5G, Wireless Radiation and Health: A Scientific and Policy Update

Well, thank you very much, let me look at my first slide and I want to apologize and thank Alon and Paul for all their efforts in organizing this meeting, which has been a great help. I intended to be with you, but due to illness it was not possible. I couldn't make my flight. I especially want to thank Dr. Morris Melian and his wife Irene Moe, who are there representing the Environmental Health Trust. I'll dispense with my resume, which I think many of you know, except to say that, frankly, I've spent much of my career working in what might be called the marketplace of ideas in science and how democracy is based on freely consenting. granted by the governed, science is based on the free exchange of information and, as I will comment later, we have not had that free exchange of information, when it comes to this topic, we do not have solid ideas. research programs in many places I have documented the absence of independent research on a number of issues, starting with the history of manufactured doubt, which has been well documented by several colleagues, including in the secret history of the war on cancer, when Information about the Pap test was withheld from people because it was thought it could undermine the private practice of medicine and when the information about the dangers of tobacco that we know was well manipulated, there are now two reasons for the absence of

scientific

certainty when it comes to this issue and One, frankly, is the genuine complexity of the issue, but another that we have to recognize has been the deliberate manipulation and war games that have been carried out for many years, so that I and others We have now documented that we are here hosted by the Department of Public Policy. which is entirely appropriate because when it comes to formulating

policy

ideas we don't have the luxury of saying come back in five years and we'll tell you what we think we have to base our decisions on what the appropriate policies are on a number of different points. types of evidence, the first is exposure studies and modeling of who is exposed and what they are exposed to and what we know is that we can use models based on Tom Utley to set standards for the practice of surgery and we can do some real world measurements and observations we are less sure what those exposures can mean and that is where the work of scientists comes in and I want to emphasize how the title of my talk is what animals are trying to tell us that if we are really smart we will interpret animals. experiments to prevent human harm, but I think we have gone awry in our reliance on science when it comes to many public

health

issues, and instead of using animal evidence to predict and prevent harm, we are increasingly being asked to Let's show that human damage has already occurred, but I want to emphasize that every agent that we know for sure causes cancer in humans also causes cancer in animals when properly studied.

It is important to realize that the question is: what do we do, predict and prevent the future or trust? On the much more limited data that we have from human studies, we have epidemiological evidence, controlled studies. Case-control studies are the gold standard, so to speak, but keep in mind that epidemiology can only confirm the past. Epidemiology only confirms the past. Should never be used. establish future diseases because what we are told to do as public

health

experts and as

policy

makers who must make these difficult decisions is to prevent harm rather than demonstrate that harm has already occurred, so when it comes to understanding electromagnetic fields , I think it's instructive Look at this illustration of the spectrum range from the electricity powering your room lights at 50 cycles per second in Israel 50 Hertz 60 to the United States, you can't just calculate any of them.

I'm sorry, let me go back and I'm so sorry, let me figure out it's going to take a moment, let me get this out of here. Great, I'll share the meeting, I'll share the screen and you called, but you called me right, so I'm No, Paul, you have my slides there, right? Yeah. I think I'm going to ask you to go to my fifth slide and I'm going to have to check my slides because I don't think I know why they're not there. sharing right now while you mention that, let me tell you that I was referring to the spectrum here and what I wanted to say is that there is a broad spectrum of what is non-ionizing

radiation

and it extends from the electricity that turns on the lights to and through ionizing

radiation

gamma complex and we can talk about them in terms of energy, we can talk about them in terms of the wavelength or the distance that they have to travel. go and what we know and please let me know when you have the slides.

Will I send you another share from my Dropbox? Well, not that, it will be Adobe, it won't work, just a moment, you know, if you know. what Paul I think I should call you again it works the other way around and let me do that oh come back let's hang up right now and sorry for the purposes of the video. I'll try to do it faster and We'll go through it, we'll hang this wall right now, wait, you're okay, is it working now? Yes, but don't look at me for just a moment. I can see, you see me, but it's okay, it should be, he says, he's seeing now. yeah just a second oh god it was working before now now I'll share the screen in a moment okay I'm right just a second you okay now the screen should be shared okay we had it before me .

I don't know what else to do guys, let me go back. I did it. I did, so I try again and it turns off. This time they take my video. I have shared the screen, but now I have to wait. I need this. out of the way and no, I'm afraid that if I close it you see, you still see me now I should be able to share with you, okay, now I started talking about the title of my talk, which is an

update

and the title that appears in the program was what the animals were trying to tell us, so let me go over this real quick since I already told you this and my work has documented the fact that it is not only complicated but it has been manipulated. and I think Martin Paul is going to address some of that when he talks about the kind of types of evidence that we have.

I indicated that we had three main types because public policies have to act based on uncertain and incomplete information, so we have exposure studies and models, then we have animal studies and animal studies are aimed at predicting and preventing harm in humans and keep in mind that every agent we know that causes cancer in humans will cause it in animals when properly studied and finally I have epidemiology and I am both a toxicologist and an epidemiologist, so I must tell you that we should never trust or insist on epidemiological evidence before taking action to develop precautionary policies, otherwise we would be treating people as if they were in an experiment, often without controls, so Epidemiology confirms the past.

Now the spectrum of electromagnetic fields extends from 50 Hertz that power light to 36 thousand trillion and more in the cosmic and X-ray spectrum. What we are especially concerned about here is the Wi-Fi of mobile phones. -Fi spectrum and here 5g falls somewhere around here and we have

scientific

information that 5g increases permeability can accelerate cell growth so the question is what evidence do we need to take precautionary measures now that we talk about 5g. I want to make sure you understand. that there is no one size fits all, in fact the specifications for 5g are still being written as I speak today in the United States, in some football stadiums you can get 5g so you have the opportunity to take a video and stream it to a friend.

The game eats all the popcorn at the same time, but it runs at 700 megahertz as a carrier and that means that the 5G antennas must have 3G and 4G because most of the devices in this stadium are, in fact, 3G and 4G, very few people. we have 5G-ready devices, high-frequency cells are being used right now for some environmental controls and, frankly, surveillance activities in several cities, and finally millimeter wave 26 gigahertz and above will be used for some other connections , the question we have We ask ourselves among many if this is a risk to public health and the answer in my opinion and that of dr.

Paul and others say yes it is and we have evidence that it could be a risk and we will talk about some of that, but before we do I would like to share with you this diagram that shows you the different aspects that we can look at when we think about what a signal, a signal has many complex things, it has frequency, it has power, it has beeps or pulses per second, it has power density, it has polarity, information content, all those different things characterize what a signal is. sign is and it is very easy to confuse people by not clarifying what specifically you are referring to when you present it.

More importantly, we know from new, just-published research supported by the American Cancer Society and conducted at Yale that genetic factors like nucleotide cuts make a difference in whether people are more or less susceptible to certain environmental exposures. , particularly cell phone radiation, so all of these factors influence the biological response you get, and yet we will very rarely hear clarification of what exactly it was. The continuous signal was disruptive. Did he get upset? What was the power density? What aspects of the exposure were controlled? If you look here, what I'm showing you is that in terms of power density which is measured in volts per meter on the y-axis.

You see that through a four-second phone call you get these huge changes in power density over time and it is believed that the constant change in maximum exposure is what generates the biological impact, so it is not the power but the pulse and as Dr. Cindy Russell has said that the pulse is poison and the important thing is the repeated exposure to these pulses, so now let's take a step back and ask what hasn't changed since the 20th century. Interestingly, radar ranges were first introduced in the mid-20th century. They didn't like the idea of ​​cooking with radar, so they changed the name to microwave, which is the origin of the term microwave because of the way the original cell phones weighed, about two and a half pounds cost at the time $3,900, which which today would be around $9,000.

You see Maxwell Smart there with his shoe phone, but they were soft drinks at the time when gasoline was selling for about $30 a gallon. Those things have changed somewhat, but what hasn't changed in the Anders we use today to test phones is the same. standards that have been used since 1996, the radar range was not very good, it became the microwave oven. I want to share with you this statement from the FDA website. There is no pre-market safety testing for phones. There could be a statute that authorizes this. might allow it, but the FDA website says they do not review the safety of cell phones and the FDA website further says, and I quote, that they may have the authority to take action if cell phones are shown to emit energy of radio frequency at a level that is dangerous. to the user, in which case, they could require user manufacturers to repair, replace or recall the phone.

They could do this, but they are not doing it and I maintain that they are missing in action and unfortunately have been for some time, so another thing that has not happened. What hasn't changed is that the methods for testing phones are based on this guy, as we call Sam, it's short for standard anthropomorphic mannequin, he has a big empty head and we pour a homogeneous liquid on him, he doesn't talk much because we only measure . What happens during a six-minute phone call. One thing that will never change is that the basis of all our cells is DNA.

The nucleus of every cell we have. DNA is an exquisite double helix of nucleotide bonds and that is what holds us all together now. Identical twins do not have exactly the same DNA, although they come from one egg that splits in two, they are shown here with these methylation patterns that have green fluorescence from chromosomes that have been identified in identical trends in studies done in Scandinavia, but look at the same twins at age 50, they don't even seem to be related to each other, so as identical twins get older, their chromosomes start to look less similar and what this tells us is that the environment is vital importance that jeans can give us. the gun but the environment pulls the trigger as an example of that here are some more studiesrecent ones that have been done in Denmark also with identical twins where they looked if you see here the pattern at the top these are the young identical twins and this is showing a great correlation between their chromosome activation, but when the same twins are older, you can see the extension here and whether you know some science or something, this clearly shows again that over time even identical twins stop looking like each other.

They are related to each other, environmental factors ranging from stress to chemical exposure and a whole host of things make a big difference in the health of identical twins with respect to that DNA. Henry Lai and Vijay Singh developed a brilliant and innovative test in a real world. world they would receive the Nobel Prize in medicine for what it was this work showed that you could take DNA and untangle it and it would form a tail that you see here when it begins to unravel or here this unraveling of DNA occurred with the equivalent of 1,600 breasts X-rays, This DNA unraveling occurred with one day of mobile phone exposure at a permissible level at that time, that does not mean that we are all doomed because we have many repairs, that is one of the benefits, but it is important to recognize that while there are important differences between the ionizing and non-ionizing radiation seen here, ionizing radiation is faster and has more energy, it can break chemical bonds directly, but non-ionizing radiation has a lower frequency and lower energetic and thermal effects.

In fact, it can also damage DNA and I'll show you why and how we know that from the studies mostly completed at the US National Toxicology program that were done there, but many other studies that have been done. around the world also prove it. this damage to DNA this increase in reactive oxygen species and the damage to male and female health here is one of the studies from the beginning of this century the EU mirror project originally led by Franz Adel Cofer was a four year project in 12 groups in seven European countries invested more than ten million dollars and were able to show a change in the DNA structure and function of deep genes that were damaged, so due to intermittent exposures, breaks occurred in the DNA of one and two chains. breaks and you have them in human fibroblasts, the most interesting thing is that you have them in stem cells but not in mature cells, which indicates as an example the greater complexity of what we are talking about here, it is necessary to talk, specify the type of cell, age if you will and many other components, this study carried out in 2006 was immediately the subject of war games, so a lot of scientific uncertainty was generated about it.

Yegor balaiah about a year earlier had come to the same conclusion when looking at a series of different studies he had done on specific DNA repair genes 53 bado and h2ax cosig in human cells when looking at human cells it showed DNA damage and with the GSM , which was then the most common exposure, also demonstrated that some frequencies damage all types of cells while other frequencies only damage a few and again We should never allow the complexity of science, which is real, to prevent us from formulating reasonable public policies . Now, what we can say again from previous studies is that RF exposure below the current safe limits has synergistically caused damage and if you look at the graph on the right you see that the black are the control cells that They were exposed to a known chemical carcinogen, we know it causes cancer in animals, ethyl nitro Syria, and then when you added that known carcinogen to cell phone radiation exposure, you got an accelerated effect, a duplicate effect. or more with a low amount of radiofrequency radiation, which is consistent with any branch findings that dr.

Melnick will talk to you later. The NTP study was requested in 1999 by dr. Melnick will go over it in detail, but again I want to emphasize that the bottom line was that they found statistically significant increases in cancer and near-significant increases in cancer and hyperplasia and dysplasia in multiple organs and they also showed DNA damage in both. rats and mice, the male rat and the female rat and the male mouse, and yet, for reasons many of us do not understand, the FDA has rejected the NTP findings as not relevant to humans, noting, for example, that the animals were not producing telephone calls no, that's actually not exactly what they say, they say that the whole body exposure was not relevant for a telephone exposure, well, frankly, we object that that is, in fact, what the People receive it all the time with phones in their pockets, phones close to the body and their proximity to the body is the problem, we know that there are tumor promoting effects and this is because several different studies have shown it and there may be metabolic changes in permeability that could explain it, but in the interest of time, I think.

I'll try. I'm going to skip this DNA damage slide that Monte posted because I know that dr. Melnick will discuss it in more detail, but you can see a clearer dose response at the top here and this is in the CDMA exposure for the mouse frontal cortex, which is the part of the brain that suggests that, in fact, the mouse brain and maybe in us it is especially sensitive to this radiation now, when it comes to sperm, humans need a large amount of sperm to have a healthy baby; they occur at a rate of ninety thousand per minute and to be successful they have to swim the equivalent of From Los Angeles to Hawaii, it is truly survival of the fittest, some people have asked and, as I said in my TEDx talk, I suggest that perhaps You want to see the reason you need so much sperm is because they don't know how to ask. for instructions, but what we do know from some really brilliant work done by Kesari in 2018 published recently is that we have multiple exposures, the body does not differentiate, we know that the highest exposure is that of the cell phone, there is no debate about that, but we know that depending on your proximity to a tower, depending on your use of Lovins, depending on whether you actually keep a laptop on your lap, which no one should do anymore, and where and how many routers you may be exposed to, all of that plays into the development of LSH and FSH development of pituitary hormones which in turn influence lytic cells and have an effect on the quantity and quality of sperm that is produced, including that reactive oxygen species may be stimulated by this exposure and which may directly damage the sperm, now the effects have It has been shown to influence a whole cascade of proteins that you see here with the ligand protein, there are receptors and these proteins can tell the cell to die by apoptosis or they can influence the development of the cancer, so again it is the structure or function of the DNA that can be affected by the cell phone. radiation so although DNA does, cell phone radiation is not strong enough to break basic nucleotide bonds, it can damage DNA and it can do so through a variety of mechanisms that Kesari has suggested here in this work, including the genetic activation of by free radicals that form in addition to interfering with calcium channels, as you will hear from dr.

Paul, now when it comes to experiments that have been done with metallic sperm, it's important to realize that we actually have a lot of data here, it's not often we talk about it, but we do and a study I was involved in with colleagues involved . When looking at the effect of cell phone radiation directly on the testicles and the slides are from an animal, but I want to direct your attention to this visualization, here you will see that the highest exposure goes to the testicles, which is the hot source of increased exposure when a phone is in the pocket and this is based on an anatomical model developed by Claudio Fernández and Álvaro de Solace in Porto Alegre in Brazil.

The control slide here shows nice borders and cell walls and the exposed ones show an absence of that integrity, again suggesting that one of the consequences of this exposure is damaging the integrity of the damaged membranes, however, this is a more recent post. recent showing effects on the mitochondria and again the black bars are the exposed germ line germ cells and the white is the control, so over time the white will increase because it will be damaged over time the sperm are not meant to survive outside the body for a long time, but what you see here is this statistically significant difference with certain of these genetic alterations in the sperm that are exposed to cell phone radiation.

Damage to the mitochondria from mitochondrial superoxides is the powerhouse of the cell a very significant effect all of these slides and all the references to them are integrated into the slides so I can share them with you. This is again an increase in reactive oxygen species as shown in the germ cells here again. Maybe you see a larger effect, but if you look at the bars here you will see that exposure to radiofrequency radiation here dramatically increases the effect and testa weight is also affected in this new study from Houston and again you see the control cells here at the top and you look at the exposed ones at the bottom and you see again the loss of integrity and over time the mouse testicles of the exposed testers are significantly as significant and that is important because of course you want to have a the most healthy as possible to ensure reproductive health, other studies have looked at vitality and motility and again it is not surprising that over time this is the sham, i.e. they were just allowed to sit there for a while, not much happens , but when exposed here in red you see a substantial decrease in vitality, motility and motility, that is, the ability to swim, so if a sperm cannot swim, it will not manage to fertilize anything and these are serious problems and they are so serious that all fertility clinics around the world now recommend that men who are having trouble getting their partners pregnant remove phones and other devices from their bodies, that is standard advice and I think this diagram is relevant To what Dr.

Paul says he will also show you that the calcium channels that are key to absolutely key membranes can be affected by exposure to cell phone radiation and once that happens, a cascade of reactions occurs. that inhibit repair and repair proteins such as tyrosine phosphatase that can inhibit. the ability of 'iz kinase, which would normally be tasked with repairing cells or telling them to die when they cannot be saved and all of these things can be affected by cell phone radiation in this new paper by Sir John Aitken from Australia , who has published some of the most impressive work in this field and has identified a number of explanations for the global decline in male reproductive health.

Now I'm not telling you that the decline in male reproductive health is solely due to cell phones, pesticides, tight underwear and clothing, hot baths, radiation, all of these things are known to affect the quality of a man's reproductive health, but cell phone radiation is certainly one of the factors that also needs to be taken into account because when it comes to male reproduction we know that reactive oxygen species play both a positive and negative role, like many things in life, and you can get an increase in oxidative stress that in turn damages lipids, which of course can damage membranes that are largely lipid and can damage DNA, and you get effects on the capacitation and fertilization from endogenous sources. , both inherent to the body and exogenous, and I would add to the list here of radiation, smoking and alcohol, radiation from a cell phone and the brain, something amazing and at birth contains about a hundred billion neurons that engender.

It has not been pruned yet, but the size at birth is about a third of that of an adult and it grows so quickly that by two years it has more than doubled, so brain growth during pregnancy is difficult to imagine because it begins . with just a group of cells at the top of the neural stem and then it becomes this incredible, complex brain with all the pathways in it, but what we know from studies that have been done repeatedly by my colleagues and at the Meus University of Baku. in Turkey is that prenatal exposure to mobile phone radiation in animals clearly causes a reduction and deterioration of brain cells.

The slide on the left is healthy with many nice cell walls and boundaries and the slide on the right exposed to EF f2 EMF has lost its integrity. To a large extent, we see an increase in this damage to thesecells. I think they come from the dentate gyrus and that's part of the hippocampus, which is critical for balancing impulse control thinking and essential things like that now that we understand the discussion we've done. We worked again with our colleagues in Brazil and have shown that the child's brain can absorb much more radiation. The head can absorb the same amount, but the child's brain contains more fluid.

It can absorb more exposure. II seen here with the yellow target getting the highest exposure if you hold a phone right next to the relatively thin skull and if you look at the face girls here, notice what happens in terms of their exposures as you see that this too It happens and this is an anatomical work. Well now in 2011 the director of the national institute against drug abuse dr. Nora Volkow published this really important study in the Journal of the American Medical Association and she was able to demonstrate it with a PET scanner that she helped invent, by the way, this is a normal brain with the cell phone turned off and we had two phones on volunteers who didn't They knew if the phone was on or not, so they didn't have any sound, but with 15 minutes of phone radiation there is more glucose in the part of the brain with the most exposure, which is a pretty profound and important finding.

Unfortunately, her work on the epidemic of opioid poisonings and deaths in the United States and other factors have prevented her or anyone else from following up on this important observation, and what we do know is that many forms of dementia have been called diabetes. of the brain and This is a clear indication that you are altering glucose metabolism. Now it's not all doom and gloom because other studies by Turkish colleagues and others have shown that if you expose cells to electromagnetic fields, you suffer damage, but if you expose them to melatonin or omegas. -3 fatty acids can reverse and prevent that damage, so we must pay attention to the ability of certain agents to help repair the damage and understand that it is not all that we are at risk all the time and, in fact, those people who sleep late. darkness, when you produce melatonin and eat uncontaminated broccoli and fish, will protect your brains from many things, including damage caused by electromagnetic fields, but the evidence of damage is not limited to just experimental studies, now we have studies and teenagers, This was produced as a follow-up study in 2015 by the Swiss Institute of Public and Tropical Health and they showed decreased memory performance in adolescents with increased cell phone use when looking at phone records.

Now, in the United States, we have never done a study with phone records. The last time anyone tried to do a study on cell phones in the United States and brain cancer, believe it or not, it was in 2001 and we have very little information available to those who want to study this, but look what I showed you experimentally would happen prenatally. I think it would be foolish of us to dismiss these findings and insist again that we need more evidence of human harm here is some evidence of human harm comes from the Interphone study appendix 2 this is the number of cases the number of controls and this is the odds ratio, which is the relative risk for people who have brain cancer and have not used phones much and those who have used phones for longer periods of time indicated here.

More than 10 years of cell phone use has twice the risk of glioma and when that is true when those 10 years or more were further analyzed for the tallest and most frequent users, there was a three times greater or greater risk of glioma again between 5 and 9 years 1.5, that's a 50% increase in risk the difference between these two numbers is not statistically significant, the point is there There is evidence of a risk of brain cancer in humans. There are also more recent studies, which is what Anthony B Miller, a very distinguished researcher who has published over 600 papers and is a collaborator of mine, concluded in a paper we published in the past. two years that, given all the evidence that I presented to you here today and more of what you will hear over the course of this meeting, cell phone radiation causes brain cancer, we can say that it is a definitive human carcinogen, the one that studies the Types of studies that do not find an increased risk are cohort studies, which means they follow a group of people over time.

Benson's study, which was supposed to be a million women, was not a million women. The expected rate of brain cancer in the general population is seven per hundred thousand, so studying a million women doesn't give you enough power to find an effect and they only asked the question about cell phone use once and then they waited to see what would happen, that is not very solid and has been criticized repeatedly. by Tony Miller and others for their lack of methodological clarity in contrast Leonard Hard l of Sweden has produced a series of studies that find that only with ten years or more of cell phone use a significantly increased risk and for those few people who have used a phone for 25 years or had a tripled risk of brain cancer, so Kuro recently did a national study in France six years ago and again showed with more than ten years of exposure a 60 percent increase in risk and if look at those with urban residents and the exposure was four times the risk now we don't know what was happening with the urban environment increased that risk but remember what I said we studied animals to predict harm in humans we shouldn't have to test it so we can take steps to reduce exposures here is new work by Alistair Phillips in the UK published and Phillips has shown that the change in the glioma that concerned the same tumor and the change in the glioma is occurring.

I just spoke to him earlier and he would be happy to hear it. Later, the change is occurring in all age groups, so if the increase in gliomas were due to an improvement in diagnosis, such as retention scans available for older people, we would not expect to see no increase in gliomas in young people. you would expect to see it only in the elderly, but you are seeing it in all age groups, so overall brain cancer rates have not changed in other regions, except for glioma of the temporal and frontal lobes. Look at that increase and much of this just since 2000, a more recent study was done at Yale, as I mentioned, looking at snippets of nucleotide polymorphisms and they found that people with the four most commonly found genetic alterations had more than twice as many chance of developing thyroid. cancer, again suggesting that there is a different susceptibility.

This is brilliant and important work and has been developed over many years by this team of researchers who think this is an important factor. We are seeing increases in thyroid cancer around the world and I don't have a good explanation for this, part of this could be due to an increase in Minh determination because thyroid nodules are very common, but cancer appears in people every increasingly younger, we are seeing rectal cancer and thyroid cancer in people under the age of years. 30 under 40 Unfortunately, because rectal cancer is rarely suspected in that young age group, they are often diagnosed in more advanced stages.

Now, the human data, of course, won't just be cancer. There have been some studies that have looked at the markers in the blood of people who live near towers and this is a study that compared the markers in the blood of those who lived 80 meters near a tower and those who lived 80 meters away from a tower. 300 meters away. blood in antioxidant state, I looked and looked at glutathione and these different proteins that are involved in DNA repair that I mentioned before and they showed a significant reduction in repair enzymes and proteins and an increase in lipid peroxidation, of course, that would mean a increase. in the damage of the cell membrane and in the functioning of calcium-controlled channels, so you will obtain a series of effects.

All of this has been statistically proven to be significantly worse in people who live closer to these cell phone base stations. Well, what about the trees? What happens with the rest? of us the trees have shown damage this is a published study on the size of the total environment if you look carefully at this tree these are the base stations here the tree looks like it is almost trying to move away from the towers and in fact I have done a statistical analysis ALICE of these tree patterns. This is the Norway maple they found. It's 2015 and they continue doing this work.

I think this is a job that could also be done in Israel and here is a A more extreme example here is the tree: zooming out from this and obviously this is the same tree by the way it is not this is the same tree this is the healthy part and this one doesn't I don't know I don't know exactly distances here finally there has been work on insects and there was work done by respected researchers in IT in Austria and in Switzerland. Sorry, and this is an article that actually made a model of the bee and they showed it at concerts and 24 concerts.

These 24 gigs are what you will get with 5g and it clearly resonates with the body and increased power density, meaning absorption into that body 3 to three times more. More recently, watch this short video. Sorry, I try to accept. So that study was followed by other studies in hives in Belgium. This was reported very recently and they looked at hives in rural and urban areas and what they were able to show with the model they made of the bees is the Of course, the greatest absorption will be in the queen bee, which is the largest body, but these workers, drones and larvae absorbed more energy as the frequency increases and this frequency is measured right here and this is the power absorbed.

Think again, it's an experiment that we don't really want to do because without bees we don't have agriculture, these are the models that they made and those who are interested should look at the paper because it really is a very elegant job to produce these. The models require a lot of time and the researchers who do this work are of course concerned and that is why they have done it because they believe that we could be unleashing an experiment with a devastating impact on the environment. I will share with you a three- to four-fold increase in radiation. when the phone was tested directly next to the body, you would now think that since the FDA can act when danger exists, it would have acted, but no, it didn't.

Later today you will hear from Theodorus Corrado who will share with you the results of the Chicago Tribune Tests where they publish their test results, although we at Environmental Health Trust have been concerned about this issue and warn that no phone will pass a test if it is actually test next to the body. Here is the latest data from France. that we have graphed and I want to show you if you look here at the bars at the bottom 900 megahertz and 1800 megahertz tested at 5 millimeters and 10 millimeters away are fine no problem however when you test them directly on the body look before the difference in the amount of radiation, those results force the French government to do something I hope the Israelis do, which is test phones as used when testing phones as used, most of them don't do it .

If they meet the standard, when tested the way the manufacturers recommend, which can be up to 25 millimeters away, almost an inch from the body, you get surprising results and because of that, the French are now taking measurements of those who will listen to Theodorus Corrado to take action these are the results just published this week on the iPhone 11 exceeds the FCC limit by double double well now what is going to happen with that depends completely we in the United States do not have a government fully operational as I think you know, but I guess then we can't compete with you in that sense, but you have ministries with excellent people working in them who can take this information and do something with it and they have the ability to get more information if so. they want it.

I would like to join us where we will hear from Theodora later. Mark or Ozzie will talk in more detail about the French. Register at eh trust org slash Tel Aviv and participate in what we are doing in terms. We have many Patreon podcasts and seminars, but I want to conclude with this. This is an image I took when I visited Auschwitz and it has a motto that I think is relevant to what we are doing today. Remember I said that animals predict the future. but people in epidemiology confirm the past often with death unfortunately and this statue says we honor the dead by warning the living they warn the living and I think we now have enough information to warn the living and we also see a solid program research to clarify whatis happening instead of assuming that everything is fine until we discover that it is not.

Thank you so much. You know, the last time I went out, I actually went out at 1:30 was when I was climbing a volcano and that was different. experience, but this feels quite similar in the sense that we have a mountain to climb here, that is certainly right and I appreciate that you have created the opportunity for us to do that because there are a lot of important issues here and the policies can't wait for it to come The science. to become more robust than it is now, I just wanted to come back to these very disturbing numbers and you showed us consideration for even tripling the number of certain types of brain cancer and I was wondering if you could give us an idea of ​​the overall prevalence.

In other words, yes, there obviously seems to be a higher risk. Is this a de minimis risk in terms of an individual in general? When I think about us in general, do you have any sense of giving us context because that's so important when we're trying to present these findings? Sure and I think the clear answer is I don't know, but this is what I think because we are exposing children and right now in the United States we are exposing young children and babies at increasing levels, people are giving phones as toys and pacifiers when they're at the grocery store or whatever and kids are fascinated with these things because they love fast moving images, the younger brain is just every kid who uses Skype, they were grandparents, they're always posing and they know how to do it at a pace at a very young age now because the exposures start at such a young age and then because there is that undeniable sociological, psychological and I think physiological addition that we all know from the fact that there are also physical effects and I think that should give us a big reason to reduce exposure to children, as indeed the French and many others are doing, and Israel started out saying they were going to do that and then I think they may have backed off a little bit because the technology again is very exciting, but virtual reality goes directly to the frontal lobe.

If you look at our website, we've actually published papers on that with neuroneuroanatomically correct models, so the answer is I can't give you numbers, but I should be able to because you could do a quantitative risk assessment. I would say that when it comes to just cancer, just brain cancer, you have a risk of a horrible disease that is relatively low, so if the rate of brain cancer was seven per hundred thousand to twenty-eight per hundred thousand, it would be would quadruple, but it may not be that big of a deal, except if you were the one with that brain cancer, it would be a big deal and it's not limited to brain cancer.

Now we have to look at thyroid cancer. We have to start looking for it. leukemia because it has a general systemic effect and we have to look at rectal cancer in children when we see rectal cancer in three. I know of three cases in the last three months of young women, thin women in their 30s who are quite sick because of course no one suspected it and when they detected it it was metastatic, so I'm afraid I can't give you a direct answer. I would like to be able to do it and I think it would be very worthwhile for people to do it.

Let's take what we have of this data and put some figures because it would help inform those responsible for public policies, but in economic terms alone it costs around a million dollars to treat a single case of brain cancer and unfortunately the prognosis is not good. and there have been a couple of advances with vaccines, but it's still a lousy disease and I'm afraid I can't give you any more answer than that at the moment. I am very concerned about the wide range of effects, not just the effects of cancer again, on learning, memory and impulse control, perhaps in general Koreans are now launching public education campaigns because of their concern.

I think Israel could do better in this regard. You also have the ingredients of information. You have the information is accessible. I really want to follow your talk about stallions because I would like to hear what is happening now in Israel, yes I know that there is a lot of excellent knowledge there and that he and others have, so I am looking forward to Seeing how it has been applied, okay I think We're a bit overdue now, so I guess okay, thanks to Deborah once again for stimulating your rather disturbing talk. Thank you so much.