GAO’s 2012 Report And Cell Phone Recommendations No One Is Doing Anything About Except Pushing 5G

By Catherine J. Frompovich

Currently, there’s a great deal of rightful speculation and scientific concern about the push for 5G wireless, including the unbelievable number of small cell towers needed to implement that bandwidth, which is expected to operate using millimeter wave bands between 20 – 60 GHz.

Furthermore, cell tower manufacturers are going to all conceivable lengths to disguise and hide them, as you will read in “American Tower, Philips Lighting team up to hide small cells inside street lights.”

Keep in mind that ONE GHz is equal to one billion Hz electromagnetic frequencies per second. Now multiply that by 20 through 60, and at the high end you get 60,000,000,000 [1]; sixty billion millimeter wave band cycles per second no one has tested for human health safety!

In this paper, part IV. Conclusion, this information is presented:

At 60 GHz, the power reflection coefficient may vary between 34% and 42% at the air/skin interface for the normal incidence due to variations of dielectric parameters. The analyses of penetration depth show that more than 90% of the transmitted power is absorbed in the epidermis and dermis layer, suggesting that a single-layer skin model is sufficient for a reliable electromagnetic evaluation in the human body. [CJF emphasis]

Source

Readers will note sweat glands reside within the dermis, which obviously presents a health problem insofar as constantly-emitted millimeter waves may/will physiologically impact sweat glands (body water) in them! What can that mean? Will human skin heat up several degrees like being sunburned constantly, or will humans start to sweat profusely aka hyperhidrosis? How uncomfortable a tradeoff will that be for fast Wi-Fi?

Professor Dr. Devra Davis, PhD, MPH, President and Founder of Environmental Health Trust, published “Public health is littered with examples where economic interests trumped scientific advice” in The Hill, October 29, 2017. Every person who uses any type of ‘smart’ technology and/or a cell phone using microwaves, which will be upgraded to millimeter waves, needs to read Dr. Davis’s article in order to understand the implications and ramifications regarding high speed Wi-Fi and the Internet of Things (IoT).

Why do I say that?

Well, no health studies have been done regarding previous generations (G) of wireless, i.e., 3G, 4G, but still they just want to roll out 5G. Not so fast! Why? There are very good reasons besides no health impact studies.

Back in July of 2012, the U.S. Government Accounting Office released the report “TELECOMMUNICATIONS: Exposure and Testing Requirements for Mobile Phones Should Be Reassessed,” GAO-12-771; 46 pages, which made some pertinent comments in the report’s Conclusion section.

As far as I’m able to ascertain, the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has not implemented any updates to its ‘safety’ recommendations since 1996, nor to implementing GAO-12-771. See this confirming information from the FCC’s website “Wireless Devices and Health Concerns”:

Since 1996, the FCC has required that all wireless communications devices sold in the United States meet its minimum guidelines for safe human exposure to radiofrequency (RF) energy. The FCC’s guidelines and rules regarding RF exposure are based upon standards developed by IEEE and NCRP and input from other federal agencies, such as those listed above. These guidelines specify exposure limits for hand-held wireless devices in terms of the Specific Absorption Rate (SAR). The SAR is a measure of the rate that RF energy is absorbed by the body. For exposure to RF energy from wireless devices, the allowable FCC SAR limit is 1.6 watts per kilogram (W/kg), as averaged over one gram of tissue. [1]

What high-tech consumers must realize is that the FCC Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) applies for only 30 minutes exposure time! How about an hour; 24 hours; 7 days; a year or forever after?

What will cumulative SAR rates become, and does anyone in HHS, CDC, FDA, EPA, FCC or microwave technology consumers even care? That’s the Sixty-four Million Dollar Question no one even wants to approach. Why? Because if they did, 5G probably would not be implemented, in this writer’s opinion.
Talk about the opioid problems; how about fried skin for everyone! Electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) would be ‘nothing’ compared with 5G effects, from what I’m researching. Dr. Davis joined 180 scientists calling for a moratorium on the roll out of 5G.

Folks, please read that moratorium so you can understand what’s at stake! 5G technology probably is a crap shoot and you aren’t being told the downside of faster Wi-Fi.

In the Conclusions of GAO-12-771, we find in part recommendations I’ve broken down into bullet items for easier reading:

• FCC’s current RF energy exposure limit for mobile phones, established in 1996, may not reflect the latest evidence on the thermal effects of RF energy exposure and may impose additional costs on manufacturers and limitations on mobile phone design
• However, FCC has not formally asked FDA or EPA for their assessment of the limit since 1996, during which time there have been significant improvements in RF energy research and therefore a better understanding of the thermal effects of RF energy exposure. This evidence has led to a new RF energy exposure limit recommendation from international organizations.
• [M]aintaining the current U.S. limit may result in additional costs for manufacturers and impact phone design in a way that could limit performance and functionality.
• Reassessing its current RF energy exposure limit would ensure that FCC’s limit protects the public from exposure to RF energy while allowing industry to provide telecommunications services in the most efficient and practical manner possible.
• The current testing requirements for mobile phones may not identify the maximum RF energy exposure when tested against the body.
• By testing mobile phones only when at a distance from the body, FCC may not be identifying the maximum exposure, since some users may hold a mobile phone directly against the body while in use.
• Using a mobile phone in this manner could result in RF energy exposure above the maximum body-worn SAR determined during testing, although that may not necessarily be in excess of FCC’s limit.
• Reassessing its testing requirements would allow FCC to ensure that phones used by consumers in the United States do not result in RF energy exposure in excess of FCC’s limit.
• Reassess whether mobile phone testing requirements result in the identification of maximum RF energy exposure in likely usage configurations, particularly when mobile phones are held against the body, and update testing requirements as appropriate. [CJF emphasis]

Realistically, RF exposures are the KEY issues in the report’s Conclusions, which addresses cell phone use which operates on microwaves, as do other high tech smart appliances, especially AMI Smart Meters that are placed on customers’ electric, natural gas and water utility services and need to be factored into FCC’s SARs for 24/7/365 exposures. Why? AMI Smart Meters CANNOT be turned off like cell phones can!

What’s KEY to microwave technologies…SARs impacts on human health and the environment.

References:

[1] http://www.rapidtables.com/convert/frequency/ghz-to-hz.htm

Catherine J Frompovich (website) is a retired natural nutritionist who earned advanced degrees in Nutrition and Holistic Health Sciences, Certification in Orthomolecular Theory and Practice plus Paralegal Studies. Her work has been published in national and airline magazines since the early 1980s. Catherine authored numerous books on health issues along with co-authoring papers and monographs with physicians, nurses, and holistic healthcare professionals. She has been a consumer healthcare researcher 35 years and counting.

Catherine’s latest book, published October 4, 2013, is Vaccination Voodoo, What YOU Don’t Know About Vaccines, available on Amazon.com.

Her 2012 book A Cancer Answer, Holistic BREAST Cancer Management, A Guide to Effective & Non-Toxic Treatments, is available on Amazon.com and as a Kindle eBook.

Two of Catherine’s more recent books on Amazon.com are Our Chemical Lives And The Hijacking Of Our DNA, A Probe Into What’s Probably Making Us Sick (2009) and Lord, How Can I Make It Through Grieving My Loss, An Inspirational Guide Through the Grieving Process (2008)