THE LOOMING THREAT OF 5G – and the Devastating Effects of Radiation

“Never in human history has there been such a practice as we now encounter with the marketing and distributing of products hostile to the human biological system.” – Robert C. Kane, Motorola cell phone engineer, died in 2002 from radiation-caused glioma, author of Cell Phone Russian Roulette

“If you are not currently working on stopping 5G, it means you don’t understand it. When you understand it, nothing else matters anymore because this is about the survival of you and your children and this planet.” – Claire Edwards (www.5gspacespaceappeal.org)

“Digital authoritarianism is not, alas, the stuff of dystopian fantasy but an emerging reality. It’s bigger than the atomic age – but it is like nuclear power in that it is capable of both good and harm.” – UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson addressing the United Nations, October 24, 2019

(Opinion & Commentary by Helke Ferrie)

If you thought that things couldn’t get any worse these days, I am here to tell you that there is something worse than genetically engineered foods, pharmaceutical drugs based on fraudulent research, pesticides, epidemics, weaponized ticks responsible for Lyme Disease, and worse even than war and climate change. It is called 5G. There are ways to escape all the others, and humanity has recovered from those disasters – we can choose to eat organic, refuse toxic pharmaceuticals and find effective alternative treatments, learn about fraudulent research, and tackle climate change.

But it is not possible to recover from 5G, should it be rolled out as planned. Once those prerequisite 53,000 satellites are launched into space orbiting the earth to enable the millions of antennae to be installed at intervals of a few hundred feet over the earth, and once that so-called Internet of Things has been switched on, the entire planet will be radiated with non-ionizing radiation at a 30 to 40% increase over its current “safe” limit of radiation, as reported to the United Nations. Thus it will not be possible to opt out. Industry-protective legislation and court orders have already been established, so you can’t opt out. This 5G technology would radiate the whole world 24/7 and effect you even if you don’t own a cell phone, even if you manage to establish a cabin on Mount Everest, or put up a tent in the Sahara Desert.

The Internet of Everything Can Even Check Your Kid’s Diapers

The sales pitch for 5G is that it is a faster, more efficient, and more successful data-capturing method than all previous wireless devices, and will connect everything with everything else. But this is not true. “The only reason for 5G is to promote the Internet of Things, so that your refrigerator can talk to your coffee pot and your child’s diaper,” stated Devra Davis, internationally renowned researcher and author of Disconnect. This is not a joke. This is fact. Devices exist that can be placed in a diaper to alert mothers when to change it. For Davis,“This is criminal. And we should never accept the idea that because we can do something, we should do it.”

The concept is best explained in a statement made by Tom Wheeler, then chairman of the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC), who announced on June 20, 2016 that “American ingenuity” would be “unleashed” to ensure “American world leadership in 5G” so that all humans would benefit from that “powerful processing centralized in the Cloud wirelessly connected to clients: autonomous vehicles will be controlled in the Cloud. Smart-city energy grids, transportation networks, and water systems will be controlled in the Cloud. Immersive education and entertainments will come from the Cloud… 5G will connect the Internet of Everything. If something can be connected it will be connected in a 5G world… from pill bottles to plant waterers.”

He neglected to mention that banks and hospitals and all security data can only be truly safe if transmitted through fiber optic cables which use the same speed as 5G.

To enforce this brave new world, regardless of anybody’s consent, Wheeler stated that “technology should drive policy rather than policy drive technology; we will not wait for standards to be first developed.” In other words, they won’t let facts or standards get in the way of this plan, and to heck with governments and their debates on behalf of the public, the individual’s fundamental right to free choice, and oversight of any kind. The FCC is not answerable to government. They are legally exempt from accountability to anyone. In January, the FCC removed even the public notice requirement, so that 5G can be installed “without notice, hearings, or appeals.” And what the FCC wants to force down our throats is presumed to be forceable on the entire world population. American imperialism has ceased to be a metaphor.

Radiation From Smart Meters and Automobiles Is Already a Problem

In Canada, the same thing was done with Smart-Meters which emit radiation at higher levels than even allowed by our antiquated Safety Code 6. It took me years to figure out why I experienced excruciating pain whenever I walked into our living room and had headaches when preparing dinner. Sleep became only possible when our main hydro breaker was switched off at night. Hydro One told me they would be happy to cut off all electricity, if I wished, but the Smart-Meter would have to stay as legislated (even though it radiated well above Code 6 limits!) We were able to obtain some relief when our house was cleaned up from electro-smog by Building Biologist Robert Steller. (http://www.breathing-easy.net/home) Now I live on Manitoulin Island – off the grid with no Wi-Fi at all.

Recently, after purchasing a new car, we got headaches as well as leg and hip pains when driving for more than a few minutes. After disabling the Wi-Fi fuses and then removing the spare key fob from the glove compartment (which was in constant electronic “cross-talk” with the fob inserted in the ignition), it was possible again to drive and survive.

For 5G to be fully operational, 56,000 satellites and the installation of millions of antennae every 300 feet are required. That is supposed to start in 2021 in Canada. Courtesy of the plutocrats at Amazon, Google and Apple, these satellites will be built and launched.

This 5G plan is possible only if no changes are made to Canada’s current 40-year old Safety Code 6. If that and the U.S. standards set by the FCC were to be updated to reflect current published science on the health hazards of electromagnetic radiation, 5G would not be permitted to go forward.

The proposed 5G roll-out violates 15 international treaties, including Article 7 of the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights derived from the Nuremberg Code of 1947, the Declaration of Helsinki, and hundreds of national laws around the world.

President Trump interestingly draws the line at 5G interfering with his Mar-a-Lago estate. He and his billionaire friends in Palm Beach, Florida, “have obtained a key exemption from 5G rollout plans,” as reported in Palm Beach Daily News on May 3, 2017. It limits installation of 5G equipment to prevent an “aesthetic disaster,” said Palm Beach Mayor Gail Coniglio. In Canada, a Supreme Court decision of June 16, 2016 affirmed the rights of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) to take precedence over municipal rights surrounding antenna installations. Therefore no exemptions are possible.

Has the Public Been Kept in the Dark About Impact of Radiation?

Words like “criminal” and “fraudulent” need justification. Something is criminal if harm is knowingly inflicted. Something is fraudulent when facts are knowingly misrepresented, usually to achieve a desired end harmful to others. These terms also apply to withholding information and thereby failing to prevent harm.

Back in 1972, there were already 2,800 studies showing biological effects and harm from microwave radiation, which had been conducted and published by the military. As of today, more than 60 international appeals have been made to stop the 5G rollout and to update so-called safety limits to reflect known science and known epidemiological harm. And yet, in Canada all governments have ignored this. (Imagine, if our building codes were unchanged for 50 years!)

DR. MAGDA HAVAS PHD

According to the website founded by Trent University’s Magda Havas, “What is most amazing is that the current Safety Code 6 was supposed to be amended back in the 70s to provide far lower safety levels in accordance with knowledge then. The pre-1977 levels were based on thermal (burn) effects observed from radar exposure during WWII.” After the atom bombs were dropped, non-ionizing radiation was discovered. It was unknown before. It breaks DNA strands. Our Safety Code 6 reflects WWII science before atom bombs and has ignored all science published since.

On the Canadian government’s website you will find a Fact Sheet designed to dispel “common myths”. Yet every item on the Fact Sheet has been proven incorrect by thousands of studies to date. The government even has the temerity to deny that this type of radiation causes cancer by asserting that the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) got it wrong in 2011 when classifying it as a potential carcinogen like asbestos and lead. The Fact Sheet repeats ad nauseum that Canadians are protected as long as they follow safety guidelines. But Code 6 is based on no safety studies whatsoever.

Pulsating Radiowaves Already Proven Harmful

Our cell phone technology, all of it, does not present a thermal problem – its documented harm and potential dangers are due to its high pulsation. This pulsing is known to break DNA strands, thus leading to cancer. It also creates cellular oxidative stress, causes vitamin B12 deficiency which disables the central nervous system, harms the mitochondria (energy cells inside each cell) so they produce less and less energy, causes autism by harming fetal brain development, disables the cryptochrome controlling navigation in the brains of insects including bees, which means they cannot pollinate. (All birds and fish also rely on these navigational abilities.) The ruinous effect of pulsing radiation on trees and vitally important soil bacteria is also documented.

The U.S. national toxicology program spent $30 million on a ten-year experimental study to determine if pulsating radiation causes damage to animals. The results were subjected to an unprecedented triple peer review and showed beyond doubt that animal hearts and brains were damaged and cancers caused. This kind of study would normally be “a slam dunk in the world of science,” Devra Davis observes. But the study was declared as not applicable to humans by the FDA’s radiology director. (His wife was in charge of medical devices, such as in radiology for Arnold & Porter, and the conflict between fact and profit came down on the side of protecting profit.)

Another worrisome effect of 4G – which will be amplified by the proposed 5G – is the deleterious effect on reproduction – animal and human, which is already happening. The Cleveland Clinic has for 10 years been reporting research on the catastrophic decline of male sperm in humans (less than 50% of what it was 25 years ago) due to Wi-Fi exposure. This effect compelled the government of India to reduce its cell towers’ radiation intensity to 1% of that emitted by Western towers. Infertility in India, both in men and women, has become the primary health problem. Prime Minister Narendra Modi has outlawed 5G for now.

Meanwhile, in other parts of the world, populations have dramatically declined within a couple of years in Singapore, some Philippine islands, and South Korea due to the effects of 4G radiation. As a result, Singapore has refused to install the infrastructure for 5G, as has Florence, Rome, Brussels, the Russian Ministry of Defense, the Netherlands, and Switzerland.

In the U.S., Senator Richard Blumenthal observed about 5G that, given there are no safety studies, “we’re kind of flying blind as far as health and safety are concerned.” This is literally, quite possibly, because 5G interferes with weather forecasting and ocean navigation, as NOAA (National Atmospheric and Oceanic Administration) reports. Finally, NATO has come out against it too.

UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson addressed the UN on October 24, demonstrating that he is well informed about 5G and totally outraged. He is supported by the biggest insurance companies in the world: Swiss Re, Lloyds of London, and others have refused to insure 5G technology.

Everybody working in 5G hopes to cash in on a projected $17 trillion market. That market includes you and me. We must stop this and we can. Now the greed and stupidity of the “market” has hit the wall: money has become more important than life itself and many governments are almost co-opted, ours included.

FRANK CLEGG, CEO OF CANADIANS FOR SAFE TECHNOLOGY & LEADING ADVOCATE FOR WIRELESS RADIATION SAFETY

Former Microsoft CEO Frank Clegg’s organization, C4ST, wrote to the Canadian government on September 15, 2017, demanding that the International EMF Scientists’ Appeal be accepted to stop this projected devastation of life. Please read it and support that demand with your MP.

Everyone needs to sign the www.5Gspaceappeal.org petition. Vitality’s extended online version of this article has all the sources, resources, and a suggested action plan listed to help enable your involvement. I personally will send a copy of this article with a covering letter to every MP in Ottawa.

I hope you will join me in defending life as we know it, and stop this potential catastrophe in its tracks.

Editor’s notes:

– At the 2019 Whole Life Expo, Andrew Michrowski gave two talks on the subject of 5G (Nov. 8 and Nov. 10). These are now available as audio recordings. All recordings are available as MP3 audio files for the price of $4.99 each. Below are direct links to purchase Dr. Michrowski’s 2019 lectures.

– On January 25, 2020, there will be a global day of protest entitled: “International Appeal: Stop 5G on Earth and In Space”. For more information, and to sign the online appeal, go to: www.5gSpaceAppeal.org

SOURCES & RESOURCES

5G Crisis – Awareness and Accountability is available on www.globalresearch.ca; in printed form it contains the transcripts of the 5G summit 2019 (824 pages) at which 46 leading experts in public health and 5G issues presented. All of them are excellent. I cited specifically from:

• The biochemist Martin Pall (he worked on the Human Genome Project);
• Devra Davis, the author of Disconnect, and internationally known for her expertise on radiation issues;
• Magda Havas, a professor at Trent University; her website is www.magdahavas.com On it you find all the info on Canada’s Safety Code 6.
• Robert F. Kennedy Jr. who discusses the details on the satellites and their expected impact on health.
• Dr. Dietrich Klinghardt, a doctor who specializes on Lyme discusses radiation and healing processes.
• One of the most important interviews is not in this 5G Summit collection but also available on Global Research: Claire Edwards, interview on October 4, 2019, on Global Research provides a detailed timeline of 5G issues throughout the world; the interview with her is also available on video. She runs www.5Gspaceappeal.org which has hundreds of thousands of signatures demanding that 5G be stopped. Please sign it.
• PACE’s presentation to the United Nations, February 25, 2019, is found on their website https://pacenet.homestead.com
• www.politico.eu/article/5g-radiation-health-cancer-21-century November 7, 2019-11-26 J. M. Moskowitz, “We have no reason to believe that 5G is safe”, Scientific American, October 17, 2019-11-26
• https:///watershedsentential.ca/articles/5G-resistance June 13, 2019
• For the standard advertising story on 5G go to www.itworldcanada.com/mainstream-launch-of-5g-expected-in-canada-in-2021
• Tom Wheeler’s FCC announcement of June 20, 2016, is available by googling his name + FCC
• UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s address the UN denouncing 5G can be googled or go to http://tech.newstatesman.com
• Google Canada Safety Code 6 and the Fact Sheet with the so-called Myths.
• I googled country after country to see the current status on 5G in each: e.g. France + 5G and so on. That will give more up-to-the-minute information.

Proposed Action Plan:

5G cannot be altered or improved, it must be stopped totally. 4G must also be re-evaluated. The health effects and cancer recorded in the literature are based on the currently used 4G technology. Our Safety Code 6 must be updated to reflect current published science. Only independent science can be considered, not industry-sponsored science.

• Please write to every MP in Ottawa, as 5G comes under federal law and demand this action and request a reply. Most importantly, write to Prime Minister P. Trudeau and the leaders of the other federal parties.

• Below is Frank Clegg’s letter to the government as a sample of excellent “truth-to-power” writing. He was the CEO of Microsoft Canada and as written for Vitality in the past.

Dear Minister Petitpas Taylor and Minister McKenna:

I am writing in support of the Report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development entitled “HEALTHY ENVIRONMENT, HEALTHY CANADIANS, HEALTHY ECONOMY: STRENGTHENING THE CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT 1999”, specifically in support of Recommendation 62: The Committee recommends that Health Canada and Environment and Climate Change Canada conduct studies on the effects of electromagnetic radiation on biota, review the adequacy of the current guidelines provided in Safety Code 6 and report their findings back to the Committee.

Canadians for Safe Technology (C4ST) is a national, volunteer-based, not-for-profit coalition of experts, educators, citizens and parents whose mission is to inform Canadians and policymakers about the health risks of exposure to radiation from common household wireless technology, and to work with all levels of government to create healthier communities for children and families.

Safety Code 6 is intended to establish safety limits for human exposure to radiofrequency (RF) electromagnetic energy in the frequency range from 3 kHz to 300 GHz. This includes the human safety levels for exposure to microwave radiation from cell phones, smart meters and Wi-Fi.

Over the previous five years, submissions have been made to Health Canada raising concerns about Health Canada’s Safety Code 6 lack of protecting Canadians. Theses submissions include:

• More than forty Canadian physicians called for Health Canada to “develop and support strategies to raise awareness about microwave radiation impacts and to minimize prolonged exposure to microwave radiation in schools and other places where children are regularly exposed.” [1]
• Fifty (50) international scientists, who are experts in the field of wireless radiation, called for Health Canada “to end its’ reliance on outdated “thermal measures of harm” which only evaluate temperature changes in tissue” and to provide “Safety standards based on a full review of current scientific literature which Health Canada acknowledges it did not do prior to its latest update of Safety Code 6.”[2]
• The Canadian Teacher’s Federation expressed concern for students and their exposure to Wi-Fi. “That an education program regarding the relative safety of Wi-Fi exposure be implemented and that appropriate resources be developed to educate the public regarding ways to avoid potential exposure risks of Wi-Fi access points and devices.” [3]

• Two international experts[4,5] met with Health Canada in September, 2014 and presented 
recommendations that demonstrated where international standards regarding the evaluation of 
scientific evidence were not being met.
• Individual submissions from experts affiliated with the World Health Organization, Universities of 
Toronto and Ottawa, Yale, Harvard, Columbia University, a member of Al Gore’s Climate Change panel (recipients of the Nobel Peace prize), the American Academy of Environmental Medicine and other similar institutions all expressed concerns about Safety Code 6.

The declaration to Health Canada from the 50 international scientists led to the “International EMF Scientist Appeal” which was signed by 230 scientists from 41 nations, that was submitted to the United Nations on May 11, 2015, that wireless radiation should be included in the list of known health risks. [6]

The World Health Organization’s IARC determined that exposure to wireless radiation is a Class 2B possible carcinogen (May 2011). [7]

On October 6th, 2016 the Honourable Jane Philpott, Minister of Health, presented, pursuant to the House of Commons Standing Order 109, the Government’s response to the Thirteenth Report of the Standing Committee on Health (HESA) report entitled, “Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Radiation and the Health of Canadians” tabled in the House of Commons on June 15, 2016.

We believe that Minister Philpott, due to her very full agenda, must not have had the time to examine fully her October 6th response and accepted Health Canada’s input as authoritative and at face value. We are convinced that if the Minister had investigated the underlying reasons for the recommendations, including follow up with the HESA witnesses, she would have insisted on stronger implementation of the recommendations. C4ST summarized our concerns in a letter to HESA Chair, MP Casey. [8]

In testimony before the Parliamentary Health Committee, Mr. Andrew Adams of Health Canada admitted there are studies that show harm at levels below Safety Code 6. [9] Mr. Adams continued “While it is true that some of these studies report biological or adverse health effects of RF fields at levels below the limits in Safety Code 6, I want to emphasize that these studies are in the minority and they do not represent the prevailing line of scientific evidence in this area.” International experts have repeatedly requested the weight of evidence details from Health Canada, to no avail.

In December, 2014 the California Medical Association passed a resolution stating that U.S. safety limits (similar to Health Canada’s) are outdated and inadequate to protect health, and endorsed efforts of the Federal Communications Commission to reevaluate its safety standards to include consideration of adverse non-thermal biologic and health effects from non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation. A second resolution called for a task force to determine adequate precautionary recommendations for the use of cell phones and wireless devices for schools and children.[10]

Since Minister Philpott’s October, 2016 response, other information has been made public.

The CBC Marketplace program “The Secret inside Your Phone”, aired March 24th, 2017 [11], reported that “81% of Canadians have never seen the message in their phone or manual about carrying their cell phone 5-15mm away from their body”. The same survey found that “67% of Canadians say they carry their phones in their pocket or directly against their body.” [12]

At the annual meeting in August, 2017, the members of the Elementary Teachers Federation of Ontario (representing 78,000 teachers), passed a motion to add the following to its policy statements about technology. “That clear, comprehensive, written internet, email user policies and procedures be provided by district school boards which include Health Canada’s recommendations for safer use of wireless devices and manufacturers’ warnings and be distributed to employees, students and parent(s)/guardian(s).”13

The telecommunication industry predicts that there will be 50 billion wireless devices worldwide by 2019 which equates to over 20 devices per Canadian home. If history repeats, that is about the time of the next update for Safety Code 6. Safety Code 6 has not had any major modifications in over 40 years. Currently, China, Russia, Italy and Switzerland have better wireless radiation safety standards than Canada. We have fallen behind countries such as France14, Taiwan15 and Belgium16 in protecting Canadians from the unsafe use of wireless devices.

Below is the submission made to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development supporting our request that the concerns regarding Safety Code 6 be considered an environmental concern as well as a health issue.

We would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.

Sincerely,  Frank Clegg
, CEO, Canadians for Safe Technology

1. http://www.c4st.org/images/documents/hc-resolutions/medical-doctors-submission-to-health-canada- english.pdf
2.  https://www.scribd.com/document/339243057/Final-Scientist-Declaration-Canada-s-SC6-2014#from_embed
3. http://www.ctf-fce.ca/en/Pages/Issues/Wi-Fi-Briefing-Document.aspx
4.  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3737035/
5. http://www.preventcancernow.ca/main/about-us/who-we-are
6. https://emfscientist.org/
7. http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2011/pdfs/pr208_E.pdf
8. Need link
9. http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=7892702&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl =41&Ses=2 at time 1540
10. http://ehtrust.org/california-medical-association-wireless-resolution/

11. https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PLeyJPHbRnGaZmzkCwy3-&t=1s&v=Wm69ik_Qdb8&app=desktop
12. Ibid time 14:24
13. http://annualmeeting.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Motions-Passed-Session-4.pdf
14. http://www.complianceandrisks.com/france-publishes-law-on-electromagnetic-waves/
15. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2929530/Does-toddler-play-iPad-Taiwan-makes-ILLEGAL-parents-let- children-two-use-electronic-gadgets-18s-limit-use-reasonable-lengths.html
16. https://www.expatica.com/be/news/Mobile-phones-to-be-banned-for-children_371626.html
17. frank@c4st.org
cc: Mr. John Oliver, MP Oakville, John.Oliver@parl.gc.ca

Original brief submitted to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, Dec. 1, 2016

Canadians for Safe Technology (C4ST) brief to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development regarding input from stakeholders for its review of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (CEPA) – 1 December 2016-

Living organisms are electrochemical beings. Communications between living cells consist of electrical and chemical signals. There is increasing evidence that anthropogenic electromagnetic fields (EMFs), in the frequencies found at levels occurring in some everyday living situations, are interfering with these electrochemical communications vital to good health.

There are two ranges in the non-ionizing radiation (NIR) category in the electromagnetic spectrum generally recognized as being of concern as they are rapidly increasing with modern technologies. Both extremely low frequencies (ELF – background to 3 kHz) and radiofrequency/microwave radiation (RF/MW – 3 kHz to 300 GHZ) have been shown to affect living organisms at very low levels of exposure to NIR.

Health Canada’s Safety Code 6 guidelines, which set safety limits in the radiofrequency/microwave range, apply only to humans. It is the position of C4ST that these guidelines do not adequately protect human health. One of the major flaws of Safety Code 6 is that Health Canada recognizes only thermal (heating) effects to be harmful and dismisses the enormous body of literature (some cited below) demonstrating non-thermal effects at below Safety Code 6 (2015) limits e.g. oxidative stress and DNA damage. We are not aware of any Canadian guidelines or standards for non-human life forms.

Below we outline only some of the reasons, with supporting evidence, why NIR should be included in the revised CEP Act – either in an expanded definition of “substance” or in a separate category.

C4ST recommendation:

1) Establish a new category for electromagnetic non-ionizing radiation (NIR) as an agent that can have toxic effects on human health and the environment OR expand its definition of “substance” to include electromagnetic fields (EMFs) in the non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation range.

To provide substantiation for inclusion of non-ionizing radiation in the Act, we have responded to three definitions:

[1] air pollution (Section 3),
[2] substances (Section 3) and [3] toxic substances (Section 64).

Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999

The preamble to the CEP Act states it is “An Act respecting pollution prevention and the protection of the environment and human health in order to contribute to sustainable development.”

Interpretation Section 3. Definitions

[1] air pollution means a condition of the air, arising wholly or partly from the presence in the air of any substance, that directly or indirectly

C4ST: Electromagnetic fields (EMFs) are pervasive in our air. Sources of EMFs in our air space include both extremely low frequencies (ELF) and radiofrequency/microwave (RF/MW) radiation. ELF includes emissions from high power lines and household electricity. RF/MW radiation includes higher frequencies commonly used for wireless communications e.g. cell tower antennae, broadcast towers for radio signals, satellite communications transmissions, radar, smart meters, cell phones, Wi-Fi routers, etc. Although present for many decades, the sources of NIR emissions are increasing immensely. Dr. Olle Johansson of the Karolinska Institute in Sweden estimates levels are now millions of times above historical background levels.

C4ST: Applies to electromagnetic fields:

Adverse health effects have been documented extensively in the peer-reviewed scientific literature – at population, individual, cell and molecular levels.

For example:

– The World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer classified wireless radiofrequency/microwave radiation as a class 2B carcinogen in 2011 (Baan et al., 2011).

(a) endangers the health, safety or welfare of humans;

– The same classification was given to magnetic fields in 2001/2002 (recently reaffirmed)(WHO/IARC, 2001). There has been a consistent statistically significant association between high power tension lines and childhood leukemia (Ahlbom et al., 2001).

– The Academy of Environmental Medicine, in a position statement, outlines many of the documented health effects on humans from non-thermal RF/MW radiation.

“Genotoxic effects from RF exposure, including studies of non-thermal levels of exposure, consistently and specifically show chromosomal instability, altered gene expression, gene mutations, DNA fragmentation and DNA structural breaks.4-11 A statistically significant dose response effect was demonstrated by Maschevich et al. , who reported a linear increase in aneuploidy as a function of the Specific Absorption Rate(SAR) of RF exposure.11 Genotoxic effects are documented to occur in neurons, blood lymphocytes, sperm, red blood cells, epithelial cells, hematopoietic tissue, lung cells and bone marrow. Adverse developmental effects due to non-thermal RF exposure have been shown with decreased litter size in mice from RF exposure well below safety standards.12 The World Health Organization has classified RF emissions as a group 2 B carcinogen.13 Cellular telephone use in rural areas was also shown to be associated with an increased risk for malignant brain tumors. 14

The fact that RF exposure causes neurological damage has been documented repeatedly. Increased blood-brain barrier permeability and oxidative damage, which are associated with brain cancer and neurodegenerative diseases, have been found.4,7,15-17 Nittby et al. demonstrated a statistically significant dose-response effect between non-thermal RF exposure and occurrence of albumin leak across the blood- brain barrier.15 Changes associated with degenerative neurological diseases such as Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) have been reported.4,10 Other neurological and cognitive disorders such as headaches, dizziness, tremors, decreased memory and attention, autonomic nervous system dysfunction, decreased reaction times, sleep disturbances and visual disruption have been reported to be statistically significant in multiple epidemiological studies with RF exposure occurring non-locally.18-21

Nephrotoxic effects from RF exposure also have been reported. A dose response effect was observed by Ingole and Ghosh in which RF exposure resulted in mild to extensive degenerative changes in chick embryo kidneys based on duration of RF exposure.24 RF emissions have also been shown to cause isomeric changes in amino acids that can result in nephrotoxicity as well as hepatotoxicity”.25

The complete paper and the numbered citations can be found at:

https://www.aaemonline.org/emf_rf_position.php

Of importance to note is that Health Canada’s Safety Code 6, which sets limits for safe human exposure, recognizes only thermal (heating) as an “established” adverse effect of telecommunications frequencies. Although Health Canada says it considers all of the effects, a full rationale has not been provided on how it dismisses extensive evidence of non-thermal effects at below Safety Code 6 limits.

(b) interferes with the normal enjoyment of life or property;

C4ST: Applies to electromagnetic fields. C4ST is contacted frequently by individuals who are adversely affected by electromagnetic fields in their regular living environment.

-In addition to the information above, Dr. Riina Bray, Dr. Magda Havas and Mr. Frank Clegg in their testimony to the Standing Committee on Health in 2015 describe the situation where many Canadians have had their lives disrupted by exposure to EMFs at everyday levels.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/Committees/en/HESA/StudyActivity?studyActivityId=8597445

– Some Canadians gave testimonials of severe adverse effects to wireless radiation that affected their everyday quality of life:

1. Royal Society of Canada public consultation October 28th, 2013 and 2 Health Canada, July 9th, 2014, (contact Frank Clegg for details).

– Canadian Human Rights Commission has a policy established in 2007 on accommodation of environmental sensitivities, including symptoms related to low levels of electromagnetic radiation related to technologies.

http://www.chrc-ccdp.gc.ca/sites/default/files/policy_sensitivity_0.pdf http://www.chrc-ccdp.gc.ca/sites/default/files/envsensitivity_en.pdf

-Sweden recognizes electrosensitivity as a functional impairment (Johansson, 2015).

– Spain has legally recognized electrosensitivity https://beingelectrosensitive.blogspot.ca/2016/08/spain-ehs-legally-recognised.html

– Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland former Prime Minister of Norway, former director of the World Health Organization and lead author of the Brundtland Report, Our Common Future, which spearheaded the sustainable development movement, is among those who report symptoms e.g. headaches, from cell phone use.

http://www.magdahavas.com/gro-harlem-brundtland-talks-at-the-university-of-waterloo/

Dr. Dominque Belpomme of France is one of several medical professionals who have documented biomarkers in humans for electrosensitivity.

Belpomme, D., et al. (2015). Reliable disease biomarkers characterizing and identifying electrohypersensitivity and multiple chemical sensitivity as two etiopathogenic aspects of a unique pathological disorder. Reviews on Environmental Health, 30(4), 251–271

EXTRACT: “Much of the controversy over the causes of electro-hypersensitivity (EHS) … lies in the absence of both recognized clinical criteria and objective biomarkers for widely accepted diagnosis… Our data strongly suggest that EHS … can be objectively characterized and routinely diagnosed by commercially available simple tests… involve inflammation-related hyper-histaminemia, oxidative stress, autoimmune response, capsulothalamic hypoperfusion and BBB [blood-brain-barrier] opening, and a deficit in melatonin metabolic availability; suggesting a risk of chronic neurodegenerative disease…”

C4ST: The adverse effects on animal life by electromagnetic fields are well documented in the published scientific peer-reviewed literature.

A particularly rigorous, well designed study by Dr. Engels’ team in Germany, demonstrated that the orientation of the European robin was disrupted by ambient AM radiofrequency signals at non-thermal conditions.

Engels, S., Schneider, N.-L., Lefeldt, N., Hein, C. M., Zapka, M., Michalik, A., … Mouritsen, H.. (2014). Anthropogenic electromagnetic noise disrupts magnetic compass orientation in a migratory bird. Nature, 509(7500), 353–356.

Extract: “…we show that migratory birds are unable to use their magnetic compass in the presence of urban electromagnetic noise… These fully double-blinded tests document a reproducible effect of anthropogenic electromagnetic noise on the behaviour of an intact vertebrate.”

(c) endangers the health of animal life;

Concerns, particularly with regard to migratory birds, are outlined by Mr. Willie Taylor, Director, Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance, United States Department of Interior to Mr. Eli Veenendaal of the US Department of Commerce.

https://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/us_doi_comments.pdf https://doi_dev.opengov.ibmcloud.com/oepc/director-office/taylor

Biological effects for ELF – EMFs has been well documented in domestic animals. For example, cows can have severe adverse reactions when grounding of electrical current is done incorrectly (Hillman et al., 2013).

C4ST: Damage to plant life by electromagnetic fields is well documented in the published scientific peer- reviewed literature. For example:
- Waldmann-Selsam, C., Balmori-de la Puente, A., Breunig, H., & Balmori, A. (2016). Radiofrequency radiation injures trees around mobile phone base stations. The Science of the Total Environment, 572, 554–569 Extract: “The measurements of all trees revealed significant differences between the damaged side facing a phone mast and the opposite side, as well as differences between the exposed side of damaged trees and all other groups of trees in both sides… These results are consistent with the fact that damage afflicted on trees by mobile phone towers usually start on one side, extending to the whole tree over time.”

Also see the review by Halgamuge, 2016.

(d) causes damage to plant life or to property; or

(e) degrades or alters, or forms part of a process of degradation or alteration of, an ecosystem to an extent that is detrimental to its use by humans, animals or plants.

C4ST: Damage to humans, animals and plants by electromagnetic fields is well documented in the published scientific peer-reviewed literature. One of many examples is that of bees. Declining numbers of pollinators alone are having large impacts on some ecosystems. Effects on some pollinators, supported by similar findings in other insects, indicate that EMFs may be a contributing factor in the decline in abundance.

1. Favre, D.. (2011). Mobile phone-induced honeybee worker piping. Apidologie, 42(3), 270–279.
Extract: “The audiograms and spectrograms revealed that active mobile phone handsets have a dramatic impact on the behavior of the bees, namely by inducing the worker piping signal.”

2. Harst, W., Kuhn, J., & Stever, H.. (2006). Can electromagnetic exposure cause a change in behaviour? Studying possible non-thermal influences on honeybees. An approach within the framework of educational informatics.. ACTA SYSTEMATICA – International Journal, vi(1), 1–6. Extract: “… honey bees are suitable biomarkers to serve as a model of a living being to study learning processes in this aspect [non-thermal high-frequency electromagnetic fields] … “

3. Kimmel, S., Kuhn, J., Harst, W., & Stever, H.. (2007a). Electromagnetic radiation: influences on honeybees (Apis mellifera). In Preprint (IIAS-InterSymp Conference, Baden-Baden 2007) http://agbi. uni-landau. de/material_download/preprint_IAAS_2007. pdf. Retrieved from http://www.hese-project.org/hese- uk/en/papers/kimmel_iaas_2007.pdf Extract: “The presented data set of [partially significant results] is based on earlier studies in 2005, which showed significant differences in returning, 39.7% of the non-irradiated bees came back compared to 7.3% of the irradiated ones. Standard commercial DECT phones were used as exposition source.”

5. Kumar, N. R., Sangwan, S., & Badotra, P.. (2011). Exposure to cell phone radiations produces biochemical changes in worker honey bees. Toxicology International, 18(1), 70–72. Extract: “There was reduced motor activity of the worker bees on the comb initially, followed by en masse migration and movement toward ‘talk mode’ cell phone. The initial quiet period was characterized by rise in concentration of biomolecules including proteins, carbohydrates and lipids…”
6. Sharma, V. P., & Kumar, N. R.. (2010). Changes in honeybee behaviour and biology under the influence of cellphone radiations. Current Science(Bangalore), 98(10), 1376–1378. Extract: “A significant (p < 0.05) decline in colony strength and in the egg laying rate of the queen was observed. The behaviour of exposed foragers was negatively influenced by the exposure, there was neither honey nor pollen in the colony at the end of the experiment.”

Some examples of studies in other insect species that support the findings of adverse biological effects reported in bees:

1. Atli, E., & Unlü, H.. (2006). The effects of microwave frequency electromagnetic fields on the development of Drosophila melanogaster. International Journal of Radiation Biology, 82(6), 435–441. Extract: “…10 GHz EMF can cause developmental delay and decrease the number of offspring in D. melanogaster. “

2. Cammaerts, M.-C., De Doncker, P., Patris, X., Bellens, F., Rachidi, Z., & Cammaerts, D. (2012). GSM 900 MHz radiation inhibits ants’ association between food sites and encountered cues. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, 31(2), 151–165. Extract: “…They kept no visual memory at all (instead of keeping 10% of it as they normally do). The impact of GSM 900 MHz radiation was greater on the visual memory than on the olfactory one. These communication waves may have such a disastrous impact on a wide range of insects using olfactory and/or visual memory, i.e., on bees.”

3. Cammaerts, M.-C., & Johansson, O.. (2013). Ants can be used as bio-indicators to reveal biological effects of electromagnetic waves from some wireless apparatus. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, 1–7.

Extract: ” …we designed and validated a fast and easy test on ants – these insects being used as a biological model – for revealing the effect of wireless equipments like mobile phones, smartphones, digital enhanced cordless telephone (DECT) phones, WiFi routers and so on. This test includes quantification of ants’ locomotion under natural conditions, then in the vicinity of such wireless equipments. Observations, numerical results and statistical results allow detecting any effect of a radiating source on these living organisms.”

4. Cammaerts, M.-C., Rachidi, Z., Bellens, F., & De Doncker, P.. (2013). Food collection and response to pheromones in an ant species exposed to electromagnetic radiation. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, 32(3), 315–332.

Extract: ” …[Exposed] ants followed trails for only short distances, no longer arrived at marked areas and no longer orientated themselves to a source of alarm pheromone. Also when exposed to electromagnetic waves, ants became unable to return to their nest and recruit congeners; therefore, the number of ants collecting food increases only slightly and slowly. After 180 h of exposure, their colonies deteriorated. Electromagnetic radiation obviously affects social insects’ behavior and physiology.”

5. Margaritis, L. H., Manta, A. K., Kokkaliaris, K. D., Kokkaliaris, C. D., Schiza, D., Alimisis, K., … Ziomas, K.. (2013). Drosophila oogenesis as a bio-marker responding to EMF sources. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine.

Extract: ”A total of 280 different experiments were performed… All EMF sources used created statistically significant effects regarding fecundity and cell death-apoptosis induction, even at very low intensity levels

(0.3 V/m blue tooth radiation), well below ICNIRP’s guidelines, suggesting that Drosophila oogenesis system is suitable to be used as a biomarker for exploring potential EMF bioactivity.”

6. Panagopoulos, D. J.. (2012). Effect of microwave exposure on the ovarian development of Drosophila melanogaster. Cell Biochemistry and Biophysics, 63(2), 121–132.

Extract: “The study showed that the ovarian size of the exposed insects is significantly smaller than that of the corresponding sham-exposed insects, due to destruction of egg chambers by the GSM radiation, after DNA damage and consequent cell death induction in the egg chamber cells of the virgin females as shown in previous experiments on inseminated females.”

C4ST: Electromagnetic fields (EMFs) are a form of energy that can adversely affect matter. Some of the issues are covered in Havas (2016). The influence of EMFs on chemical reactions is well documented in the long-time journal, Microwave Chemistry. This journal, well known to chemical engineers, documents the application of low level, non-thermal levels of microwave radiation to accelerate chemical reactions on a commercial scale.

C4ST: Formation of free radicals is well documented for RF/MW radiation at below standards. See review by (Yakymenko et al., 2016)

[2] substance means any distinguishable kind of organic or inorganic matter, whether animate or inanimate, and includes
(a) any matter that is capable of being dispersed in the environment or of being transformed in the environment into matter that is capable of being so dispersed or that is capable of causing such transformations in the environment,

(b) any element or free radical,

(c) any combination of elements of a particular molecular identity that occurs in nature or as a result of a chemical reaction, and

C4ST: DNA damage, likely due to oxidative stress and the production of free radicals, has been documented in over 70 studies (see review by (Yakymenko et al., 2016)). Also see (Belpomme et al., 2007).

Also: Blank, M., & Goodman, R. (2009). Electromagnetic fields stress living cells. Pathophysiology: The Official Journal of the International Society for Pathophysiology / ISP, 16(2–3), 71–78.

Extract: “Electromagnetic fields (EMF), in both ELF (extremely low frequency) and radio frequency (RF) ranges, activate the cellular stress response, a protective mechanism that induces the expression of stress response genes, e.g., HSP70, and increased levels of stress proteins, e.g., hsp70…While low energy EMF interacts with DNA to induce the stress response, increasing EMF energy in the RF range can lead to breaks in DNA strands. It is clear that in order to protect living cells, EMF safety limits must be changed from the current thermal standard, based on energy, to one based on biological responses that occur long before the threshold for thermal changes.”

DNA breakage in brain cells under non-thermal conditions, and below Safety Code 6 limits, has also been reported in the $25 million dollar rat/cell phone radiation study conducted by the National Toxicology Program, National Institute of Environmental Sciences (Wyde, 2016).

C4ST: Synergistic effects of electromagnetic fields (EMFs) and substances is covered under C4ST recommendation 2) below.

(d) complex combinations of different molecules that originate in nature or are the result of chemical reactions but that could not practicably be formed by simply combining individual constituents,

PART 5. Controlling Toxic Substances.

[3] Toxic Substances

64 For the purposes of this Part or Part 6, except where the expression “inherently toxic” appears, a substance is toxic if it is entering or may enter the environment in a quantity or concentration or under conditions that

(a) have or may have an immediate or long-term harmful effect on the environment or its biological diversity

C4ST: One example: impact on migratory birds which could have their orienting abilities impaired by emissions from telecommunications antennas/towers. See [1]c) above.

(b) constitute or may constitute a danger to the environment on which life depends

C4ST: DNA damage could have multi-generation effects. See review by (Adams, et al 2014).

C4ST: Taking all of the factors described above into consideration – demonstrated effects on humans, domestic animals, wildlife and vegetation – NIR may have far reaching implications for human life and health.

C4ST recommendation:

2) include in the revision of the CEP Act provisions to include assessments of NIR as an agent that can have synergistic effects on substances.

The following studies with short extracts from the abstracts provide evidence that effects of substances can be altered by exposures to EMFs.

1. Anghileri, L., Mayayo, E., & Domingo, J. (2006). Iron-Radiofrequency Synergism in Lymphomagenesis. Immunopharmacology and Immunotoxicology., 28(1), 175–183.

Extract: “…The current results (mortality, clinical and histopathological examinations) demonstrated a synergism between radiofrequency and ferric gluconate…”

2. Anghileri, L., Mayayo, E., & Domingo, J. (2009). Aluminum, calcium ion and radiofrequency synergism in acceleration of lymphomagenesis. Immunopharmacology and Immunotoxicology., 31(3), 358–362

Extract: “This study that was done on lymphomagene-bearing mice indicates a synergism aluminum- radiofrequency which induces an early increase in mortality that is in concomitance with lymphoid elements proliferation and infiltration of spleen and liver…”

3. Bodera, P., Stankiewicz, W., Antkowiak, B., Paluch, M., Kieliszek, J., Sobiech, J., … Skopińska-Rózewska, E. (2012). Suppressive effect of electromagnetic field on analgesic activity of tramadol in rats. Polish Journal of Veterinary Sciences, 15(1), 95–100

Extract: “The electromagnetic fields (EMFs) have been shown to alter animal and human behavior, such as directional orientation, learning, pain perception (nociception or analgesia) and anxiety-related behaviors..EMF exposure of both frequencies transiently suppressed analgesic effect of tramadol, significantly reducing paw withdrawal latency in animals treated with this drug …”

(c) constitute or may constitute a danger in Canada to human life or health

4. Byun, Y.-H., Ha, M., Kwon, H.-J., Hong, Y.-C., Leem, J.-H., Sakong, J., … Kim, N. (2013). Mobile phone use, blood lead levels, and attention deficit hyperactivity symptoms in children: a longitudinal study. PloS One, 8(3), e59742

Extract: “…The results suggest that simultaneous exposure to lead and RF [radio frequency]from mobile phone use was associated with increased ADHD ADHD [Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder] symptom risk…”

5. Cervellati, F., Valacchi, G., Lunghi, L., Fabbri, E., Valbonesi, P., Marci, R., … Vesce, F. (2013). 17-β-estradiol counteracts the effects of high frequency electromagnetic fields on trophoblastic connexins and integrins. Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity, 2013, 280850 doi:10.1155/2013/280850

Extract: “… We demonstrate that 17-β-estradiol modulates Cxs [connexins] and Ints [integrins] as well as ER [estrogen receptor] -β expression induced by HF-EMF [high-frequency electromagnetic fields], suggesting an influence of both stimuli on trophoblast differentiation and migration…”

6. Céspedes, O., Inomoto, O., Kai, S., Nibu, Y., Yamaguchi, T., Sakamoto, N., … Ueno, S. (2010). Radio frequency magnetic field effects on molecular dynamics and iron uptake in cage proteins. Bioelectromagnetics, 31(4), 311–317 doi:10.1002/bem.20564 “.

Extract:.” Superparamagnetic nanoparticles increase their internal energy when exposed to radio frequency magnetic fields due to the lag between magnetization and applied field … the proteins have a reduced iron intake rate of about 20%. Our results open a new path for the study of non-thermal bioeffects of radio frequency magnetic fields at the molecular scale.”

7. Kostoff, R. N., & Lau, C. G. Y. (2013). Combined biological and health effects of electromagnetic fields and other agents in the published literature. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 80(7), 1331–1349

Extract: “Electromagnetic field (EMF) radiation exerts both stand-alone and combined effects on biological systems. The present study examines the scope of the combined effects; i.e., identify effects on biological systems from combined exposure to electromagnetic fields/radiation and at least one other agent… The number of potential environmental agent combinations is large, and each combination could potentially have beneficial or adverse effects; much work remains to be done before definitive statements about EMF safety can be made.”

8. López-Martín, E., Relova-Quinteiro, J. L., Gallego-Gómez, R., Peleteiro-Fernández, M., Jorge-Barreiro, F. J., & Ares-Pena, F. J. (2006). GSM radiation triggers seizures and increases cerebral c-Fos positivity in rats pretreated with subconvulsive doses of picrotoxin. Neuroscience Letters, 398(1–2), 139–144.

Extract: “… We conclude that GSM-type radiation can induce seizures in rats following their facilitation by subconvulsive doses of picrotoxin, and that research should be pursued into the possibility that this kind of radiation may similarly affect brain function in human subjects with epileptic disorders.”

9. Maaroufi, K., Save, E., Poucet, B., Sakly, M., Abdelmelek, H., & Had-Aissouni, L. (2011). Oxidative stress and prevention of the adaptive response to chronic iron overload in the brain of young adult rats exposed to a 150 kilohertz electromagnetic field. Neuroscience, 186, 39–47

Extract: “… When EMF was coapplied with IO [iron overload], lipid peroxidation was further increased as compared to EMF alone while the increase in antioxidant defenses triggered by the sole IO was abolished. These data suggest that EMF exposure may be harmful in young adults by impairing the antioxidant defenses directed at preventing iron-induced oxidative stress.”

———————————-

References other than those listed in the text (above):

1. Adams, J. A., Galloway, T. S., Mondal, D., Esteves, S. C., & Mathews, F. (2014). Effect of mobile telephones on sperm quality: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Environment International, 70, 106–112. doi:10.1016/j.envint.2014.04.015
2. Ahlbom, I. C., Cardis, E., Green, A., Linet, M., Savitz, D., Swerdlow, A., & ICNIRP (International Commission for Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection) Standing Committee on Epidemiology. (2001). Review of the epidemiologic literature on EMF and Health. Environmental Health Perspectives, 109 Suppl 6, 911–933.
3. Baan, R., Grosse, Y., Lauby-Secretan, B., El Ghissassi, F., Bouvard, V., Benbrahim-Tallaa, L., … WHO International Agency for Research on Cancer Monograph Working Group. (2011). Carcinogenicity of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. Lancet Oncology, 12(7), 624–626. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(11)70147-4
4. Belpomme, D., Irigaray, P., Hardell, L., Clapp, R., Montagnier, L., Epstein, S., & Sasco, A. J. (2007). The multitude and diversity of environmental carcinogens. Environmental Research, 105(3), 414–429. doi:10.1016/j.envres.2007.07.002
5. Halgamuge, M. N. (2016). Review: Weak radiofrequency radiation exposure from mobile phone radiation on plants. ResearchGate, 1–23. doi:10.1080/15368378.2016.1220389
6. Havas, M. (2016). When theory and observation collide: Can non-ionizing radiation cause cancer? Environmental Pollution (Barking, Essex: 1987). doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2016.10.018
7. Health Canada, H. C. (2015). Limits of human exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic energy in the frequency range from 3 KHz to 300 GHz. Safety Code 6 (2015), 24. Retrieved from http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh- semt/alt_formats/pdf/consult/_2014/safety_code_6-code_securite_6/final-finale-eng.pdf
8. Hillman, D., Stetzer, D., Graham, M., Goeke, C. L., Mathson, K. E., Vanhorn, H. H., & Wilcox, C. J. (2013). Relationship of electric power quality to milk production of dairy herds – field study with literature review. The Science of the Total Environment, 447, 500–514. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.12.089
9. Johansson, O. (2015). Electrohypersensitivity: a functional impairment due to an inaccessible environment. Reviews on Environmental Health, 30(4), 311–321. doi:10.1515/reveh-2015-0018
10. WHO/IARC. (2001). Classification of extremely low frequency (ELF) as class 2B (possible carcinogen). WHO Website.
11. Wyde, M. (2016). NTP (National Toxicology Program) toxicology and carcinogenicity studies of cell phone radiofrequency radiation. Presentation, Bioelectromagnetics Society (BioEM) Meeting, Ghent, Belgium, 32. Retrieved from http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/research/areas/cellphone/slides_bioem_wyde.pdf
12. Yakymenko, I., Tsybulin, O., Sidorik, E., Henshel, D., Kyrylenko, O., & Kyrylenko, S. (2016). Oxidative mechanisms of biological activity of low-intensity radiofrequency radiation. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, 35(2), 186–202.