A few days ago ARPANSA- the Government body responsible for the standards and guidelines regulating the rollout for 5G in Australia, published the following facebook post.

Do you need the facts on #5G?

Not from you, ARPANSA, given you refuse to publish up to date science and research. I prefer to get my facts from truly independent scientists and actual experts in this area.

There is a lot of concerning misinformation circulating throughout the community about the possible impacts of Australia’s planned roll-out of the 5G mobile network.

Yes there is, much of the misinformation being published by you, there are also many facts and genuine scientific literature circulating in relation to the planned roll-out of the 5G network, which is more than anyone can say for you.

5G technology runs on radio waves which are already used for a range of telecommunications systems. There are no established health effects from the radio waves that 5G uses.

ARPANSA and the World Health Organization (WHO) are not aware of any well-conducted scientific investigations where health symptoms were confirmed as a result of radio wave exposure in the everyday environment.

I know that you know there are thousands of peer reviewed studies showing non-thermal biological health effects from radio waves.

Surely you also know that in 2011, on the basis of the scientific research executed after the cell phones were deployed for civilian use, the group of 30 experts invited by the WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified cell phone radiation, and any like-radiation, as a possible human carcinogen (category 2B in IARC scale).

After the IARC classification made in 2011, several new scientific studies were published that appear to strengthen the notion that the wireless radiation is not only a possible carcinogen but that it might/should be re-classified as a probable human carcinogen (category 2A in IARC scale).

More info from Dariusz Leszczynski PhDand  IARC: Invited Expert to Working Group on Non-Ionizing Radiation (RF fields). Lyon, France, May 2011 in this post.

I have read the letter that Professor Martin Pall sent to you, that you still haven’t replied to.

Read the full letter here.

Where he states

“It should be clear that independent scientists and physicians know that these safety guidelines (ARPANSA), which do not take into account the many thousands of studies on non-thermal EMF effects, have no connection with the genuine scientific literature.”

Professor Martin L Pall refers to his 90 Page document 5G: Great risk for EU, U.S. and International Health! Compelling Evidence for Eight Distinct Types of Great Harm Caused by Electromagnetic Field (EMF) Exposures and the Mechanism that Causes Them. Which you can read in full here.

Chapter 1 contains 8 different EMF non-thermal each of which is very extensively documented in from 12 to 35 different review articles, each of which provides a substantial body of evidence showing that one of these effects do occur following non-thermal EMF exposures.

These effects are as follows:

1. Lowered fertility, including tissue remodeling changes in the testis, lowered sperm count and lowered motility and other measures of lowered sperm quality, lowered female fertility including ovarian remodeling, oocyte (follicle) loss, lowered estrogen, progesterone and testosterone levels (that is sex hormone levels), increased spontaneous abortion incidence, lowered libido (18 reviews).
2. Neurological/neuropsychiatric effects including sleep disturbance/insomnia; fatigue/tiredness; headache; depression/depressive symptoms; lack of concentration/attention/cognitive dysfunction; dizziness/vertigo; memory changes; restlessness/tension/anxiety/stress/agitation; irritability (25 reviews).
3. Effects on cellular DNA including single strand and double strand breaks in cellular DNA and on oxidized bases in cellular DNA; also evidence for chromosomal mutations produced by double strand DNA breaks. These produce all of the important type of mutations, as described at the DNA level that have roles in cancer causation and in human whole organism mutation (21 reviews).
4. Apoptosis/cell death (an important process in production of neurodegenerative diseases that is also important in producing infertility responses) (13 reviews).
5. Oxidative stress/free radical damage (important mechanisms involved in almost all chronic diseases; direct cause of cellular DNA damage) (19 reviews).
6. Endocrine, that is hormonal effects; Includes changes in non-steroid and also steroid hormones (12 reviews).
7. Increased intracellular calcium levels, thought to be the cause in all other effects (15 different reviews).
8. Cancer including initiation, promotion and progression, further including tumor progression, tissue invasion and metastasis) (35 reviews).

We have here, a total of 158 bodies of evidence each showing that non-thermal exposures cause an important health-related effect. These 8 different non-thermal effects are not the only effects being produced. Because many of these reviews provide bodies of evidence on the occurrence of more than one health-related effect, there are fewer than 90 actual review articles listed here. These 158 bodies of evidence individually provide strong evidence against the claims of the unsigned ARPANSA letter and collectively provide massive amounts of evidence that the undocumented ARPANSA claims of no non-thermal effects are completely false. ARPANSA and also other agencies supposed to provide expert information and advice on EMF effects, including ICNIRP, SCENIHR and WHO have systematically avoided citing and discussing these review articles and the 158 bodies of evidence within them, grossly avoiding their professional responsibilities to provide an objective assessment of the relevant scientific literature. This is shown in Chapters 5 and 6 of my 90 page document, as well as in the third attachment to this message, which critiques the 2018 ICNIRP draft.

And summarises

“With 100% consistency, ARPANSA avoids all of the strongest available science in this area.

With 100% consistency, ARPANSA has produced a stunningly biased document, whose positions are repeatedly and consistently contradicted by the strongest science and by large numbers of independent scientists.

With 100% consistency, ARPANSA has failed to protect the health and safety of the people of Australia.

With 100% consistency, ARPANSA has protected the economic interests of the telecommunications industry.”

I have read the letter that ORSAA have sent to you, and your response where you continue to refuse to acknowledge current science and research.

Victor Leach one of the members of ORSAA is a scientist and radiation expert of 40 years and used to work for what is now ARPANSA, so is very qualified to comment on the matter.

This letter concluded 

“ARPANSA has ignored a large evidence base that challenges their position.  The scientific evidence we have collated, presented and made publicly available demonstrates that there are biological/health effects occurring at exposures well below the ARPANSA standard.  Therefore, ARPANSA’s claim that there is “no substantiated evidence that RF exposure at levels below the limits of the ARPANSA Standard causes harm to humans” is misleading.  A risk management approach should be adopted urgently for RF-EMR with ALARA as the mainstay of this plan. Wireless technology is not risk-free as implied by ARPANSA’s claim of “no established evidence of harm”. Australians need to be informed of the risks so that they can make informed decisions when it comes to the use of wireless technology, particularly with regards to more vulnerable groups such as children.”

Honestly ARPANSA, by making the statement

“5G technology runs on radio waves which are already used for a range of telecommunications systems. There are no established health effects from the radio waves that 5G uses.”

You are now heading into seriously dangerous territory. You have been shown the research time and time again, you refuse to publish, acknowledge it or change your position and frankly you are putting the public in grave danger.

It is completely unacceptable and I fear that you may be liable in the future for refusing to do your job as a protection and safety agency. Why won’t you protect us and keep us safe? This is quite literally your job.

Need more evidence? Despite the fact I KNOW you have been sent this information time and time again.

Start with the ORSAA database for over 3000 of these studies.

https://www.orsaa.org/orsaa-database.html

ORSAA goal is to provide an independent perspective on the science relating to electromagnetic radiation and human exposure.

ORSAA is an independent organisation, not linked to any industry or government organisation.

Then dive into these studies

https://ehtrust.org/scientific-research-on-5g-and-health/
https://bioinitiative.org/ – 4000 studies
http://www.justproveit.net/– 1168 studies
https://www.emf-portal.org/en – 23,840 studies
https://www.powerwatch.org.uk/ – 1,032 studies

Plus this study which cost $25 million by the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) clearly show that biological impacts occur at non-thermal exposures like those that take place from cell phones today.  https://ehtrust.org/clear-evidence-of-cancer-concludes-the-expert-panel-to-the-us-national-toxicology-program-on-cell-phone-radiation-study-findings/