A Response to the New York Times‘ Promotion of 5G “Unscience”
I had to read the article three times through to convince myself it was not an advertisement. This article is not only unscience, but it is deceivable opinion; This does not bode well for the credibility of The New York Times as a science outlet resource.
Wanting to understand how a senior science writer for The New York Times could write such a propaganda piece, I went to google and asked, “Who is William J. Broad?” And what came up?
Incredulous. Mr. Broad is not OK with Yoga, but he is perfectly OK with 5G radiation irradiating the whole planet with no questions asked. He ignorantly misjudges and mischaracterizes concerned citizens that rightly question the health consequences of 5G (ANY G), as fear-mongers and alarmists. He cites just one study, against the thousands of studies that have been compiled worldwide by hundreds of scientists (not story tellers). Surely Mr. Broad and the editorial staff of The New York Times knows of the International 5G space appeal.
The pictorial showing the masses running for their lives from the outward radiating RF signal is spot on. Non-ionizing radiation, as ionizing radiation, is cumulative and can be absorbed by the human body (By the way, that includes the brain). This is why cell phones are tested for SAR (Specific ABSORBTION Rate); they should also be tested for biological effect. The article fails to mention that 5G will be an additive layer to the already ubiquitous 3G and 4G electromagnetic pollution saturating our environment. Therefore, it’s not “just” 5G frequencies that will penetrate the skin, other organs, and cells. 5G frequencies are in the microwave range. Anyone who uses a microwave oven successfully knows that the microwaves (that’s why it is called it a microwave oven) penetrate the food and “cook” it from the inside out. “Citizen’s For 5G Awareness”, don’t relish the idea of being “cooked”.
The article mentions the protective effect of the skin. This is scientifically known as “Skin Resistance “. The NIOSH (The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health) states, “Under dry conditions, the resistance offered by the human body may be as high as 100,000 ohms. Wet or broken skin may drop the body’s resistance to 1,000 ohms.” Even if the “Skin Resistance” argument were true (which it is not in this case), it can literally be tossed out with the bathwater, and any other type of water exposure, including, swimming, perspiration, showering, rain, incontinence. What of mammals, like dolphins, with always wet skin? MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) recently touted mm (millimeter) wave technology that is being fashioned for ocean use.
This article, pawned off as science, is a blatant advertisement for 5G, and represents a gross disservice to your readership, humanity, and all life on earth.
You can do better. Our world deserves better.
The 1-2 % of the FCC limits, often touted by Crown Castle, represent levels that are six times that of the biologically safe limits set by other countries (and one-hundred times more than actual values). The FCC limits were arbitrarily set over thirty years ago, well in advance of 3G, 4G, and 5G. What is needed is a moratorium on the rollout of small cell antenna’s (of Any G), together with independent, long term, third party testing by companies not having ties to the telecom industry and its ever revolving door to the FCC. Long term, because unlike “zero latency” promised by 5G, CANCER has a 20-30 year latency period.
First do no harm. “Citizens For 5G Awareness” embraces “The Precautionary Principle” – not “The Partnership Principle”. Full disclosure that The New York Times “Partnered” with Verizon April 3rd, 2019, should have accompanied this rag.
If, The New York Times has any hope of maintaining its credibility as the “Fourth Estate”, it must sever all ties with Verizon post haste.
The following straight from the US Library of Medicine Health National Institute of Health (NIH)
The precautionary principle in environmental science.
Environmental scientists play a key role in society’s responses to environmental problems, and many of the studies they perform are intended ultimately to affect policy. The precautionary principle, proposed as a new guideline in environmental decision making, has four central components: taking preventive action in the face of uncertainty; shifting the burden of proof to the proponents of an activity; exploring a wide range of alternatives to possibly harmful actions; and increasing public participation in decision making. In this paper we examine the implications of the precautionary principle for environmental scientists, whose work often involves studying highly complex, poorly understood systems, while at the same time facing conflicting pressures from those who seek to balance economic growth and environmental protection. In this complicated and contested terrain, it is useful to examine the methodologies of science and to consider ways that, without compromising integrity and objectivity, research can be more or less helpful to those who would act with precaution. We argue that a shift to more precautionary policies creates opportunities and challenges for scientists to think differently about the ways they conduct studies and communicate results. There is a complicated feedback relation between the discoveries of science and the setting of policy. While maintaining their objectivity and focus on understanding the world, environmental scientists should be aware of the policy uses of their work and of their social responsibility to do science that protects human health and the environment. The precautionary principle highlights this tight, challenging linkage between science and policy.
Anne J. Mayer
BSEE Maritime College
Safety Certification Engineer 21 Years, UL LLC
DAR (Our right to Life, Liberty, and Happiness is being abridged without our consent)
Planning Member of “Citizens For 5G Awareness”