Log In

Reset Password

NZ exposure limits for 5G signals ‘too high’


The NZ Ministry of Health’s “fact” sheet about 5G says “exposures to 5G signals are similar to, or lower than, those from existing cellsites, and small fractions of the public limit in the standard”. This statement is not supported by the graphs in a thesis from the electrical engineering department at Georgia Southern University in the US (https://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3088&context=etd) which show that even the high exposure guidelines are exceeded within six metres of a 5G access point (aka base station) for Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) and within two metres of the access point for power density.

This means that the concentrated, directed beams emitted by 5G antennae positioned within six metres of a dwelling will exceed even the industry-stacked exposure guidelines currently in place in New Zealand — which permit exposure of the public to 10 million microwatts of microwaves per square metre, when the Austrian Medical Association regards exposure to 1000 microwatts per square metre as “very far above normal” (www.vagbrytaren.org/Guideline%20%20AG-EMF.pdf) and the Building Biology Standard calls 1000 microwatts per square metre cause for “extreme concern”.

The NZ Ministry of Health justifies our high exposure limits by saying “The New Zealand exposure standard’s limits are recommended by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), which the World Health Organisation recognises for its independence and expertise in this area.” The truth is that both ICNIRP and its parent agency the WHO are widely recognised as being far from independent of the military-industrial complex (www.saferemr.com/2018/07/icnirps-exposure-guidelines-for-radio.html and https://bit.ly/icnirpCOIreport), and the NZ Ministry of Health is reported to be one of the agencies that provide financial support to ICNIRP (https://microwavenews.com/short-takes-archive/bfs-support-icnirp).

A group of Ontario doctors have recently warned their state government of a steep rise in healthcare costs predicted to result from the 5G “roll-out” in Ontario (www.newswire.ca/news-releases/ontario-doctors-warn-of-rising-health-care-costs-after-5g-roll-out--845905505.html).

Could this be related in some way to our own government’s support for amalgamating district health boards? Is centralised control the only way in which the introduction of this harmful technology to Aotearoa can be whitewashed?

Robin Kelly (GP, Auckland) and Susan Pockett (scientist, University of Auckland psychology department)

Footnote response from a Ministry of Health spokesperson:

The Ministry of Health stands by its statement that “exposures to 5G signals are similar to, or lower than, those from existing cellsites, and small fractions of the public limit in the standard”. This is based on actual measurements near operating 5G cellsites made in New Zealand, Australia and the United Kingdom.

Regulations under the Resource Management Act would not permit cellsites that produce exposures in public areas that exceed the public limits.

With regard to the data presented by your correspondents, the graph showing SAR appears to be based on a misunderstanding of the relevant limits.

Information on cellsites, 5G and health can be found on the Ministry of Health website (health.govt.nz) by searching “5G cellsites”.

See: www.health.govt.nz/your-health/healthy-living/environmental-health/radiation-environment/cellsites-and-5g

5g graph
5g graph

  1. Jack Marshall says:

    For those reading this. Anti-5G folks also believe it will kill the world’s bees and ruin men’s sperm cells, with a real possibility all life will go extinct.

    When the government, UN, Bill Gates and world leaders plot humanity’s downfall like so, we call a conspiracy theory. This trash should not be peddled and legitimised in a respected newspaper.

    1. Anthea, Wellington says:

      I am glad that Jack Marshall is highlighting two extremely important areas of concern (amongst the many). Since scientific studies have proven that radiofrequency waves have caused fruit flies to become completely infertile in three generations, what is going to be the effect on all other insects, which we know are in alarming decline? Also, why does the ICNIRP International Committee of Non-Ionizing Radiation (from whom we get our advice) disallow all the science on non-domesticated animals to be part of its scientific review? Why does ICNIRP pretend that Chinese and Russian science cannot be included in its reviews because it is written in Chinese and Russian, when the chair of the Russian Non-Ionizing Radiation Committee regularly writes in English, and it is has International in the name? I would claim the reason is that the Chinese and Russian science reviews layout the rational base for much higher safety standards which would be an inconvenience to the industry. The Russians have been studying the biological effects of radio frequencies for 123 years, by the way, and the Chinese have had a sophisticated knowledge of electrical systems in the body for centuries. The Gisborne Herald has once again shown how to be a newspaper based on integrity.

    2. Sue, Auckland says:

      Yes Jack, we certainly believe that those things are already affected, and will be more affected when electrosmog is increased by 5G. We believe this because perfectly standard, peer-reviewed science shows that cellphone radiation (a) stops worker bees finding their way back to their hives https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(07)61319-1/fulltext and (b) harms human sperm, by inducing oxidative stress https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0015028207003329.

      1. Jack Marshall says:

        Your comments have basically proven my point –
        Why are there random people from out of town piling on this story?
        Why are your comments so wack and long?
        Are the Russians and Chinese somehow part of a plot by an international organisation to cover up… Fruit flies dying?

        Cherry-picking data & studies does not make you right.

  2. Jason says:

    Is The Gisborne Herald now a platform for Flat Earthers too?

    1. Sue, Auckland says:

      No Jason, we don’t believe the world is flat. We do know it’s possible to make good money spreading such disinformation though,
      so if you’re doing it for free, you might like to check that out?

      1. Jason says:

        I’m sorry but this is plain old confirmation bias. You have found two studies on the internet 13 years old and one is observational with 360 men in four groups? The safety of radio waves is based around science. Non-ionising therefore non-penetrating. Here is an analogy of non-ionising radiation . . . think about trying to crack open a walnut with a plastic spoon? What happens to the walnut?

        1. Sue says:

          Ladies and gentlemen, we present, for your edification and amusement, a short tutorial on the ICNIRP playbook. The name of this book is SLIME.

          S is for sneer. People like to feel superior. Deploy meaningless slogans that let them feel superior. “Conspiracy theory”. “Flat earther”. “Confirmation bias”.

          L is for lie. Big lies for big people, those with the ability to do something about it. “There is no evidence of harm”. A huge lie, that. Little lies for the little people. “Non ionising therefore non penetrating”? Human flesh is not a walnut – microwaves (and even plastic spoons, whittled into shanks) slice through flesh with the greatest of ease, punching holes in membranes, breaking DNA molecules, prolonging the lifetime of free radicals ….

          I is for ignore. If you can’t ignore the evidence, ignore Philosophy of Science 101. The hypothesis “all swans are white” is falsified by one sighting of a black swan. The hypothesis “all microwave pollution below the thermal limit is harmless” is falsified by one observation of harm below the thermal limit (let alone thousands of observations).

          M is for minimise. Find fault with all scientific results you don’t like. The $30 million, ten-year, official US government program NTP reports “clear evidence” that cellphone radiation causes cancer in rats? Nah, they got it wrong. The hoi polloi quote science to you? Say “it’s 13 years old”. Yes, the industry has known its products are harmful for not 13 but 50 years. How does that make it OK?

          E is for expert. Stack all government and regulatory organisations with YOUR “experts”. Never mind that those people actually have zero medical or biological expertise. Discredit anyone who does. Convince the politicians that it’s all too hard and they needn’t worry their pretty heads about actually looking at the evidence. All they need do is rely on your hand-picked “experts”.

          And Bob’s yer uncle, she’ll be right. But no, 5G is a bridge too far. People are starting to see through the SLIME.

        2. Jen Brown says:

          Hey, I’m just waiting for the “scientific research” to show that 5G is safe. WE don’t need to prove it is safe. The telecommunication industry does! Until then, the precautionary principle should be upheld. Simple.

          If you want research on 4G and other RF exposures, I can get you that too. Our children will not be the test subjects for multinational corporations.

  3. S.Williams says:

    Have a listen to these videos if you’d like to understand how 60GHz frequency used with 5G, can interfere with Oxygen and our ability to breath. This is not a joke and in NZ our MOH allows any frequency up to 300 GHz:
    5G & 60 GHz – Beam me up, Scotty!