Why does Australia’s radiation standard allow the Australian public to be exposed to much more wireless radiation than the Russian standard does? Why doesn’t our radiation standard give us adequate protection against 5G radiation? Lyn McLean talks to Australian physicist Vic Leach who explains the limitations of Australian and international standards and what we need to know about 5G radiation.
Vic is an Australian physicist who worked in the area of radiation and health for 50 years, specialising in the area of nuclear radiation and has conducted an extensive review of the scientific literature on radiofrequency radiation that we are exposed to from a huge range of wireless sources.
He has worked for both the public and private sectors and for federal and state bodies and was a radiation advisor at the Queensland University of Technology and the University of Queensland.
Vic was a founding member of the Australasian Radiation Protection Society (ARPS) and the Oceania Radiofrequency Scientific Advisory Association (ORSAA, https://www.orsaa.org).
You can find the answers in Lyn McLean’s interview with Australian physicist and radiation expert Vic Leach. Vic is a founding member of the Australian Radiation Protection Society (ARPS) and the Oceania Radiofrequency Scientific Advisory Association (ORSAA) and you can see more about him below.
In his interview with Lyn, Vic talks about the safety of wireless radiation, what the scientific research has shown and the problems with Australian and international standards. He has a wealth of information to share – and here are a few tantalising highlights.
Vic says that:
- Russia’s general public radiation standard for members of the public exposure is 100 times lower than Australia’s and its standard-setting body, the Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (RCNIRP), helps people reduce their exposure by publishing helpful advice on how to do so.
- Russian Professor Yuri Grigoriev, former Chair of RCNIRP, conducted extensive research on the effects of wireless radiation which he compiled into a book that has recently been translated into English by ORSAA.
- Scientists from ORSAA have analysed and categorised the scientific research on wireless radiation. They have shown that the majority of the scientific papers on this topic show evidence that links exposure to harm.
- Australia’s standard, and the standards of many other countries, are based on the Guidelines of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). The exposure limits it recommends only protect people against the short-term, heating effects of radiation and not the long-term, non-heating effects that can also damage the body.
- This standard does not provide adequate protection against 5G radiation because it is based on the assumption that exposure can’t be harmful if it only penetrates the skin. ‘The ICNIRP guidelines treat the skin as an inert substrate with no biological function … The Guidelines completely ignore the biological effects to the skin. It’s our largest organ; it interfaces with the immune system. It’s rich in nerves and very sensitive. It connects to the brain and central nervous system; …it’s part of our autonomic nervous system; it regulates immunity and wound healing; its surface is full of … friendly microbes … and it’s part of our waste removal system. It protects us against mechanical and chemical factors and performs endocrine functions and produces vitamin D for our health. Skin is not an overcoat. Skin is not an inert substrate.’
- Wireless signals involve low-frequency pulsing. These pulse at frequencies such as 8.333, which is within the range of the brain’s wavelengths. Vic says this is a problem because, ‘Our bodies work on low frequencies … so they’re interfering with biology.’
- Vic shows that, in the West, nearly a third of children aged 15 to 17 are spending over four hours a day on wireless devices. By contrast, Russian authorities have issued recommendations for parents on the safe use of a mobile phone and have made it a criminal offence for educators to conceal information about health risks.
- Vic talks about the Internet of Bodies – wireless devices worn on or implanted in the body – and the increasing potential for exposure. He says, ‘With the ICNIRP guideline, the regulatory line between wireless consumer and medical applications is now confused. It makes it okay to have WiFi in nappies.’
- He says that the ‘Adoption of the ICNIRP guidelines with limits based on thermal effects, means we have an unregulated industry for consumer goods. It protects the telecommunications industry and government income but is bad for public health.’
You can see Lyn’s interview with Vic Leach here.
Vic Leach is a radiation-health physicist with 50 years’ professional experience, specialising in the area of nuclear radiation, including working as radiation advisor at both the Queensland University of Technology and the University of Queensland. He has conducted an extensive review of the scientific literature on wireless radiation that we are exposed to from a huge range of wireless sources and has been a speaker at numerous conferences and public forums.
What can you do?
- Don’t assume that you’re safe because the radiation from your devices complies with a standard. Reduce your exposure as much as you can:
- Find out how to do that with our radiation-free equipment for safe internet and landline phones.
- Don’t buy 5G devices.
You can also…
- forward this email to others to inform them, too
- see the latest news in our March newsletter EMR and Health here
book a phone consultation to find answers to your questions here