2019-04-02 Brussels rejects 5G due to concern for health

1) Here is a summary of the points being addressed by the proposed Bill in Oregon about informing parents about the dangerous associated with Wi-Fi in schools. Everything is so logical. Why shouldn’t the public have this information? Why shouldn’t the School Trustees have the responsibility to know if there is independent evidence of harm? This is a blueprint of what parents and teachers should be bringing to meetings and sharing on brochures.

Senate Bill 283 

“Directs Department of Education to prepare and make available statement that discloses potential health risks of wireless network technology and requires public and private schools to distribute statement to employees, students and parents or guardians of students. Requires department to adopt by rule guidelines for including in school curricula, assemblies, open houses, meetings between parents and teachers and related settings information concerning hazards of exposure to microwave radiation and how to use wireless devices more safely to reduce risk…”


2) Brussels rejects 5G due to health concerns related to radiation.  Belgium, at the request of telecoms, relaxed Brussels’ exposure standards because the pilot project would not be possible with the low standards in effect. Brussels’ standard is 10 microwatts per centimeter squared, a mere fraction of Canada’s allowable limits but significantly higher than the levels at which harm has been found.  


This chart expresses limits in uW/m2 or microwatts per meter squared. I prefer expressing the levels as microwatts per centimeter. To convert from uW/m2 to uW/cm2, move the decimal to the left 4 places (e.g. 100,000 uW/m2 = 10 uW/cm2). At 10 uW/cm2, the telecoms’ microcells will not function. Many studies have reported serious health effects at levels far below 10 uW/cm2.

Radiation concerns halt Brussels 5G development, for now

“”I cannot welcome such technology if the radiation standards, which must protect the citizen, are not respected, 5G or not,” Environment minister Céline Fremault (CDH) told Bruzz. “The people of Brussels are not guinea pigs whose health I can sell at a profit. We cannot leave anything to doubt,” she added.

A pilot project is not feasible with the current radiation standards, and Fremault told Bruzz that she does not intend to make an exception.”


3)  “Wired” is an online magazine that focuses on new technology. This article definitely is reaching people who most likely never thought about the problems related to/caused by wireless radiation. Let’s hope some of them start thinking of new, safer ways of communication.


“… in another big news story: the hype and enthusiasm about 5G wireless as the “thing that will make the existing [communications] model obsolete.” 5G is touted as the solution to all our problems—which sounds pretty unrealistic, as I’ve written in the past. (We’ll still need fiber wires everywhere, including deep in rural areas, to make 5G serve everyone, and there’s a real risk that we’ll end up with local 5G monopolies absent wise government intervention.) And there’s a new (to me) angle to 5G that I’ve resisted in the past: What if transmissions to and from 5G cells, which will need to be everywhere, and much closer to us than traditional cell towers, pulsing out very-high-frequency radio waves at high power levels, pose real risks to human health?

I’ve been impatient for years with people complaining about the health effects of wireless communications. The phrase “tinfoil hat” leaps to mind, I readily concede. But I am learning that hundreds of scientists and tens of thousands of others believe that the intensity of 5G represents a phase change and that 5G’s effects on mankind should be studied closely before this technology is widely adopted…

But what if the FCC is measuring public health effects against a decades-old standard that (a) measures the wrong thing and (b) was based on the work   of an insular, private group, half of whose initial funding came from the power and telecom industries and that elects its own members? I am bothered enough to suggest that we need better, more neutral standards based on widely accepted science.”



Sharon Noble, director, Coalition to Stop Smart Meters 

“Our prime purpose in this life is to help others. And if you can’t help them, at least don’t hurt them.”      – Dalai Lama