This is the third and last excerpt from an essay written by Olle Johansson, PhD., titled, “TO UNDERSTAND ADVERSE HEALTH EFFECTS OF ARTIFICIAL ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS……IS “ROCKET SCIENCE” NEEDED OR JUST COMMON SENSE?

“…It is high time that we all, scientists, politicians, civil servants
and citizens, finally realize how potentially dangerous man-made,
artificial electromagnetic fields released from, and used by, our various
electric and electronic gadgets – such as powerlines, transformers and
wiring inside household items, cell phones, DECT phones, tablets,
laptops, game centers, information tools, Bluetooth accessories, baby
alarms and monitors, and gas, water and electricity wireless smart
meters, may be for our health. If the opposite should be claimed with
certainty, then all of the relevant published reports –now counting
more than 26,000 in number according to EMF-Portal (https://
Essays on Consciousness: Towards a New Paradigm
https://buff.ly/2Fjdbt9) – all must be wrong at the same time, and
the probability for that is – to say the least – infinitely small!

Some organizations that definitely, and to 100%, trust the
current scientific results and our common knowledge about potential
health effects of man-made, artificial electromagnetic fields, are the
manufacturers, the operators, the radiation protection authorities
and even the World Health Organization since they all (cf. below)
have abandoned ship years ago. It is also, of course, no surprise that
electromagnetic radiation no longer are covered by insurance as a result
of health problems. The British insurance giant Lloyd’s – together
with other insurance and reinsurance companies – has launched a very
vigilant move. Damage to health due to direct or indirect exposure
to the electromagnetic radiation of our modern gadget-driven world
are no longer covered by their insurance policies. So do not call the
insurance companies in the future if you have become ill or sick due
to mobile phone radiation, or if your child has come down with
childhood leukemia due to power frequent magnetic field exposure,
or an aggressive brain tumour or malignant heart cancer due to
cell phone or Wi-Fi tablet radiation, since your health insurance
does not cover it. 

You better look for the telephone number to your government and parliament since they allowed the public blanketing roll-out of these exposures. So you will have to – in the future – sue your government and parliament, meaning you will sue yourself since these administrative structures of society use YOUR tax money to cover their backs. In addition, critical whistleblowing scientists, casting long and large shadows of doubt on these so-called “safe” gadgets, have effectively been removed, instead of supported, so the roulette is right now spinning. But will it end as a Wheel of Fortune or will it end in disaster?

It would be highly suitable to follow the legally-based demands
on the pharmaceutical industry and add an information leaf let to each
wireless gadget sold telling the buyer that it has unwanted side-effects
(and for which they have i.a. applied for technical patents based on
cancer risks), some rare and some more common, but all potentially
serious to your health. 

In the voice of democracy, we should also – like the tobacco industry has been forced to do – label each package with a warning informing the user that it may harm their health, that their insurance does not cover such damages, and that the manufacturers themselves tell you to keep it at least one inch from your body. Very early, I even suggested that it should be required by manufacturers, operators and radiation protection authorities that they would take on a personal responsibility – legally watertight – when they said that radiation is harmless. So far, no one has volunteered to sign such a personal responsibility legal contract. (I wonder why not…?) Instead
they have gone to bizarre length to legally protect themselves from
future liability claims and law suits over their “safe” products! This
does not make sense to me; does it to you? No, it rather smells like
quite another form of “precautionary principle”, aimed at protecting
the ‘major players’, and not the consumers.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *