5G ARPANSA FOI information
Posted: Fri Jan 29, 2021 4:16 pm
This is a snippet from THEIR (ARPANSA) FOI DOCUMENT.
"Initially, the 5G network will be deployed using similar frequencies to the 4G network. Moving into the future, 5G will use frequencies up to about 27 GHz. The biophysical interactions and health effects of this frequency range are well understood and there is no reason to believe that there is any particular cause for concern due to very low exposure levels from telecommunications applications. RF electromagnetic energy becomes less penetrating into body tissue with increasing frequency and, at frequencies above 6 GHz, the depth of penetration is relatively short with surface heating (at the skin and eyes) being the predominant effect at high exposure levels. At levels below the limits of the ARPANSA standard (Radiation Protection Series, No.3) there is no appreciable heating at the skin surface or in the eyes. "
Let's pull that apart and examine what they're admitting to.
"there is no reason to believe that there is any particular cause for concern due to very low exposure levels"
1) No reason because no published trials.
2) No cause for concern due to "VERY LOW EXPOSURE LEVELS". What about just low, medium and high exposure. Why don't they publish trials for medium and high exposure levels?
3) Very low exposure levels... at 6Ghz? What about 27Ghz?
4) Very low exposure? One device to an ear for 5 minutes? What about 10 devices on a train, sitting in close proximity for 3 hours? Or one device constantly being used for hours a day (sales reps, technicians, managers, phone nerds)?
5) Where are the trials to determine high, medium and low exposure (not "very low") to various available frequencies and multiple durations?
"at frequencies above 6 GHz, the depth of penetration is relatively short with surface heating (at the skin and eyes) being the predominant effect at high exposure levels."
1) So high exposure levels will cook the skin and eyes. That's the physical effect you will notice. What effects won't be physically noticeable?
2) The physical effect on a human body will be enough to cook the skin and eyes. The skin, the largest organ of the body is critical to absorbing oxygen.
3) If it can heat the skin and eyes of a human, what will it do to insects, bees, birds, animals, plants?
"At levels below the limits of the ARPANSA standard (Radiation Protection Series, No.3) there is no appreciable heating at the skin surface or in the eyes. "
1) Where are the trial results to support the RPS No.3?
2) No "appreciable heating" at what exposure, duration of exposure, distance to transmitters, number of devices in proximity?
Why is NONE of that data available or provided by the Australian regulator?
"Initially, the 5G network will be deployed using similar frequencies to the 4G network. Moving into the future, 5G will use frequencies up to about 27 GHz. The biophysical interactions and health effects of this frequency range are well understood and there is no reason to believe that there is any particular cause for concern due to very low exposure levels from telecommunications applications. RF electromagnetic energy becomes less penetrating into body tissue with increasing frequency and, at frequencies above 6 GHz, the depth of penetration is relatively short with surface heating (at the skin and eyes) being the predominant effect at high exposure levels. At levels below the limits of the ARPANSA standard (Radiation Protection Series, No.3) there is no appreciable heating at the skin surface or in the eyes. "
Let's pull that apart and examine what they're admitting to.
"there is no reason to believe that there is any particular cause for concern due to very low exposure levels"
1) No reason because no published trials.
2) No cause for concern due to "VERY LOW EXPOSURE LEVELS". What about just low, medium and high exposure. Why don't they publish trials for medium and high exposure levels?
3) Very low exposure levels... at 6Ghz? What about 27Ghz?
4) Very low exposure? One device to an ear for 5 minutes? What about 10 devices on a train, sitting in close proximity for 3 hours? Or one device constantly being used for hours a day (sales reps, technicians, managers, phone nerds)?
5) Where are the trials to determine high, medium and low exposure (not "very low") to various available frequencies and multiple durations?
"at frequencies above 6 GHz, the depth of penetration is relatively short with surface heating (at the skin and eyes) being the predominant effect at high exposure levels."
1) So high exposure levels will cook the skin and eyes. That's the physical effect you will notice. What effects won't be physically noticeable?
2) The physical effect on a human body will be enough to cook the skin and eyes. The skin, the largest organ of the body is critical to absorbing oxygen.
3) If it can heat the skin and eyes of a human, what will it do to insects, bees, birds, animals, plants?
"At levels below the limits of the ARPANSA standard (Radiation Protection Series, No.3) there is no appreciable heating at the skin surface or in the eyes. "
1) Where are the trial results to support the RPS No.3?
2) No "appreciable heating" at what exposure, duration of exposure, distance to transmitters, number of devices in proximity?
Why is NONE of that data available or provided by the Australian regulator?