News for USA
|Page 1 of 178  Next› Last»|
|Opinion: Radiating Caution on the 5G Rollout|
|USA||Created: 15 Aug 2019|
The much-hyped rollout of 5G continues, but many scientists would prefer 5G be put on hold—at least until much more testing has been done. To scientists who have been sounding the alarm over the rollout, the spectre of 5G means more than fifth-generation wireless technology. It also means five times greater health risks—if not five thousand.
In 2015, 220 scientists from 40 nations (including nine from Canada), presented The International EMF Scientist Appeal to the United Nations. It warns that “numerous recent scientific publications have shown that EMF [electromagnetic frequency] affects living organisms at levels well below most international and national guidelines” and causes genetic damage to people, plants, and animals.
Wireless radiation undermines the health of living things in numerous ways including oxidative stress, damage to cell membranes, and damage to mitochondria (the energy-producing parts of cells). In people, this contributes to an impaired blood-brain barrier, which keeps toxins out of the brain. It also constricts blood vessels and blood flow to the brain and triggers autoimmune reactions.
This radiation also has toxic effects in pregnancy and has been tied to developmental problems for the fetus after it is born, including attention deficit and hyperactivity. Such radiation has been known to decrease sperm count and function. Even worse, all the sperm and eggs a human will ever have are produced in the fetal stage. Current exposure affects not just the generation yet to be born, but also grandchildren.
Dr. Beatrice Golomb, a professor at the University of California San Diego School of Medicine, has given special attention to the issue. She surveyed those whose health suffered by living close to cellphone towers. Minor symptoms include ringing ears, headaches, chest pain, heart arrhythmia, and insomnia. Worse symptoms include seizures, heart failure, hearing loss, and severe cognitive impairment. And these mechanisms also contribute to neurodegenerative conditions such as Alzheimer’s disease.
As Golumb explains, “These mechanisms have known involvement in induction of brain cancer, metabolic diseases like obesity and diabetes, autism, autoimmune disease, and neurodegenerative conditions, conditions that have exploded. In each case these have been linked, or presumptively linked, in some studies to electromagnetic radiation.”
Half of the EMF victims Golomb surveyed lost their jobs as a result of the negative health effects. Such people now have electrohypersensitivity and must take special care to avoid airport scanners and many other places that others can pass through with little harm. Those with the condition include Gro Harlem Brundtland, once the Prime Minister of Norway and head of the World Health Organization; Matti Niemela, former Nokia technology chief; and the wife of Frank Clegg, former head of Microsoft Canada and current head of Canadians for Safe Technology.
Why 5G has so many alarmed is this: the frequency it will operate on functions at a shorter range. This will require many more towers operating at increased power just to function correctly. Expect antennas the size of a pizza box every 250 feet or less to ensure connectivity. “Industry is going to need hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of new antenna sites in the United States alone. So people will be bathed in a smog of radiation 24/7,” said Dr. Joel Moskowitz, of the University of California, Berkeley.
A Forbes article suggested that the internet of things will mean 10 to 20 billion connections that include “smart” refrigerators, washing machines, surveillance cameras, and self-driving vehicles.
For policy makers, the answer may lie in a petition given to the European Union on September 11, 2017. Frank Clegg was one of five Canadians among the 170 signatories from 37 countries. The petition’s recommendations are useful for every jurisdiction. An abridged and slightly paraphrased version follows.
Halt 5G expansion until independent scientists can ensure total radiation levels by RF-EMF won’t be harmful.
Inform citizens about health risks from radio frequency (RF) and EMF radiation, and how and why to avoid wireless communication, especially near schools, homes, workplaces, hospitals, and elder care.
Appoint a task force of truly impartial scientists to determine new standards of maximum total exposure standards, study cumulative exposure, and create rules to be enforced to keep people from exceeding such exposure.
Prevent the wireless/telecom industry from lobbying officials regarding RF-EMF radiation safety.
Favour and implement wired digital telecommunication instead of wireless.
In 2017, Golomb railed against SB 649, legislation that would have given mobile companies wide latitude to roll out 5G in California.
“If this bill passes, many people will suffer greatly and needlessly as a direct result,” she wrote. “This sounds like hyperbole. It is not.”
The legislation would have passed regardless, except that it was vetoed by California Governor Jerry Brown in October of 2017. Even so, any reprieve from 5G seems only temporary. For better or worse, 5G proponents are bent on its implementation, health be damned.
Lee Harding is a former political staffer, taxpayer advocate, and think tank researcher. He is now a columnist based in Saskatchewan.
Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.
|Click here to view the source article.|
|Source: The Epoch Times, Lee Harding, 04 Aug 2019|
|Appeals court rules 5G cell sites can’t skip environmental and historical review|
|USA||Created: 13 Aug 2019|
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has encountered another roadblock in its effort to speed the rollout of 5G wireless service.
A federal court has ruled that the agency overstepped its bounds when it tried to exempt 5G cell sites from environmental impact and historic preservation reviews.
The FCC is concerned that the U.S. could fall behind in the deployment of the latest generation of wireless service and has been trying to aid providers in dealing with regulatory hurdles. But a U.S. appeals court ruled that cell sites using the new technology still must comply with existing regulations.
“We grant in part the petitions for review because the Order does not justify the Commission’s determination that it was not in the public interest to require review of small cell deployments,” the court ruled. “In particular, the Commission failed to justify its confidence that small cell deployments pose little to no cognizable religious, cultural, or environmental risk, particularly given the vast number of proposed deployments and the reality that the Order will principally affect small cells that require new construction.”
Exemption from review
In 2018, the FCC adopted an order that exempted most small cell construction from required reviews. The reviews had to do with historic preservation -- making sure the cell deployments didn’t encroach on or diminish historically or culturally important sites.
The agency justified its action claiming it was necessary to speed up the deployment of 5G networks, which are significantly faster than current 4G LTE networks. The United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma, the Blackfeet Tribe, and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) sued, seeking to block the action.
In the end, the judges ruled that the FCC’s action "does not justify the Commission's determination that it was not in the public interest to require review of small cell deployments.”
The court said the FCC did not justify its contention that small cell 5G deployments pose little to no cognizable religious, cultural, or environmental risk.
The justices also said the agency did not "adequately address possible harms of deregulation and benefits of environmental and historic-preservation review."
The court concluded that the FCC’s deregulation of small cell deployments was “arbitrary and capricious."
|Click here to view the source article.|
|Source: Consumer Affairs, Mark Huffman, 12 Aug 2019|
|FCC Proposes No Change of Its RF Standards|
|USA||Created: 9 Aug 2019|
After six years of study, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has decided not to revise its current safety limits for RF radiation. The rules, which were first adopted in 1996 and are the only ones governing cell phone exposures in the U.S., will continue to be based only on thermal effects.
For more, please check out our latest update with links for additional details:
Louis Slesin, PhD
Editor, Microwave News
|Click here to view the source article.|
|Source: Microwave News, Louis Slesin, 09 Aug 2019|
|5g's Waveform Is a Battery Vampire & 5G basestations use 3 x the power of 4G|
|USA||Created: 7 Aug 2019|
As carriers roll out 5G, industry group 3GPP is considering other ways to modulate radio signals.
In 2017, members of the mobile telephony industry group 3GPP were bickering over whether to speed the development of 5G standards. One proposal, originally put forward by Vodafone and ultimately agreed to by the rest of the group, promised to deliver 5G networks sooner by developing more aspects of 5G technology simultaneously.
Jul 2019, Australia: MORE THAN 90% OF OPERATORS FEAR RISING ENERGY COSTS FOR 5G, EDGE
Adopting that proposal may have also meant pushing some decisions down the road. One such decision concerned how 5G networks should encode wireless signals. 3GPP’s Release 15, which laid the foundation for 5G, ultimately selected orthogonal frequency-division multiplexing (OFDM), a holdover from 4G, as the encoding option.
But Release 16, expected by year’s end, will include the findings of a study group assigned to explore alternatives. Wireless standards are frequently updated, and in the next 5G release, the industry could address concerns that OFDM may draw too much power in 5G devices and base stations. That’s a problem, because 5G is expected to require far more base stations to deliver service and connect billions of mobile and IoT devices.
“I don’t think the carriers really understood the impact on the mobile phone, and what it’s going to do to battery life,” says James Kimery, the director of marketing for RF and software-defined radio research at National Instruments Corp. “5G is going to come with a price, and that price is battery consumption.”
And Kimery notes that these concerns apply beyond 5G handsets. China Mobile has “been vocal about the power consumption of their base stations,” he says. A 5G base station is generally expected to consume roughly three times as much power as a 4G base station. And more 5G base stations are needed to cover the same area.
So how did 5G get into a potentially power-guzzling mess? OFDM plays a large part. Data is transmitted using OFDM by chopping the data into portions and sending the portions simultaneously and at different frequencies so that the portions are “orthogonal” (meaning they do not interfere with each other).
The trade-off is that OFDM has a high peak-to-average power ratio (PAPR). Generally speaking, the orthogonal portions of an OFDM signal deliver energy constructively—that is, the very quality that prevents the signals from canceling each other out also prevents each portion’s energy from canceling out the energy of other portions. That means any receiver needs to be able to take in a lot of energy at once, and any transmitter needs to be able to put out a lot of energy at once. Those high-energy instances cause OFDM’s high PAPR and make the method less energy efficient than other encoding schemes.
Yifei Yuan, ZTE Corp.’s chief engineer of wireless standards, says there are a few emerging applications for 5G that make a high PAPR undesirable. In particular, Yuan, who is also the rapporteur for 3GPP’s study group on nonorthogonal multiple-access possibilities for 5G, points to massive machine-type communications, such as large-scale IoT deployments.
Typically, when multiple users, such as a cluster of IoT devices would communicate using OFDM, their communications would be organized using orthogonal frequency-division multiple access (OFDMA), which allocates a chunk of spectrum to each user. (To avoid confusion, remember that OFDM is how each device’s signals are encoded, and OFDMA is the method to make sure that overall, one device’s signals don’t interfere with any others.) The logistics of using distinct spectrum for each device could quickly spiral out of control for large IoT networks, but Release 15 established OFDMA for 5G-connected machines, largely because it’s what was used on 4G.
One promising alternative that Yuan’s group is considering, non-orthogonal multiple access (NOMA), could deliver the advantages of OFDM while also overlapping users on the same spectrum.
For now, Yuan believes OFDM and OFDMA will suit 5G’s early needs. He sees 5G first being used by smartphones, with applications like massive machine-type communications not arriving for at least another year or two, after the completion of Release 16, currently scheduled for December 2019.
But if network providers want to update their equipment to provide NOMA down the line, there could very well be a cost. “This would not come for free,” says Yuan. “Especially for the base station sites.” At the very least, base stations would need software updates to handle NOMA, but they might also require more advanced receivers, more processing power, or other hardware upgrades.
Kimery, for one, isn’t optimistic that the industry will adopt any non-OFDMA options. “It is possible there will be an alternative,” he says. “The probability isn’t great. Once something gets implemented, it’s hard to shift.”
|Click here to view the source article.|
|Source: IEEE Spectrum, Michael Koziol, 24 Ju 2019|
|Earth Matters: The Times got it wrong on 5G|
|USA||Created: 6 Aug 2019|
The race to deploy 5G is on…but not so fast!.
There are two conversations going on regarding the rollout of 5G. The first, amplified
by telecom companies, their investors and the media, promises a fantastic new future with breakthroughs in communications, medicine, education, transportation and entertainment…all delivered instantly by a seamless, wireless infrastructure surrounding us everywhere we go. The second, engaging medical professionals, public health experts and scientific researchers, concerns a looming public health crisis based on the known biological risks from both short and long-term exposure to radiofrequency (RF) microwave radiation, the foundation of that wireless infrastructure.
The New York Times has chosen to align themselves with the industry group.
Over the past few months, they have strategically placed two articles in their paper, the first one claimed that the concern over the safety of 5G can be attributed to a Russian conspiracy and the second, to the work of a single researcher who “got it wrong.” The second article, “Don’t Fear the Frequency,” was published as the lead story in the Science Section on July 16, and placed the blame on the research of an esteemed, but low-profile physicist Dr. Bill Curry, and the graph he created depicting absorption of microwaves by the brain. The author of the article, William J. Broad, discredited the scientist and claimed the graph was not accurate because the higher frequencies, like 5G, are mostly absorbed by the skin. In his article, he frequently referred to “mainstream scientists” or the “science establishment” which disputed the validity of Curry’s work.
In fact, Bill Curry’s research was meticulous and his graph was exactly right. It was actually Broad who got it wrong. He was mixing up the impact of different frequencies. Curry mapped out the graph back in 2000, when 2G was the standard and 3G had only just been introduced. In this part of the spectrum, the radiation does indeed penetrate well into the brain.
There are hundreds of scientists and medical experts who strongly disagree with the experts mentioned in Broad’s article who said that radio waves become safer at higher frequencies. Broad also conveniently avoids revealing that 5G will be adding yet another layer on top of existing forms (3G, 4G) of RF microwave radiation. Ongoing and past research in this field focuses on a wide range of radio wave frequencies and biological impacts are found at virtually every frequency measured. 5G, which employs a new millimeter band frequency, also utilizes decimeter and centimeter microwave lengths, and has been identified in numerous studies as presenting a direct threat to human health, as well as to animal, insect and plant life. There has been no independent testing to support any claims of safety of 5G.
People, including me, read The New York Times expecting to get the facts, and the consequences of misleading readers on a subject of this importance are monumental. However, the conflict of interest here is pretty clear. The Times and Verizon have entered into a business partnership utilizing 5G technology and, of course, the telecoms hold a special place as powerful advertisers at The Times.
Who on the Times science desk fact-checked Broad’s story? Who brought the obscure Curry graph to Broad’s attention? The day after publication, the telecom industry posted a celebratory article in Wireless SmartBrief entitled “Experts: 5G Health Scare Based on Bad Science.”
The race between science and commerce is on, with extremely high stakes for everyone on the planet. Will the telecoms succeed in achieving sufficient market penetration, integrating their networks and devices inexorably into the everyday lives of consumers before scientists and public health officials are able to make their voices heard?
Will there be enough time to alert the public to the undeniable risk, and force government to take steps to protect public health?
We’ve been here before, of course. At one point in time, DDT, asbestos and tobacco were all considered beneficial. Only later, as the research accumulated and the human suffering became obvious, did we understand the danger of ignoring emerging science and early signs of trouble. Will we make the same mistake again with wireless radiation?
Dr. Robert O. Becker, surgeon and researcher who was twice nominated for the Nobel Prize, observed, “I have no doubt in my mind that, at the present time, the greatest polluting element in the earth’s environment is the proliferation of electromagnetic fields.”
|Click here to view the source article.|
|Source: The Island Now, PATTI WOOD, 05 Aug 2019|
|Electro-Magnetic Field Conference, California|
|USA||Created: 27 Jul 2019|
We are excited to be part of the Electro-Magnetic Field Conference happening September 6th-8th 2019 in Scotts Valley, Santa Cruz County, California (where Stop Smart Meters! was born in 2010). This is the first major EMF conference of its kind in the United States and will bring doctors and EMF experts together from around the world to discuss prevention and ways to heal from injuries caused by the telecommunications and utilities industries.
Full details about the conference are at: https://emfconference.com/ For any questions not answered by the website, you can e-mail email@example.com. Videos of presenters and more information and background is available at https://emfconference.com/blog.
Please share this important information with your doctor and other health care providers, and consider attending yourself. The conference is open to both medical professionals and the general public, and will be held in Scotts Valley, CA at 1440 Multiversity in the redwood trees. Even though yesterday (Friday 7/12) was the official deadline for “early bird discount registration” organizers tell us you can book through tomorrow (Sunday 11/14) at midnight to get the discount, so act fast and please spread the word.
We hope to see you at EMF conference 2019 this September in California!
p.s. Olle Johansson!
Josh Hart MSc
Director, Stop Smart Meters!
PO Box 682 Portola, CA 96122
Toll-Free Hotline: (888) 965-6435
|Click here to view the source article.|
|Source: Stop Smart Meters!, Josh Hart, 13 Jul 2019|
|Sign up for the 5G Crisis Summit|
|USA||Created: 27 Jul 2019|
The telecoms have NOT shown it be safe for your health or privacy — and THOUSANDS of independent, peer-reviewed studies show the serious risk.
Because the wireless industry has taken over our federal agencies and are controlling mainstream media, groups and experts have organized for an open, worldwide investigation.
We have already put 100's of hours into creating this powerful event, and have opened up free access for you. You won't want to miss it!
» Go here to quickly save your spot for The 5G Crisis Summit:
Josh del Sol
|Click here to view the source article.|
|Source: 5G Crisis Summit, Josh del Sol, 27 Jul 2019|
|Berkeley Talks transcript: Joel Moskowitz on the health risks of cell phone radiation|
|USA||Created: 27 Jul 2019|
Kim Guess: Hi everybody, welcome - Thank you for attending this keynote presentation, “Cell Phones, Cell Towers and Wireless Safety.” This is part of our Balancing Technology Programs. My name is Kim Guess and I’m a dietician with the Be Well at Work Wellness Program. Balancing technology is a spring theme for all of Be Well at Work so for our UC Berkeley faculty and staff, we have workshops, we have a challenge and all kinds of resources available for you.
Now I would like to introduce our speaker Dr. Joel Moskowitz, director of the UC Berkeley Center for Family and Community Health. He has conducted research on disease prevention programs and policies for more than 30 years. He is an adviser to the International EMF Scientist Appeal signed by more than 240 scientists who publish peer-reviewed research on EMR, or electromagnetic radiation.
Last year, he won a James Madison Freedom of Information Award for his work that culminated in the state of California publishing the cell phone radiation safety guidelines, which are on your handout. There is a stapled handout right on there. You can learn more on his website saferemr.com, and please join me in welcoming Dr. Joel Moskowitz.
Joel Moskowitz: Thank you Kim. I’d like to thank the University Health Services for inviting me to do this keynote presentation. I’d also like to thank the School of Public Health for co-sponsoring the event. And I’d especially like to thank Kim for coordinating the event today. I got involved in this issue by accident in 2009, when my center sponsored a visiting scientist from the National Cancer Center of South Korea who worked with a team of researchers and with us on two meta analyses, which are quantitative reviews of literature, and one of the meta analyses dealt with mobile phone use and tumor risk.
When that was published, he had gone back to South Korea, so I was left with having to field media requests from journalists from virtually all over the world who were very concerned about the findings of our meta analysis at the time. Since then, I’ve been following the literature very closely, studying the literature and writing about it and lecturing about it, and trying to bring reporters up to speed on how to cover this complex topic and set of research, which has evolved considerably since 2009.
I first want to go over some basic information to give you an overview of what the issues are that we’re dealing with. I’m going to focus on the radiation risk. I’m not going to talk about the benefits of cell phones because I think you’re all quite aware of the benefits of cell phones and smartphones. In fact, I’d be surprised if there’s anyone in the audience who doesn’t have one currently. I’m not going to focus on the social problems which range from privacy and security issues, to varieties of inappropriate use or problematic use, including addictive behaviors, which are increasing all the time.
At the national level, we’re increasingly seeing a potential cyber security problem with regard to the infrastructure that the cell phone relies upon and there’s a lot of controversy around the cyber security issues and which technology out of China is safe to use and which is not.
Beginning in 1984, we have fairly inelegant cell phone, which couldn’t actually work very well because it often didn’t get receptivity due to very few cell towers in the country. Over time, the cell phone has become more elegant. It also has evolved from a single function, which was basically operating as a cell phone, to include texting, game playing, music playing, to becoming an internet delivery device. With each of these increases in functions, numerous social problems began to evolve around these different uses.
There is a symbiotic relationship between cell phones and cell towers, at least currently. You can’t have cell phone reception without these cell antennas. Industry is trying to get away I think from using these cell antennas because although we have a love affair with the cell phone, at best people are ambivalent about having these cell towers, especially in their neighborhood, so they’ve been experimenting with things like drones and hot air balloons. There’s even proposals to put up thousands of mini satellites to provide the medium on which your cell phone and your smartphone can operate.
The industry association CTIA — I’ll talk more about their rather nefarious role in all of this later — is the lobbyist group for the wireless or cellular industry in the U.S. They engage in a lot of lobbying. They coordinate the lobbying of the various cell phone companies and manufacturers. The industry as a whole spends about $100 million a year lobbying Congress. They also do lobbying at the state level and occasionally get involved in local level politics and lawsuits. You can see the rapid growth and connections. Not all of these connections are to cell phones, however, because there are other devices that rely on cellular subscriptions, such as tablets.
As you can see, this is a big, big business. It’s also a huge business globally, not just in the U.S. There’s roughly 5 billion subscriber connections worldwide, so this is an industry that’s probably been unparalleled in terms of any other industry in the history of the world in terms of its reach. This is important too: 88 hours per year is what the estimate is from the industry in terms of our average voice use. Over a 10-year period, the typical person would get something like 880 hours of cumulative call time. We’ll get back to that later when we look at some of the epidemiology.
I was unable to find reliable data on use among children under the age of 13, but I suspect the prevalence of ownership there or access to smartphones is also very high. In the industry, particularly CTIA has been pushing parents to give their kids cell phones younger and younger, and there’s a lot of pressure I hear from parents of young children for providing them with access to a smartphone.
Concurrent with the uptick of cell phones, we’ve seen a decline in access to landline phones. In fact, at this point the majority of households in the U.S. as of 2018 are wireless only; they do not have a landline phone. This has changed rapidly since I’ve been following this issue in 2009, the uptick of cell phones and the decline in landline phones. As a result, people have become totally dependent for telecommunications on their cell phone or smartphone.
How does a cell phone call work? I’ll just do this really quickly. Basically when you go to make a call, you’ve got this two-way radio, it’s actually a radio and a transmitter. It’s kind of misleading to call it a two-way radio, but they tend to refer to it as just a radio. It transmits a signal to the nearest cell tower. Each cell tower has a geographic cell, so to speak, in which it can communicate with cell phones within that geographic region or cell. Then that cell tower communicates with a switching station, which then searches for whom you’re trying to call, and it either connects through a copper cable or fiber optics or in some cases, through a wireless connection through microwave radiation with the wireless access point.
Then, that access point then either communicates directly through copper wires through a landline or if you’re trying to call another cell phone, it will then send a signal to a cell tower within the cell of the receiver and so forth. The radiation from your cell phone is going out usually in all directions. In this direction though, it’s being absorbed by your head. This little child is absorbing it, and it’s largely in his brain and neck area — much of the radiation. A lot of the radiation is wasted, so there is an energy conservation issue with regard to all of this that has been not very well studied, but there’s a lot of wasted energy. Then some of that radiation will reach the tower and enable you to make the communication.
What we see here is the electromagnetic spectrum. The spectrum displays all types of electromagnetic fields read by the frequency or the length of the waves. On the far right are the highest frequency waves, which are considered ionizing radiation, for example X-rays. This radiation has sufficient energy to knock electrons out of their orbits causing an atom to become charged or ionized, which can directly cause chemical changes and DNA damage. It can also indirectly cause such damage, and in fact, the estimates are that 50% of the damage is actually indirect. Ionizing radiation is known to be cancer-causing, or carcinogenic, since the 1930s.
On the far left are extremely low frequency waves that oscillate up to 3,000 cycles per second, which is also known as hertz. These waves can produce strong magnetic fields. Radio waves occur at the higher frequencies and the highest frequency radio waves are called microwaves or millimeter waves. Cell phones and cordless phones are two-way radios that transmit microwaves. They will soon also be transmitting millimeter waves.
Cell phones can emit up to two watts of power. In contrast, a microwave oven can emit 1,000 watts. Whereas the oven has sufficient power to significantly heat tissue, wireless phones generally do not except when held next to the body. Cell towers, cell phones and other wireless devices emit microwaves that are modulated or pulsed to encode voice and data. Also, the systems that power these devices emit low frequency electromagnetic fields. With the upcoming fifth generation of cellular technology, known as 5G — you may be seeing a lot of this in the media currently — cell phones and cell towers will employ lower frequency and higher frequency microwaves than current use.
Also for the first time, this technology will employ millimeter waves, which are much higher frequency than microwaves. Millimeter waves can’t travel very far, and they’re blocked by structures and foliage. In fact, some of the frequencies are blocked by water vapor, fog or rain, so the industry estimates that it’ll need 800,000 new cell antenna sites. Each of these sites may have cell antennas from various cell phone providers, and each of these antennas may have micro arrays consisting of dozens or even perhaps hundreds of little antennas, which will be needed in the near future in the U.S. Roughly two and a half times more antenna sites than in current use we will see deployed in the next few years, unless the wireless safety advocates and their representatives in Congress or the judicial system puts a halt to this.
Millimeter wave radiation is largely absorbed in the skin, the sweat glands, the peripheral nerves, the eyes, and the testes based upon the body of research that’s been done on millimeter waves. In addition, this radiation may cause hypersensitivity, which I’ll talk about more later, and biochemical alterations in the immune and circulatory systems, the heart, the liver, kidneys and brain. Millimeter waves can also harm insects and promote the growth of drug resistant pathogens, so it’s going to have some pretty widespread environmental effects for the micro environments around these cell antenna sites.
Cell phones, cell towers and other wireless devices are regulated by most governments. In 1996, the Federal Communications Commission, or FCC, adopted exposure guidelines that limit the intensity of exposure to radiofrequency radiation. These guidelines were designed to prevent significant heating of tissue from short-term exposure to radiofrequency radiation. Our government’s safety guidelines were not designed to protect us from the effects of long term exposure to low intensity radiofrequency radiation. Yet, the preponderance of the research published since 1996 finds adverse biologic and health effects from long-term exposure to low levels of modulated or pulsed radiofrequency radiation, such as produced by cell phones, cordless phones and other wireless devices, including WiFi.
In 2001, based upon the biologic and human epidemiologic research, low frequency magnetic fields were classified as “possibly carcinogenic” by the International Agency for Research on Cancer of the World Health Organization. This agency is often called by its acronym IARC. In 2011, IARC classified radiofrequency radiation as “possibly carcinogenic to humans” based upon studies of cell phone radiation and brain tumor risk in humans. Currently we have considerably more evidence that would warrant a stronger classification.
The crux of the health and safety problem we face today was stated by the FDA in 1999. The FCC regulations are “based on protection from acute injury from thermal or heating effects of radio frequency radiation exposure, and may not be protective against any non-thermal effects of chronic exposure.” Yet, since 1999, the preponderance of thousands of peer reviewed studies have found biological and health effects from chronic exposure to non-thermal levels of microwave radiation and low frequency fields.
To further complicate matters, a smartphone typically has five different types of microwave transmitters, including three different cellular technologies, and soon with 5G, they will be adding another cellular technology, along with WiFi and Bluetooth. Some transmitters operate at multiple frequencies and some transmitters can operate simultaneously with others, exposing the user to a complex mixture of radiation. In the next few years, most new smartphones will emit several types of 5G radiation in addition to some of these earlier forms of cellular radiation. None of these types of radiation has been tested to ensure that long-term exposure is safe.
To reduce the risk of harm, individuals should adopt the following behaviors. First, minimize your use of cell phones and cordless phones; use a landline whenever possible.
Second, distance is your friend. Keeping your phone 10 inches from your body as compared to one-tenth of an inch results not in a 100-fold reduction, but a 10,000-fold reduction in exposure. So, keep your phone away from your head and body. Store your phone in a purse or backpack and text or use a wired headset or speakerphone for calls.
Third, cell phones are programmed to increase radiation when reception is poor. A new study published by the California Department of Public Health in preparation of the guidelines they released already found up to a 10,000-fold increase in exposure when reception was poor — that is one or two displayed bars on your phone. Thus, use your phone only when the signal is strong. For example, do not use it in an elevator or in a vehicle as metal structures interfere with the signal. For additional tips, see my Electromagnetic Radiation Safety handout which you received today, or the guidance published by the California Department of Public Health.
In addition to the vast increase in use of cell phones in our country, we’ve seen a substantial increase over time in cell sites in the country running from roughly 2,300 sites in 1987, to over 320,000 in 2017. Huge growth over the last decade. Cell antennas can vary greatly in terms of their size. As you can see here — here’s a macro cell. This can be anywhere, from 100 feet in this case, and it’s disguised as a pine tree, I think, some kind of evergreen tree, to a macro cell 200 to 400 feet. Fairly new on the horizon are the small cells, which you can see more examples here, which can be mounted on light poles or utility poles.
The new generation of cell phones or cellular technology is going to rely very heavily on these small cells, because they’re going to need so many of these to support the fifth generation or 5G. In most of these sites, you’ll probably see somewhere on the pole a warning sign that the FCC has approved that if you get any closer than where this sign is, you will actually exceed the FCC exposure guidelines, which in my opinion and the opinion of many scientists are completely inadequate anyway, and we’ll talk more about that.
Now let me just give you a real brief overview of what the research looks like, first focusing on the cancer risk. Over here you can see a glioma. This is a section of the brain. This is the tissue, glial cells, which are the supporting cells for the neurons in the brain. This is a meningioma, which is the outer covering of the brain. These are tumors we’re looking at. Much of the research has focused on animal models, particularly rats, to a lesser extent mice and other species, because they’re a good analog for humans and you can actually do experimental studies on animal models, which you cannot do really with humans.
As I mentioned, IARC in 2011, an expert working group consisting of 31 experts from around the world, including members of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Cancer Institute concluded at the end of a meeting and review of the literature that radiofrequency radiation is “possibly carcinogenic to humans.” Many scientists today feel that it’s time for IARC to re-review the literature given all the research that’s been published since 2011 to upgrade this to at least “probably carcinogenic to humans,” if not actually “carcinogenic to humans.”
There have been some major human epidemiologic studies that have looked at the brain cancer risk that have been published in recent years. The Interphone study was actually reviewed as part of the IARC review. Interphone found in its main body of the paper, a 40% increase in brain tumor risk, glioma risk, brain cancer risk that is for a group with 1,640 or more hours. Buried in the appendix where they control for one of the problems with the study, a participation bias, the estimates actually grew to about an 80% increased risk. This got buried in a second appendix with some text saying why you shouldn’t even pay attention to this analysis.
Subsequent analyses of the Interphone data done by researchers found, making different assumptions about the data, found that these conclusions are quite robust. Furthermore, they found that the risks are much greater on the side of the head where people predominantly use their cell phone and in some of the analyses, they found that the people who’d used the phone for fewer than 1,640 hours also had a significantly increased risk of glioma.
This was a 13 nations study by the way, the Interphone study. It was partially funded by the WHO and much of the funding came from industry in these 13 nations. The group of researchers tended, well the paper, the paper with pooled data tended to downplay the findings, shifting the focus to brain tumor registry data, which was really misguided because there were problems with the brain tumor registry that they were citing. Lennart Hardell has done a number of studies. He’s actually the pioneer in this field.
He did some re-analysis of a couple of his studies using similar assumptions in terms of the age groupings and the cutoffs, and found very similar findings from his data that pretty much corresponded with what the Interphone Study showed. This is a French study with four sites in France, and they found a much higher risk estimate, roughly a three-fold risk from fewer cumulative hours of cell call time.
Now, glioma, fortunately, is a fairly rare form of brain cancer in terms of annual incidence. However, if you live to age 70, you’re talking about a lifetime risk somewhere between one in 200 to one in 250. If we double the risk, it’s cutting that estimate then down to 100 to 125 people, so one person would be getting a glioma.
Focusing on children a little, some of the modeling research has shown that the child’s brain absorbs twice as much radiation as the adult brain. The radiation guidelines for handset use in the U.S. or internationally don’t take into account differences in anatomy. There’s one size fits all, regardless of whether you’re a 250-pound male, or a 25-pound child, yet the skull of the 5-year-old child will absorb about 10 times as much radiation as the skull of the adult.
There’s one completed brain tumor risk study with children. A case-control study, like the Interphone study, looked at 7- to 19-year-old children from four countries. Overall, they did not find a significant risk: It was elevated at 36%. The risk estimates were higher in three of the four countries but for some reason in Norway, they actually had a lower risk assessment as compared to the control group.
Interestingly, buried in this paper to was a finding where they actually had cell phone company records on a subgroup of the children. Largely in the bulk of the paper, they relied on parental reports of child’s use. In that subgroup, they found that children with 2.8 or more years of cell phone use had roughly a doubling of cancer risk. That was significant, and that gets ignored in the discussion and in the abstract of the paper. There’s just a lot of pressure on these scientists, I think in large part because of their funding source, industry — least in part, if not wholly, to downplay any risks that they find and divert attention from their own data when they do find risks.
There is another study called MOBI-Kids, which is actually the parallel study to the Interphone study. The data were collected in 2009 to 2014. We’re still waiting for final results on that study. That should shed greater light. It’s a larger sample than CEPHALO on what the risks are to children in terms of brain tumors. This study was originally called for in 1999 by the FDA. They nominated to the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences that the National Toxicology Program, or NTP, studied in an experimental study using animal models, the effects of long-term exposure to cell phone radiation.
What they ultimately concluded, which largely came from a group of independent experts was — here again, the government experts tended to downplay the findings when they first came out — but the expert group upgraded the findings. So in the final report, they’re reporting “clear evidence” of tumors in the hearts of male rats. These tumors are malignant schwannomas. Schwann cells are also a site for tumor risk in humans, but in humans, the increased risk is in the head. It’s called vestibular schwannoma. It’s a tumor on the main nerve from the ear to the brain. Scientists, I don’t believe looked at these cells in the rats. I listened to virtually all of the three-day peer review and I think that question came up. They don’t have data on whether it affected that nerve in the rats.
This is “clear evidence,” this is the highest standard that the NTP provides. This is not “possibly” or “probably.” This is evidence. They also found “some evidence” of tumors in the brains of male rats. This also corresponds to what we’re seeing in humans, malignant gliomas, which we looked at just previously. Interestingly, and nobody’s made too much of this, both of these types of cells, the Schwann cells and the glial cells produce myelin, which is a fatty substance that occurs on the nerves within our body. The Schwann cells are in the peripheral nervous system; glial cells in the central nervous system.
We have some strong coincidences between what we’re seeing in the male rats and what we’re seeing in humans. Also in talking to a biophysicist, he had a theory that myelinated nerves serve as antennas, and so this could be concentrating the radiation that comes from these (wireless) devices in specific parts of the body. We’ll come back to myelination a little bit when we talk about hypersensitivity.
They also found “some evidence” of tumors in the adrenal glands of male rats. For the mice and the female rats, they found some evidence, but they considered it “equivocal” because the patterns didn’t match what they expected to see. They sort of downplayed the findings in terms of direct application, but not as much as the FDA did, to try and totally dismiss this $30-million study that we’ve been waiting for, that the FDA has been waiting for, since 1999. Normally, this study should’ve taken maybe five to 10 years at the very most but they ran into a number of obstacles, including funding and then finding a contractor who could do this study, and then they sat on the data, I think, for a number of years before finally releasing it.
Other findings in the study, which are critical include DNA damage in the brains of the male and female mice and rats, increased degeneration in the hearts of the male and female rats, and decreased birth weights in the rats exposed prenatally.
This is a finding that you have to dig through the appendix to find, but I was looking for it because of an early Air Force study looking at microwave radiation exposure to much lower levels than used in the (NTP) study. This was pre cell phones. The military had a big interest in this because of the use of radar, found a three-fold increase in overall tumor risk in the animals exposed long term to microwave radiation.
So, digging through the appendices — and I suggested to them in the final report, they actually put this analysis in the main body of the paper but they ignored my suggestion — you find the highest overall cancer incidence was in the middle exposure groups, not the highest exposure group. You can see fairly substantial differences there that were indeed statistically significant, 42% to 46% in the two middle exposure groups compared to 27% in the control group. They also found that in the lowest exposure groups, a significantly greater nonmalignant tumor incidence versus the sham control.
Nobody’s paying much attention to these findings. I think they’re extremely critical. Part of the criticism of the study is that they use exposures, full body exposures that were much higher than you would typically get from a cell phone. They’re more comparable of the partial body exposure, the head or the body exposures you get from the cell phone, but this was a full body exposure.
But interestingly, the Ramazzini Institute in Italy basically replicates the key NTP result in terms of the heart schwannoma, and they used much lower exposures. In fact, they found it at 0.1 watts per kilogram compared to exposures ranging from 1.5 to six watts per kilogram in the NTP study. This study has yet to receive a whole lot of attention in the media. Actually, neither study got a whole lot of attention in the media, believe it or not. The New York Times report on the NTP study, I think, totally missed the boat. And yet, reporters from the New York Times and other papers had interviewed me and other people, and then they just ignored what we had to say about the study.
There are other health risks that have been found in humans. The evidence generally is not as strong. I mentioned glioma, acoustic neuroma or the Schwann cells on that nerve from the ear to the brain. Meningioma, which is the outer covering the brain. Parotid gland, which is the largest salivary gland. Pituitary gland, and most recently the thyroid gland. A study out of Yale University School of Medicine and the Connecticut Department of Public Health found not quite significantly increased risk, but almost, it was marginally significant increased risk, particularly in the males of thyroid gland tumors.
We’re seeing an epidemic of thyroid gland tumors, which this may be partially responsible for. There is one case series of four women who had breast cancers, multifocal tumors in the location of the breast, where they stored their cell phone for significant periods of time. I’ve heard the researchers have been accumulating, the research has been accumulating other cases, but there hasn’t been much since that first report in the literature that I’m aware of.
The strongest evidence, probably even more so than the brain tumor risk is for sperm damage in males — male infertility. In females — miscarriage and preterm birth, there’s lesser evidence, but there is definitely a body of research that’s accumulating. With regards to children, there hasn’t been a lot of studies. What they tend to find is from prenatal and early childhood exposures, increased headaches, hearing problems, impaired memory. And recent studies replicated a finding in adolescence in terms of figural memory for kids who used the phone on the right ear, — also increased incidence of ADHD.
There’s actually animal model studies suggesting this as well, for the animal analog of ADHD, attention deficit, hyperactivity. There’s a couple of papers by a researcher at Harvard who says that this may be at least a co-factor for autism, if not a direct cause. One of the phenomena with very low exposure to microwave radiation is increased penetration, or opening of the blood brain barrier, which can then allow chemical toxins into the brain that are in the circulatory system.
Electro-hypersensitivity. There’s a range of symptoms that people experience and attribute to their exposure, either to microwave radiation or power line frequencies, which includes headaches, fatigue, insomnia, ringing in the ears or tinnitus, heart palpitations. This is an interesting table from a paper comparing the symptoms of electro-hypersensitivity to the symptoms of demyelination. The most common form of that is multiple sclerosis. There’s quite a bit of overlap in the symptoms. Here, too, we’re talking about the myelin producing cells, so there’s recent thinking that there may be a connection between these diseases. We can talk more about that in the Q&A session.
The cell tower studies — there’s been roughly a dozen epidemiologic studies showing associations between proximity to a cell tower over a long period of time, and various kinds of effects, mostly neuro-behavioral. In some cases, (increased) cancer incidence. All of these studies — because they’re ecological observational studies and not experimental studies — have alternative explanations. It’s hard to control for confounding. There’s an excellent review by Blake Levitt and Henry Lai. You’ll have to rely on the animal model studies, the experimental studies showing all kinds of adverse effects from oxidative stress due to low intensity exposures to radiofrequency fields, particularly microwaves.
The International EMF Scientist Appeal calls for stronger regulation of electromagnetic fields and health warnings. It’s been signed by 247 scientists who have all published peer reviewed research on electromagnetic fields. I did a search in an archive —EMF Portal — and I found 2,000 unduplicated count of papers that these scientists have published on electromagnetic fields and biology or health. These scientists come from 42 nations and they’ve made a very strong statement, which I won’t read now. When you look at the slide regarding the effects that the literature documents that they feel calls for warning the public and stronger regulations.
You’d think given this large body of researchers, we’d have no problem with getting governments to adopt stronger regulations and health warnings. Unfortunately, as with many other issues, like tobacco, or asbestos, or various chemicals, or global warming, for that matter, there is a body of researchers who are basically defending the industry-promoted guidelines that have been adopted by the FCC and by the ICNIRP, which is the international equivalent of the FCC, which the WHO relies upon.
And very recently, a team of investigative journalists identified 14 scientists, actually named them, who defend these obsolete exposure guidelines and they do so by preparing biased reviews of the literature for various health agencies around the world. At least eight of these individuals have had industry research funding. There may be another dozen EMF scientists around the world who take a similar position as these researchers, but mostly in the U.S. we’re hearing from non-EMF researchers, people who’ve never published EMF research — typically physicists, engineers, sometimes oncologists, who are defending the FCC guidelines saying the only risks are short-term and due to heating.
Let’s touch a little bit on policy. In 1996, Congress adopted the Telecommunications Act. It has a section that basically says that no state or local government entity may regulate the placement, construction or modification of personal wireless service facilities, ie. cell towers on the basis of environmental effects of radiofrequency emissions to the extent that such emissions comply with FCC regulations. This causes a great deal of problems for communities that are trying to fight cell towers because the courts have interpreted environmental effects to be health effects. You can’t argue it on health grounds, you have to basically argue it on aesthetic grounds if you don’t want a cell tower in front of your home or in your backyard.
The government, our government, has really been disingenuous and irresponsible on this issue. Like most governments in the world, they do have a huge conflict of interest in that they sell licenses for the spectrum. One small piece of spectrum that they just sold, they netted in the auction $700 million and they were disappointed because they thought they could get $1 billion for it. Also, state and local governments collect on average 19% of your cell phone bill, and then of course there’s all the jobs it creates and the money that comes in terms of corporate taxes. I assume some of these companies paid taxes, but you never know in this day and age. So, the government has a huge conflict of interest here. Both parties are complicit in protecting this industry and are heavily lobbied by this industry.
On the one hand, they say we need more evidence, but then they don’t fund the research or they delay the production of the one study they did fund. We’ve had some agencies, the cities of Boston and Philadelphia who’ve submitted to the FCC complaints that basically there’s no leadership in the government, there’s a complete pass-the-buck attitude. The FCC doesn’t have any health expertise and it’s been irresponsible on this issue. Senator Blumenthal in a recent exchange in a Commerce Committee hearing, where industry officials presented concluded the hearing, saying, “So there really is no research ongoing. We’re kind of flying blind here as far as health and safety is concerned with regard to 5G.” We can go beyond that and we could also say with regard to 1G, 2G, 3G and 4G, we’ve been flying blind.
A couple years ago, I tried to find experts within our federal health agencies. I found basically one person and he’s retired now. The person I interviewed at the FDA who’s supposedly the most knowledgeable and supposed to be advising the FCC was a complete denialist with regard to long-term risks. He was the head of a unit that was responsible for this topic — turned out later when I searched him on LinkedIn, he was a nuclear engineer. He’s since moved on, and I suspect his successor isn’t any more knowledgeable.
The interview lasted two hours. Essentially, we got down to the point where we were debating studies, and it showed to me that he clearly didn’t understand how medical or biologic research works or epidemiologic research worked, and was just looking to dismiss studies. That’s how he was able to maintain his sanity I guess, by just ignoring the whole issue. There’s an interesting monograph looking into the FCC, and how it’s been captured by industry, and this has gone on even before the cellular problem — earlier it was the broadcast industry that controlled the FCC. It was the perfect example of regulatory capture.
These other agencies (FDA, EPA, NIOSH, etc.) are supposed to be involved in a work group. The work group turned out to be a sham when I investigated it. It has no official functions. They would meet over phone for one hour, three times a year. The prior session was five people. There’s been a variety of actions at the local level. All of this information is on my saferemr.com website in greater detail.
Most recently, Montgomery County, Maryland, is suing the FCC over the exposure guidelines, or wants to sue. They petitioned the court to allow the suit. We’ll see if it happens. It’s in the Ninth Circuit.
A number of organizations have also called for changes in the FCC’s RF limits or testing procedures. The FCC opens up requests for public input. They did one in 2003, another in 2013, and then they never do anything with the filings. The most recent filing has over 1,000 submissions, many thousands of documents and studies submitted, and they just ignore it. Maybe I should stop since time is up. I can finish this in the beginning of the Q&A session.
|Click here to view the source article.|
|Source: Public Affairs, UC Berkeley, Joel Moskowitz, 19 Jul 2019|
|Despite Mockery, Oregon Officials Are Poised to Investigate the Health Effects of WiFi on Schoolkids|
|USA||Created: 22 Jul 2019|
Some scoffed at the idea that Wi-Fi could harm schoolchildren - Not Senator Laurie Monnes Anderson (D-Gresham).
"People laughed at this and said, 'We can't be wearing aluminum all the time,'" she says. "Sen. Rob Wagner put a roll of aluminum [foil] on my desk, which I thought was hilarious."
Monnes Anderson was a chief sponsor of Senate Bill 283, which directs the Oregon Health Authority to look over independent peer-reviewed scientific studies of the effects of "microwave radiation" in schools. When WW examined the idea as a "Bill of the Week" in May, its passage seemed a long shot. But it cruised through both legislative chambers and now awaits the signature of Gov. Kate Brown.
Monnes Anderson says she's glad, but not surprised, her bill passed. "You can't see radiation, feel it, taste it, so it doesn't exist? I know better than that," she says.
It's one of nearly two dozen bills WW examined during the turbulent legislative session. Here's how the others fared.
Senate Bill 1013
Limits crimes which qualify for the death penalty.
House Bill 2437
Allows farmers to excavate dig more ditches without a permit, and dump some of the dirt into wetlands.
Issues non-commercial driver's licenses to undocumented immigrants.
Started as tax reductions for college tuition and fees. But it was "gut and stuffed" with a measure that says if voters overturn a tax hike, schools won't get promised funding.
Require annual inspections of auto scrapyards.
Toughens the law on bias crimes and tracks them.
Outlaws plastic straws unless customers ask for them.
Ensures that victims of accidents will be fully compensated before their health insurance company can collect.
A cap on carbon emissions.
Allowing the construction of affordable housing on wetlands.
This bill would have paved over wetlands and built housing on top of them, and would only replace a quarter of the wetlands instead of at a 1-1 ratio.
Removed the religious and philosophical exemptions for vaccine requirements.
Allowed taxing districts for children's services.
Qualified deputy district attorneys for police pensions.
Exempted Pedialyte should be exempt from the bottle deposit.
Reclassified an incinerator as a renewable energy plant so that it could receive tax credits.
Removed guns from campus police at public universities.
Required big tech companies to release blueprints for repairs.
Shifted lodging taxes from tourism to affordable housing.
Established confidentiality for legislative workers reporting sexual harassment, as well as the accused.
Taxed cell phone users to pay for rural broadband.
|Click here to view the source article.|
|Source: Willamette Week, Abbey McDonald, 17 Jul 2019|
|Sacramento familiy sickened by nearby 5G small-cell: Fundraising to fight back!|
|USA||Created: 5 Jul 2019|
We are organizing a group that is against the private/public relationship between the City of Sacramento and Verizon to build the 5G network. Two years ago Mayor Steinberg and the Sacramento City Council made a deal with Verizon to allow them to install hundreds of cell antennas on top of our city's light poles.
OUR STORY (and why we would be extremely grateful for the help) -
Verizon installed a very powerful cell antenna on a light pole in front of our family’s home at roughly the same height as our second story. The antenna was installed without our permission, without any notice at all. This antenna was installed as part of the 5G testing here in Sacramento. My family started experiencing health problems and wondered if they could be caused by the antenna. We began researching the safety of cell antennas and the radiation they emit.
There are hundreds of studies and articles suggesting a variety of negative health effects associated with cellular (RF) radiation. We shared our findings with the neighbors. We wrote a letter to Verizon requesting they remove the antenna. Verizon denied our request stating the antenna was compliant with FCC guidelines. The FCC told us that their guidelines are safe and that our health problems are not their problem. Upon further investigation of the FCC guidelines and statements, as well as the permitting information for the antenna, we have found that exposure on our property can exceed the FCC limits for safe exposure. https://imgur.com/a/XZCVijC
I brought this new information to Verizon, XGcommunities (the engineering firm that performed the RF compliance report), the FCC, and the City of Sacramento in early May. None of these parties have addressed the specific issue of exposure on our property exceeding the FCC limits for safe exposure or most of our other concerns. Each party has pointed the finger at the other, with no one wanting to address or accept responsibility for these issues.
We need your help in raising awareness about these issues and opposing the cell towers being installed by Verizon. We also need help to keep our local and federal governments accountable to the people, NOT to corporate interests. We are being exposed to a health risk in our own homes AGAINST OUR WILL. We are living in fear that we are being harmed every single day by Verizon’s antenna. We are having our properties devalued. This abuse must end. Help us in our fight and help us to set a precedent that WE THE PEOPLE will not allow our rights to be trampled on!
|Click here to view the source article.|
|Source: GoFundMe, Noah Davidson, 02 Jul 2019|
|Page 1 of 178  Next› Last»|