Send a Tweet
Most Popular Choices
Share on Facebook 108 Share on Twitter Printer Friendly Page More Sharing
Exclusive to OpEd News:
OpEdNews Op Eds    H4'ed 9/1/19

Complete Regulatory Failure of 5G

By       (Page 1 of 3 pages)   14 comments
Follow Me on Twitter     Message Patricia 0rmsby
Become a Fan
  (8 fans)

(Image by CJNet)   Details   DMCA

In America it is normal, despite historical incidences of malfeasance, to assume our government is faithfully doing its best to protect the public and that regulations have been produced through the advice of non-conflicted professionals with public health as a top priority. But when national security demands a few compromises be made and then when new developments in technology and new scientific findings make the older flawed guidelines even more obsolete, is it really wise to expect vested interests with political clout and responsibilities to their stakeholders to be ethical rather than do all in their power to ensure the new evidence never sees the light of day?

Responding to concerns about the planned 5G rollout, the FCC says there is no proof of harm. The relevant scientific literature, on the other hand, indicates much potential for harm. With the rollout of smart meter technology, awareness of this has grown from a formerly tiny minority that was easily intimidated and dismissed to a growingly vocal minority that includes many dedicated campaigners.

A Captured Regulatory System

2018 California Senate candidate Kevin Mottus, in an interview with EMF campaigner Josh del Sol during "5G CrisisAwareness & Accountability" Internet summit (currently wrapping up) explained the situation in America. This video will be unavailable without a fee and the transcript is also behind a paywall. There will be an encore public viewing on Sep. 7-8 that can be accessed by signing up here. Mottus's presentation brought up information I've not seen elsewhere, so I took notes and have rephrased and reorganized what he said below for the public benefit.

The FCC, says Mottus, oversees human exposure guidelines. But they are a captured agency. In fact, it is so bad the Harvard Ethics Dept. wrote a report titled, "How the FCC is dominated by the industries that it is presumably regulating." In essence we are allowing the wireless industry to regulate itself. Run by industry insiders. The FCC website says, "At the present time there is no federally mandated radio frequency exposure standard."

That's right, no standards at all for exposures to an obvious, contentious pollutant increasing at a more than exponential rate. There are guidelines, i.e., suggestions for limits, but those are based on recommendations from the profiting industry.

No Safety Testing

When pressed about health issues, the FCC says it takes advice from the FDA. The FDA, on the other hand, performs an advisory role, but does not have primary responsibility for exposure standards, the FCC does. The FDA has performed research, says Mottus, but that was done in collaboration with CTIA, the wireless industry's lobby and trade organization. The FDA has done no safety testing at all. The FDA itself notes, "Under the law, FDA does not review the safety of radiation-emitting consumer products such as cell phones and similar wireless devices before they can be sold, as it does with new drugs and medical devices."

Neither the FCC nor the FDA provide any basis for claims of safety. They point at each other to back up their claims, and when that doesn't work, they turn to the American Cancer Society, which sounds like a good choice for expertise. The problem is, though, that the American Cancer Society is not a research institute. It's a funding organization, says Mottus. Worse, it works closely with the wireless industry. ATT is one of its corporate partners. Three of 10 CEOs on its global council are wireless industry execs, including one from Motorola, the company that famously attacked researchers Henry Lai and Narendra Singh for publishing a report detailing DNA breaks caused by radiation at frequencies and field strengths similar to cell phones.

The FDA, FCC and American Cancer Society are thus all heavily conflicted organizations.

There is no safety testing for wireless radiation. The industry conducts a form of testing, but what it does is test a bag of saline fluid to determine the specific absorption rate (SAR), i.e., how much radiation is absorbed by the bag, to ensure excessive heating would not occur under analogous circumstances, but no research is done on actual people. To do so would be unethical, given what we know about EMFs at these field strengths from animal studies.

In any other industry, normal safety testing would be conducted by government agencies prior to marketing, and this would include human testing. Furthermore there would also be post-market follow-up to see if any people were experiencing adverse effects. This should apply not only to users, but other people affected, such as those living near the cell towers. This should be performed by the FDA, not the FCC.

The FCC does not even have a health department. Those approaching the FCC for answers are stonewalled. Chairman Ajit Pai calls the pollutant radiofrequency "energy," sidestepping the officially recognized term "radiofrequency radiation" with its negative connotations. (An Australian lawyer who also spoke at the summit said that trying to dumb down the population by changing terms like that constitutes fraud.) Pai says the FCC is testing, but as noted above, all they are testing is how much people are exposed, not how they are affected, and the engineers performing the testing have no expertise in biological effects.

Next Page  1  |  2  |  3

(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).

Must Read 2   Well Said 2   Valuable 2  
Rate It | View Ratings

Patricia 0rmsby Social Media Pages: Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in       Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in       Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in       Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

The author has lived 38 years in Japan. She has also spent time in Siberia, where she led ecotours for Friends of the Earth Japan. She is fluent in Japanese and Russian, and also speaks Indonesian, Thai and Spanish. She loves nature and is an (more...)

Go To Commenting
The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Follow Me on Twitter     Writers Guidelines

Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
Support OpEdNews

OpEdNews depends upon can't survive without your help.

If you value this article and the work of OpEdNews, please either Donate or Purchase a premium membership.

If you've enjoyed this, sign up for our daily or weekly newsletter to get lots of great progressive content.
Daily Weekly     OpEd News Newsletter
   (Opens new browser window)

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Confucianism and the Impact of Sociopathy, Part I

Complete Regulatory Failure of 5G

WHO Ignores Questions by Scientists, Poised to Okay 5℃ Heating of Eyes by 5G

Confucianism and the Impact of Sociopathy, Part III

Confucianism and the Impact of Sociopathy, Part II

What Can We Do to Fix America's Ghastly Health Care Train Wreck? Part 2

To View Comments or Join the Conversation:

Tell A Friend