By Claire Edwards

This is my last Stop 5G Newsletter, or at least it is the last of this series of newsletters as I intend in the future to do the journalism on 5G, so signally not done by the mainstream media.

Next month, Arthur Firstenberg will be arranging for the Appeal to be hand-delivered to the UN, EU, WHO and governments. It seems a good moment to try to sum up my understanding of how we came to be in this 5G mad zone, poised to self-destruct. How on earth did we get here? It appears that every expansion of the use of electricity since the 19th century correlates with drastic rises in all the modern diseases of civilisation, but this information has been kept from the public in order not to impede commercial profit, military expansion and universal convenience.

Since 100 years+ of quantum physics has had little to no impact on the way we live our lives or how we perceive reality, we in the West still labour under the illusion that our bodies are made up of lumps of discrete matter that can be conveniently removed by a surgeon’s knife when they go wrong, this having been established in the 18th and 19th centuries by a grave-robbing spree to collect corpses for surgical experiments. Since no one seems to have considered the possibility that a living body might differ significantly from a dead one, this crude experimentation formed the basis for the whole system of what we now call Western medicine. All traditional and ancient healing wisdom based on a holistic view of a living body was outlawed by enforcing membership of a “professional body”.

In an inversion, typical of our Western thinking, natural healing methods dating back thousands of years could then be termed not “traditional”, but “alternative” and “backward”. Taking advantage of this – let us charitably call it an induced misconception – our militaries discovered that microwave weapons could be deployed silently and secretly to “defend” us from our alleged enemies. They gleefully amassed compendia of thousands of studies, many done in the Soviet bloc, in order to solidify their knowledge of the many and varied types of biological damage that these weapons could inflict on human beings at very little cost or inconvenience to those deploying them. There was even a symposium organised by the World Health Organization in 1973 to discuss The Biologic Effects and Health Hazards of Microwave Radiation, but the participants must have subsequently decided not to share this information with the public in view of their intelligent propensity to suspect that one day microwave weapons might be turned on them. Instead of informing the public that their bodies were, in fact, not solid at all but entirely electrical, these military and industrial entities kept secret all their thousands of studies on the biological effects of microwaves.

They established regulatory bodies with grand names intended to impress the public, filled them with industry and military stooges, and set electromagnetic radiation (EMR) exposure limits so high that it would be impossible to exceed them, similar to setting car speed limits at a thousand miles/kilometres per hour. Russia’s public exposure standards are 100 times more stringent than those in the US. The self-proclaimed international commission on non-ionizing radiation protection (ICNIRP), which is an NGO with no international or official status that appoints its own members with no oversight or transparency and protects no one from anything, while disclaiming all liability on its website for any of its pronouncements, sets non-legally enforceable and astronomically high exposure guidelines that are time-averaged over 6 minutes to avoid taking peak pulsations into account and thereby falsify exposure calculations. What a pity no one told Jackie Kennedy about the 6-minute average when that magic bullet changed her life! How different history might have been!

These bizarre guidelines are embraced enthusiastically by the WHO and the International Telecommunication Union, both UN bodies, and most of the world’s governments, with no basis in law.

4G uses 2.45 GHz, which has been shown in more than 100 studies to cause a wide variety of severe damage to the body and nature at levels below the so-called safety guidelines of icnirp. Despite the regulatory agencies knowing this with absolute certainty since they have the study findings, they have told the public that there are only thermal or heating effects and continue to do so in their draft guidelines revised upwards to permit 5G. They have published pictures of plastic mannequin heads filled with gel that they put probes inside to demonstrate the heating effect. “Look at our wonderful science!”, they seem to say, “The mannequin head has suffered no ill-effects! Why should you worry?”

Of course, there were people who spent a lot of time exposed to EMR through computer screens or other devices, who started to complain of illnesses. This was not good because it could affect the sales of electrical products and impede the military developing ever more sophisticated weapons, so the corrupt WHO just called these people mad: on its website, it claimed that the EMR-related symptoms experienced by millions of people worldwide “may be due to pre-existing psychiatric conditions as well as stress reactions as a result of worrying about EMF health effects, rather than the EMF exposure itself”. Any apparent rise in cancer rates is rapidly attributed to improved diagnostic techniques rather than the more obvious true cause of exposure to an environmental toxin.

This was a good solution, for such people could not use machines to communicate to anyone else that they were experiencing health problems, and in fact even more conveniently, they became societal outcasts because many of them became homeless, living in cars in the woods where there was no EMR. And thus it was that almost no one learned that there was any problem. As you would expect, there were a few scientists who didn’t care for the idea of getting paid lots of money to tell lies that kill people and they started to try to advertise the truth, but it’s not difficult to arrange for them to lose their jobs or their study funding to silence them. All you need do then is simply buy up the media and pay journalists to dismiss tens of thousands of awkward scientific studies on the basis that they do not provide “solid”, “real”, “proven”, ”credible”, “convincing”, ”conclusive” or “established” evidence. And you employ pliable scientists to “muddy the waters” or “war-game” the science by producing studies that show inconclusive results.

As time went on, the military wanted industry to develop better weapons for them, but this was expensive, and frankly it was becoming quite difficult to convince the public that there were that many enemies that they needed to be protected from. A lot of effort was put into creating and funding so-called terrorists, but it didn’t do much good because the public didn’t need to make much effort to realize that they were way less likely to be killed by a terrorist than to get food-poisoning, for example. So the military and industry had a brilliant idea. What about commercializing this weapons technology as a communications technology that they could sell to the public, and then the public would pay for all the research and development of new and improved weapons? Even better, they knew that cell phones would be addictive so everyone would want a phone. And they would be able to control people’s minds and tell them what to think, what to do and what to buy. You could have complete physical surveillance inside and outside people’s homes. How perfect! You could have a completely orderly society, with no one complaining about how eight people had accumulated wealth equal to that possessed by half the population of the planet. And if one in two children become autistic, they would make really efficient, robotic workers, would always be happy and never make trouble!

We see endless articles saying it makes good business sense. After the kleptocracy of neoliberal economics, during which everything that could be stolen was stolen, all that is left is to consume the consumer him- or herself. Companies like Facebook are designed to do just that and Zuckerberg regards consumers as “dumb fucks” for giving away their information for free.

Already in 1981, icnirp’s predecessor organisation irpa acknowledged that general population exposure from man-made sources of microwave and RF radiation exceeded that from natural sources by many orders of magnitude. Work done by Russian and Ukrainian researchers published in a US review in 2001 established that, during the previous 50 years, the round-the-clock power of radio emissions had increased by a factor of more than 50,000. The same paper discussed the development of psychic disturbances under EMR exposure showing effects ranging from changes in mood to nonsensical ideas and aural and visual hallucinations, and disturbances in behaviour all the way to attempts at suicide.

While people’s minds are disturbed by their exposure to EMR, the mainstream media plies them with blanket coverage of Greta Thunberg fear-porning about an unsubstantiated 12 years until doomsday from non-existent anthropegenic climate change in order to persuade them that they need a totalitarian, world government that can guarantee their safety in uncertain times.

Populations have been discombobulated by 25 years of cell phone use, 12 of them under intense “smart” phone attack. Parents are so fascinated by their phones that their children drown in swimming pools right in front of them. More and more people walk out into the road when a car is coming or fall over or down something while peering into “smart’ phones.

We hear of adverse effects on learning, attention, and behavior. Children are being exposed to magnetic fields from cell phones that breach WHO’s recommended 0.3μT safety limit by a factor of 20,000. Meanwhile, insurance companies, which presumably have to protect their existence by keeping a grip on reality, refuse to insure against EMF injuries or damage.

The deployment of 5G is presented by militaries, governments and commercial entities as a race in which the winner takes all. Why should such a dangerous and completely untested technology have to be rolled out so quickly? Could it be that the Internet is empowering people who are increasingly impoverished to open their eyes about the kleptocrats who plunder the planet? Could it be that the true health effects of 25 years of cell phone use cannot much longer be hidden? Whatever the reason, Eisenhower’s military-industrial complex has revealed itself in the 5G project, showing its hand clearly in the crossover between the two, including in the regulatory agencies. The limited frequencies available have to be shared among commercial and military entities.

Thus 25 years of diminishing mental capacity among populations due to irradiation facilitated by the lie of the thermal hypothesis, combined with the apparent urgency to protect ill-gotten gains and prevent populations awakening to the truth and flexing their muscles to redress the power balance have conspired to produce a mad free-for-all – a license to irradiate without constraint from every corner of the planet and from above our heads. Technicans have been given free rein to dream up ways of attacking populations: from under manhole covers; from cabinets on the street; from lamp posts that blast blue light with no more diffusers, as well as 5G EMR in laser-like beams; from adhesive strips of tiny but highly powerful antennas hidden under carpets; on the street; in trains; in planes; in cars; in buses; blasting through the walls of our homes; from our television sets; from fridges, hairdryers, milk cartons, babies’ diapers, baby monitors, “smart”phones, “smart” meters, and soon from the trillions of devices that are planned to be connected to the Internet of Things. This is not to mention the plethora of “wearables” and cell phone apps that purport to help you monitor your health status while seriously undermining it.

The plan is to beam 5G down to Earth from satellites in the Earth orbits, from networked civil aircraft, from pseudo-satelites in the stratosphere … In other words, from everywhere. The stated plan and the word trumpeted in the 5G literature is to “blanket” every inch of the Earth, with no escape for any of the approximately 100 million people worldwide already made sick by the toxic environment supplied courtesy of the first to fourth generations of WiFi, to which 5G will be additional.

There will also be no escape for the trees, which have to go as they block the 5G signals and risk interrupting the continuous signals essential for self-driving vehicles, nor for the birds, the insects or the food chain. Any remnants of a sane, balanced, calm and quiet life will be wiped out by 5G, 4G, 3G, or any other G of wireless technology.

We are complicit in our own destruction and, worse, in the wanton destruction of all life on this Earth. Greed, fear, stupidity and hubris have brought us to this point, complemented by inanity, laziness, complacency and unconsciousness.

The 5G Dementors are coming In for the kill. The question is whether the people choosing to play out the Zombie Apocalypse on their “smart” phones can tear themselves away long enough to care. If they can, or if at least some of them can, they need to understand certain realities:

  1. There is no safe limit for artificial EMR. It is alien to our biology.
  2. Cell phones were never tested for health or safety and we should not be using them. They destroy us, our children, our fertility, our minds and our planetary home. Convenient they may be, but they have to go.
  3. WiFi was never tested for health or safety and we should not be using it. It destroys us, our children, our fertility, our minds and our planetary home. Convenient it may be, but it has to go.
  4. The problem with cell phones and WiFi has nothing to do with power levels. Wireless technology cannot be made safe by reducing the power. There are effects at near-zero power, and for some effects, there is an inverse power relationship, i.e. the lower the power, the worse the harm. 5. Electricity has been killing us slowly since its introduction. We need to constrain its use, not expand it. Fibre-optic cable enables 5G. If you don’t want 5G because it’s dangerous, don’t build the infrastructure that it depends on.
  5. Our bodies function on biophotons. Blue light from car headlamps and street lights – both of which for some unexplained reason suddenly are no longer fitted with diffusers – are killing us. Modulating light for LiFi would kill us faster and possibly even more effectively than 5G.
  6. There is ONE SOLUTION ONLY to the problems of WiFi, cell phones and 5G: STOP USING THEM. All the time you pretend to ask the telcos to stop building this infrastructure while you pay them to do so, you are sending the opposite message.
  7. Wake up! Choose life! Choose love! Choose the Earth!
  8. Smash your phone, get a landline and cable your computer. Or you could keep your portable computer, just as long as it is never connected to WiFi and killing all life in your vicinity.

It’s not rocket science. It’s not any kind of science. It’s simple common sense.

US Scientist Criticizes ICNIRP’s Refusal to Reassess Cell Phone Radiation Exposure Guidelines after US National Toxicology Program Studies Show Clear Evidence of Cancer in Experimental Animals

US Scientist Criticizes ICNIRP’s Refusal to Reassess Cell Phone Radiation Exposure Guidelines after US National Toxicology Program Studies Show “Clear Evidence of Cancer” in Experimental Animals.

Ronald L. Melnick Ph.D Senior Scientist (retired), National Toxicology Program, NIEHS, NIH has issued this scientific  critique of ICNIRPs dismissal of the National Toxicology Program (NTP) findings. On September 4, 2018 ICNIRP   issued a “Note on Recent Animal Studies” that concluded the 28 million dollar US National Institutes of Environmental Health Sciences study did “not provide a reliable basis” for changing the over two decades old ICNIRP guidelines on radiofrequency- cell phones and wireless – radiation. In response, Dr. Ronald Melnick went through the ICNIRP document point by point and presented the data to show the document has “numerous false and misleading statements.”

Peer Reviewed and Published 

The critique below comes directly after Dr. Ron Melnick published a paper documenting the “unfounded criticisms” of the NTP  entitled, “Commentary on the Utility of the National Toxicology Program Study on Cell Phone Radiofrequency Radiation Data for Assessing Human Health Risks Despite Unfounded Criticisms Aimed at Minimizing the Findings of Adverse Health Effects”  in the peer reviewed journal Environmental Research (Pubmed link, ScienceDirect with Full PDF.)

Two Additional Notes

The Ramazzini Institute Director of Research Dr. Fiorella Belpoggi  also posted comments on the ICNIRP   note stating that, “both NTP and RI studies were well performed, no bias affecting the results. ICNIRP confirms that,” and “We are scientists, our role is to produce solid evidence for hazard and risk assessment. Underestimating the evidence from carcinogen bioassays and delays in regulation have already proven many times to have severe consequences, as in the case of asbestos, smoking and vinyl chloride.” (Ramazzini Institute Statement on ICNIRP Note)

A paper was just published by scientists stating that radio frequency radiation can cause cancer based on the human and animal evidence. The NTP study was highlighted in the research review.  Read it here Cancer Epidemiology Update, following the 2011 IARC Evaluation of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields (Monograph 102)” 

Critique of the ICNIRP Note of September 4, 2018 Regarding Recent Animal Carcinogenesis Studies

Ronald L. Melnick Ph.D Senior Scientist (retired), National Toxicology Program, NIEHS, NIH

September 12, 2018


The International Commission of Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP, 2018) recently issued a report (dated September 4, 2018) that contains numerous false and misleading statements, particularly those about the toxicology and carcinogenesis studies on cell phone radiofrequency radiation by the US National Toxicology Program (NTP). This flawed analysis by ICNIRP served as the basis for ICNIRP  to support their conclusion that existing radiofrequency exposure guidelines do not need to be revised despite new evidence showing that exposure to cell phone radiofrequency radiation (RFR) causes cancers in experimental animals. ICNIRP also does not take into account evidence on other harmful effects of cellphone radiation including damage to brain DNA, reduced pup birth weights, and decreased sperm quality.

The number of extensive incorrect and misleading statements in this ICNIRP document includes the following:

1) The ICNIRP statement that “the NTP reports have not yet undergone full peer–review” is wrong; the NTP reports on cell phone RFR underwent multiple peer reviews, including an unprecedented 3-day independent review more than five months earlier in March 2018.

2) The ICNIRP statement that many endpoints presented in the NTP reports were not defined “a priori” is also wrong. All of the endpoints presented in the NTP reports were specified in the Statement of Work for the conduct of the NTP studies that was developed during my tenure at NTP.

3) ICNIRP incorrectly states many critical conclusions from the NTP studies (NTP 2018a, 2018b). The peer review panel in March 2018 (NTP 2018c) concluded that there was “clear evidence” of carcinogenic activity for heart schwannomas in male rats exposed to GSM- or CDMA-modulated RFR, “some evidence” of carcinogenic activity for brain gliomas in male rats (both GSM and CDMA), and “equivocal evidence” for heart schwannomas in female rats (both GSM and CDMA). These categories of evidence are defined in all NTP technical reports: some evidence of carcinogenic activity means that the test agent caused an increased incidence in neoplasms, but “the strength of the response was less than that required for clear evidence.” Equivocal evidence of carcinogenicity means that there was “a marginal increase in neoplasms that may be test-agent related.” Therefore, any analysis of the NTP data must include the brain gliomas and the heart schwannomas; the ICNIRP report excluded consideration of the RFR-induced gliomas.

4) The statement by ICNIRP that animals in the NTP study were exposed “over the whole of their lives” is incorrect. Surviving animals were killed at about 110 weeks of age; e.g., more than 70% of mice were still alive at the end of the study (NTP 2018a, 2018b).

5) The ICNIRP report criticized the exposure intensities used in the NTP studies as being “75 times higher than the whole-body exposure limit for the general public” and therefore “not able to inform on mobile-phone radiofrequency exposures.” This issue had been raised before by others and is addressed in my paper (Melnick, 2018):

“While the exposure limit to RFR for the general population in the US is 0.08 W/kg averaged over the whole body, the localized exposure limit is 1.6 W/kg averaged over any one gram of tissue (FCC, 1997); for occupational exposures, the limit is five times higher (0.4 W/kg and 8 W/kg, respectively). Thus, the whole-body exposure levels in the NTP study were higher than the FCC’s whole-body exposure limits (3.8 to 15 times higher than the occupational whole-body exposure limit). Whole-body SAR, however, provides little information about organ-specific exposure levels (IARC, 2013). When an individual uses a cell phone and holds it next to his or her head, body tissues located nearest to the cell phone antenna receive much higher exposures than parts of the body that are located distant from the antenna. Consequently, the localized exposure level is more important for understanding and assessing human health risks from cell phone RFR. When considering organ-specific risk (e.g., risk to the brain) from cell phone RFR, the important measure of potential human exposure is the local SAR value of 1.6 W/kg (the FCC’s SAR limit for portable RF transmitters in the US, FCC 1997) averaged over any gram of tissue. In the NTP study in which animals were exposed to whole-body RFR at SARs of 1.5, 3, and 6.0 W/kg, exposures in the brain were within 10% of the whole-body exposure levels. Consider the converse scenario. If the brain and whole-body exposures were limited to 0.08 W/kg, then localized exposures in humans from use of cell phones held next to the ear could be 20 times greater than exposures to the brain of rats in the NTP study. Under this condition, a negative study would be uninformative for evaluating organ-specific human health risks associated with exposure to RFR. Therefore, exposure intensities in the brains of rats in the NTP study were similar to or only slightly higher than potential, localized human exposures resulting from cell phones held next to the head, and lower than the FCC’s permissible localized limit for occupational exposures.”

6) The claim by ICNIRP that the whole-body exposures in the NTP study can produce adverse health effects is without foundation; the animals tolerated the exposure levels used in the NTP study without significant effects on body temperature, body weights, or induction of tissue damage (NTP 2018a, 2018b). The current RF exposure guidelines from the Federal Communication Commission, which are similar to those of ICNIRP, are based on a whole-body SAR of 4 W/kg, in order to ‘protect’ against adverse effects that might occur due to increases in tissue or body temperature of 1OC or higher from acute exposures. The whole-body exposure limit of 0.4 W/kg SAR for occupational exposures and 0.08 W/kg SAR for the general public is based simply on dividing the 4W/kg value by 10 for occupational exposures and by 50 for the general public, while the exposure guideline limit for localized exposures in the US is 1.6 W/kg averaged over any one gram of tissue for the general population and 8 W/kg for occupational exposures (FCC, 1997) is based simply on multiplying the whole-body exposure limits by 20. For localized exposures, the ICNIRP guideline is 2 W/kg averaged over any 10 grams of contiguous tissue for the general population, and 10 W/kg for occupational exposures.  The NTP thermal pilot study showed that rats and mice could maintain body temperatures within 1OC at 6 W/kg and 10 W/kg, respectively (Wyde et al., 2018). Thus, the exposures used in the NTP study are consistent with FCC and ICNIRP guidelines that limit whole body exposures to levels that do not cause any significant temperature increase. The 10x or 50x uncertainty factors applied to the 4 W/kg SAR are aimed at minimizing potential acute thermal effects, but do not address health risks from non-thermal or minimally thermal exposures. The ICNIRP report also criticized the use of subcutaneously implanted transponders to monitor the effects of RF exposure on core body temperature; however, Kort et al. (1998) showed that temperature changes recorded by the subcutaneous transponders did not differ significantly from rectal temperature measurements in rats or mice.

7) Criticism by ICNIRP concerning the consistency between the NTP studies (NTP 2018a) and the Ramazzini study (Falcioni et al., 2018) is disingenuous. The fact that both studies carried out in independent laboratories in Italy and the U.S. found increased incidences of heart schwannomas and Schwann cell hyperplasias in Sprague-Dawley rats under different exposure environments and different RF intensity levels is  remarkable. Without knowledge or analysis of the true dose-response relationship between RFR exposure and the induction of schwannomas and Schwann cell hyperplasias of the heart, it is unreasonable to expect a linear dose-response by combining data from these two separate studies.

8) The discussion by ICNIRP concerning the “expected ratio’” of about 30% for schwannomas to hyperplasias is based on the paper by Novilla et al., 1991, and is a misrepresentation of the data and its relevance to the NTP study on cell phone RFR. In the Novilla paper, there were zero hyperplasias and zero schwannomas among 100 male Sprague-Dawley rats (there was one hyperplasia and one schwannoma in female Sprague Dawley rats). Most of the spontaneous hyperplasias and schwannomas reported in that paper were observed in Wistar rats (ratio ~ 3). However, even if there had been a difference in the ratio of spontaneous hyperplasias to schwannomas in that study, it still would not reflect the impact of cell phone RFR on that ratio. The fact that Novilla et al. did not see either hyperplasias or schwannomas in male Sprague-Dawley rats lends further credibility to the absence of these lesions in the NTP study in Sprague-Dawley rats and the increased incidences of schwannomas in exposed rats being due to the exposures to cell phone RFR.

9) It is noteworthy that ICNIRP cites two reviews that conclude there is no association between RFR and acoustic neuromas, while ignoring any mention of the IARC monograph (IARC, 2013) that reported positive associations between RFR from cell phone and glioma and acoustic neuroma in humans.

10) The issue raised by ICNIRP on the lack of cardiac schwannomas in control male rats in the NTP study and the expected incidence (0-2%) based on historical control rates had been raised before by others and is addressed in my paper (Melnick, 2018) for both schwannomas and gliomas:

“Gliomas and schwannomas of the heart are uncommon tumors that occur rarely in control Sprague-Dawley rats. It is not unusual to observe a zero incidence of uncommon tumors in groups of 50-90 control rats. In experimental carcinogenicity studies, the most important control group is the concurrent control group. As mentioned above, the uniquely designed reverberation chambers used in the NTP study were fully shielded from external EMFs, and the lighting source was incandescent instead of fluorescent light bulbs. The housing of rats in the RFR shielded reverberation chambers could affect tumor rates in control animals. No data are available on expected tumor rates in control rats of the same strain (Hsd: Sprague Dawley rats) held under these specific environmental conditions. Thus, historical control data from previous NTP studies are not reliably informative for comparison to the results obtained in the cell phone RFR study.”

11) The hypothetical argument raised by ICNIRP about the effect of one additional schwannoma in the control group is nonsense; one must analyze the available data rather than inserting arbitrary values to downplay the significance of a true response.

12) The discussion in the ICNIRP concerning survival differences between controls and exposure groups affecting the relative tumor response had been raised before by others and is addressed in my paper (Melnick, 2018)

“This comment is an inaccurate portrayal and interpretation of the data for at least two reasons: (1) there was no statistical difference in survival between control male rats and the exposure group with the highest rate of gliomas and heart schwannomas (CDMA-exposed male rats, SAR = 6.0 W/kg), and (2) no glial cell hyperplasias (potential precancerous lesions) or heart schwannomas were observed in any control rat, even though glial cell hyperplasia was detected in exposed rats as early at week 58 of the 2-year study and heart schwannoma was detected as early as week 70 in exposed rats. Thus, survival was sufficient to detect tumors or pre-cancerous lesions in the brain and heart of control rats.”

13) The issue in the ICNIRP report about the need for blind pathology to avoid biases related to exposure status is discussed in my paper (Melnick, 2018).

“The reviews of the histopathology slides and final diagnoses of lesions in the RFR studies by the pathology working groups were conducted similar to all other NTP studies in that the pathologists did not know whether the slides they were examining came from an exposed or an unexposed animal (Maronpot and Boorman, 1982). In fact, the reviewing pathologists didn’t even know that the test agent was RFR. For anyone questioning the diagnosis of any tissue in this study, all of the slides are available for examination at the NTP archives.”

Also, the designations ‘test agent A’ and ‘test agent B’ refer to the separate studies of GSM and CDMA exposures and not to exposure status within a study. Therefore, these designations would not “result in bias because perceived patterns within a group’s samples can affect how subsequent samples are evaluated.”

14) The issue of multiple comparisons leading to possible false positives (with a probability of 0.5) was addressed by the NTP in its release of the partial findings of the RFR study (NTP, 2016):

“Although the NTP conducts statistical tests on multiple cancer endpoints in any given study, numerous authors have shown that the study-wide false positive rate does not greatly exceed 0.05 (Fears et al., 1977; Haseman,1983; Office of Science and Technology Policy,1985; Haseman, 1990; Haseman and Elwell, 1996; Lin and Rahman, 1998; Rahman and Lin, 2008; Kissling et al., 2014). One reason for this is that NTP’s carcinogenicity decisions are not based solely on statistics and in many instances statistically significant findings are not concluded to be due to the test agent. Many factors go in to this determination including whether there were pre-neoplastic lesions, whether there was a dose-response relationship, biological plausibility, background rates and variability of the tumor, etc. Additionally, with rare tumors especially, the actual false positive rate of each individual test is well below 0.05, due to the discrete nature of the data, so the cumulative false positive rate from many such tests is less than a person would expect by multiplying 0.05 by the number of tests conducted (Fears et al., 1977; Haseman, 1983; Kissling et al., 2015).”

15) The conclusion in the ICNIRP report that the NTP study is not consistent with the RFR cancer literature is wrong, and the claim by ICNIRP that epidemiological studies have not found evidence for cardiac schwannomas neglects to note that no studies of cell phone users have examined relationships between RFR exposure to the heart and risk of cardiac schwannomas. While it is true that the NTP did not report an increase in vestibular schwannomas in rats, it must be recognized that the vestibular nerve was not examined microscopically.  The NTP findings of significantly increased incidences and/or trends for gliomas and glial cell hyperplasias in the brain and schwannomas and Schwann cell hyperplasias in the heart of exposed male rats are most important because the IARC classified RFR as a “possible human carcinogen” based largely on increased risks of gliomas and acoustic neuromas (which are Schwann cell tumors on the acoustic nerve) among long term users of cell phones. The concordance between rats and humans in cell type affected by RFR is remarkable and strengthens the animal-to-human association.


Based on numerous incorrect and misleading claims, the ICNIRP report concludes that “these studies (NTP and Ramazzini) do not provide a reliable basis for revising the existing radiofrequency exposure guidelines.” The data on gliomas of the brain and schwannomas of the heart induced by cell phone radiation are suitable for conducting a quantitative risk assessment and subsequent re-evaluation of health-based exposure limits. The ‘P’ in ICNIRP stands for Protection. One must wonder who this commission is trying to protect – evidently, it is not public health.

Ronald L. Melnick Ph.D


Falcioni, L., Bua L., Tibaldi, E., Lauriola, M., DeAngelis, L., Gnudi, F., Mandrioli, D., Manservigi, M., Manservisi, F., Manzoli, I., Menghetti, I., Montella, R., Panzacchi, S., Sgargi, D., Strollo, V., Vornoli, A., Belpoggi, F. 2018. Report of final results regarding brain and heart tumors in Sprague-Dawley rats exposed from prenatal life until natural death to mobile phone radiofrequency field representative of a 1.8 GHz base station environmental emission. Environ. Res. 165, 496-503.

Federal Communications Commission (FCC). 1997. Evaluating compliance with FCC guidelines for human exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. OET Bulletin 65. Federal Communications Commission Office of Engineering & Technology, Washington, DC

International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). 2013. IARC Monograph on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans: Non-Ionizing Radiation, Part 2: Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields. Lyon, France, Volume 102.

ICNIRP (2018) International Commission on Non-ionizing Radiation Protection.

Kort, W.J., Hekking-Weijma, J.M., TenKate, M.T., Sorm, V., VanStrik, R.  1998. A microchip implant system as a method to determine body temperature of terminally ill rats and mice. Lab Anim. 32: 260-269.

Maronpot, R.R., Boorman, G.A. 1982. Interpretation of rodent hepatocellular proliferative alterations and hepatocellular tumors in chemical safety assessment. Tox. Pathol. 10, 71-80.

Melnick, R.L. 2018. Commentary on the utility of the National Toxicology Program Study on cell phone radiofrequency radiation data for assessing human health risks despite unfounded criticisms aimed at minimizing the findings of adverse health effects. Environ. Res. (in press).

National Toxicology Program (NTP). 2016. Report of partial findings from the National Toxicology Program carcinogenesis studies of cell phone radiofrequency radiation in Hsd: Sprague Dawley SD rats (whole body exposures).

National Toxicology Program (NTP). 2018a. NTP technical report on the toxicology and carcinogenesis studies in Hsd:Sprague Dawley SD rats exposed to whole-body radio frequency radiation at a frequency (900 MHz) and modulations (GSM and CDMA) used by cell phones. NTP TR 595 (in final preparation).

National Toxicology Program (NTP). 2018b. NTP technical report on the toxicology and

carcinogenesis studies in B6C3F1/N mice exposed to whole-body radio frequency radiation at a frequency (1,900 MHz) and modulations (GSM and CDMA) used by cell phones.  NTP TR 596 (in final preparation).

National Toxicology Program (NTP). 2018c. Peer review of the draft NTP technical reports on cell phone radiofrequency radiation.

Wyde, M.E., Horn, T.L., Capstick, M.H., Ladbury, J.M., Koepke, G., Wilson, P.F., Kissling,

G.E., Stout, M.D., Kuster, N., Melnick, R.L., Gauger, J., Bucher, J.R., and McCormick, D.L. 2018. Effect of cell phone radiofrequency radiation on body temperature in rodents: Pilot studies of the National Toxicology Program’s reverberation chamber exposure system. Bioelectromagnetics 39, 190-199.

Dr. Ronald L. Melnick  served as a toxicologist for 28+ years at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) and the National Toxicology Program (NTP), before retiring in 2009. Dr. Melnick received his B.S. from Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, and his M.S. and Ph.D. from the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. He was a postdoctoral research fellow in the Department of Physiology-Anatomy at the University of California in Berkeley and then an assistant professor of Life Sciences at the Polytechnic Institute of New York. At NTP/NIEHS, Dr. Melnick was involved in the design, monitoring and interpretation of toxicology and carcinogenesis studies of numerous environmental and occupational agents including 1,3-butadiene, chloroprene, isoprene, water disinfection byproducts, etc. He led the design of the NTP carcinogenicity studies of cell phone radiofrequency radiation in rodents. In addition, his research has focused on the use of mechanistic data in assessing human health risks of environmental chemicals. He was manager of the NIEHS Experimental Toxicology Unit, Carcinogenesis and Toxicology Evaluation Branch, and group leader of the NIEHS Toxicokinetics and Biochemical Modeling Group, in the Laboratory of Computational Biology and Risk Analysis. He spent one year as an agency representative at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy to work on interagency assessments of health risks of environmental agents and on risk assessment research needs in the Federal government. Dr. Melnick has organized several national and international symposiums and workshops on health risks associated with exposure to toxic and carcinogenic agents, and he has served on numerous scientific review boards and advisory panels, including those of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. He is a fellow (emeritus) of the Collegium Ramazzini. Dr. Melnick is the recipient of the American Public Health Association’s 2007 David P. Rall Award for sciencebased advocacy in public health.

Measuring Microwave Radiation Levels at Microwave Oven – LIVE – 1 of 2

A visual to demonstrate microwave radiation.

Part 2: Measuring EMF from WiFi Router

This is the same that emits from wireless devices.

For comparison purposes, the Building Biology precautionary guidelines show levels in excess of 1000 microWatts per square meter to be in the “extreme concern” category, you will see that levels measured here reach the max on the EMF meter which is 100 times this level! While there are thousands of peer-reviewed, published, scientific studies showing harm to all living beings on the planet – especially to our children, I invite you to consider how a potato cooks inside a microwave oven… The water molecules inside the potato are agitated or “excited” and the heat that is generated cooks it from the inside out. Now consider this: we are made up mostly water. Children hold more water than adults and absorb up to 10x the amount of radiation than adults. SO, think about how your children are being zapped inside their classrooms from all the microwave devices inside (commercial-grade routers, laptops, iPads, white boards, VR headsets, and the load increases if cell phones are allowed inside the classroom). The radiation is cumulative – causes DNA damage and permeates developing blood-brain barriers and thinner skulls in children.

Girls are born with all the eggs they will ever have. The radiation passes through the child and into the eggs as well.

Boys are impacted when they have laptops on their laps, and anyone who may carry cell phones in pockets and when cell phones are held to head, the brain is being irradiated as well – the thyroid is impacted too.


If you enjoyed this video, kindly LIKE, SUBSCRIBE, COMMENT and SHARE – many thanks for visiting!


EMF-Portal The core of the EMF-Portal is an extensive literature database with an inventory of 28,521 publications and 6,366 summaries of individual scientific studies on the effects of electromagnetic fields.

Health Effects of Digital Technology by PHYSICIANS FOR SAFE TECHNOLOGY

Jimmy Gonzalez “Cell Phones Cause Cancer”…

It’s time to EMF off! What is electro-sensitivity and why are so many people getting sick? In this powerful four-minute video, Lewis Evans explains how the microwave radiation in our environment (from Wi-Fi, cell towers, mobile phones and other wireless devices) is affecting our health, brains, environment, food supply and viability as a species. Four minutes that could save your life.…

How to Set Up a Low-EMF Internet Connection

Wireless wake-up call – Jeromy Johnson – TEDxBerkeley…

RADIATION EDUCATION: Information on the Biological Effects of Chronic Microwave Exposure in Schools and the Environment; The Psychological Problems Associated with Screen & Cell Phone Addiction

Turn It Off 4 Kids Initiative Toolkit…

The Implications of Wireless Radiation in Schools…

Does your child have symptoms of Wi-Fi exposure at school?…

US High School Student Calls for Answers on Wireless Radiation…

UK House of Commons Debate on Health Effects of 5G and Wireless Radiation…

Acoustimeter RF Meter Video (the EMF meter used in this video)…

EMR Exposure Guidelines…

Microwave Radiation Exposure produced by iPad…

Wi-Fi in Schools Causes Cancer…

STOP 5G – DISCONNECTION DAY, 1st of July : European digital strike


STOP 5G – DISCONNECTION DAY, 1st of July : European digital strike – let’s turn off our smartphones, Wi-Fi and mobile phones.

Written by Maurizio Martucci

We call them “telecommunication services accessible to public : users’ rights”. Among those electronic services, the European legislation called Universal Service Directive lists also the possibility to use data and to make phone calls without space and time limits within member States, regardless of the geographical position; Telcos have to guarantee to every European citizen/user universal, on-going and proper services. Without defining access procedures, we expressly talk about mobile phone as a European right. This is clear.

The problem is that mass high-speed communication force us to differently interpret Community law: the mobile phone concept is undermined by the dismantling of fixed telephony network, wireless technology is getting prevalent, to the detriment of “disabled consumers” (people suffering from electromagnetic hypersensitivity) who “could benefit from an offer suitable for their needs and equal to other users”.

Telecommunication right is upset by companies’ free will and convenience and 5G represents the tip of the iceberg: without considering the unheard complaints about health and ecosystem risks made by the international medical-scientific community, users will be forced to passively suffer the consequences and to effectively contribute to telephones and “smart devices” conversion – as they will be equipped with mini-antennas -, in the name of the Internet of things.

In France, starting from 2018, it’s no more possible to have a traditional landline service, 9.4 million contracts were terminated and the final goal is to fully substitute landlines with mobile phone by 2023. Italy is concerned by this forced decrease of traditional services, too: within 2024, 6,000 telephone exchanges (out of 10,500) will be dismantled. Traditional landline phones will completely disappear, cable-based communications will become old-fashioned and the Electromagnetic Age based on wireless technology will be the only choice. We all know the declared objective of 5G: simultaneously connect up to 1 million devices per square kilometer on 98% of our national territory, in order to cover 99% of citizens. The Italian Authority for Communications Guarantees (AGCOM) has recently proposed to convert (increasingly rare) old callboxes into Wi-Fi spots integrated with Smart City projects.

For those who still haven’t noticed it, we now find ourselves at an epoch-making crossroads. Non-reliable technologies and health protection from an invisible hazard are the two main cruxes to solve: we need to do it now and in a quick way, before it is too late!
In order to raise public awareness, on 27th June 2019, a press conference will be arranged at the Italian Chamber of Deputies and Alleanza Italiana Stop 5G (Italian alliance stop 5G) will present the new social campaign called DISCONNESSI DAY – DISCONNECTION DAY (live Web Tv streaming on the official Montecitorio channel).

On an international level, on 29th June 2019, a conference will be organized in Mendrisio (TicinoSwitzerland) and the European Alliance Stop 5G – including committees, associations and citizens from 16 EU countries – will proclaim the first European joint mobilization day, called STOP 5G – DISCONNESSI DAY. It will take place on 1st July and it will be the EUROPEAN DAY FOR DIGITAL STRIKE in order to make Constitutional article 32 triumph.

In the light of a memorable weekend of 2016, when the No Wi-Fi Days Committee managed to make people turn off 10,000 Wi-fi devices in conjunction with the 30th anniversary of Internet appearance in Italy. The national DISCONNESSI DAY event is sponsored by the Italian consumers and association (Centro Tutela Utenti Consumatori and Movimento Consumatori).

Translation of Giorgia Stocco


5G and EMF Articles at HIN

5G Technology is Coming – Linked to Cancer, Heart Disease, Diabetes, Alzheimer’s, and Death

The new fifth generation (5G) cellular system that is being installed in every major American city. It will intensify the microwave radiation health risks for everyone living in those cities. It is estimated that the daily microwave exposure generated by the 5G system will be equivalent to living inside a…

Can New 5G Technology and Smart Meters be Used as Weapons?

Promoted as beneficial technology for electric consumers and marketed to satisfy the public’s never-ending demand for faster internet communication, the combination of the new 5G microwave technology and smart meters might just become an all-in-one weapons and surveillance system. This technology, when fully implemented, could intrude into people’s privacy by…

Will Nanotechnologies and the New 5G Network Become the Most Powerful Weapon System the World Has Ever Seen?

When the nanotechnology in human bodies is activated by special frequencies from the 5-G network, we could experience the most powerful weapon system that has ever been invented. Unlike atomic weapons that kill everyone and create a toxic disaster for both the winners and the losers of war, the pairing…

Telecom Giants and Federal Government Forcing Local Governments to Radiate Your Home with 5G Microwaves

State and local government shut out. Health risks ignored. Telecom companies are preparing to unleash the next wave of wireless technology in neighborhoods across the nation, deployed block by block. Traditional cell towers are bad enough—now telecom companies want to put a small cell tower right in your front yard,…

New Smart Meters and 5G Technologies Can Be Used to Intercept All of Your Private Data

Will smart meters and 5G cellular services become a threat to the security of our computers and smart phones? Breaches in security from these new microwave technologies are quite possible. According to Bell Labs, the smart meter is actually the weakest element in the data security system used by utility…

New 5G Cell Towers and Smart Meters to Increase Microwave Radiation – Invade Privacy

When the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) approved the use of 5-G microwave communication technology in 2016 and approved the use of microwave frequencies in the 30 Ghz range, they opened the door to even higher levels of human illness and severe disability for American children and adults. The introduction of…

20,000 Satellites for 5G to be Launched Sending Focused Beams of Intense Microwave Radiation Over Entire Earth

Public attention about 5G has been focused on the plans of telecom companies to install millions of small cell towers on electric utility poles, on public buildings and schools, on bus stop shelters, in public parks, and in local urban communities where there would be a cell tower approximately every…

Judge Orders British Man Opposing 5G Released from Jail – Attempts to Silence Him Failed

Mark Steele, from England, has been making headlines for telling the truth about the dangers of 5-G. He has been trying to educate the Gateshead community and its Council about the serious risks of 5-G technology. The Gateshead Council approved the installation of new LED street lights, which contain 5-G…

10 Year Study on Cell Phone Radiofrequency Radiation finds Link to Cancer – FDA does Nothing

The results of a 30 million dollar, ten-plus year study on the effects of cell phone radiofrequency radiation (RFR) were published this year, 2018, confirming suspicions that cell phone use is carcinogenic. However, the FDA refuses to admit there is any risk in cell phone usage.

4th Child Develops Cancer after California Elementary School Cell Tower Installed

Four students and three teachers have reportedly been diagnosed with cancer at an elementary school in Ripon, California, after a cell tower was installed directly on the school grounds about 3 years ago. After the 4th child was diagnosed with cancer earlier this month (March, 2019), some parents reportedly pulled…

Smart Meters: Countdown to a National Crisis of Illness and Death

Electric utility companies are in the process of installing smart meters at all of their customer locations, which are making thousands of their customers sick. These meters emit microwave radiation in the 900+ megahertz frequency band, which is known to cause weakness, fatigue, sleep disturbances, heart palpitations, ringing in the…