BROADCASTS.com

b'He says, \\u201cIn my lectures I will present the current scientific knowledge as well as the current lack of scientific research on the biological and health effects of the 5G millimeter-waves. I will also present the evidence, and the reasoning, for the invocation of the Precautionary Principle and for the temporary moratorium on 5G deployment, while awaiting for the much needed scientific research on millimeter-waves.\\u201d Dr. Dariusz Leszczynski, PhD, DSc is Adjunct Professor of Biochemistry, Division of Biochemistry and Biotechnology, University of Helsinki, Finland. He says: \\u201cI am scientist with keen interest in molecular biology research, or work as an expert/consultant, or as journal/book editor. Thanks to my age and working in universities around the world, I have a very broad experience in scientific research, in science publishing and in dissemination of scientific information to expert and lay-person audiences.\\u201d Dr. Leszczynski, who researches non-ionizing radiation, emphasizes that, \\u201cthere is a continuous talk about assuring that the 5G maintains low levels of EMF exposure. However, there is not sufficient scientific research to show that low levels assure no health effects in short- and long-term exposures (acute and chronic exposures). It seems that the telecom industry assumes that their low level exposures will not cause- ever -any health effects and the telecom industry forcefully imposes this scientifically unsupported assumption on others, especially governmental decision-makers.\\u201d Rd. Leszczynski says there is an urgent need to start research studies examining effects of millimeter-waves on human health. However, there is a strong resistance from the telecom industry and from the decision-makers to start new research programs. The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), and the telecom industry, strongly propagate the idea that the low power of EMF emissions from the 5G devices will guarantee that human health will not be affected. However, the same assurances were made in the 70\\u2019s when the first generation of cell phones was commercialized, followed by the unlimited spread of the 2G, 3G and 4G devices \\u2013 as long as the device emits radiation within the ICNIRP guidelines it is considered as safe, which is not necessarily the case as shown by a number of research studies. As a direct consequence of the scientific research, in 2011 the International Agency for Research on Cancer classified radiation emitted by the cell phones and cell towers as a possible human carcinogen. This classification appears to be strengthened by the new research studies on 3G and 4G-emitted EMF published after 2011. However, what the biomedical research on millimeter-waves, performed in the future, will show is a complete enigma. Why hasn\\u2019t the media taken this up and warned us all? Dr. Leszczynski explained that in many cases new outlets rely on Telecom businesses to advertise with them and so it could be a financial hit if they spoke out against these companies. He also explained that the media is reluctant to be seen as scaremongering and looking like tin foil hat wearers. The same probably goes for universities and tertiary institutions relative silence on this. I asked the professor what the difference between 4G and 5G were. He explained that 5g builds on 4G but then includes millimetre waves that are much shorter and higher energy waves. While they can carry more information, their range is less and they are easily blocked by buildings and trees etc, therefore requiring more transmitters at closer proximity. I asked about the effect on trees and it appears to be inconclusive, but certainly it is possible that trees could suffer damage from the energy from cell phone towers. Again not enough experiments have been carried out and we rely on anecdotal evidence. It is the same with bees.\\xa0 Dr. Leszczynski said there was a study done in Belgium that showed that the millimetre waves caused increased temperatures in bees, which could cause problems with bee behaviour, such as losing the way back to their hives, but there needs to be more study. No matter what the future research will show, 5G technology will be by then fully deployed and without any possibility of reverse because the whole future life of humanity will be based and dependent on the functioning of the 5G radiation-emitting devices. He says, \\u201cThis is a unique situation in the history of the human kind when the whole human population will be exposed to man-made devices emitting non-ionizing radiation that was insufficiently tested before deployment. What is and what will be the responsibility of the scientists, decision-makers and industry leaders who permit deployment of insufficiently tested technology that will affect us all? The answer is simple \\u2013 no responsibility \\u2026 because if any health problems will show up in the future, these will most likely take tens of years of time to manifest and, by then the persons that currently enable deployment of insufficiently tested radiation-emitting 5G technology will be retired or the proverbial \\u201csix feet under\\u201d.\\u201d\\xa0 What would Dr. Leszcynski say to the government? *The IARC classification of RF-EMF as possible carcinogen is sufficient to trigger consideration of the Precautionary Principle. *Recommendations concerning RF-EMF and health effects should be based on science. However, many committees (SCENIHR, ICNIRP, WHO, HPA, SSI) simply disregard evidence of effects from epidemiological case-control studies and animal studies and say that the effects are not seen in scientific studies. Such statements disregard the evidence at hand. *General public, decision makers and scientists at large have no idea what are the \\u201ccriteria\\u201d used by these committees to dismiss the positive studies because, description of these \\u201ccriteria\\u201d, is not provided. What would Dr. Leszcynski advise the government to do? The Precautionary Principle should be used for RF-EMF and should include, among others:\\xa0 *Stop saying that there are no established non-thermal effect - if cancer risk increases in epidemiological studies it indicates that non-thermal effects happen.\\xa0 *Strengthen the safety standards; change them to reflect the current scientific evidence, showing the possibility of health effects.\\xa0 *Protect the children \\u2013 applies to cell phone use; not so much cell towers.\\xa0 *Develop better technologies that emit less radiation. Reduce exposures of general population by making health agencies to advise people to do so.'