Q: Who fact-checks the fact-checkers?

Q: Who ARE these fact-checkers?

Here is a very good overview of the frothy world of fact-checking, a growth industry largely funded by George Soros, Google and the CIA:

https://in-this-together.com/not-fact-checkers/

Take a careful look especially at the British organization Full Fact, you will shortly bang your head against a brick wall by that name below.

Note the lords and ladyships and other worthies and former BBC luminaries who are Trustees and grandees of this registered charity. This is The Establishment on dress parade.

Full Fact is probably the most-quoted fact-checking organization worldwide on the specific subject of 5G. I’m not sure how they were awarded point on this issue, but I keep running into mainstream stories that quote Full Fact in debunking all these “hysterical 5G conspiracy theories.”

For this reason, I was very keen NOT to query Full Fact on the subject of 5G. Just mentioning #5G is enough to get you in trouble these days. However did a radio access network become so controversial? That you get banned for just mentioning it?

So I zeroed in, rather, on a statement Full Fact made about conventional base stations. I never mentioned 5G once in my initial challenge to their statement that these existing base stations posed “no radiation risk”.

Full Fact then snowed me with statements they had made refuting all these 5G conspiracy theories. They didn’t say a word about base stations or all the evidence I had sent them.

Gaslighting; Instant Evasion

I told them, patiently: I did NOT ask you about 5G. I only asked you to look at the scientific evidence on base stations.

I then repeated the query, this time as a proper media exercise.

And then Full Fact went dead silent on me.

This is when I realized I was in trouble if I pushed this query under my real name. I am criticizing the World Health Organization, among other things. Following WHO guidelines is part of our emergency regulations for the COVID-19 epidemic. In my country, I can actually be sent to jail just on my track record in criticizing WHO, never mind anything else I might say.

So I decided to do this right here on Frank Report as Fred, which is a pen name I’ve used for more than 20 years. This is the only time I’ve checked ahead with Frank Parlato to make sure he was OK with this. And hence, below, for your edification and entertainment, you will find a full fact check of Full Fact, the fact-checkers de jour.

Please understand, engaging British media organizations is the very worst hell into which you can possibly descend. You are entering a nightmare world, in which only lies, deception and perfidy prevail. It is now the truly Orwellian world of COVID-1984.

FullFact.org will tell you how they welcome feedback, how they’re always trying to improve their fact-checking, how open and unbiased they are. (They’re very keen on automating the whole process, by the way, so any actual human beings at Full Fact are busy working themselves out of a job. Microsoft just fired most of its journalists and replaced them with AI [artificial intelligence], to select stories, fact-check, and write the headlines; this is not a joke.)

So: brace yourself, steel your nerves, and observe a master class in utter obtuseness from the British establishment, live, as it unfolds. It is precisely the length it is. Please don’t complain, this process is far more excruciating for me than it is for you. This is already Round Three, remember.

I received an immediate reply from Full Fact this time, answering me with the exact same fact-check I was querying, as you will see. The only way I can interpret their responses is that they are quite overtly trying to find the most maddening ways to insult and inflame me. You just have to keep calm and carry on:

I have to say, when dealing with the British establishment, I feel a genuine affection for the psychos and sickos of Frank Report. Let me tell you, the very worst among you is but an infant in malice and deceit when compared with the Brits.

I don’t know how this exercise will play, but I would really like an American audience to see firsthand exactly how these slimy creatures across the Atlantic operate.

What follows is verbatim; I will add notes [in square brackets] to try keep the action clear.

All Full Fact does is repeat the line that the authorities like WHO say it’s safe, so it’s safe, the end.

I keep saying: yes, yes, ALL the authorities say it’s all safe. But look at the SCIENCE, look at the research. And try find a single study around a real live base station that does not report health problems [with 5G].

I made that challenge to Full Fact very strongly the first time round. I said, just show me ONE scientific paper on actual towers that doesn’t report problems. I then spent three weeks completely updating my list of base station studies. And I did find just one, which reported not finding an increased cancer risk around towers in Bavaria. You’ll find it highlighted at the end, where I list all the studies.

This is the most comprehensive and up-to-date list of base station studies available in the world at present, and it is appearing exclusively in Frank Report for now. If you do nothing else, take a look at those 33 studies at the end of my query, examine the severity and consistency of the symptoms reported, and tell me that towers are safe.

Let’s watch how Full Fact manages to avoid even mentioning the elephant in the room. When the elephant is as big as this, it’s quite a contortionist’s feat.

[My full query to Full Fact, sent on 5 June 2020]

Dear Full Fact:

This query addresses only one issue, captured by the title of this article on your website: “Mobile phone base stations like this do not pose a radiation risk”:

https://fullfact.org/online/5g-sign-not-official/

The base station in question is a conventional, non-5G type. I wish you either to justify this statement about pre-5G base stations in light of actual scientific findings on the impact of these facilities, or to withdraw the statement and issue a public correction outlining the real truth about the radiation risk posed by existing base stations.

I have researched the issue of human health around mobile phone base stations for over a decade. I was greatly assisted in this by Dr Michael Kundi of the Medical University of Vienna, an acknowledged authority on the subject. He has been accepted as an expert scientific witness in a major class action lawsuit against the mobile industry in the United States, after a very rigorous legal process which I will outline briefly below.

In researching health around base stations, one has to differentiate between two very clear classes of literature. The first class comprises the official reviews of the issue prepared by governments, industry bodies, regulators, and other official agencies, such as the World Health Organization.

The other class comprises the actual peer-reviewed scientific studies themselves, the hard literature of the field.

In a previous attempt to get you to clarify your statement that base stations do not pose a radiation risk, I pointed out the following dichotomy: on the one hand, ALL the official reviews claim that there is no consistent evidence whatsoever that base stations are harmful in the least.

On the other hand, I said that ALL the peer-reviewed scientific studies of human health around base stations, without a single exception, reported an extremely consistent and wide range of health issues, including drastically increased cancer rates. At that stage, I had compiled a list of 24 studies, every one of which reported some kind of problem; and I challenged Full Fact to find ONE such study that did NOT report a problem.

Instead, you chose to send me all sorts of statements you had issued about 5G, which was NOT the subject of my query. My repeated request for you to answer my actual query was then ignored.

I am now therefore repeating the whole process, this time as a formal media query to be carried out in public view.

However, as I have explained to you separately and confidentially under my own name, the current situation with global lockdown and threats against people who engage in “misinformation” makes it impossible for me to make this simple query to yourselves without putting myself at serious risk of prosecution and possible imprisonment. Simply by querying the official line of the World Health Organization, I am automatically running foul of government policy in my country.

I am keen to support my government in every way possible and I fully accept that they are following advice from WHO in good faith. I am therefore making this query anonymously. I have been writing on the subject of radiation and health on the American investigative website www.FrankReport.com using the byline “Fred”. This query will be published on that platform, subject to moderation by Mr. Frank Parlato, who runs the site.

You may answer “Fred” directly, via the website, or both; but I would now like a proper, considered response to my query.

I have spent the last few weeks updating my list of all the peer-reviewed scientific studies of human health around base stations that have been undertaken anywhere in the world. You will find this updated list at the end of this mail.

My criteria for inclusion on this list are simply that these be formal journal articles reporting studies done around actual live telecoms towers. There is no convincing way that long-term daily irradiation in one’s one home can be simulated in a laboratory, and I have excluded all laboratory studies and psychological “attitude” studies that do not directly report health outcomes.

In identifying the “official review” studies, I emphatically include one written by the Swiss researcher Martin Röösli, prepared with the assistance of WHO and published on the WHO website. Many researchers have questioned Röösli’s independence and his biased attitude to the research.

Martin Roosli PHD

He manages to ignore all the actual studies of health around base stations, saying they are methodologically unsound. The only example he gives of such unsoundness is a study in which respondents self-estimated their distance from a base station, which was held to be unreliable.

Röösli did, however, manage to find the one study that reported finding no problems, in this case, no increase in cancer near base stations in Bavaria. This is reported below as Meyer et al. (2006). Unfortunately the full paper is only available in German, but it is clear that the study by its own admission did not control adequately for other factors affecting cancer. Its findings are also contradicted by a carefully controlled study by Eger et al. (2004), which found significant increases in cancer near base stations in a Bavarian region.

I am also including three independent reviews of the literature on base stations, since each makes an analytical contribution to the literature.

All told, I now have 33 studies worldwide on base stations, of which 32 report health problems.

I would therefore like to know on what basis you say that “Mobile phone stations … do not pose a radiation risk.”

The overwhelming majority of actual scientific studies on this issue, 97%, report a consistent pattern of health problems.

Reviews such as those of Martin Röösli tend to rely overwhelmingly on laboratory “provocation” experiments, in which people are exposed for brief periods to a simulation of base station radiation. This simulation is generally carefully controlled to provide a consistent and unchanging radiation level for measured lengths of time.

In this respect, these laboratory studies completely fail to capture the characteristics of real base station radiation, which is constantly fluctuating and displays erratic and intermittent peaks.

As pointed out by the researcher Dr Dimitris Panagopolous in the video below, living organisms are able to adapt to unchanging fields, while fluctuating and unpredictable intensities provide a completely different challenge to biological systems:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adGtb0kxsDM

However, in the interests of “controlled” science, nearly all the laboratory experiments on the effects of mobile phone technology – both handsets and base station antennas – use simplified “mock-ups” of real-life exposures that omit many features of this digitally pulsed radiation.

Dr Panagopoulos is therefore unusual in studying what he calls “the real thing”, i.e. actual mobile phone and base station radiation, in his experiments. Starting at 25:17 in the video, he demonstrates the drastic differences in radiation profiles when you compare real with simulated exposures. At around 30:00, in reviewing the literature, he shows that about 50% of studies with simulated exposures show effects, while 50% do not.

With real exposures, he reports, 98% of studies find effects.

This exactly matches my own tally, in which 97% of all studies around real base stations indicate health problems or biological effects.

Now: Dr Dimitris Panagopoulos was excluded as an expert witness in the abovementioned U.S. court case, specifically because he used real mobile phones and real exposures in his experiments, in which (among other things) he found drastic genetic damage to irradiated fruit flies, which became completely sterile after a few generations. The judge ruled that good scientific practice in this case meant using simulated, controlled exposures, and that using real devices in your studies was enough to exclude your evidence:

https://www.stopumts.nl/doc.php/Juridische%20Informatie/8570/usa_court_allows_expert_testimony_in_litigation_alleging_cell_phone-linked_tumors

Again, there is no viable way that you can simulate the long-term microwave irradiation by base stations of people living in their own homes. Laboratory studies conducted by psychologists do not even begin to match the real 24/7 exposures experienced by people residing near telecoms towers.

If Full Fact is able to provide further scientific studies of human health around actual base stations, please let me know so I can add them to my list. If you wish to rationalize the exclusion of all studies of health around real-life mobile phone base stations and reporting only the “official” reviews, which ignore all the real-life studies, please do so clearly, with your reasoning, so that we can understand your biases and your rejection of virtually unanimous and highly consistent scientific findings from countries all over the world.

Otherwise, would you kindly issue a correction to reflect the full fact that actual scientific studies of human health around existing base stations “like this” overwhelmingly indicate a consistent range of severe health impacts, including drastically raised cancer rates.

I am quite prepared for my identity to be revealed, once emergency regulations are lifted and I am not put at risk because I challenge authorities such as the World Health Organization. The most recent comment I made on Frank Report refers; for me it simply represents basic due diligence on WHO:

https://frankreport.com/2020/05/31/the-who-is-enemy-of-humankind-and-tedros-a-thug-and-stooge/

World Health Organization (WHO) Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus

You will see that I have a unique track record in challenging WHO and its pattern of denial in this field. All of this track record can now be used against me, as representing a challenge to official policy. I would therefore most stringently request you to respect my anonymity until emergency regulations have been lifted.

Please note that this mail is being cc’d to a range of officials at Full Fact, to avoid quarantining of this information, as well as to Mr Frank Parlato. I have also copied Dr Louis Slesin of the publication Microwave News in on this correspondence to keep an eye on this story once it is up on Frank Report. Please note that I have only ever made comments on www.FrankReport.com, I have never published a full article on this site and I am completely unpaid for any material posted there. However, I am extremely grateful for this platform. Although free speech still theoretically exists in America, Frank Report is taking a genuine risk in carrying this writing and I completely accept Frank’s editorial judgement in all cases.

I therefore remain

Yours truly

“Fred”

Worldwide list of all peer-reviewed scientific studies of human health around mobile phone base stations, as of end May 2020. Out of 33 studies, 32 (or 97%) report health problems.

1. Santini et al. (2002) Five hundred and thirty people living near mobile phone base stations in France reported headaches, sleep disturbances, discomfort, irritability, depression, memory loss, and concentration problems. These effects were more pronounced the closer people lived to the mast.

2. Navarro et al. (2003) This Spanish study found that the greater the power density of microwaves in the home, the more severe were complaints of depression, fatigue, sleeping disorders, concentration problems, headaches, irritability, memory problems, loss of appetite, nausea, audio and visual dysfunction, dizziness, and cardiovascular problems.

3. Bortkiewicz et al. (2004) This Polish study confirmed that residents living close to mobile phone masts reported “Various complaints mostly of the circulatory system, but also of sleep disturbances, irritability, depression, blurred vision, concentration difficulties, nausea, lack of appetite, headache and vertigo. The study shows relationships between the incidence of individual symptoms, the level of exposure, and the distance between a residential area and a base station. This association was observed both in persons who linked their complaints with the presence of the base station and those who did not notice such a relation.”

4. Eger et al. (2004) This study, commissioned by the German Federal Agency for Radiation Protection, compiled medical histories between 1994–2004 of people living in Naila, Bavaria. The study found a threefold increase in malignant tumours for people exposed for five years or more to cellphone masts within 400 metres, compared with people living further away.

5. Röösli (2004) This Swiss survey study reported that out of 429 questionnaires returned, 394 people reported symptoms from mobile phone tower exposure. Fifty-eight percent of these symptomatic people suffered headaches, 19% nervous stress, and 18% fatigue, while concentration difficulties were the most common complaint.

6. Wolf and Wolf (2004) A Tel Aviv University study of 622 people living in Netanya, Israel, revealed an overall fourfold increase in the incidence of cancer among residents living within 350 metres of a cellphone mast for a period of between three and seven years. Among women in the 350-metre group, the increase in cancer was 10 times the norm, compared with people living in other areas of the city.

7. Hutter et al. (2005) Three hundred and sixty-five people living near 10 cellphone masts in urban and rural Austria were studied. Reported symptoms of radiation included: headache, vertigo, tremors, cold hands and feet, exhaustion, difficulty concentrating, stress, and the urge for sleep. Radiation levels were 0.2 to 0.4 volts per metre, hundreds of times lower than legal US exposure standards of 47 to 61 volts per metre. Higher exposures showed higher percentages of health complaints.

8. Abdel-Rassoul et al. (2006) Residents living beneath or adjacent to a long-established mobile phone mast with numerous antennas in Egypt reported significantly higher occurrences of headaches, memory changes, dizziness, tremors, depressive symptoms and sleep disturbance than did a control group.

9. Meyer et al. (2006) compared the cancer incidence among 177,428 persons living in 48 municipalities in Bavaria between 2002 and 2003 in relation to base station coverage. “Cancer incidence was not found to be elevated in municipalities with cellular telephone relay stations. The cancer incidence was highly variable in areas without any relay station.” This is the only study of human health around base stations that did not find any problems.

10. Preece et al. (2007) A study of three villages in Cyprus found “a considerable excess of migraine, headache and dizziness, which appears to share a gradient with radiofrequency exposure” that was mostly due to mobile phone base station radiation.

11. Eger et al. (2009) The Bavarian town of Selbitz conducted a health survey of 251 residents exposed to cell tower radiation at no more than 1 volt per metre. The study found a significant correlation, depending on dose exposure, for: insomnia, depression, cerebral symptoms, joint illnesses, infections, skin changes, heart and circulation disorders, disorders of vision/ hearing, and gastrointestinal problems.

12. Kundi and Hutter (2009) This important independent review of base station studies reported “strong indications that long-term exposure near base stations affects wellbeing. Symptoms most often associated with exposure were headaches, concentration difficulties, restlessness, and tremor. Sleeping problems were also related to distance from base station or power density.”

13. Leitgeb et al. (2008) This study looked at the sleep patterns of 43 subjects when true- and sham-shielded from base station radiation in their homes. Four of the subjects showed dramatic changes in sleep patterns when exposed to the radiation.

14. Augner and Hacker (2009) This study examined relationships among 57 subjects to see if they were affected by living near base stations. Those reporting living near base stations “had significantly higher concentrations of alpha-amylase in their saliva, higher rates in symptom checklist subscales somatization, obsessive-compulsive, anxiety, phobic anxiety, and global strain index PST (Positive Symptom Total) … EMF-related health concerns cannot explain these findings.”

15. Elliott et al. (2010) For this study, researchers from Imperial College London looked at almost 7,000 children and explored whether there was any correlation between a mother living near a mobile phone base station during her pregnancy and that child’s risk of developing cancer. While the study claimed not to find a pattern, there was in fact a 16% increase in childhood leukaemias at intermediate distances from towers.

16. Khurana et al. (2010) This independent review looked at ten epidemiological studies: “We found that eight of the 10 studies reported increased prevalence of adverse neurobehavioral symptoms or cancer in populations living at distances under 500 metres from base stations. None of the studies reported exposure above accepted international guidelines, suggesting that current guidelines may be inadequate in protecting the health of human populations.”

17. Levitt and Lai (2010) This independent review looked at reports and studies indicating “headaches, skin rashes, sleep disturbances, depression, decreased libido, increased rates of suicide, concentration problems, dizziness, memory changes, increased risk of cancer, tremors, and other neurophysiological effects in populations near base stations.”

18. Dode et al. (2011) This study looked at 7191 deaths by cancer in Brazil’s third-largest city, Belo Horizonte, between 1996 and 2006. The highest rate of deaths from cancer was found among those who had lived within 500 metres of cellphone masts; there was a 35% increase in cancers for those living within 100 metres. There were high rates of prostate, breast, lung, kidney and liver cancer among the victims living closest to masts.

19. Buchner et al. (2011) In this study conducted in Bavaria, Germany, urine samples of 60 study participants were analysed for their adrenaline, noradrenaline, dopamine, and phenylethylamine (PEA) levels before and after the activation of a new GSM cell tower. After activation, the stress hormone levels increased significantly, while dopamine and PEA levels decreased substantially. Sleep problems, headaches, allergies, dizziness, and concentration problems were common. This study indicates that base station radiation induces radical dose-responsive changes in human stress hormones.

20. Li et al. (2012) This Taiwanese study focused on childhood tumours in relation to RF exposure from cell towers erected between 1998 and 2007. Researchers calculated the annual power emitted by all 71,185 cell towers in Taiwan and compared the calculated exposure of populations in each irradiated township: “This study noted a significantly increased risk of all tumours in children with higher-than-median RF exposure to mobile phone base stations.”

21. Eskander et al. (2012) This Egyptian cellphone tower study focused on the changes in human hormone profiles. Blood samples were taken from volunteers prior to the installation of a base station. Following installation, ongoing samples were taken which showed a significant decrease in volunteers’ ACTH, cortisol, thyroid hormones, prolactin for young females, and testosterone levels.

22. Navarro et al. (2013) An extension of their earlier study, this found significant correlations with lack of appetite; lack of concentration; irritability; and trouble sleeping. Controls for demographic factors and other possible risk factors were applied. Concerns about exposure did not affect the strong and direct association between exposure and sleep disorders.

23. Shahbazi et al. (2014) This Iranian study was conducted on 250 randomly selected people living near cell towers. Statistically significant symptoms included: nausea, headache, dizziness, irritability, discomfort, nervousness, depression, sleep disturbances, memory loss, and lack of libido among people living within 300 metres of the cellphone towers, compared with those living further away. While this paper appears to have been retracted for no given reason, it is recorded here for interest, given the health situation in Iran with the COVID-19 outbreak.

24. Gandhi et al. (2014) This case-control study evaluated genetic damage in individuals living in the vicinity of cellphone towers. The blood of irradiated subjects showed significantly elevated DNA damage compared with non-irradiated control subjects matched for gender, age, and other factors. Females were especially affected by cellphone tower DNA damage.

25. Shiniyo et al. (2014) This study documents the myriad serious health effects suffered by condominium inhabitants living under rooftop antennas in Japan, who were examined by medical professionals. Every single one of a long list of illnesses suffered by the residents during their years of exposure improved after the antennas were deactivated. The symptoms ascribed to microwave radiation include numerous neurological dysfunctions, eye damage, severe fatigue, and tumours.

26. Meo et al. (2015) This Saudi Arabian study examined 159 students with varying exposure to base station radiation and found significantly elevated levels of glycolated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and risk of type 2 diabetes among those with high exposures.

27. Pachuau (2014) This Indian study looked at 64 adults living at varying distances from a base station. Complaints .of fatigue, nausea, dizziness and muscle pain were significantly higher from those living within 50 metres of the base station.

28. Golati et al. (2016) Scientists studied 116 persons exposed to radiation from mobile towers and 106 control subjects. The researchers looked for DNA damage in peripheral blood lymphocytes using alkaline comet assay and micronucleus assay in mouth tissue cells. They found significant DNA damage among cellphone tower subjects as compared with the non-irradiated control group, including increased micronucleus frequencies. Micronuclei are known precursors for cancer.

29. Prakash et al. (2016) This study of 181 inhabitants of Bangalore found that “headache, irritability, nausea, appetite loss, discomfort, sleep disturbance, depression, memory loss difficulty in concentration and dizziness, etc., are more frequently observed symptoms of ill-health in the exposed groups. It is concluded that the cell phones and cell phone tower radiation are a strong risk factor for all the adverse health effects.”

30. Singh et al. (2016) This Indian study examined the general health and salivary function of 20 persons living near base stations and 20 on their periphery. “It was unveiled that a majority of the subjects who were residing near the mobile base station complained of sleep disturbances, headache, dizziness, irritability, concentration difficulties, and hypertension. A majority of the study subjects had significantly lesser stimulated salivary secretion (P < 0.01) as compared to the control subjects.”

31. Siersma et al. (2016) Medical scientists from Denmark and Sweden launched an electronic questionnaire posted to special interest websites. The questionnaire requested feedback on symptoms suffered by people exposed to cell phones, Wi-Fi, occupational radiation, energy-saving light bulbs and cell towers. Of 60 respondents, significant associations were noted for both chronic exposure to Wi-Fi and for cell tower exposure. Symptoms associated with tower antennas included: cognitive, head, eye, body and skin problems. The report noted: “Mobile phone towers seem to be the most problematic of the various EMF exposures.”

32. Zothansiama et al. (2017) looked at cultured human peripheral blood lymphocytes of individuals residing in the vicinity of mobile phone base stations, compared with healthy controls. This Indian study matched the groups for various demographic data including age, gender, dietary pattern, smoking habit, alcohol consumption, duration of mobile phone use and average daily mobile phone use. The 40 exposed subjects showed significantly higher frequencies of micronuclei, changes in glutathione, and increased oxidative stress, compared with controls.

33. Meo et al. (2018) This Saudi Arabian study examined 217 students at two schools with varying exposures to base station radiation. Significant impairment in motor screening tasks and spatial working memory tasks was identified among the group of students who were exposed to high levels of base station radiation. “High exposure was associated with delayed fine and gross motor skills, spatial working memory, and attention in school adolescents compared to students who were exposed to low RF-EMF.”

——-

[Full Fact’s reply on 5 June 2020]

Dear Fred,

May I refer you to this fact check: https://fullfact.org/online/5g-sign-not-official/

In the article, which was published on 25 July 2019, Full Fact wrote:

“Ofcom, the communications regulator, has carried out measurements around base stations that consistently show the amount of radiation is well below the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection’s (ICNIRP) limits, regardless of how much time you spend there.

“Dr Simon Mann, Head of Public Health England’s Radiation Dosimetry Department, told us: “Measurements of exposure levels have been made independently of the network operators at thousands of locations in the UK near to base stations and these have always been well within the [international guideline] levels. There is no convincing scientific evidence that radio signals from mobile phone masts pose a risk to public health when they are below [these] levels.

“There’s no evidence to suggest 5G is dangerous.

“5G is the next generation of wireless network technology, following on from 4G. One of the many uses of this will be to provide faster web access from mobiles, for more devices at once. Like 4G, 3G and 2G before it, 5G mobile data is transmitted over radio waves—a small part of the whole electromagnetic spectrum (which includes microwaves, visible light and X-rays).

“These radio waves are non-ionising, meaning they don’t damage the DNA inside cells, as X-rays, gamma rays and UV rays are able to do. 5G, although at slightly higher frequencies than previous networks, is still in this radio part of the electromagnetic spectrum.

“The ICNIRP provides scientific advice and guidance on non-ionising radiation (like the radio waves of 5G) and it has guidelines on safe levels of exposure. Public Health England has said that these guidelines should be adopted, and that there’s no “convincing evidence” that exposure below these guidelines can cause adverse health effects. These guidelines go up to 300GHz, whereas the maximum for 5G will probably only be in the tens of GHz.”

I hope that helps.

Best wishes,

Ben

[So Full Fact responds to my complaint about this fact check, by referring me to the fact check about which I’m complaining. Can you understand why I get angry? When this is now Round Three with Ben? And can you see how they push 5G again? This is my response, still on 5 June 2020:]

Ben, please will you refrain from this disingenuous behaviour, and read my complaint. I am making a clear distinction between OFFICIAL statements, such as the ones you are now quoting, and the actual RESEARCH on base stations in peer-reviewed publications. Please will you look at the RESEARCH. Please stop trying to make a facile response that ignores the detailed complaint I have sent you. All of this correspondence is going to be published.

Yours truly

“Fred”