CDMA-modulated RFR groups. However, there was a statistically significant positive trend in the incidence of malignant glioma (p < 0.05) for CDMA-modulated RFR exposures”.

CONCLUSIONS (Its sucks to be a male rat).

“Under the conditions of these 2-year studies, the hyperplastic lesions and glial cell neoplasms of the heart and brain observed in male rats are considered likely the result of whole-body exposures to GSM-or CDMA-modulated RFR. There is higher confidence in the association between RFR exposure and the neoplastic lesions in the heart than in the brain. No biologically significant effects were observed in the brain or heart of female rats regardless of modulation.”
https://rxivist.org/papers/21370

Scientific America We Have No Reason To Believe 5G Safe

Image result for 5g safe unsafe cartoon

“The chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) recently announced through a press release that the commission will soon reaffirm the radio frequency radiation (RFR) exposure limits that the FCC adopted in the late 1990s. These limits are based upon a behavioral change in rats exposed to microwave radiation and were designed to protect us from short-term heating risks due to RFR exposure.  

Yet, since the FCC adopted these limits based largely on research from the 1980s, the preponderance of peer-reviewed research, more than 500 studies, have found harmful biologic or health effects from exposure to RFR at intensities too low to cause significant heating.

Citing this large body of research, more than 240 scientists who have published peer-reviewed research on the biologic and health effects of nonionizing electromagnetic fields (EMF) signed the International EMF Scientist Appeal, which calls for stronger exposure limits”. 

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/we-have-no-reason-to-believe-5g-is-safe/

Doctors for the environment (5G networks in European Countries: appeal for a standstill in the respect of the precautionary principle April 2018 Author: Agostino Di CiaulaISDE Scientific Office) state;

Although typical radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) exposure levels are usually below current regulatory limits in European countries1, 2 , the real health impact of theadvancement and spreading in communication technology is still under debate3. Several studies have documented the ability of RF-EMF to induce oxidative stress4, 5 (mainly by anincreased production of reactive oxygen species)6-12, and oxidative DNA base damage 13. Of note, biological effects have also been recorded at exposure levels below the regulatory limits, leading to growing doubts about the real safety of the currently employed ICNIRP standards14-16.Previous evidences led the IARC in the year 2011 to classify the RF-EMF as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B). After the year 2011, more recent studies strengthen the link between RF-EMF and cancer onset 17-22 and highlighted new possible health risks mainly in terms of reproductive 23-25, neurologic 26-31 and metabolic diseases 32-35.Furthermore, specific preliminary evidence showed the exposure to frequencies over 30GHz could alter gene expression16, 36-39, increase the temperature of the skin 40, stimulate cell proliferation41-43, alter the functions of cell membrane 44, 45 and neuro-muscular systems46-52,and are able to modulate the synthesis of proteins involved in inflammatory and immunologic processes53, with possible systemic effects. Further studies are certainly needed in order to better and fully explore the biological effectscaused by the exposure to these specific RF-EMF frequencies accompanied by high exposure density. The available evidence, however, is sufficient to justify the possibility of health effects (in particular on the more vulnerable subjects, as children and pregnant women) secondary to a technological “experimentation” conceived with commercial aims”

https://www.camera.it/application/xmanager/projects/leg18/attachments/upload_file_doc_acquisiti/pdfs/000/001/072/Memoria_ISDE_completa.pdf

Meta-analysis of association between mobile phone use and glioma risk (Yabo Wang, Xiaqing GuoDepartment of Neurology, Huaihe Hospital, Henan University, Kaifeng 475000, PR China)

“Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the association between mobile phone use and glioma risk through pooling the published data.

Methods: By searching Medline, EMBSE, and CNKI databases, we screened the open published case–control or cohort studies about mobile phone use and glioma risk by systematic searching strategy. The pooled odds of mobile use in glioma patients versus healthy controls were calculated by meta-analysis method. The statistical analysis was done by Stata12.0 software (http://www.stata.com)”.

“Results: After searching the Medline, EMBSE, and CNKI databases, we ultimately included 11 studies range from 2001 to 2008. For ≥1 year group, the data were pooled by random effects model. The combined data showed that there was no association between mobile phone use and glioma odds ratio (OR) =1.08 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.91–1.25,P > 0.05). However, a significant association was found between mobile phone use more than 5 years and glioma risk OR = 1.35 (95% CI: 1.09–1.62, P < 0.05). The publication bias of this study was evaluated by funnel plot and line regression test. The funnel plot and line regression test (t = 0.25,P = 0.81) did not indicate any publication bias”.

“Conclusion: Long-term mobile phone use may increase the risk of developing glioma according to this meta-analysis.


‘World Health Organization, radiofrequency radiation and health – a hard nut to crack’ (Review) Authors: Lennart Hardell June 21, 2017 International Journal of Oncology

Image result for "world health organisation" big business
Image result for crown castle 5g
BILL GATES A MAJOR INVESTOR IN 5G & a MAJOR DONOR TO THE WHO
WHO SAY 5G IS SAFE

“In May 2011 the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) evaluated cancer risks from radiofrequency (RF) radiation. Human epidemiological studies gave evidence of increased risk for glioma and acoustic neuroma. RF radiation was classified as Group 2B, a possible human carcinogen. Further epidemiological, animal and mechanistic studies have strengthened the association. In spite of this, in most countries little or nothing has been done to reduce exposure and educate people on health hazards from RF radiation. On the contrary ambient levels have increased. In 2014 the WHO launched a draft of a Monograph on RF fields and health for public comments. It turned out that five of the six members of the Core Group in charge of the draft are affiliated with International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), an industry loyal NGO, and thus have a serious conflict of interest. Just as by ICNIRP, evaluation of non-thermal biological effects from RF radiation are dismissed as scientific evidence of adverse health effects in the Monograph. This has provoked many comments sent to the WHO. However, at a meeting on March 3, 2017 at the WHO Geneva office it was stated that the WHO has no intention to change the Core Group”.
http://www.cancerjournal.net/article.asp?issn=0973-1482;year=2016;volume=12;issue=8;spage=298;epage=300;aulast=Wang

Image result for BILL GATES TECH START UPS

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s