Advertisement
This is in response to Dr Tracy Chandler’s recent article about 5G which expressed concerns that 5G could be damaging to our health.
In my anaesthetic training we covered physics and electromagnetic spectrum. Non-ionising radiation is of the type that does not have any known health effects. This includes radios, microwaves, computers, and cellphones. These things are lower on the wavelength spectrum than visible light….ergo visible light has more of a potential to harm. Higher on the spectrum, with much sorter wavelengths are sunlight, x-rays, and the very short wavelengths involved in nuclear medicine.

So, in reality, we are constantly surrounded by a lot of electromagnetic frequencies from sunlight, radios, electricity and so on. It’s inescapable…so much so that the static we hear in between radio stations is the distant traces of electromagnetic frequencies from outer space. Here is a diagram that shows the various frequencies.

As a health professional I would not use a Stuff article as a credible source to open a discussion. The link  Dr Chandler provides as evidence for the relationship between cellphones and cancer is nothing more than a collection of presentations and newspaper articles based on suppositions and wishful thinking for those prone to conspiracy theories.

The World Health Organisation states that Electomagentic Frequency Sensitivity is nothing more than an imaginary disease, as was proved by blinded studies. 5G was not used as crowd control. The frequency used was much shorter and powerful, more so than a microwave.
Advertisement

5 COMMENTS

  1. Hi
    It’s fascinating to see health professionals discrediting other health professionals; it can often seem that some professionals fear being proven wrong, and they are hell-bent on protecting the old boys conventional medical club. However, there is plenty of historical evidence that suggests many medical professionals use research bias to gain the results they wish to seek for their argument.
    After all, it wasn’t that long ago doctors and surgeon generals were recruited by tobacco companies to promote the benefits of smoking, even before 1950 many doctors claimed that smoking caused some minor throat irritation, but no other pressing issues, How wrong were they ?. It as also astounding that some tobacco companies such as R.J Reynolds Tobacco company even created a medical relations division that advertised in medical journals.
    Recently a published science magazine investigation which was released on independent.co.uk, July 5, 2018, found the majority of doctors who oversee FDA drug approval receive payments from the very companies they monitor.
    It is hard for me to take this article seriously and it would be ignorant for the author to discredit Dr Tracy Chandlers 5G article without substantiation of a more credible source, rather than an opinion based on a biased lecture or two which seems to be commonplace in conventional medical education.
    A healthy debate is always a good one

  2. It is very hard to prove something is safe. Crossing the road isn’t always safe and that is provable yet we do it. Can Dr Chandler reference ANY evidence that exposure to 5G spectrum EMF is harmful? Her first reference wasn’t even relating to 5G. The others are just blather.

  3. Cells, organs, systems and whole organisms maintain homeostasis via electromagnetic as well as chemical mechanisms. Is it likely that a 24/7 bath in an artificial smog of EMF radiation isn’ t going to affect us and other organisms metabolically? Are such effects likely to be an improvement on nature’s functional design for maintaining integrated balance. Surely some common sense on such issues would be a breath of fresh air – or do we always need the equivalent of a ten year study to show that mice are partial to cheese.
    If at this point in our society’s history of rampant corporate/government corruption we can’t recognise propaganda, follow the money, and distinguish real science from technological profit at any human and ecological cost, then common sense is truly at an historic low.
    What is more credible – an industry, such as telecommunications (with PR and legal battalions) poised to make billions of dollars from further manipulation and abuse of the natural world and the outpourings of that industry’s apologists and internet trolls – or the hundreds of peer-reviewed scientific studies showing biological harm and countless statements calling for sanity and application of the precautionary principle. These are scientists, health professionals and intelligent, thinking people who know and understand the track-record and consequences of much of the clever technology already foisted on us and the planet and the corporate, military and technocratic motives that manifested them.
    Let the glib likes of Katie Chadwick-Smith take stock of the list of serious, knowledgeable professionals
    (who have no profit motives or conflicts of interest) and take note of the 123 references on just this one of many websites -International Appeal Stop 5G On Earth And In Space. I would also suggest they check out the group of “conspiracy theorists” (and their more than 1000 physician supporters) who formulated the International Doctors’ Appeal 2012.
    Let the absolute burden and cost of the proof of safety and social desirability always be upon those who would profit from technologies and technocracy. Faster downloads and driverless cars indeed!

  4. Thanks for the chance to respond.
    I am amazed at very poor level of research that Katie Chadwick-Smith has done. Its seems from reading her piece she has not even opened any of the links to research sources quoted by Dr Chandler. If Katie had done so she woudl have found a wealth of information – link after link .
    For example – “At the Oceania Radiofrequency Scientific Advisory Association, an independent scientific organisation, volunteering scientists have constructed the world’s largest categorised online database of peer-reviewed studies on radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation (EMR) and other man-made electromagnetic fields of lower frequencies. A recent evaluation of 2266 studies (including in-vitro and in-vivo studies in human, animal, and plant experimental systems and population studies) found that most studies (n=1546, 68·2%) have demonstrated significant biological or health effects associated with exposure to anthropogenic electromagnetic fields.” (P. Bandara, D.O Carpenter, Dec 2018, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S2542-5196(18)30221-3 ).
    The use of the word ‘conspiracy’by Katie – that is the poor man’s way of responding to critical research questions. I am not very happy with this approach – if Katie is really science based, well critiques like that are not science based. They are denigration based, ridicule based. If we are to have a discussion on 5G and its effects you’ve got to do better than this paltry piece. Sorry Katie – lift you game. Look at the independent science. There are mountains of research pages. Try EHT – https://ehtrust.org/science/research-on-wireless-health-effects/ .

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here