The New York Times continues to descend further into spewing fiction masquerading as news. Its most recent analysis challenges Judith Miller‘s delusional screed about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction as sheer nonsense. Evidently, the Times has a propensity for disgracing itself. Now the newspaper’s latest low is William Broad’s essay, “Your 5G Phone Won’t Hurt You But Russia Wants You to Think Otherwise,” touting a wild conspiracy theory that 5G technology’s severe risks to human health and the environment are a covert Russian plot intended to sow confusion into the minds of the American public.
As a patriotic loyalist of Russo-paranoia, Broad has dreamed up a hallucination that Russia is preparing to outpace the US’s strategy to dominate the global “internet of everything” in the race to launch 5G technology globally. Aside from Broad’s otherwise corporate friendly stances supporting hydrofracking, genetically modified foods, and the myth that vaccines do not contribute to neurological disorders, he has produced some excellent work about Yoga culture and North Korea. Yet these are hardly topics that would enable a person to speak intelligently about electromagnetic frequency’s (EMFs) biomolecular effects on living organisms.
Seen in its context, the Time’s article was timely. It was published just days before the National Day of Action to Halt 5G on May 15th. The event was launched by Americans for Responsible Technology and has earned the support of nearly one hundred organizations including the Environmental Health Trust, the EMF Safety Network, Parents for Safe Technology, Wireless Radiation Education and Defense, among others. Since the telecom industry and FCC have no viable science to support their claims, through the mouthpiece of the Times it has found a voice to further fuel the nation’s Russia mania.
Broad argues there is no scientific support for 5G signals contributing to brain tumors, infertility, autism, heart tumors, and Alzheimer’s disease. Although the research may arguably offer less than 100 percent certainty, the scientific evidence unquestionably confirms that 5G is assuredly unsafe. Persons already suffering from electromagnetic sensitivities will have no means of escape. And tens of thousands of scientists and medical experts agree. Contrast this with the Europa EM-EMF guideline that found “strong evidence that long-term exposure to certain EMFs is a risk factor for diseases such as certain cancers, Alzheimer’s disease, and male infertility… Common EHS (electromagnetic hypersensitivity) symptoms include headaches, concentration difficulties, sleep problems, depression, lack of energy, fatigue, and flu-like symptoms.” Seemingly, the Times has never heard of the “precautionary principle,” a recognized standard for avoiding unnecessary risks.
In January 2019, over 26,000 scientists submitted a petition to the United Nations, the World Health Organization (WHO), the European Union, the Council of Europe and world governments opposing the 5G rollout. The letter states,
“Despite widespread denial, the evidence that radio frequency (RF) radiation is harmful to life is already overwhelming. The accumulated clinical evidence of sick and injured human beings, experimental evidence of damage to DNA, cells and organ systems in a wide variety of plants and animals, and epidemiological evidence that the major diseases of modern civilization—cancer, heart disease and diabetes—are in large part caused by electromagnetic pollution, forms a literature base of well over 10,000 peer-reviewed studies.”
Yes, you read that correctly. Over 10,000 peer-reviewed studies now collectively confirm 5G’s measurable adverse effects. Oddly, the Times didn’t bother to do its homework. In 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified EMFs as possibly carcinogenic to humans. This was based on research showing a direct correlation between glioma tumors — a malignant brain cancer — and wireless mobile phone use. The Agency falls under the umbrella of the WHO, a cesspool compromised by corporate conflicts of interests and biased influence. The WHO’s website, which Broad references, denies EMF’s adverse effects nevertheless acknowledges the IARC’s classification. A former chair of the IARC group responsible for evaluating the epidemiology and carcinogenicity of mobile phone radiation was Anders Ahlbom, co-founder of Gunnar Ahlbom AB, a Belgian lobbying firm providing public relations services to the telecom industry. Hence, the IARC is completely biased.
The letter continues,
“If the telecommunication industry’s plans for 5G come to fruition, no person, no animal, no bird, no insect and no plant on Earth will be able to avoid exposure, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, to levels of RF radiation that are tens to hundreds of times greater than what exists today, without any possibility of escape anywhere on the planet. These 5G plans threaten to provoke serious, irreversible effects on humans and permanent damage to all of the Earth’s ecosystems.”
Between August 2016 and September 2018, over 400 new studies on electromagnetic radiation risks were compiled by public health Professor Joel Moskowitz at the University of California at Berkeley. These studies cover earlier generation technologies, whereas 5G will be everywhere and far less safe. Compared to 4G technology in common use today, every 5G base station will contain hundreds of thousands of antennas each aiming laser-like microwave beams to all devices. In an urban area, base stations could be installed as little as 100 meters (328 feet) apart.
Today, nations with the highest EMF technological use are witnessing a dramatic increase in male sterility. Researchers at the National Academy of Medical Sciences in Ukraine placed study participants’ sperm samples in incubation conditions either with or without Wifi mobile phone exposure. Sperm exposed to EMF showed substantial DNA fragmentation and loss of motility. More comprehensive in vitro and in vivo studies out of Hanyang University in Seoul concluded that EMF exposure dramatically altered reproductive endocrine hormones, gonadal function, embryonic development, pregnancy, and fetal development. In addition, pineal gland measurements observed a decrease in melatonin, which would contribute to either sleeplessness or poor quality of sleep that is commonly noted by persons with EMF sensitivities.
Nor should we neglect other nations now aligning with the scientific consensus outside of the private industry. France now bans mobile phone use from its primary and secondary schools. It is also against the law to advertise cell phones to children. Israel’s Minister of Health has called for banning all Wifi installations in schools; the city of Haifa has already done so. Ontario schools label Wifi transmitters as “hazardous.” Mumbai, India’s largest city with over 18 million residents, has banned all cell towers from being erected in the vicinity of schools, colleges, hospitals, orphanages, and juvenile detention homes. Before any cell tower can be installed on building roofs, it must have 100 percent approval from residents. And Russia, which Broad is intent to isolate with a phantasmagorical conspiracy, started removing Wifi from schools back in 2012.
Nowhere in the Times’ piece does Broad provide credible references to the thousands of published papers warning about the likely injurious consequences once we are all exposed endlessly to 5G frequencies. Rather, the author finds an “expert” voice in Marvin Ziskin, an emeritus professor of radiology at Temple University’s School of Medicine. Broad quotes Ziskin arguing that “5G emissions, if anything, should be safer than previous generations.”
Ziskin happens to be a co-chair at the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers or IEEE. The organization is not scientifically impartial. It provides 5G training through the telecommunications industry. Its former president during the Obama Spectrum Frontier initiative spent three decades with telecom giants AT&T and Lucent Technologies. And its current Executive Director and COO held senior leadership positions at the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). DARPA is the brain initiative for the military’s future use of 5G. Its website IEEE Spectrum outlines its full support for colonizing the new frontier with 5G technology.
For an excellent example of Broad’s nonsensical fear-mongering, he writes, “hundreds of blogs and websites appear to be picking up the network’s [Russia TV] 5G alarms, seldom if ever noting the Russian origins.” Frankly, nobody needs to turn to Russia for information about 5G’s threats to animal and human health and the environment. We can simply listen to our own American scientists. In fact, Broad could have looked into the CIA’s own records. Russia knows a little something about EMF’s and microwave’s health risks. In 1985, the CIA declassified its “Soviet Directed Energy Weapons” report detailing 878 long-term studies the former Soviet Union conducted on microwave particle and electromagnetic frequency effects on the human body. To avoid confusion, the 5G transmission is within the microwave band frequency.
An overview of the Soviet’s research thoroughly frightening. Its researchers determined the degree and amount of time required from exposure for developing sensory somatic disorders, autonomic nervous disorders, cardiovascular disease, circadian rhythm interruption, hypoglycemia, sensory-motor disorders, and chronic fatigue, depression and memory loss.
Consequently, there have been no secrets about health threats from microwave frequency exposure. They have been known for several decades yet federal officials, the tech companies and the media such as the New York Times has made a concerted effort to bulldoze aside the evidence. If 4G technology had been categorized and regulated as a pharmaceutical drug, it would have been black boxed and removed from the market long ago. And 5G will be far more toxic and there will be no escape from it.
As a journalist, in our opinion, Broad has displayed gross negligence. Anyone could have spent less than an hour searching the peer-reviewed literature and technological safety organization’s websites and walk away convinced that something is disturbingly awry with the institutionalized version of 5G safety. The fact that the New York Times would promulgate such conspiratorial foolishness is even more unsettling.
Nevertheless, to say that there are serious conflicts of interest in the Times’ public projection of 5G would be an understatement. Instead, the newspaper has been directly colluding with the telecommunications industrial complex. Last January, the Times CEO Mark Thompson, alongside Verizon’s CEO Hans Vestberg, appeared at the Consumer Technology Conference in Las Vegas to announce the news outlet’s partnership with the telecom giant Verizon to launch a 5G Journalism Lab. The Times will now have an advantage over other mainstream media by gaining “early access to the 5G network” as the news goes increasingly digital.
Furthermore, Mark Crispin Miller, a professor of communications at New York University, has pointed out that the Time’s top shareholder is the Mexican billionaire and mobile phone business magnate Carlos Slim. Slim is positioned to reap billions beyond his own fortune with the 5G rollout south of the border. “He, therefore, stands to profit hugely off 5G,” writes Miller, “although he’s rich enough already to live far from any of the cell phone towers that will have millions of us battling tumors, or dropping dead from heart attacks—about which “Mr. Slim” is also (obviously) rich enough already not to care.”
Have we learned nothing from history? Phony corporate-funded tobacco science instilled in us the belief that tobacco was beneficial to our health. Synthetic hormone replacement therapy was marketed as the perfect antidote for menopausal symptoms despite the most comprehensive study to date by the Nurses Health study that led to the FDA’s black box warning on women’s hormone replacement therapy.
Monsanto is now tanking under the weight of lawsuits because its flagstaff glyphosate herbicide or Roundup has been proven to be carcinogenic in the courtroom. Nevertheless, Monsanto has generated many tens of billions of dollars in revenue while deceiving populations and nations for over three decades about its safety record. Our military personnel is indoctrinated into the illusion that depleted uranium exposure in the Middle East poses no health risks. Hence, soldiers should not worry from the radiated particulate matter being inhaled on the battlefield. Lead in paint and gasoline and asbestos was likewise presented as harmless.
How much further down this rabbit hole must we go? 5G is as bad as all of these earlier marketing fabrications and much worse. We can choose not to smoke or drink. We can decide on the foods we wish to eat. We have a choice to take a medication or not. But no one will be able to have a choice to avoid 5G exposure. Borrowing a term from Times columnist Thomas Friedman, 5G is the “golden straightjacket” for the elite and military that simply won’t come off.
With every public health threat, such as the one Americans will face with 5G, it required years to decades before a toxic product was removed from the market. And that was before our federal agencies and the media became fully captured by private industry and special interest groups. We must not expect to find a single negative report regarding 5G technology released by any federal health agency, and certainly not by the telecom industry. If we do not act now, it will be too late after the planned 20,000-plus satellites are launched to drape the planet in EMF radiation.
There is an urgent reason to be concerned about 5G, especially for our children and their future children who will live in sea 5G radiation. Dr. Lennart Hardel, an oncology professor at University Hospital in Orebro, Sweden, has even considered the horrible thought that the telecommunication industry’s plans to launch 5G globally may violate the Nuremberg Code. Mr. Broad, your employer is already a quagmire of falsehoods. Are you ready to accept your responsibility for this sorely delinquent experiment that awaits us? We certainly hope you are.
The post New York Times Denies Health Impacts of 5G Cellphone Technology appeared first on Global Research.