I suffer from EHS, and live in the UK. I've made it my mission to get this neglected issue up the agenda, and to play my own small part in sharing information..
@rfsafe I expect that there's a backlog to check and approve many last-minute submissions - including mine.
Btw, did you see that Oleg Grigoriev, Chair of the Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, had made a submission?
https://t.co/fhzZTEqD8O
Due to 'lifestyle choices'...
(Despite #EMFs being classified as a possible carcinogen*, any mention of this potential elephant in the room is carefully avoided)
* IARC Monographs 80 and 102
https://t.co/h5cvarN9O6
@KFosterUPenn Given the historic revolving door between the FCC and telecoms, it's a bit of a surprise that it has any mandate to pronounce on RF/health-related science!
Still, I'm sure that this incestuous relationship doesn't colour its decisions...
'These findings support the importance of considering genetic variability and non-thermal biological effects in RF-EMF risk assessment frameworks and contribute to the ongoing scientific evaluation of the biological safety of 5G-related exposures.'
Open access pre-proof.
'This study demonstrates that chronic 27.5 GHz FR2 exposure can impair sperm function in a strain-dependent manner, with effects strongly influenced by genetic background.'
#Radiofrequency#Radiation
https://t.co/fFN1kC6EFK
Open access.
'Some magnetic field levels measured inside EVs, particularly near the floor, footwell, and rear seats, overlap with exposure levels associated with adverse health outcomes in residential, occupational, and laboratory studies.'
https://t.co/z5BhKlnWJh
@hippocapensis I didn't see any balance; no dissenting voices were quoted, NTP/Ramazzini studies weren't mentioned, IARC's classification wasn't mentioned, the WHO SR on cancer on laboratory animals wasn't mentioned, a link between long-duration phone use and tumours wasn't mentioned...
@GillRaeWalker Update: Just had a look at the page where you can submit comments, and it has a drop-down list for Country, so it looks as though we can all respond.
https://t.co/l1W2FSUATV
Bit surprising that a UK paper named 'The Independent' is so obviously biased when it comes to the health effects of #EMFs, which - lest we forget - are classified as a possible carcinogen by IARC (re. radiofrequency radiation and magnetic fields).
https://t.co/NHlzRquppC