Letter to the Editor: January 28th

Dear Editors, 

I write to contest the fallacious claim that “The anti-5G movement is a new form of fearmongering” and “propaganda.” With the exception of fringe elements, it seems clear to me that #Stop5G activists are in fact largely driven by an earnest desire to educate and empower in the interests of protecting humanity and the environment from material harm.

No doubt the author of the controversial Op-Ed piece indicated would agree that “moving forward” implies safe, sustainable, and consensual technological advancement – three things that 5G is not. To learn more, readers would be well advised to look up truly independent and searching expert scientific and biomedical analysis available online (for free) e.g. from the Physicians for Safe Technology website.

In truth 5G is far from being a similar practical proposition to earlier cellular transmission protocols – which are in themselves harmful it should also be noted. It is understood to entail not just higher frequency radiation than 2G/3G/4G but also broadened multi-frequency band utilisation, markedly higher (urban) cell site densification, radiated power, and exposure levels, and phased array and beam forming functionality – presenting a relatively acute risk to personal safety and security.

That a great many of us are by now regularly exposed to other sources of anthropogenic electromagnetic fields (EMFs) is unfortunately all too true, but this in no way detracts from the fact that adding 5G emissions into the mix is liable to make matters that much worse. Thousands of peer-reviewed scientific studies have shown that non-ionising EMFs promote various harmful biological effects in a variety of species – including humans and at relatively low, sub-thermal levels of exposure.

Cancer is but one of a number of disease types repeatedly associated with exposure in the literature. According to the largest of its kind cell phone radiation study ever to have been undertaken we now have “clear evidence of carcinogenicity” (US NIH, 2018) and IARC affiliated experts have since asserted that re-evaluation is now a “high priority”. It is anticipated that the UN body will soon upgrade its preliminary (2011) classification on this basis.

Other bodies may presently remain content to downplay or deny the broader evidence of harmful effects (including EHS) but peer-reviewed empirical data always trumps institutional spin. We are electromagnetic beings, and unless and until citizens see rigorous pre-market health and safety testing few are likely to be swayed by anti-environmentalist slights and stigma. 

Sincerely, 

Alex Gordon

 

All final editorial decisions are made by the Editor(s)-in-Chief and/or the Managing Editor. Authors should not be contacted, targeted, or harassed under any circumstances. If you have any grievances with this article, please direct your comments to journal_editors@ams.queensu.ca.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Skip to content