In the world-famous theatre play “Hamlet, Prince of Danmark”, by William Shakespeare, an officer of the Elsinore Kronborg palace guard says “Something is rotten in the state of Denmark” after the ghost of the dead king appears, walking over the palace walls.
By Olle Johansson, retired from The Karolinska Institute Medical University, and Robert Ferm, CEO Testikon AB | April 28, 2020 | Download the article as PDF
Unfortunately, we must now conclude that something also is rotten in the state of Sweden. The ‘ghost’ here is in the form of a hidden political agenda – to one-sidedly stimulate economic growth – of the current government and its Prime Minister, risking our common future.
Business as usual rather than precaution, money now rather than protection, greed instead of need, turning a blind eye instead of facing the harsh truth. But there is no carpet big enough to hide the questions about cell phone radiation, health, and biological impact.
“The letter”
On December 2nd, 2019, we sent a letter (brevet på svenska | letter in English) to the Swedish Prime Minister Stefan Löfven. In it, we ordered our Prime Minister to demand that the Swedish Parliament immediately legislate on a hygienic statutory limit value for artificial microwave radiation and other artificial electromagnetic fields from wireless technology, set on biological grounds, which is absolutely safe for humans, animals, plants, and microbes. We ordered him since we argue he is employed by us and paid by us, the citizens of Sweden, and therefore accordingly must work for our common best.
We pointed out that peer-reviewed science articles clearly have shown that radiation from wireless technology, known as artificial microwave radiation, e.g. from base stations (mobile masts), WiFi, Bluetooth, DECT phones, 1G, 2G, 3G, and 4G LTE mobile phones, adversely affects humans and all biology such as animals, plants, insects, and microbes (algae, bacteria, mould, viruses, and fungi).
We also addressed the fact that the currently upcoming 5G technology, now being rolled out, is completely untested in terms of biological and medical effects. Hence, radiation from none of our current and/or coming wireless technologies is proven safe.
Furthermore, negative biological effects are shown at levels below or very much below the recommendations of the Swedish Radiation Safety Authority (Strålsäkerhetsmyndigheten; SSM). These recommendations are based on the technical guidelines recommended by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), only taking into account the calculated (!) heating effect of a 6-, 10-, or 30-minute exposure from radiation, on a single occasion without any surrounding other radiation sources.
The recommendations are not established in the radiation environment people live in, nor during life-long exposures, but in a liquid-filled plastic doll in a shielded laboratory, and do not include non-thermal impacts.
The allowed exposure levels – for the public – established by our authorities, government and parliament, boils up to 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 times, or more, above natural background levels. (During the current coronavirus outbreak, with people distancing themselves in their homes and using the wireless Internet services a lot more, the real levels currently measured in public areas are getting scaringly close to the maximal recommendations.
In the very city centre of Stockholm, 1,300,000 µW/m2 has been recorded in a public square, already in November last year, and by the very only governmental authority Strålsäkerhetsmyndigheten (the Swedish Radiation Safety Authority).
With this in mind, it is hardly surprising that the insurance industry has been aware of the health risks for many years. Insurance and reinsurance companies such as Lloyds UK and Swiss Re do not reimburse damage or care costs caused by exposure from artificial microwave radiation, nor from other types of electromagnetic fields.
Similarly, the telecom industry, the operators, the WHO International EMF Project, and the world’s radiation safety authorities have legally protected themselves from the “backward” future of the technology in the form of legal proceedings and damage claims.
As said above, the telecom industry is, and has always been, fully aware of the health risks of radiation. In the early 1990s, several major telecom companies were granted patents on inventions designed to reduce microwave radiation when using mobile phones.
Over the past 25 years, companies in the telecom industry, as well as other companies and independent inventors, have thus accumulated a large number of patents to reduce the adverse health effects of artificial microwave radiation.
However, new products with the technology which uses solutions from patents will only be launched on the market when there is a statutory limit value. The technology in the patents will then be used as it is, or modified, to meet such new statutory biologically-based safe limit values.
So, in summary, to believe that one single 6-, 10-, or 30-minute exposure of a fluid-filled plastic doll, in an otherwise completely radiation-free environment, only calculating acute heating effects, will be any form of safety measure is more than naive. It is dangerously naive. And that belief is not shared by the big players in this field, which is even more telling.
In recent years, several court cases have been won in courts in Europe where people, who have suffered cancer due to prolonged exposure to artificial microwave radiation, have been compensated. In the United States, a number of similar legal class action processes are in progress, but the outcome of these is not yet known, and it is a very scary future for us Swedes, as we stressed in our letter to our Prime Minister Stefan Löfven, as of December 2nd, 2019.
In the early 2000s, the Swedish telecommunications giant Ericsson, along with other companies in the telecom industry, was involved in several legal processes in the United States where radiation from their cell phones was believed to have caused damage. There is now again a great risk that Ericsson may be involved in legal proceedings involving their base stations. It may be the existing generations of technology or the new 5G technology.
Suppose a scenario, which may seem unrealistic but is entirely possible, where Ericsson, in the wake of several processes in the US, must pay $200 billion in damages. If such a scenario occurs, the whole of Sweden’s economy and welfare system may be at risk of collapse, as we now see discussed for another risk, namely the outbreak and handling of coronavirus/covid-19.
In the future, we will probably experience similar legal processes for violations of human rights in connection with the above, as well as corresponding crimes against nature. When such a legal process is initiated, the issue of lack of responsibility from politicians, authorities, and decision-makers in the telecom industry will be highlighted.
Already, a Danish lawyer, Mr. Christian F. Jensen at Bonnor Advokater, in Holte, Denmark, has made an investigation into how the introduction of the upcoming 5G technology is a violation of human rights and applicable international environmental laws.
Since we are all in this soup, the two of us felt it was our strict obligation to inform and warn our Prime Minister, and urge him to demand from the Swedish Parliament that it will immediately legislate on a biologically-based limit value for artificial microwave radiation from wireless technology that is safe for humans, animals, plants, insects, and microbes (algae, bacteria, mould, viruses, and fungi).
To this should be added other artificial electromagnetic fields from wireless technology.
Based on current scientific observations and theories, we told the Prime Minister that this limit value should be equal to the level of natural background radiation. It must also be taken into account that the artificial radiation is completely – physically – essentially separate from the natural radiation regarding pulsation, modulation and polarization, which may mean that it must be thrown into the dustbin of history. To act firmly now is, as with the current coronavirus outbreak, to minimize damage in the future.
In the event of failure to act on this recommendation, there is a risk that politicians and decision-makers of government agencies in Sweden will be involved in a future legal process regarding violation of the UN Human Rights Acts regarding the unregulated introduction of wireless technology which, through prolonged exposure to artificial microwave radiation and other types of electromagnetic fields, causes serious ill-health to the population without their knowledge and approval.
This is especially serious since those who are most at risk of exposure to microwave radiation are children, adolescents, pregnant women (and their fetuses) and older people. Finally, to this must also be added the impact on nature and the environment, which in itself can be quite serious from a biological, medical and economical point of view.
Our reasoning follows the recent criticism by the former Deputy President of the Riksbank (Central Bank) of Sweden, Ms Kerstin Hessius, stating that if the on-going corona virus-related economic and practical restrictions last for a while, the entire next generation’s opportunities will be more or less spoiled by a huge economic recession, which will take years to get out of. She proposed to appoint a group of intelligent people to help the Government.
Such a Crisis Commission definitely is also needed when it comes to the above issues regarding adverse health, biological and economical effects of artificial electromagnetic fields, such as from WiFi, cell phones, laptops, baby alarms, and tablets. As a matter of fact, maybe a Crisis Commission for the latter is even more needed, since all lifeforms may be at stake.
“The response” … aka “The surprise”
And what did we get back from our Prime Minister Stefan Löfven? …Nothing, since he didn’t even bother to respond, but sent it to the Minister of the Environment and Climate, and Deputy Prime Minister Isabella Lövin, Ministry of the Environment. …Who didn’t bother to respond, but sent it on a long journey through the governmental administration ending in the lap of Ms Charlotta Fred, Departementsråd (“Deputy Director-General”) at the Miljödepartementet (“Ministry of the Environment”), who officially responded by March 9th, 2020, as given in the letterhead (very oddly, though, we received her answer three days before that date, on March 6th, 2020) (svarsbrevet på svenska | answer letter in English).
Thus, it took all these persons nearly 100 (!) days to respond, so we did except some very good and important answers…but it turned out to be a monumental disappointment! (Trust us, we are not hereby trying to win any cheap points on a government currently occupied with caring for our elderly and long-term smokers possibly infected with coronaviruses, its actions certainly deserve our respect [although it is becoming more and more evident that the political priorities the last years may not have been the most favourable for the citizens of Sweden; our current preparedness and readiness are not at all what we believed they were].
But lack of adult political responses has, unfortunately, been the theme for the last 40 years, so it is not unique to our present times, and not to Sweden. The situation is exactly the same world over … people are constantly reporting about it … and people are getting sick and tired of it!)
When we boiled down the reply letter’s one-page content to its core, we received the following:
Letter on limit values for electromagnetic fields
- a) A few lines – about all the persons that didn’t reply.
- b) A few lines – the Radiation Safety Authority and the Swedish Work Environment Authority are responsible. [comment: we thought it was the Prime Minister and his cabinet together with the MPs who are…]
- c) A few lines – the competent authorities (see above) have already established reference and limit values, therefore, it is not relevant for the Government to take further initiatives to legislate on such values. Based on international research there are no health risks. (sic!)
- d) A few lines – the Government has full confidence that the authorities are fulfilling their tasks. Of course, if new scientific facts emerge in the future, it can cause the Government to take action. (sic!)
And that is all, dear Readers of this article! The same “good ol’ story” we have been fed with over the last decades, based on the industry-prone private organization ICNIRP’s (the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection) technical recommendations performed in a completely radiation-free environment, allowing a fluid-filled plastic doll to make one 6-, 10-, or 30-minute call, once in its lifetime, only recording calculated (!) thermal (heating) effects, as we already had pointed out in our letter to the Prime Minister!
ICNIRP
The new ICNIRP Guidelines for limiting exposure to electromagnetic fields (100 kHz – 300 GHz) (40 pages, including 2 Appendices), just now released to the world, can be found here.
As Mr. Hugo Schooneveld in the Netherlands has pointed out, by March 24th, 2020,
“in spite of the suggestions for improvement by hundreds of respondents in the 2-year preparatory phase, ICNIRP has refused to incorporate any health risk of the non-thermal effects of EMFs throughout the spectrum. ‘Such affects do not exist’, but we know better. Their frightening view is that the higher the 5G microwave frequencies are, the higher the supposed tolerance of the body.
ICNIRP has ‘moved’ the skin to the category ‘extremities’, just like cornea and other superficial structures. The reasoning is that there is a better exchange of heat with the cooler environment, so that energy absorbance may be greater before the critical +5°C. will be reached.
This is a novelty for accommodating higher power transmission for the 26 GHz antennae to come. We all know how precious the biological composition of human skin is and how many tissue components may be affected by the non-thermal effects of such millimetre waves. It is different from tissue heating by sunshine, it is the biological disturbance of macromolecular processes including gene (dis)regulation that can cause damage to the cell integrity and complex hormonal, immunological and nervous interactions that serve skin and body homeostasis.”
As we see it, humans, animals, plants and microbes, will not change the amount of radiation they can deal with due to any out-of-scope “ICNIRP guidelines”. No matter how much radiation is out there, our bodies’ personal “limits” will always remain the same.
Furthermore, by March 24th, 2020, Dr. Ronald N. Kostoff, declared:
“I am amazed at the responses I’ve seen to the ICNIRP Guidelines. Did anyone really expect anything different? That’s who ICNIRP is! And, I wouldn’t expect anything different from WHO, FCC, FDA, ……. As I pointed out previously, these myriad organizations are the ’blocking backs’ for the telecoms and associated beneficiaries from wireless infrastructure and devices.”
Finally, Dr. Theodore Metsis, a member of the European Bioelectromagnetics Association, also by March 24th, 2020, wrote that:
“…almost no one expected anything different from ICNIRP and after all these years their line and interests I dare say, is fully disclosed. (…) Science has shown an amazing tolerance for this ICNIRP “game” admittedly over a very long period of time. It is about time they face their serious responsibilities together with everyone else giving them direct and indirect support, WHOever it is.”
To this last statement we must now definitely add the Swedish Prime Minister Stefan Löfven and his cabinet. If this is the way our parliament, government, and Prime Minister, deal with their different issues, then we all need to pray for mercy to the old man with the corona above his head…
Responsibility
But, don’t get me wrong, we do see that the real villains here are not our governmental or parliamentary politicians, but their advisors, their governmental civil servants. All over the world, the consumers/citizens as well as our parliament politicians are still told, e.g. by the Swedish, Norwegian and Danish governmental radiation and health authorities that there is no reason for any concern. Excuse me!
If no one – including the American FCC & FDA – is aware of any independent scientific studies on the safety of 5G, then we must be very concerned taking into account the fact that from the current vast scientific literature, counting more than 30,000 relevant entries into various literature databases, on the other G:s, like 2G, 3G, and 4G, as well as similar exposures from TV and radio towers, baby alarms, smart meters, and powerlines, it is obvious we must proceed with the highest caution before immersing the citizens and our wildlife in more and more artificial electromagnetic fields.
We may, as a matter of fact, already be gravely endangering our current as well as coming generations. To not act today, may prove a disaster tomorrow, and such lack of action may again result in the classical “late lessons from early warnings”, or – even worse – our “too late lessons…”.
And for all the civil servants – employed by various governmental authorities – to actively lure their own government and parliament must be regarded as very serious. We believe it is called “high treason” to engage in such an act, or…? We, as scientists, are not here to promote convenience or economic growth, but only “to serve and protect” human health, as well as to directly protect other animals, plants, and microbes. These aims must be our only target, not to ensure consumers nor parliaments “there is no cause for alarm” which would be a blatant lie.
At the same time, we must demand leadership from the government and the Prime Minister, they can never be allowed to cowardly hide behind their authorities. We must also demand complete openness and transparency. It is scandalous that the citizens still are not fully informed, that questions are left unanswered or riposted with smoke screens. The government and our Prime Minister must be forced to be adults in the room, not any kind of evasive and elusive smart guys, in secrecy working for the industry, the banks and their future re-elections. That might be seen as normal among their political peers, but it is not what the citizens need, deserve and are formally entitled to. We have a very serious situation, with dire and potentially ghastly ramifications. To then only get a thick black smoke back as an answer is not the kind of society we appreciate or want, far from it.
Alfred Nobel
In his 26th of October, 1892, Paris letter where Alfred Nobel, for the first time, mentions the idea of a prize to fight cholera, he concludes that epidemics are like fires, they must be smothered at once, otherwise the situation can quickly get out of hand. Alfred Nobel especially pointed to the huge economic consequences of the latter.
He proposed the founding of a set amount of money as an epidemy prize “to the person that first would succeed to identify a dangerous infection of epidemic character and make it known”, preferably so early so that it could be rapidly stopped. As we know, this epidemy prize never was realized, but by March 1893 and finally, in 1895, the Nobel Prizes were founded in Physiology or Medicine, Physics, Chemistry, Literature, and Peace. Had there been a Nobel Prize in Epidemy of course the Chinese medical doctor and whistleblower Li Wenliang should have had it this year, but the Chinese authorities had the police jail him, and he died due to covid-19 in early February 2020. Will we witness the same regarding adverse health and biological effects of artificial electromagnetic fields, or will we stop in time? Will we soon, hopefully, get a Prime Minister that demands answers and action from his/her authorities and government/parliament, instead of wish-washing with us, his employers? Or will he rather jail us, rather than protect us? If so, can we then immediately elect and pay someone else to be the responsible political ‘parent in the room’?
Experts and “experts”
It is very fascinating to read the recent commentary by Karin Bojs in Dagens Nyheter, March 20, 2020, the biggest daily newspaper in Sweden, where she points to that, for journalists, a basic principle is usually to apply a critical and scrutinizing perspective.
Furthermore, Karin Bojs suggests, under the headline ”Så skiljer du på falska och riktiga experter” (“How to distinguish between false and real experts”), that before the editors release an ”expert” into a television or radio studio, they should search PubMed. It is a giant database of research published in scientific, medical journals and there you can see in minutes if the ”expert” has published research papers on the subject. By doing this, she writes, the real expert can be distinguished from the ”expert”.
It is tempting to agree with her, but we would still call for some caution. Her conclusion actually excludes our Prime Minister Stefan Löfven, Isabella Lövin, their Ministry of the Environment, and their Departementsråd (“Deputy Director-General”) Charlotta Fred, from the ranks of experts. (Following the same reasoning Karin Bojs also excludes … herself, Albert Einstein, Max Planck, Stephen Hawking, and Isaac Newton – to the best of our knowledge neither one of them is found in the PubMed database!)
As scientists we are always taught to rest all our claims on independent, replicated science, published in peer review-based scientific journals. But why does that not apply to Stefan Löfven and his “experts”?! How can they get away with their topsy-turvy approach to our questions? Their way of dealing with these real issues is like tying the horse behind the cart! Precaution and common sense should come first … not greed and profit.
So, please, dear Mr. Prime Minister, answer our letter as an adult. Our tolerance is now quickly running out…
By Olle Johansson, retired from The Karolinska Institute Medical University, and Robert Ferm, CEO Testikon AB | April 28, 2020
Related
- Brev till Statsminister Stefan Löfven | Letter to Prime Minister Stefan Löfven
- Svarsbrev om gränsvärden för elektromagnetiska fält (från Miljödepartementet) | Reply on limit values for electromagnetic fields (from the Ministry of the Environment)
