The debate continues over the security of wireless technology


Nevada City grabbed the headlines last month as its mayor came under fire for, among other things, allegedly pushing for opposition to the regulation of the city’s 5G wireless telecommunications facilities. Residents held a controversial meeting on December 10 in which Reinette Senum faced official censorship, which could have included losing the post of mayor, for her advocacy.

Finally, Senum escaped it all official reprimand, with more than 40 community members stepping forward at the meeting to express their support and opposition to 5G technology.

In some cases, these self-proclaimed “Wi-Fi refugees” have moved to rural Nevada County to escape the rampant encroachment of wireless technology that they say has literally made them sick.

Today, faced with the spectrum of 5G technology that would extend the range of electromagnetic radiation, they are making their voices heard. Anita Weld-Tuttle became a familiar face at these meetings. At 92, an age when most people are slowing down – to say the least – Weld-Tuttle “continues to trucking” in his efforts to convince local authorities to ban 5G.

“I am protesting for a very personal reason – it has ruined my life,” she said.

Like many wireless opponents, Weld-Tuttle describes a wake-up call after his indiscriminate use of electronics. She believes she suffered a radiation burn to her leg after sitting next to a hard drive for a decade.

“The doctors didn’t have a clue what it was,” she said. “I didn’t get any answers. He has not disappeared – he will never leave.

Eventually, Weld-Tuttle met an oriental medicine doctor who diagnosed him with something called “Wi-Fi blood”.

Put simply, “Wi-Fi blood” is caused by electromagnetic hypersensitivity, some people believe.

“I have a death sentence hanging over my head,” said Weld-Tuttle, attributing his high blood pressure to the disease.

Weld-Tuttle worked part-time at a local bookstore, but had to resign when a cell phone tower was set up nearby. She tries to minimize contact with electric and magnetic field (EMF) radiation as much as possible, protecting herself and limiting her time on electronic devices.

“It’s a dangerous world out there,” she said. “We are guinea pigs for so many things.”

Jan Taché, a resident of Penn Valley, also frequently speaks about the dangers of wireless radiation, calling it “Russian roulette”.

“We’re basically bombarded with dirty electricity – I think 5G will be a terminal event,” she said.

According to Taché, several of her relatives were found to be so prone to electromagnetic hypersensitivity that she removed the smart meter from their home. They’ve invested in EMF-blocking paint and metal coverings on the exterior of the house – going through what she calls “all kinds of contortions” to be comfortable.

“My husband… if he walks up to a (wireless) tower he has blurry vision, brain fog, and then his heart starts racing,” she said. “Sometimes he fibrils. We use all kinds of blocking things, but it gets to him anyway. “

The Tachés hired a “building biologist” who walked through the residence and analyzed areas of concern for “dirty electricity,” she said.

“We spent a lot of money, but every penny is worth it,” Taché said. “You can just feel the difference.”

They also occasionally travel to Reno for live “dark field” blood work.

“He will find the cancer years before the signs,” Taché said. “It’s a really wonderful diagnostic tool.


Nevada City Mayor Reinette Senum has been at the forefront of attempts to ban the expansion of wireless facilities, bringing several advocates into town to talk about health and safety concerns.

Dafna Tachover, the founder of “We are the proof” describes herself as an “avid user” of wireless technology who suddenly fell ill of electromagnetic sensitivity in 2009 after purchasing a laptop computer.

Links to data presented and additional resources through The union on Scribd

“In six months, I couldn’t be near the wireless,” she said, adding that she had become so desperate that she started sleeping in her car to escape the radiation. Moving to the Catskills to get away from a wireless environment “literally saved my life,” Tachover said at a forum in Nevada City last summer.

“I am now focusing on awakening communities,” Tachover said, noting that municipalities have regulatory power. “You’re lucky to have a mayor on board with this problem – it’s really rare.”

Tachover discussed a range of scientific studies that she says show wireless radiation to have serious health consequences, and provided a seven-page list of those studies (see the paper provided by Tachover online .)

“We have all the scientific data we need,” she said.

The problem with this statement, according to Dr. Jerrold Bushberg, clinical professor of radiology and radiation oncology at UC Davis, is that laypersons tend to interpret the data according to their biases.

“People don’t really understand the (scientific) articles they read,” Bushberg said. “It’s just not possible. No scientist can be an expert in all disciplines – so people who are not experts will have even more difficulty. They take what they read on the Internet and take it as a gospel and use it.

According to Tachover, the results proving the link between cell phone use and cancer have been the subject of “intense” disinformation campaigns. She likens it to the tobacco industry, referring to the movie “Thank You For Smoking” with the big tobacco lobbyist telling her customers they are selling doubt.

With cancer, Tachover claimed, wireless radiation has been linked to everything from attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and autism, to genetic damage, among other ailments.

“This is the only thing that can explain the exponential increase in these conditions. It’s a major factor, ”Tachover said.

Among the studies that she says have proven her claim to be a 14-year $ 30 million study conducted by the United States National Toxicology Program funded by the Food and Drug Administration.

Tachover said preliminary results showed clear evidence that radiation causes cancer and DNA damage. But, she said, when the final report was released in 2018, the evidence “was no longer so clear” and the FDA concluded the findings did not apply to humans. Tachover suggested a cover-up.

But according to the National Cancer InstituteThis study – conducted in large part because of inconsistent results from epidemiological studies in humans and the lack of clear data from previous experimental studies in animals – did not clarify anything.

“The exposures used in the studies cannot be compared directly to the exposure humans experience when using a cell phone,” said John Bucher, senior scientist in the National Toxicology Program.


For every study that apparently proves a link between wireless radiation and cancer, there is one that disproves any link.

Statements by governments and expert groups regarding health effects and levels of safe exposure to radio frequencies… through The union on Scribd

According to Bushberg, the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements has spent years comprehensively reviewing all available scientific evidence on high-frequency ionizing radiation (the type emitted by x-rays) and non-ionizing radiation (low frequency). emitted by cell phones and microwaves.

“There are studies that show potentially horrific effects, but the (results) cannot be (replicated),” said Bushberg, who chairs the board of directors. “The vast majority of science supports current safety standards. There are groups that select individual studies without reference to the larger literature… and ignore studies that do not support their conclusions.

The council reports on a wide variety of topics involving the effects of radiation in humans, Bushberg said, noting that each report could have 20 or more authors from different disciplines.

According to Bushberg, the fear of 5G technology is more a problem of public perception than a real public health problem.

Fear of the unknown is not a new phenomenon, he said.

“When ice was introduced to the settlements, people said it was bad for you to drink ice water,” Bushberg said. “There was no basis (for this belief). … All the things that are new, there will be a fraction of the public that will be resistant to change.

“All technology comes with good and bad (aspects), our responsibility is to emphasize the good and minimize the bad,” he concluded. “We just have to be vigilant against false impressions.”

To contact editor Liz Kellar, email [email protected] or call 530-477-4236.

Source link


About Author

Comments are closed.