Sunday, 17 November 2019

The 5G technology roots in Nazi Germany

The Mammut radar system
One of the technology advances being deployed with 5G is the use of phased-array antenna design, allowing the 5G base stations to steer and direct the signal towards your handset. However this technology is not new. In fact the first Phased Array radar system was the FuMG 41/42 Mammut radar, developed and deployed by the German GEMA company late in World War 2. Interestingly, this radar system is featured in Saving Private Ryan. Here's some stills from the movie showing one of the 'hoarding' radar systems.

At the end of WW2, thousands of German engineers and scientists were offered citizenship in other countries, especially in the USA, via a program named Operation Paperclip. They brought with them their technical expertise and knowledge and contributed to the post-war boom and the rapid development of high-tech industries including aerospace, computing and, in this case, radar. One such individual was Prof Dr Hans Eric Hollmann who, in 1947, moved to California to work for NASA.

Image result for Hans Erich Hollmann

Prof Dr Hans Eric Hollmann
More recently, the PAVE PAWS early warning system deployed on the east and west coasts of the USA in the '70s and '80s has been cause for concern of health risks amongst local residents, with Cape Cod residents concerned the system may contribute to a 15% increased incidence of certain cancers in the area.
Image result for pave paws 
Image result for pave paws

Saturday, 19 October 2019

Telstra Chairman misleads shareholders on 5G risk

I attended the Telstra AGM on Tuesday 15 October 2019 and asked the Chairman John Mullen about the risk of 5G. You can hear my question and his response here:

Even ZDNet reported the exchange.

In my question, I pointed out that Swiss Re, one of the largest re-insurance companies in the world, have identified 5G as one of their Top 5 risks of 2019. Insurance companies do not insure telcos for electromagnetic radiation risk. Lloyds of London provided explicit exclusions in 2015.

Chairman Mullen mentioned the anti-vaccination movement. Issues of liability in the vaccine industry are big deal in that industry since it is well established that in rare cases vaccinations do indeed lead to injury. 7 countries including the USA indemnify vaccine manufacturers from liability, providing alternative mechanisms for compensation.

Chairman Mullen said there was "...absolutely not one shred of evidence..." that mobile phone radiation causes health risks. In March 2019, in an open letter to ARPANSA, Prof Martin Pall called out 158 bodies of evidence that non-ionising radiation (like mobile phone radiation and 5G) are causes important health-related effects.

In November 2015, the European Food Safety Authority concluded that "the substance [glyphosate, the active component in Roundup] is unlikely to be genotoxic (i.e. damaging to DNA) or to pose a carcinogenic threat to humans", yet Bayer-Monsanto is in the process of settling a massive class-action lawsuit that Roundup causes cancer, with costs estimated between US$2.5bn and US$20bn.

Not only did Chairman Mullin fail to address the 5G risk to Telstra, in his reply to me he said "100% we will accept the liability" posed from all the generations of mobile technology. This is an extraordinary statement to make at a shareholder meeting. The risk to Telstra and it's shareholders is high and in my opinion the Chairman and CEO failed to appraise shareholders of the risk to the company, misleading shareholders.

I do not consent.


Richard Cullen: Thank you Mr Chairman. My question is about the risk with 5G. Given that Swiss Rd lists 5G in it's Top 5 risks for 2019, can you confirm that Telstra has no public liability insurance for any injury caused by 5G and therefore assumes full direct liability for all claims. Why does the board deem it appropriate to expose shareholders to such extreme liability by deploying 5G technology before the safety of the technology has been positively established through comprehensive, independent testing instead of through extrapolation, assumption and experimentation on the public? Further, infringement of the Nuremberg Code prohibits experimentation on human subjects without consent. It says "Consent is absolutely essential". I want to make it clear - I do not consent.

Chairman John Mullen: OK, thank you. The whole industry including Telstra has spent an inordinate amount of time and money on researching any potential health impacts of all the "G's" not just 5G. So have governments, so have a wide number of international studies. I can assure you we are acutely aware of our responsibilities in those areas but there is absolutely not one shred of evidence that 5G or for that matter 4G has any harmful effect on humans. And I do realise that for those that believe like anti-vaccination or even The Flat Earth Society it is very hard to change people's opinion.

Cullen: May I just…

Mullen: May I just finish. If ever there is any indication whatsoever that we and the industry are wrong you can be 100% sure that we not only will accept the liability but that we will be all over it. But as of today there is absolutely no evidence.

Cullen: May I just refer you to Professor Martin Pall from the University of Washington, emeritus professor there, who in an open letter to ARPANSA stated 187 [correction: 158] bodies of evidence about human exposure and health risk.

Mullen: Well, the same thing about vaccination and flat-earth. I’m sorry, I just… We can only go with the science that is proven by the majority collective view and there is no such science today.

Cullen: I will just say for the record that I am electrically sensitive, so I really couldn’t care what your studies may or may not prove because I feel it.

Mullen: I can see you’re a very sensitive person and so am I to this issue. We will do the right thing, I can assure you.

Cullen: Thank you.

Saturday, 20 July 2019

Wifi in Schools - who decides what Victorian kids should be exposed to?

This week I received further correspondence from James Merlino, Minister for Education in Victoria. You can read it here.

It appears that the Department's policy on RF-EMF exposure is based purely on the ARPANSA standard, but I have emailed Dr Claire Tobin to clarify. Dr Tobin's LinkedIn profile is here:
So today I wrote:

Dear Dr Tobin
I have been in correspondence with James Merlino on the subject of concerns about the impact of increased exposure of students and teachers to radio frequency radiation (RF EMF) from cell phones and wifi, particularly given the the reliance on wireless devices such as laptops and ipads in primary and secondary schools, and as 5G is rolled out across Melbourne and Victoria.
Mr Merlino has referred me to contact you to further discuss the Department's policy on this matter.
In his letter to me (attached) Mr Merlino mentions that the department has been in contact with ARPANSA regarding 5G and potential health impacts. I would like to know if the Department forms it's policy decisions on RF EMF exposure based solely on advice from ARPANSA, or whether other sources of information or advice are used, and if so what those sources are.
Many thanks
- Dr Richard Cullen
Sassafras, VIC
If the Department is relying solely on ARPANSA for safety exposure recommendations then we have a real problem. Click here to read why I believe ARPANSA's safety standards are indefensible and dangerous.

Stay tuned!

Announcing The EMF Inspector - on Youtube and on Podcast

I'm delighted to announce the launch of my new channel The EMF Inspector where we'll delve into the details behind and problems with wireless communications.
From 5G to mobile, wifi and Bluetooth, modern life revolves around the use of wireless communications devices. And with the push into the Internet of Things (IoT) and 5G networks, the cloud of wireless signals that surrounds us every day is only set to get denser and more ubiquitous.
However, along with the push from Big Tech is rising a wave of concern. Stop 5G community groups have sprung up around the world as members of the general public become concerned about the lack of testing, the lax safety standards and the potential impacts to the health and wellbeing of people, plants, animals, insects and the environment.
So with this new channel I'll be looking in detail into the claims made from all sides of the debate. We'll be dissecting 'experts', examining claims from technologists and looking into the research, policies, standards and governance that comes to play in this space.
So head over to Youtube to subscribe to the video channel, subscribe to the podcast or send me an email.
Let me know what you think and suggestions for content that you'd like to see discussed!

Tuesday, 16 July 2019

ARPANSA standards are indefensible and dangerous

In Australia, ionising and non-ionising radiation exposure standards as set by ARPANSA and regulated by ACMA. ARPANSA was created under the ARPANS Act 1998, with the stated objective:
Object of Act: The object of this Act is to protect the health and safety of people, and to protect the environment, from the harmful effects of radiation.
Wikipedia defines safety as:
Safety is the state of being "safe" (from French sauf), the condition of being protected from harm or other non-desirable outcomes. Safety can also refer to the control of recognized hazards in order to achieve an acceptable level of risk.
So, safety is the control of recognised hazards. Let's have a look at some definitions from SafeWork Australia:
  • Hazard - A situation or thing that has the potential to harm a person.
  • Risk - The possibility that harm (death, injury or illness) might occur when exposed to a hazard. [emphasis mine]
  • Carcinogen - A substance or mixture that causes or is suspected of causing cancer.
RF radiation, like mobile phone radiation, wifi and so on, is a hazard. It is not inert. Therefore it is regulated and safety standard is applied.
In 2011, IARC classified as Class 2b 'possibly carcinogenic' "Radiofrequency electromagnetic fields, such as, but not limited to, those associated with wireless phones", saying
“The conclusion means that there could be some risk…”
Note: the NTP study 2018 did provide 'clear evidence' for the carcinogenicity of mobile phone radiation but the study was not designed to provide dosimetry or exposure data. Heat is not classified by IARC, therefore the risk of cancer must be driven by non-thermal effects. But from the ARPANSA standard, "published in 2002 and replublished [nice spelling mistake!] in May 2016" states:
"The possibility of carcinogenic effects of exposure to RF fields has received considerable attention in the last 20 years. Studies have examined the possibility that RF energy may cause DNA damage or influence tumour promotion. The balance of evidence suggests that exposure to RF fields is not mutagenic and therefore unlikely to act as an initiator or promoter of carcinogenesis (IEGMP 2000)."
Therefore the ARPANSA standard is proven obsolete since it fails to acknowledge any developments in the RF hazard research over the past 20 years, the IARC classification in 2011 or any progress in the development of risk management procedures since this section was drafted on or before 2000.
The stated objective of the ARPANS Act, interpreted under modern Risk management best practices, would necessitate a Precautionary approach under conditions of uncertainty. ARPANSA do not take a Precautionary approach to setting exposure standards since it only considers thermal effects and deliberately and explicitly disregards consideration of non-thermal effects, despite the stated presence of uncertainty. Clearly ARPANSA is failing in its obligations under the ARPANS Act. The CEO must be fired and a Royal Commission held on it's conduct. Further, due to its egregious failings, ARPANSA has clearly disqualified itself as an authority on RF safety.

Saturday, 22 June 2019

Science and Wireless 2017

Photos of slides are located here:

Friday, 31 May 2019

BBC Reality Check on 5G - the BBC needs a reality check

On My 20th 2019, EE announced the first 5G deployment in the UK. The BBC News website covered the event, along with a "Reality Check" segment. Let's do a real reality check on the Reality Check.


Is 5G safe?
Analysis by BBC Reality Check

Some people have questioned whether there are health risks from 5G, but experts and regulators say there is no evidence of danger.

>> Because no studies to investigate health risks from 5G have been undertaken.

Similar fears were expressed around earlier mobile internet and wi-fi.

>> The biggest study, the $25 million NTP study that reported in 2018, found mobile phone radiation correlated with increases in brain cancers.

The NTP studies found that high exposure to RFR used by cell phones was associated with:
  • Clear evidence of tumors in the hearts of male rats. The tumors were malignant schwannomas.
  • Some evidence of tumors in the brains of male rats. The tumors were malignant gliomas.
  • Some evidence of tumors in the adrenal glands of male rats. The tumors were benign, malignant, or complex combined pheochromocytoma.
More than 200 scientists appealed to the EU to halt the roll out of 5G, saying that electromagnetic fields may be harmful to humans and the environment, and could increase cancer risks.
>> Brussels, the home of the EU, has imposed a moratorium on the roll-out of 5G.

But the EU says exposure from 5G will be far below limits set by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP).

>> In 2017 ICNIRP classified skin, the main organ impacted by 5G, as a 'secondary organ'. ICNIRP is a registered social club, not a chartered scientific organisation. 

"There has been no evidence to suggest that electromagnetic waves from mobile phones and networks are bad for your health," says Prof Malcolm Sperrin, Director of the Department of Medical Physics and Clinical Engineering at Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust.

>> ORSAA has collated a database of thousands of scientific studies that demonstrate harmful effects of EMR. Dr Martin Pall recently provided 157 bodies of evidence of health risks in 8 categories. 

He says a causal link between mobile phone use and cancer in humans is unproven.

>> Untrue - see NTP study above.

5G technology is new but experts believe it poses no greater risk than earlier mobile systems.

>> Untrue - 5G millimeter wave radiation is entirely novel with unique interactions with biological matter.

Sunday, 26 May 2019

Taking the fight against 5G to my state MP

Having had such underwhelming response from my local federal MP Tony Smith, it was time to reach out to my state representative, Deputy Premier and Minister for Education, James Merlino. A few years ago I met with him to discuss the issues of wifi in the classroom, and while he was interested at that time, he was noncommittal.

Here's the correspondence:


Subject: 5G being deployed without safety research
Date: 11 April 2019
Dear James
A few years ago we met to discuss the concerns of myself and my wife of the full scale roll out of wifi into schools and the potential wellness impacts this would have. I note a number of schools are actively reversing their reliance on ipad-based learning systems and reverting to physical books, pens and paper as this sorry experiment is unmasked with the precipitous drop in results and the number of students that have been deprived of an adequate education as a consequence.

But now all Victorians are faced with a new electromagnetic threat - the rapid deployment of 5G which is underway in Melbourne's CBD right now and which is set across the country in due course along with a swarm of low-orbit satellites being deployed as well.

When pressed, the telecommunications industry admitted to US Senate enquiries that no active research into the health impact of 5G is currently being undertaken. Given that 5G is currently being rolled out across Melbourne, Victoria and Australia, how can your government simply rely on assumptions to allow this radically novel technology to be deployed based on assumptions of safety?
For you reference, here is the video clip of testimony in the US senate.

It is highly noteworthy that Brussels, the Swiss canton of Vaud, some Italian cities and some cities in the USA have introduced moratoria on the deployment of 5G due to concerns about excessive radiation levels from 5G 'small cell' deployments.

5G is a radical new technology. It utilises millimeter-scale wavelength radiation that interacts with the body entirely differently to current-generation mobile emissions. Safety measurement standards have not been developed and no active research into the health impact are in place. Instead ARPANSA continues to base it's exposure limits on obsolete science. In a  recent reply to ARPANSA on this matter by world expert Dr Martin Pall, Professor Emeritus of Washington State University he cites "158 bodies of evidence each showing that non-thermal exposures cause an important health-related effect." I recommend you read the entire letter to fully understand why the government needs to act immediately to bring ARPANSA to account.

The roll-out of 5G is happening right now. A large body of evidence for the health impacts of existing mobile phone radiation exists and no research is currently underway to establish the safety or otherwise of 5G. The risks cannot be overstated, and if the roll-out is not stopped then the health and well-being of every single Australian citizen is put in jeopardy.

The State government cannot stand by and allow the telecommunications industry to swap our cities and suburbs with this dangerous experiment. Before long it will be too late and the health and well-being of everyone is at risk. I ask that you act immediately to halt the roll-out of 5G immediately, demand ARPANSA reflect the established body of research in their recommendations and require evidence of safety *before* 5G is deployed.

I look forward to hearing further from you.


- Richard Cullen


Reply date 12 April 2019

Dear Mr Cullen,

Thank you for your email to James regarding 5G telecommunication technology in Victoria.

As matters relating to telecommunications are the responsibility of the Commonwealth Government, you may wish to raise your concerns with your local Federal member.

The local Federal member for Sassafras is the Hon. Tony Smith MP, Federal Member for Casey, who may be contacted via email at or by phone on 03 9727 0799.

Kind regards,

Liam Attoe | Electorate Officer

Office of the Hon. James Merlino MP, State Member for Monbulk                                     
Deputy Premier | Minister for Education
1635 Burwood Highway, Belgrave Vic 3160


My response, 12 April 2019

Yes I am in correspondence with Mr Smith. However I believe that those who steward our state need to stand up for the safety of its citizens by declaring a moratorium while also lobbying your federal counterparts for a wholesale review of ARPANSA.
If you review the material I provided it is the only conclusion.
Mr Merlino- do not wash your hands!


Further response from Merlino, received 17 May 2019

Good Afternoon,

Please find attached a letter from the Office of the Deputy Premier, Minister for Education.


Office of the Deputy Premier
Minister for Education


My response, 25 May 2019

Dear Mr Merlio
My recent correspondence was directly in relation to the roll out of 5G in our city and state, and the concerns about the advice and stance of ARPANSA in this matter. You have failed to address any of the issues I raised regarding 5G in your reply to me.
5G has not been tested for health impacts. I note that insurance company Swiss Re have this week released a report stating in their view 5G is high risk due to "Worries about 5G technology include negative health effects, privacy issues, security breaches and an increased possibility of cyber espionage."
If you are using ARPANSA to justify your position that 5G and wifi provide no risk to health, I ask you to confirm to me who within ARPANSA is adequately medically qualified to provide health advice. The answer is - they can't.
I am staggered that you, as Minister for Education in this state, with NAPLAN results falling across the board and progressive schools reversing their decisions regarding ipad-based learning, would still continue to bang the drum that wifi is safe and effective in schools. The evidence clearly does not support this position.
I await your response.

- Dr Richard Cullen


Stay tuned...

Monday, 1 April 2019

Taking the fight against 5G to my federal MP

It's 2019, 5G deployment is in full swing and an election is in the air. Seems like the perfect time to start calling out some of the anti-scientific bullshit that is used to form public health policy in this country.

Here's my first email to Tony Smith MP, dated 11 March 2019:

Mr Smith
When pressed, the telecommunications industry admitted to US Senate enquiries that no active research into the health impact of 5G is currently being undertaken. 
Given that 5G is currently being rolled out across Melbourne, Victoria and Australia, how can your government simply rely on assumptions to give this radically novel technology the green-light? 

For you reference, here is the video clip of testimony in the US senate.

Also here is a post I wrote 2 years ago highlighting my concerns for the health impacts of 5G:

I look forward to hearing about what you intend to do to protect my family and community.


Here's the clip from recent US Senate hearing where we hear that there is no on-going research into potential health effects from 5G:

I received a reply by post dated 25 March 2019. You can see it here:

He wrote:

Tony Smith MP
Federal Member for Casey
25 MAR 2019
Dear Mr Cullen, 
Thank-you for taking the time to contact me regarding electromagnetic energy emissions and 5G network, and the visa application for Mr David lyke.
In relation to the electromagnetic energy emissions and the 5G network, the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) is the Government agency responsible for setting the exposure standard for radiofrequency (RF) electromagnetic energy (EME). The ARPANSA exposure limits are set well below the level at which adverse health effects are known to occur and include a wide safety margin to protect the public. Typically mobile phone base stations operate at a small percentage of the ARPANSA standard.
The Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) regulates EME from telecommunications facilities and other wireless devices used for communication, including mobile phones and modems. The ACMA's regulatory arrangements require facilities and wireless devices to comply with the exposure limits in the ARPANSA RF Standard.
The effects of RF EME exposure have been, and continue to be, the subject of extensive and rigorous scientific study around the world. It is the assessment of ARPANSA and other leading health authorities such as the World Health Organisation that there are no known health effects at low RF EME levels, such as those emitted by mobile phone base stations or handsets. ARPANSA maintains continual oversight of emerging research into the potential health effects of RF EME emissions. If credible scientific evidence ever indicates that the current ARPANSA standard does not adequately Protect the health of Australians, the Government would take immediate action to rectify the situation.
ARPANSA does not expect that EME from radio frequencies associated with 5G networks will cause adverse health effects.
Further information about EME is available from ARPANSA at or by phone on 1800 022 333.
Information is also available at, which is a site managed by the ACMA.
In regard to your comments about the visa application for Mr David Iyke, there is a process that is followed in relation to character issues regarding people who wish to come to Australia. It is open to the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs, the Hon David Coleman MP, to play a role in that process where he believes that it is necessary to do so.
Once again, thank you for contacting me with your concerns.
Yours sincerely,


I replied on 1 April 2019:

Dear Mr Smith
Thank you for your letter which I received in the post today. I wish to highlight several areas of your letter which are either factually incorrect or misinformed.

You state:
"The effects of RF EME exposure have been, and continue to be, the subject of extensive and rigorous scientific study around the world."
Yet in my initial email to you I point to sworn testimony from the US stating that there is no active research being conducted into the health impacts of 5G, directly contradicting your assertion.

In your reply to me you state:
"The ARPANSA exposure limits are set well below the level at which adverse health effects are known to occur..."
"It is the assessment of ARPANSA and other leading health authorities such as the World Health Organisation that there are no known health effects of low RD EME levels, such as those emitted by mobile phone base station or handsets."

These statements are incorrect. There are in fact numerous well-documented health impacts of low-level EME exposure well established in the scientific literature at levels far below the ARPANSA limit. I note that ARPANSA's limit is 100x higher than the limit in China, Russia and Switzerland (1); some European countries are lower still.

I refer you to a recent reply to ARPANSA on this matter by world expert Dr Martin Pall, Professor Emeritus of Washington State University (2) where he cites "158 bodies of evidence each showing that non-thermal exposures cause an important health-related effect." I recommend you read the entire letter to fully understand why the government needs to act immediately to bring ARPANSA to account.

Further, the thermal exposure methodology (quantified as Specific Absorption Rate or SAR) fails where 5G radiation is considered because the higher frequency radiation is highly absorbed by the surface of the skin rather than penetrating deeper into the body. The International Electrotechnical Commission Technical Committee 106 (IEC TC106, chaired by Mike Woods from Telstra here in Melbourne) has not to date defined measurement standardisation techniques for electromagnetic radiation in the 5G spectrum. If you can't agree how to measure it, how can you agree what a safe level is?

You state:
"If credible scientific evidence ever indicates that the current ARPANSA standard does not adequately protect the health of Australians, the Government would take immediate action to rectify the situation".
I'm sure you will agree that 158 bodies of peer-reviewed scientific evidence must surely meet this criteria. I therefore look forward to immediate action from the government on this matter and look forward to hearing from you forthwith about the next steps the government takes, including the immediate announcement of a moratorium on the roll-out of the 5G network by all telecommunications companies.

You also state:
"ARPANSA does not expect that EME from radio frequencies associated with 5G networks will cause adverse health effects"
In other words, ARPANSA is forming public health policy decisions on the basis of assumption, not science, and ARPANSA is either inept or unreliable and untrustworthy. In either case, this position must surely discount them from playing any part in forming Australian public health policy. They must be brought to account!

The roll-out of 5G is happening right now. A large body of evidence for the health impacts of existing mobile phone radiation exists and no research is currently underway to establish the safety or otherwise of 5G. The risks cannot be overstated, and if the roll-out is not stopped then the health and well-being of every single Australian citizen is put in jeopardy.

As my local representative, I implore that you take a stand on this issue before it is too late. The upcoming election provides an ideal platform for this matter to be addressed.

I look forward to hearing further from you.


- Dr Richard Cullen


(2) Letter from Dr Pall to ARPANSA, 4 March 2019


On April 12, I got a call from Tony Smith's office saying "Because the election has been announced, the government is now in care-taker mode. Is it OK if we pick this up again after the election?"
I said "The reason I raised it is because it should be an election issue."
Unsurprisingly, I didn't get any pick-up.

Tuesday, 20 February 2018

The all-out assault on your money

I came across this worrying interview about the disappearance of cash from the Swedish economy. The same thing is happening in Australia where Tap-And-Go is rapidly replacing cash transactions in our small business. We have seen cash purchases go from 75% of our takings to less than 25% within 2 years. This is driven by 'convenience' but is being pushed from all sides - banks, governments, technology and telcos. Bank branches are closing, ATMs are disappearing. 
This is an assault on the ownership of cash. Instead, banks are renting our money to us. We are losing our liberty of transaction with everything intermediated by a broker. Once we no longer own our money, our centralised banking system can do perverse things to us - negative interest rates are just the start. At the flick of a switch, our access to our money can be turned off - don't think this could happen in a developed country? Just ask Greece.
I expect that the RBA plans to scrap the $100 note during the current round of bank bill replacement. 
You need to stand up for our right to own our own money! 

Australian Retail Association slandering cash -
ATO cracking down on cash -
VISA bribing businesses to stop accepting cash -

Tuesday, 17 October 2017

Discussions on Melbourne weather radars

On the evening of 12 Oct 2017, I went to bed as normal but noticed I didn't feel comfortable in bed. My heart was racing and I got a sense of discomfort every few seconds. Eventually I got up and moved to the spare bedroom on the other side of the house and was able to sleep.
A few weeks ago, the regular Melbourne metropolitan weather radar at Laverton was taken offline and the training system at Broadmeadows was made 'live' to cover the period while the Laverton station was upgraded.
From my location in the Dandenongs, Broadmeadows is 10kms closer than Laverton (40 kms vs 52 kms). The line-of-sight angle to Broadmeadows is also different, directed more towards me at sleep while the Laverton site is somewhat shielded by a brick wall.

Map showing location of weather radars and attitude to my house:

So the question arises - is my discomfort caused by the weather radars, and is it worse because of the passing storm?

Weather radar images of the storm passing through:
Radar image loop: 128km Radar Loop for Melbourne AP, 00:00 11/10/2017 to 00:00 12/10/2017 UTC

My thoughts

  • The primary radar site covering the Melbourne metropolitan area is closer to my house and is more directly in line-of-sight as I sleep.
  • Is the replacement radar system the same as the previous one or are there differences in the radiation profile, radiation strength?
  • Was the replacement radar 'usually' working prior to the primary site being taken offline?
  • We live on top of a hill, so a radar looking for rain activity will be directed upwards, potentially directly to where I live.
  • Is it possible that a weather radar adapts it's signal profile if a rain event is passing through the area, potentially increasing signal strength to penetrate rain clouds better?
To try to get some answers, I put some questions in to the Bureau of Meteorology and was very pleased to get answers from Andrew Collins, Head of Radar. Here are the emails.


C-band = microwave radiation, 4.0 - 8.0 GHz link
S-band = microwave radiation, 2-4 GHz link 
Magnetron = a high powered microwave generator link
Klystron = a high powered microwave generator link
Dual polarisation = a microwave signal containing both horizontally and vertically polarised beams link
PRF = Pulse repetition frequency link

From Richard Cullen to BOM media relations

Hi Sally
Thanks for taking my call earlier. 
I am interested to know some more about the weather radars that are active in the Melbourne area. I understand that the Laverton centre is being upgraded and that the Broadmeadows centre is the primary site at the moment. I found this 'explainer' video on Youtube so perhaps Steven McGibbony is the right person to be in touch with?

My questions are of a technical nature about the radar systems that are active and which are being deployed, in particular some more in-depth information regarding the radar signals being generated by each centre and the radio-frequency emissions. 
Specific questions include:
- what are the makes and models of the radar units? Are there specification sheets that can be provided?
- what are the power ratings of each unit, and under what conditions would power emissions be increased?
- what are the rates of rotation of each unit?

Many thanks
- Dr Richard Cullen

From Andrew Collins to Richard Cullen (12 October 2017)

Hi Richard,
The Bureau uses several types of radars. We operate both C-band and S-band.  Magnetron transmitters at 250kW (C-band) and 850kW (S-band) and 750kW klystrons (Meteor 1700S radars).
Our scan rates vary as we generally do 14 elevations over a 6-minute or 10-minute scan strategy.
Buckland Park (Adelaide) for example - Long Range Scan: Single elevation angle (0.5º) at 400 Hz PRF. Maximum range of 375 km for extension of reflectivity products. Dual Polarisation mode: 14 elevation angle scans, 1000 Hz PRF, second-trip recovery. Maximum range up to 300 km, restricted to a maximum observed altitude of 20 km (i.e. maximum range decreases with increasing elevation angle).
Elevation angles scanned: 0.5º, 0.9º, 1.3º, 1.8º, 2.4º, 3.1º, 4.2º, 5.6º, 7.4º, 10.0º, 13.3º, 17.9º, 23.9º, 32.0º.
The hyperlinks below are our two current radar OEM with basic commercially available specifications.
If you need any other information please contact me directly.
Andrew Collins | Head of Radar

From Richard to Andrew (13 Oct 2017)

Thank you for getting back to me so promptly, Andrew. I very much appreciate the information.
My interest is particularly in the RF emissions from the radars deployed within the Melbourne area and in particular how the changes in the active sites and upgrades to existing sites (Laverton) can be expected to change the profile. 
Specifically, the Laverton site was removed from operation and the Broadmeadows site made primary as the Laverton site gets upgraded. Were Laverton and Broadmeadows running the same systems or are their any differences? Can you share any information about the old-vs-new equipment being deployed into Laverton?
I also have a question regarding the operation of weather radars, particularly as storms come through. The challenge for a weather radar system is achieving range during storm activity, as the water in the clouds and rain absorb the signal. Therefore does the system adapt the strength of the transmission signal dependent on the conditions? i.e. if an accurate signal for distant locations can't be obtained due to clouds closer by, does the system increase transmission levels to compensate? And conversely, if conditions are favourable, does the system decrease transmission strength?

Many thanks

From Andrew to Richard (16 Oct 2017)

Hi Richard,
Broadmeadows radar is a C-band (5607MHz) 250kW magnetron running at 1000Hz PRF with a 1µS pulse.
Laverton radar is a S-band (2880MHz) 750kW klystron running at 1000Hz PRF with a 1µS pulse. Please bear in mind as this radar has recently undergone dual-polarisation upgrade, it will emit 375kW out of the vertical and horizontal channels respectively. Therefore, EIRP is reduced by 3dB. This is the only recent change. Whilst you may of never saw Broadmeadows on the web before it has been alive and kicking in a training role. It was made live to cover for the Laverton upgrade.
No, the output power remains constant in all conditions, obviously receiver gain varies with range. S-band have much better penetration and less rain attenuation than C-band but a little reduction in resolution.

From Richard to Andrew (16 Oct 2017

Thank you for the detailed update, Andrew.

>> it will emit 375kW out of the vertical and horizontal channels respectively
I presume simultaneously rather than in 2 separate passes?


- Richard

From Andrew to Richard (17 Oct 2017)

That is correct, simultaneously.

Wednesday, 13 September 2017

ACMA 5G "Spectrum for broadband in mmWave bands" consultation submission

In September 2017, ACMA announced a consultation process regarding consideration of using mmWave frequencies for mobile broadband applications in Australia. Specifically this means 5G technologies at 26GHz, with other frequencies to be considered. This is part of fast-tracking the spectrum auction and accelerating 5G roll-out across Australia.

The document listing the Questions for Comment and the submission upload form are here:

I'll be developing my submission here:

Tuesday, 12 September 2017

Auction plan for 5G spectrum being expedited

To: Federal Minister and Shadow Minister for Communication, Federal Minister and Shadow Minister for Health, James Merlino MP, Jason Woods MP, Editor - The Age

I contact you today to raise my concerns that the commercial drum-beat to auction off the 5G spectrum is being fast-tracked without adequate safety standards having been established.
The matter of the auction of 5G spectrum being expedited was covered in today's edition of The Age:

This is clearly a case where commercial interests and the dangling carrot of billions of dollars in spectrum revenue are combining to over-rule any concerns regarding adequate protection of public safety. 

The properties of 5G radiation of 5GHz and above are totally different to that of 3G/4G and previous iterations of mobile technologies. Due to their higher frequencies, 5G waves cannot penetrate solid objects including human bodies, resulting in maximum absorption in the outer skin layers, eyes, ears etc. These organs are not inert, containing for instance T-cells which form a primary component of our immune system. 

The international technical committee which oversees the testing methodologies for microwave radiation - IEC  technical committee TC 106 - has not even established a process to start defining safety measurement protocols for 5G radiation, let alone feed into the ICNIRP/ARPANSA process to establish safety exposure limits. ICNIRP does not consider 'biological' impact when setting safety limits, only thermal effects and considers skin to be a 'secondary organ' despite it's key role in blocking 5G radiation. ICNIRP is demonstrably corrupted by corporate vested interests.

5G mobile technology roll-out needs to be brought in check to avoid a health and well-being catastrophe for this state and our nation, brought about by the greed of government revenue-raising and corporate vested interests. I look forward to hearing from you on these matters.

- Dr Richard Cullen
Sassafras, Victoria

I refer you to a blog post I wrote in November last year, having witnessed the debacle at the annual 'Wireless and Science' event at RMIT, noteable for the cavalier disregard for actual scientific process.

I also refer you to this presentation presented last month in Brisbane detailing the current state of the science and technology.

Wednesday, 23 November 2016

How NBN will drive autoimmune diseases across Australia

The NBN will be responsible for driving autoimmune diseases in Australia. 

How? NBN threatens Telstra directly as they'll be unable to differentiate ISP services based on network reach. So for them, establishing and maintain a superior mobile network - one that can deliver faster-than-NBN data - is an existential issue. They'll drive 5G adoption harder than any other Telco on the planet - the others don't have to contend with a level NBN playing field. Mike Wood from Telstra is chairing the technical committee defining radiation safety limits over the 5G spectrum [link to IEC TC106 page] - that's not coincidental.
The frequencies used by 5G are higher than existing mobile RF and will be absorbed primarily by the skin [see below]. The skin hosts immunological cells, forming a primary immune defence system. Persistent and aggressive activation of dermal T-cells and T-cell activation can lead to an autoimmune response
TL;DR - expect to see a rise in autoimmune conditions like Rheumatoid Arthritis, Lupus, Hashimotos, Irritable Bowel Syndrome etc etc.
ICNIRP admits that their guidelines do not currently account for the radiation safety issues surrounding higher frequency RF and they expect to classify 'skin' as peripheral along with arms and legs despite skin being an immunological organ and being the primary absorbent matter for +6GHz radiation. The measurement procedures for the evaluation of power density related to human exposure between 6GHz and 100GHz have not been developed [link to IEC 'call for experts' Nov2016]. 
So without effective health safety guidelines, no health safety research or testing and no effective regulations, industry will drive forth and start the rollout of this new technology within the next 5 years. Given the inability to differentiate on fixed broadband, Telstra especially will be at the forefront. The gates are open and the horse is bolting.

Key take-aways

  • Telstra are leading the international committee defining the radiation exposure levels for 5G standards.
  • The absorption profile for 5G radiation is completely different to existing mobile phone radiation.
  • Work has not even started on defining the safety standards for 5G radiation.
  • ICNIRP is only concerned with thermal effects of RF radiation. In the case of 5G, this will be skin warming only.
  • ARPANSA radiation limit standards are based on ICNIRP guidelines.
  • T-cells (part of the human immunological system) in the skin react to microwave radiation in the 5G spectrum.
  • Immune system provocation can lead to development of autoimmune diseases.

Supporting evidence

  • 5G spectrum allocation above 6GHz (source:, original source: Nokia)
  • Absorption of microwave radiation above 6GHz is primarily within the skin rather than the body: " For frequencies greater than 3 GHz, the MPE is expressed in terms of the incident power density"Source: "C95.1-2005 - IEEE Standard for Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz", pages 25-26. [link]
  • Microwave attenuation in tissue by frequency (source:

  • IEC 'call for experts' November 2016,FSP_LANG_ID:1303,25

"Science and Wireless 2016" - my thoughts.

"Science and Wireless 2016" - my thoughts. 

Or... "And you wonder why is the public losing faith in science?"

On November 22nd, the Australian Centre for Electromagnetic Bioeffects Research (ACEBR) held the 10th annual "Science and Wireless" meeting. 4 papers were presented.
Papers 1 (Keynote: "Transcranial Electromagnetic Treatment (TEMT) against Alzheimer's Disease: Pre-Clinical Efficacy and Clinical Trial in Progress", Dr Gary W Arendash) and 2 ("ACEBR research on RF effects on Alzheimer's disease", Prof John Finnie) were reviewing exciting new developments in using 900MHz RF-EMF to treat Alzheimer's Disease. The results look very promising as a therapy to reverse the build-up of Beta-amyloid plaques in neurons in Alzheimer patients. There are 3 suggested mechanisms of action - (1) Disaggregation of beta-amyloid plaques (RF breaks protein bonds), (2) enhanced mitochondrial function and (3) increased neuronal activity. The pre-clinical results are very promising. This is a very exciting development because drug-based therapies for this disease have proved ineffective thus far. If I had Alzheimer's, I would be first in line.
Paper 3 ("ICNIRP High frequency guidelines - an update", Prof Rodney Croft) described work-in-progress to update the ICNIRP guidelines. Sorry I didn't capture all of the slides. Long story short - they consider health effects, not biological effects, and when health effects can't be measured they're using thermal effects as a proxy for quantifiable measurement. Absorption rates are split between 'head and body' and 'limbs' (which includes skin). They're going to be setting guidelines for 6+GHz based on power density rather than SAR, but looks like it's averaged over an area rather than point exposure.
Paper 4 ("5G devices and networks: exposure standards", Mike Wood, Telstra) by Mike Wood of Telstra and chairman of the international consortium developing 5G technologies. SAR will not be used for measuring exposure of 5G radiation due to the limited ability of 10+GHz radiation to penetrate the body; incident radiation power will be used instead. 5G radiation is absorbed primarily in the skin. No safety testing methodologies currently exist. Various device radiation measurements techniques are being developed to scan a detector across the device, but then the radiation is averaged over the entire device. No control of point-based radiation levels. Base stations will use phased arrays and beam-forming techniques to better direct the signal to the active device. This will provide a better connection and higher data rates while reducing the ambient radiation levels, but watch out if you're in line with an active connection. Systems should be available for commercial roll-out in 2020.

Other notes

During his presentation, Arendash dismissed the plausibility that cell phones could cause cancer because the energy levels could not cause ionisation. During the Q&A, a member of the audience pointed out that RF-EMF has been demonstrated to cause Reactive Oxygen Species (ROS) and that they are known carcinogens [first google result]. 
Another member of the audience asked why the modulation frequencies are not being considered, just the carrier frequencies, and that the modulation frequencies are just as important. Wood claimed that there are no new modulation techniques in 5G, however he didn't say there were no new modulation frequencies. No-one discussed whether pulsing vs constant exposure is important.
Another audience member pointed out the rapid rise in chronic diseases - cancer, autism, neurodegenerative diseases etc. The panel did not have much to say in response except that pinpointing the contribution of RF radiation to these conditions is effectively impossible at a population level. 
Note that at 5G frequencies, the ability of RF-EMF to penetrate the body is significantly reduced. This is being taken as good news, since that means that internal organs should receive less radiation exposure. Instead it'll be the skin primarily which is being exposed, and the ICNIRP committee is considering skin as 'peripheral' along with arms and legs. They clearly do not consider that the skin is important, and yet the skin is an immunologic organ, containing on average 20 billion T-cells. [When you cut yourself, the wound healing is mediated by the immune system.] What happens when you expose T-cells to RF radiation? As a 2013 paper in IEEE proceedings notes "Further studies are required to determine the effect of RF fields on the immune system" but the existing research tells us "The results indicate that pulse-modulated microwaves represent the potential of immunotropic influence, stimulating preferentially the immunogenic and proinflammatory activity of monocytes at relatively low levels of exposure." 
RF exposure directly provokes an immune response. The skin is a major site of immune cells. 5G will be absorbed by the skin. And what happens when you stir up the immune system without a target? Hello autoimmune diseases...

My take 

The ICNIRP guidelines will continue to be based on thermal heating effects because establishing and measuring direct causal health effects is too hard. I asked how long it typically takes for health effects to be established - was it 20 years? 30 years? - and got a waffled response from Croft saying the current guidelines were generated in the early 90s so don't hold your breath. Wood showed the accelerated timeline for 5G technology deployment and said that the safety concerns were being addressed using the existing literature from microwave point-to-point devices and military research.
I asked if I was the only one making the connection - the first papers clearly showing the biological effects of GHz radiation, ICNIRP refusing to consider biological effects, accepting only health effects, and new radiation profiles with unknown biological impact being deployed population-wide without demonstrated health studies. The biological effects are direct and real, as shown by Paper 1 which directly exploits these effects at the cellular level but the radiation standards are only set by considering thermal effects averaged over a large area.
Now let's fast forward 10 years. 5G is now pervasive with antenna arrays on every lamp-post and data quantities 100x what they are today. Will we see a continued increase in autoimmune diseases? Will we be able to demonstrate that any of this increase is driven by T-cell activation in the skin layers? If we do, how long until the ICNIRP guidelines adapt? How long until these trickle down to national regulations? How long until these national regulations get applied to 5G operators and device manufacturers? Will the radiation levels be reduced to pre-5G levels? Clearly the answer is that this process would take decades if at all.
5G deployment is critical to Telstra. With the roll-out of NBN which provides non-differentiated service from any ISP, Telstra needs to stay at the forefront of mobile technology. It will be pushing 5G as hard as it can because it's a clear differentiator in the market. It is critical to the future of Telstra which is why Mike Wood is chairing the international committee defining the 5G technical standards.
Claiming that this is a scientific process is clearly a joke. Roll out the tech and bugger the consequences. What a cavalier approach. What a sham.

Selected Slides

Papers 1  - Keynote

"Transcranial Electromagnetic Treatment (TEMT) against Alzheimer's Disease: Pre-Clinical Efficacy and Clinical Trial in Progress", Dr Gary W Arendash)

Paper 2

"ACEBR research on RF effects on Alzheimer's disease", Prof John Finnie

Paper 3 

"ICNIRP High frequency guidelines - an update", Prof Rodney Croft

Paper 4

"5G devices and networks: exposure standards", Mike Wood, Telstra

Monday, 6 July 2015

Magnesium - the missing element in scoliosis treatment?

I stumbled across this very interesting video, discussing the link between neuroscience, neurotransmitters and scoliosis:

The presenter is suggesting that low melatonin production is a key contributor to the development of scoliosis. Specifically, that serotonin needs to efficiently convert to melatonin. That, to me, implies that you have to have adequate levels of serotonin in order for the efficient conversion to melatonin to take place.
What if the suffer also has frequent migraines? Well, as this paper says, "... all migraine suffers should be treated with magnesium". Why? As this page describes, migraines seem to be related to low serotonin levels. And magnesium is a key compound in the conversion of tryptophan to serotonin.
So could it be that a key treatment for someone suffering scoliosis and migraines is magnesium? Perhaps with the addition of tryptophan (say, in the form of a mature brie).
We've started treating our scoliotic migraine family member with magnesium oil. Touch wood, he's not suffered a migraine since. Will this help his scoliosis? I don't know, but it's a fascinating line of enquiry and far more appealing than the thought of braces or spinal surgery.

Sunday, 1 February 2015

Celebrities that have had a hip replacement

It's interesting to see who else in the celebro-sphere has had a hip replacement. Here's an incomplete list. Qualifications for 'celebrity' are entirely arbitrary. Let me know if I've missed anyone that would be a good candidate for the list.


  • Heston Blumenthal had a hip replacement age 47. He had complications after breaking his leg aged 9, then doing kickboxing for 15 years.
  • Lady Gaga required major hip surgery aged 27.
  • Everyone's favourite purple paisley pixie Prince reportedly had hip replacement surgery in 2008 in his late 40s, perhaps exacerbated by the high heeled boots he wears.
    Interesting that he was conflicted about having the procedure done because his Jehovah's Witness beliefs forbid blood transfusions, which can be a problem if such major surgery is required.
  • Arnold Schwarzenegger has an artificial hip which was replaced in about 2002. He had further problems with it in a skiing accident in 2006.
  • George Bush Snr and his wife Barbara both have had their left hips replaced. 
  • Billy Joel has had both hips replaced. 
  • Barry Manilow had hip surgery (not a replacement) age 68. 
  • Lionel Richie had his hip replaced in 2011.
  • Jane Fonda had hip and knee replacement. Too much high-impact aerobics?
  • Ray Charles had his hip done, age 73. Too much foot stomping?
  • Eddie Van Halen had hip replacement age 43. Too many on-stage high kicks? 
  • Also Mick Mars, guitarist for Mötley Crüe had to have his hip done in 2004. Didn't stop him joining the come-back tour in 2005 though.
  • Katherine Hepburn had hers done.
  • Zsa Zsa Gabor had her's done aged 93. 
  • Dancer Wayne Sleep had hip replacement surgery aged 62.
  • Liza Minneli had a knee replacement in her early 60s.
  • Elizabeth Taylor includes a hip replacement in her surgical repertoire.
  • Luciano Pavarotti had a new hip, aged 63, having suffered pain since injuring himself playing football aged 12.
  • Evel Knivel. No, not because of a motorbike crash but after he fell while playing golf!

Minor celebs

  • Jane Kaczmarek of Malcolm In The Middle has had both hers done in her 40s.
  • Angela Towler, dancer with the Rambert Dance Company, required hip replacement surgery in her 30s.
  • Australian media personality Amanda Keller had hip replacement surgery aged 49.
  • Brummie punk songstress Toyah Wilcox has had both hips replaced in her early 40s.
  • Steve Carell had his done, age 51 to fix an old ice hocket injury.


  • Hulk Hogan counts a 2004 hip replacement as well as a knee replacement among his many surgeries.
  • Well known strength coach Dan John had a hip replacement in 2011. What's interesting is that Dan is well known for advocating heavy lifting with good form.  
  • Another well known strength and conditioning coach who's had hip replacement in Mark Rippetoe.
  • Body-builder John Grimek had a hip replacement, but he was 87 when he had it done.
  • Mr. Olympia winner Ronnie Coleman had a hip replacement in 2014, aged 50.
  • Clarence Bass, known for his book series 'Ripped', had a hip replacement in 2006, aged 68.
  • Body builder Lou Ferringo has had hips and knees replaced.
  • The so-called 'father of Paleo' and metcon proponent Art DeVany had a hiip replacement in 2014.
  • Soccer players are well known for developing hip problems. Players that have had hip replacements include Pat Nevin. Manchester United ex-coach Sir Alex Ferguson had to retire in 2013 to get a hip replacement.
  • Tennis legend Billie Jean King has had both her knees replaced. 
  • Boris Becker has had both hips replaced in 2014, aged 46. 
  • Maria Sharapova has had to withdraw from several events due to hip problems in 2013 and 2014.
  • Gold medal gymnast Mary Lou Retton had a hip replacement aged 37.
  • Figure skater Rudy Galindo participated in the "Champions On Ice 2004 Tours" on two ceramic hip implants, aged 33.
  • Jack Nicklaus has had a new hip.
  • Baseball player Alex Rodriquez required surgery to repair a torn labrum on his right hip in 2009 as did sprinting doper Tyson Gay in 2010.