Listen: United States, World Health Organization, Magda Havis discussed on Coast to Coast AM with George Noory
"Magda Havis is associate professor of environmental and resource. Studies at Trent university here in Peterborough Ontario, Canada where she teaches and does research on the biological effects of environmental contaminants, Dr Havis received her PHD from the university of Toronto completed postdoctoral research at Cornell University and taught at the university of Toronto before going to Trent university in Peterborough Magda Havis, welcome back to coast to coast AM. How are you? I'm well, Richard. Thank you. It's been a while. How have you been? Well, I've dealt with a few health issues like cancer but apart from that. I'm good. Oh, my. Are on the rebound. Are you? I am terrific. That's great to hear. We need. You. So five G. They're talking about rolling it out in twenty twenty. I'm a bit of a Luddite. I do have a cell phone. In fact, I'm supposed to upgrade this this weekend sometime to the next iteration. But why do we need five G? What's wrong with three G or four G? Why do we need a five G? Well, I personally don't think we do need five G, but what the industry will tell you. This is the telecom industry is that people are requesting faster speeds for downloading videos, for example. And there's a number of manufacturers that want to have devices that have very rapid speeds for inter connectivity and five G will provide that. So that's what the industry tells us that people are demanding higher. Speeds will we notice a difference because it seems like we're talking about like milliseconds in terms of reducing one of the big things. You're talking about is reducing the delay. But we're talking about milliseconds. Well, we even notice the difference. You will if you're trying to download a video on your iphone or your ipad. And if the video high definition, and it's it's a very large size instead of taking minutes to download it. We'll just take a couple of seconds. So that's you know, the industry is pushing. Now, they're saying that one of the big things about five G is it's going to be able to accommodate the rather horrifying so-called internet of things. So I guess so that my refrigerator can speak to my toaster, which can talk to my I don't know my garage door opener. I don't really understand that. Yeah. Your refrigerator and toaster can talk without five, gene. And indeed, it doesn't need five t to communicate. But if you're going to have something like a car driverless car, then that's going to require information processing, much more quickly and four G won't do that kind of thing. So if you're looking at technology that really requires a lot of data with very fast. Download speeds, then the four G probably isn't sufficient devasta- JR. And the idea is that they're going to roll this out when in twenty twenty it's coming at us like a freight train is that the idea it's coming out. It's like a freight train. But it's all ready being tested now. So there are a number of communities that are unfortunately being exposed to five G S, we speak the rollout is scheduled for twenty twenty. But there are some companies that are hoping it'll be sooner from them. And who are the major or the main drivers behind this? We're hearing a lot about for example, this Chinese company Huawei who else right? Well, in the United States, the federal communication is really pushing this forward the previous head of the FCC was Tom Wheeler. And he was basically an industry insider who took over the FCC for a number of years, and he was very very strongly supporting five Jan trying to get it out as quickly as possible. Now, there's been a lot of opposition to five G from people who believed that this technology. It's dangerous. Even the the four G version already dangerous so going to five G without any kind of long term, biological testing seems really stupid to those individuals, but Tom Wheeler he's been interviewed. He's given a number of press com. Prince interviews, and he doesn't believe it needs to be tested. He believes that we should just go ahead and everything will will happen in its normal sequence. And he really believes that the United States needs to have this rapid deployment. So they can they can maintain their competitive advantage globally. The problem is is that I personally believe that five is going to be harmful to the best of my understanding of it and to roll it out and expose the entire planet to radiation. Just doesn't make any sense to me without the proper testing. I do wanna get to some of the claims about health dilatory is health effects and so forth. But I just want to understand what is coming our way. So it will this require. Like, a major retrofit in terms of the let's say the infrastructure are they going to have to replace cell towers. I mean, what are we going to see sort of on the ground when five G comes arrives? They won't have to replace cell towers because five G and four G or going to a coexist. So we'll still be using four G technology. Indeed, we're still using three g technology in some parts of the world. And for certain things so four g and five g will will coincide but five t requires very different infrastructure. So it's going to have a massive build out of antennas because five G it stands for fifth generation and the claims that this technology to be fast. It has to be at a higher frequency. And so the the frequency range that they're talking about our cold knowing meter waves. So these are wave wavelengths that have anywhere from one to ten millimeters in inside that's the length of the wave and infrequency. We're talking about something that is in the gigahertz range between thirty and three hundred gigahertz. So there's two different ways of talking about talking about the size of the waiver, the frequency of the wave these require very different types of antennas. And one of the things we know about these higher frequencies as they is that they don't penetrate buildings as well. And there absorbed by things like water and trees, and so instead of having one end, you know, in a one kilometer radius or something they're going to have to have ten antennas, according to the industry every few houses. So you know, depending on how closely the homes are together and the the antennas. Are going to have to be line of sight, which means that if you're at one and ten you can see the next antenna won't be anything in between them. So we're really talking about a massive massive infrastructure. Avantel China's that are going to go in every community in the United States. Some of the radiation is actually going to be coming from outer space through satellite transmission? But basically, you're going to have an antenna in front of your home, or you know, certainly within three to five homes in your neighborhood. And that means you're going to be exposed to radiation on virtually constant basis as well from the five, gene in addition to the four G radiation. So in other words. We have smaller antennas. Placed much closer together each. Emitting bursts of radio frequency radiation. Although at levels much lower than let's say today's four G towers, right? Not well possibly lower than today's forty towers. There's a lot of confusion out there as to exactly which frequencies are going to be using. And how powerful they need to be. And some of the information, you know, that's available on the internet is is very very misleading, including some of what I've just told you the fact that it doesn't penetrate buildings very effectively. There have been technicians that are going out now testing five technology, and they're finding the radiation actually transmits for much longer distances than they've they've theoretically calculated. And so, you know, these antennas might be actually much more powerful than we realize. So it's gonna be much harder to avoid then. You won't be able to avoid it. So in other words, it doesn't matter if I have a cell phone if I'm using my old analog dial up phone, I'm still going to be. I'm still going to be subjected to or exposed to this radio frequency radiation. That's correct. Now, if I have a five G phone is going to intensify my exposure or at this point. I mean, we're swimming in it doesn't make any difference. I think it does make a difference. And you're right. We are swimming in it right now, whether you have a cell phone or not is almost a relevant for exposure. So if you're in an urban environment, for example city where there are antennas communicating with other people cell phones, you're getting secondhand exposure. Just like you would with second hand smoke, and that's going to happen with them five G as well the differences. If you're a smoker your exposure is going to be that much higher because your cell phone is emitting radiation. When it sends a signal, and so because you're so close to your cellphone, you're going to get that signal as well as the one coming from the Antenne that back in twenty eleven the World Health Organization, their international agency for research on cancer. Sir. Classified r f our radio frequency radiation as a potential to be carcinogen. What does that mean? A potential to be carcinogen they classified as a possible to be a possible carcinogen, and what that means is they had evidence from studies with humans. They're called epidemiological studies where people who use cellphones had a greater risk of developing certain types of tumors associated with the head the two types of tumors that the World Health Organization agency recognized and said the evidence was sufficient was four glioma is which is a type of a brain tumor and coup stick neuroma, which is a type of tumor is in the nerve leading to the ear. The acoustic neuroma is non malignant glioma is malignant and glioma blast on. Multiform as one of the most virulent types of brain tumors, and very few people survive who have some and what the study showed back in, you know, prior to two thousand eleven one Nate made this classification was that there was an increased risk was higher for kids. If you started using cell phone before the age of twenty your risk increased quite dramatically and people how to use it for at least ten years in order to observe this tumor because brain tumors a latency period that's normally longer than ten years. So the fact that it was showing up after ten years of quite disturbing and the brain tumor tended to happen on the same side of your head where you held your cell phone. So if you held your cell phone to your left here, you get a tumor in your left temporal lobe, for example. And that was sufficient, but what was lacking back, then was large-scale animal studies that were showing, you know, increase cancers with exposure that has since changed just this past year in two thousand eighteen the national toxicology program in the United States presented their release their final peer reviewed report. And they found that the glioma and a type of Schwann Oma, which was the coup stick neuroma appeared in the heart. So they found an increase in glioma in these rats, and they found an increase in tumor of the heart simply because the rats were exposed the entire body was exposed not just the head. Then we're not finding heart tumors and people, but it's the same type of tumor cell that was found in the ear. So the fact that these two tumor types. That we're just, you know, discovered in the rats also occurred in the humans was really a cost for concern. And since that time, there's an institute in Italy called the rest Ramsey institute. And they did a very similar study to the NTT studying found virtually the same thing. So we now have replication of two very large, you know, multi-million dollar studies showing that rats exposed to cell phones develop to at least two types of tumors that we're really concerned about humans. So you're saying there's not even any there's no longer any debate about this that it is that radiofrequency radiation the World Health Organization says it's a potential carcinogen. But if I'm hearing you correctly, there's no longer any debate. There's no longer any debate. Except if you bring scientists who work for the industry together with scientists who are independent we funded. They will disagree because. The industry really doesn't want to admit that their product is causing cancer. But the scientific evidence clearly shows that this is no longer a to be carcinogen. It's definitely a one or possibly a to a carcinogen, which is a probable carcinogen. I'm convinced. It's a it's a one classified as a class one carcinogen, which is carcinogenic to humans. We we hear a lot about the blood brain barrier. Permeability for example. Talk to me about that. And the importance of that with relation to five G.."