Julian Assange
618 weeks of deprivation of liberty for telling the truth
618 weeks of deprivation of liberty for telling the truth
Open letter from Paul Lannoye, President of the Grappe ASBL, Doctor in Physical Sciences and Honorary Member of the European Parliament for www.stop5G.be
A public institution charged with informing the citizens of our country about public health issues is expected to be based on facts and use scientifically valid arguments to support its statements. In the press release, published on June 8, under the responsibility of Ms. Ledent, it is easy to verify that this is not the case. Instead of properly informing, this text is a one-sided and totally biased plea for the deployment of 5G, presented in conclusion as an indispensable tool without which access to emergency services via the mobile telecommunications network would be endangered!
This text is so poor that ignoring it seemed to me, at first, to be the most reasonable attitude. This was a mistake. Since then, the spokespersons of the telecommunications operators, widely relayed by the media, have brandished it as a guarantee of the relevance of their project. In addition, a Brussels parliamentarian used it as the basis for a defamatory and caricatured public intervention of the opposition to 5G.
Let’s review some of the allegedly science-based claims that make up the bulk of Sciensano’s text.
1. Health risks can be assessed on the basis of existing research conducted on frequencies comparable to those of 5G technology. I remind you that the frequency band allocated by BIPT last July 18 to 5 operators is from 3600 to 3800 MHz. To date, this frequency band has only been the subject of very few studies, as the ANSES, the French public body in charge of this issue, admits in a preliminary report(1). As frequency is an important parameter in the qualification and quantification of the biological effects of electromagnetic radiation, it is unwise and scientifically unfounded to consider a priori that we know enough to accept their use without risk.
2. Much more serious: it is incorrect to claim that the exposure limits applied in Belgium for radio frequencies already protect us from harmful effects on our health. These limits protect us from thermal effects, but not from biological effects that occur at much lower levels of exposure (from one thousand to one hundred thousand times). These biological effects, in case of regular, or even worse, permanent exposure, can lead to health damages especially for children and embryos. The abundant scientific literature revealing these serious health problems was the subject of an exhaustive meta-analysis in 2007 by a group of scientists, among the most respected specialists in bioelectromagnetism(2). This meta-analysis was updated by this group in 2012 and regularly updated(3). Several thousand publications have been added to the burden of high-frequency radiation; it is confirmed that the pulsed nature of cell phone radiation is an aggravating factor in the nuisance caused to living organisms. Well-identified health damages listed in the scientific literature are:
The essential processes of the human organism are altered by the permanent stress caused by chronic exposure to electromagnetic radiation, resulting in disturbances of metabolic, immune and reproductive functions. The biological mechanism explaining these health problems was proposed by Martin Pall back in 2013(4) and endorsed by the scientific community over time. The 2019 report of the Belgian Superior Health Council endorses this explanation when it states that « non-ionizing pulsed microwave radiation acts via activation of voltage-dependent calcium channels, inducing biological impacts at non-thermal levels »(5). It is important to draw attention to the fact that with 5G, we are entering an era where electromagnetic pollution will spare no one, knowing that the multiplication of antennas, base stations (their number would be increased by a factor of 5) and electronically scanned mini-antennas will be able to target smartphones and connected objects everywhere.
3. Sciensano admits that « higher frequencies are considered essential for the optimal operation of the 5G network (e.g. 26 and 66 GHz). » The insistence on the shallow penetration of high frequency waves with wavelengths ranging from centimeters to millimeters suggests that the human organism would hardly be threatened, only the superficial layers of the skin and the eyes could suffer some possible effects. This overly reassuring presentation overlooks the particular sensitivity of certain superficial organs and the biological mechanisms that involve superficial cells in the overall functioning of the human being, mechanisms that are not yet fully understood.
A recent (2018) study published by Betzalal et al. showed that sweat glands in the upper layers of the skin act as antennae, significantly increasing the specific absorption of millimeter waves(6). Another, also in 2018, reveals the appearance of temperature spikes in the skin of exposed individuals due to the millisecond bursts transmitted by wireless devices(7). Sciensano’s experts admit that this is currently in the early stages of research, which is still ongoing. They state that in case of uncertainty about the safety for our health, the precautionary principle must be applied. This statement is relevant, but implies that there is no such uncertainty at all, which is incorrect.
4. Finally, the claim that « there is no scientific explanation for why 5G radiation would have any effect on the spread of the coronavirus » and that this is fake news is a gross untruth. Several scientific studies show that while short-term exposure to radio frequency radiation strengthens the immune system, long-term exposure weakens it. The mechanism involved is well understood and has been the subject of several publications: microwave radiation opens the calcium channels in cell membranes (see refs. 4 and 5) and increases the concentration of free radicals. The ground is in fact made very favorable to the replication of viruses. It is therefore scientifically plausible that the spread of viral infections is accelerated by exposure to microwave radiation.
Like air pollution, electromagnetic pollution should be considered as a potential co-factor in the current pandemic, as suggested by several competent and respected scientists(8), as well as by several Members of the European Parliament in a priority question to the Commission in April 2020(9). In conclusion, I would like to emphasize the nature of the scientific controversy that sees the supporters of the « thermal » paradigm, the ancients, and the defenders of the « biological » paradigm, whom I will call the moderns, confront each other. The « thermal » paradigm is the one originally adopted by scientists and engineers involved in the development of telecommunications technologies for military or civilian purposes. This paradigm is based on the implicit assumption that this development is necessary, knowing that any nuisances caused must be limited and as low as possible without hindering this development.
The ICNIRP (International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection) is a commission of experts from the world of engineers and physicists who have acquired this « thermal » paradigm and are close to the industrial world. His recommendations have been the basis of all legislation for the past 30 years and are the sole source of WHO and EU recommendations, despite the accumulation of scientific data confirming the obsolete nature of the « thermal » paradigm and the existence of health damage at exposure levels well below the thermal threshold. The ICNIRP is one expert committee among others. It is not independent, but linked to the industry. In any case, it is not an unquestionable scientific authority, as shown in a recent report by the MEPs Michèle Rivasi (biologist) and Klaus Buchner (physicist)(10).
The press release issued by the ICNIRP on March 11 dedicated to the presentation of the new guidelines for protection against non-ionizing radiation allowed its president, Dr. Van Rongen, to declare that the application of these guidelines will allow a deployment of 5G without any damage to health! In the middle of the debate on the 5G issue, this statement clearly has the sole objective of quickly and definitively closing this debate in favor of industrial interests and a societal choice imposed on populations at the expense of health. By basing his analysis on the ICNIRP recommendations alone, Sciensano is dangerously misleading and, more importantly, misinforming the public. This is what Test Achats has already done, as referenced by Sciensano, one wonders why.
