IEEE Retraction, FCC, ICNIRP’s WHO and 5G; A Clear Path to Fascism?

By Patricia Burke

“So is the very structure of our society. In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.” – Eisenhower

Timeline:

1. February 2020 IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers publishes research raising questions about safety of IOT internet connected devices
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339301826_Electromagnetic_Radiation_due_to_Cellular_Wi-Fi_and_Bluetooth_technologies_How_safe_are_we
accessed June 17, 2020

2. June 17, 2020: Deadline: FCC Seeks Comments on New Human Exposure Safety Standards for 5G and Beyond Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields
https://mdsafetech.org/2020/05/08/fcc-seeks-comments-on-new-human-exposure-safety-standards-for-5g-and-beyond-radiofrequency-electromagnetic-fields/

3. June 17, 2020 information goes public that the IEEE has quietly published a retraction of Feb. 2020 article questioning safety of IOT devices.
No explanation is provided.
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9016183/references

What We Need to Know: Has there been any collusion between industry, the FCC, IEEE, and possibly ICNIRP regarding the retraction of the article.

1. In February of 2020, the IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers published research raising questions about the safety of IOT internet connected devices: Summary of article: Electromagnetic Radiation Due to Cellular, Wi-Fi and Bluetooth Technologies: How Safe Are We?

Abstract

The electromagnetic radiation (EMR) emitted out of wireless communication modules in various IoT devices (especially used for healthcare applications due to their close proximity to the body) devices have been identified by researchers as biologically hazardous to humans as well as other living beings. Different countries have different regulations to limit the radiation density levels caused by these devices. The radiation absorbed by an individual depends on various factors such as the device they use, the proximity of use, the type of antenna, the relative orientation of the antenna on the device, and many more. Several standards exist which have tried to quantify the radiation levels and come up with safe limits of EMR absorption to prevent human harm. In this work, we determine the radiation concern levels in several scenarios using a handheld radiation meter by correlating the findings with several international standards, which are determined based on thorough scientific evidence. This study also analyzes the EMR from common devices used in day to day life such as smartphones, laptops, Wi-Fi routers, hotspots, wireless earphones, smartwatches, Bluetooth speakers and other wireless accessories using a handheld radio frequency radiation measurement device. The procedure followed in this paper is so presented that it can also be utilized by the general public as a tutorial to evaluate their own safety with respect to EMR exposure. We present a summary of the most prominent health hazards which have been known to occur due to EMR exposure. We also discuss some individual and collective human-centric protective and preventive measures that can be undertaken to reduce the risk of EMR absorption. This paper analyses radiation safety in pre-5G networks and uses the insight gained to raise valuable concerns regarding EMR safety in the upcoming 5G networks.
SOURCE: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339301826_Electromagnetic_Radiation_due_to_Cellular_Wi-Fi_and_Bluetooth_technologies_How_safe_are_we
accessed June 17, 2020

In March, Swedish researcher Lennart Hardell quoted the article:

“In this work, we determine the radiation concern levels in several scenarios using a handheld radiation meter by correlating the findings with several international standards, which are determined based on thorough scientific evidence. This study also analyzes the EMR from common devices used in day to day life such as smartphones, laptops, Wi-Fi routers, hotspots, wireless earphones, smartwatches, Bluetooth speakers and other wireless accessories using a handheld radio frequency radiation measurement device. The procedure followed in this paper is so presented that it can also be utilized by the general public as a tutorial to evaluate their own safety with respect to EMR exposure. We present a summary of the most prominent health hazards which have been known to occur due to EMR exposure.”
SOURCE: https://lennarthardellenglish.wordpress.com/2020/03/31/electromagnetic-radiation-due-to-cellular-wi-fi-and-bluetooth-technologies-how-safe-are-we/

Between February and June, the IEEE article is widely shared across various platforms, including research repositories and by health experts and groups concerned about RF exposure levels.

For example:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339301826_Electromagnetic_Radiation_due_to_Cellular_Wi-Fi_and_Bluetooth_technologies_How_safe_are_we
https://www.radiationresearch.org/news/electromagnetic-radiation-due-to-cellular-wi-fi-and-bluetooth-technologies-how-safe-are-we-ieee-journals-magazine/
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/child-health-topics/known-culprit/electromagnetic/electromagnetic-radiation-due-to-cellular-wi-fi-and-bluetooth-technologies-how-safe-are-we/
https://lennarthardellenglish.wordpress.com/2020/03/31/electromagnetic-radiation-due-to-cellular-wi-fi-and-bluetooth-technologies-how-safe-are-we/
https://es-ireland.com/2020/03/10/electromagnetic-radiation-due-to-cellular-wi-fi-and-bluetooth-technologies-how-safe-are-we-study/
https://smartmeterharm.org/2020/04/07/ieee-emr-due-to-cellular-wi-fi-and-bluetooth-technologies-how-safe-are-we/
https://www.emf-portal.org/en/article/41866
http://mieuxprevenir.blogspot.com/2020/03/electromagnetic-radiation-due-to.html
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Electromagnetic-Radiation-Due-to-Cellular%2C-Wi-Fi-We-Naren-Elhence/c2ca1a7beab71c1bc7dd32e2866c706266fe5e9e
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/electromagnetic-radiation-due-cellular-wi-fi-how-safe-joel-moskowitz/

2. 3. On Wednesday June 17, the information that IEEE has retracted the article goes public. The date coincides with the deadline for public comment to the FCC about 5G and radio frequency exposure levels.

What We Need to Know: Has there been any collusion between industry, the FCC, IEEE, and possibly ICNIRP regarding the retraction of the article.

First, the question of the science itself. Who sets the limits? Thermal or non-thermal effects?

March 4, a pre-publication draft of the the article was summarized in the Swedish blog Multerland:

“The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) has issued regulatory limits on EMR exposure for the general public and workers. ICNIRP’s 1998 guidelines have been adopted by most of the countries in the world today [4]. But these limits only take into account the thermal effects of EMR and dismiss evidence on the biological effects of EMR exposure as unclear or unsatisfactory findings.

In addition, there are several standards prescribed by medical bodies such as the Building Biology, BioInitiative, and Austrian Medical Association Standards.

These limits have been arrived at after extensive scientific research of thermal, non-thermal, chronic exposure, and biological effects carried out by health experts from across the world.

On comparing these limits with those prescribed by the ICNIRP, it can be seen that the limits prescribed by the medical bodies are several orders of magnitude lower than those prescribed by the ICNIRP.

Therefore, a clear understanding of the differences between these limits, and an assessment of the current exposure levels in accordance with both kinds of exposure limits mentioned above is the need of the hour. In literature, many research studies have analyzed health hazards due to EMR exposure [5]. Numerous adverse health conditions such as cancer, infertility, damage to the auditory system, alteration of blood cells and blood flow, mental, cognitive and sleep disorders, and impaired childhood development have been identified in various studies. We have explored the literature in this area and presented a section describing various health risks associated with EMR exposure. The major contributions of this paper are highlighted below.

This paper analyses radiation levels of commonly used cellular, Bluetooth, and Wi-Fi devices to estimate how safe they are to human beings in terms of radiation.

The procedure followed in this work serves as a tutorial for the general public who can arrive at a good estimate of their radiation exposure with minimal technical knowledge or expertise.

This paper reviews several works which have identified various health hazards resulting from EMR exposure and presents the findings to highlight the dangers of excessive EMR exposure.

This paper suggests techniques for people as well as societies / organizations to protect themselves from excessive EMR exposure and also presents ways to minimize ambient EMR levels in different environments like schools, hospitals, and homes.”
SOURCE: https://multerland.wordpress.com/2020/03/04/how-safe-are-we/

Big Tech and the Path to Fascism: “A bipartisan antitrust consensus was built, in part, on the memory of German conglomerates like Siemens, Krupp, and IG Farben, which had cheerfully acceded to the rise of fascism and handsomely profited from it. For the people of that generation, monopolies were less a menace to the consumer than to democracy. They were convinced that a symbiosis of concentrated economic power and concentrated political power was a path to fascism.”

What We Need to Know: Has there been any collusion between industry, the FCC, IEEE, and possibly ICNIRP regarding the retraction of the article.

In an article published by Next Gov, “What Big Tech Wants Out of the Pandemic,” Franklin Foer writes:

“Long before the coronavirus pandemic, the tech industry yearned to prove its indispensability to the world. Its executives liked to describe their companies as “utilities.” They came by their self-aggrandizement honestly: The founding fathers of Big Tech really did view their creations as essential, and essentially good.

In recent years, however, our infatuation with these creations has begun to curdle. Many Americans have come to view them as wellsprings of disinformation, outrage, and manipulation—and have noticed that the most profitable companies in human history haven’t always lived by the idealism of their slogans.

Now an opportunity for the tech companies to affirm their old sense of purpose has arisen.

The government has flailed in its response to the pandemic, and Big Tech has presented itself as a beneficent friend, willing to lend a competent hand. As Microsoft’s chief executive, Satya Nadella, wrote in April, “The challenges we face demand an unprecedented alliance between business and government.”

The blessings bestowed by the online economy in this strange time are indisputable, and we should be grateful for them. But that’s not a reason to suspend skepticism of the tech industry as it attempts to make the most of the moment. In the years before the virus, critics began to prophesy that a handful of tech companies would soon grow more powerful than the government. Their scale and influence, and their ability to manipulate public opinion and shape markets, would permit them to reign unimpeded.

That warning, however dark, didn’t quite capture the emerging strategy of these firms—a strategy that was in fact taking shape before the pandemic began—or the graver threat they pose. Rather than supplanting government, they have, in essence, sought to merge with it.

As the pandemic accelerates Big Tech’s insinuation into government affairs, the industry’s most powerful companies will almost certainly exploit their relationships with agencies to damage less powerful rivals and extract lucrative contracts. But the companies will also provide valuable information and services to their Washington clients, increasing the government’s powers, for good and for ill.

President Donald Trump insists that his handling of the pandemic has been a success, but the government is desperately aware of its shortcomings. It wants tests but can’t procure enough of them. It needs contact tracing but has struggled to build a system to handle that. More than anything, it needs an aura of competence to cover for its flailing efforts. As the nation awaits a vaccine, the government may have no choice but to rely on Big Tech to compensate for its gaps in ability and expertise.

Such a collaboration would be worrying under any circumstances, but it’s terrifying in the Trump era. This administration has low regard for the principles of liberal democracy, and a penchant for looking longingly at the powers available to autocrats. And we know what an autocracy powered by information technology can achieve.

China’s tech industry has helped construct an advanced surveillance state beyond George Orwell’s imaginative capacities. Technology companies practice the science of exploiting data to alter human behavior—ideal for a state eager to engineer the loyalty of its people. China’s nascent social-credit system maintains a running tally of “good” behavior. The ratings are the basis for rewards and punishments. A citizen can lose the right to travel if he is caught jaywalking or playing music too loud. Private firms have assessed creditworthiness based on such metrics. According to Wired, “The aim is for every Chinese citizen to be trailed by a file compiling data from public and private sources” that can be pulled up by a fingerprint or other biometric information.

One lesson from China is that partnerships between the state and powerful tech companies must be kept shallow at best. The U.S. government should create a Data Protection Agency, modeled after the ones in Europe and empowered to scrutinize how these companies exploit the information that flows through their devices and platforms. And instead of treating Silicon Valley as the senior partner in the relationship, the government should use its clout to impose a moratorium on tech mergers, preserving the possibility of a competitive marketplace on the other side of the virus.

In the years after World War II, such constraints would have been considered commonsense. A bipartisan antitrust consensus was built, in part, on the memory of German conglomerates like Siemens, Krupp, and IG Farben, which had cheerfully acceded to the rise of fascism and handsomely profited from it. For the people of that generation, monopolies were less a menace to the consumer than to democracy. They were convinced that a symbiosis of concentrated economic power and concentrated political power was a path to fascism. Those warnings should also haunt the construction of the post-COVID‑19 order. A world where monopoly exists in coalition with the only force more powerful than itself can never be healthy, even if it is no longer ill.”
SOURCE:
https://www.nextgov.com/cio-briefing/2020/06/what-big-tech-wants-out-pandemic/166137/

ICNIRP is the Military Industrial Complex, IEEE is the Military Industrial Complex, WHO is the Military Industrial Complex, All Roads Lead Back to ICNIRP

Regarding the article retraction, it appears that there were objections to the type of equipment used to measure radio frequency levels.

Concerns about the concentration of power between big tech and a surveillance government pale in comparison to the stranglehold on health and environmental science which was institutionalized in the US since the Clinton years, in section 704 of the Telecom Act of 1996.
SOURCE: https://mdsafetech.org/telecommunications-act-of-1996/

The IEEE has not provided an explanation to the public about its retraction of the article. But one commenter stated:

If these ICNIRP and IEEE limits were considered, all the concerns and conclusions of the paper would not be longer valid.

What is surprising is how an IEEE publication allows to present conclusions based in such report [10] instead of the scientifically recognized guidelines and standards of ICNIRP and IEEE.

In footnote 10, the authors used the 2008 building biology recommended levels for concern, and not ICNIRP:
[10] B. Maes, ‘‘Standard of building biology testing methods,’’ Inst. Building Biol. + Sustainability IBN, Rosenheim, Germany, Tech. Rep. SBM-2008, 2008.

What We Need to Know: Has there been any collusion between industry, the FCC, IEEE, and possibly ICNIRP regarding the retraction of the article.

Concerns about ICNIRP are well-documented.

ICNIRP: Planetary electromagnetic pollution: it is time to assess its impact

However, public exposure regulations in most countries continue to be based on the guidelines of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection1 and Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers,2 which were established in the 1990s on the belief that only acute thermal effects are hazardous. Prevention of tissue heating by radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation is now proven to be ineffective in preventing biochemical and physiological interference. For example, acute non-thermal exposure has been shown to alter human brain metabolism by NIH scientists,3 electrical activity in the brain,4 and systemic immune responses.5 Chronic exposure has been associated with increased oxidative stress and DNA damage6, 7 and cancer risk.8 Laboratory studies, including large rodent studies by the US National Toxicology Program9 and Ramazzini Institute of Italy,10 confirm these biological and health effects in vivo. As we address the threats to human health from the changing environmental conditions due to human activity,11 the increasing exposure to artificial electromagnetic radiation needs to be included in this discussion.

Due to the exponential increase in the use of wireless personal communication devices (eg, mobile or cordless phones and WiFi or Bluetooth-enabled devices) and the infrastructure facilitating them, levels of exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation around the 1 GHz frequency band, which is mostly used for modern wireless communications, have increased from extremely low natural levels by about 1018 times (figure). Radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation is also used for radar, security scanners, smart meters, and medical equipment (MRI, diathermy, and radiofrequency ablation). It is plausibly the most rapidly increasing anthropogenic environmental exposure since the mid-20th century, and levels will surge considerably again, as technologies like the Internet of Things and 5G add millions more radiofrequency transmitters around us.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(18)30221-3/fulltext

ICNIRP: A Review of the Health Risks of Radiofrequency Radiation Employed in 5G Technology and the Implications for UK Policymaking – Prof Tom Butler Ph.D.MSc
Posted on May 30, 2020 by ES-Ireland

This short critical review explores the findings of extant research on the health risks posed by 5G technologies that emit radiofrequency radiation (RFR)1. It also provides evidence that the processes by which policy decisions have been made concerning the protection of public health may be significantly flawed, as the overwhelming body of scientific evidence appears to have been ignored by relevant government departments and agencies in arriving at decisions about the introduction of 5G. This lacuna comes about due to the over-reliance on expert opinion from the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), an NGO whose members have traditionally had close ties to industry. It is significant that the UK government and its agencies neither sought nor obtained independent scientific advice on a matter of importance to public health. Consequently, it failed in its duty to identify, assess,and mitigate the risks posed by RFR-based technologies before their introduction, specifically 5G networking and related technologies, thereby protecting public health.
https://www.radiationresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Prof-Tom-Butler-Submission-on-5G-RFR-Final

ICNIRP: Will WHO Kick Its ICNIRP Habit? Non-Thermal Effects Hang in the Balance Repacholi’s Legacy of Industry Cronyism

The RF report, formally known as an Environmental Health Criteria (EHC) monograph, was last updated in 1993, more than 25 years ago. The WHO Radiation Program, based in Geneva, started working on a revision in 2012 with a target completion date of 2016. Eleven chapters of the draft report were released for review in 2014, and work on a second draft got under way soon after public comments were received. After that the process stalled, and the RF EHC was stuck in limbo.

Last March, the WHO was pressured from a different direction: An international team of journalists, working under the banner “Investigate Europe,” published a series of articles in newspapers across the continent on the national and multinational groups that set EMF/RF policy. They focused on the WHO EMF Project and ICNIRP.
Investigate Europe put together an interactive graphic showing six key organizations (in green, with WHO and ICNIRP at the center, below) and their links to important players and sources of industry funding. Some of the journalists referred to ICNIRP as a “cartel.”

ICNIRP’s finances are no more transparent.

Repacholi retired from the WHO in 2006 and immediately became an industry consultant. On his first outing he was accused of misrepresenting the as-yet unreleased ELF EHC report for the benefit of his corporate clients. (See our story, his response and our reply.)

Later, stating that he wanted to “set the record straight,” Repacholi revealed that half of the WHO EMF Project funding had come from industry.

Taking money from Motorola and industry trade associations, among others, violated WHO rules. Repacholi found a work-around by passing —laundering— the money through the Royal Adelaide Hospital in Australia, where he had been chief scientist from 1983 to 1991. The WHO turned a blind eye and cashed the checks. Industry was rewarded with a seat at the WHO table.

For more of the Repacholi story, follow the link to our roundup from 2005, WHO WATCH: Mike Repacholi & the EMF Charade.
https://microwavenews.com/news-center/can-who-kick-icnirp-habit

ICNIRP Investigate Europe THE 5G MASS EXPERIMENT→ How much is safe?
The standard setter “serves industry”

ICNIRP is at the centre of the clash of opinions between scientists. Dutch biologist Eric van Rongen does not dismiss that mobile radiation has effects below the recommended radiation safety guidelines. “But we are not convinced that these effects are harmful to health,” he tells Investigate Europe.

ICNIRP is in the process of publishing updated EMF radiation limits. The old ones are from 1998. Little indicates that scientists who sound the alarm have influenced the new guidelines.

The conflicts in EMF research have long roots. Historically, science in this field has been associated with the telecom sector and the military. ICNIRP’s safety limits primarily take into account the needs of the telecom industry, claims Dariusz Leszczynski, former long-time researcher at the Finnish radiation protection agency. In 2011, he sat on the committee of IARC, the cancer body of the World Health Organisation, when it decided that EMF is “possibly carcinogenic” to humans. Leszczynski is not represented in ICNIRP nor in other leading expert groups.

“ICNIRP’s goal is to set safety limits that do not kill people, while technology works – so something in between”, says Leszczynski.

He is echoed by Louis Slesin, the editor of Microwave News. “There is a lot of politics in deciding what goes into a study and what is left out. For instance, excluding people over the age of 60 from a brain tumour study in Australia that was recently published, does not make any sense”, says Slesin, pointing out that most brain tumours appear in older age groups. This particular study, co-authored by two scientists also represented in ICNIRP, concluded that there can be no link between mobile phones and brain tumours because the incidence of brain cancer in the general population has been stable for years. It sharply contrasts a paper published in England last year that showed more than a doubling of glioblastoma, the most aggressive type of brain tumour, between 1995 and 2015.
https://www.investigate-europe.eu/en/2019/how-much-is-safe/

What We Need to Know: Has there been any collusion between industry, the FCC, IEEE, and possibly ICNIRP regarding the retraction of the article.

As hundreds of commenters submit statements to the FCC about the adequacy of its nearly 30-year old safety assumptions, those testifiers who linked to the Feb. 2020 article will be marginalized and discounted.

What We Need to Know: Has there been any collusion between industry, the FCC, IEEE, and possibly ICNIRP regarding the retraction of the article.

Is it scientific or wise to average exposures, rather than to recognize the effects of the peak?
Is it scientific or wise to measure each device in isolation?
Is it scientific or wise to ignore cumulative and juxtaposed exposures?
Is it scientific or wise not to conduct an independent investigation when harm is reported?
Is it scientific or wise to allow industry to forcefully deploy dual use technology (communications and surveillance) that has not been premarket safety tested?
Should individuals and communities have the capability to easily and inexpensively measure community exposure levels as a strategy for raising concerns?
Should communities receive accurate information about exposures?
When industry lies about transmissions (for example “smart meters only transmit 6 times per day”) shouldn’t there be consequences?
Shouldn’t reports of harm in the field and measurements of exposure levels be correlated in real time?
Shouldn’t reports of harm be investigated by an independent non-industry agency?
Should the FCC be lobbied by industry?

Eisenhower said in his address, “Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals.”

Transparency and investigation regarding the retraction of the IEEE article is critical to guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence that Eisenhower warned about.

Image: Pixabay

Patricia Burke works with activists across the country and internationally calling for new biologically-based microwave radio frequency exposure limits. .

Subscribe for natural health news to your inbox. Follow Natural Blaze on YouTube, Twitter and Facebook. Become a Patron for as little as $1 per month.

Get Natural Health News Delivered

Enter Email Below To Stay Informed!

10 Best Books To Survive Food Shortages & Famines


Your survival library won’t be complete without these books!

Plus get top natural health news delivered daily. Stay informed about health and food freedom, holistic remedies, and preparedness.

Claim your FREE download TODAY!

Enter your email address below to get instant access!

Enter Email Below To Stay Informed!

 
Thank you for sharing. Follow us for the latest updates.
Send this to a friend