Parents always strive to keep the family healthy and safe. However, with the rise of wireless technology, there needs to be more clarity about the potential drawbacks of these hasty innovations. Big Wireless is working hard to spread its propaganda in the media and make us believe that the radiation used in wireless devices is harmless.
But let me tell you – this is a dangerous myth that we can’t afford to believe. In this blog series, we will set the record straight and expose the truth about the potential health consequences of wireless technology.
In Part 2 of this series, we’ll call out Big Wireless’s goal to spread confusion in the mainstream media. And what better way to do so than by scrutinizing an article from Big Wireless’s propaganda playbook? The article published by Forbes titled The Science of Why 5G Is (Almost) Certainly Safe for Humans by Ethan Siegel is a prime example of Big Wireless propaganda. Here we will use this specific case to call out the rhetoric and lies often repeated by corrupt journalists in the media.
Let’s keep our families safe and informed! With this knowledge, you can better protect yourself and your family’s health. So, don’t be deceived by Big Wireless’s paid-for propaganda in the press – read on to learn how you can stay mindful and aware when researching your health concerns with wireless radiation.
Exposing Myth #1: Wireless Safety Concerns Are Not “Conspiracy Theories”
It’s high time we debunk the fallacy that wireless radiation safety concerns are exclusive to so-called “conspiracy theorists.” The piece in question, authored by Siegel, opens with a brazen claim that “5G almost certainly poses no danger to humans. Unless you value unfounded conspiracies over bona fide science, here’s what you should know.” But let’s not be fooled by such manipulative language and use logic to break this down.
First, the phrase “almost certainly safe” is a classic example of doublespeak. If Siegel honestly had unequivocal evidence to support his position, he wouldn’t need to rely on such ambiguous wording. It’s laughable that he would illuminate his uncertainty with such non-scientific rambling while asserting himself as an authority on health.
Secondly, Siegel employs emotional manipulation by conjuring up a nonexistent antagonist to stir up readers’ passions. He knows that it’s much easier to persuade someone if they’re in an emotionally charged state. His use of psychological tactics to coerce people into conforming to the perceived-majority view is a transparent attempt to exploit our innate need for social acceptance.
Finally, his attempt to dichotomize readers into either accepting his premise or being labeled as conspiracy theorists is a blatant act of aggression against anyone with legitimate health concerns. By insinuating that anyone with doubts about the safety of new technology should feel ashamed or embarrassed, Siegel is resorting to a cheap tactic to make readers question their own intellect.
Let’s face it; if Siegel was an authentic science reporter, he should not have to resort to such mind-bending rhetoric. It’s clear that Siegel is not a genuine health advocate but rather a mouthpiece for the wireless industry.
The Problem Is Real
Radiation from wireless technology, aka electromagnetic fields (EMF), has gotten much attention from reputable scientists and medical professionals worldwide. Growing assemblies of medical experts and EMF scientists appeal to governments based on legitimate evidence of health problems associated with wireless radiation sources.
For example, a recent petition to the UK government is urging several necessary actions to address the public health crisis due to wireless radiation. The 2020 Consensus Statement of UK and International Medical and Scientific Experts and Practitioners on Health Effects of Non-Ionizing Radiation was signed by reputable groups representing 3500 medical doctors. This official appeal states that “urgent action points” need to be taken by the government “in order to prevent avoidable human injury, disease, deaths, and potentially irreversible environmental damage.”
Another group, called The International EMF Scientists Appeal, is currently petitioning the United Nations. This group is serving as a “credible and influential voice from EMF scientists who are urgently calling upon the United Nations and its sub-organizations, the WHO and UNEP, and all U.N. Member States, for greater health protection on EMF exposure.” As of August 9, 2022, 256 EMF scientists from 44 nations and 15 Supporting Scientists from 11 nations have signed the appeal. These scientists and doctors are warning of the potentially severe health effects of wireless radiation and want to stop the rollout of 5G until hazards are thoroughly investigated.
Exposing Myth #2: Scientists Don’t Agree That Wireless Radiation is Safe
In this article, Siegel uses an obscure reference to claim that 5G wireless radiation has been scientifically proven safe. He uses a quote from Dr. Alex Berezow of the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH), stating, “the assumption that 5G is safe is already backed by the full suite of scientific studies.” That is a lie because there are no real-life studies to rely on, let alone a “full suite.”
On the contrary, a peer-reviewed article published in Toxicology Letters states, “Neither 4G nor 5G has been tested for safety in credible real-life scenarios.” Also says, “the literature shows there is much valid reason for concern about the potential adverse health effects from both 4G and 5G technology.”
If that isn’t a wake-up call, let’s look at the scientific authority that establishes EMF exposure guidelines for federal, state, and local governments. The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) published a research article that states, “the available studies have not investigated the health effects resulting from exposure from the 5G mobile phone and base station antennas” and “There is a need for such research regarding this current emerging technology.”
The IEEE is the leading research organization that government regulators (FCC & FDA) look to for scientific guidance on EMF radiation. If the IEEE says that there are no available studies on the health effects of 5G and are expressing the need to do so, then that is the actual current status for the scientific establishment in this country.
Also, it’s noteworthy to expose Seigel’s nefarious reference to Dr. Berezow at American Council on Science and Health , which he touts as his sole scientific authority. The truth is that ACSH is a public relations firm exclusively advocating for infamously unethical industries. For example, fossil fuel giants, chemical companies, Big Tobacco, and Big Pharma, to name a few. And Dr. Berezow (Ph.D.-microbiology) is a science hack who writes propaganda hit pieces for ACSH to target legitimate health science advocacy in support of the toxic agendas of their clients. Folks, it doesn’t get any more corrupt than that!
Discerning Truth from Motives and Interests
To truly discern the credibility of health safety information or concerns, we must look beyond the surface-level message and examine the motives behind it. We must be wary of media messages promoting the benefits of wireless services and devices while denying any potential health consequences or drawbacks. These messages are often rife with “alternative facts” that seek to discredit or debunk the concerns of professional scientists and medical doctors warning about the effects of wireless radiation on our health.
It’s important to ask ourselves: does the messenger have a genuine interest in warning the public of potential harm, or are they more interested in covering up potential hazards to sell more products? On the other hand, when EMF scientists, medical researchers, and health professionals present arguments about the potential health risks of wireless radiation, they are often contradicted by industry-friendly propaganda. However, these professionals are always backed by documented evidence from empirical research on the negative health consequences of wireless radiation.
So, who should we believe? The answer is simple: assess the fallout for each party if they are proven wrong. Suppose the claims of “safety” made by Big Wireless sources are proven wrong. In that case, they will have already achieved their goal of preventing any regulations that could slow the rapid expansion of their technology. On the other hand, if EMF scientists, medical researchers, and health professionals are proven wrong, they will potentially lose their careers, funding, and credibility.
It should be clear that one side has way more to lose than the other if proven wrong. Therefore, it’s wise to side with the ones who have something to lose when the reality about health safety or hazards from wireless radiation comes to light. Let’s use common sense to cut through the propaganda and ensure that we make informed decisions about our health and well-being.
Exposing Myth #3: The Ionization Paradigm is a Distraction
In this article, Siegel takes a page right out of the propaganda playbook by using the ionization paradigm to confuse readers. He spends an absurd amount of time discussing physics, hoping to make himself sound smart enough to convince you that his argument is valid. But don’t be fooled folks! Siegel knows that most people won’t take the time to fact-check him and will blindly accept his so-called “bona fide science” claims.
However, we won’t fall for this trickery. Siegel exposes his scientific ignorance when he attempts to explain the biological effects of radiation in layperson’s terms and completely botches the entire concept. He claims that wearing sunscreen is necessary “because ultraviolet light ionizes the material in your skin and causes severe burns.” But, as it turns out, this is either a deliberate lie or Siegel got lost in his rabbit hole.
In reality, science states that the types of UV light (UVA & UVB) we get from the sun are officially classified as “non-ionizing” radiation. While Siegel admits that overexposure to this type of radiation can have adverse health consequences, scientifically, it does not cause ionization. So, he unwittingly proves that “non-ionizing” radiation from UV light is widely known to have negative health consequences. Which directly contradicts his original premise that all “non-ionizing” radiation is harmless.
Sunburns are radiation burns that you get because overexposure to UV light (UVA & UVB) can directly damage DNA and skin cells. This triggers your immune system to kick into gear and repair the damage by increasing blood flow to the skin, causing inflammation and redness. This has nothing to do with “ionizing the material in your skin,” so clearly, Siegel is wrong.
Why so confusing?
Many individuals are still determining who or what to trust when getting information about wireless radiation used for our mobile devices. It can be very confusing while searching for health safety information on wireless technology. With a lack of government oversight and industry-funded bias that blur the facts, people are often left with more questions than answers, especially concerning children who are most vulnerable to radiation pollution.
So why are so many individuals left scratching their heads trying to determine the truth?
Unfortunately, most confusion people encounter while researching wireless health safety information is by design. Cleverly crafted propaganda from Big Wireless is deployed to misguide you purposefully. This manufactured bafflement hides the real truth about the potential health consequences caused by wireless radiation. Leading Big Wireless to interfere with the dissemination of credible scientific information by injecting industry-friendly bias and misleading information into public discourse. Big Wireless will continue to put profits ahead of people’s health, so protecting your health and your loved ones is up to you. But we can’t just sit back and wait for the truth to reveal itself. It’s up to us to take charge, seek out credible scientific information, and heed the warnings of dedicated health advocates. Let’s reject the non-scientific propaganda found in the corrupted press since they have proven to discredit legitimate research to push lies and deceit.
You’re Ready for Action!
Congratulations! You’re getting further in the quest to discover actual knowledge about the hazards of wireless radiation to protect yourself and your family! Concerned parents and child caregivers are on the front lines of the battle to preserve the positive progression of future generations. You can take action right now by acknowledging wireless technology’s potential long-term health consequences and taking precautions for you and your family.
Let’s follow the guidance of countless EMF scientists, medical researchers, and health professionals calling on people everywhere, especially parents, to follow the Precautionary Principle. The principle states, “the introduction of a new product or technology whose ultimate effects are disputed or unknown should be resisted.”
Here are ways to reduce exposure to wireless radiation for yourself and your family.