Why Is ‘Wi-fried’ getting fried?

A few weeks back, on Tuesday night the 16th of February, ABC Catalyst broadcasted a story on the danger of wireless radiation showing both sides of the argument and confronting its viewers with research facts that normally hardly gets the light of day. Within a week, a concerted effort seems to have arisen to discredit the program and everyone involved, and once again sedate the masses that radiation exposure is perfectly harmless. Media Watch tried to dismiss the program by Dr. Maryanne Demasi, as simply biased and unbalanced. The SBS TV channel website publishing an article how warning people about the potential dangers posed to children is fear mongering. In this article a stab is also placed towards our report of the radiation produced by ‘Hello Barbie’.

‘Experts’ are coming out of the woodwork to counter the awareness created by Catalyst’s Wi-Fried program, and one should ask:

Wi-Fried TV program

(c) ABC Catalyst

Why is it, that when a belief (Wi-Fi is safe) is questioned, those raising the concerns must be attacked and discredited?.. Why the show of force? Why the poor manners?

The program ‘Wi-fried’, has made sure that many people in our communities are now again talking about the potential dangers of wireless radiation (EMF) and how it could affect health. Are we indeed being Wi-Fried?

This short documentary showed us the following things:

  • US cancer epidemiologist Dr. Devra Davis stated that the wireless revolution has gone from the equivalent of horse and buggy to a jet, in about ten years.
  • Dr. Daruisz Lezsczynski, an international recognized expert in radiation safety and an adviser to the World Health Organisation said that most people are not aware that they breach the mobile phone safety standards by holding it close to the body.
  • For a heavy user, someone who uses his phone for at least 30 minutes a day for ten years, there is an association with brain tumors – (IARC 31 May 2011)
  • Dr. Ken Karipidis from ARPANSA, Australia’s national radiation safety agency, is of the belief that there is no established fact that low magnetic radiation can cause any health effects. The critical observer does notice that he doesn’t say that wireless devices are safe and that ARPANSA can only give advise based on their assessment of the evidence. Making the conscious decision to discount or ignore available research for reasons they feel are justifiable.
  • The Inter Phone Study, was co-funded by the industry but took five years to be released because of the intense politics that took place between members of the team, some of them who were heavily sponsored by the Industry and others who were more independent. Appendix 2 showed a clear correlation.
  • The Bio-Initiative Report from 2012 was brought up and is written by 29 international independent scientists from around the world about the dangers of low magnetic radiation.
  • Dr. Devra Davis ended with saying : “Do we really want to see proof that we’ve got millions of people with cancer like we did with tobacco and asbestos? Is there any question that we should have acted sooner? We would make a huge mistake if we continue to take the repeated assurances, that everything is alright”.

When the safety standards are exceeded, can we then not speak of being Wi-Fried?

TV program Media Watch one week later lashed out against the program calling it biased, unbalanced and even quoted several comments from other “experts”, going as far as using words like ridiculous. Arguments were brought up that there was not given enough time to hear the other side of the story and that there was only one person interviewed instead of six.

“Is wifi technology damaging our health?” – ABC Australia Wide

Media Watch never complained when the roles were reversed with last year’s program “Is wifi technology damaging our health?” in which the conclusion of the program was that radiation can’t do any harm, BUT the fear for radiation definitely could (In other words, it was all in the head). In this broadcast no science was shown of the then opposite view that radiation is harmful. Talking about one sided…

Terrible mistakes in public opinion

intext_200x300_doctors_smoke_cigarettesBut wait a minute, haven’t we been here several times before? Doesn’t this all sounds TOO familiar for those who know the past?

  • Radium Cream with uranium in it, for that “nice healthy glow” and approved by the government in 1914.
  • Dr. Alice Stewart for daring to share in the late 50’s her findings that deep X- rays were causing a doubling of the rate of leukemia in born babies and then being ostracized by Richard Dahl who had been employed by the UK government to show that the atomic nuclear bomb fall out could not cause cancer.
  • For decades many people had to inhale second hand smoke on airplanes, doctors promoted smoking etc. until it was finally banned.
  • Asbestos oven gloves, sprays and many other asbestos products were sold as the best thing since sliced bread.
  • DDT induced wall paper for children kept those nice bugs away.
  • We took the brain toxin lead, out of our paints and many other products.
  • Now more and more proof comes up for Weedkiller or Phosphate being carcinogenic.

Radiation however, has already been classified by the World Health Organisation as a carcinogen 2B since 2011…

      intext_200x300_radium_rador_cream   intext_200x300_ddt_wallpaper

There is a lot of money in wireless and phone technology – Industry is pushing back hard to put the vial back over the eyes of the masses

Why are we still hesitating and why do so many in the industry get so fanatic? Could it be that the documentary “Merchants of Doubt” speaks the truth when it says that every day an industry can keep spreading doubt, it can keep selling its products for that day despite the hazards? Is that the reason why some hazardous products took decades to be banned while millions of people had to suffer in the mean time?

Coming back to the issue of radiation exposure:
ARPANSA cannot provide guarantees of safety, as they would be liable for it, if later it was demonstrated to be incorrect. The same way asbestos was considered safe for so long. One has to wonder though… as government policies are justified by the recommendations from agencies like these… what would the financial ramifications be, if they were to change their opinion? How many homes would have to be condemned for being too close to street power lines if safety agencies recommended lower exposure standards?

Is there a conflict of interest?

EMF radiation exposure of wireless devices has increased dramatically over recent years.

EMF radiation exposure of wireless devices has increased dramatically over recent years.

Samsung has now brought out a statement that says: Mobile phones are not a toy! More and more countries are waking up and plenty of countries have now safety limits for radiation exposure that are 100 times lower than for example Australia’s standards. Taiwan brought out a new law last year January that holds parents liable who give a wireless device to their children.

France has banned wifi in nurseries and day care centres and the National Library and all libraries in Paris have removed it all together. The Israel government advises wherever possible wired over wireless. India now tells the Infertility Clinics to advise the men coming in to keep their phones out of their pockets because of the causal effects of damaged sperm.

Despite that all these wireless devices use two way microwave radiation, we still want people to make use of the internet. What we need to learn, is to use this technology in wisdom. Generally, distance is our friend. Where possible I would advice to go back to LAN or wired as there are studies out there of the negative effects of wifi.

The International Scientists Appeal against EMF from May 2015 where 206 International Scientists from 39 countries made a stand and appealed to the WHO, the UN and it’s member States to put more protective measurements in place also fell on deaf ears for our agencies here in Australia.

Let’s hope people can realise that ‘who screams the loudest, and can rustle up the most experts‘, isn’t always right…
History in relation to Tobacco and Asbestos has made that very clear.

LINKS