| | | |

If The Auto Industry Was the Wireless Industry: “The Crash Test Dummy Is Fine, So We Can Go Even Faster”

By Patricia Burke of Safe Tech International, Image courtesy Floris Freshman

I remember when we were kids, and my parents had a convertible Volkswagen beetle. We used to sometimes stand up in the back seat and watch our dresses billow in the wind.

We rarely drove on the highways, but one summer when we got caught in a traffic jam on the highway, and we passed a woman’s body. She had been thrown from her car. That was before the benefits of seatbelts were apparent.

Driving Blind

News reports sometimes feature recalls of vehicles due to safety issues, and fortunately, there are statistics being gathered to note trends and to identify engineering issues in vehicles, or dangerous conditions on roadways.  

What happens when the statistics are not even being gathered, for example, when ratepayers reported injuries, including disability, after wireless smart utility meters were installed?

As Senator Blumenthal noted when he asked the telecom industry about the safety testing backing up the (unsubstantiated) claims that 5G is safe, “We are flying blind here.”

The Unbalance of Unchecked Innovation

In times of rapid experimentation and innovation, for example, during the golden age of chemistry, new products were being introduced into the market at breakneck speed.

In an unbalanced society, there can be a delay between the first indications of risk, and a necessary course correction in beliefs, assumptions, and policies.

The delay can be intentional, and it can extend for decades, often featuring the types of wrong-doing described in the book “Bending Science.” 

Strategies for addressing these challenges have been outlined by the European Environmental Agency in their work regarding the Precautionary Principle, and “Late Lessons from Early Warnings.”

A coherent, responsible society would want to minimize the time that it spends in the gap between early evidence of harm and corrective actions and regulatory response.  

A high functioning society would not seek to flourish economically on the basis of wrong doing, for example, when regulatory agencies and politicians are captured by the industries that they are supposed to regulate.  

A moral society would not keep its heads in the sand, and keep kicking the can down the road, placing the burden on future generations (for example, as occurred with schools with asbestos.)

Does a high speed 5G network belong in residential neighborhoods when harm to health and the nature environment is being reported?

The Female Crash Test Dummy – Not Even in the Driver’s Seat?

Two years ago, Discover Magazine reported, “Why Are There No Crash Test Dummies That Represent Average Women? Most vehicle-crash safety tests use a female dummy that’s 4-foot-11 and 108 pounds. But she’s still based on the male body type, and she isn’t put in the driver’s seat for front-impact starred-safety tests.” 

In early 2023, a number of news outlets were streaming headlines again about the fact that the crash test dummies being used to test auto safety discriminated against women, because they are based on measurements of men.  


A Single Dummy Based on Air Force Men’s Bodies Standing In For A Diverse Population- Everyone

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) notes,

“A crash test dummy helps us predict whether a person will get injured in a crash. Although it’s a sophisticated tool, it’s a crude representation of the complexity of the human body. When we run a test, a single dummy — made of metal, vinyl and rubber and equipped with sensors — has to stand in for a diverse population of humans who vary widely in their weight, height, age, posture and other characteristics.

The first crash test dummies didn’t attempt to capture any diversity: They were based on men’s bodies and evolved from research conducted by the U.S. Air Force aimed at testing the safety of aircraft, ejection systems and parachutes. At the time, few women were flying or jumping out of planes. The Hybrid III frontal crash test dummies we use today are direct descendants of these early ones. They come in different sizes representing an average-size man, a large man and a very small (5th percentile) woman, as well as a 10-year-old, 6-year-old and 3-year-old child. The small female version has body dimensions and a pelvic design specific to women, but otherwise is largely based on the original, midsize male Hybrid III.”

Not Representative of Women and Seniors

On March 14, KHOU-11 Houston news reported, “New report says crash test dummies aren’t diverse enough; The new report is calling out the lack of diversity in crash test dummies saying it could cost people their lives.”

“A new government report is calling out crash test dummies for their lack of diversity.

According to the Government Accountability Office, crash test dummies do not represent enough of the American population, including women and seniors. They also said the dummies don’t adequately represent all body sizes. The approved height and weight of crash test dummies approved by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is based on data that’s decades old, the GAO said. Dummies first used in 1986 were designed to represent the mid-sized American man is now actually closer to the mid-sized American woman. Because of these blind spots, the GAO said regulators have blind spots about how different body shapes and sizes are impacted in crashes and that without changes, lives are at risk.”

Benefitting Mostly Men

Ars technical reports, “But the benefits of improved in-car safety have been mostly seen by men.

The Hybrid III (M) is the most commonly used crash test dummy and dates back to 1986. It represents a 50th percentile adult male and is 5-feet 9-inches (1.75 m) tall and weighs 171 lbs (78 kg). NHTSA only began including female crash test dummies at the turn of the century, amending the FVMSS in 2000 to reflect that requirement. The female Hybrid III dummy represents a 5th percentile adult female at 4-feet 11-inches (1.5 m) tall and 108 lbs (49 kg), but it’s a scaled version of the larger male dummy and does not reflect some of the physiological differences between men and women. The dummy also lacks sensors in its lower legs.

It’s dismaying but perhaps not entirely surprising, then, that women are at greater risk of death and injury during a car crash. In 2013, NHTSA found that during a crash, younger female front-row occupants were 17 percent more likely to die than male front-row occupants, and women suffered a greater risk of injuries to the chest (26 percent greater), the neck (45 percent greater), the arms (58 percent greater), and the legs (80 percent greater).”

Dummies – Not Adequate for Other Industries, Including Wireless

The auto industry has been scrutinized for its inadequate modeling and testing.

Years ago, the need for safety seats for infants and children was apparent.

It’s time to scrutinize the safety of the wireless industry.

Cooking the Testing

Informed health advocates are alarmed about the testing techniques promoted as evidence of safety for wireless technologies, including cell phones, which are also based on the measurements of a male military recruit’s head.

Image courtesy Floris Freshman

The wireless industry is testing cell phones on a model of an adult male head, while selling the phones to children.

But it gets worse.

The testing technique is the equivalent of taking the temperature of a plastic model head filled with Jell-o. If the model’s temperature does not increase, the phone is deemed safe.

“These People”

The current dynamic unfolds like this:

1. An individual reports harm caused by an exposure from a cell tower or a smart meter.

2. First generation response: The individual should be evaluated by a mental health professional because they are delusional.

3.  Second generation, more socially acceptable, diplomatic, politically correct response not supported by independent scientific inquiry “Even though the symptoms may be real, the these people are really suffering, this is not being caused by the cell tower or smart meter, because the dummy didn’t have a fever.”

There are countless forms of health harm that do not feature a “temperature,”

In its 2002 recommendations about how to address early warnings, the European Environment Agency offered a framework of twelve steps.

One is to account for real world conditions., including harm that occurs without an increase in body temperature.

Taking the Temperature of a Jell-o Filled Plastic Head Tells Us Nothing about Brain Biology, Neurology, or Metabolism

The model of the adult male head is filled with a substance that is supposed to represent the “average” of the qualities of the various tissues of the head.  Yet statistics reveal that certain parts of the brain are more susceptible to harm, for example, to the development of cancer, than others.  The head and brain are comprised of many different tissues, including glands that regulate metabolism.

The outdated, inanimate, inaccurate, discriminatory testing methods are based on the assumption that the only mechanism of harm is heating.

This assumption does not only prevail for the industry’s sales of cell phones. Outdated science is also being used to justify the installation of cell towers on school properties.  This may one day be recognized as child endangerment and criminal negligence.

A moral scientific paradigm works to understand the nature of reality and is not weaponized to deny harm.

We are in the midst of a bullying dynamic.

The sooner that society is willing to demand the answers to the right questions, the sooner that the industry can be aligned with the laws that govern human health and the environment.

Telecom Industry, Still Partying Like It’s 1996

Many consumers do not realize that the Telecom Act of 1996 was designed to expedite the roll-out of wireless, and not to protect the public and the environment.

Radio frequency radiation exposure guidelines have not been updated since 1996, despite reported harm and a Court remand in 2021.

Thus far, the federal government has failed to regulate the FCC, or to protect the public.

The Government Accountability Office was correct when they noted that the use of a male model dummy results in blind spots regarding women’s health – in automobiles.

If we are, as individuals, coherent, high functioning, responsible and moral, we need to extend that conclusion to the wireless paradigm, for every man, woman and child, now. The responsibility is in everyone’s hands, especially those holding a cell phone.

Home – We Are Not SAM Meet the dummy who is not protecting mobile phone users from harm. A few details worth noting about SAM.
1. The dummy is meant to represent us aka the average human, except that there is nothing average about SAM.
2. SAM’s head (which is what is being tested) is based on a 100kg, six-foot tall adult male military recruit. Does that describe you? We didn’t think so.
3. Only 3% of the population fit the stereotype of SAM.

Action Item, sign here.

Wireless Safety Standards Should Protect People and Wildlife – Action Network

Read more about science gone awry: The Alarming Link Between the Ohio Train Derailment’s Vinyl Chloride Leak and Smart Meters: A Mercenary Scientist Dictating Public Policy – Safe Tech International

Spread the love

Sign-up to receive current EMF NEWS and most recent BLOGS

One Comment

Leave a Reply

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.