There has been a lot of hype around 5G and there is some misinformation in this information-overloaded time we live in. We contend the article by Katie Chadwick-Smith titled “Response: Claims that 5G is damaging to our health are misleading” in reply to a previous article by Dr. Tracy Chandler is riddled with false statements and is grossly misleading.
Consider the following claim by Chadwick-Smith: “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.” This seems strange considering that Dr. Chandler’s article made no such reference to cell phones and cancer specifically but instead referred to a vast collection of peer-reviewed studies on the website maintained by Dr. Joel M. Moskowitz, Director of the Center for Family and Community Health at School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley. It appears that Chadwick-Smith did not bother to check anything before making this attempt to discredit Dr. Chandler’s article. As cell phone use and cancer is raised, the reality is far from what Chadwick-Smith claims. The scientific evidence actually shows an increased risk. For example, a review that collated data from 24 studies in a large meta-analysis which included 26,846 brain tumour cases and 50,013 healthy controls, showed a significantly higher risk for those with mobile phone use over 10 years.
The Oceania Radiofrequency Scientific Advisory Association (ORSAA) is the only independent (hence without conflicts of interest) scientific organization operating in the Australia-New Zealand region investigating the health impact of RF-EMR. Our database is now the world’s largest categorized database of peer-reviewed studies in this field of scientific study which is freely available for anyone at www.orsaa.org. The scientists at ORSAA are volunteering to establish the much-needed evidence-based approach to risk assessment in this highly contentious area due to strong financial conflicts of interest competing with public safety.
A recent snapshot of this database showed that 68% of 1955 experimental studies (laboratory-based in vivo and in vitro studies and population-based investigations) that investigated biological/health effects of RF-EMR were positive. Thus there is very strong evidence for harm which falsifies the claim that wireless radiation is risk-free. We invite everyone to have a look at what has been found by scientists around the world on in RF health research. There is strong evidence of detrimental effects at cellular level such as oxidative stress induced by wireless radiation exposure along with DNA damage and increased risk of cancer. For example, we previously showed that 89% of 242 peer-reviewed studies found oxidative stress to be associated with RF-EMR exposure (Bandara P and Weller S. Radiation Protection In Australasia, 2017, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 2-6).
Oxidative stress is implicated in almost every chronic disease pathology and in the process of ageing. People take antioxidant supplements and seek out so-called ‘superfoods’ looking for antioxidant benefits to combat cellular oxidative stress. Despite that, the chronic disease burden of our society is burgeoning. Based on the strong scientific evidence we have presented, we consider that the massively increased RF levels in the environment generated for wireless technologies – more than a quintillion fold, that is 1018 times above natural RF EMR levels, is causally linked to this problem. It is time that we pay attention to this evidence and try to reduce our exposure to RF-EMR. However, 5G will create another massive leap in public exposure to RF-EMR.
We also take issue with this claim: “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.” In contrast, and in reality, most background radio noise is due to internal noise from electronic components in the radio, electromagnetic interference from electric motors, electronic equipment etc. and clatter from a mish-mash of man-made radio signals instead of natural RF radiation arriving from outer space. Massive radio telescopes like this one in Green Bank USA, are required to pick up and measure the weak natural RF signals. Around Green Bank there is an exclusion area of 13,000 square miles for all wireless communication transmitters because man-made RF signals would otherwise make that impossible even for those powerful radio telescopes. It is also important to note that man-made electromagnetic radiation such as RF-EMR has very different physical characteristics to natural EMR which make their bio effects different too.
Editors have a tough job with letters in contentious areas like ‘wireless health risks’ where powerful vested interests have a lot of clout – not just a global trillion dollar industry, but also conflicts of interests on the part of governments. We don’t want to keep repeating the big mistakes that were made with tobacco, asbestos and so on.