Piotr Bein's blog = blog Piotra Beina


Wireless 5G — reading material

Filed under: Uncategorized — grypa666 @ 04:46

[Material on the subject from now on assembled on a separate sub-page on  my Polish blog. Click on Polish headings to get to English material there. — pb]

Citizens Of Quebec File Class Action Suit Against EMF And RFR Producers

Scientists and Doctors Warn of Potential Serious Health Impacts of Fifth Generation 5G Wireless Technology

The Same Frequencies Used for Pain-Inflicting Crowd Control Weapons Form the Foundation of the Network That Will Tie Together More Than 50 Billion Devices as Part of the Internet of Things

The Wifi Alliance, Coming Soon to Your Neighborhood: 5G Wireless

Wireless Pollution “Out Of Control” As Corporate Race For 5G “Microwave Spectra” Gears Up

Professor Emeritus Martin Pall

5G Health Hazards: Factual Microwave Radiation Research People Need to Know Before Embracing 5G

Why Die for Wi-Fi? My Child Did – Will Yours? / Debra Fry, May 3, 2016

Human Skin as Arrays of Helical Antennas in the Millimeter and Submillimeter Wave Range

Research Study Summaries at Hebrew University Department of Applied Physics

PDF of Abstract for January 24, 2017 IIAS Presentation

Letter from Dr. Yael Stein to Federal Communications Commission on Spectrum Frontiers

Wireless Pollution “Out Of Control” As Corporate Race For 5G “Microwave Spectra” Gears Up

Cell Phone Radiation: Health Impacts, What can we do to Increase Safety

Cell Phone Radiation Study Confirms Cancer Risk

Smart Meter Dangers: The Health Hazards of Wireless Electromagnetic Radiation Exposure


Sixteen nations: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Cyprus, Finland, France, Germany, India, Israel, Italy, Namibia, Russia, Spain, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom have ruled the thermal RF radiation levels set by the National Council of Radiation Protection (NCP), the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), and the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) are obsolete and do not adequately protect the public, so they are taking action to mitigate public risks. Source: BioInitiative 2012

“EMF exposure can change gene and/or protein expression in certain types of cells, even at intensities lower than ICNIRP recommended values.” [CJF emphasis]

Source: BioInitiative 2012*, Table 1-1 BioInitiative Report Overall Conclusions, Section 5 Genotoxicity Pg. 2 of 16


Dr. Henry Lai, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Bioengineering, University of Washington, discovered in 1995 damage to rat brains at Radiofrequency radiation levels deemed as ‘safe’ by the FCC.

Research scientist George Carlo’s independent research established wireless radiation RAISED the risk of brain cancer, which led the cellular communications industry to discredit Carlo’s work.

The National Toxicology Program (NTP) cell phone radiation study data released in March of 2018 provided evidence that cell phone microwave radiation caused cancers in rats, e.g., rare schwannoma heart tumors and brain tumors.

“The study looked at only 2G and 3G frequencies, which are still commonly used for phone calls. It does not apply to 4G or 5G, which use different frequencies and modulation, he [John Bucher, a senior scientist with NTP] said.” [CJF emphasis]

Source: Reuters


Based upon current research findings, the FCC’s 1996 recommended RF limits/safety standard of 0.6mW/cm2 for 30 minutes of exposure time is seriously flawed and must be corrected to reflect dangers inherent from non-ionizing RF radiation.

Proof of the above statement are 27 citations of scientific studies reporting adverse health effects at levels less than 0.00063 m/W/cm2. These studies can be found enumerated at http://www.bioinitiative.org/conclusions/. There are too many to list here, but it is important to list:


On a precautionary public health basis, a reduction from the BioInitiative 2007 recommendation of 0.1 uW/cm2 (or one-tenth of a microwatt per square centimeter) for cumulative outdoor RFR down to something three orders of magnitude lower (in the low nanowatt per square centimeter range) is justified.

A scientific benchmark of 0.003 uW/cm2 or three nanowatts per centimeter squared for ‘lowest observed effect level’ for RFR is based on mobile phone base station-level studies. Applying a ten-fold reduction to compensate for the lack of long-term exposure (to provide a safety buffer for chronic exposure, if needed) or for children as a sensitive subpopulation yields a 300 to 600 picowatts per square centimeter precautionary action level. This equates to a 0.3 nanowatts to 0.6 nanowatts per square centimeter as a reasonable, precautionary action level for chronic exposure to pulsed RFR.

These levels may need to change in the future, as new and better studies are completed. We leave room for future studies that may lower or raise today’s observed ‘effects levels’ and should be prepared to accept new information as a guide for new precautionary actions.

Source: BioInitiative 2012 “A Rationale for Biologically-based Exposure Standards for Low-Intensity Electromagnetic Radiation” Conclusions


However, there are several specific studies performed using various low level µW/cm2 I’d like to bring to your attention:

1 – 0.13 µW/cm2
Radiofrequency radiation from 3G cell towers decreased cognition, well-being. Zwamborn, 2003.

2 – 0.168-1.053 µW/cm2
Irreversible infertility in mice after 5 generations of exposure to Radiofrequency radiation from an ‘antenna park’. Magras & Zenos, 1997.

3 – 0.16 µW/cm2
Motor function, memory and attention span of school children affected in Latvia. Kolodynski, 1996.

Resource: Power Density: Radio frequency Non-Ionizing Radiation [14 pages with hundreds of citations]

4 – 60 to 100 μW/m2
Whole human body chronic exposure to base station Radiofrequencies showed increased stress hormones; dopamine levels were substantially decreased; there were higher levels of adrenaline and nor-adrenaline; and chronic physiological stress was produced in cells after 1.5 years. Buchner, 2012.

Source: Reported Biological Effects of RF & Microwave Radiation Power Density μW/m2

5 – Interestingly, between 2007 and mid-2012, sixty-nine (69) new ELF-EMF study papers were published regarding neurological effects from ELFs-EMFs. Of those 69 papers, 93% (64) show adverse effects, whereas only 5 (7%) show no adverse effects. Lai, 2012.

Source: https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/7520939118.pdf [Pg. 10 of 17 pages]

6 – Numerous sperm studies have been replicated showing the adverse effects on sperm quality, motility and pathology in men who use and wear live cell phones on their bodies, PDA or pagers on their belts or in a pants pocket. Here’s one example:

See https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4074720/


[a] Long–term semen exposure in the area of mobile phone RF–EMR leads to a significant decrease in the number of sperm with progressive movement and an increase in those with non–progressive movement.
[b] Prolonged direct mobile phone exposure may bring about sperm DNA fragmentation
[c] For men readying themselves for fatherhood, especially when registered fertility problems exist, it would be better to avoid holding a mobile phone in a trouser pocket for long periods of time.

Other papers reporting sperm being affected by RFs-EMRs include: Agarwal et al, 2008; Agarwal et al, 2009; Wdowiak et al, 2007; De Iuliis et al, 2009; Feyes et al, 2005; Aitken et al, 2005; Kumar, 2012.


There are in excess of 4,000 scientific studies reporting biological and adverse health effects from non-thermal radiation exposure and yet the FCC and microwave trade associations deny them, plus do not factor those findings into establishing correct ELF-EMF-RFR safety guidelines.

Could be it there are no safe parameters that can be met relative to man-made microwaves non-thermal non-ionizing radiation?

Electromagnetic Radiation BioInitiative Working Group 2012

TrackBack URI

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: