for Eight Distinct Types of Great Harm
caused by Electromagnetic Field (EMF) Exposures
Mechanism that Causes Them...
Extracts from Martin Pall's book on 5G
For the complete book go here.
The Great Risks of 5G - What We Know and What We Don't Know
Extracted from the book.
the book for references.
The voltage sensor is
extraordinarily sensitive to those electrical forces, such that the
safety guidelines are allowing us to be exposed to EMFs that are
something like 7.2 million times too high.
We can be assured, therefore, that 5G will involve vastly more pulsation than do EMFs that we are currently exposed to.
It follows from that, that any biological safety test of 5G must use the very rapid pulsations including whatever very short term spikes may be present, that are to be present in genuine 5G.
There is an additional process that is planned to be used in 5G:
Here multiple antenna
elements act together to produce highly pulsed fields which are
designed for 5G, to produce increased penetration. 5G will entail
particularly powerful pulsations to be used, which may, therefore,
be particularly hazardous.
Such millimeter waves have been shown to produce a number of downstream effects of VGCC activation.
One millimeter wave study showed that it activated both the VGCCs and also the voltage-gated potassium channels, suggesting that it worked via the voltage sensor, as do other EMFs. 
Any such data tells us
almost nothing about how biologically active genuine very highly
pulsed 5G will be.
In the U.S., the FCC has taken a much worse position.
The FCC is not only willing to allow such completely untested exposures but has also been has been aggressively pushing to promote installation of 5G antennae, such that antennae are already being installed in parts of the U.S.
In a world where shocking behavior has become less and less shocking, I consider EU and U.S. views and actions to be shocking.
The U.S. situation is
mass insanity. I would have hoped that the Europeans, who think of
themselves as being much more thoughtful than Americans, would have
been genuinely more thoughtful.
It is because the 5G radiation is much more absorbed as it enters various materials. The approach is to use many more antennae with one found every few houses, such that 5G can sufficiently penetrate local walls.
Such absorption usually involves the interaction with electrically charged groups, such that such high absorption is likely to involve placing forces on electrically charged groups.
Because such forces are the way in
which EMFs activate the VGCCs, it seems highly likely, therefore,
that 5G radiation will be particularly active in VGCC activation.
Now what the telecommunications industry argues is that 5G radiation will be mostly absorbed in the outer 1 or 2 mm of the body, such that they claim that we don't have to worry about the effects.
There is some truth to that, but there are also some caveats that make any conclusions made from that, much more suspect. In any case, these surface effects of 5G will have especially strong impact on organisms with much higher surface to volume ratios.
Consequently, I predict that many organisms will be much more impacted than we will.
But let's get back to humans.
The industry has also made claims that more conventional microwave frequency EMFs are limited in effect to the outer 1 cm of the body.
We know that is not true, however because of the effects deep in the human brain, on the heart and on hormone systems. Perhaps the most important two studies demonstrating effects deep within the body are the studies of Professor Hässig and his colleagues in Switzerland on cataract formation in newborn calves [137,138].
These two studies clearly show that when pregnant cows are grazing near mobile phone base stations (also called cell phone towers), the calves are born with very greatly increased incidences of cataracts. It follows from these findings that even though the developing fetuses are very deep in the body of the mother and should be highly protected from the EMF exposures, they are not so protected.
And because the EMF safety guidelines in Switzerland are 100 times more stringent than are the safety guidelines in most of the rest of Europe, in the U.S., Canada and most of the rest of the world, the more general safety guidelines allow greatly excessive exposures and penetration of effects.
The claims of industry
that microwave frequency EMFs only act in the outer centimeter of
the body are clearly false.
So how can we get deep effects?
I think the answer is that the magnetic parts of the EMFs have been known for decades to penetrate much more deeply than do the electrical parts.
The magnetic fields put forces on mobile electrically charged groups dissolved in the aqueous phases of the body and small individual movements of the charged groups can regenerate electric fields that are essentially identical to the electric fields of the original EMFs, carrying the same frequency and same pulsation pattern, although with lower intensity.
An example of this is given in the Lu and Ueno  study.
Because the voltage
sensor is so stunningly sensitive to electrical forces and part of
the reason for that is the very high level of amplification of the
electrical field across the plasma membrane, we have an almost
perfect way in which to produce EMF effects deeply within our
Let me give you three possible examples of the latter type and one quantitative example.
Each of the four types of blindness, have downstream effects of VGCC activation as causal factors:
The aqueous and vitreous humors in the eye may be an ideal environment for the regeneration of the electrical fields within the eye.
We may, therefore have a gigantic epidemic of each of the four types of blindness. Another concern focuses on kidney dysfunction, which was shown in Chapter 5 to be impacted by EMFs. The kidneys have much fluid, both blood and also what will become urine, which may allow efficient the regeneration of electrical fields.
Such regeneration may be
expected to impact both the glomerular filtration and also the
re-absorption, both essential to kidney function.
Let me give you a third example...
Fetuses and very young babies have much more water in their bodies than do adults. Therefore, they may be a special risk for impacts of 5G, because of great increases in the regeneration of the electrical fields.
Here one can think of all kinds of possibilities.
Let me suggest two. We may have a gigantic (sorry about using that word again) epidemic of spontaneous abortion due the teratogenic effects.
Another possibility is that instead of autism being one birth in 38, however horrendous that is, it could be one out of two, or even a majority of births.
I don't know that these will happen, but these are the kinds of risks we are taking and there are many others one can think of.
Putting in tens of
millions of 5G antennae without a single biological
test of safety
has got to be about the stupidest idea anyone has had in the history
of the world.
The only way to do 5G safety testing is to do genuine 5G biological safety testing. I have published on how this can be done relatively easily at relatively low cost and have, as you saw in the Chapter 6 (see book), told the FCC how this can be done.
Those tests must be done
by organizations completely independent of industry and that leaves
out both ICNIRP and SCENIHR and a lot of other organizations.
Article 191 defines the Precautionary Principle as follows:
The question now is, what about 5G?
We have with 5G strong suspicions of similar or much more severe risk of effects documented elsewhere in this document. We have no biological safety testing of genuine 5G radiation.
Therefore, we have no risk analysis or risk management because we have no risk assessment whatsoever on 5G.
So here we have Dr. Vinciūnas arguing that the request for precautionary principle application is premature. But it is not the request for the use of the precautionary principle that is premature, it is the Commission's claim that it has done the required risk analysis and risk assessment.
This is the bizarre world
that we live in...
The U.S. FCC has been
worse than that, acting in wanton disregard for our health.
I am not at all sure we will have historians to record us 100 years from now or even 30 years from now, given the direction in which we are heading.
But if we do, rest
assured that these are the standards by which we will all be judged...