5G Wireless Deployment and Health Risks: Time for a Medical Discussion in Australia and New Zealand – ResearchGate
Authors: Priyanka Bandara, Tracy Chandler, Robin Kelly, Julie McCredden, Murray May, Steve Weller, Don Maisch, Susan Pockett, Victor Leach, Richard Cullen, Damian Wojcik
Published: July, 2020
Abstract – This article discusses the need to raise a medical discussion on the health risks of wireless technology, particularly about new 5G that is lacking in the Australia – New Zealand region at present. It presents some evidence for the concerns raised in the global scientific community.
- Introduction to the issue – page 2/9
- Claims of safety made by ARPANSA without medical care expertise – page 3/9
- Oxidative stress – page 4/9
- Misleading of primary care physicians by ARPANSA – page 5/9
- Occupational exposures to millimetre waves – page 5/9
- Chief medical officer’s statement on 5G – page 6/9
- Australian parliamentary inquiry on 5G 2019-2020 – page 7/9
- References (44) – page 7/9 – 9/9
Note – [A.J.]: The conflicts of interest of ICNIRP and ARPANSA, ICNIRP chair Rodney Croft, and Dr. Ken Karipidis, [not mentioned in the article: Karipidis is ICNIRP – SEG member], have been highlighted in the following excerpts. However, the entire article is an absolutely brilliant, well and precisely explained, crystal clear for everybody and therefore easy to understand, well documented statement about all what needs priority on the agenda of not only Australians and New Zealanders: ICNIRP’s “safety” guidelines are implemented world wide, officially, or via groups that only seem to be independent from it, like ARPANSA. Read therefore please the complete article here. Some parts of the text in the excerpts have been changed into bold, or underlined, or both, by A.J., to attract the attention of the reader.
CLAIMS OF SAFETY MADE BY ARPANSA WITHOUT MEDICAL EXPERTISE – A public information sheet published by ARPANSA in 2019 claimed that: “At exposure levels below the limits set within the ARPANSA safety standard, it is the assessment of
- ARPANSA, and international organisations such as the
- World Health Organization (WHO), and the
- International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP)
that there is no established scientific evidence to support any adverse health effects from very low RF EME exposures to populations or individuals.”
It further stated: “Dr Ken Karipidis, Assistant Director of ARPANSA’s Assessment and Advice Section is an expert on how radiation affects the human body.”[Attention: Karipidis is ICNIRP SEG member, this is, as you can read, not mentioned. A.J.]
The claim of “no established scientific evidence to support any adverse health effects” is refuted by several thousand peer-reviewed scientific studies that have demonstrated a wide range of biological or health effects, some of which we highlighted in our previous papers.[21-22] These effects include oxidative stress, DNA damage, mitochondrial/cell membrane damage (including that of RBC), disruption of neurotransmitter levels and ion channels, altered immune/endocrine functions, cancer initiation and promotion. [….]
Unfortunately for all Australians, ARPANSA has made their health risks assessment without involving medical expertise. ARPANSA’s in-house RF-EMR expert [ICNIRP – SEG, A.J.] Dr. Karipidis who is described as “an expert on how radiation affects the human body” has reported academic training in physics and epidemiology. Similarly, the International EMF Project (IEMFP) at the WHO that has been entrusted to protect public health from man-made EMR/EMF is headed by an electrical engineer. There is an apparent shortage of biomedical expertise within the IEMFP and also the NGO professional body they depend on for exposure regulation of RF-EMR – International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). One of ARPANSA’s four health effects reviewers, psychology researcher Prof. Rodney Croft is the newly appointed Chairman of the ICNIRP having previously served as the Chair of the ICNIRP’s RF Guidelines Project Group, setting international exposure guidelines. Croft also was the lead researcher for RF health research in Australia for many years as the head of the Australian Centre for Electromagnetic Bioeffects Research (ACEBR) (https://www.uow.edu.au/acebr/) and its previous form, the Australian Centre for Radiofrequency Bioeffects Research (ACRBR) that operated from 2004-2011 with direct wireless industry partnership. Croft does not have medical expertise, and it is therefore questionable how he could lead or advise on a true investigation into the biological and health effects of RF-EMR.
The lack of clinicians and biomedical experts within the ARPANSA expert panel for their health risk assessment, along with their seriously questionable conclusions appear to have mislead the Australian medical system. While scientists other than medical scientists are able to read scientific studies and learn that RF-EMR exposure can alter the transcription of certain genes, alter levels of certain neurotransmitters, hormones, enzymes, cytokines, antioxidants etc, how do they interpret the significance of these biological effects in a health context without biomedical training and experience providing an in-depth knowledge of biology: including biochemistry, physiology, and clinical medicine? A health risk assessment of this nature requires input from a large panel of multidisciplinary experts – predominantly with strong biomedical backgrounds. Similar to the Australian situation, the health risk evaluation of RF-EMR in New Zealand has been undertaken without medical expertise. A publication that questioned this risky approach by one of the authors (SP) was unilaterally retracted by the journal based on an anonymous complaint despite three thousand downloads in three months. Furthermore, the same author was denied an author response to a rebuttal of a publication in the New Zealand Medical Journal. What is becoming apparent is there is a gagging of those who are trying to refute claims of safety by highlighting poor risk management, conflicts of interest, and inadequate expertise by government scientists.
MISLEADING OF PRIMARY CARE PHYSICIANS BY ARPANSA – Dr. Karipidis was advising Australian clinicians in an article titled “What do GPs need to know about the new 5G network?” ARPANSA has claimed “Dr Ken Karipidis, Assistant Director of the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency’s (ARPANSA) Assessment and Advice Section, wants GPs and their patients to know there is no evidence to support the concern that 5G technology, which uses radio waves and emits low-level radiofrequency (RF) electromagnetic energy (EME), will cause harms to the public.” Dr. Karipidis stated in that report: “There’s been a lot of research into whether radio waves cause adverse health effects, and the only established health effects of radio waves are very high power levels, where they raise temperature.” This article further claimed: “While the increased presence of 5G base stations is often perceived negatively, Dr Karipidis has found this to be more of a psychological issue than a cause of genuine harm.” While our previous papers[21-23] alone provide ample scientific evidence for low-intensity non-thermal biological effects such as oxidative stress, refuting the obsolete notion that RF EMR causes thermal effects only (“raise temperature”), it is necessary that ARPANSA be asked by the medical community in Australia to provide details of their research that found “a psychological issue than a cause of genuine harm”.
We understand that extensive research needs to be conducted to rule out biochemical, and physiological causes before suspecting a psychological origin underlying a health complaint. To our understanding, such research has not been done by ARPANSA or any other body in Australia or New Zealand. In several media reports on Australians complaining of adverse health effects which they attributed to exposure to wireless radiation, Prof. Croft has promoted the nocebo theory discouraging medical investigations into RF-EMR.
For instance, a report titled “Woman claims severe health problems are caused by wi-fi but international studies find no link” about a female who had to abandon her home due to debilitating neurological symptoms which she attributed to a new NBN WiFi tower erected near her home, claimed: “Professor Rodney Croft, director of the Australian Centre for Electromagnetic Bioeffects Research, said the symptoms experienced by sufferers of EHS were recognised as genuine, but the cause was something other than exposure to wi-fi.”
Continue reading here