|Page 1 of 762  Next› Last»|
|Havana syndrome: NSA officer’s case hints at microwave attacks since 90s|
|USA||Created: 2 May 2021|
When Mike Beck developed a rare form of Parkinson’s US intelligence concluded he was the victim of a hi-tech weapon.
When the first reports surfaced of a mysterious disorder that was afflicting dozens of US diplomats in Cuba, Mike Beck’s reaction was one of recognition and relief.
Beck, a retired National Security Agency counterintelligence officer, was at his home in Maryland, scrolling through the day’s news on his computer when he spotted the story, and remembers shouting out to his wife.
White House investigating ‘unexplained health incidents’ similar to Havana syndrome
“I got excited because I thought: well, it’s coming out now that it’s not a mirage,” Beck said. “I felt bad for the victims but thought: ‘Now I’m no longer one of one. I’m one of many.’”
Beck had been forced into retirement in late 2016 by a rare early-onset, non-tremor form of Parkinson’s disease, and he had evidence, supplied by the NSA and the CIA, that he could have been the victim of a deliberate attack from a microwave weapon.
After years of lonely struggle, he now feels vindicated. Last December the National Academy of Sciences published a report finding that the scores of CIA and state department officials affected by “Havana syndrome” in Cuba, China and elsewhere, were most likely suffering the “effects of directed, pulsed radio frequency energy”.
After years of playing down the reports and failing to provide proper medical care for the victims, Washington is now clearly alarmed at the implications of the attacks. The Democratic and Republican leadership on the Senate intelligence committee put out a bipartisan statement on Friday, saying: “This pattern of attacking our fellow citizens serving our government appears to be increasing.”
The statement came the day after the White House said it was looking into “unexplained health incidents” after reports that two of its own officials had been targeted in the Washington area.
The CIA and state department have launched taskforces to investigate and it was reported last week that the Pentagon had launched its own inquiry into suspected microwave attacks on US troops in the Middle East.
Earlier this month, the senior director for the western hemisphere in the national security council, Juan Gonzalez, voiced concern over the lingering risk to US diplomats from microwave weapons in Cuba, in an interview with the CNN Spanish language service.
But what is so striking about Beck’s case is that its origins were two decades earlier – and that it produced official confirmation more than eight years ago that such weapons had been developed by America’s adversaries.
That raises more questions about why the CIA and state department were so reluctant to believe their own officers could have been targeted by such weapons when cases appeared in Cuba and then China in 2018 and elsewhere around the world.
“The reality is that this has been an intelligence community issue for decades,” said Mark Zaid, a lawyer representing both Beck and Havana Syndrome victims.
An NSA statement declassified in 2014 for Beck’s work injury compensation case stated: “The National Security Agency confirms that there is intelligence information from 2012 associating the hostile country to which Mr Beck traveled in the late 1990’s, with a high powered microwave system weapon that may have the ability to weaken, intimidate or kill an enemy, over time, and without leaving evidence.
“The 2012 intelligence information indicated that this weapon is designed to bathe a target’s living quarters in microwaves, causing numerous physical effects, including a damaged nervous system.”
Beck is still not allowed to name the hostile country he visited in 1996, but said he and a colleague, Charles “Chuck” Gubete, had gone to make sure a US diplomatic building under construction was not bugged.
“It was a sensitive assignment,” Beck told the Guardian. “So we knew what we were getting into from the standpoint of the hostile country being a critical threat environment.”
On arrival, he and Gubete were detained at the airport and then put up in adjoining rooms in a budget hotel after their release.
On their second day on the project, they expanded their sweep to a neighbouring building and came across what he calls “a technical threat to the equity we were there to protect”.
They reported the device to their superiors and left it in place. The next day, they were passed a message from a local translator working with the Americans that the host country authorities, in Beck’s words, “had seen what we did and that was not a good thing”.
The next day, Beck said: “I woke up and I was really, really groggy. I was not able to wake up routinely. It was not a normal event. I had several cups of coffee and that didn’t do a thing to get me going.”
The symptoms passed by the time Beck and Gubete returned to the US. But 10 years later, when Beck was in the UK, on secondment to General Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), Britain’s NSA counterpart, he came down suddenly with crippling symptoms.
“The right side of my body started freezing up. I was limping and I couldn’t move my arm,” he said. He was referred to a neurologist who diagnosed Parkinson’s. At the time, Beck was 45.
Shortly afterwards, he was visiting NSA headquarters and happened to bump into Gubete. Beck was shocked by what he saw.
“He was walking like an old man,” he recalled. “He was slumped over and walking really awkwardly. I went up to him and said: ‘What’s going on?’”
Within a few days, Gubete, 55 at the time, was diagnosed with the same form of Parkinson’s disease as Beck.
“I’ve worked in counter-intelligence for the predominance of my career,” Beck said. “I thought this is not coincidental that we’re both presenting the same variant of Parkinson’s at the same time. This is not happenstance.”
The cause of their shared plight was a total mystery to Beck until 2012 when he saw US intelligence communications about a microwave weapon with potentially debilitating neurological effects developed by the country he and Gubete visitedtogether.
He was able to get part of that intelligence declassified for his labor department claim in 2014 – but by then it was too late for Gubete. He had died at home, of a suspected heart attack the previous year.
Even with the declassified intelligence, the NSA leadership continued to oppose Beck’s claim, so he arranged a briefing by CIA experts who came to NSA headquarters in the spring of 2016.
“Their opinion was based upon information that they had – and that NSA didn’t have access to – and they supported my affirmation that I had been attacked in the hostile country with a microwave weapon,” Beck recalled. “They said it was a ‘no-brainer’ that this medical condition was due to an attack.”
On 24 August 2016, according to Beck and his lawyer, Zaid, the head of NSA security and counter-intelligence, Kemp Ensor, sent an email to the NSA chief of staff, Liz Brooks, supporting Beck’s account. The NSA did not respond to a request for comment.
There are still many unanswered questions about the Beck case. Gubete had a family history of Parkinson’s and any causal effect between microwave radiation and the disease is unknown, and differs from the more recent cases.
But it is clear from the Beck case that when the wave of Havana syndrome injuries began in 2016, US intelligence agencies knew much more that they admitted to.
It took a three-year campaign by CIA and state department employees targeted by the attacks to have their illnesses taken seriously, to receive proper treatment and for the mysterious attacks to be properly investigated.
“That it’s taken me three years to get treatment is disgraceful, ethically and morally,” said Marc Polymeropoulos, a former senior officer in the CIA’s clandestine service,.
“You make a pact when you join the Central Intelligence Agency – particularly in the operations side, the silent service. They asked me to do some really unusual and risky things over the years, in some pretty bad places but you always had a pact with your leadership that if you got jammed up, they would have your back,” he said.
Polymeropoulos was visiting Moscow in 2017, as deputy chief of operations of the CIA’s Europe and Eurasia Mission Centre, when he experienced crippling symptoms of an attack.
“I was woken up in the middle of the night with an incredible case of vertigo,” he said. “My head was spinning, incredible nausea, I felt like I had to go to the bathroom and throw up. It was just a terrifying moment for me. I had tinnitus which was ringing in my ears, and the vertigo was really what was incredibly debilitating and I really wasn’t sure what was happening. I couldn’t stand up. I was falling over.”
“Since that incident, I have had a headache 24/7 for three years and there’s a mental health challenge in this too,” Polymeropoulos said. “I was able to work for two hours every morning but then I’d be spent. Even having a conversation like this, I would be exhausted after that.”
He is convinced that Russia is behind the attacks, and also says he is certain that Russia is the unnamed country in the Beck case.
In 1996, the US was in the process of tearing down the top two storeys of its Moscow embassy because the building was so full of bugging devices. Four new floors were constructed with the aim of creating a secure environment.
The new CIA director, William Burns, assured Congress earlier this month that he was taking the problem seriously and that he had appointed a senior officer to run a taskforce “ensuring people get the care they deserve and need, and also making sure we get to the bottom of this”.
Polymeropoulos, who is now being treated at Walter Reed military hospital and is pushing for other CIA victims to get similar treatment, said he was cautiously optimistic.
“Under Bill Burns, there seems to be a sea change. We have to see actions now, not just words. But I have hope,” he said.
Meanwhile, a quarter-century after his ill-fated trip to a hostile nation, Michael Beck is still fighting for workers’ compensation. The Department of Labor has turned down his claim but the one-year window for appeal is still open.
“I’m not suing anyone,” he said. “I’m just looking for what’s right out of this.”
|Click here to view the source article.|
|Source: The Guardian, Julian Borger, 02 May 2021|
|Increasing incidence of thyroid cancer in the Nordic countries|
|Sweden||Created: 23 Apr 2021|
During use of the handheld wireless phone, especially the smartphone, the thyroid gland is a target organ. During the 21st century, the incidence of thyroid cancer is increasing in many countries. We used the Swedish Cancer Register to study trends from 1970 to 2017: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/23/9129
During that time period, the incidence increased statistically significantly in women The increase was especially pronounced during 2010–2017. Increasing incidence was found also in men. Similar results were found for all Nordic countries based on NORDCAN.
These results are in agreement with recent results on increased thyroid cancer risk associated with the use of mobile phones. We postulate that RF radiation is a causative factor for the increasing thyroid cancer incidence.
This article is a follow-up to our previous publication on the same issue: https://bmccancer.biomedcentral.com/track/pdf/10.1186/s12885-016-2429-4.pdf
The results show that it is important to protect the thyroid gland from exposure to radiofrequency radiation from wireless phones, e.g. the smartphone. It should be used only for short calls always in the speaker mode or using handsfree.
|Click here to view the source article.|
|Source: Lennart Hardell blog, Lennart Hardell, 22 Apr 2021|
|JUDICIAL REVIEW PROCEEDINGS LODGED IN THE HIGH COURT|
|United Kingdom||Created: 23 Apr 2021|
Legal Action Against 5G led by Michael Mansfield QC have recently lodged their case against the government.
The Defendants are
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL CARE: First Defendant
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT,
FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS: Second Defendant
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DIGITAL CULTURE MEDIA AND SPORT: Third Defendant
The Claimants are represented by Michael Mansfield QC, Philip Rule and Lorna Hackett of Hackett & Dabbs LLP
The case concerns an important issue of public safety. It raises the risk to which members of the public, including particular vulnerable individuals, and children, are being exposed without having consented to or agreed to expose themselves to that risk; and without an adequate and proper consideration undertaken by the relevant safeguarding authorities of the creation of those man-made public health risks.
We provided documents containing evidence from a multitude of respected and eminent experts concerning the health effects of the technology used by 5G, and the attendant risks to the public and individuals, upon which the Defendants declined to act.
The Defendants cannot lawfully continue to ignore or overlook the evidence that indicates the existence of a risk that has not been quantified. To date there has been a failure to engage with this body of evidence, and an inappropriate attempt to delegate any assessment of risk to an external body – a body against which membership legitimate criticism of industry finance and conflict of interest is levelled.
The issues include:
the absence of due investigation of the nature and extent of the risks to the safety of individuals, and human health by the relevant United Kingdom authorities;
the absence of appropriate measures, systems and safeguarding steps to address the identified risks or potential risks; and
a failure to adopt and apply a precautionary principle, or informed foresight, to the exposure of non-consenting children and adults to a risk of harm.
The law provides a framework that demonstrates the unlawfulness of the inaction and errors of the executive bodies we have challenged.
Holding to account the executive or legislative authorities to comply with the law and legal duties is undoubtedly a proper and essential function for the Court, especially in the context of protection of individuals from harm that includes loss of life or serious injury.
The grounds are:
The Defendants are in breach of section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 resulting from omissions and failings in violation of the positive obligations required to be met by Articles 2, 3 and/or 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The Defendants have failed to consider the best interests of children when considering formulating, updating or reviewing the appropriate approach to 5G policy and risk assessment for exposed children. In the alternative, they have failed to make this a primary consideration.
The Defendants are in breach of the Public Sector Equality Duty (“PSED”) (s149 EA 2010). There has been no equality assessment, within the meaning and terms of the PSED, to properly inform and be considered in decisions as to the risk posed by RFR and affecting for example approval of 5G generally and/or of permissible locations of 5G and/or of the policy to adopt ICNIRP guidelines.
The SSHSC is in breach of his statutory duty under s2A of the National Health Service Act 2006, either resulting from (a) unlawful delegation or abdication of the statutory function to an external private organisation; and/or (b) irrationally failing to take appropriate steps under this power and/or failing to exercise a discretion in accordance with the statutory purpose.
The Defendants have failed to take into account as a relevant consideration, and give due and proper consideration to, all the evidence, information and concerns which we have raised with them.
The Defendants have failed to provide adequate and sufficient reasons for the decision not to establish a process to investigate and establish the adverse health effects and risks of adverse health effects from 5G technology and/or for discounting the risks presented by the evidence available.
THIS IS A LANDMARK CASE
The Claimants wish to thank all the many members of the public who have supported them including those that have written messages of encouragement, some of which have been heart wrenching, on the Crowd Justice site; who watch our updates on progress and the thousands who have given donations in support of this legal action. It is for those who have written letters, signed petitions and campaigned, the scientists, doctors and engineers that have put their names to appeals and all the many who have supported our work. It is for those who remain puzzled or uninformed but feel unwell or develop any of the many symptoms that are associated with or worsened by radiation. And it is for our shared environment that does not have a say but for which we, as responsible citizens, are custodians.
Meanwhile our work continues in earnest, and we wish to thank all of you for your continuing support. We will issue further information as this matter progresses.
Further information can be found at https://actionagainst5g.org/ and please continue to support our legal team at https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/legalactionagainst5g/.
Donations by post will be gratefully received and can be sent to PO Box 13199, SW6 6ZU.
The account details are: Account name: Ms Victoria Angell Sort code: 30-94-81 Account No: 28059168
The above account is used purely in connection with the LAA5G campaign, to facilitate donations by BACS and cheque.
|Click here to view the source article.|
|Source: Action Against 5G, via email, 22 Apr 2021|
|Redefining electrosensitivity: A new literature-supported model|
|Australia||Created: 17 Apr 2021|
ABSTRACT: In critically examining literature on electrohypersensitivity and the reported somatic responses to anthropogenic modulated radiofrequency radiation (RFR) exposure, it becomes apparent that electrohypersensitivity is one part of a range of consequences. Current evidence on the necessity of considering patients’ overall health status leads us to propose a new model in which electrohypersensitivity is but part of the electrosensitive status inherent in being human. We propose the likelihood and type of response to environmental RFR include i) a linear somatic awareness continuum, ii) a non-linear somatic response continuum, and iii) the extent of each individual’s capacity to repair damage (linked to homeostatic response). We anticipate this last, dynamic, aspect is inextricably linked to the others through the autonomic nervous system. The whole is dependent upon the status of the interconnected immune and inflammatory systems. This holistic approach leads us to propose various outcomes. For most, their body maintains homeostasis by routine repair. However, some develop electrohypersensitivity either due to RFR exposure or as an ANS-mediated, unconscious response (aka nocebo effect), or both. We suggest RFR exposure may be one factor in the others developing an auto-immune disease or allergy. A few develop delayed catastrophic disease such as glioma. This model gives the blanket term ElectroMagnetic Illness (EMI) to all RFR-related conditions. Thus, EHS appears to be one part of a range of responses to a novel and rapidly changing evolutionary situation.
Autonomic Nervous System
|Click here to view the source article.|
|Source: Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, Redmayne et al., 25 Jan 2021|
|A Neighborhood Sick After the Cell Tower Was Installed|
|USA||Created: 16 Apr 2021|
Listen to a mother and her daughter share how they became sick after the cell tower near their home was fired up. Two sisters have headaches, rashes and vomiting spells since the cell tower was turned on.
Several other neighbors are also reporting symptoms. watch the video below where Theodora Scarato Exceutive Director of EHT interviwed the family.
Mother Courtney Gilardi has been tirelessly working to advocate for a safe environment. The cell tower and sick families has been featured in several news reports.
Most recently the Council unanimously asked the Health Department to investigate the illness reported by people living near the cell tower. However the Department responded that they did not have the expertise.
Courtney Gilardi continues to advocate and you can follow her efforts at
stoptower.com and facebook.com/pittsfieldcell
3/23/2021 Testimony to the City Council of Pittsfield Massachusetts
I am 13 years old.
Thank you for allowing me to speak tonight.
I have been calling into City Council meetings ever since my sister and I started getting headaches and dizzy from the cell tower. She gets skin rashes and we both get nauseous. Some nights we sleep with vomiting buckets on our pillow. Some nights, I sleep very little. This is no way to live at all.
Since the tower has been on, we have not felt healthy at home. We have had to go to the doctors sometimes every other week. Sometimes our symptoms are so bad we cannot log on to go to school.
It has been months and nothing has been done to help our family or our neighborhood. I have to wonder if anyone in the city actually cares about the health of the children and residents.
I have always been encouraged to speak up to make things better, but when I speak, the city ignores me. Do you know how it makes the people feel here when they are ignored? When they cannot get any answers? It makes me feel invisible. It makes me feel less than. It makes some of us feel like what is the hope in trying if nothing changes. It makes me feel like my voice and my home and my safety and my health is not important. It does not make me feel like I am a valued part of this community.
It does not make me feel valued.
We are asking for your help to make this better- together.
I want to think that the city of Pittsfield is committed to protecting all of its residents; those that live in Shacktown, those who are less resourced, those who are old or young or suffer from a sensitivity to the radio frequency radiation that is now in our neighborhood. I want to believe you care about us enough that when you hear that neighbors are living in their cars and not their homes that you do something about this quickly.
We may not be your children but we are the children of Pittsfield. We are not invisible.
It should not take this long to hear us. It should not take this long to help us.
Links to learn more about the Pittsfield Massachusetts Cell Tower
|Click here to view the source article.|
|Source: EHTrust.org, 13 Apr 2021|
|Wrap your cell phone in tinfoil|
|USA||Created: 16 Apr 2021|
The internet is the land of a million tongues and a thousand truths, many false.
It’s a brightly lit shadowy world where facts are sometimes factual, political agendas are everywhere and everything is coated in a thick sludge of advertising. The internet is where conspiracies go to thrive and multiply.
But it isn’t all lies. To be on the safe side we consult additional unreliable websites to confirm what we want to believe. Who killed JFK skims the surface; the fake moon landing is old news. The Walrus was Paul, Revere. I once waded into a website showing secret underground chambers in Walmart stores all across the nation.
Also, crazy people think crazy things and act on them. It wasn’t the internet that invented free range hippie cults living in fear of radiation, microwaves and voices in their teeth. The internet doesn’t make people in Albion, Greenfield Ranch and Planet Jupiter wear tinfoil helmets to thwart cosmic rays beaming from cell phone towers.
We laugh. But we also know it’s entirely possible for cell phone towers to blast invisible cancer-causing radioactive rays at us all the time, every hour, every minute, and that some day my ears might fall off and your frontal lobes turn to oatmeal.
SEMI-RELATED: The Ukiah Daily Journal recently ran a front pager (by Justine Frederiksen) on dwindling Monarch Butterfly populations. Clouds of butterflies no longer illuminate our skies. Andrea Davis, a local, was quoted saying she’s now lucky to spot a single caterpillar per year tucked in among the milkweed, giving her small hope another butterfly may one day take wing.
And you? How many little brown lizards do you see scampering around porches and parks these days, and how many did you see in the 1970s? How robust are frog populations compared to when you were a kid? Where did the banana slugs go? When did you last see a toad?
SEMI-RELATED: A friend I’ve never met emails me threats posed by corporations, progressives, global elites, etc., and last week sent documents from a lawsuit filed in 2001. The case, Murray v. Motorola, is on behalf of 13 people who believed their cancerous tumors were caused by cellphone radiation. All are deceased.
The opposing team: Sony, Verizon, Sprint, AT&T, Nokia, Samsung, the FCC and dozens more. Both sides have heavy-hitting lawyers and experts, and they go to war in a Washington, DC. Superior Court come July ’21.
The gist of the lawsuit is that yes, cell phone towers emit microwave radiation at unhealthy levels for humans, and at eradication levels for birds, bees, insects and everything else that flies.
But the twist in the lawsuit is that cellphones themselves are at least as deadly as the towers because there are “only” about three million cell towers, but 14 billion mobile devices.
Which cause the most devastation, towers or phones, is a tossup, not that it matters to the birds, bees or Monarch Butterflies.
From a supporting document: “Just 25 years ago the average human did no harm to other species or other humans when taking a walk. Today, every human being is a source of radiation wherever he or she goes.”Also: 5G technology means “any person with a cell phone is even more hazardous… to any bird or insect that flies between their phone and a cell tower.”
Now, comedy relief:
We live in Northern California, the most eco-sensitive spot on the planet. Courageous activists never miss taking shots at corporations threatening whales, spotted owls or redwood trees. They rage against loggers, chemicals, fracking, RoundUp, SUVs, contrails, Big Tobacco, plastic bags, L-P, G-P, Blood for Oil, highway construction, Big Pharma and so on, and on and on. They exist to shriek at those living a less righteous existence than theirs.
But who will they scream at if the lawsuit proves cell phones are destroying animal habitats? When they protest Fridays outside the courthouse whose name(s) will be on the placards they wave? Their own? Who will they jeer at? Themselves?
Will they demand compensation? Who gets it, who pays it?
Who will be Mendo’s first environmentalist to throw away her iPhone and offer weeping apologies for her mindless, decades-long, irreversible, deadly rampage against butterflies, bunnies, birdies and our fragile Mother Earth? Will she demand Justice for Toads Now!?
And who will be the first local journalist to apologize, in writing, to the tinfoil helmet weenies we’ve ridiculed through the years?
|Click here to view the source article.|
|Source: The Ukiah Daily Journal, Tommy Wayne Kramer, 02 Apr 2021|
|The costs of wireless technology: Guest columnist Christine Olson|
|USA||Created: 14 Apr 2021|
In the past 100 years something that cannot be seen, heard, smelled or touched has multiplied in our environment trillions of times. What is it? Radio waves, which are the basis for all wireless technology.
High frequency radio waves (microwaves) are broadcast from cell towers, communicating with antennas in our cellphones. Radio waves from routers fill our homes, enabling “smart” devices, Bluetooth headsets, wireless baby monitors, etc.
Wireless technology provides freedom and connectivity, but most people don’t realize that this comes at a cost. Radiofrequency radiation (RFR) can have a negative impact on our health and environment, as proven by scientific studies.
The massive proliferation of this radiation in our environment is unprecedented and raises the question: is it safe? New Hampshire’s state legislature created a commission to study this question and New York state is about to do the same.
In the past 40 years, cellphone technology has gone from 1G, the first generation, to 4G, the fourth generation, with ever-increasing speeds of transmission.
Northampton currently uses up to 4G, but the telecommunications industry is driving a huge nationwide push for 5G. With 5G, much higher-frequency millimeter waves will combine with the currently broadcast microwaves from 3G and 4G technologies. The telecom industry has not done any long-term studies on the impact of 5G on human health and the environment. None of these technologies have been proven to be safe.
In the past year Verizon has installed about five antennas (“small cells”) on utility poles in Northampton neighborhoods. Several are within 50 feet of homes. Placing small cell antennas in neighborhoods is a new industry trend consistent with plans for the 5G rollout. 5G millimeter waves travel shorter distances than 4G, and therefore require small cells every 500 feet!
No one wants to live under a cell facility large or small. Ample data shows that properties near cell towers lose value. What would happen to Northampton property values if densely-deployed small cells popped up on every other block, outside bedroom and kitchen windows? How would that affect the health of Northampton residents?
As a regulatory body, the Federal Communications Commission is responsible for setting maximum levels of wireless radiation. However, it is chaired by telecom lobbyists and primarily serves the interests of the telecom industry.
For the last quarter century, the FCC has refused to update the safety standards for microwave radiation, ignoring the explosion of scientific studies that identify radio frequency radiation as a potential health hazard. Many European nations allow much less RFR per square meter than the outdated FCC regulations.
In the age-old battle between science and big business over questions of product safety, the telecom industry claims that scientific study of exposure to microwaves is inconclusive, and maintains there are no biological effects other than the heating of tissues. Yet a multiyear, multimillion dollar study done by the US National Toxicology Program proved a positive link between radiofrequency radiation and tumors, DNA damage and cancer. This study was corroborated by the Ramazinni Institute in Italy.
The FCC is currently being sued for refusing to take seriously the results of legitimate scientific research.
In March of 2020, while crafting Northampton’s wireless ordinance, city councilors, to their credit, discussed the Precautionary Principle: “With environmental hazards, you don’t need to wait for full scientific proof before taking action to limit the potential for harm.”
To protect our homes and health from the encroachment of cell antennas, the council should strengthen the current ordinance by requiring: 1) greater setbacks from homes and schools; 2) fees structured to cover the cost of monitoring the radiation emitted from cell facilities; 3) clearly-worded notification to residents of pending installations; and 4) an annual recertification process. Please contact your city councilor about this.
Community broadband, which includes wired fiber optic cable, would provide faster, more secure, and more environmentally friendly connections than small cell antennas (no RF radiation). Plus, it would use significantly less energy than wireless transmission.
If enough Northampton residents say yes to broadband (as nearby hilltowns have) then fast, wired connections could be our telecommunications future. To express your interest, complete this survey online before the April 23 deadline: https://northamptonma.gov/2223/Municipal-Broadband-Study
For more information and occasional updates, email Safe Tech Northampton at firstname.lastname@example.org. Visit our FaceBook page, Safe Tech Northampton, for links to subjects in this article.
Christine Olson, a Northampton resident, a member of Safe Tech Northampton.
|Click here to view the source article.|
|Source: Daily Hampshire Gazette, Christine Olson, 13 Apr 2021|
|Mobile tower welcomed with open arms|
|Australia||Created: 14 Apr 2021|
Prime Minister Michael McCormack joined residents from Goobarragandra at an unveiling of the valley’s new mobile phone tower Sunday morning.
Telstra Regional General Manager Chris Taylor, Mobile Black Spot Program Director Peter Lee, Snowy Valleys Mayor James Hayes and Deputy Mayor John Larter joined residents, including tower campaigner Tony Keremelevski, at the the Sandy Waterfall Creek Travelling Stock Reserve.
Construction of the tower began early December last year, and was finished on December 18.
Spirits were high, even if temperatures were low on Sunday, and Mr Keremelevski, whose campaigning was crucial in getting the tower built, said it had a “perfectly working signal.”
“It is better than what we thought,” he said. “People are getting a signal who never thought they would.”
To him, the tower brings more than convenience to the area.
“It’s not about bringing a signal to your bedroom or your lounge room for downloading a movie; this is about knowing if you are 100 metre away with a cut leg – call and an ambulance will come,” he said.
“My life and the lives of everybody here are worth saving. Whether it is a three-year- old kid having an epileptic fit you can call an ambulance. The landline here was out 30 per cent of the time. This is about me, you and every other decent person whose lives here being able to make a phone call when they need to.”
He was full of praise for Mr McCormack.
“He’s the real deal,” he said. “He started to help me six years ago, and he was instrumental in this.”
He is also grateful to Mr Lee.
“It is wasn’t for Peter Lee and Michael McCormack this would never have happened.”
He believes last summer’s bushfires underlined the need for such a tower.
“Last year, if we would have had that signal over there, it would have been so much easier, but now we do,” he said.
Mr McCormack said that he appreciated that the coverage there didn’t touch every corner of the region, but indicated that more coverage could be coming.
“We’ve got rolling rounds of this infrastructure, of this program, and as Tony knows and the Mayor knows, we will certainly roll more towers out,” he said.
“We’ve got another round happening at the moment; councils are welcome to apply, communities are welcome to put their expressions of interest in. We want that, we need that, we need to know where we need to fix these black spots.”
To test the effectiveness of the tower, Mr McCormack rang Regional Communications Minister Mark Coulton, who duly answered.
Mr Taylor said “technology like the satellite small cell technology allows us to get into areas where it’s going to be difficult to get fibre and other backhaul in, so using a low orbital satellite to actually provide the backhaul allows us to get into areas like this and bring this stuff to reality.”
He thanked the Goobarragandra community for keeping Telstra and the government informed of what was needed.
“At the end of the day, it is about meeting the needs of the community,” he said.
|Click here to view the source article.|
|Source: Tamat & Adelong Times, Josh Gidney, 13 Apr 2021|
|5G is testing the limits of trust|
|Finland||Created: 14 Apr 2021|
In 2020, the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) published updated safety guidelines for exposures to radio-frequency radiation (RF-EMF) emitted by wireless communication devices and networks, such as mobile phones or mobile phone base stations. This publication replaced the ICNIRP 1998 RF-EMF guidelines.
These guidelines, recommended by the World Health Organization, have been adopted by a majority of countries around the world, becoming part of their wireless regulatory framework. US uses IEEE/ICES and FCC guidelines, but seeks to “harmonize” with the ICNIRP guidelines.
Safety according to ICNIRP
The basic principle underlying these safety guidelines is that, according to ICNIRP, the only proven health-related effects induced by this kind of radiation exposure are those that occur when the temperature of human tissue is increased by more than 1 degree Celsius — the so-called thermal effects.
When the temperature of human tissue does not increase by more than 1 degree Celsius, the radiation is considered by ICNIRP to be harmless to human health. In their opinion, the level of radiation emitted by wireless devices meeting ICNIRP safety guidelines is insufficient to cause a health-affecting increase in temperature in human tissue. Furthermore, according to ICNIRP’s review of science, there are no proven effects occurring without such a temperature increase.
Given that ICNIRP considers that only thermal effects of radiation exposure can cause health effects, ICNIRP has designed safety guidelines to protect users from any thermal effects that could affect health. In ICNIRP’s opinion, prevention of thermal effects by the currently used safety limits is sufficient to protect the health of all users.
However, there is a long list of experimentally-observed biological effects in animals or in cells grown in the laboratory, that have been induced by exposures to wireless radiation at levels well below the current exposure limits set by ICNIRP. Scientists are concerned that if such non-thermal effects were to occur in users, they might lead to health effects.
According to ICNIRP’s understanding of science, these non-thermal effects should not be happening. However, unless all scientists observing non-thermal effects are hallucinating, there is something wrong with ICNIRP’s evaluation of the scientific evidence.
ICNIRP’s guidelines, in addition to being set to prevent only thermal effects, are also based only on short-term, acute exposures (from minutes to hours). The guidelines do not provide information on whether they will be protective for continuous and long-term exposures, those lasting from months to decades. Thus, while there is available published research on the acute effects, those that occur during or shortly after exposure, there is very little research on long-term chronic exposures. This suggests that applying ICNIRP guidelines to long-term exposures is based on an assumption of safety and not on the scientific evidence.
The ICNIRP guidelines are also being promoted as protective for all users, no matter their age or health status. ICNIRP claims that whether it be the growing and developing body of a small child, the ailing body of an old person with chronic or potentially lethal diseases, or the robust body of a young and healthy adult — all are equally protected.
Since experimenting on humans is limited, for obvious ethical reasons, we must look to epidemiological studies to examine the long-term effects of exposures in people. These studies on long-term biological effects and health can take many years to complete, and often present real-world limitations, thus there are few such studies completed from which to draw. This means that there is not much scientific evidence assuring that the ICNIRP’s safety guidelines apply to all persons, no matter their age or health status, and no matter how long they have used wireless devices. It suggests, again, that the application of ICNIRP guidelines equally to young and old, healthy and sick, is based solely on the assumption of safety and not on the available scientific evidence.
The workings of ICNIRP
Looking at the membership of ICNIRP, it is easy to notice that all members have very similar opinions on the issue of RF-EMF and health. All ICNIRP members have expressed nearly the same opinion, that RF-EMF is absolutely and completely safe for use by everyone, as long as its levels are within the safety limits advised by ICNIRP.
It is interesting to note that science evaluations by ICNIRP experts are frequently contradicted by researchers not involved in ICNIRP activities. Even more interestingly, ICNIRP members, when placed on various national scientific committees in the company of other, non-ICNIRP, scientists, sometimes arrive at conclusions that contradict ICNIRP opinions.
Recently, these disagreeing opinions were published by:
BERENIS in Switzerland
The Health Council of the Netherlands
US FDA 2020 Report
For the majority of users of wireless technology, ICNIRP is merely an acronym. They hear that ICNIRP claims to be about science only, void of any influences, be it from the industry or from government radiation regulatory bodies. However, not many users are aware of how ICNIRP operates in practice. Consider:
1. ICNIRP is a group of about a dozen scientists who claim not to represent anyone else but themselves.
2. ICNIRP claims to be void of any lobbying influence from the industry and from the national radiation protection organizations.
3. Retiring members of ICNIRP are replaced by new members who are selected by current members.
4. ICNIRP’s selection criteria, and their justifications for selecting particular new members, are not publicly available. Only ICNIRP members know why a person has been selected to join their group.
5. ICNIRP is not responsible to any entity for the scientific decisions they make.
6. No one has controls over how ICNIRP arrives at their recommended safety guidelines.
7. There is no oversight of ICNIRP’s activities by anyone.
8. ICNIRP has no legal responsibility for their scientific opinions.
The legal responsibility
ICNIRP safety guidelines are what they say, just guidelines. No one is legally bound to use them. This means that even if the guidelines were proven to be in error, nobody could legally sue ICNIRP for this error.
The telecom industry and the national radiation protection organizations, however, in choosing to use ICNIRP safety guidelines, becomes legally responsible for any health hazard caused by the radiation-emitting devices they produce, even if they comply with the ICNIRP guidelines. Once the telecom and the national radiation protection organizations accept and use ICNIRP safety guidelines, it is they, and not ICNIRP, that has legal responsibility should the devices ever be shown to cause health harm.
In short, ICNIRP members are responsible only before ‘God and History’ for whatever right or wrong decisions ICNIRP may make.
To understand the significance of this complete lack of oversight or control of ICNIRP activities, it is necessary to remember that the safety guidelines developed by ICNIRP are the sole guidance used by the industry that manufactures and operates wireless communication hardware and infrastructure throughout most of the world.
In essence, ICNIRP safety guidelines justify the workings of the telecom industry, which, in 2019, had an annual worth, globally, of about 1.74 trillion US$ - ICNIRP, the organization that claims total independence from any outside interests, that acts without any external control or oversight, and that is not responsible to anyone for their scientific decisions.
ICNIRP and 5G safety
The currently ongoing deployment of the new 5th generation of wireless communication, 5G, has further stimulated debate on the validity of ICNIRP’s safety guidelines.
What will be new in 5G wireless communications is the use of millimeter-waves, with frequencies from over 20 GHz up to 300 GHz. While millimeter-waves can transfer large amounts of data, they have a problem with how far they can be transmitted, and with the limits of their penetration ability. This will cause a very dense deployment of base stations (cell antennas) throughout neighborhoods (roughly, one small base station on every second lamppost), and will require base stations inside buildings. This means that in a few years, when 5G is fully deployed, city environments will be virtually saturated with the millimeter-wave radiation.
ICNIRP, in its 2020 safety guidelines, assures us that the health of users will be completely protected. However, how does ICNIRP know that?
The research on millimeter-waves and health is extremely limited. Several recently published science reviews have searched various data-bases, and have found only a very limited number of studies dealing with the health effects of millimeter-waves. The vast majority of science published on 5G millimeter-waves deals with radiation measurements and dosimetry, not with the biological and health effects.
In 2019, Simkó and Mattsson published a review of just 97 experimental studies.
In 2020, Leszczynski published a review of just 99 experimental studies.
In 2021, Karipidis et al. published a review of just 107 experimental studies.
Most of this millimeter wave research consists of small, in vitro or animal studies that are of low practical value when developing public health protection guidelines. This lack of research studies causes confusion and problems within communities. When users ask for the scientific evidence of the effects of 5G millimeter-waves on health, they do not get answers because the research has not been done. It is not possible to prove that 5G is safe. However, it would be possible to perform a sufficient number of research studies on 5G and health to show whether the health effects are minimal or even negligible. At this point in time such scientific evidence does not exist.
However, interestingly and worryingly, ICNIRP Chairman Rodney Croft, Professor of Psychology at the University of Wollongong in Australia, has recently stated in an interview with “The Feed” on Australian TV on June 16, 2020:
“There is no harm associated with 5G”
“Look, it’s very true that the amount of studies that specifically look at 5G are very limited, but from a science perspective that just isn’t relevant”
· ICNIRP is an organization that functions without any control or oversight, either scientific or legal.
· There is no control over whether or not telecom industry or national radiation protection organizations are actively lobbying ICNIRP.
· ICNIRP trivializes the lack of research on 5G millimeter-waves and health, as expressed by the ICNIRP Chairman.
· The opinions expressed and decisions made by ICNIRP members are considered not sufficiently science-based by national science groups in several countries, as well as a number of prominent scientists.
· While members of ICNIRP do not have any legal responsibility for their scientific opinions, the telecom industry that uses ICNIRP safety guidelines for their products does have legal responsibility should their devices cause health harm.
In this scientifically and legally complex situation, there is an urgent need to perform an independent validation of the results of ICNIRP’s review of science and of the validity of the ICNIRP safety guidelines.
Acknowledgement: I am grateful to M.M. Glaser for English editing.
|Click here to view the source article.|
|Source: Medium / BlogBHRP, Dariusz Leszczynski, 13 Apr 2021|
|Manmade Electromagnetic Fields and Oxidative Stress - Biological Effects and Consequences for Health|
|Switzerland||Created: 9 Apr 2021|
Abstract: Concomitant with the ever-expanding use of electrical appliances and mobile communication systems, public and occupational exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMF) in the extremely-low-frequency and radiofrequency range has become a widely debated environmental risk factor for health.
Radiofrequency (RF) EMF and extremely-low-frequency (ELF) MF have been classified as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B) by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC).
The production of reactive oxygen species (ROS), potentially leading to cellular or systemic oxidative stress, was frequently found to be influenced by EMF exposure in animals and cells.
In this review, we summarize key experimental findings on oxidative stress related to EMF exposure from animal and cell studies of the last decade.
The observations are discussed in the context of molecular mechanisms and functionalities relevant to health such as neurological function, genome stability, immune response, and reproduction.
Most animal and many cell studies showed increased oxidative stress caused by RF-EMF and ELF-MF. In order to estimate the risk for human health by manmade exposure, experimental studies in humans and epidemiological studies need to be considered as well.
Open access article. See source link below.
Keywords: oxidative stress; ROS; electromagnetic field; extremely low frequency; radiofrequency; environment and public health; environmental exposure; animal study; cultured cells
|Click here to view the source article.|
|Source: BERENIS, Mevissen et al., 06 Apr 2021|
|Page 1 of 762  Next› Last»|