Why is it that in the field of electro-magnetic waves, consumer information is completely absent, even though its side effects are considered frequent?
Entrepreneur specialized in the field of health, member of the frequencia committee
Here is an example of a common drug with a marketing authorization that involves a range of tests, including non-toxicity and safety.
Here are the different side effects observed:
Frequent side effects (1 in 100 cases): gastrointestinal disorders, decreased responsiveness, etc
Occasional side effects that may occur in more than 1 in 1000 cases, but less than 1 in 100 cases: hypersensitivity reaction, insomnia, anxiety…
Rare side effects (more than 1 case per 10,000) but less than 1 case per 1000: aseptic meningitis, angina, depression, confusion, visual impairment, etc.
Very rare side effects (less than 1 case per 10,000)
Psychotic states, heart failure…etc.
These few side effects are information for patients in relation to a widely used drug. As you can see, there is an obligation to put all the side effects found, whether they affect 1 in 100 cases or less than 1 in 10,000 cases.
So my big question is: Why is it that in the field of electromagnetic waves, non-ionizing radiation, consumer information is totally absent? However, electrohypersensitive people constitute 5% of the population… ok let’s take the recognized minimum figure… 1% of the population: this represents 1 case in 100 which in the field of medicine is considered as “frequent side effects”.
Why are side effects not taken seriously and denigrated in this way in the field of waves? There are 2 weights 2 measures. And the precautionary principle is swept away with a flick of the wrist when NEVER will you see a drug put on the market without having first proven its non-toxicity.
Stop telling us that electro-sensitive people represent only a tiny part of the population when we see that the same figure of 1% is considered as frequent side effects in medicine!!!!
In addition in this example you have the choice to consume a drug or not… you don’t have that luxury with the waves!
There is a huge inconsistency in the authorities!
The big question arises! Are mobile phone operators above the law?
Until February of this year, although very health conscious, I was absolutely unaware of the problem of electromagnetic pollution that we unknowingly generate in our habitat. I thought to myself that if I wasn’t informed when I was paying attention to everything related to health, how were others informed? Well, they’re not! The majority of the population is unaware of the electro-magnetic pollution it generates. Perhaps if the information were as accurate and visible as it is in other areas such as (food, pharmaceuticals, smoke, alcohol, etc.), consumer behaviour would change…but this goes against the financial objectives of many industries and operators.
Worse, operators lie to us with impunity!
While browsing the Swisscom and Sunrise sites, it is disarming to see the numerous false statements or worse to see how they try to manipulate the public to present 5G as THE be all end all solution for the environment, the economy, development, etc.
The public is sensitive to bees…they will put a beautiful picture of a beekeeper with bees by putting a text that has nothing to do with the subject but the public will simply remember the image of bees with the mention “5G Vision” in a positive light.
They present 5G as a solution for “good food, good conscience”.
All these arguments are studied to manipulate your mind but made according to the standards!
Who are we kidding?
Isn’t it disgusting to see Sunrise promote widely: 5G: Guaranteeing the protection of health and the environment “when there is uncertainty all over the world about this? Worse still: while the Federal Council admits that more than half of the population is concerned about the waves emitted by mobile phones, Sunrise completely downplays this fear by publishing that “this non-ionizing radiation is a concern for some representatives of environmental organizations who fear potential harmful effects on health”. We are not talking about some representatives of organizations but about more than 50% of the population!
Operators shout out loud and clear that 90% of the irradiation is done via mobile phones and only 10% via fixed antennas, thus absolving themselves of any responsibility and justifying the importance of building new antennas! It’s like saying that a cigarette is not toxic until it’s smoked! That cars don’t pollute until they’re driven, that plastic doesn’t pollute until it’s in nature… but in these last 3 cases, we have a choice to consume or not… whereas with the waves, we don’t have a choice!
The 10% of antennae emissions argument does not stand since antennas are set up to allow mobile phones to transmit and receive.
We cannot just make the consumer responsible for a tool that is essential for private, social and professional life. On the one hand, we are presented with all the possible developments at this level and then we are blamed for the excessive use of the devices and accused of being responsible for our own irradiation.
Our daily lives have been organized and cleverly orchestrated to ensure our dependency on these devices. We are bombarded with ads and messages about the usefulness of connected devices and then operators want to forfreit liability by simply saying that it is up to us to manage the use of phones and devices?
The basic source of non-ionizing radiation is still the fixed antenna that will allow all other devices to be connected!
They are 100% responsible and must assume all side effects related to non-ionizing radiation regardless of the daily use rate of the equipment unless they make the consumer responsible by:
- clear, visible and preventive information on the use of devices connected in large format on each packaging carton (and not written in very small or worse hidden on an informative website). For example: write on the box of a smartphone
o “Be aware that when you use your phone, you irradiate yourself 10 times more than by a fixed antenna”…”.
o May cause electrohypersensitivity (which will ruin your life)
o Strongly discouraged for children under 12 years of age
o Strongly discouraged for pregnant women
o All these recommendations must appear on the packaging in a visible manner, as for cigarettes.
- Providing efficient databases accessible to everyone at any time on the actual and real-time emission rate of the antenna near our homes … but again this is a serious risk for operators. Imagine if this option could prove the correlation between a person’s physical symptoms and the increase in emission values!
- Without all these precautions, we risk finding ourselves in the same situation as with cigarettes, where the tobacco industry said it ignored the risks and now has to pay billions for the victims. The situation is even much worse. We have the choice to smoke or not wheras with the waves, we undergo a forced irradiation… all the more reason to visibly record the precautions for use.
- Are there not already several lawsuits against smartphone manufacturers for endangering consumer health with emissions that are far too high?
- What are our authorities waiting for to act? On the one hand, they shoot machine guns at small companies that have dared to market a harmless natural product with the sole crime of an unauthorized “therapeutic indication” known on the packaging as a loud and clear cry for consumer protection, and on the other hand, they minimize the proven risks of 5G on the pretext that Science has so far been unable to prove them.
- The strongest reason and always the best….really pitiful that even today Justice is still only the hypocritical name for force, time and again proving a certain Jean de la Fontaine right: “Depending on whether you are powerful or miserable, court judgements will render you white or black”.
Let’s act together today to make a difference!