1) Censorship has occurred in this journal, as pointed out by Dr. Moskowitz. Why is industry being protected by a scientific journal?
“My (Dr. Moskowitz’s) note: Dr. James C. Lin, the author of this paper published in the journal Environmental Research, is one of the world’s leading experts on electromagnetic fields. Moreover, he was an ICNIRP commissioner from 2004-2016.
Why did the journal censor his suggestion that the radio frequency exposure guidelines and standards promoted by ICNIRP and IEEE appear to have been revised to accommodate industry? Since this peer-reviewed article is an historical review and commentary, Dr. Lin should be allowed to state his valid concerns about the potential conflicts of interest in these two standard-setting bodies.”
Incongruities in recently revised radiofrequency exposure guidelines and standards
“As mentioned, recently, both ICES and ICNIRP have published revisions of their recommendations for exposure limits (IEEE-ICES, 2019a, 2019b; ICNIRP, 2020). The revised limits are clearly tied to heating effects associated with measurable tissue temperature changes. They are based primarily on biological data from short-term (6 or 30 min) exposures to RF and microwave radiation and do little to placate the troubling questions on recommended limits for long-term, low-level exposures. The scenarios of a persistently expressed lack of confidence in these RF exposure guidelines are recurring in many parts of the world involving wireless and mobile telecommunication devices and installations…
(Dr. Moskowitz: ” The pre-proof version of this paper which is now available to journal subscribers has several strikeouts. Note the strikeout in the following paragraph:
“Revision of health safety guidelines and standards
Recently, the commonly circulated RF safety and health protection guidelines have published revisions of their prior editions. The revised guidelines (ICNIRP, 2020) and standards (IEEE-ICES, 2019a, 2019b)
appear to accommodate business-related purposes. “
I wrote this to Dr. Moskowitz:
“It is significant to note that current cellphones have SARs ranging from 0.2 to 0.5 W/kg (EMF Academy, 2022). Clearly, cellphones are operating at a fraction of the 2.0-W/kg SAR acceptable to ICNIRP and IEEE-ICES.”
This one statement by Dr. Lin is based on a source I cannot review (EMF Academy, 2022), but this information is incorrect. Dr. Arazi (Phonegate), Dr. Om Gandhi, the Chicago Tribune and I, based on reports I got from ISED in Canada, all found that many cellphones currently being sold and used have SAR levels exceeding the 2.0 W/kg, some by multiple times. And this was when the phone was held several mm away. Based on Dr. Gandhi’s numbers, nearly 100% of the phones reported by ISED would exceed the standard if they were tested as used, close to the body. None of the phones tested by ISED were in the 0.2-0.5 W/kg range.
I hope that someone in the US is asking for testing data from FCC. Are phones being tested and, if so, at what distance? This information should be readily available to the public, on the phones themselves. The manuals will tell the purchaser who searches that the phone should be held at a specific distance from the body — this is the distance at which the SAR levels (1.6 W/kg in North America) are reached.
2) Amazingly, this article is getting major attention. Just click on any of the “mentions”, such as the South Carolina News Now, to read it. Why not try to get your local newspaper to carry it? If it does, please let me know at: email@example.com .
(click on photos to enlarge)
International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF). Scientific evidence invalidates health assumptions underlying the FCC and ICNIRP exposure limit determinations for radiofrequency radiation: implications for 5G. Environ Health 21, 92 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12940-022-00900-9
“ICBE-EMF’s first paper, “Scientific evidence invalidates health assumptions underlying the FCC and ICNIRP exposure limit determinations for radiofrequency radiation: implications for 5G,” is currently featured under “Journal Highlights” on the home page for the journal Environmental Health.”
“Published today in the journal Environmental Health, “Scientific evidence invalidates health assumptions underlying the FCC and ICNIRP exposure limit determinations for radiofrequency radiation: implications for 5G,” demonstrates how the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the International Commission on Nonionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) have ignored hundreds of scientific studies documenting adverse health effects at exposures below the threshold dose claimed by these agencies, which was used to establish human exposure limits.“
3) Another example of “smart” things having the potential of causing major problems security-wise. With the IoT connecting all wireless devices, it makes anything connecting to the grid a “backdoor” for a hacker/invader of our privacy and security via “smart” devices. Years ago we were warned that smeters were the main gateway for such incidents.
Another Expert Warns about EV Cybersecurity Risks: “anything that is ‘smart’ digitally is also entirely hackable
“EVs are more popular than ever. They’re also extremely prone to cyberattacks.
If action is not taken to uniformly protect electric vehicles and charging infrastructure from cyber threats, the very mobile exoskeleton of the U.S. could be targeted….
The future is now, and we’re getting a peek into the multifaceted threats that “smarter” technologies, notably cars, are vulnerable to. The NCC Group, a notable cybersecurity firm, showcased how easy it is to unlock Tesla car doors by interfering with their Bluetooth capabilities. Pen Test Partners were able to identify a “backdoor” in charging stations that can permit the perpetrator access to the smart-device network in homes.”
Sharon Noble, Director, Coalition to Stop Smart Meters/Citizens for Safer Tech
“There are many ways of going forward, but only one way of standing still.” Franklin D. Roosevelt
Sent from my wired laptop with no wireless components. Practice Safe Tech.