Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

New Report Contradicts Telecom Industry Claim That Wireless Radiation Is Safe

By Suzanne Burdick, Ph.D. | The Defender | February 6, 2025

The basis for the wireless industry’s claim that radiation is safe for humans is scientifically erroneous, according to the author of a new peer-reviewed scientific report.

Paul Héroux, Ph.D., authored the report, which was published Jan. 30 in Heliyon, one of Elsevier’s journals on its ScienceDirect platform.

Héroux, an associate professor of medicine at McGill University in Montreal, Canada, and a medical scientist in McGill University Health Center’s surgery department, has years of experience in physics and electrical engineering.

He is also vice chair of the International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF), a “consortium of scientists, doctors and researchers” who study wireless radiation and make recommendations for wireless radiation exposure guidelines “based on the best peer-reviewed research publications.”

Héroux told The Defender :

“Industry’s most important argument to deny the health impacts of electromagnetic radiation has been that these health effects are impossible based on solid physics, specifically that the radiation is ‘non-ionizing.”

Héroux detailed the scientific faultiness of that argument:

“Ionization by the radiation itself is irrelevant because life processes produce ionization within the body itself.

“In fact, the basic laws of physics (Maxwell’s Equations and the Second Law of Thermodynamics) together with established biology confirm that health effects of electromagnetic radiation are in fact inevitable, and at levels much lower than those considered safe by industry.”

Dr. Robert Brown, a diagnostic radiologist with more than 30 years of experience and the vice president of Scientific Research and Clinical Affairs for the Environmental Health Trust (EHT), praised Héroux’s report.

Brown said the report “effectively outlines a mechanism by which non-ionizing radiation can disrupt the biology of living systems” — even at levels much lower than what’s needed to heat tissues.

Fariha Husain, manager of Children’s Health Defense’s (CHD) Electromagnetic Radiation (EMR) & Wireless Program, called the report “groundbreaking.”

“Héroux’s report fundamentally challenges the flawed ‘thermal-only paradigm,’ which falsely claims that non-ionizing radiation — including radiofrequency (RF) radiation emitted by Wi-Fi routers, cell towers, smart meters and cellphones — can harm biological tissue only via excessive heating,” Husain said.

The report is novel in that it systematically breaks down the flawed industry arguments used to justify the thermal-only paradigm.

“But the truth of the matter is that the harm caused by RF radiation has been known for decades,” Husain said. “Unfortunately, this knowledge has been intentionally suppressed by industry.”

The wireless industry and regulatory agencies, including the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), contend that harm can occur only at radiation levels high enough to cause tissue heating.

Lawyers with CHD and EHT in 2021 successfully showed before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that the FCC ignored massive scientific evidence suggesting that RF radiation has negative biological effects at levels currently allowed by the FCC.

CHD and EHT’s historic case alleged that the FCC failed to provide a reasoned explanation for its determination that its current RF exposure guidelines — which haven’t been updated since 1996 — adequately protect against the harmful effects of exposure to RF radiation.

The FCC has yet to comply with the court’s mandate to explain how the agency determined that its current guidelines adequately protect humans and the environment against the harmful effects of exposure to wireless radiation.

Studies on dead tissues can’t detect health effects

In the report, Héroux provides a scientific rationale for why biological harm occurs at non-thermal levels of RF radiation.

Brown summarized key parts of that rationale:

“Héroux initially explains the difference in physical distance between redox reactions occurring in inorganic matter and those occurring in living systems. The ongoing processes of glycolysis and oxidative phosphorylation require electrons and protons to continually engage long pathways in mitochondria to produce chemical energy from the breakdown of sugars.

“He clearly details why it is this increased distance that makes living systems vulnerable to the effects of non-ionizing radiation.

“I believe Dr. Héroux has presented a compelling case that non-ionizing radiation can impact the path of these charged particles and affect not only the efficiency of energy production in the cell but also increase the production of reactive oxygen species, which can lead to cellular oxidative stress.”

Oxidative stress due to RF radiation exposure has been “clearly documented” in the scientific literature, Brown added.

Héroux said his report also shows that the FCC’s safety assessments of RF radiation failed to consider basic physics in addition to its biological effects.

The current regulatory limits “completely ignore” this science, Husain said. “The expansion of wireless technology is in direct conflict with protecting public health and the environment and it is long overdue for regulators to acknowledge the growing body of evidence and take immediate action to establish safety standards that protect both human health and the environment.”

The report also explains why health effects from non-ionizing radiation cannot be detected in experiments performed on dead tissue.

“No electron transport occurs in dead tissue, regardless of whether or not it is ‘fresh.’” Brown said. “Research performed on the effects of electromagnetic radiation on dead tissue has led to erroneous conclusions in many in vitro scientific studies.”

Scientists call out WHO-funded study for ‘serious flaws’

Héroux published his report just weeks after he and other scientists with ICBE-EMF published a scathing letter to the editor of Environmental International criticizing a recent systematic review funded by the World Health Organization (WHO) that claimed it found no link between cellphone use and brain cancer.

The study — part of a WHO-commissioned series of scientific reviews of the possible health risks of wireless radiation — was available online Aug. 30, 2024, in Environmental International.

In their letter, the IBCE-EMF scientists said the WHO’s study had “serious flaws” that undermined the validity of the study’s conclusions.

“It is dishonest to assure the public that cell phones and wireless radiation are safe based upon such a flawed review,” said Joel Moskowitz, Ph.D., in an ICBE-EMF press release.

Moskowitz is director of the Center for Family and Community Health at the School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, and an ICBE-EMF member.

The WHO commissioned 10 systematic reviews on the evidence of the health risks from wireless radiation, according to the ICBE-EMF.

So far, nine have been published. All “suffer from serious methodological problems and seem biased to dismiss the substantial evidence of heart risk reported in the peer-reviewed scientific literature,” Moskowitz said in a Sept. 30, 2024, presentation.

Once all 10 are published, the WHO plans to use the reviews as the basis for updating its 1993 “Environmental Health Criteria Monograph” on RF-EMF, ICBE-EMF said.

“A monograph is a report which overviews the scientific evidence on biological effects, identifies gaps in knowledge to direct future research and provides information for health authorities and regulatory agencies regarding public health,” according to ICBE-EMF.

In a post on his Electromagnetic Radiation Safety website, Moskowitz noted that all of the WHO’s scientific review teams have one or more ICNIRP members.

ICNIRP, which Moskowitz called a “cartel,” is a German nonprofit that issues RF radiation exposure limits “produced by its own members, their former students and close colleagues.”

According to EHT, ICNIRP is an invite-only group with “deep industry ties” and no oversight.

Scientists in 2020 sent a letter to the WHO’s leadership asking how the research teams were selected but did not receive a response, according to EHT.

Related articles in The Defender

This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.

February 9, 2025 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

FCC Defies Court Mandate, Delays Review of Cellphone Radiation Guidelines

By Suzanne Burdick, Ph.D. | The Defender | August 2, 2023

Despite the Children Health Defense’s (CHD) “historic win” against the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) nearly two years ago, the FCC has yet to comply with the court mandate to explain how its radiofrequency (RF) radiation exposure guidelines adequately protect humans from harm.

The agency last week published its regulatory agenda for the next six months. The agenda made no mention of the Aug. 13, 2021, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit court decision.

Commenting on the omission, W. Scott McCollough — CHD’s chief litigator for the organization’s electromagnetic radiation (EMR) cases and the lead attorney for its 2021 victory — told The Defender, “The Federal Communications Commission has just formally admitted that it intends to continue disobeying the D.C. Circuit’s August 2021 order requiring it to reassess its RF exposure guidelines.”

“This wanton and irresponsible defiance of the court’s order is deplorable,” McCollough said. “Hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of people are getting sick from RF radiation exposure from devices the FCC is knowingly putting in commerce.”

This is taking place “even though all the most current science tells us the [FCC] guidelines are woefully inadequate to protect sensitive adults and defenseless children, and all the increasing non-natural radiation is contributing to species decline,” McCollough said. “We will not stand for this, and neither should the public.”

CHD sued the FCC in 2019 after the agency determined there was “no appropriate basis” for updating or amending its RF radiation exposure guidelines, which the agency initially set in 1996.

The FCC sought to justify its 2019 decision by saying, “We take to heart the findings of the Food & Drug Administration (FDA), an expert agency regarding the health impacts of consumer products, that ‘[t]he weight of scientific evidence has not linked cell phones with any health problems.’”

However, the D.C. Circuit panel majority — after reviewing 11,000 pages of evidence refuting the FCC’s position — told the FCC it must do a better job of explaining how its 1996 guidelines regarding wireless-based technologies adequately protected public health.

The panel remanded the case back to the FCC, meaning the agency was required to reopen its investigation of its RF radiation exposure guidelines.

The panel majority said the agency must also:

“(ii) address the impacts of RF radiation on children, the health implications of long-term exposure to RF radiation, the ubiquity of wireless devices, and other technological developments that have occurred since the Commission last updated its guidelines, and (iii) address the impacts of RF radiation on the environment.”

The FCC has since refused to take action, despite an April 2023 petition from CHD urging them to “quit stalling” and comply with the court-ordered mandate.

According to McCollough, “The FCC intends to keep stalling until it is too late to do anything because any reductions to the exposure limits would require a massive recall and overhaul of the entire wireless infrastructure they want to get deployed now.”

“They and the wireless industry are obviously planning to make the court remand meaningless through this fait accompli maneuver,” he added.

FCC report ‘a joke’

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, Congress requires agencies such as the FCC to produce a public report twice a year that outlines the agency’s anticipated or ongoing regulatory undertakings.

McCollough called the FCC’s July 27 public report submitted to comply with this law “a joke.”

“This report lists 75 ongoing regulatory ‘actions,’” McCollough said. “For all but one, the ‘Next Action’’ is stated to be ‘undetermined.’ In other words, for the listed actions the FCC tells us it does not know what action, if any, it plans to take next or when it will do so.”

He added:

“This is clearly not true; the commission certainly has plans for the what and when but it prefers to keep only insiders in the know.

“The FCC would much prefer to do its dirty work in a dark back room so only its industry cohorts and masters know what the true ‘agenda’ is.”

McCollough said the remanded docket — meaning the case number for the court-ordered investigation into the science on RF radiation — is not on the list “and there is no other ‘action’ that would suit the FCC’s court-ordered duties.”

Miriam Eckenfels-Garcia — who directs CHD’s EMR program — said:

“We are very disappointed to see that the FCC continues to fail to comply with the court order and continues to ignore the ever-growing scientific evidence of human and environmental harm from RF radiation levels well below the current FCC exposure guidelines.”

According to Eckenfels-Garcia, CHD’s EMR team has identified several available legal options given the FCC’s continued refusal to obey the 2021 court mandate and will be initiating action on them soon.

“The agency’s lack of prioritizing the protection of humans and the environment makes clear how deeply captured the agency is,” Eckenfels-Garcia added.

The Defender reached out to the FCC to ask when the public might expect the agency to comply with the 2021 mandate, but the agency did not respond by our publication deadline.

Suzanne Burdick, Ph.D., is a reporter and researcher for The Defender based in Fairfield, Iowa. She holds a Ph.D. in Communication Studies from the University of Texas at Austin (2021), and a master’s degree in communication and leadership from Gonzaga University (2015). Her scholarship has been published in Health Communication. She has taught at various academic institutions in the United States and is fluent in Spanish.

This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.

August 5, 2023 Posted by | Corruption, Deception | , | Leave a comment

FCC Ponders Powerful and Free Internet Service for All… Again

By Noel Brinkerhoff | AllGov | February 6, 2013

Free public access to government-created WiFi networks across the United States could become a reality in the near future, under a proposed plan by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

The FCC idea could allow Americans to make phone calls or access the Internet without the need to do business with cell phone companies.

Not surprisingly, telecoms hate the FCC plan and intend to lobby heavily against it.

But the FCC does have its own heavyweights supporting the WiFi networks, namely Google, Microsoft and other tech giants who see free wireless service as a way to encourage innovation and new technology.

The new WiFi networks would reportedly be more powerful than existing wireless networks found in most households. “They could penetrate thick concrete walls and travel over hills and around trees. If all goes as planned, free access to the Web would be available in just about every metropolitan area and in many rural areas,” according to Cecilia Kang of The Washington Post.

Drawbacks to the plan include that it would take years to set up the networks, assuming the FCC can convince local television stations and other broadcasters to sell portions of their airwaves for the new access.

Critics add that once in operation, the government might not do a good job of managing the networks against crashes and bandwidth problems.

To Learn More:

Tech, Telecom Giants Take Sides as FCC Proposes Large Public WiFi Networks (by Cecilia Kang, Washington Post)

FCC Bends to Telecoms on Broadband Internet Development (by Noel Brinkerhoff and David Wallechinsky, AllGov)

FCC Proposes Broadband Internet for All Americans (by Noel Brinkerhoff, AllGov)

Related article

February 6, 2013 Posted by | Economics | , , , , | Leave a comment

Streetviewed: Google cars snooping on WiFi users not an accident

RT | 30 April, 2012

Google bosses were informed their Street View cars would collect e-mails, names, addresses and other personal data from Wi-Fi users around the world, a government report shows. But the company insists the message didn’t get through.

­Neither a mistake nor the work of an unauthorized engineer was behind Google’s massive harvesting of Wi-Fi communications that included e-mails, passwords and other sensitive personal information across three continents in 2007-2010, indicates the recent report filed by the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

The supervisors of the Street View program were well aware Google cars would go beyond photographing streetscapes. Or at least they should have been.

On Saturday, the web giant releases their own version of report – with employees’ names blacked out. An earlier version provided by the FCC had whole blocks of text blacked out.

The search giant said it wanted a more transparent version to be shown to the public as evidence that any wrongdoing by the company was inadvertent. Apparently, the company wants to avoid speculation over what could have been withheld from the initial release and thus limit any damage.

The report confirms Google’s engineer behind the data-collecting software voluntarily embarked on a project to gather personal e-mails and Web searches of potentially hundreds of millions of people. Identified as Engineer Doe, the individual declined to speak to the FCC, invoking Fifth Amendment rights, which protects citizens from being compelled to testify against themselves.

The design document prepared by Engineer Doe clearly shows his intention to collect payload data in addition to taking panoramic snapshots, as Google’s cars drove by. The private data would “be analyzed offline for use in other initiatives,” like finding how well Google’s other services are used, the document said.

Privacy consideration did come to his mind. “A typical concern might be that we are logging user traffic along with sufficient data to precisely triangulate their position at a given time, along with information about what they were doing,” the document says.

Engineer Doe decided that no harm will be done because Google’s data harvesters would not remain in the vicinity of any particular Wi-Fi user for “an extended period of time.” Nevertheless he added the following “to do” item: “Discuss privacy considerations with Product Counsel.”

“That never occurred,” the FCC report says.

The employee also “specifically told two engineers working on the project, including a senior manager, about collecting payload data.” It actually appears that at least seven Street View engineers had “wide access” to the plan to collect payload data back in 2007.

Engineer Doe’s code was used to collect some 200 gigabytes of payload data across the US between January 2008 and April 2010. Similar logging of private data happened across the world, which made Google the butt of investigations by respective authorities.

The report further cites a number of other people involved in the project as failing to recall knowing that collecting of payload data was happening at the time. Those include an engineer, whose job was reviewing Engineer Doe’s code line by line for bugs and a senior manager, who said he pre-approved the man’s document before it was written.

Following the investigation the FCC fined Google $25,000 for obstructing its investigation, including withholding an email, that openly discussed the engineer’s review of payload data with a senior manager on the Street view project.

It ruled that since the payload data collected was not encrypted, the act didn’t violate American wiretapping law, but said it has “significant factual questions” about why this ever happened.

Google denied stonewalling the probe and blamed the FCC for any delays.

Related articles

April 30, 2012 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Timeless or most popular | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment