News for United Kingdom
|Page 1 of 222  Next› Last»|
|Do smartphones cause cancer? World Health Organisation to assess brain tumour link|
|United Kingdom||Created: 20 Mar 2019|
The World Health Organisation (WHO) is reviewing whether smartphones might increase the risk of cancer, the Telegraph understands.
The UN health body is conducting a review of the latest scientific studies in an attempt to put to bed an ongoing row among scientists about the link between brain tumours and increased use of mobile phones.
Despite their widespread use researchers have for decades disagreed about the extent to which mobile phone signals constitute a health risk. The last report of its kind was released by WHO in 2011. It graded high radiofrequency, the energy emitted from wireless devices like phones, WiFi routers and phone masts, as a “possible carcinogen".
Since then, several new pieces of research have been published including a 10-year US study commissioned by the US Food and Drugs Administration, which showed clear evidence of cancer in male rats and some in female rats when exposed to the kinds of radiation emitted from 2G and 3G phones. It was thrown out by the FDA upon its release in November last year because the animals were exposed to the highest possible radiation a human might experience from their phone for prolonged amounts of time, something the organisation said was unlikely to happen in real life.
A deadline for the review has not been set but Dr Eric Van Rongen, chair of the organisation that is tasked with setting the limit at which phones can emit radiofrequency, ICNIRP and a member of the WHO, said that his peers were currently looking "at all the high quality papers ever published" with the review expected "next year".
Industry-wide guidelines limiting how much radiation phones can generate have been in place since 1999 following concerns about the emission of radiowaves from phones, which are absorbed by about 1-2cm into the body.
Evidence suggests that those using smartphones infrequently are unlikely to have a risk of cancer and experts point to the fact that brain tumours have not become epidemic despite the increased use of the technology. But Joachim Schüz, head of radiation at the WHO's International Agency for Research on Cancer said there were questions over “heavy users” who are on their phone for several hours a day with some studies suggesting an increased risk in brain tumours.
“We have some uncertainty with very heavy use of mobile phones, but that definition is not very easy to make,” Mr Schüz said. “On the one hand, people use their phone much more often nowadays because it is cheaper but they use it in different ways, like holding it in their hand rather than by their head or they leave it in their pocket.”
Phone makers including Samsung, Apple and Google warn users to hold the phone at least 5 or 10mm away from their head and body, and avoid using a metal case to ensure the radiation adheres to current guidelines. Those who use their phone for several hours a day could consider using headphones or a hands-free device, Mr Schüz said.
Official NHS advice says that those concerned should ensure children, deemed a higher risk factor because they absorb more energy, “should only use mobile phones for essential purposes and keep all calls short” and “only use your phone when your reception is strong”. Phones emit more radio waves in areas with poor reception because it uses more energy to try and find a connection. It says the biggest health risk of phones is using them while driving.
Other countries have been cautious with an Italian court forcing the government to fund a public awareness campaign over potential risks to health this summer. France has ruled that phone manufacturers must display the radio wave absorption rate (SAR) and test handsets to make sure they comply. Last year it found eight models on the market which did not. Berkeley, California, alerts customers that phones might pose a health risk owing to the radiation they emit.
Alarmed by a body of conflicting evidence over the past decade, scientists have called for further studies to be conducted into the potential impacts. The advent of fifth generation wireless, of 5G, has sparked further debate over the impacts it could have on the population because the networks will require higher frequencies and more phone masts.
Simon Mann, head of radiation dosimetry at Public Health England said: “It is possible that there may be a small increase in overall exposure to radio waves when 5G is added to an existing telecommunications network or in a new area; however, the overall exposure is expected to remain low relative to guidelines and as such there should be no consequences for public health.”
Dr Rongen of ICNIRP, the organisation which is tasked with setting the limit at which phones can emit radiofrequency that it would be “very difficult to predict” if there are any potential health hazards associated with the new network.
“It is not set up as a public health experiment but of course you can consider it as such. It will be necessary to gain more information about the exposure and any health problems that might come from an effect of that exposure,” however, he added, “this is not any different to monitoring prescription drugs that we rely on”.
ICNIRP plans to relax the emissions limits ahead of 5G, which will grant telecommunication companies more leeway when designing the phone masts needed to provide coverage across the UK, US and Europe.
Researchers have long disagreed over the effects of mobile signals In the late Nineties, studies by Sweden, Japan and other countries found higher risk of brain tumours in heavy users. However, scientists have not noticed increased rates of cancer in countries where smartphones have become ubiquitous.
|Click here to view the source article.|
|Source: Telegraph, Margi Murphy, 03 Mar 2019|
|ICNIRP will relax guidelines to accommodate 5G|
|United Kingdom||Created: 12 Mar 2019|
Safety restrictions on how much radiation phone masts are allowed to emit are to be relaxed next month, ahead of the introduction of 5G networks.
ICNIRP, the global scientific body used to set standards on radio frequency emissions from smartphones, WiFi routers and phone masts, will vote on easing its guidelines next month.
The Munich-headquartered organisation, made up of a dozen scientists, believe the existing rules can be relaxed without any health risks.
Telecoms companies have been hoping the restrictions will be relaxed to allow them to set up next-generation mobile networks, which will require more powerful signals.
The World Health Organisation is currently studying whether radiation from mobile networks is harmful, in an attempt to settle disagreements among researchers about the signals allegedly increasing the risk of cancer.
Fierce opposition to phone towers in residential areas across the country has persisted for almost two decades, owing to concerns the radiation they emit might be harmful to public health.
Campaigners have stepped up opposition ahead of the new networks as the successor to 4G will need more masts to provide the necessary coverage, each operating at a higher frequency. The current limits were created in 1999. The government rules that any manufacturer must ensure masts, or phones, comply.
Around 25,000 masts or cell sites are needed to cover mainland UK on the current network. But when data rates rise with 5G, they will need to push more power into the radio signal and larger coverage, New masts may appear on bus stops, lamp posts and in homeowners’ TV set top boxes.
Mobile phone companies promise the new networks will contribute billions to the economy owing to their super fast speeds that can accelerate smart cities, homes and driverless cars. Matthew Fell, the UK policy chief at the Confederation for British Industry last month urged politicians to help “supercharge broadband and 5G to stop UK economy from buffering”, and stop it being overshadowed by Brexit.
Vodafone announced last week that it is launching 5G in 19 towns and cities across the UK this year. The US has similar trials taking place across the country, backed by Donald Trump who wrote on Twitter that he wanted the technology “as soon as possible”.
|Click here to view the source article.|
|Source: Telegraph, Margi Murphy, 09 Mar 2019|
|Somerset parent pulls child out of school due to wi-fi radiation|
|United Kingdom||Created: 5 Mar 2019|
They claim their child has suffered from 41 nasty side-effects stemming from wi-fi waves.
A parent has taken their child out of a Somerset school because of dangerous wi-fi radiation there, they have claimed.
They say they have been forced into home-schooling after their child began to suffer from a long line of serious symptoms that they believe have stemmed from wi-fi radiation.
In a letter to local newspaper Western Gazette the parent wrote that society must do something about the issue or "we will be no more".
Due to legal reasons, the parent cannot be identified.
They wrote: "We have had to resort to home-schooling our child this year due to the effects of wi-fi at school and the unwillingness of the school to take appropriate action in consequence and the fact that it seems every school in the area has wi-fi.
"Lo and behold every one of these symptoms disappears when there is no wi-fi (as at home).
"The full situation only came fully to light as a result of a series of school absences. It would seem that, as is often, children ‘manage’ such symptoms and don’t want to make a fuss of them. What else is going on in the body, we dread to think.
"As parents we have also experienced similar effects and we know many others who have as well. Sometimes the effects have been so bad as to result in the need to resign from a job."
The 41 claimed side-effects of wi-fi
The parent has claimed their child has suffered from:
Tinnitus (buzzing in the ears)
Head feeling strange
Pressure in head
Bloodspots from nose
Speech affected (word selection)
Redness of the face
Crying (or feeling like)
Feeling out of control
Loss of empathy
Loss of appetite
Tummy pains or wind
Pain and / or stiffness in joints and muscles
Aching or restless limbs
Poor decision making
Loss of balance
Avoiding eye contact
Eyelids flickering or twitching
Dry, itchy or smarting eyes
Shortness of breath
Excessive trips to the loo
Vomiting in mouth
Hair and eyelash loss
The parent wrote: "The absolutely crazy thing about wi-fi is that the Access Points (usually located on walls or ceilings or indeed hidden) transmit strong signals continuously even when no-one is using the wi-fi! I have heard it that the school register can only be taken using a wireless tablet. How ridiculous is that!
"If people don’t know, wi-fi consists of pulsed polarised microwave radiation. Incidentally, there may be other ways to connect wirelessly without the risk of harm. For instance li-fi modulates light (abundant and natural) - although systems such as li-fi are in their infancy.
"Over the last year too it has been noted in the media that increased screen time is associated with increased ill health. Many ‘screens’ are used wirelessly it would seem. Some, as in homes and offices, are not.
"What a good time to review wireless use and start cutting back on it for the sake of yours and the planet’s future!"
The parent added: "Some people say ‘we can’t do without all this’ but without doing something about it, we will be no more – along with the insects and other creatures whose numbers we hear are decreasing alarmingly (human fertility has reduced by some 60% in the last 30 or so years – the same period over which wireless has been introduced).
"There have been numerous appeals and declarations over recent years to the WHO and the UN. Is it therefore not time to think about our future and start reducing reliance on wireless and find other, better ways to do things?
"Much is talked about environmental pollution these days. This wireless radiation, given its prevalence, is pollution like no other."
Somerset County Council has been approached for a comment on the matter.
|Click here to view the source article.|
|Source: Somerset Live, Tomas Malloy, 28 Feb 2019|
|5G buildout will be more involved than we’ve been led to believe|
|United Kingdom||Created: 26 Feb 2019|
The 5G spectrum that each cellular network operator has license to will have ramifications for the 5G mobile telephony infrastructure they will have to build. Here we’ll take a look at what the industry knows about the behavior of signals at 5G frequencies and what that might mean for their deployment plans.
From the moment that the wireless industry decided it would make use of higher frequencies for 5G transmission, everyone has known spectrum would have some ramifications for those deployment plans. One issue, it turns out, will probably not be that big of a deal, the other somewhat more consequential, but neither is addressed very often. Both derive from what’s commonly known: the higher the frequency of a wireless signal, the less well it propagates and the less able it is to penetrate obstacles. So as a practical matter:
In contrast to deploying 3G and 4G, deploying 5G will require distinct indoor and outdoor strategies.
5G base stations will have to be spaced more closely, necessitating more of them, especially in densely populated areas.
That first concern would have been a much bigger problem for 5G but for a solution already widely adopted in response to another issue entirely. When operators of 4G networks got concerned they would become strapped for capacity, they began to support dual mode (cellular / Wi-Fi) handsets. A significant amount of what would have been wireless network traffic is now shunted off to Wi-Fi. Dual-mode operation represented a relief valve for the growing traffic problem.
Also, and it doesn’t happen all that often, but there are indoors areas where 4G reception is diminished or lacking. Dual-mode operation has been the answer for that, too.
And that points to why dual-mode operation is a blessing for operators evolving their networks to 5G. Indoor reception problems are guaranteed with 5G; higher-frequency millimeter wave signals in particular will not penetrate walls. If dual mode hadn’t already become a common feature, the industry would have had to introduce it.
An alternative would have been to create small cells that combine 4G and 5G (and probably Wi-Fi anyway). Wireless network operators have been considering small cells for more than 15 years, but if small cells were the best solution for anything we’d have them already. Nobody will deploy extra customer premise equipment (CPE) if they can get out of it to avoid the costs to buy and maintain it.
One other thing: network operators will be retaining all their 4G infrastructure. When 5G wireless phone subscribers who don’t enable Wi-Fi end up in 5G dead spots, they’ll be connected via 4G instead. So the bright 5G future for an awful lot of mobile phone use will actually be Wi-Fi and 4G. Feel the 5G excitement yet?
Weak signal propagation with 5G frequencies is the more serious constraint for mobile telephony, however, and it turns out that mmWave frequencies are not all created equal.
Buildings, hills, trees and other physical objects – even people (especially people, where there are crowds) will obstruct any mmWave signal.
Water vapor – humidity – will cause signal loss at 24 GHz. Oxygen is an impediment at 60 GHz. You read that right – the stuff in the atmosphere that is an absolute requirement for life on Earth can be a problem (see Figure 1).
As a practical matter, under most circumstances, water vapor and oxygen might ding a link budget by only a decibel or so, but then there will be circumstances in which it will be serious; rain fade has to be taken into account. “While a strong signal will not suffer, a weak or marginal signal may become unusable in heavy rain conditions,” reported Joel Conover, senior director of Industry Solutions & Digital Marketing at Keysight Technologies, in a recent EDN article.
There are other challenges when moving into mmWave frequencies, some outlined in the same story. For example, when a 5G receiver is moving at speed (say, 30 mph), channel coherence at frequencies of 6 MHz and below will be measured in milliseconds. In the millimeter range, that drops to microseconds. Not impossible to deal with, but it will have to be dealt with.
Previous estimates have been that the average distance between 5G base stations might be 250m to 300m. With combined effect of all the potential impediments, most equipment designers are targeting 150 meters to 200 meters apart everywhere, simply to get adequate coverage, Conover reports.
By way of contrast, 4G cells in densest urban areas might be as close as 400 meters to 800 meters apart (in more open areas they might be a kilometer or two apart, or more).
Wireless operators are going to have to install more 5G base stations than they did to support 4G, they’re going to have to install more 5G base stations than they originally estimated. This is going to increase the expense of rolling out 5G.
It is instructive to consider this when regarding wireless companies’ efforts to induce the Federal government to force local jurisdictions to reduce or eliminate pole attachment fees.
What does this mean for each wireless provider?
The only competitor that might possibly eke some edge out of all of this is T-Mobile. T-Mobile stocked up on licenses for spectrum at 6 GHz and below (< 6 GHz), and it plans to have its initial rollout of 5G services reliant almost solely on that spectrum. It also says it will use mmWave spectrum (assuming it wins the licenses it desires) at some later date to expand its 5G coverage.
Using mostly spectrum at < 6 GHz, T-Mobile might be able to establish its 5G network with greater spacing between cells, which would mean it will be able to get up and running having installed fewer cells at a lower total cost. It might end up with more reliable service, though that remains to be seen.
T-Mobile will eventually have to install more cells more closely packed when it does finally supplement its 5G coverage using mmWave spectrum, true, but at the very worst the company seems to have charted a path with the most measured approach possible to 5G-related capital expenditures.
The other major wireless network operators appear on a course where they will be mixing-and-matching <6 GHz and mmWave coverage sooner rather than later.
It makes no sense to install multiple, distinct sets of base stations, with each set dedicated to transmission at a single frequency. It would be exceedingly expensive, and exceedingly difficult from a logistics perspective, given the complexity of the process of siting cells.
Since every major wireless network operator will be mixing and matching 5G spectrum to get maximum coverage, all of them (with the possible exception of T-Mobile – and then only in the short term) wireless network operators will be compelled to space their 5G base stations at 150m-200m distances, regardless of the spectrum they have license to use.
Back in February, when companies were still early in the process of field testing 5G transmission systems, the Small Cell Forum estimated that by 2025, the industry will have installed 13.1 million 5G or multimode small cells. That is almost certainly now an undercount.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is currently in the process of selling licenses to 24 GHz and 28 GHz spectrum in separate, parallel auctions. There are 40 companies who have lodged bids for licenses in one or both; most are small regional companies. As has been the case with almost every US spectrum auction thus far, the biggest companies are expected to win the vast majority of licenses.
AT&T, Verizon Wireless, Cox Communications, T-Mobile, U.S. Cellular and Windstream are the biggest companies competing for licenses for 24 GHz spectrum. Another notable bidder is Starry, an ambitious startup.
Verizon already has licenses to quite a bit of 28 GHz spectrum through its $1.8 billion acquisition of XO Communications in 2017. The list of network operators likely to snap up the majority of the remaining 28 GHz spectrum is almost, but not quite, the same as the list for the 24 GHz auction: AT&T (through AT&T Spectrum Frontiers), Verizon Wireless, T-Mobile, U.S. Cellular, Frontier Communications and Windstream.
|Click here to view the source article.|
|Source: EDN Network, Brian Santo, 19 Dec 2018|
|Government urges parents to limit their children’s social media use to TWO hours at a time|
|United Kingdom||Created: 4 Feb 2019|
In the first formal guidelines ever, the Chief Medical Officer will pile huge pressure on web giants to introduce a cut-off for under-18s.
Kids should then take “exercise breaks”. The move comes amid growing alarm at a generation hooked on social media.
Campaigners are likely to demand the crackdown – to be unveiled by Dame Sally Davies next Thursday – goes even further.
Research earlier this week found under-fives spend four hours and 16 minutes a day glued to screens - including online, ,gaming and TV.
Seven in ten of those aged 12 to 15 took smartphones to bed.
And a fifth of children aged 8-12 are on social media – despite supposed bans on under-13s. The new guidelines revealed by James Forsyth in today’s Sun follow an official request from Health Secretary Matt Hancock
The Tory high-flyer last weekend demanded social media giants remove suicide and self-harm material from their sites after the father of a 14-year old teenager blamed Instagram for her death.
Ian Russell said Molly – who committed suicide two years ago – had been looking at social media content about depression, self-harm and suicide.
In a blistering letter to web firms, Mr Hancock said: “It is time for internet and social media providers to step up and purge this content once and for all.”
He added: “Let me be clear, we will introduce new legislation where needed.”
Ofcom earlier this week claimed so many children were glued to YouTube that they had given up other activities such as drawing or going out on their scooters.
Some youngsters said they went out less - because of it was “too much effort” when they could just hook up online.
Researchers warned while many kids go online to watch harmless videos they end up watching unsuitable content by accident.
Education Secretary Damian Hinds last November urged parents to lead by example and drag themselves away from smartphones and tablets.
US academics last summer said children learn smartphone habits from their parents – and it was important adults learn to “unplug”.
The Chief Medical Officer’s view is guidance rather than regulation. Sources compared it to official advice such as “eat your five a day” on vegetables.
The advice will say that kids shouldn’t spend no more than two hours at a time on social media - and that they should do exercise before going back on again.
But insiders said the political argument will be whether the social media companies self-regulate - such as logging out under 18s once they’ve been on for two hours.
|Click here to view the source article.|
|Source: The Sun, Steve Hawkes, 01 Feb 2019|
|Warning issued over mobile phone mast that could be situated near Cambuslang school|
|United Kingdom||Created: 14 Jan 2019|
The council has demanded that Hastie Bakery be removed from a list of eight possible mast sites in the town until an investigation is carried out into the impact such a mast would have on children at nearby St Bride’s Primary School.
Greenlees Road must be removed from a list of potential sites for a mobile phone mast, Cambuslang Community Council has warned.
Vodafone UK and Telefonica UK confirmed in December that a number of locations were being considered to install a telephone mast after previous plans to erect one at the junction of East Greenlees Road and Murdoch Avenue fell through.
John Bachtler, chairman of Cambuslang Community Council, said a directive from the UK Government states schools and parents have a right to know the level of radiation which pupils are currently, or could later be exposed to.
In a letter to Mono consultants, the firm surveying potential sites for the mast on behalf of the phone companies, Mr Bachtler said: “Our concern relates to the very close proximity of one of the proposed base stations to St Bride’s Primary School in Tabernacle Street just off Greenlees Road.
“We would be grateful if you would kindly provide us with the details of any audit that may have been done of radiation from that base station, in particular radiation levels that are likely to be experienced at St Bride’s Primary School. If no such audit has been undertaken, could you advise us on when this will be done.
“In the absence of such an audit, we object to any proposal for the siting of a base station in the area, and especially in the vicinity of St Bride’s Primary School, being taken forward.”
Mr Bachtler also urged Telefonica and Vodafone to host a public meeting and further consult the community before submitting a planning application for any of the eight sites currently under consideration.
This includes: Hillhouse Industrial Estate, Atlas Industrial Estate, Cambuslang Rangers, The Brae Public House, South West Paint Suppliers Ltd, Hastie Bakery, Bute Tower and Benmore Tower.
A spokesman for Mono Consultants said the mast was needed to improve 3G and 4G coverage in the area.
He said: “All Vodafone and Telefónica installations are designed to be fully compliant with the public exposure guidelines established by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). These guidelines have the support of UK Government, the European Union and they also have the formal backing of the World Health Organisation. A certificate of ICNIRP compliance will be included within the planning submissions.”
Telefonica and Vodafone UK first announced plans to erect a mobile phone mast in the Cambuslang area in the spring of 2017.
However, it later emerged that the land on which they hoped to build the mast was not actually owned by the person with whom they had struck an agreement.
The news followed weeks of opposition from local residents and a petition which garnered hundreds of signatures.
Residents stated they had concerns about the impact radiation would have on their physical and mental health.
|Click here to view the source article.|
|Source: Daily Record, Edel Kenealy, 10 Jan 2019|
|Agnes, founder of Mast-Victims.org has passed away|
|United Kingdom||Created: 24 Dec 2018|
She lost the battle against microwave radiation sickness and finally, cancer.
Click this link to read this obituary in its original layout: https://www.mast-victims.org
Despite her health problems, Agnes brought people together for the cause. She tracked down EHS sufferers, EMF activists, scientists and researchers and made sure people got connected across the world. Tirelessly, the Icelandic lady worked full-time in the family business at day and helped people fight the global wireless industry blitz at night.
In 2003 my parents were poisoned by microwave radiation from a mobile-phone mast installed only 28 meters from their home. The main-beam of radiation was pointed straight into the house. A full-on assault that devastated their health. By the flick of a switch they went from virtually never having a sick-day, to having severe health problems and becoming highly sensitized to the radiation.
We sued the Telecom and in 2005 the case went to High Court. It was proven that the Telecom had lied and falsified evidence — to the point of "editing" their own expert witness's statement (highly illegal) — and somehow, the Judge still ruled in their favor. With the nationwide rollout of "3G" beginning we realized that this had gone all the way to the top and that our case was slaughtered for political reasons. Death of Justice. Now we face an onslaught of "5G".
Reports of similar cases of injustice worldwide spurred the birth of Mast-Victims — dedicated to the victims of people who seemingly wield injustice as a tool towards their self-serving goals.
Agnes was hit hardest by the radiation exposure. She never regained her health. It just kept declining no matter what, making clear that wireless radiation can damage the immune-system beyond repair.
Goodbye mom! We miss you so desperately!
Please honor Agnes' memory by continuing the fight against the radiation pollution of the wireless industry and Governments. Don't give up! Unite. We are so close to winning.
If you wish to be notified of the funeral and where to send your condolences, please send an email with subject-line: "Agnes" to email@example.com. Thank you.
|Click here to view the source article.|
|Source: Henrik Eiriksson, Mast-Victims, 24 Dec 2018|
|LiFi is a paradigm-shifting 5G technology (2017)|
|United Kingdom||Created: 23 Dec 2018|
Abstract: In this paper we will first explain what Light-Fidelity (LiFi) is and argue that it is a 5th Generation (5G) technology. Peak transmission speeds of 8 Gbps from a single light source have been demonstrated, and complete cellular networks based on LiFi have been created. We will discuss numerous misconceptions and illustrate the potential impact this technology can have across a number of existing and emerging industries. We also discuss new applications which LiFi can unlock in the future.
LiFi is a wireless communication technology that uses the infrared and visible light spectrum for high speed data communication. LiFi, first coined in  extends the concept of visible light communication (VLC) to achieve high speed, secure, bi-directional and fully networked wireless communications . It is important to note that LiFi supports user mobility and multiuser access. The size of the infrared and visible light spectrum together is approximately 2600 times the size of the entire radio frequency spectrum of 300 GHz
*SNIP* Read the entire paper via the source link below...
|Click here to view the source article.|
|Source: Science Direct, Harald Haas, 27 Oct 2017|
|Britain’s First 5G Court Case and the People Won|
|United Kingdom||Created: 17 Oct 2018|
Mark Steele, a 5G campaigner, has been highlighting the dangers of a secret 5G rollout by Gateshead Council where residents are complaining of increased illness and Cancer in the affected area. There’s enough evidence to conclude the new smart 5G arrays on the top of new LED lampposts emit Class 1 Radiation frequencies and should be treated as a danger to the Public. Gateshead Council ignorantly rebutted clear evidence and created false allegations on social media posts and printed leaflets stating that Mark Steele is spreading Pseudo Science and that the arrays are not dangerous or 5G:
“Please be assured that there is no scientific basis or credible evidence for any of these scare stories about street lights causing cancer and other illnesses.”
They misused Police Powers to gag Mark Steele and yesterday he left a free man and Gateshead Council to fork out £11k of taxpayers money to cover the court cost amounting to woeful ignorance. In Court, none of the Council Officers could explain what 5G is; and their leading Government expert refused to attend the Court hearing. In conclusion, the Judge refused to gag Mark, stating:
“The public have a right to know.”
The secret 5G rollout issue in Gateshead is now officially of public interest and will be treated as a landmark case for other people to start using this Court’s ruling to challenge their Councils. We know Surrey, Westminster and Luton all have these toxic Microwave EMF arrays installed on their new LED streetlights. We now know even if these arrays are currently 2G, 3G or 4G they can be 5G enabled by fitting a ‘lens’ that ‘focuses’ the frequency.
The Judge declared Mark Steele as a credible expert and engineer on EMF and GSM technologies, which proves Gateshead Council are liable for corruption, misleading the public, making people ill and attempting to discredit Mark Steele and all others such as Smombie Gate fighting 5G rollouts.
Councils are struggling at the moment, over 50% are almost bankrupt because over half of their resources are being spent on the increase of Adult Social Care, so any supplier proposal with the promise of more revenue is irresistible.
Smart City companies are going into Councils with amazing futuristic presentations detailing the first step, which is to install the 5G infrastructure, i.e. the lampposts on streets and motorways.
The benefits will be 24/7 Police surveillance that sees through walls; smart road signs; 4k live streaming on the move; driverless vehicles and public transport; mobile virtual reality; mobile augmented reality; and a fast connection for Elon Musk’s new brain implant called the Neuralink giving people the Internet inside their mind. All these features are all a wet dream for Councils who will be the first ones to become Smart Counties because they will be able to increase taxes and the local economy in theory will thrive.
n reality, scientific evidence is mounting across the planet that EMF, RF, 3G, 4G, 5G, WiFI and WiGIG is causing Cancer, killing bees, driving out wildlife and lowering peoples quality of life. All because big business says it’s good for the people, and they’re continuing to mislead us all of the dangers of continuous use in close proximity and on the skin, let alone what 5G really is, which is an effective battlefield weapon.
We know that Gateshead isn’t the only Council who is misleading the public on the 5G rollout and it’s seemingly been going on for a few years. Luton, Surrey and Westminster are next along with all Councils that have installed these arrays that are being installed by particular companies (we’ll leave you to do your own work on how you think these companies are!).
Who is paying for these 5G rollouts? Who’s given consent on behalf of the People? Who has done research to prove the new infrastructure’s safety?
As usual, these important issues are being rubbished by the media and beneficiaries to big business. But they’ll soon see our wrath, as we now this ruling. All Hell is going to break loose in Great Britain and we’re going to take the fight to them. We will NOT be silenced, and you will not wilfully poison our bodies and our families bodies with Class 1 radiation – WE DO NOT CONSENT.
Mark Steele of https://www.saveusnow.org.uk has made this a big part of his life. It’s people like Mark and all of you who get involved that make a difference to our lives.
Please spread the word and get in touch with us if you want any advice in how to approach your Council. We’re going to be producing a simple Template Pack you can send to your Councils very soon.
*SNIP* visit the source link below to view the videos...
|Click here to view the source article.|
|Source: Smombie Gate, 12 Oct. 2018|
|Our phones and gadgets are now endangering the planet|
|United Kingdom||Created: 24 Sep 2018|
The energy used in our digital consumption is set to have a bigger impact on global warming than the entire aviation industry.
It was just another moment in this long, increasingly strange summer. I was on a train home from Paddington station, and the carriage’s air-conditioning was just about fighting off the heat outside. Most people seemed to be staring at their phones – in many cases, they were trying to stream a World Cup match, as the 4G signal came and went, and Great Western Railway’s onboard wifi proved to be maddeningly erratic. The trebly chatter of headphone leakage was constant. And thousands of miles and a few time zones away in Loudoun County, Virginia, one of the world’s largest concentrations of computing power was playing its part in keeping everything I saw ticking over, as data from around the world passed back and forth from its vast buildings.
Most of us communicate with this small and wealthy corner of the US every day. Thanks to a combination of factors – its proximity to Washington DC, competitive electricity prices, and its low susceptibility to natural disasters – the county is the home of data centres used by about 3,000 tech companies: huge agglomerations of circuitry, cables and cooling systems that sit in corners of the world most of us rarely see, but that are now at the core of how we live. About 70% of the world’s online traffic is reckoned to pass through Loudoun County.
But there is a big problem, centred on a power company called Dominion, which supplies the vast majority of Loudoun County’s electricity. According to a 2017 Greenpeace report, only 1% of Dominion’s total electricity comes from credibly renewable sources: 2% originates in hydroelectric plants, and the rest is split evenly between coal, gas and nuclear power. Dominion is also in the middle of a huge regional controversy about a proposed pipeline that will carry fracked gas to its power plants, which it says is partly driven by data centres’ insatiable appetite for electricity. Clearly, then, the video streams, digital photographs and messaging that pour out of all those servers come with a price.
I was reminded of all this by the recently published book New Dark Age, by the British writer James Bridle. He cites a study in Japan that suggests that by 2030, the power requirements of digital services will outstrip the nation’s entire current generation capacity. He quotes an American report from 2013 – ironically enough, commissioned by coal industry lobbyists – that pointed out that using either a tablet or smartphone to wirelessly watch an hour of video a week used roughly the same amount of electricity (largely consumed at the data-centre end of the process) as two new domestic fridges.
If you worry about climate change and a cause celebre such as the expansion of Heathrow airport, it is worth considering that data centres are set to soon have a bigger carbon footprint than the entire aviation industry. Yet as Bridle points out, even that statistic doesn’t quite do justice to some huge potential problems. He mentions the vast amounts of electricity consumed by the operations of the online currency Bitcoin – which, at the height of the speculative frenzies earlier this year, was set to produce an annual amount of carbon dioxide equivalent to 1m transatlantic flights. And he’s anxious about what will happen next: “In response to vast increases in data storage and computational capacity in the last decade, the amount of energy used by data centres has doubled every four years, and is expected to triple in the next 10 years.”
These changes are partly being driven by the so-called internet of things: the increasing array of everyday devices – from TVs, through domestic security devices, to lighting systems, and countless modes of transport – that constantly emit and receive data. If driverless cars ever arrive in our lives, those same flows will increase hugely. At the same time, the accelerating rollout of the internet and its associated technologies in the developing world will add to the load.
About a decade ago, we were being told to fight climate change by switching off our TVs and stereos. If the battle is now even more urgent, how does it fit with a world in which router lights constantly flicker, and all the devices we own will be in constant, energy-intensive communication with distant mega-computers?
But some good news. Whatever its other ethical contortions, Silicon Valley has an environmental conscience. Facebook has pledged to, sooner or later, power its operations using “100% clean and renewable energy”. Google says it has already achieved that goal. So does Apple. Yet even if you factor in efficiency improvements, beneath many of these claims lies a reality in which the vast and constant demand for power means such companies inevitably use energy generated by fossil fuels, and then atone for it using the often questionable practice of carbon offsetting.
And among the big tech corporations, there is one big focus of worry: Amazon, whose ever-expanding cloud computing wing, Amazon Web Services, offers “the on-demand delivery of computer power, database storage … and other IT resources” and provides most of the computing power behind Netflix. This sits at the heart of data centres’ relentless expansion. Green campaigners bemoan the fact that the details of AWS’s electricity consumption and its carbon footprint remain under wraps; on its corporate website, the story of its use of renewable energy suddenly stops in 2016.
Besides, for all their power, even the most enlightened US giants obviously command only part of a global industry. To quote from that Greenpeace report: “Among emerging Chinese internet giants such as Baidu, Tencent and Alibaba, the silence on energy performance still remains. Neither the public nor customers are able to obtain any information about their electricity use and CO2 target.” Irrespective of the good work carried out by some tech giants, and whether or not you take seriously projections that the entire communication technology industry could account for up to 14% of carbon emissions by 2040, one stark fact remains: the vast majority of electricity used in the world’s data centres comes from non-renewable sources, and as their numbers rapidly increase, there are no guarantees that this will change.
On the fringes of the industry, a few voices have been heard describing the kind of future at which most of us – expecting everything streamed as a right – would balk. They talk about eventually rationing internet use, insisting that people send black and white images, or forcibly pushing them away from binge-streaming videos. Their basic point, it seems, chimes with those occasions when the smartphone in your pocket starts to suddenly heat up: a metaphor for our warming planet, and the fact that even the most well-intentioned corporations may yet find that their supposedly unlimited digital delights are, in the dictionary definition of the term, unsustainable.
John Harris is a Guardian columnist
|Click here to view the source article.|
|Source: The Guardian, John Harris, 17 Jul 2018|
|Page 1 of 222  Next› Last»|