SYMPTOMS OF ELECTRO-MAGNETIC SENSITIVITY
plus the secret value of a good tinfoil hat
Roman Shapoval published a very interesting post which I recommend everyone reads:
I have a very lightweight lacey witches hat. I bought it in 2010 to entertain the neighbourhood kids when they came knocking for Trick or Treat during Halloween. They were delighted (((or scared))) when I opened my door dressed like this:
Last year, out of desperation, I lined the only hat I possess, my witches hat, with aluminium foil to see if it really would make a difference to my recently acquired strange headaches. I have it on right now because the pressure in my temples becomes unbearable without it.
When it is very quiet, like now at 6am, I can hear something hitting the tin foil. It is a tiny ping or tap which I do not notice during the noisier periods of my waking hours. I seem to be hearing the pulses of EMFs actually impact the foil between the hat and my head. It is so bizarre, but as soon as this hat settles on my head my headache, pressure in my temples and inner ears subside completely.
Other symptoms I experience and attribute to assault from EMFs are:
1) Hot, red, swollen feet with numbness in patches. This comes and goes, sometimes so extreme that my feet feel as if they have tourniquets on them and are about to burst open. Standing with them immersed in very cold water to the ankles helps. But that is logical because water grounds us.
2) Dry sore eyes which produce crystals that stick to my eyelashes and scratch my eyes. Eye wash helps but not for very long.
3) Hair loss. Since 2016 the volume of my hair has reduced by at least half. It is alarming how much hair I have lost.
4) Changes in my fingernails. They always used to be very strong and yet flexible. Now they are corrugated, flaky and brittle.
5) Sleeping without warning. Sudden unconsciousness. I have woken up with my hands still on this keyboard and the screen showing that I went asleep while typing - MID SENTENCE.
6) Breathlessness. Diagnosed as emphysema in 2016 but it has not progressed as that illness normally does. I cannot walk and talk at the same time. I have to sit to speak.
7) Tooth loss. Since 2016 I have lost every single tooth from my head. Previously they were lovely as you can see in the photo above.
8) Weight gain. Studies in rats which were conducted in Russia showed that the rats which were exposed to EMFs grew obese. Part of this is fluid retention. When this first started happening I could feel the fluid running down inside my legs. It was most disconcerting.
Now I am seeing all these symptoms being described as ‘long covid’ but I have never had any kind of covid. I have had flu many times in my life. Once, in Madrid, I had a severe flu which shook me to my core, but that was in 2006. I have always had normal colds to detox and benefitted from a good clear out at least once a year.
I am wondering how many other people have Electro-Magnetic Sensitivity and what they do to alleviate the symptoms.
Please think about it. Do you or anyone you know suffer from persistent symptoms that do not find a convenient diagnosis?
Please let me know!
Oh, and tell me if you wear a tinfoil hat too!
We could make a club!
Judicial Review Heard
Is the government informing the public of risks associated with 5G roll out?
This update is from our barrister, Philip Rule, written for his chambers’ website:
On 6 and 7 February 2023 the Administrative Court heard the judicial review of the Secretary of State’s alleged failure to address the evidence of risks to human health posed by 5G technology.
No5’s Philip Rule acts for the claimants, led by Michael Mansfield KC, and instructed by Lorna Hackett of Hackett & Dabbs LLP. The case is brought by Action Against 5G and with the support of the public through Crowd Justice.
At the hearing the government argued that there is no duty to inform the public of any risks at all, because it essentially denies that there are any risks from the increased exposures or new form of radiation frequency to be used in 5G rollout. This is in keeping with its publications that have sought to reassure the public that there – categorically and conclusively – is no chance of harm arising from exposure to 5G and radiofrequency radiation (“RFR”).
The claimants’ case was outlined to the Court identifying that such a position taken by the government is not based upon the scientific report that the government itself has advanced as being the most up-to-date piece of international research. That is the “ICNIRP” (International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection) March 2020 guidelines. These however are far from finding that there are no risks at all.
Indeed, far from providing any proof of an absence of risk, the ICNIRP guidelines in fact evidence the existence of risks, and notes that several are yet to be fully understood or proven by repetition of study or by anthropological study directly on people who are ‘guinea pigs’ for ubiquitous RFR or 5G in the real-world.
ICNIRP summarises that it concludes, (based on its very limited approach discussed above) that there are already three substantiated effects caused by exposure to radiofrequency EMFs: (i) nerve stimulation, (ii) changes in the permeability of cell membranes, and (iii) effects due to temperature elevation. For many other recorded matters, it essentially notes the jury is still out, but did not find that as yet the harm to human health has already been proven. In particular there are not yet any significant number of studies into 5G technology (which uses high frequency waves, and targeted beams and pulsation in a way earlier generations did not).
For those with disability treated by medical implant the consideration of safety given by ICNIRP, in its revised 2020 guidelines expressly do not cater for their safety. As well as those genetically or environmentally susceptible to suffer cancer or EHS in the future from the exposure to RFR, there are also existing vulnerable groups who ought to be considered and who deserve to be given information to assist them (but have not been), including:
i. Those with disabilities that require medical implants with electrical currents or conductivity, including pace-makers in the heart for example. (This important issue has simply not been addressed at all by ICNIRP);
ii. Those with disability/injury that required the implant of metal to their body;
iii. Children–for instance, children’s brains absorb greater quantity of RFR, and bone marrow exposure is greater; as well as their lifespan exposure being of longer duration;
iv. Those who presently suffer disability arising from existing cancer;
v. Those presently suffering pre-cancerous conditions;
vi. Those exposed habitually to radiation in the workplace, of particular levels or longevity;
vii. Those with immunosuppressant conditions;
viii. Those suffering from ME;
ix. Those suffering from EHS.
The Court was shown, for example, that the International Agency for Research on Cancer has classified both ELF magnetic fields and RF EMFs as possibly carcinogenic to humans. Exposure to non-ionising radiation including radiofrequency is notably a recorded disease or illness recognised by the WHO, since 2005, in the International Classification of Diseases, ICD-10 (even if the precise cause is not yet understood or known). A responsible body of scientific study has raised concerns about risks that remain under study. Many studies ICNIRP identifies have identified certain effects that might prove harmful and their substantiation by further study is awaited – but a position where the jury is out is not the same as a concluded final position established by study that finds a radiation is safe, or safe for all people. Limitations on current knowledge are relevant when assurances are sought to be given by the government. The public has the right to be informed and not misled about how much is known or can be stated with certainty, and what risks remain to be investigated or conclusively determined one way or the other.
The Court of Appeal previously granted permission for the case to proceed on the grounds that challenge:
1. The failure to provide adequate or effective information to the public about the risks and how, if it be possible, it might be possible for individuals to avoid or minimise the risks;
2. (a) The failure to provide adequate and sufficient reasons for not establishing a process to investigate and establish the adverse health effects and risks of adverse health effects from 5G technology and/or for discounting the risks presented by the evidence available; and/or (b) failure to meet the requirements of transparency and openness required of a public body.
These grounds advance a breach of the Human Rights Act 1998 by omissions and failings in violation of the positive obligations to protect human life, health and dignity, required to be met by Articles 2, 3 and/or 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Judgment is awaited from the Administrative Court in due course.
If you would like to support the work being done please visit https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/legalactionagainst5g/
[Philip kindly goes on to note …]
If you feel you may have been affected by the implementation of 5G masts and devices in your environment (or just wish to read more about the studies and scientific research in this field) you may wish to visit https://actionagainst5g.org/ for more information”.
Action Against 5G notes as follows:
In 2020, ICNIRP also noted that biological effects are not easily discernible from adverse health effects, and that their guidelines:
“are not intended to protect against biological effects as such (when compensatory mechanisms are overwhelmed or exhausted), unless there is also an associated adverse health effect. However, it is not always easy to draw a clear distinction between biological and adverse health effects, and indeed this can vary depending on individual susceptibility to specific situations.
An example is sensory effects from nonionizing radiation exposures under certain circumstances, such as a tingling sensation resulting from peripheral nerve stimulation by electric or magnetic fields; magnetophosphenes (light flickering sensations in the periphery of the visual field) resulting from stimulation of the retina by electric fields induced by exposure to low-frequency magnetic fields; and microwave hearing resulting from thermoelastic waves due to expansion of soft tissues in the head which travel via bone conduction to the inner ear. Such perceptions may sometimes lead to discomfort and annoyance.
ICNIRP does not consider discomfort and annoyance to be adverse health effects by themselves, but, in some cases, annoyance may lead to adverse health effects by compromising well-being. The exposure circumstances under which discomfort and annoyance occur vary between individuals.”
Thus there are many identified potential outcomes.
Philip notes above “Many studies ICNIRP identifies have identified certain effects” and we add also that many responsible bodies of scientific study (for example the International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields, Cyprus National Committee on Environment and Children’s Health, Austrian Medical Chambers, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Academy of Environmental Medicine, European Academy for Environmental Medicine, International Society of Doctors for the Environment, Environmental Health Trust, BioInitiative Working Group, French National Assembly) have identified verified risks and that courts have ruled in favour of the science presented by some of these bodies contrary to ICNIRP’s assessment of the same science regarding these risks.
[PLEASE NOTE that the AA5G team does not have the resources to advise on or support mast objections and other local actions. We refer you to the excellent material on www.rfinfo.co.uk.]
See also: https://francesleader.substack.com/p/lone-skumsmokemirrorsnarratrivia
and: https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/full-steam-ahead-for-5g-and-lets-not-even-think-about-the-damage-to-health/
"The precautionary principle should be applied to public exposures to RF radiation. So say four senior academic scientists —including the former director of the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP)— in a strongly worded appeal, published today.
Writing in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Research, Paul Ben Ishai, Linda Birnbaum, Devra Davis and Hugh Taylor point to a “plethora of both experimental and epidemiological evidence establishing a causal relationship between EMF and cancer and other adverse health effects.”
However, they go on, the picture that has emerged in public discourse has been distorted by some “fundamentally flawed, yet widely publicized reports purporting to show no health risk.” They point out that much of this disinformation comes from “industry-affiliated scientists.”
“It is imperative to insist on a complete picture of the evidence and not the whitewashed or distorted version currently promoted,” they say."
https://microwavenews.com/news-center/apply-precautionary-principle-rf