Pall: EMF Safety Guidelines Do Not Predict Biological Effects and are therefore Fraudulent
dinsdag, 08 oktober 2019 - Categorie: Onderzoeken
Eight Repeatedly Documented Findings Each Show that EMF Safety Guidelines Do Not Predict Biological Effects and Are, Therefore Fraudulent: The Consequences for Both Microwave Frequency Exposures and Also 5G Second Edition, May 23, 2019
23 mei 2019
Martin L. Pall, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry and Basic Medical Sciences, Washington State University, firstname.lastname@example.org
ICNIRP, US FCC, EU and other EMF safety guidelines are all based on the assumption that average EMF intensities and average SAR can be used to predict biological effects and therefore safety. Eight different types of quantitative or qualitative data are analyzed here to determine whether these safety guidelines predict biological effects. In each case the safety guidelines fail and in most of these, fail massively. Effects occur at approximately 100,000 times below allowable levels and the basic structure of the safety guidelines is shown to be deeply flawed. The safety guidelines ignore demonstrated biological heterogeneity and established biological mechanisms. Even the physics underlying the safety guidelines is shown to be flawed. Pulsed EMFs are in most cases much more biologically active than are non-pulsed EMFs of the same average intensity, but pulsations are ignored in the safety guidelines despite the fact that almost all of our current exposures are highly pulsed. There are exposure windows such that maximum effects are produced in certain intensity windows and also in certain frequency windows but the consequent very complex dose-response curves are ignored by the safety guidelines. Several additional flaws in the safety guidelines are shown through studies of both individual and paired nanosecond pulses. The properties of 5G predict that guidelines will be even more flawed in predicting 5G effects than the already stunning flaws that the safety guidelines have in predicting our other EMF exposures. The consequences of these findings is that “safety guidelines” should always be expressed in quotation marks; they do not predict biological effects and therefore do not predict safety. Because of that we have a multi-trillion dollar set of companies, the telecommunication industry, where all assurances of safety are fraudulent because they are based on these “safety guidelines.”
See the link on top for the full 28 pages long paper. On pages 1 to 17 there is a very useful extended list of references to scientific publications, subdivided into eight categories, with a ninth one at the end.
Starting from p. 17 there is further content with also some physics argumentations. These, being outside the scope of Prof. Pall's expertise, are not fully correct.
For one of these, the statement that the electrical forces on the (VGCC) voltage sensors, caused by the EMF from wireless communication, are ''stunningly strong'', I made a calculation which shows that these forces, as caused by cell tower EMF are actually more than three orders of magnitude smaller than the natural forces over the cell membranes, and thus over the voltage sensors, see:
My other comments refer to:
1. the fact that EMF (electromagnetic fields) are vector fields with are additive (e.g. those from many cell towers), which was not clear from Pall's paper, and
2. 5G mm waves with frequencies of 30 GHz and higher. These electromagnetic waves are composed of photons, which (in a classical approximation) are described by electrical and magnetic waves perpendicular to each other (with a fixed ratio of their field strengths) and perpendicular to the propagation direction. Because photons are elementary particles, the electrical and magnetic components - in their interaction with e.g. biological material - cannot be separated, as suggested in Pall's paper. There is one exception to this, within 1 to 2 wavelengths (mm's) from the emitting antenna the electrical and magnetic components of the EMF are not yet fully linked in the way as they are for photons, but there is also no complete independence.
It should be clear, however, that these comments have no effect on everything described in the first part of Pall's paper. My comments only refer to the physics part of the explanation of the interaction of the EMF with our body and other biological material.
For more basic information on the differences between man-made and natural EMF, and on the role of photons, see:
Finally, for further arguments which show that the present (ICNIRP) safety guidelines (exposure limits) are not safeguarding our health, see (in Dutch):
Lees verder in de categorie Onderzoeken | Terug naar homepage | Lees de introductie