5G APOCALYPSE - THE EXTINCTION EVENT

[Rocky Mtn Squid]

5G - FROM BLANKETS TO BULLETS

5G - FROM BLANKETS TO BULLETS

The single most important fact about 5G that nobody is talking about is called “phased array.” It will totally change the way cell towers and cell phones are constructed and will transform the blanket of radiation which has enveloped our world for two decades into a million powerful beams whizzing by us at all times. Blake Levitt, author of Electromagnetic Fields: A Consumer’s Guide to the Issues and How to Protect Ourselves (Harcourt Brace, 1995), brought this to my attention. A mutual friend, with whom I was speaking during the campaign to defeat S.B. 649 in California, passed on a message from Blake: “5G antennas will be phased arrays; Arthur will know what that means.” And I did.

Phased arrays were one of the first things I learned about in the very beginning of my long, involuntary journey from medical student to campaigner against wireless technology. After I was injured by X-rays in 1980, I began to read everything I could get my hands on that had to do with electromagnetic radiation and its effects on life. And one of the first books I read was Paul Brodeur’s The Zapping of America (W.W. Norton, 1977).

Early warnings

Brodeur was a staff writer for the New Yorker who had purchased property on Cape Cod, Massachusetts, only to discover that 30 miles inland, across the bay from his future home, the Air Force was planning to construct the world’s most powerful radar station. It was going to scan the Atlantic Ocean as a key early warning element protecting us against the threat of sea-launched ballistic missiles from the Soviet Union. Although it emitted an average power of only 145,000 watts, similar to some FM radio stations, it did not broadcast that energy from only a single antenna and it did not spread that energy out uniformly in all directions. Instead, it had 3,600 antennas arranged in two “phased arrays” of 1,800 antennas each. The antennas in each array worked together as a unit to focus all their energy into a narrow, steerable beam. Each beam had an effective power of four billion watts, and the peak radiation level exceeded one milliwatt per square centimeter—the FCC’s safety limit today—at a distance of three miles in front of the radar station. The facility was called PAVE PAWS (Precision Acquisition of Vehicle Entry Phased Array Warning System).

The Defense Department acknowledged in a 1975 report, quoted by Brodeur, that such systems “energize thousands of operational elements, are electronically steered at high search rates, and operate at a frequency range having a maximum whole body energy transfer to man and for which little bioeffects data exists.”[1]

Shortly after I read this, I discovered firsthand what some of the bioeffects were. Attempting to finish my M.D. almost cost me my life. I collapsed one day with all the symptoms of a heart attack, whereupon I resigned from school and moved up to Mendocino to recover. There I was in the path of the other PAVE PAWS, the one that scanned the Pacific Ocean. This PAVE PAWS was due east of Mendocino, in California’s Central Valley at Beale Air Force Base. And for nine months, every evening at precisely 7:00 p.m., no matter where I was or what I was doing, my chest would tighten and I would be unable to catch my breath for the next two hours. At precisely 9:00 p.m., my body would relax and I could breathe. I lived in Mendocino from 1982 through 1984, and although I eventually recovered my health, I was always aware of an uncomfortable pressure in my chest whenever I was on the coast. I also lived in Mendocino from 1999 to 2004, and felt that same discomfort whenever I was there, and always felt it suddenly vanish when I drove out of range of PAVE PAWS, and suddenly return at the same point on my journey home.

Directed beams

5G is going to be at a much higher frequency range, which means the antennas are going to be much smaller—small enough to fit inside a smartphone—but like in PAVE PAWS they are going to work together in a phased array, and like in PAVE PAWS they are going to concentrate their energy in narrow, steerable high power beams.[2] The arrays are going to track each other, so that wherever you are, a beam from your smartphone is going to be aimed directly at the base station (cell tower), and a beam from the base station is going to be aimed directly at you. If you walk between someone’s phone and the base station, both beams will go right through your body. The beam from the tower will hit you even if you are in the general vicinity of someone who is on a smart phone. And if you are in a crowd, multiple beams will overlap and be unavoidable.

At present, smartphones emit a maximum of about two watts, and usually operate at a power of less than a watt. That will still be true of 5G phones, however inside a 5G phone there may be 8 tiny arrays of 16 tiny antennas each,[3] all working together to track the nearest cell tower and aim a narrowly focused beam at it. The FCC has recently adopted rules[4] allowing the effective power of those beams to be as much as 20 watts. Now if a handheld smartphone sent a 20-watt beam through your body, it would far exceed the exposure limit set by the FCC. What the FCC is counting on is that there is going to be a metal shield between the display side of a 5G phone and the side with all the circuitry and antennas. That shield will be there to protect the circuitry from electronic interference that would otherwise be caused by the display and make the phone useless. But it will also function to keep most of the radiation from traveling directly into your head or body, [5] and therefore the FCC is allowing 5G phones to come to market that will have an effective radiated power that is ten times as high as for 4G phones. What this will do to the user’s hands, the FCC does not say. And who is going to make sure that when you stick a phone in your pocket, the correct side is facing your body? And who is going to protect all the bystanders from radiation that is coming in their direction that is ten times as strong as it used to be?

And what about all the other 5G equipment that is going to be installed in all your computers, appliances, and automobiles? The FCC calls handheld phones “mobile stations.” Transmitters in cars are also “mobile stations.” But the FCC has also issued rules for what it calls ”transportable stations,” which it defines as transmitting equipment that is used in stationary locations and not in motion, such as local hubs for wireless broadband in your home or business.[6] The FCC’s new rules allow an effective radiated power of 300 watts for such equipment.[7]

Enormous power

The situation with cell towers is, if anything, worse. So far the FCC has approved bands of frequencies around 24 GHz, 28 GHz, 38 GHz, 39 GHz, and 48 GHz for use in 5G stations, and is proposing to add 32 GHz, 42 GHz, 50 GHz, 71-76 GHz, 81-86 GHz, and above 95 GHz to the soup.[8] These have tiny wavelengths and require tiny antennas. At 50 GHz, an array of 1,024 antennas will measure only 4 inches square.[9] And the maximum radiated power per array will probably not be that large—tens or hundreds of watts. But just as with PAVE PAWS, arrays containing such large numbers of antennas will be able to channel the energy into highly focused beams, and the effective radiated power will be enormous. The rules adopted by the FCC allow a 5G base station operating in the millimeter range to emit an effective radiated power of up to 30,000 watts per 100 MHz of spectrum.[10] And when you consider that some of the frequency bands the FCC is making available will allow telecom companies to buy up to 3 GHz of contiguous spectrum at auction, they will legally be allowed to emit an effective radiated power of up to 900,000 watts if they own that much spectrum. The base stations emitting power like that will be located on the sidewalk. They will be small rectangular structures mounted on top of utility poles.

The reason the companies want so much power is because millimeter waves are easily blocked by objects and walls and require tremendous power to penetrate inside buildings and communicate with all the devices that we own that are going to part of the Internet of Things. The reason such tiny wavelengths are required is because of the need for an enormous amount of bandwidth—a hundred times as much bandwidth as we formerly used—in order to have smart homes, smart businesses, smart cars, and smart cities, i.e. in order to connect so many of our possessions, big and small, to the internet, and make them do everything we want them to do as fast as we want them to do it. The higher the frequency, the greater the bandwidth—but the smaller the waves. Base stations have to be very close together—100 meters apart in cities—and they have to blast out their signals in order to get them inside homes and buildings. And the only way to do this economically is with phased arrays and focused beams that are aimed directly at their targets. What happens to birds that fly through the beams, the FCC does not say. What happens to workers who climb utility poles? A 30,000-watt beam will cook an egg, or an eye, at a distance of a few feet.

And the power from a base station will be distributed among as many devices as are connected at the same time.[11] When a lot of people are using their phones simultaneously, everyone’s phone will slow down but also the amount of radiation in each beam will be less. When you are the only person using your phone—for example, late at night—your data speed will be blisteringly fast but most of the radiation from the cell tower will be aimed at you.

Deep penetration into the body

Another important fact about radiation from phased array antennas is this: it penetrates much deeper into the human body and the assumptions that the FCC’s exposure limits are based on do not apply. This was brought to everyone’s attention by Dr. Richard Albanese of Brooks Air Force Base in connection with PAVE PAWS and was reported on in Microwave News in 2002.[12] When an ordinary electromagnetic field enters the body, it causes charges to move and currents to flow. But when extremely short electromagnetic pulses enter the body, something else happens: the moving charges themselves become little antennas that re-radiate the electromagnetic field and send it deeper into the body. These re-radiated waves are called Brillouin precursors.[13] They become significant when either the power or the phase of the waves changes rapidly enough.[14] 5G will probably satisfy both requirements. This means that the reassurance we are being given—that these millimeter waves are too short to penetrate far into the body—is not true.

In the United States, AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, and T-Mobile are all competing to have 5G towers, phones, and other devices commercially available as early as the end of 2018. AT&T already has experimental licenses and has been testing 5G-type base stations and user equipment at millimeter wave frequencies in Middletown, New Jersey; Waco, Austin, Dallas, Plano, and Grapevine, Texas; Kalamazoo, Michigan; and South Bend, Indiana. Verizon has experimental licenses and has been conducting trials in Houston, Euless, and Cypress, Texas; South Plainfield and Bernardsville, New Jersey; Arlington, Chantilly, Falls Church, and Bailey’s Crossroads, Virginia; Washington, DC; Ann Arbor, Michigan; Brockton and Natick, Massachusetts; Atlanta; and Sacramento. Sprint has experimental licenses in Bridgewater, New Brunswick, and South Plainfield, New Jersey; and San Diego. T-Mobile has experimental licenses in Bellevue and Bothell, Washington; and San Francisco.

January 17, 2018

[1] The Zapping of America, p. 243.

[2] W. Hong et al., “Multibeam Antenna Technologies for 5G Wireless Communications,” IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation 65(12): 6231-6249 (2017).

[3] Y. Huo and W. Xu, “5G Cellular User Equipment: From Theory to Practical Hardware Design,” arXiv:1704.02540v3 (2017), Fig. 11.

[4] 47 CFR § 30.202(b)

[5] Huo and Xu, p. 4 and Fig. 4.

[6] In the Matter of Use of Spectrum Bands Above 24 GHz for Mobile Radio Services, Report and Order, FCC 16-89, ¶¶ 285-287 (2016) (“First Report and Order”).

[7] 47 CFR § 30.202(c)

[8] First Report and Order, FCC 16-89 (2016); Second Report and Order, FCC 17-152 (2017).

[9] Huo and Xu, p. 12 and Fig. 7(a).

[10] 47 CFR § 30.202(a)

[11] Reply Comments of Nokia to FCC’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Feb. 26, 2016, Appendix).

[12] Microwave News 22(2): 1, 10-12.

[13] R. Albanese et al., “Ultrashort Electromagnetic Signals: Biophysical Questions, Safety Issues and Medical Opportunities,” Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, May 1994, pp. A116-A120.

[14] B. Macke and B. Ségard, “Simple Asymptotic Forms for Sommerfeld and Brillouin Precursors,” arXiv:1203.4461v2 (2018).


Source: https://www.cellphonetaskforce.org/5g-from-blankets-to-bullets/


RMS

 

[Rocky Mtn Squid]

STATEMENTS BY PHYSICIANS, SCIENTISTS AND HEALTH POLICY EXPERTS

STATEMENTS BY PHYSICIANS, SCIENTISTS AND HEALTH POLICY EXPERTS

Robert Becker, Ph.D Nobel Prize nominee noted for decades of research on the effects of electromagnetic radiation says,

“I have no doubt in my mind that, at present time, the greatest polluting element in the earth’s environment is the proliferation of electromagnetic fields.”

William Rea, MD Founder & Director of the Environmental Health Center, Dallas Past President, American Academy of Environmental Medicine:

“Sensitivity to electromagnetic radiation is the emerging health problem of the 21st century. It is imperative health practitioners, governments, schools and parents learn more about it. The human health stakes are significant.”

Martin Blank, Ph.D Associate Professor, Department of Physiology and Cellular Biophysics, Columbia University, College of Physicians and Surgeons; Researcher in Bioelectromagnetics; Author of the BioInitiative Report’s section on Stress Proteins:

“Cells in the body react to EMFs as potentially harmful, just like to other environmental toxins, including heavy metals and toxic chemicals. The DNA in living cells recognizes electromagnetic fields at very low levels of exposure; and produces a biochemical stress response. The scientific evidence tells us that our safety standards are inadequate, and that we must protect ourselves from exposure to EMF due to power lines, cell phones and the like, or risk the known consequences. The science is very strong and we should sit up and pay attention.”

Olle Johansson, Ph.D. Associate Professor, The Experimental Dermatology Unit, Department of Neuroscience, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden; Author of the BioInitiative Report’s section on the Immune System:

“It is evident that various biological alterations, including immune system modulation, are present in electrohypersensitive persons. There must be an end to the pervasive nonchalance, indifference and lack of heartfelt respect for the plight of these persons. It is clear something serious has happened and is happening. Every aspect of electrohypersensitive peoples’ lives, including the ability to work productively in society, have healthy relations and find safe, permanent housing, is at stake. The basics of life are becoming increasingly inaccessible to a growing percentage of the world’s population. I strongly advise all governments to take the issue of electromagnetic health hazards seriously and to take action while there is still time. There is too great a risk that the ever increasing RF-based communications technologies represent a real danger to humans, especially because of their exponential, ongoing and unchecked growth. Governments should act decisively to protect public health by changing the exposure standards to be biologically-based, communicating the results of the independent science on this topic and aggressively researching links with a multitude of associated medical conditions.”

David Carpenter, MD Professor, Environmental Health Sciences, and Director, Institute for Health and the Environment, School of Public Health, University of Albany, SUNY Co-Editor, the BioInitiative Report (www.BioInitiative.org):

“Electromagnetic fields are packets of energy that does not have any mass, and visible light is what we know best. X-rays are also electromagnetic fields, but they are more energetic than visible light. Our concern is for those electromagnetic fields that are less energetic than visible light, including those that are associated with electricity and those used for communications and in microwave ovens.

The fields associated with electricity are commonly called “extremely low frequency” fields (ELF), while those used in communication and microwave ovens are called “radiofrequency” (RF) fields. Studies of people have shown that both ELF and RF exposures result in an increased risk of cancer, and that this occurs at intensities that are too low to cause tissue heating.

Unfortunately, all of our exposure standards are based on the false assumption that there are no hazardous effects at intensities that do not cause tissue heating. Based on the existing science, many public health experts believe it is possible we will face an epidemic of cancers in the future resulting from uncontrolled use of cell phones and increased population exposure to WiFi and other wireless devices.

Thus it is important that all of us, and especially children, restrict our use of cell phones, limit exposure to background levels of Wi-Fi, and that government and industry discover ways in which to allow use of wireless devices without such elevated risk of serious disease. We need to educate decision-makers that ‘business as usual’ is unacceptable. The importance of this public health issue can not be underestimated.”

Eric Braverman, MD Brain researcher, Author of The Edge Effect, and Director of Path Medical in New York City and The PATH Foundation. Expert in the brain’s global impact on illness and health:

“There is no question EMFs have a major effect on neurological functioning. They slow our brain waves and affect our long-term mental clarity. We should minimize exposures as much as possible to optimize neurotransmitter levels and prevent deterioration of health”.

Abraham R. Liboff, PhD Research Professor Center for Molecular Biology and Biotechnology Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, Florida Co-Editor, Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine:

“The key point about electromagnetic pollution that the public has to realize is that it is not necessary that the intensity be large for a biological interaction to occur. There is now considerable evidence that extremely weak signals can have physiological consequences. These interactive intensities are about 1000 times smaller than the threshold values formerly estimated by otherwise knowledgeable theoreticians, who, in their vainglorious approach to science, rejected all evidence to the contrary as inconsistent with their magnificent calculations. These faulty estimated thresholds are yet to be corrected by both regulators and the media.

The overall problem with environmental electromagnetism is much deeper, not only of concern at power line frequencies, but also in the radiofrequency range encompassing mobile phones. Here the public’s continuing exposure to electromagnetic radiation is largely connected to money. Indeed the tens of billions of dollars in sales one finds in the cell phone industry makes it mandatory to corporate leaders that they deny, in knee-jerk fashion, any indication of hazard.

There may be hope for the future in knowing that weakly intense electromagnetic interactions can be used for good as well as harm. The fact that such fields are biologically effective also implies the likelihood of medical applications, something that is now taking place. As this happens, I think it will make us more aware about how our bodies react to electromagnetism, and it should become even clearer to everyone concerned that there is reason to be very, very careful about ambient electromagnetic fields.”

Lennart Hardell, MD, PhD Professor at University Hospital, Orebro, Sweden. World-renowned expert on cell phones, cordless phones, brain tumors, and the safety of wireless radiofrequency and microwave radiation. Co-authored the BioInitiative Report’s section on Brain Tumors by Dr. Hardell:

“The evidence for risks from prolonged cell phone and cordless phone use is quite strong when you look at people who have used these devices for 10 years or longer, and when they are used mainly on one side of the head. Recent studies that do not report increased risk of brain tumors and acoustic neuromas have not looked at heavy users, use over ten years or longer, and do not look at the part of the brain which would reasonably have exposure to produce a tumor.”

return to top of page

Samuel Milham MD, MPH Medical epidemiologist in occupational epidemiology. First scientist to report increased leukemia and other cancers in electrical workers and to demonstrate that the childhood age peak in leukemia emerged in conjunction with the spread of residential electrification:

“Very recently, new research is suggesting that nearly all the human plagues which emerged in the twentieth century, like common acute lymphoblastic leukemia in children, female breast cancer, malignant melanoma and asthma, can be tied to some facet of our use of electricity. There is an urgent need for governments and individuals to take steps to minimize community and personal EMF exposures.”

L. Lloyd Morgan, BS Electronic Engineering Director Central Brain Tumor Registry of the United States, Member Bioelectromagnetics Society, Member Brain Tumor Epidemiological Consortium:

*“There is every indication that cell phones cause brain tumors, salivary gland tumors and eye cancer. Yet, because the cell phone industry provides a substantial proportion of research funding, this reality is hidden from the general public. The Interphone Study, a 13-country research project, substantially funded by the cell phone industry has consistently shown that use of a cell phone protects the user from risk of a brain tumor! Does anything more need to be said? It is time that fully independent studies be funded by those governmental agencies whose charter is to protect its citizens so that the truth about the very damaging health hazards of microwave radiation becomes clear and well known.”

*For identification purposes only: All statements are mine and mine alone and do not represent positions or opinions of the Central Brain Tumor Registry of the United States, the Bioelectromagnetics Society or the Brain Tumor Epidemiological Consortia.
Prof. Livio Giuliani, PhD Spokesperson, International Commission for Electromagnetic Safety (www.icems.eu) Deputy Director, Italian National Institute for Worker Protection and Safety, East Venice and South Tyrol; Professor, School of Biochemistry of Camerino University, Italy The Venice Resolution, initiated by the International Commission for Electromagnetic Safety (ICEMS) on June 6, 2008, and now signed by nearly 50 peer reviewed scientists worldwide, states in part,

“We are compelled to confirm the existence of non-thermal effects of electromagnetic fields on living matter, which seem to occur at every level of investigation from molecular to epidemiological.

Recent epidemiological evidence is stronger than before. We recognize the growing public health problem known as electrohypersensitivity. We strongly advise limited use of cell phones, and other similar devices, by young children and teenagers, and we call upon governments to apply the Precautionary Principle as an interim measure while more biologically relevant exposure standards are developed.”

Paul J. Rosch, MD Clinical Professor of Medicine and Psychiatry, New York Medical College; Honorary Vice President International Stress Management Association; Diplomate, National Board of Medical Examiners; Full Member, Russian Academy of Medical Sciences; Fellow, The Royal Society of Medicine; Emeritus Member, The Bioelectromagnetics Society:

“Claims that cell phones pose no health hazards are supported solely by Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) limits safety standards written by the telecommunications industry decades ago based on studies they funded. These have made the erroneous assumption that the only harm that could come from cell phone radiofrequency emissions would be from a thermal or heating action, since such non thermal fields can have no biological effects. The late Dr. Ross Adey disproved this three decades ago by demonstrating that very similar radiofrequency fields with certain carrier and modulation frequencies that had insufficient energy to produce any heating could cause the release of calcium ions from cells. Since then, numerous research reports have confirmed that non thermal fields from cell phones, tower transmitters, power lines, and other man made sources can significantly affect various tissues and physiologic functions.

We are constantly being bathed in an increasing sea of radiation from exposure to the above, as well as electrical appliances, computers, Bluetooth devices, Wi-Fi installations and over 2,000 communications satellites in outer space that shower us with signals to GPS receivers. New WiMax transmitters on cell phone towers that have a range of up to two square miles compared to Wi-Fi’s 300 feet will soon turn the core of North America into one huge electromagnetic hot spot. Children are more severely affected because their brains are developing and their skulls are thinner. A two minute call can alter brain function in a child for an hour, which is why other countries ban their sale or discourage their use under the age of 18. In contrast, this is the segment of the population now being targeted here in a $2 billion U.S. advertising campaign that views “tweens” (children between 8 and 12 years old) as the next big cell phone market. Firefly and Barbie cell phones are
also being promoted for 6 to 8-year-olds.

It is not generally appreciated that there is a cumulative effect and that talking on a cell phone for just an hour a day for ten years can add up to 10,000 watts of radiation. That’s ten times more than from putting your head in a microwave oven. Pregnant women may also be at increased risk based on a study showing that children born to mothers who used a cell phone just two or three times a day during pregnancy showed a dramatic increase in hyperactivity and other behavioral and emotional problems. And for the 30% of children who had also used a cell phone by age 7, the incidence of behavioral problems was 80% higher!

Whether ontogeny (embryonic development) recapitulates phylogeny is debatable, but it is clear that lower forms of life are also much more sensitive. If you put the positive electrode of a 1.5 volt battery in the Pacific Ocean at San Francisco and the negative one off San Diego, sharks in the in between these cities can detect the few billionths of a volt electrical field. EMF fields have also been implicated in the recent massive but mysterious disappearance of honeybee colonies essential for pollinating over 90 commercial crops.”


Source: http://www.cellphonetaskforce.org/expressions-of-concern-from-physicians-scientists-and-health-policy-experts/


RMS

 

[Rocky Mtn Squid]

“5G Ready”? UK Government’s “5G Rural First”: “Dangerously High” Levels of EMF "

“5G Ready”? UK Government’s “5G Rural First”: “Dangerously High” Levels of EMF "

“5G Ready”? UK Government’s “5G Rural First”: “Dangerously High” Levels of Electromagnetic Field Radiation (EMF) in Southern England.

Glastonbury Festival-goers Are Walking into an EMF Minefield

This weekend, a group of us drove around the site of Glastonbury Festival in Pilton, Somerset UK). We had an electromagnetic field radiation detector that was continually bleeping alarmingly and flashing red, indicating that the EMFs it was detecting were way above World Health Organisation recommended safety levels. They were penetrating on to the main road which runs past the site, and there were several hotspots in the quaint little village of Pilton itself, including the village hall and the Working Men’s Club.

A couple of weeks before, I had attended a meeting of Pilton’s parish council. It was standing room only as residents packed in to express their dismay about a telecommunications mast that had been erected, without any consultation with them, in the children’s skate-board park. Engineers had informed one of them that it was going to be made “5G ready” at the end of May, in time for the music festival.

We are now beginning to receive reports from inside the site of dangerously high levels of EMFs. On-site workers have been reporting bad headaches, nose bleeds and digestive issues. And this is all before the bulk of the campers arrive on Wednesday. So one can only assume that matters will get far worse once hundreds of thousands of smart phones turn up.

5G technology was installed at Glastonbury Festival this year by EE as part of a governmental agenda called 5G Rural First. This is a promotional push dreamed up by urbanite marketeers that purports to be about giving better internet access to country dwellers. In reality, though, good folks have paid £250 a ticket to be used as guinea-pigs in a 1.4 square mile test bed for an untested technology that could have serious implications for their health.

Partners of 5G Rural First include US telecommunications giant Cisco, Microsoft, the BBC and British Telecom, the owners of EE who are bringing 5G to Glastonbury Festival.

5G Rural First also has testbeds on the Orkney Islands and Shropshire and it claims its technology will help dairy cows perform better.

But they are ignoring the evidence of 230 scientists and doctors who are appealing to the World Health Organisation to move the 5G wireless signal from a Group 2B carcinogen to a Group 1, the same as asbestos and arsenic.

They believe that the dangers to health from 5G include increased cancer risk, cellular stress, harmful free radicals, genetic damages, structural and functional changes to the reproductive system, learning and memory deficits, neurological disorders, and negative impacts on general well-being. And the damage goes well beyond the human race; there is growing evidence of harmful effects to plants, insects and animals.


So where are the protests to halt this threat to our health and wellbeing?

Well, we cannot turn to Extinction Rebellion for help. Last month’s state-organised protests by their “actorvists” against climate change, which brought central London to a standstill, were to provide “hearts-and-minds” support for the zero-carbon-by-2050 promises made by Theresa May in the dying days of her premiership that, unwittingly or not, will bankrupt the country over 30 years.

One of Extinction Rebellion’s founder directors, Gail Bradbrook, went on to head up Citizen’s Online as a “digital inclusion strategy specialist consulting with a wide range of clients such as EE, London Connects and the Cabinet Office.” There is also a former head of Exxon Mobil on its board as well as Lord Anthony Tudor St. John, a senior consultant to Merrill-Lynch and legal counsel to Shell. Shell is heavily invested in the satellite and aerospace industries which will be involved in the roll-out of 5G.

So what about the Greens? Surely they will be concerned about a new technology that will require the culling of thousands of trees, to successfully transmit its signals? Well, Caroline Lucas and Co were very late to the party. As recently as September last year, she was supporting the “smart agenda”, although the Greens are now talking about conducting a moratorium while the safety risks are assessed.

Glastonbury Town Council, made up largely of Greens, has also been foot-dragging on the issue. It is only now making efforts to catch up with the local grassroots anti-5G movement which had been vigorously trying to draw their attention to the problem for months. However, it is too little, too late. One of the worse EMF hotspots we found on Sunday was when we drove past the entrance to the Chalice Well Gardens at the bottom of Coursing Batch, just before the town.

Glastonbury Town Council is not responsible for the festival site at Pilton, which is in its own parish, and that is why so many of us attended their parish council meeting a few weeks ago. However, it has made no difference.

Michael-Eavis-Fallow-Year-2200x1000

Michael Eavis, the festival’s farmer founder whose daughter Emily now heads up the four-day event, was leafleted by a local campaigner in Tesco’s the other day.

She said he got annoyed with her and replied:

“Young people are the cause. I bet you have a phone.”

In response, she pulled out of her bag a decidedly unsmart, out-of-date Nokia that, she informed him, was only used for emergencies.

Eavis then told her that he didn’t own a mobile phone. Make of that what you will.


Source: https://www.globalresearch.ca/glastonbury-festival-goers-walking-emf-minefield/5681851


RMS

 

[Rocky Mtn Squid]

5G technician reveals the damage he believes 5G will cause

5G technician reveals the damage he believes 5G will cause

In Brief

The Facts:
A cell tower climber recently shared a video about his concerns with 5G wireless technology and explains what he's found through his research and experience. He uploaded the video to his youtube and Facebook page and it's going fairly viral.

Reflect On:
How are these technologies able to roll out after thousands of studies show clear harmful effects? How can they get approved without any proper safety testing from our federal health regulatory agencies?

The rollout of 5G is another great example of how our federal health regulatory agencies have been completely compromised by big powerful corporations. You would think with more than 10,000 peer-reviewed studies showing clear danger with regards to electromagnetic radiation overdose, something our planet is experiencing, that these technologies would be required to go through some safety testing. The truth is, if they went through any type of safety testing there is no way they would be approved. The studies that have already been published show clear links to neuropsychiatric disorders, reduced sperm count, brain damage and cancer among other serious ailments. The science is quite clear.

Now those being trained to install these new technologies are starting to see the dangers quite clearly, one man has decided to speak out on the topic.

His name is Ian Furgeson, and he’s put up this video that went viral on Facebook, bringing many more people into the conversation who might have previously been unaware of this issue. He also put it up on his YouTube channel, where you can watch what he says below.

He explains how he is a tower climber that installs the equipment that allows telecommunications to function. He is currently in 5G training, explaining how he is already concerned about the technology, even before he learned about the science about it. He explains how the radio frequency is very different from the radiation that is currently being beamed out by cell towers, which has still proven to be harmful. 5G is incomparably more harmful and more intense. He explains how 5G is going to broadcast in gigahertz, not megahertz, which is 15000 times stronger than what we are receiving now.


[YOUTUBEIF]uoYTFaiP8DY[/YOUTUBEIF]


Source: https://www.collective-evolution.com/2019/06/28/health-5g-technician-reveals-the-damage-he-believes-5g-will-cause/


RMS

 

[Rocky Mtn Squid]

Mark Steele | 5G - SMART = Secret Militarized Armaments in Residential Technology

Mark Steele | 5G - SMART = Secret Militarized Armaments in Residential Technology

[YOUTUBEIF]DK3zVjG-koc[/YOUTUBEIF]


RMS

 

[Rocky Mtn Squid]

5G Critics Censored by Big Tech

5G Critics Censored by Big Tech

5G wireless networks and some of the health and safety issues that are being swept under the rug

More and more concerned citizens are asking tough questions about the safety of 5G wireless networks. Are big tech companies trying to quash their dissent? Action Alert!

Over the last few months, we’ve been reporting on the planned deployment of 5G wireless networks and some of the health and safety issues that are being swept under the rug by telecom companies and their enthusiasts in the government. Some communities, like Sacramento, California, have already seen the installation of “small cell” towers near homes. When activists in Sacramento started speaking out, it appears as though YouTube and other sites have silenced their criticisms of 5G.

Noah Davidson, an activist in Sacramento, noticed his young nieces started experiencing health problems after Verizon installed a small cell just 45 feet from their home. Other members of the community also started experiencing adverse effects after small cells were installed. Davidson has worked to start a grassroots movement to raise awareness about 5G in the community and to work with telecom companies to establish an opt-out program for those who do not want 5G in their neighborhood.

In so doing, it appears as though Davidson has incurred the wrath of the Internet censors. His account was apparently suspended, without explanation, by YouTube. One of the two videos on his YouTube account was footage of Sacramento activists speaking at a city council meeting. This seems deeply suspicious. YouTube is owned by Google, a company that we know is aggressively censoring content on dubious grounds. It doesn’t seem outlandish to conclude that Google and YouTube are quashing dissent about a technology they want to see implemented across the United States.

The Dangers of 5G to Children’s Health

Activists are not the only ones advising us to pump the breaks on 5G. A group of hundreds of scientists from around the world recently sent a letter to the United Nations and the World Health Organization warning of “serious concerns regarding the ubiquitous and increasing exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMF) generated by electric and wireless devices.” The scientists explain that EMF “affects living organisms at levels well below most international guidelines,” causing increased cancer risk, cellular stress, increase in free radicals, genetic damage, changes to the reproductive system, learning and memory deficits, and neurological disorders.

We must keep speaking out about this crucial public health issue in defiance of the censors and the crony capitalists railroading us into accepting this technology with no questions asked.

Our previous articles have covered some of the other dangers associated with 5G networks. For example, 5G utilizes millimeter waves—a shorter wavelength than the current 4G networks in use. Millimeter wavelengths have been used in crowd control devices that shoot high-powered millimeter waves that make the target feel like their skin is burning. Other research has shown that our sweat ducts can act like antennas for the shorter millimeter waves, meaning we absorb more of this energy into our bodies.

Keep in mind that we will be exposed to EMF generated by wireless devices on an unprecedented scale for two reasons. First, short millimeter waves cannot travel as far as longer waves, which is why many more “small cell” units must be installed to create a 5G network. Some neighborhoods would see dozens of small cells installed, all of them emitting microwave radiation. Second, the sheer number of wireless devices will increase. More and more systems are becoming wireless, or will become reliant on wireless technology. “Smart cities” will use wireless networks to collect and analyze data about the environment, traffic, water, transit, lighting, waste management, security, and parking. Millimeter-wave-emitting devices will saturate our environment, and the fact that we’re plunging head-first into deploying this technology without knowing the health consequences is shocking.


Source: https://www.globalresearch.ca/5g-critics-censored-big-tech/5688176


RMS

 

[Rocky Mtn Squid]

BBC Fake News 5G Decoded Health Impacts Denied Despite Evidence

BBC Fake News 5G Decoded Health Impacts Denied Despite Evidence

BBC Fake News on 5G Decoded: Health Impacts Denied Despite Overwhelming Scientific Evidence

Listen to BBC radio: Under the Radar Episode 4 – 5G Friend or Foe? (July 2019) here.

https://soundcloud.com/mike-powell-912456432/under-the-radar-4-5g-friend-or-foe

***

Open letter to the “Under the Radar” BBC Programme Producer

I was hoping that I could leave it to others to refute the latest fake news on 5G from the BBC, but I feel obliged to wade in with the evidence since the BBC signally fails to provide it, perhaps corrupted like others by its recently rumoured collaboration with various telecommunications companies (Transparency International: Investigating Corruption in the Media and Telecoms Industries).

While I applaud your efforts to bring to public notice the concerns about 5G being rolled out without a single prior test to ascertain its implications for health or safety, and your success in finally persuading the BBC to at least mention some of those concerns, albeit via a rather minor and short radio programme rather than by doing this unprecedented planetary emergency justice by treating it in a full-length television programme, you seem oblivious to the bias evident in the production of the programme.

Let us examine how the impression is created in this programme that those who oppose 5G are somehow ignorant and foolish tin-foil-hat-wearers instead of who they really are: fully informed and intelligent individuals qualified and experienced in the field of electromagnetic fields (EMFs) who are seriously alarmed by the facts about 5G and its very real consequences extrapolated from the science on the devastating impacts of wireless generations 1-4.

First the presenter informs us that 230 scientists are concerned about the rollout, whereas in fact many thousands of scientists and physicians have expressed their concerns to date in at least 60 appeals: Doctors & Scientists Appeals For Stronger Electromagnetic Radiation Regulations and International Appeal to Stop 5G on Earth and in Space — 134,458 signatories from 198 countries as of 2 August 2019. The presenter deliberately disparages the 230 scientists mentioned by employing the vernacular phrase “What’s their beef?” in preference to the more formal and respectful, What are their concerns?.

We hear from Dr Erica Mallery-Blythe, who tells us that 5G millimetre waves interfere with biology, that the research is incomplete and that there have been no public consultation and no proper health and safety testing of 5G.

The science on electromagnetic radiation

It is to be noted – although of course not mentioned in the programme – that Dr Mallery-Blythe’s statements are backed up by the extensive science that has irrefutably established the biological effects of electromagnetic radiation (Irradiated: A comprehensive compilation and analysis of the literature on radiofrequency fields and the negative biological impacts of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields (particularly radiofrequency fields) on biological organisms (416 pages); University of Aachen EMF Portal with 28,000+ studies. Even the BBC was prepared to question the safety of WiFi once upon a time – oops! – did you think we’d forgotten? (BBC Panorama, 2007: WiFi Warning Signal but that was presumably before the BBC itself got into bed with the telecoms industry, as has the New York Times (Who has NY Times in their pocket?; and NY Times 5G ties uncovered).

Dr Mallery-Blythe’s information is immediately undermined by the next segment, which takes place at a race track, where we hear in enthusiastic and excited tones reminiscent of the boys at Top Gearabout 5G connecting to cars at very high speeds. This research relates to the development of autonomous vehicles, but we are not informed of this.

We hear from Peter Claydon, AutoAir Project Director, who tells us that the “international organisation” ICNIRP goes back to the 1960s and consists of a group of medical experts and that the UK bases the guidelines on installation of mobile technology on the ICNIRP recommendations.

ICNIRP: true status and extensive literature on ICNIRP corruption

The presenter fails to challenge Claydon on the inaccuracy of his assertions. ICNIRP is, in fact, an NGO under German law with no international legal status. It appoints its own members, none of whom is a medical doctor, operates with zero transparency and is accountable to no one. It disclaims all responsibility on its website for any of its information (see this), including its own guidelines, which are based on cherry-picked science that predates the advent of mobile phones. ICNIRP has been accused of corruption by countless people over many years, most recently by (1) Investigate Europe: The 5G Mass Experiment and The ICNIRP Cartel: Who’s Who in the EMF Research World; (2) Dariusz Leszczynski, PhD: Is ICNIRP Reliable Enough to Dictate Meaning of Science to the Governmental Risk Regulators? (See this); (3) Joel M. Moskowitz, PhD: The ICNIRP Cartel and the 5G Mass Experiment (see this); and (4) Professor Emeritus Martin Pall, Response to 2018 ICNIRP Draft Guidelines and Appendices on Limiting Exposure to Time-Varying Electric, Magnetic and Electromagnetic Fields (100 kHz to 300 GHz (see this) and Eight Repeatedly Documented Findings Each Show that EMF Safety Guidelines Do Not Predict Biological Effects and Are Therefore Fraudulent (see this).

The presenter invites Claydon, who is clearly a technical person and neither an EMF scientist nor a medical doctor, to “fundamentally reassure those people who are concerned that [5G] may affect human health that you don’t think it will”, despite the fact that Claydon is not qualified to provide a scientific or medical opinion. Claydon obligingly replies, “No … the research that’s been done going back decades is equally applicable to 5G as it was to any other radio technology in the past”.

The devastating health consequences from 20 years of mobile phone use

Significantly, Claydon does not provide any assurance that 5G is safe. In fact, all wireless technology is unsafe, and the health results emerging now from the last 20 years of intense use of mobile phones is revealing the devastating health effects, including autism, ADHD, catastrophic drops in fertility, early onset dementias and a phenomenal rise in suicides, among others (see, for example. the US Blue Cross Blue Shield health insurance association report of April 2019 entitled “The Health of Millennials” and Are rises in Electro-Magnetic Field in the human environment, interacting with multiple environmental pollutions, the tripping point for increases in neurological deaths in the Western World? in Medical Hypotheses: Excerpt:

[W]e hypothesise that amajor contribution for the relative sudden upsurge in neurological morbidity in the Western world (1989–2015), is because of increased background EMFthat has become the tipping point … The unprecedented neurological death rates, all within just 25 years, demand a re-examination of long-term EMF safety related to the increasing background EMF on human health. We do not wish to ‘stop the modern world’, only make it safer.”

Paul Brodeur, in his book entitled The Zapping of America, states

The Dangers of 5G to Children’s Health
“Microwave radiation can blind you, alter your behaviour, cause genetic damage, even kill you. The risks have been hidden from you by the Pentagon, the State Department, and the electronics industry. With this book, the microwave cover-up is ended.”

Next we hear very briefly from someone who is disparagingly described as “A so-called WiFi refugee”, who is permitted a few seconds to tell us about his heart pain and headaches caused by wireless technology.

This is followed by a longer segment in which we hear Senator Richard Blumenthal establish at a US Senate hearing in February 2019 that the telecoms industry has invested zero dollars in health and safety testing of 5G, such that Blumenthal concludes, “So we’re flying blind here so far as health and safety is concerned”.

Once again, the facts are promptly undermined by the presenter assuring us emphatically that Marc Allera, CEO of major telco EE (and therefore highly unlikely to provide an unbiased opinion), “is convinced the new service is safe”. Marc Allera is a businessman and not a medical doctor and his assurance is obviously self-interested and carries no scientific weight. Allera talks of “the extreme rumours … none of which are true”. “We’ve worked for more than 30 years with bodies like the WHO that create standards …”.

Corruption at the World Health Organization (WHO)

The World Health Organization has conveniently forgotten that it co-organised a symposium in 1973 entitled “The Biologic Effects and Health Hazards of Microwave Radiation” (emphasis added). It has no prerogative to unilaterally endorse guidelines produced by a shady NGO in un-transparent circumstances. The WHO and its EMF project – about which Mike Repacholi, founder of ICNIRP and former director of WHO’s EMF project, revealed that up to half of WHO’s EMF project funding came from wireless and electric utility industry groups (see this) – have also been accused multiple times of corruption and co-option by industry (UN Human Rights Council, 22 February 2019: 5G is Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment Under Resolution 39/46 (see this); The WHO Cover-Up That is Costing Us the Earth (see this); WHO Watch: Mike Repacholi and the EMF Charade, Microwave News, 2005.

Giving the impression that the facts of 5G’s safety have now been definitively established – by sweeping, erroneous and unsupported assertions – the presenter marvels in a disparaging tone that, “Despite reassurances from the industry that 5G is just as safe as 3G, 4G and the technology before it, Dr Erica Mallery-Blythe isn’t convinced”. The patronising tone implies that she cannot be quite right in the head to still be insisting that 5G is not safe, despite having heard the reassurances – from medically unqualified and self-interested individuals.

The presenter then adopts a very fast delivery as he admits that “No specific testing on the effects of 5G on human health seems to have been carried out …”. The qualifiers “specific” and “seems to” employed here are redundant, misleading and inaccurate, for in fact no testing whatsoeveron the effects of 5G on human health has been carried out prior to its rollout on Earth, in space and in the stratosphere.

He then rushes on, with a rapid “But” to imply that this complete absence of the legally required health and safety testing of 5G is a negligible matter that should not concern us, to introduce in a confident tone a rent-a-sceptic US equivalent of UK biologist Richard Dawkins, who is systematically invited onto the British media to debunk scientists from any field of science whose evidence contradicts corporate orthodoxy and impedes profit. The presenter clearly intends us to understand that this “expert” will definitively settle the matter. Brought on as the culmination of the programme, Dr Steve Novella, Assistant Professor of Neurology at Yale, informs us in an authoritative manner as follows:

The potential hazard from 5G is actually very, very low. It is an electromagnetic field, but it is non-ionising radiation – it’s not strong enough to break chemical bonds, damage DNA, for example [1]. There’s a lot of research into the biological effects of radiofrequency, electromagnetic waves and the only reproducible effect that’s come out of this research is slight tissue heating [2].

That’s it. So there really isn’t particularly much of a reason to think that exposure to 5G through our technology is hazardous. There’s no evidence of any risk from it, that it causes any actual harm [3].

When you think about it, we’re getting bathed by the sun with higher frequency, more intense electromagnetic radiation every day than you’re going to get exposed to through 5G!” [4]

Novella is 100% wrong: Particularly much of numerous reasons to believe exposure to 5G is massively hazardous

“It is non-ionising radiation – It’s not strong enough to break chemical bonds, damage DNA, for example.”
University of Aachen EMF Portal, sample literature search for “DNA damage”: 623 articles were found; telco Swisscom filed a patent in 2004 on a method and system for reducing electrosmog in wireless local networks that states clearly that WiFi damages DNA (see this).

“There’s a lot of research into the biological effects of radiofrequency, electromagnetic waves and the only reproducible effect that’s come out of this research is slight tissue heating.”
Irradiated: A comprehensive compilation and analysis of the literature on radiofrequency fields and the negative biological impacts of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields (particularly radiofrequency fields) on biological organisms (416 pages; see this); University of Aachen EMF Portal with 28,000+ studies: see this). Even the corrupt ICNIRP admits in its 1998 guidelines that “Compared with continuous-wave (CW) radiation, pulsed microwave fields with the same average rate of energy deposition in tissues are generally more effective in producing a biological response, especially when there is a well-defined threshold that must be exceeded to elicit the effect (emphasis added; ICNIRP 1996; see this).

“There’s no evidence of any risk from it, that it causes any actual harm.”
University of Aachen EMF Portal: The core of the EMF-Portal is an extensive literature database with an inventory of 28,841 publications and 6,390 summaries of individual scientific studies on the effects of electromagnetic fields (see this).

“We’re getting bathed by the sun with higher frequency, more intense electromagnetic radiation every day than you’re going to get exposed to through 5G!”
According to Professor Olle Johansson, recently retired from the Karolinska Institute in Sweden, current public exposure to wireless radiation (before the addition of 5G) is approximately a quintillion times (1,000,000,000,000,000,000 or 18 zeros) greater than natural, background radiation (see this).

Natural background radiation is neither pulsed nor modulated, as scientist and co-author of the 5G Space Appeal Arthur Firstenberg explains:

The harm has nothing to do with power levels. This is what nobody understands. Power level is relevant for only one type of effect: heating. For all other effects, it is completely irrelevant. There are effects at near-zero power, and for some effects, there is an inversepower relationship, i.e. the lower the power, the worse the harm. SAR [specific absorption rate, used to express the power absorbed per mass of tissue] is completely irrelevant for non-thermal effects.

It is not the power level that does the harm. It is the degree of coherence, type and depth of modulation, wavelength, number of frequencies, number of signals, bandwidth, shape of the waves, pulse height, pulse width, rise and fall time, and other properties of the radiation. The unimportance of power levels for effects other than heat has been shown many times. In Salford’s studies the lowest power levels caused the most leakage in the blood-brain barrier. Blackman, Bawin, Dutta, Schwartz, and Kunjilwar all in different laboratories, found that calcium efflux from neural and cardiac cells occurred at specific frequencies and exposure levels and did not increase with power. In Dutta’s study a 3,000-fold decrease in power caused a 4-fold increase in calcium efflux. Sadchikovaand her Soviet colleagues found that workers exposed to the lowest power levels suffered more often from radio wave sickness. Belyaev found that genetic effects occurred at specific frequencies and the magnitude of the effect did not change with power level over 16 orders of magnitude.The assumption that wireless technology can be made safe by reducing the power is proven wrong.

The presenter sums up the findings of the programme:

“I’ve seen why people are getting so excited about the rollout globally … But while many feel that 5G isthe best thing since sliced bread, there are still those who believe that if the technology continues to be rolled out without the testing they demand, we could all soon be toast!”

Sound distortion is applied as this is delivered; that, plus the trivialisation of “we could soon be toast”, and the intonation implying ridicule of the idea that people can really be so petty-minded as to demand that the national and international laws requiring prior testing, environmental impact assessments and application of the precautionary principle be adhered to.

So there we have it! The BBC programme actually admits that no health or safety testing has been done on 5G, while failing to inform the public that this is actually illegal under EU and international law and under the Nuremberg Code and completely ignores the precautionary principle, which is endorsed by the EU in its resolution 1815 of 2011 (see this). A legal opinion given by a Danish law firm states that rolling out 5G is illegal under EU and international law (75 pages; see this):

It is the conclusion of this legal opinion that establishing and activating a 5G-network, as it is currently described, would be in contravention of current human and environmental laws enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, EU regulations, and the Bern- and Bonn-conventions. … This also applies when the radiation remains within the limits recommended by ICNIRP and currently used in Denmark as well as broadly within the EU.

Programme contributors who are actually qualified and justified in demanding health and safety testing of 5G technology prior to its rollout by virtue of (a) a medical qualification and knowledge of this field of medicine, (b) personal experience of the deleterious effects of wireless technology, and (c) legal knowledge, are portrayed as being unreasonable, unbalanced, petty-minded and extreme. No doubt they will soon be characterised as terrorists – watch this [BBC] space!

By contrast, the pro-5G speakers, who have technical but no medical or scientific qualifications or studies carried out in the field of EMFs, are warmly encouraged to expound their vacuous and valueless opinions on the safety of 5G. Each one speaks after each anti-5G speaker in order to undermine whatever they have said, and together they are allotted double the time given to the anti-5G speakers. Subtle cues including choice of language register, vernacular phrases, trivialisation and disparaging intonation are further employed to undermine the anti-5G speakers.

As Gandhi said, “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win”. The fake news on 5G emanating from the corrupt telco-industry-funded or -co-opted media outlets in the English-language and foreign media is exposed for what it is: a heavy-handed, pitiful, belated attempt by a greedy telecoms industry – which thought it could roll out 5G on an unsuspecting public without being caught – to compound their contempt for the public by attempting to con them again with blatant lies and manipulation. I have news for you, guys: this genie is not going back in the bottle.

No matter how many times you invite your carefully selected rent-a-sceptic contributors to refute the vast evidence pointing to probable catastrophic consequences from allowing 5G to be rolled out on Earth, in the stratosphere and in space in order to irradiate every inch of the planet with no escape for anyone of any age or health condition, and even unborn fetuses – a plan described by Professor Emeritus Martin Pall as “the stupidest idea in the history of mankind” – and to assert that this overwhelming body of evidence is not “real”, “proven”, “valid”, “solid”, “convincing”, ”conclusive”, or “established”, the public is not going to believe you, BBC.

You can continue blaming the unqualified rejection of 5G by an appalled and outraged public on Russian disinformation in order to deflect attention away from the criminals who planned its rollout and are therefore really responsible for this reckless technological fiasco, but you are on a hiding to nothing.

Your BBC executives, staff and programme contributors had better quickly start adhering to the law and telling the truth or they may soon find themselves held liable for wilful, calculated and malicious conspiracy to aid and abet genocide and ecocide. Top Nazis were hanged for crimes against humanity after the WWII attempted genocide. To my knowledge, no one has yet been tried for conspiracy to commit omnicide. Let us hope that you will forthwith cease and desist from your hubristic and arrogant determination to be among the first.


Source: https://www.globalresearch.ca/online-bbc-fake-news-5g-decoded/5687055?utm_campaign=magnet&utm_source=article_page&utm_medium=related_articles


RMS

 

[Rocky Mtn Squid]

*WARNING* Most People Don't Even Realize What's Around Them!

*WARNING* Most People Don't Even Realize What's Around Them!

[YOUTUBEIF]H_BnnvuENbI[/YOUTUBEIF]


RMS

 

[troutman]

Time to build a Faraday suit.

 

[St. Phatty]

In the old days we needed a tin foil hat so they couldn't read our thoughts.

/\ kidding


Now we need one to get some healthy isolation from the 5G radio waves.

/\ NOT kidding

 

[Rocky Mtn Squid]

We Have No Reason to Believe 5G Is Safe

We Have No Reason to Believe 5G Is Safe

The technology is coming, but contrary to what some people say, there could be health risks


The telecommunications industry and their experts have accused many scientists who have researched the effects of cell phone radiation of "fear mongering" over the advent of wireless technology's 5G. Since much of our research is publicly-funded, we believe it is our ethical responsibility to inform the public about what the peer-reviewed scientific literature tells us about the health risks from wireless radiation.

The chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) recently announced through a press release that the commission will soon reaffirm the radio frequency radiation (RFR) exposure limits that the FCC adopted in the late 1990s. These limits are based upon a behavioral change in rats exposed to microwave radiation and were designed to protect us from short-term heating risks due to RFR exposure.

Yet, since the FCC adopted these limits based largely on research from the 1980s, the preponderance of peer-reviewed research, more than 500 studies, have found harmful biologic or health effects from exposure to RFR at intensities too low to cause significant heating.

Citing this large body of research, more than 240 scientists who have published peer-reviewed research on the biologic and health effects of nonionizing electromagnetic fields (EMF) signed the International EMF Scientist Appeal, which calls for stronger exposure limits. The appeal makes the following assertions:

“Numerous recent scientific publications have shown that EMF affects living organisms at levels well below most international and national guidelines. Effects include increased cancer risk, cellular stress, increase in harmful free radicals, genetic damages, structural and functional changes of the reproductive system, learning and memory deficits, neurological disorders, and negative impacts on general well-being in humans. Damage goes well beyond the human race, as there is growing evidence of harmful effects to both plant and animal life.”

The scientists who signed this appeal arguably constitute the majority of experts on the effects of nonionizing radiation. They have published more than 2,000 papers and letters on EMF in professional journals.

The FCC’s RFR exposure limits regulate the intensity of exposure, taking into account the frequency of the carrier waves, but ignore the signaling properties of the RFR. Along with the patterning and duration of exposures, certain characteristics of the signal (e.g., pulsing, polarization) increase the biologic and health impacts of the exposure. New exposure limits are needed which account for these differential effects. Moreover, these limits should be based on a biological effect, not a change in a laboratory rat’s behavior.
The World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified RFR as "possibly carcinogenic to humans" in 2011. Last year, a $30 million study conducted by the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) found “clear evidence” that two years of exposure to cell phone RFR increased cancer in male rats and damaged DNA in rats and mice of both sexes. The Ramazzini Institute in Italy replicated the key finding of the NTP using a different carrier frequency and much weaker exposure to cell phone radiation over the life of the rats.

Based upon the research published since 2011, including human and animal studies and mechanistic data, the IARC has recently prioritized RFR to be reviewed again in the next five years. Since many EMF scientists believe we now have sufficient evidence to consider RFR as either a probable or known human carcinogen, the IARC will likely upgrade the carcinogenic potential of RFR in the near future.

Nonetheless, without conducting a formal risk assessment or a systematic review of the research on RFR health effects, the FDA recently reaffirmed the FCC’s 1996 exposure limits in a letter to the FCC, stating that the agency had “concluded that no changes to the current standards are warranted at this time,” and that “NTP’s experimental findings should not be applied to human cell phone usage.” The letter stated that “the available scientific evidence to date does not support adverse health effects in humans due to exposures at or under the current limits.”

The latest cellular technology, 5G, will employ millimeter waves for the firMillimeter waves are mostly absorbed within a few millimeters of human skin and in the surface layers of the cornea. Short-term exposure can have adverse physiological effects in the peripheral nervous system, the immune system and the cardiovascular system. The research suggests that long-term exposure may pose health risks to the skin (e.g., melanoma), the eyes (e.g., ocular melanoma) and the testes (e.g., sterility).
Since 5G is a new technology, there is no research on health effects, so we are “flying blind” to quote a U.S. senator. However, we have considerable evidence about the harmful effects of 2G and 3G. Little is known the effects of exposure to 4G, a 10-year-old technology, because governments have been remiss in funding this research. Meanwhile, we are seeing increases in certain types of head and neck tumors in tumor registries, which may be at least partially attributable to the proliferation of cell phone radiation. These increases are consistent with results from case-control studies of tumor risk in heavy cell phone users.

5G will not replace 4G; it will accompany 4G for the near future and possibly over the long term. If there are synergistic effects from simultaneous exposures to multiple types of RFR, our overall risk of harm from RFR may increase substantially. Cancer is not the only risk as there is considerable evidence that RFR causes neurological disorders and reproductive harm, likely due to oxidative stress.

As a society, should we invest hundreds of billions of dollars deploying 5G, a cellular technology that requires the installation of 800,000 or more new cell antenna sites in the U.S. close to where we live, work and play?

Instead, we should support the recommendations of the 250 scientists and medical doctors who signed the 5G Appeal that calls for an immediate moratorium on the deployment of 5G and demand that our government fund the research needed to adopt biologically based exposure limits that protect our health and safety.st time in addition to microwaves that have been in use for older cellular technologies, 2G through 4G. Given limited reach, 5G will require cell antennas every 100 to 200 meters, exposing many people to millimeter wave radiation. 5G also employs new technologies (e.g., active antennas capable of beam-forming; phased arrays; massive multiple inputs and outputs, known as massive MIMO) which pose unique challenges for measuring exposures.


Millimeter waves are mostly absorbed within a few millimeters of human skin and in the surface layers of the cornea. Short-term exposure can have adverse physiological effects in the peripheral nervous system, the immune system and the cardiovascular system. The research suggests that long-term exposure may pose health risks to the skin (e.g., melanoma), the eyes (e.g., ocular melanoma) and the testes (e.g., sterility).

Since 5G is a new technology, there is no research on health effects, so we are “flying blind” to quote a U.S. senator. However, we have considerable evidence about the harmful effects of 2G and 3G. Little is known the effects of exposure to 4G, a 10-year-old technology, because governments have been remiss in funding this research. Meanwhile, we are seeing increases in certain types of head and neck tumors in tumor registries, which may be at least partially attributable to the proliferation of cell phone radiation. These increases are consistent with results from case-control studies of tumor risk in heavy cell phone users.

5G will not replace 4G; it will accompany 4G for the near future and possibly over the long term. If there are synergistic effects from simultaneous exposures to multiple types of RFR, our overall risk of harm from RFR may increase substantially. Cancer is not the only risk as there is considerable evidence that RFR causes neurological disorders and reproductive harm, likely due to oxidative stress.

As a society, should we invest hundreds of billions of dollars deploying 5G, a cellular technology that requires the installation of 800,000 or more new cell antenna sites in the U.S. close to where we live, work and play?

Instead, we should support the recommendations of the 250 scientists and medical doctors who signed the 5G Appeal that calls for an immediate moratorium on the deployment of 5G and demand that our government fund the research needed to adopt biologically based exposure limits that protect our health and safety.


ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Joel M. Moskowitz, PhD, is director of the Center for Family and Community Health in the School of Public Health at the University of California, Berkeley. He has been translating and disseminating the research on wireless radiation health effects since 2009 after he and his colleagues published a review paper that found long-term cell phone users were at greater risk of brain tumors. His Electromagnetic Radiation Safety website has had more than two million page views since 2013. He is an unpaid advisor to the International EMF Scientist Appeal and Physicians for Safe Technology.

Source: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/we-have-no-reason-to-believe-5g-is-safe/


RMS

 

[Rocky Mtn Squid]

The Threat of 5G

The Threat of 5G

[YOUTUBEIF]AGkU7HmAAAc[/YOUTUBEIF]




RMS

 

[flylowgethigh]

I have a nice healthy Purple Martin colony. Barn and Tree Swallows also. These migrate from South America, so if there is an issue with that, count me in!

I use a 3g flip phone and there is no way they would bring out 5g here to this area. Hell, cable is iffy.

How badly are we damaging our nerves keeping a cell phone in the pocket?

And Mr. Squid, when I moved here early 1990 and had 3 spots I spent time at besides work, I got a bag phone. Problem was, no coverage.

 

[Sertaiz]

whats the deal with the current routers using 5ghz???

https://www.howtogeek.com/398620/whats-the-difference-between-5g-and-5ghz-wi-fi/

 

[White Beard]

All this tears open the bag regarding the cumulative effects of the wavelength soup we’re subjected to, and I think that’s good.

It ought to also tear open the bag concealing the way our public “representatives” roll over for every new idea business/industry/tech come up with...without regard to any other considerations

 

[Rocky Mtn Squid]

The Hidden Military Use of 5G Technology

The Hidden Military Use of 5G Technology

At the London Summit, the 29 member countries of NATO agreed to “guarantee the security of our communications, including 5G”. Why is this fifth generation of mobile data transmission so important for NATO?

While the earlier technologies were perfected to create ever more advanced smartphones, 5G is designed not only to improve their performance, but mainly to link digital systems which need enormous quantities of data in order to work automatically. The most important 5G applications will not be intended for civil use, but for the military domain.

The possibilities offered by this new technology are explained by the Defense Applications of 5G Network Technology, published by the Defense Science Board, a federal committee which provides scientific advice for the Pentagon –

“The emergence of 5G technology, now commercially available, offers the Department of Defense the opportunity to take advantage, at minimal cost, of the benefits of this system for its own operational requirements”.

In other words, the 5G commercial network, built and activated by private companies, will be used by the US armed forces at a much lower expenditure than that necessary if the network were to be set up with an exclusively military goal. Military experts foresee that the 5G system will play an essential role for the use of hypersonic weapons – missiles, including those bearing nuclear warheads, which travel at a speed superior to Mach 5 (five times the speed of sound).

In order to guide them on variable trajectories, changing direction in a fraction of a second to avoid interceptor missiles, it is necessary to gather, elaborate and transmit enormous quantities of data in a very short time. The same thing is necessary to activate defences in case of an attack with this type of weapon – since there is not enough time to take such decisions, the only possibility is to rely on 5G automatic systems.

This new technology will also play a key role in the battle network. With the capability of simultaneously linking millions of transceivers within a defined area, it will enable military personnel – departments and individuals – to transmit to one another, almost in real time, maps, photos and other information about the operation under way.

5G will also be extremely important for the secret services and special forces. It will enable control and espionnage systems which are far more efficient than those we use today. It will improve the lethality of killer drones and war robots by giving them the capacity of identifying, following and targeting people on the basis of facial recognition and other characteristics. The 5G network, as a weapon of high-tech capacity, will also become the target for cyber-attacks and war actions carried out with new generation weapons.

As well as the United States, this technology is under development by China and other countries. The international disagreement concerning 5G is therefore not only commercial. The military implications of 5G are almost entirely ignored, because the critics of this technology, including many scientists, are concentrating their attention on its toxic affects for health and the environement, due to exposure to very low-frequency electromagnetic fields. This engagement is of course of the greatest importance, but must be linked to research on the military use of this technology, financed indirectly by ordinary users. One of its greatest attractions, which favours the dissemination of 5G smartphones, will be the possibility of participating, by subscription, in war games of impressive realism in direct contact with players from all over the world. In this way, without realising it, the players will be financing the preparation for war – but this time it will be a real war.


This article appeared on Dec. 10 in the Italian web newspaper, Il Manifesto.



Source: https://www.globalresearch.ca/hidden-military-use-5g-technology/5697848


RMS

 

[Benny106]

Whoaa

 

[billy_big_bud!]

this is legitimately some scary shit and it sickens me to know i am trapped in it. the building i live in has roughly 2 dozen cell towers on the roof. i am at all times 30-40 feet away from them. its no wonder i am 93% insane.

 

[flylowgethigh]

When Boeing / SAIC were milking the US Army while developing the so called Future Combat System (FCS), they were supposed to come up with a network that would allow comms and move so much data. The problem is there is no available spectrum for that data, billions later still no network. They do not like to use civilian bands and infrastructure as it is 1) unsecure and 2) pisses off the locals more than when they just got invaded cause their phones are slow. 5G may be useful for the military, but they don't count on existing infrastructure when they invade (liberate) territory.

 

[Rocky Mtn Squid]

Video: The 5G Space Weapon, Mind Control Agenda & Kill Grid

Video: The 5G Space Weapon, Mind Control Agenda & Kill Grid

[YOUTUBEIF]VFykhsGlI3w[/YOUTUBEIF]


RMS