The article discusses concerns about the potential health risks of wireless technology, including cell phones and the upcoming 5G technology. The author argues that the wireless industry has downplayed these concerns and obstructed a full and fair understanding of the science, aided by government agencies that prioritize commercial interests over human health. The article cites several studies that have linked wireless radiation to cancer and genetic damage, particularly in children, who are more vulnerable to the risks. The author also discusses the close relationship between the wireless industry and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which is responsible for establishing cell-phone safety levels. Critics argue that the FCC is a “captured agency” that is too closely aligned with the wireless industry and that its standards do not account for the unique vulnerabilities of pregnant women and children. The article also highlights concerns about conflicts of interest and industry funding of scientific research and argues that the wireless industry has borrowed tactics from the tobacco and fossil-fuel industries to downplay the risks of its products.
According to two separate reports on Louis Slesin’s highly regarded Microwave News website, it now appears that both the New York Times and Scientific American magazine may have irresponsibly misled their readers by allowing inaccurate and perhaps even biased reporting on 5G to appear in their publications.
According to Microwave News, in May of 2019, the New York Times attempted to discredit David Carpenter, who is not only a public health physician but the country’s most prominent 5G critic. Veteran science writer William Broad presented Carpenter as a willing tool of a disinformation campaign promoted by RT America, a TV network which he described as “the cat’s paw of the Russian president, Vladimir Putin.” The page-one story ran under the headline, “Your 5G Phone Won’t Hurt You But Russia Wants You To Think Otherwise.”
Then, two months later, in July, Broad returned for yet another hit on Carpenter. This time, he was given most of the front page of the Times’ Tuesday science section to portray Carpenter as a fringe player working “hard to revise established science.” The trouble is that much of what Broad wrote was fiction. I’ve included a link to Microwave News’s article on Broad’s inaccurate reporting below this video so that you can read it for yourself.
And now, in another example of inaccurate and possibly biased reporting, Scientific American magazine has gone after Joel Moskowitz, Ph.D.
Moskowitz, based at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Public Health, runs the widely read blog Electromagnetic Radiation Safety. According to Microwave News, Moskowitz is one of the few other academics willing to state the obvious: that no one knows with any degree of certainty whether 5G is safe. This new attack, written by Irish physicist and science columnist David Grimes, calls Moskowitz a scaremonger and quotes various scientific sources to bolster its claims. However, it’s Grimes who gets the science all wrong. For example, he claims that the cancer findings of the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) are nothing more than a “canard,” which is a fancy-sounding word that means an unfounded rumor or story. This is demonstrably false. While the strength of the link between cell phone radiation and cancer can be argued, it can’t be argued whether one was found.
The NTP concluded that its $30 million animal study found “clear evidence” of an association. Grimes calls this claim “profoundly misguided,” citing only an isolated blog post from May 2016 as his backup, which appeared two-and-a-half years before the final NTP report was even released.
Grimes is also wrong about the Interphone study. This 13-country epidemiological study also showed a link according to an expert panel convened by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, or IARC. As a rebuttal, Grimes touts the Danish cohort study as a “most reliable” example of a study showing cell phones are safe, but, in fact, it is of dubious quality, again according to the IARC panel, as well as just about everyone who has read beyond the abstract. Also, radar radiation has not been exonerated from cancer risks, as Grimes would have us believe —his claim is based on a literature review by a group of industry consultants. Which of course means that they were completely unbiased, right?
In the end, there is currently no incontrovertible proof that 5G is ultimately safe or harmful. For the industry to be making statements that it is safe is, in my opinion, wildly irresponsible, because they are not only assuming without proof but are not heeding the well-established ALARA standard. Just because something has not been proven to be harmful doesn’t mean that it is safe. Thus the precautionary principle must be followed because it may be decades before we have any real, solid verification as to the extent of negative effects the 5G signal may have on human health.
Regrettably, and this is what you need to pay attention to, the mainstream media, most recently the New York Times and Scientific American, are taking part in this smear campaign against David Carpenter and Joel Moskowitz to discredit the indisputable scientific studies to which they commonly refer to or have been contributors.
When you look at the history of big industry in this country, it’s easy to see that there is seemingly no end to the misinformation they will spread, or to the amount of money they will spend to cover up any shady dealings. It also seems as if the media is always happy to provide the necessary spin.
The media’s relationship to the Wireless industry and the immense amount of money and influence it wields is of no real surprise.
From the tobacco industry to Big Pharma and beyond, the landscape of American industry is littered with examples of the corruption and coverups that their greed has made necessary, as well as the so-called journalism that helped their efforts.
So until we know for sure, I recommend that you continue to use a system of protection to limit your exposure to all cell phone radiation, which includes using your phone’s speakerphone whenever you can, using air-tube headsets when speakerphone is not an option, and keeping your phone in an RF Safe radiation-protective case if the critical factor of distance cannot be achieved to mitigate your exposure to excessive cell phone radiation.
War-gaming science is a practice in which industries use their resources to manipulate scientific research and its interpretation to downplay the risks associated with their products or services. This practice is particularly dangerous when it comes to public health and safety, as it allows companies to present misleading information that can lead to serious health hazards.
One area where war-gaming science has been observed is the research into the effects of wireless technology and cell phone radiation on human health. Numerous studies have been conducted on this issue, and a significant percentage of them have found a link between cell phone radiation and an increased risk of cancer, DNA damage, and other health problems. However, the wireless industry has repeatedly used war-gaming science to distort and downplay this research, and to cast doubt on the validity of the findings.
One example of this is the Interphone study, which was conducted by the World Health Organization (WHO) in the early 2000s. The Interphone study found that heavy cell phone users had an 80% increased risk of developing glioma, a type of brain cancer. However, the wireless industry used war-gaming science to deflect the impact of this study, by pointing to the fact that not all Interphone studies found a link between cell phone use and cancer. The industry selectively ignored the studies that did find such a link, and claimed that the overall conclusion of the study was that there was no increased risk of cancer from cell phone use.
The wireless industry also used war-gaming science to infiltrate and influence the WHO’s deliberations on the risks of cell phone radiation. The industry provided the WHO with a $4.7 million contribution, which enabled it to place industry-funded experts on the working group that debated the classification of cell phone radiation as a carcinogen. The industry also worked to discredit researchers who found a link between cell phone radiation and cancer, and to obstruct further research on the health effects of cell phones.
The war-gaming science approach taken by the wireless industry has led to public confusion and a lack of action to protect public health. News media coverage of the risks of cell phone radiation has often focused on the industry’s “more research is needed” spin, rather than on the actual risks and potential health hazards. This has enabled the wireless industry to continue its push for the internet of things and 5G technology, despite the significant increase in radiation exposure that this would entail.
Overall, the use of war-gaming science to downplay the risks of cell phone radiation is a dangerous practice that can have serious consequences for public health. Scientists and ethicists are urging regulators to apply the precautionary principle and delay the deployment of 5G technology until further research clarifies its impacts. The petition recommends a moratorium on the rollout of 5G until potential hazards for human health and the environment have been fully investigated by scientists independent from industry.
Wargaming History With Wireless
Who is Henry Lai and what role did he play in the war-gaming of science to hide hazards? Henry Lai is a bioengineering professor at the University of Washington who is known for his research on the biological effects of electromagnetic fields. Lai’s work was instrumental in exposing the dangers of cell phone radiation, as he was one of the first researchers to publish studies showing that cell phone radiation can cause DNA damage. Lai’s work was initially dismissed by the cell phone industry, which accused him of being biased and called his studies flawed. However, subsequent research has confirmed many of Lai’s findings, and his work is now widely regarded as groundbreaking.
Who is George Carlo and what role did he play in the war-gaming of science to hide hazards? George Carlo is a public health scientist who was hired by the cell phone industry to study the health effects of cell phone radiation in the 1990s. Carlo’s research initially showed that cell phone radiation could cause genetic damage and other health problems. However, when Carlo tried to publicize his findings, the cell phone industry silenced him and suppressed his research. Carlo eventually spoke out against the industry, accusing it of putting profits ahead of public health. Today, Carlo is a leading advocate for cell phone safety and continues to speak out about the dangers of cell phone radiation.
What role did Motorola play in the war-gaming of science to hide hazards? Motorola was one of the largest cell phone manufacturers in the world in the 1990s and was deeply involved in the war-gaming of science to hide hazards. The company funded research that attempted to downplay the health risks of cell phone radiation, and it also worked behind the scenes to silence researchers and suppress scientific evidence that showed that cell phone radiation could be harmful. For example, when Henry Lai’s research showed that cell phone radiation could cause DNA damage, Motorola hired a group of scientists to publish a paper that claimed Lai’s findings were flawed. The company also pressured Lai’s colleagues to distance themselves from his work and accused him of being biased.
Your 5G Phone Won’t Hurt You Link:https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/12/science/5g-phone-safety-health-russia.html
A Fact-Free Hit on a 5G Critic Link:https://microwavenews.com/news-center/fact-free-hit-5g-critic
Microwave News Website:https://microwavenews.com/
National Toxicology Program Cancer Report:
Toxicology Program Fact Sheet: