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:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZ5soLrvXFg

-----------------
I received a reply by post dated 25 March 2019. You can see it here:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/3ndttmrv8kx4v11/5G-TonySmithReplyMarch2019.pdf?dl=0

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 www.arpansa.gov.au or by phone on 1800 022 333.
Information is also available at www.acma.gov.au/emehub, 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,
TONY SMITH


------------------

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..."
and
"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.

Regards

- Dr Richard Cullen
Sassafras

(1) https://www.who.int/peh-emf/meetings/day2Varna_Foster.pdf

(2) Letter from Dr Pall to ARPANSA, 4 March 2019
https://stopsmartmetersau.files.wordpress.com/2019/03/prof-pall-response-to-arpansa-letter-4-march-2019.pdf

----------------

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.