WHO Classifies Gaming Disorder As a Mental Illness. Is industry’s Delusion about 5G An Illness?
Do you remember where you were on May 31, 2011?
Don’t blame yourself if you don’t remember (or did not see) the news that the World Health Organization’s IARC International Agency for Research on Cancer classified radio frequency exposure as a 2B possible human carcinogen.
Results The evidence was reviewed critically, and overall evaluated as being limited2 among users of wireless telephones for glioma and acoustic neuroma, and inadequate3 to draw conclusions for other types of cancers. The evidence from the occupational and environmental exposures mentioned above was similarly judged inadequate. The Working Group did not quantitate the risk; however, one study of past cell phone use (up to the year 2004), showed a 40% increased risk for gliomas in the highest category of heavy users (reported average: 30 minutes per day over a 10‐year period).
Fast forward to Memorial Day weekend 2019. Heavy cellphone users have gone way past 30-minutes per day, including children. And 8 years later, the World Health Organization has now classified addiction to video games as a mental health disorder.
The member states of the World Health Organization have voted to adopt a revised list of diseases which includes addiction to video games —including smartphone titles —as a mental health disorder.
At its 2019 annual general meeting in Geneva, Switzerland, the member countries of the World Health Organization have officially recognized an addiction to gaming on smartphones and other devices as an international disease. The World Health Assembly voted to accept the revised list, called ICD-11, which nations take into account when planning public health strategies.
“Studies suggest that gaming disorder affects only a small proportion of people who engage in digital- or video-gaming activities,” said the World Health Organization in a statement. “However, people who partake in gaming should be alert to the amount of time they spend on gaming activities, particularly when it is to the exclusion of other daily activities.”
Unbridled Ambition Untethered from Reality
Despite the warning from the World Health Organization in 2011, the telecommunications industry continues to drive forward with plans to increase ubiquitous and juxtaposed radio frequency exposures. The drive to install fifth generation 5G telecommunications infrastructure is being promoted to support autonomous vehicles, remote surgery, virtual reality and gaming with the usual promises of jobs and economic growth.
We need a mental health disorder diagnostic code for an entire industry that has deluded itself, and is attempting to delude everyone, about the costs and benefits of 5G.
The first industry delusion is that 5G will contribute to energy efficiency and sustainability
For objective analysis, read Our Web of Inconvenient Truths. The Internet, Energy Use, Toxic Waste, and Climate Change by Katie Singer, published b. Steiner books.
Also, an internal analysis by Vertiv discovered that “the move to 5G is likely to increase total network energy consumption by 150 to 170 per cent by 2026. The largest cost increases will be in macro, node and network data centers.”
Read: Press release Vertiv and 451 Research Release New Report on 5G Preparedness and Technical Enablers: With 5G Deployments Advancing Rapidly, Operators Share Plans for Dealing with Increasing Densification, Higher Energy Consumption
The second industry delusion is that 5G will not harm nature.
Trees are Harmed by Radiofrequency Radiation
In Colorado, Aspen trees have been on the decline and experiments have pointed to radiation from cell towers causing poor growth and smaller leaves — Haggerty 2010. A 4-year experiment by Waldmann-Selsam et al. (2016) clearly demonstrated, with accurate RF emission testing, cell tower radiation causing the death of nearby trees over time. He notes, “These results are consistent with the fact that damage afflicted on trees by mobile phone towers usually start on one side, extending to the whole tree over time.” These are truly alarming findings and serve as a dire warning on further wireless expansion, especially with regards to agricultural rural zones or wildlife areas with sensitive species. Research also raises the question of wildfires sparked by dead or dying trees near cell towers.
The third industry delusion is that 5G will not harm human health.
When it comes to 5G safety and health, despite recent claims by Ajit Pai of the FCC, the emperor has no clothes.
FCC Chairman Ajit Pai has been tasked with quelling concerns about the safety of 5G, as consumers across the country seem to be growing increasingly alarmed by speculation that 5G may pose a health threat.
A group of U.S. politicians have written the FCC in recent months asking for information on the safety of 5G small cell infrastructure on behalf of their constituents. Representatives Andy Kim (D-N.J.), Thomas Suozzi (D-N.Y.) and Peter Defazio (D-OR) each sent letters to the FCC expressing concerns about possible negative health impacts of RF exposure due to 5G small cells.
“The FCC relies on the expertise of health and safety agencies and organizations with respect to appropriate levels of RF exposure,” Pai said. “Our current RF exposure limits incorporate recommendations from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and other federal health and safety agencies. And these limits are derived from exposure limits recommended by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc and the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. Both these institutions have extensive experience and knowledge in RF-related issues and have spent a considerable amount of time evaluating published scientific studies that can inform appropriate exposure limits.”
Industry spokespersons have adopted a stance that 5G millimeter wave radiation will be safer than previous generations of radio frequency exposure because the frequencies will only penetrate the skin, and not reach further into the internal organs.
The implication that there is scientific evidence that all skin will behave in the same manner in the presence of 5G millimeter wave radiation is as absurd as the industry assumption that cellphone radiation exposure is adequately evaluated using a plastic adult-sized head filled with the equivalent of Jell-O. Yet this continues to be the industry standard to compare cellphones for specific absorption.
We know that skin varies by hydration, and by the presence or absence of hair and natural oils.
Scientists have recently discovered variations in the Vitamin D production associated with skin pigmentation including skin color, tanning potential, and freckling.
Skin pigmentation, sun exposure and vitamin D levels in children of the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children Skin pigmentation is a complex phenotype that shows extensive variation between human populations. Evidence suggests that such variation was shaped by the action of natural selection at different latitudes, to prevent DNA damage by ultraviolet radiation (UVR) to the skin and to guarantee sufficient synthesis of vitamin D , although other hypotheses that explain its worldwide distribution have been proposed . Among these are protection against light-induced folate deficiency, protection from cold injury, prevention of heat load, camouflage and resistance against infectious disease . The vitamin D hypothesis posits that as human ancestors migrated out of the tropics and into areas with reduced sunlight there was a progressive depigmentation of the skin to allow for UVR-B (280–320 nm) induced vitamin D production .
Vitamin D synthesis is highly dependent on the concentration of melanin in the skin as melanin absorbs and scatters UVR-B, resulting in a less efficient conversion of 7-dehydrocholesterol to previtamin D3. Therefore, dark-skinned individuals will experience slower vitamin D synthesis than light-skinned ones. This is especially important at higher latitudes where the incidence and duration of sunlight is reduced. However, although individuals with light skin pigmentation are more efficient at producing vitamin D, they will be affected by an elevated sunburn response, a lower tanning ability , and a greater susceptibility to skin cancers .
If the variation in skin response to sunlight (natural radiation) also corresponds to variations in skin response to non-natural man-made microwave radiation, we already have a very large problem.
In fact, we are already engaged in torture and eventual genocide towards a specific group, those who are more sensitive to this particular environmental variable of frequency, and we already know it.
In its classification of gaming as a mental health disorder, the World Health Organization wrote,
“Understanding what makes people sick, and what eventually kills them, is at the core of mapping disease trends and epidemics, deciding how to program health services, allocate healthcare spending, and invest in improving therapies and prevention,” continued the World Health Organization. “ICD-11 has been updated for the 21st century and reflects critical advances in science and medicine.”
Who decides what factors are evaluated?
When citizens have experienced harm associated with exposure to microwave radiofrequencies, the industry has responded by measuring the device compared to theoretical standards that were never pre-market safety tested in the first place for current juxtapositions of exposures.
For example, a study of smart meter safety Emissions From Smart Meters and Other Residential Radiofrequency Sources simply references back to theoretical standards.
The advent of the Internet of things comes with a huge increase in wirelessly communicating devices in our environment. For example, smart energy-consumption meters are being widely deployed in residences from which they communicate their state using radiofrequency networks. Accurate characterization of the radiofrequency emissions from emerging residential wireless solutions is important to inform the public about the potential impact on their exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. A new measurement procedure to determine the exposure from residential radiofrequency devices is proposed by assessing the peak emitted fields at various distances and the proportion of time they transmit (duty cycle). Radiofrequency emissions from 55 residential devices were measured in 10 residences (Belgium and France) and compared to environmental levels, emissions from 41 mobile phones, and international standards. Overall, residential levels of radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure are low. In addition to the continuous environmental exposure, wireless access points (due to frequent use) and especially mobile phones and other personal communication devices (due to their use close to the body) continue to represent the bulk of the radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure in the smart home.
The report ignores emissions being introduced onto household wiring, and ignores the existence of reported harm. When living beings are experiencing damage, it is a form of insanity to keep measuring the emissions devices themselves, instead of using the science and technology that we already have available to truly investigate and recognize biological impacts.
When does delusional mental illness become criminal negligence?
The industry is writing checks that the planet and human health can’t cash.
There is one solution; the assignment of binding liability for future damages, suddenly, Very sobering.
“It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.” — Krishnamurti
Image credit: Humans are Free