In stark contrast to a recent Italian court ruling where three Italian government ministries have acknowledged that there is a need to raise public awareness on how to use mobile phones safely (see [Italian court orders public safety campaign] and Lennart Hardell’s blog) it is highly unlikely such concern for public safety will be issued from the Australian government, considering the pro-technology bias of the agencies and individuals who currently advise government ministers on telecommunications issues.
Captured Agencies
Whenever public concerns are raised with Australian government and opposition members over telecommunications issues (mobile phones, smart meters, 5G), the standard response is to unquestionably follow the advice of the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) and the Australian Centre for Electromagnetic Bioeffects Research (ACEBR). Both agencies steadfastly follow the Procrustean dictates of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) which do not allow for any deviation from ICNIRP’s dogma.
A Procrustean Approach
The following is the standard response from the current federal government to any members of parliament who dare raise questions on the safety of telecommunications technology.
The Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) provides expert advice on radiation protection and nuclear safety matters to the Coalition Government. In order to provide the best advice on the protection of the Australian public from the effects of radiation, ARPANSA undertakes its own research and reviews the relevant scientific research. . . The Australian Communications and Media Authority’s regulatory arrangements require wireless devices to comply with the exposure limits in ARPANSA’s Radiation Protection Standard for Maximum Exposure Levels to Radiofrequency Fields – 3 kHz to 300 GHz (the ARPANSA RF standard). The ARPANSA RF Standard is designed to protect people of all ages and health status against all known adverse health effects from exposure to RF EME. The ARPANSA RF Standard is based on scientific research that shows the levels at which harmful effects occur and it sets limits, based on international guidelines [ICNIRP], well below these harmful levels.
So, whenever a politician from any party is contacted by members of their electorate with concerns over “RF EME” [radiofrequency electromagnetic energy] that politician will understandably ask for expert opinion from the government’s own expert agencies: ARPANSA and/or ACEBR. These agencies will in response send a variation of the above, and perhaps even the heavily criticized analysis led by Ken Karipidis from ARPANSA and Rodney Croft from ACEBR. The ARPANSA/ACEBR paper claims that there is no link between the use of mobile phones and brain cancer. Karipidis even claimed that “People say mobile phones can cause cancer but our study showed this was not the case”. It has been pointed out, however, that this claim was apparently made only by excluding inconvenient data from their analysis. For example, Joel Moskowitz of the University of California, Berkeley called it a “biased study” and Australian neurosurgeon Vini Khurana called the use of selected data “quite bizarre and unnecessary” [SSMA emphasis]. Read the Microwave News analysis here.
With the coming rollout of 5G soon to hit Australia, it is inevitable that there will be ever increasing public concerns expressed to local and state and federal politicians as a consequence of the many thousands of small antennas which will be placed in close proximity to homes and in workplaces. The 5G Appeal certainly gives credence to these concerns. Also see the report by the European investigative team, “Investigate Europe”: “The 5G Mass Experiment: Big Promises, Unknown Risks“, and the recent (Jan 7, 2019) ABC News item: “Huawei-made ‘small cell’ boxes hit suburban Sydney, as residents raise health concerns” and the commentary from Dariusz Leszczynski here.
So, how will Australian politicians respond to the public’s concerns?
ACEBR to the 5G rescue
Apparently writing in response to the above Jan 7 ABC article on Sydney residents’ concerns over small cells which will be part of the coming 5G networks, ACEBR’s Adam Verrender, essentially comes to the aid of the industry. In an ABC interview on January 9, 2019, Verrender claims that for mobile phone use (and other wireless devices) “Decades of scientific research has found no evidence of any adverse health effects” and that “even studies looking at long-term damage, such as brain cancer, have not found evidence of increased harm.” He then claims that the health hazard debate rages on “fuelled by misinformation, scepticism and a complex psychological phenomenon known as the nocebo effect, it’s little wonder this contentious issue persists, particularly given wireless technologies are so pervasive.”
In relation to electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS), Verrender claims:
“Despite the countless stories suggesting a link between symptoms and exposure to electromagnetic fields in the media in recent years, the evidence from extensive scientific investigation paints a very different picture. While it has been estimated that up to 10 per cent of the population may suffer from the condition, no relationship between symptoms and exposure to electromagnetic fields has been uncovered.”
He goes on to explain that ACEBR research supports the view “that a complex psychological phenomenon, the nocebo effect, could explain the condition” and that media “misinformation and alarmist coverage understandably fuel community concerns, leading some people to believe that they are sensitive”.
Verrender mentions in the article that this conclusion is backed up by the findings of a provocation study designed by ACEBR. To quote:
At the Australian Centre for Electromagnetic Bioeffects Research, we designed a study to address these criticisms. Interestingly, our results not only aligned with previous studies, but also supported the view that a complex psychological phenomenon, the nocebo effect, could explain the condition.
What Verrender fails to mention, however, is that this study, which the authors call “A novel approach”, while having seven investigators, only had three participants!
To say the least, it is a bit novel in science to attempt to use the findings of a provocation study, based on so few participants, and then make such sensational claims. Researcher Dariusz Leszczynski has criticised the limitations of such studies, perhaps Verrender and colleagues have not yet read Leszczynski’s critique, which is here. And my comments on Leszczynski’s blog here.
Perhaps Mr. Verrender’s research focus is somewhat understandable considering this is the firm viewpoint of his PhD supervisor Dr. Rodney Croft at ACEBR and his study focus is on “neurobiological and psychological determinants of Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity”. In other words, his research has a preordained bias in trying to establish as a scientific fact that any supposed health effects from wireless devices, from mobile phones, smart meters to 5G and beyond are solely a consequence of needless worry from a worried public led astray by alarmist media hype.
From the various fact sheets being produced by ARPANSA and ACEBR which increasingly reflect this bias, it is a brave politician who dares question the government’s own expert’s opinions, even if those opinions are somewhat disingenuous.
Abridged from EMFacts blog commentary by Don Maisch PhD
20 January 2019
To access Dr Maisch’s full commentary, including references, go here.
Stop Smart Meters Australia 
Microwave wireless blanketing is a pathologically induced anti life state of slow motion eco-cidal global madness.
The entire premise of safe levels is patently absurd.
Safety levels are completely completely deceptive and misleading, by design. Even if they were much lower, what does one moment of exposure have to do with round the clock exposure to multiple sources? Nothing.
Consider that we are largely comprised of water, which is conducive to accelerating wireless currents impact on our personal biology.
Not only is SAR am irrelevant shell and pea construct, a false rating given by radiation exposure applied to to a plastic head filled with water, aka absurd non biological testing but worse still, safety guidelines in most countries are only based on exposure of a 220 lb adult male test subject who is exposed for six minutes only,
Safety levels for exposure to microwave radiation, by definition, disregard the ongoing cumulative effects from continuous exposure to multiple sources.
Safety levels are nothing more than a snapshot of one moment in time. Wireless from dozens of sources is continuous exposure and well as unsafe exposure.
The human body, and in fact all biology, is not momentarily exposed to all of these many sources of microwave radiation. The exposure is continuous, degrading, and accumulates in the organs of the body.
Microwave blanketing from 5G and the many other radiation emitters is akin to all biological beings living inside an X-ray room all of the time.
The cellular damage done is degrading, band it’s identical to non stop X-rays.
The only difference between ionising and non ionising radiation is the speed at which the damage to one’s biological health takes place.
We are biological beings who have become experimentally immersed in multiple sources of radiation ALL the time.
This is a total violation of the international Nuremberg laws.
And, just as with human infants, children and adults, all animals, birds, bees, bats, butterflies, flora, fauna, water, air, earth, earthworms, all organisms, are left with no place to hide from microwave blanketing.
Even without 5G, as the final layer, right now and for the last two decades or more, all living creatures have been continuously accumulating ever increasing from compound sources, ever higher levels of toxic radiation, due to non stop exposure to 2G, 3G, 4G, 5G, wifi, cell phones, portable/cordless phones, baby monitors, microwave ovens, computers, modems, routers, bluetooth, tablets, wifi enabled appliances, cameras, smart meters, the entire smart grid, satellites, cell towers, radio towers.
This inescapable exposure for countless sources is ADDED to 5G, but all of it is doing immense harm all the time, right now.
This continues 24/7/365, with each being biologically at risk all the time, human or otherwise, until the limits of absorption cause that biological body to fail.
Hence, not too surprisingly, all forms of chronic and terminal disease are on the rise from the forced complete immersion in a radiation- laced, seamless, slow-kill process, through constant , continuous, cumulative exposure tp this man made, artificial, weaponised, life destroying atmosphere. All we are considering by discussing the next level of weaponised frequencies is this: Slow, Faster, or Fast.
Extremely well said, Snowy.
For more info on 5G madness http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/20000-satellites-5g-be-launched-sending-focused-beams-intense-microwave-radiation
Love what Vini Khurana had to say. If he recognises the corrupt data being used, then why don’t others?
As confirmation of these sort of lies and deception that are widespread in our society, there is a brand of toothpaste in the US that, at its point of sale, boasts that it is “certified non-toxic”. And yet one of its ingredients is listed as a red-flag toxin on one website and is also listed as toxic on a number of other websites. In animal testing it has been found to be an irritant. Clearly the manufacturers found a regulatory body willing to certify it as non-toxic. Maybe other regulatory bodies had refused to do so. They use cunning wording like, “certified non-toxic” rather than “our product IS non-toxic”. So when your body reacts badly to the toxins in the toothpaste, they can shift the blame back onto the certifying authority, because the manufacturers made no false claims about the safety of their product.
Don’t you feel reassured that ARPANSA, ACMA and ACEBR are certifying wireless devices as safe for you? ARPANSA, ACMA and ACEBR, take note of the toothpaste example. You are the sitting duck when someone is looking for someone to sue over the damage to their health from devices that you declared are safe!
What a disgrace – anyone doing minimal research will see the real science showing the dangers. Why can’t the telecommunications industry get insurance?? 5G is poison to all biology!
4 G DAS (Distributed Antenna Systems) is already operating, and yet, like 2G, and 3G, 4 G DAS is just as deadly & yet the antennas everywhere in cities look innocuous. People are up in arms focused on a future risk of 5G, which is good. However, the hard fact is that all microwave wireless frequencies are weaponised. Those concerned about 5G as the end game are often the same people who may think nothing of using a cell/mobile phone with a radiation radius of twenty to thirty feet, without giving a single consideration to their own spreading of second hand radiation of everyone all around them, including helpless vulnerable infants. Most people pick one issue while ignoring the anxiety producing biological immersion in DNA altering radiation which is considered a normal part of every day life, from wifi, portable cordless phone, baby monitor, walkie talkie, modem, router , bluetooth, computer, microwave oven, induction cooktop, so those focused on 5G are already at very high risk and many have done nothing to mitigate all those sources of compounding, cumulative harm, day and night, week after week, year in, year out.
Those who do not use a sine wave tamer to flat line the sine wave of their smart meters are at even greater, in fact extreme risk. These risks are here and now. Each one of them, and in fact all of them layered on top of one another are the sources of deadly assaults to all biology, be it human or honey bees, all living things.
Cities are deadly now. So why does anyone live in them?
https://www.edn.com/electronics-blogs/5g-waves/4461277/Tiny-waves–big-challenges–Getting-5G-mmWave-mobility-right