''Wireless Hazards'' -- An extensive exposé published by The Washington Spectator
vrijdag, 29 december 2000 - Categorie: Artikelen
29 dec. 2020
Director at UC Berkeley Center for Family and Community Health
Today The Washington Spectator published an extensive exposé about the Telecom industry's decades-long campaign to dismiss the research about the health risks of radio frequency radiation and fool the public into believing that cell phones are safe by co-opting government agencies and the mainstream news media.
This indepth study was conducted by Barbara Koeppel, an investigative reporter who covers social, economic, political, and foreign policy issues. Her 7,000-word article posed two questions:
''If you think your cellphone is safe, have you considered why you believe that? Is it a fact or is it based on carefully crafted messages that you’ve read or heard?''
Ms. Koeppel reviewed the work of scientists who have studied the harmful effects of radio frequency radiation for decades.
Moreover she explored the conflicts of interest among influential people including journalists, policy makers, and scientists who have dismissed the preponderance of research which has found harmful biologic or health effects from cell phone radiation exposure.
Here is a sample of quotes from the piece:
''For the past few decades, the telecom wireless industry and its enthusiasts have heralded cellphones as the greatest achievement of the late 20th and early 21st centuries. But as their use soars, scientists worldwide worry about their hazards and have produced over 2,000 studies that tell a darker tale. They warn that the devices and antennas that power them expose humans and wildlife to nonionizing low-frequency electromagnetic fields—also called cellphone, microwave, or radio-frequency radiation. These studies indicate that when people and animals are exposed, they can develop brain, thyroid gland, prostate gland, acoustic nerve, and breast tumors, and other diseases.Not surprisingly, the industry argues this type of radiation is safe, because it is unlike the high-frequency ionizing radiation used in X-rays, which can directly damage DNA....''
''How does industry carry it off? First, the watchdog agencies continually reaffirm the industry’s message, and because of their authority, they’re considered objective. Yet their conflicts of interest are pervasive....''
''Besides the industry’s sway with the agencies, its influence on the press and media means that coverage of wireless devices is almost always upbeat. First, the industry buys full-page ads that promote its services and products and now continually tout 5G. Then there are the owners’ personal conflicts....''
''Most press and media repeat the agencies’ positions and debunk or ignore studies that describe the dangers. Since The New York Times is America’s paper of record, its coverage is instructive....''
''Interestingly, the risk-averse insurance industry has been reluctant to offer coverage for the companies or those who use the devices....''
''Unlike the United States, some countries have tightened their exposure rules....''
''Alarmed about the hazards from wireless devices, 254 scientists from 44 countries have urged the United Nations to toughen the exposure guidelines and 'educate the public about the health risks.' The U.N. has not replied. With the advent of 5G,warnings are even stronger: By October 2020, 407 scientists and physicians appealed to the European Commission to halt the roll-out of 5G . . . which will substantially increase exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. This has also been ignored.''
''Many U.S. states, cities, and counties also worry. For example, New Hampshire legislators created a commission of experts to study EMF effects. In their report, which was released this November, the experts recommended 15 actions: among the most important, they asked the FCC to study the environmental impact of the 5G antennas and towers and locate them further from schools and homes....''
''Warnings from industry executives such as Frank Clegg (Microsoft Canada’s former CEO) are rare. So, too, are those from governments, since the industry lavishes huge sums on the lawmakers. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, from 1989 to 2017, the industry gave $101 million to members of Congress and their PACs....''
The article can be read on The Washington Spectator website at:
Lees verder in de categorie Artikelen | Terug naar homepage | Lees de introductie