Reader disputes O’Donnell ‘new study’ on possible health issues with 5G Town implementation
Bob O’Donnell’s recent March 24, 2020 USA Today column on 5G mentions a “new study” on 5G recently released:
Please see the media release on the report linked here: https://www.icnirp.org/cms/upload/presentations/ICNIRP_Media_Release_110320.pdf
As you can see, this is not the results of a study as O’Donnell would lead us to believe; but instead, a 2020 update of the International Commission of Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) guidelines from 1998. The media release specifically states the guidelines were developed via, “... a thorough review of all relevant scientific literature, scientific workshops and an extensive public consultation process.”
This means these updates are the result of seven years of collected lab evidence, scientific theory and conjecture on the believed performance of non-ionizing radiation, and again, not from an actual longterm study of radiation on the human/animal/plant population.
Therefore, the “protection” offered from the guidelines is not an actual promise for the human population, but for those designing and defining limits for industry standards and regulations so the population can feel more assured of protection with no basis in reality.
Tobacco Science provided similar feel good results and encouraged people to smoke suggesting it was a healthy activity with ads like “what brand does your doctor smoke?” Today we know better.
The chemical agent Round Up from Monsanto, now owned by Bayer, was once considered a safe pesticide based on theoretical conjecture and Monsanto internal “studies.”
Today we know better. Bayer is tied up in multiple lawsuits from users who not only have cancer from consistent use of Round Up, but whose DNA is altered thereby impacting future generations.
Actual scientific studies directly link the once thought safe Round Up to birth defects and find traces of it everywhere: in the water table, the food we eat, and it’s not going away.
The updated ICNIRP guidelines based on theory and conjecture are not unlike attempts from EPA proposals since 2011 to increase the radiation limit in drinking water or milk after disasters like Japan’s Fukushima.
If the radiation level cannot be decreased, the safe limit is simply raised, providing a false sense of protection. (Reference)https://www.commondreams.org/news/2011/04/05/epa-plan-raise-radiation-exposure-limits-sparks-internal-debate
Not unlike falsifying data to get around federal regulations. (Reference) https://www.ecowatch.com/radioactive-tap-water-2524534065.html
And not unlike the current White House administrations attempts to form policy regarding the yet unproven theory of Hormesis, (the idea that a little radiation can be good for humans) simply because raising limits will save money.
Unfortunately these updated guidelines were born of a review of industry information and should be labeled so.
The use of the word “study” is a deliberate misrepresentation by O’Donnell, who, from his own signature bio, “... is the president and chief analyst of TECHnalysis Research, a market research and consulting firm that provides strategic consulting and market research services to the technology industry and professional financial community.”
It is his job to sell technology to the public.
Sadly, O’Donnell’s article and the ICNIRP media release are more attempts to assure the population of 5G safety when no such proof exists against claims of potential harm.
And as history shows, basing safety guidelines and policies on unproven theories is a dangerous route.