Parlimentary Inquiry into EMR
In 2001 the Australia Government made an Inquiry into public Electromagnetic Radiation exposure, welcoming submissions from the public. There were 149 submissions, including expert testimonies from Dr Bruce Hocking, Dr Neil Cherry and Dr Henry Lai. View Submissions Here
In September 2019 the Minister for Communications, Hon Paul Fletcher MP asked the Committee to inquire into and report on the deployment, adoption and application of 5G in Australia. Written submissions from the public were, once again, welcomed by the committee addressing the terms of reference. View Submissions Here
The 2001 Australian Parlimentary Inquiry into EMR
As a result of the 2001 Inquiry into EMR the Committee Chair recommended numerous measures to minimise potential health risks:
“There are a number of ways in which potential health effects may be minimised, particularly given community concerns about the placement of mobile phone towers and base stations near schools, hospitals, shopping centres, churches and people’s homes:
- adopting a precautionary approach in the setting of emission/exposure safety standards;
- ensuring that the mobile phone tower/base station emission beams of greatest intensity are sited away from sensitive areas like schools and hospitals;
- encouraging limits to the use of mobile phones, particularly by children;
- using devices which shield or otherwise minimise the level of emissions from mobile phones; and
- labelling mobile phones to inform consumers about emission levels, with the additional objective of allowing market forces to encourage companies to develop phones that can be efficiently used with the lowest levels of emissions possible.”
The Committee Chair further recommended that “the Government review the Telecommunications (Low-impact Facilities) Determination 1997, and as a precautionary measure, amend it to enable community groups to have greater input into the siting of antenna towers and require their installation to go through normal local government planning processes”
These recommendations were never implemented.
Amongst other precautionary measures recommended as a result of the Australian Senate Inquiry (2001) into electromagnetic radiation, it was recommended that the exposure level of 200 microwatts per square centimeter be adopted. This was not approved and subsequently, since that time Australians have continued to endure higher exposure levels (currently this is 1000 microwatts per square centimeter) when compared to other countries that have significantly lower exposure limits.
The 2019 Australian Parlimentary Inquiry into 5G
Many doctors, researchers, parents, teachers and individuals with Electro-Hypersenstivity wrote in, urging the Australian government to protect public health and abandon their plans to roll out untested, radiation emitting 5G infrastructure. View Submissions Here At present a total of 537 submissions from the public have been recieved, with many more to come. As well as a further 390 form letters calling for an imediate moratorium.
Various industry groups also made submissions to the 5G inquiry expressing their concerns about community opposition interfering with the rollout of 5G technology. It has been estimated that 5G, the associated Internet of Things (IoT) and autonomous vehicles will offer a $17 trillion profit margin to the various industries vested in 5G technologies.
Australia’s largest telecommunications provider, Telstra, made a submission, insisting that any evidence put forward against the safety of 5G was merely a health scare campaign “driven largely by social media and… ‘Foreign actors.'” Telstra asked the government to free up more radio bandwidth to make way for the 5G network and, to combat health fears, launch a nation wide campaign to promote their infrastructure.
As a result, the Morrison government has pledged $5 million into an industry public relations misinformation campaign, designed to convince the Australian public that 5G is safe. Instead of siding with the majority, the Australian government has been bought out by big business. The government intends to ignore the scientific evidence and instead encourage the population to take up the new technology as ignorant consumers.
“Here comes the government’s smoke & mirror circus assisted by the clowns at ARPANSA, ACEBR, Telstra and compliant journalists who have no idea of the actual science” – (Don- EMF Facts Consultancy).
The Role Of ARPANSA
The Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) are the Australian Government’s primary authority on radiation protection and nuclear safety. They claim to “protect the Australian people and the environment from the harmful effects of radiation through understanding risks, best practice regulation, research, policy, services, partnerships and engaging with the community.”
YET the safety standards that ARPANSA wishes to maintain are severely outdated and fail to reflect the growing body of scientific evidence demonstrating harm. Set in 2002, the Australian safety standard does not adequately protect the public from cumulative exposure and the levels of radiation that have increased exponentially over the last two decades.
The Australian ARPANSA standard is based on the outdated ICNIRP International EMF human exposure Guideline (1998), which was only ever based on short term and immediate health effects from thermal health effects (heating of tissue). People have more daily exposure than 5-10 years ago.
In July 2018 – ICNIRP commenced a review of its guidelines. The outcomes have not been published yet. In October 2018, the TU held the IMT-2020 (5G) workshop regarding the assessments of human exposure to the radiofrequency electromagnetic field and the review of the ICNIRP guideline was discussed.
The workshop notes stated that: “It was noted that adoption of lower EMF exposure limits is likely to stifle innovation and deployment of networks and may impact on proven social, security and economic benefits that the technology provides to the community.”
Based on the above statement, a realistic public safety standard would have a major impact on economic benefits for higher processing capacity. If public safety is not the primary consideration, and if economic benefits has more weighting, then full transparency on this issue must be clearly stated. Public interest information would then include disclosure of risk assessment criteria and the rationale when establishing human exposure safety limits.
ICNIRP only provide guidance on human exposure limits, however, are not responsible on whether a technology is safe or not. This is the responsibility of governments and industry to ensure public safety before implementation of mobile technology based on microwaves and mmWaves. Setting an Australian safety standard based on an international guideline that is so far removed from scrutiny must effectively satisfy applicability, safety and probity requirements.
ARPANSA cannot give medical advice and while they do acknowledge those with Electro-Hypersensitivty, they do not factor such illnesses into public exposure policy, instead they refer affected individuals ……. “to seek medical advice from a qualified medical specialist.”
The disclaimer on their website: “This website is not a substitute for independent professional advice specific to your personal circumstances. Nothing contained in this site is intended to be used as medical advice and, in particular, it should not be used to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease in individual cases, nor should it be used for therapeutic purposes or as a substitute for your own health practitioner’s professional advice. ARPANSA does not accept any liability for any injury, loss or damage incurred by use of or reliance on the information provided on this website.”