News for USA

 Page 1 of 174   Next›  Last» 

City Hall: Feds say health concerns not valid reason to stand in the way of 5G internet
USA Created: 6 Dec 2018
Questions about the health impacts of placing small cell towers throughout Sioux Falls have been raised as the nation's top telecommunication companies aggressively push for fifth generation wireless internet speeds known as 5G.

But, according to federal rules, health concerns about radiation and radio frequency emissions aren't a valid reason for local governments to stand in the way of the expansion of 5G technology.

5G health impacts get brought up during public input at City Council meetings, the topic litters the email inboxes of city and media leaders, and Mayor Paul TenHaken even raised the question earlier this year during a U.S. Senate Field Hearing on the new technology.

The Federal Communications Commission, though, says early indications are the technology poses no risk to the public, though there are no definitive studies due to 5G being in its infancy.

And while claims that 5G technology is unsafe don't ring true for TenHaken, his deputy chief of staff T.J. Nelson said even if they did the city couldn't prohibit 5G expansion if it wanted.

"Part of 1996 Telecommunications Act ... preempts local government from regulating wireless communications on the basis of environmental effects of radio frequency emissions," he said.

Nelson is referring to a decades-old law that says no state or local government authority can stand in the way of expanded "personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions" as long as those wireless providers are meeting the FCC's own emissions regulations.

Nelson said the FCC also dictates how much local governments can charge for processing 5G applications.

"Other cities are trying to profit off of it, which is why the FCC has intervened," he said. "We don't want to price gouge, but we still have soft expenses with staff time and we need to be sure we cover our expenses."

That's why City Hall is moving ahead with an ordinance proposal to establish licensing and fee requirements for companies like Verizon Wireless that want to install 5G towers in public right of ways that are in line with FCC guidelines.
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Sioux Falls Argus Leader, Joe Sneve, 28 Nov 2018

Senator Blumenthal wants FCC to prove 5G wireless technology is safe
USA Created: 6 Dec 2018
Washington – US Senator Richard Blumenthal is leading a campaign to determine whether new “5G” wireless technology is safe and is asking the federal government for proof the cutting edge radiofrequency does not pose health risks – including cancer.

On Monday, Blumenthal, D-Conn., a member of the Senate Commerce Committee, and Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-Calif., wrote to Federal Communications Commission Brendan Carr seeking information on how his agency has determined 5G technology is safe.

“We need to know whether the radio frequencies can cause cancer,” Blumenthal said at a press conference in Hartford on Monday.

The FCC did not have an immediate response to the letter.

Blumenthal said 5G technology “is a vast improvement” over the 2G and 3G radio waves that allow wireless devices like cell phones and computers to operate. He said the new technology “offers the tremendous promise of higher speeds and reliability.

“But there is also a peril of health hazards associated with radiofrequency that is higher and requires more transmitters and antennas,” he said.

The issue of whether 5G technology is safe was raised by Paul TenHaken, the mayor of Sioux Falls, S.D., at a Commerce Committee field hearing last month.

At that hearing, TenHaken asked Carr for “clear direction” and studies that show 5G towers, which would be placed near schools, libraries and homes, would not pose a risk to his constituents.

Carr replied that “federal law … says that state and local governments can’t take (radiofrequency) concerns into account given how much work has gone into this issue at the federal level…”

“Both at the FCC and other expert health agencies in Washington, they stay very much up to speed on these issues and have reached the determination that these are safe,” Carr told TenHaken.

Blumenthal wants proof. In his letter to Carr, the senator said “most of our current regulations regarding radiofrequency safety were adopted in 1996 and have not yet been updated for next generation equipment and devices.”

Blumenthal also cited a study released this month by the National Toxicology Program, an inter-agency program within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Service, that showed evidence of cancerous heart tumors, as well as some evidence of cancerous brain tumors, in male rats exposed to exposed to high levels of radiofrequency radiation like that used in 2G and 3G cell phones.

The study, begun in 1999, did not address 4G and 5G technologies.

“The stark, simple fact is that health hazards are unknown and unstudied,” Blumenthal said at his press conference. “That is a sign of neglect and disregard at the Federal Communications Commission that is unacceptable. We need to know whether the technology can cause cancer and other diseases.

Communications workers and environmentalists are also concerned about the impacts of 5G technology.

David Weidlich, head of the Connecticut local of the Communication Workers of America, said the AT&T workers he represents have radiofrequency monitors when they work at the cell towers. However, Weidlich said at the Hartford press conference, the microtowers that would be used to transmit 5G frequencies would be installed on individual telephone poles where “there is no consistent safety mechanisms.”

Blumenthal and Eshoo gave Carr a Dec. 17 deadline to comply with their request for information.
Click here to view the source article.
Source: CT Mirror, Ana Radelat, 03 Dec 2018

Wireless Technology Disrupts Your Biology
USA Created: 6 Dec 2018
Martin Pall, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry and Basic Medical Sciences at Washington State University, discusses the cell physiology that’s disrupted by the electromagnetic fields from wireless technologies.

Listen to the interview via the source link below...
Click here to view the source article.
Source: KPFA, Your Own Health and Fitness, 27 Nov 2018

Opinion of a Senator: Wireless technology poses risks
USA Created: 6 Dec 2018
As an aerospace engineer, I have worked on high-tech programs such as the International Space Station and virtual reality training systems for the Department of Defense.

As a state senator, though, I have a responsibility to also look out for the best interests of our citizens. It is in this light that I believe it is time to go beyond looking at the benefits of high tech devices and start to give serious consideration to the risks they pose to the health and welfare of our citizens.

Wireless technologies such as smart meters, cell phones, Wi-Fi and so-called “small cell” 5G deployments merit particular scrutiny. Each of these technologies emits wireless radiation that has been demonstrated to have adverse health impacts such as cancer, cardiovascular impairment, infertility, and much more. These health impacts have been proven to be fact not fiction. Furthermore, there are significant risks to personal data privacy and national security that need to be addressed.

I bring these concerns to you in the spirit of a mining canary not Chicken Little. Mining canaries were used to provide early warning of dangerous gas concentrations in mining operations. To put my concerns about wireless radiation into perspective, would you willingly move your family next to a cell tower? If not, please ask yourself “why?”

The pending 5G networks will put the equivalent of a cell tower every 2-10 homes without any recourse for you or your community to object. The deployment of these networks in our neighborhoods will greatly increase our exposure to wireless radiation. It is possible to provide our citizens with access to the “Internet of Things” in a safe manner, but first we need to admit there is an issue with safety.

On Tuesday, we explored both the benefits and risks of wireless technology at a special forum open to the public in Lansing. The forum featured experts in the fields of telecommunications, medicine and policy including the former president of Microsoft in Canada, Frank Clegg, and retired senior toxicologist at the National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences, Dr. Ron Melnick. It is my hope that this forum will be the start a sincere discussion of both the benefits and the risks of wireless technology.

Let’s pursue advanced technology, but let’s do so in a manner that is safe for our communities.

State Sen. Patrick Colbeck, R-Canton Township, represents the 7th Senate District.
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Detroit News, Patrick Colbeck, 05 Dec 2018

County's 5G legal action provides critical window of opportunity
USA Created: 22 Nov 2018
Marin County announced last month that it is filing an action in the United States Court of Appeals to challenge new rules the Federal Communications Commission issued regarding the deployment of fifth-generation cellular wireless. The law firm representing the county contends that the wireless industry wants to transform the F.C.C. into a “regulator of state and local governments” rather than a regulator of the wireless industry.

County counsel expects oral arguments and a final ruling on their court action sometime in 2019. There are many in Marin who hope this legal action will forestall 5G deployment until the court renders its decision. This provides a short but critical window of opportunity for county officials, city councils, and local citizens to evaluate this technology and develop guidelines for the welfare of us all.

There are two crucial reasons why our local government and citizens need to step in. First, the wireless industry is working at international, national, state and local levels to try to ramrod policy changes that will allow them to deploy not only 5G, but any kind of wireless technology at any time, while stripping local governments’ rights to regulate and manage location, size and performance of wireless equipment as well as their ability to adequately capture monetary reimbursement for the use of poles and infrastructure.

Local government opposition to the industry’s power grab is not trivial. When telecommunications companies tried to pass a California strong-arm telecom bill called S.B. 659, California cities and counties amassed official opposition signatures from 271 cities, 45 counties and 50 public advocate organizations. What’s at stake here is the right of our local government to represent our best interests in the face of industry’s plans to do it “their way.”

The second reason we need to step into this policy-making process is because it profoundly impacts our health. Regulatory human-health safety standards for radio frequencies have not been updated since 1996—prior to the advent of 2G, 3G, 4G and now fifth-generation technology. Yet a massive body of research points to serious concerns over numerous linkages between RF and the damage or alteration of brain function, immune function, sperm fertility and nervous system functions.

In 2011, the World Health Organization classified many forms of consumer-impacting RF as “possibly carcinogenic to humans.” A 2016 study by the United States National Toxicology Program linked RF to two types of cancer. The chief medical officer for the American Cancer Society said this study was “good science, that was reviewed by multiple independent panels of experts.” In April, the International Society of Doctors for the Environment actually called for a specific moratorium on 5G deployment in the European Union.

The good news is that Marin County is planning to hold a public telecom workshop in February to discuss some of these issues. Here are two critical areas that citizens and government leaders must be sure to consider.

Number one: The health issue. If our government leaders are going to take it seriously, they will need concerned parents, educators, health care professionals and thoughtful citizens to show up and tell them they will support a serious analysis of this hotbed issue.

Number two: Locally owned fiber optic networks. The town of Nicasio is nearing completion of its locally owned, cutting-edge, high-speed fiber optic network. Another such network is planned for Bolinas. Both communities have been ignored by a wireless industry that sees little profit in areas of low population density. Our county supervisors helped both communities receive state funding, secure local investment and retain consulting expertise. Locally owned fiber-to-the-home is also being considered in parts of unincorporated Mill Valley and in Fairfax.

Locally owed fiber provides faster internet access and consumes far less energy than large wireless networks. It also puts the control of cost and deployment in the hands of local government rather than in industry hands that perpetually seek new ways to grab more money from customers. Once again, local leaders will need to hear that we want them to be bold enough to explore this option on our behalf.

Our supervisors have scheduled just one workshop to cover these issues. If they are serious about helping us take control of our future, a more realistic approach would provide multiple workshops that are well-advertised and held in multiple locations.

If this makes sense to you, please call or write your city or county representatives today and ask that the county schedule multiple workshops to allow for meaningful public input.

Here are some resources to get us started on the learning curve about RF and our health. Peer-reviewed scientific research on wireless radiation can be found at the Environmental Health Trust: https://ehtrust.org/science/research-on-wireless-health-effects/. A review of 5,600 studies by 29 authors from 10 countries (10 holding medical degrees and 21 holding Ph.D.s) can be found at the Bioinitiative Report: http://www.bioinitiative.org.

And here are some resources regarding locally owned fiber networks: The Institute for Local Self Reliance (https://muninetworks.org/content/frequently-asked-questions), the Harvard Report on Community-Owned Fiber Networks (https://cyber.harvard.edu/publications/2018/01/communityfiber) and Comparing Fiber and Wireless (http://www.fiber-optic-solutions.com/fiber-optic-cable-vs-wireless-one-p...).

William Now is a California-accredited life sciences teacher, a professional technical writer and a longtime activist working to improve our relationship with science and nature. He lives in Inverness.
Click here to view the source article.
Source: The Point Reyes Light, William Now, 15 Nov 2018

Woolsey Fire Forces Electrically-Sensitive Woman to Flee Her Home
USA Created: 22 Nov 2018
There are some people who are so sensitive to technology that merely using a cell phone could cause them pain. The levels of sensitivity vary for different people, but their condition is described as being “electrically-sensitive.” Liz Barris, a Topanga resident, says her health depends on measuring the radiation levels around her.

“This is in a dog park. There’s a cell tower about a block and a half that way. This is radiation, microwave radiation. This is a meter that measures it,” Barris said as she held an electronic meter.

If her meter finds high levels, she says it’s a likely indicator that she’ll suffer from painful migraines, vomiting, diarrhea and more.

“I love this dog park. But, like everything else, it gets ruined by the radiation,” Barris said.

The radiation exposure comes from cell towers, Wi-Fi and cell phones. Dr. Gunnar Heuser specializes in Electric Magnetic Field medical cases. Dr. Heuser says it can cause the same symptoms Liz has experienced.

He says it also effects about 10 percent of the world’s population.

“If you listen carefully as you have studied it like I have. Then you realize that there are definitely people who have that sensitivity,” said Dr. Heuser.

“I’ve never had migraines until this. This kind of headache is like someone is putting a spike in my head,” says Barris.

But at the moment, Barris has nowhere safe to turn. The Woolsey fire forced her to evacuate her Topanga home. For now, her only sanctuary is to cover herself with a metal-woven shielding fabric that can block radiation.

She was able to stay at a friend’s house but that home was internet hardwired, so she was forced to take other steps to block exposure. But she says the meter still picked up radiation, possibly coming from a neighbor’s unit. Again, she had to leave and find somewhere else to stay. It was a reminder of everything she’s had to sacrifice in the last 12 years because of her symptoms.

“I had a job. I had friends. I had a boyfriend. I had a social life. I had everything. Money. I can’t go to restaurants now. I can’t go to coffee shops. I can’t walk down the street. I have to drive with this over my head because there are cell towers all along the street and I will get sick if I don’t do this,” Barris said.

At the end of the day, Barris said her health forced her to go back home across mandatory evacuation lines with her dog Jack. Because if she stays where the exposure levels are high, she’ll be sick.
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Spectrum News 1, ZARINA KHAIRZADA, 21 Nov 2018

There's a clear cell phone-cancer link, but FDA is downplaying it
USA Created: 14 Nov 2018
A recent study by the National Toxicology Program/National Institutes of Health (NTP/NIH) shows clear evidence of a causal link between cancer and exposure to wireless cell phone signals. Results from the $30 million NTP studies demonstrated that cell phone radiation caused Schwann cell cancers of the heart and brain gliomas in rats, as well as DNA damage in the brain.

In NIH’s news release, NTP senior scientist John Bucher said, “We believe that the link between radio frequency radiation and tumors in male rats is real and the external experts agreed.” But, amazingly, the FDA says it disagrees with this carefully conducted, peer-reviewed study’s finding of clear evidence of carcinogenicity.

According to Jeffrey Shuren, Director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, “these findings should not be applied to human cell phone usage,” adding that “we believe the existing safety limits for cell phones remain acceptable for protecting the public health.”

While expressing this opinion, Dr. Shuren neglects to note that the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a part of the World Health Organization, classified radio-frequency radiation from wireless devices as a “possible human carcinogen” based largely on findings of increased risks of gliomas and Schwann cell tumors in the brain near the ear in humans after long term use of cellphones. Thus, the same tumor types are elevated in both animals and humans exposed to cell phone radiation.

This FDA’s position is quite unusual because it was this agency that nominated cell phone radiation emitted from wireless communication devices to the NTP for toxicity and carcinogenicity studies in experimental animals so as to “provide the basis to assess the risk to human health.”

At that time, the FDA reasoned that “existing exposure guidelines are based on protection from acute injury from thermal effects of RFR [radiofrequency radiation] exposure and may not be protective against any non-thermal effects of chronic exposure.” By adopting this new position and ignoring the NTP’s results, the FDA is clearly shirking its responsibility of assessing the impact on human health of radio-frequency radiation.

Simply claiming that conclusions about human risk cannot be drawn from animal studies runs counter to standard practices of evaluating human cancer risks by public health agencies including the U.S. EPA, NTP, IARC and even the FDA. Every chemical known to cause cancer in humans is also carcinogenic in animals when adequately tested.

The NTP studies were conducted to test the widely-held assumption that cell phone radiofrequency radiation could not cause cancers or other adverse health effects (other than by tissue heating) because this type of radiation (non-ionizing) did not have sufficient energy to break chemical bonds. The NTP findings that cell phone radiation caused cancers in the heart and brain, DNA damage in brain cells, heart muscle disease and reduced birth weights clearly demonstrate that the assumption that non-ionizing radiation cannot cause cancer or other health effects is wrong.

Exposure levels in the brains of rats in the NTP study were similar to or only slightly higher than the FCC’s limit for maximum permissible exposure to local tissue exposures from cell phones held next to the head. This point is most important because, when an individual uses a cell phone, body tissues located nearest to the cell phone antenna receive much higher exposures than parts of the body that are located distant from the antenna.

The selection of the highest exposure levels in the NTP studies was based on the same criterion used by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to establish exposure guidelines for radio-frequency radiation. Misleading statements by Dr. Shuren about the utility of the NTP studies for evaluating human cancer risk were debunked in my previous publication.

The FDA needs to fulfill the intent of their nomination to the NTP and conduct a quantitative risk assessment so that the FCC can develop health-protective exposure standards. For example, what is the level of exposure associated with cancer risk of one per thousand or one per million people?

Also, health concerns for children may be greater than that for adults due to increased penetration of cell phone radiation within the brains of children. Simply ignoring the cancer data from the NTP studies is not in the interest of public health. Because of the widespread use of cell phones among the general public, even a small increase in cancer risk would have a serious public health impact.

An important lesson that should be learned from the NTP studies is that we can no longer assume that any current or future wireless technology, including 5G, is safe without adequate testing.

Ronald Melnick, PhD was a senior toxicologist and director of special programs in the Environmental Toxicology Program at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), National Institutes of Health. Melnick led the design of the National Toxicology Program Carcinogenesis Studies of Cell Phone Radiofrequency Radiation in Rodents.
Click here to view the source article.
Source: The Hill, Ronald Melnick, 13 Nov 2018

Verizon Drops (5G) Small Cell Wireless Booster Application in Face of Fees
USA Created: 30 Oct 2018
A proposed wireless signal booster project that had drawn some tough questions was pulled last night.

Verizon Wireless representative Attorney Daniel Klasnick said his client would rather pull the project for seven small cell boosters planned for telephone poles around town than face a fee that was a condition being discussed by members of the Board of Selectmen.

As reported on BNEWS, the proposal from Verizon was brought up in a public hearing back in August. Klasnick of Duval, Klasnick & Thompson LLC, said the small cells are necessary to cover gaps in wireless coverage that develop as more people and businesses use the system. The devices are placed on telephone poles, street lamps and similar structures to boost the signal put out by traditional cell towers.

At the time members raised a number of concerns about the project. They asked if the small cells were really necessary, since Verizon’s coverage map did not show any gaps of coverage. They also asked about the chance that in the future Verizon would seek to put more small cells up in town or that other companies would seek to put others up.

The number of unanswered questions prompted a special meeting on in September to discuss the issue in further detail. During that meeting it was decided there were enough unanswered questions to require the committee. The committee was formed and tasked with examining the need for small cells, coming up with a policy for new applicants and studying possible aesthetic and health effects of the technology.

This week Selectman Jim Tigges, the board’s representative on the Small Cells Committee, said the group had come up with a new policy for small cell applications. The policy contains a number of provisions while filing an application, including setting installation fees, listing the town department that must receive a copy for review and setting up the timeline for approval.

The Verizon application, however, would not be subject to the policy because it was submitted before its adoption. However, Tigges and the committee did have a number of conditions for the project it recommended to the board. They included:

- No apparatus on double poles
- An agreement to annual recertification
- Equipment shall be located on top of the poles, colored similarly to the polse so as to blend in.
- Equipment shall not interfere with other equipment on the pole, nor obstruct or interfere with access to or operation of street lights or traffic controls devices on the pole.
- Poles must meet ADA standards.

Klasnick said some of those conditions could be met, at least in part. None of the proposed small cell boosters were planned for double poles and at least parts of the devices could be painted though some parts could not, he argued.

His biggest concern was the annual recertification which came with a fee, or what he called a “tax.” He said that was no acceptable to Verizon Wireless as it could set up a precedent for other communities and he questioned its legality under federal law.

“I’m not authorized by my client to move forward if that is part of this board’s approval,” he said. “We don’t feel it is consistent with state law as this is authorized by federal law.”

Klasnick also questioned the need for recertification.

“I don’t understand what needs to be recertified, we are going to install the antennae and they will work for their lifetime,” he said. “We can agree to remove them after. They are no different than a transformer or a cable box. It seems to us that wireless service is being treated differently than other services.”

Still, members of the board said they were leaning towards requiring the recertification and associated fee as a condition of approval. Before they could take that vote Klasnick intervened.

“My client respectfully requests to withdraw the petition rather than have a fee,” he said.

Board members agreed to the withdrawal and the matter was closed for the time being.
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Burlington Cable Access Television, Rich Hosford, 23 Oct 2018

Ross Valley officials work to tighten 5G antenna rules
USA Created: 30 Oct 2018
Officials in San Anselmo and Fairfax are bolstering the defense in the Ross Valley to constrain the proliferation of “small cell” antennas, which opponents say are a health and safety hazard.

The idea is to “make it clear that we are being tough,” said San Anselmo Mayor John Wright. “We want to be as strict as we possibly can.”

The San Anselmo Town Council on Tuesday tasked its legal team to beef up the town’s regulations with four objectives, including rules regarding public health, despite that state and federal laws preempt local control over the issue.

Other areas of focus include rules that would allow for random testing of the devices, require buffers and identify local community values.

There’s been a recent countywide public outcry with opponents to small cell antennas saying that there are adverse health and environmental effects that may be caused by exposure to microwave radiation emitted by the 4G and 5G devices. Those symptoms can include fatigue, headaches, sleep problems, anxiety, heart problems, learning and memory disorders, ringing in the ears and increased cancer risk, according to the EMF Safety Network website.

Opponents have organized groups to pack Board of Supervisors’ meetings and municipal council meetings in San Rafael, Mill Valley, Ross, San Anselmo and Fairfax. Mill Valley was among the first to adopt an urgency ordinance. Fairfax, San Anselmo and Ross modeled their urgency ordinances after Mill Valley’s.

But local leaders are struggling with how to best regulate telecommunications companies that want to install the devices in Marin in the long term. That’s because state and federal laws say that municipalities cannot regulate radio frequencies or electromagnetic waves that comply with Federal Communications Commission regulations, despite health concerns.

Further complicating the issue, the FCC last month adopted new rules designed to speed deployment of small wireless facilities. The rules limit the review of new installations by local jurisdictions to 60 days for existing structures and 90 days for entirely new facilities.

In an email to the county, Leland Kim, a spokesman for AT&T, wrote, “We maintain power levels at our antenna sites that are at or below, and most of the time far below, the limits established by government regulations. Expert scientists and government agencies responsible for health and safety have stated repeatedly that wireless antennas in compliance with FCC regulations do not pose health concerns.”

The San Anselmo council had already adopted an urgency ordinance, which is temporary, that requires residents to be notified within 300 feet of a proposed 5G antenna, among other rules.

In Fairfax, after about a four-hour hearing Thursday, the Planning Commission said that a proposal to regulate telecommunications communications is not strong enough. The commission decided to continue the discussion to a later meeting, allowing staff time to give the new rules more muscle.

The move comes a month after the Fairfax Town Council adopted an urgency ordinance that prohibits small cell antennas in residential zones and requires 1,500 feet of separation between the devices. The proposal considered Thursday would have cleaned up the language within a single section of the municipal code.

Fairfax resident Jess Lerner, who helped organize a group called 5G Free Marin, said she is encouraged by the leaders in Fairfax and San Anselmo.

“We want to create the best and strongest ordinance that we can to protect the well-being of our residents,” Lerner said. “Now our town council has the opportunity to write the strongest and best ordinance in the state.”
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Marin Independent Journal, Adrian Rodriguez, 27 Oct 2018

Location, Location, Location
USA Created: 29 Oct 2018
Aggressive Brain Tumors Tell a Story - GBM Rise Only in Frontal and Temporal Lobes.

This one is important.

A U.K. epidemiologist has confirmed that glioblastoma (GBM), the most aggressive type of brain tumor, is on the rise in England. Frank de Vocht of the University of Bristol is reporting that he sees a significant and consistent increase in GBM in the frontal and temporal lobes of the brain over the last 20-30 years.

Alasdair Philips, an independent researcher based in Scotland, first documented the increase last March.

Bur when it comes to the cause, they see things differently. De Vocht says it can't be cell phones. Philips can't think what else it could be. To make his case, Philips sent me a graph of GBM by location in the brain in England over the last 20 years.

Please take a look. I think you'll agree: It looks like we have a public health problem on our hands:
https://microwavenews.com/news-center/gbm-frontal-and-tempral-lobes

Louis Slesin, PhD
Editor, Microwave News
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Microwave News, Louis Slesin PhD, 26 Oct 2018

 Page 1 of 174   Next›  Last» 
 News item: