News for USA

«First  ‹Previous   Page 19 of 60   Next›  Last» 

New 5G network with ubiquitous antennas raises health concerns among some
USA Created: 7 Jun 2018
As more and more devices become wireless, the push is on to provide networks on which they can quickly operate.

That’s why the industry is now laying the groundwork for the 5th generation network — called 5G as it’s more commonly known.

But, some are concerned about technology and the need for millions more 5G receiver/transmitters has reignited the debate over the safety of radio frequency radiation, which has caused organizations like the American Cancer Society to weigh in.

The 5G network will offer faster speeds for data and streaming but the way that technology will get to us has some worried about potential health concerns.

Right now, the industry is spending over $56 billion to create the network that will be at least 10 times faster than current 4-G and work on all kinds of wireless devices including appliances and self-driving cars.

Right now, 5G deployment is limited to test areas.

The new 5G network uses high-frequency waves to support faster speeds, but those signals don't travel as far as current wireless frequencies.

They also are more susceptible to blocking by buildings and other solid obstructions. So, to combat that, the 5G network will rely on "small cell" sites that are much closer together instead of using large cell phone towers spread apart.

Because the 5G signals don’t travel as far, that means 5G sites will be almost as ubiquitous as utility poles and with all those transmitters spewing radio frequencies, some are worried about the health effects.

Scientists are now racing to determine if 5G tech is dangerous.

At the moment, the government says research into health effects of radiation has been inconsistent.

According to the National Cancer Institute, "a limited number of studies have shown some evidence of statistical association of cellphone use and brain tumor risks, but most studies have found no association.”

The National Toxicology Program is now doing research into cell phone radiation. It’s released draft conclusions for two technical reports, one was for rat studies. There is also a report about mouse studies on radio frequency radiation.

To conduct the studies, The National Toxicology Program built special chambers that exposed rats and mice to different levels of radio frequency radiation for up to two years.

Exposure levels ranged from 1.5 to 6 watts per kilogram (W/kg) in rats, and 2.5 to 10 W/kg in mice.

The low power level for rats was equal to the highest level permitted for local tissue exposures to cellphone emissions today.

The animals were exposed for 10 minute on, 10 minute off increments, totaling just over nine hours each day.

The studies used 2G and 3G frequencies and modulations still used in voice calls and texting in the United States.

It did not use the frequencies used by 4G, 4G-LTE, and 5G networks for streaming video and downloading attachments because those systems use different cellphone signal frequencies and modulations.
As that research continues, the availability of 5G wireless devices is still a year or two away.

And because 5G signals aren’t as effective — cellphones are likely to get larger to hold the antennas necessary to make them work.

Some experts say some cellphones might even have an antenna stub sticking out of them — like those seen in the 1980s -- in order to make the 5G devices work effectively.
Click here to view the source article.
Source: CBS17, Steve Sbraccia, 05 Jun 2018

Radiation from Cell Phones, Wifi Are Hurting the Birds and the Bees; 5G May Make It Worse
USA Created: 22 May 2018
Technology is quite literally destroying nature, with a new report further confirming that electromagnetic radiation from power lines and cell towers can disorientate birds and insects and destroy plant health. The paper warns that as nations switch to 5G this threat could increase.

In the new analysis, EKLIPSE, an EU-funded review body dedicated to policy that may impact biodiversity and the ecosystem, looked over 97 studies on how electromagnetic radiation may affect the environment. It concluded this radiation could indeed pose a potential risk to bird and insect orientation and plant health, The Telegraph reported.

This is not a new finding, as studies dating back for years have come to the same conclusion. In fact, one study from 2010 even suggested that this electromagnetic radiation may be playing a role in the decline of certain animal and insect populations. The radio waves can disrupt the magnetic “compass” that many migrating birds and insects use. The creatures may become disorientated, AFP reported.

The electromagnetic radiation also interrupted the orientation of insects, spiders and mammals, and may even disrupt plant metabolism, The Telegraph reported.

As a result of this most recent finding, the UK charity Buglife urged that plans to install 5G transmitters may have “serious impacts” on the environment, The Telegraph reported. For this reason, it suggests these transmitters not be placed on LED street lamps, which would attract insects and increase their exposure.

5G is a fifth generation wireless technology that transmits data at high speeds. It is used by phone towers to make phone calls, text messages and to browse the internet.

In addition, the charity called for further studying of this threat.

"We apply limits to all types of pollution to protect the habitability of our environment, but as yet, even in Europe, the safe limits of electromagnetic radiation have not been determined, let alone applied,” said Matt Shardlow, CEO of Buglife, The Telegraph reported.

In the United States, AT&T plans to be the first to have 5G available, and will launch the network in 12 cities by the end of the year, PC Mag reported.
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Newsweek, Dana Dovey, 19 May 2018

American Cities Are Fighting Big Business Over Wireless Internet, and They’re Losing
USA Created: 21 May 2018
“It’s often lost on the public just how badly they’re being screwed”.

Big business is quietly trouncing cities in the fight over the future of the internet. The results of an obscure, bureaucratic battle inside the U.S. communications regulator could decide not only which Americans get ultra-fast internet but how much it’ll cost and even what city streetlights will look like.

On Wednesday, a committee created by the Federal Communications Commission will meet to frame the future of 5G, a technology that will make downloads dramatically faster on phones and perhaps replace home broadband for some. The group, with representatives of the business world outnumbering government officials four-to-one, may push for a vote on guidelines that have been under debate for more than a year.

It will be the first summit since Shireen Santosham and her boss quit in dismay. The city of San Jose, where Santosham works as chief innovation officer, resigned in late January from the wonky-sounding board, called the Broadband Deployment Advisory Committee. New York City later followed. The process came to embody a nationwide effort by telecommunications companies, like AT&T Inc. and Sprint Corp., to establish business-friendly rules for their industry, Santosham and other city officials allege.

The FCC, with guidance from the committee, could make rules that will influence how 5G mobile internet is priced, how quickly it spreads around the country and whether local governments must subsidize the cost. The 5G system is meant to replace today’s mobile wireless technology, making it easier to stream high-definition video anywhere and enable new kinds of apps. The cellular networks will use frequencies that carry a lot of information but don’t travel very far. That means antennas need to be close together and will number in the hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions. They’ll be closer to shops and homes than today’s arrays atop cell towers.

The influence of Big Telecom inside the FCC has already spread into state capitols. More than a dozen states, mostly in Republican strongholds, have passed laws borrowing similar language from the 5G committee. U.S. lawmakers are drafting legislation along similar lines. “This is the biggest movement in broadband that we’ve seen in recent history,” Santosham said.



Santosham, a former McKinsey consultant, has been one of the most vocal agitators against the country’s telecom giants over the past year. Her office led committee work on behalf of San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo, a Democrat selected to join a year ago. She served as his official proxy. The initiative was billed as a way to bring cities, states, companies and interest groups together to devise guidelines for updating telecom infrastructure, a move that paves the way for self-driving cars and a world where every device connects to the internet.

An hour before the FCC introduced the group to the public in April 2017, Santosham said she learned San Jose would be the only city represented. Eventually, the agency added officials from Lincoln, Nebraska, and Lenexa, Kansas, but they have always been outnumbered by corporate suits.

Elizabeth Bowles, president of an internet provider in rural areas of Central Arkansas, was appointed chairman in July after the resignation of her predecessor, another telecom executive who was later arrested on an unrelated fraud charge. A few months into Bowles’s tenure, the group was deadlocked on most major issues. Cities and corporate representatives couldn’t agree on prices for installing 5G beacons on government property such as streetlights. An even bigger point of contention: Companies and the FCC have expressed desire for “shot clocks,” a basketball metaphor that would automatically give carriers permission to install beacons if negotiations with cities aren’t resolved in a timely manner.

“The problem with the debate is everyone is entrenched into their sides,” Bowles said. “Every single member of the committee will have something in those documents that they don’t like. That’s what a compromise is. If AT&T is thrilled with it, then we didn’t do our job.”

Too often, officials say, AT&T got its way. As committee members were returning from New Year’s festivities, they got an email from Douglas Dimitroff, a telecom attorney and chairman of one of the group’s city-focused subcommittees. “We have made substantial changes to the last version,” he wrote in an email obtained by Bloomberg through a public records request. Then he thanked Chris Nurse, a senior executive at AT&T who proposed hundreds of revisions, according to a copy of the draft.

Santosham protested. Sam Cooper, a senior technology adviser to New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, wrote: “Shotclocks. Object.” Even a telecom consultant said the revisions were unfair, tilted in favor of wireless companies like AT&T at the expense of cable providers like Comcast Corp. “AT&T has generally driven the bus,” said Angela Stacy, a committee member who’s vice president at a software company for cities called Connected Nation Exchange.

“The criticism speaks for itself — it’s baseless,” Republican FCC Chairman Ajit Pai said Wednesday in an interview. “I’m not going any further.” FCC Commissioner Michael O’Rielly has accused some officials of trying to “impose their will or extract bounties from providers” and suggested San Jose was seeking “high rents and fees.” AT&T said in an emailed statement that the city-focused working group had unanimously consented to a plan that will be presented to the full committee on Wednesday.

But that group now excludes San Jose and New York. Amid the fracas, Santosham asked San Jose’s mayor to write a letter to the FCC. Together, they attended the committee hearing in late January, and he resigned soon after. A cadre of state officials voiced their opposition to the process in a letter on April 6. “The ideas being generated are overwhelmingly lopsided” and create a “windfall for companies,” wrote John Betkoski, president of NARUC, a national association representing state commissions.

New York withdrew this month and embraced a popular conservative talking point to convey their frustrations: federalism. “It’s really the whole package of trying to preempt local governments from managing public-owned lands,” said Cooper, the adviser to New York’s Democratic mayor. “We couldn’t say in good conscience that these recommendations would be good for cities or localities to adopt.”



Committee work was unglamorous, but Santosham said it could be stimulating. Members would talk on the phone for hours at a time and exchange emails, debating the anodyne decisions that make up much of local telecom regulation. The relationship was usually friendly, Santosham said.

But as corporate interests took over, officials who stuck around could be seen as endorsing the results. Cities can have more sway over technology deployment than many people realize. For instance, they pushed carriers to offer access to fast internet in low-income neighborhoods, said Gerard Lederer, a lobbyist on behalf of cities. “The reason that the vast majority of Americans today have access to high-speed broadband is not because of FCC policies and not because of things at the state level. It’s because of local governments,” he said.

Withdrawing from the process, however, means ceding some of the most influential internet policy work in years. The results will likely serve as something the FCC will “refer to as they make decisions for the next year, five years, ten years,” said Brent Skorup, a member of free-market think-tank The Mercatus Center who sits on the committee.

At Wednesday’s meeting, the committee is expected to discuss proposals for city and state code, including shot clocks. There remain fundamental disagreements, which may take time to reconcile, said Bowles, the chairman. The committee will meet again in July. Bowles dismissed concerns over departures. “I don’t have a whole lot of sympathy with the fact that you’re outnumbered, you should take your ball and go home,” she said.

For San Jose, the march toward 5G continues without the FCC. On Monday, the city struck an agreement with AT&T to install about 200 small-cell devices for 5G on light poles in exchange for $5 million in lease revenue over 15 years. Perhaps the worst part of the whole process, said San Jose Mayor Liccardo, is that most Americans aren’t paying attention: “When you’re talking about complex issues of technology and regulation, it’s often lost on the public just how badly they’re being screwed.”

— With assistance by Todd Shields
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Bloomberg, Eric Newcomer, 25 Apr 2018

US cell carriers are selling access to your real-time phone location data
USA Created: 18 May 2018
The company embroiled in a privacy row has "direct connections" to all major US wireless carriers, including AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, and Sprint -- and Canadian cell networks, too.

Four of the largest cell giants in the US are selling your real-time location data to a company that you've probably never heard about before.

In case you missed it, a senator last week sent a letter demanding the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) investigate why Securus, a prison technology company, can track any phone "within seconds" by using data obtained from the country's largest cell giants, including AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, and Sprint, through an intermediary, LocationSmart.

The story blew up because a former police sheriff snooped on phone location data without a warrant, according The New York Times. The sheriff has pleaded not guilty to charges of unlawful surveillance.

Yet little is known about how LocationSmart obtained the real-time location data on millions of Americans, how the required consent from cell user owners was obtained, and who else has access to the data.

Kevin Bankston, director of New America's Open Technology Institute, explained in a phone call that the Electronic Communications Privacy Act only restricts telecom companies from disclosing data to the government. It doesn't restrict disclosure to other companies, who then may disclose that same data to the government.

He called that loophole "one of the biggest gaps in US privacy law."

"The issue doesn't appear to have been directly litigated before, but because of the way that the law only restricts disclosures by these types of companies to government, my fear is that they would argue that they can do a pass-through arrangement like this," he said.

LocationSmart, a California-based technology company, is one of a handful of so-called data aggregators. It claimed to have "direct connections" to cell carrier networks to obtain real-time cell phone location data from nearby cell towers. It's less accurate than using GPS, but cell tower data won't drain a phone battery and doesn't require a user to install an app. Verizon, one of many cell carriers that sells access to its vast amounts of customer location data, counts LocationSmart as a close partner.

The company boasts coverage of 95 percent of the country, thanks to its access to all the major US carriers, including US Cellular, Virgin, Boost, and MetroPCS, as well as Canadian carriers, like Bell, Rogers, and Telus.

"We utilize the same technology used to enable emergency assistance and this includes cell tower and cell sector location, assisted GPS and cell tower trilateration," said a case study on the company's website.

"With these location sources, we are able to locate virtually any US based mobile devices," the company claimed.

A person's precise location can be returned in as little as 15 seconds, according to another case study, and data is usually not cached for longer than two minutes.

Other companies then buy access to LocationSmart's data -- or the data is obtained by a customer of LocationSmart, like 3Cinteractive, which is said to have supplied location data to Securus.

But LocationSmart hasn't said how it ensures its corporate customers protect the location data to prevent abuse and misuse. A spokesperson for LocationSmart did not return an email with several questions sent prior to publication.

Companies buy into LocationSmart's location data for many reasons. Sometimes it's to help locate a nearby store, or to send a marketing text message when a person visits a rival store. Location data can even be used by companies to track deliveries or shipments, or by banks to fight fraud, such as if a person is making card transactions miles apart within just a few minutes of each other.

In any case, the company requires explicit consent from the user before their location data can be used, by sending a one-time text message or allowing a user to hit a button in an app.

LocationSmart also said it allows some customers to obtain "implied" consent, used on a case-by-case basis, when "the nature of the service implies that location will be used." The company said one example could be when a stranded motorist calls roadside assistance, and the event implies the person is "calling to be found."

The company even has its own "try-before-you-buy" page that lets you test the accuracy of its data. With a colleague's consent, we tracked his phone to within a city block of his actual location.

The data aggregator said it has access to carrier network location data "because privacy is built into its cloud-based platform."

While that may be true, the requirement to obtain a person's consent collapses if a search warrant for that data is issued. That's exactly how companies like Securus can reveal location data without asking a person's permission.

According to a Nebraska state government document, an application "can also be configured -- with carrier approval and appropriate warrant documentation -- to retrieve location data without the user opting-in." Securus was able to return real-time location data on users without their consent because the system required a valid order be submitted first.

However, as the The New York Times reported, Securus never verified orders before spitting back results.

We reached out to the four major US carriers prior to publication. We asked how each carrier obtains consent from customers to sell their data and what safeguards they put in place to prevent abuse.

Sprint spokesperson Lisa Belot said the company shares personally identifiable location data "only with customer consent or in response to a lawful request such as a validated court order from law enforcement."

The company's privacy policy, which governs customer consent, said third-parties may collect customers' personal data, "including location information."

Sprint said the company's relationship with Securus "does not include data sharing," and is limited "to supporting efforts to curb unlawful use of contraband cell phones in correctional facilities."

When asked the same questions, Verizon spokesperson Rich Young provided a boilerplate response regarding Securus and would not comment further.

"We're still trying to verify their activities, but if this company is, in fact, doing this with our customers' data, we will take steps to stop it," he said.

AT&T spokesperson Jim Greer said in a statement: "We have a best practices approach to handling our customers' data. We are aware of the letter and will provide a response." Our questions were also not answered.

A spokesperson for T-Mobile did not respond by our deadline.

"It's important for us to close off that potential loophole and that can easily be done with one line of legislative language," said Bankston, "which would also have the benefit of making every other company careful about always getting consent before disclosing your data to anyone."

Ron Wyden, a Democratic senator from Oregon, called on each carrier to stop sharing data with third parties. Wyden argued the sharing "skirts wireless carriers' legal obligation to be the sole conduit by which the government may conduct surveillance of Americans' phone records."

In a blog post, Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) said law enforcement may be violating the law by not seeking data directly from the phone carriers. "Law enforcement shouldn't have unfettered access to this data, whether they get it from Securus or directly from the phone companies," said the EFF.

Wyden has also called on the FCC to investigate the carriers for allegedly not obtaining user consent.

The FCC has not said yet if it will investigate.
Click here to view the source article.
Source: ZDnet, Zack Whittaker, 14 May 2018

EMF Dangers Censored
USA Created: 18 May 2018
Are Wi-Fi, microwave ovens, and cell phones attacking our health? Numerous studies are showing those “crazy” researchers who have been warning of EMF’s dangers to our health—from brain tumors to infertility and more—for years may not have been so crazy after all.

Cellphones, laptops, microwave ovens, and other fancy devices have become almost a necessity of modern life, as well as a convenience. Wireless connections, known as Wi-Fi, are increasingly ubiquitous. All this high technology depends on a kind of microwave radiation known as radiofrequency electromagnetic fields, RF-EMF. Ten or 20 years ago, this was rare and almost unknown. Now we are all exposed to it, even our children. But is it safe? The evidence shows it is not.

According to a major review in The International Journal of Oncology, those who do not use cellphones face a lifetime risk of brain tumor of approximately one in 167. But for those using cellphones, the risk is one in 128. This would seem to indicate cellphones (and presumably other Wi-Fi devices) cause tumors and likely cancer, but some (especially industry spokesmen) say the link is still unproven.

Two 2017 reviews, however, add to the evidence, showing a 33% to 46% increased chance of brain tumors on whichever side of your head you habitually hold your phone.

The radiation penetrates a few inches or about halfway through an adult’s head. But for a small child, the radiation can penetrate right through the head. An added concern for children is that they may be using cellphones for many decades over their lifetimes, compared to today’s adults who may experience many fewer years of exposure. Thus, the chance of tumors and cancer developing in children increases due to their increased years of exposure.

RF-EMF radiation, unlike nuclear radioactivity, does not damage DNA directly but can damage DNA indirectly by creating free radicals, which can damage DNA and cell membranes.

Some scientists are advocating the World Health Organization should “bump up” the warning about cellphones from “possible carcinogen” to “probable carcinogen” or even “known carcinogen,” at least for brain cancer and inner ear tumors.

Dr. Michael Greger, M.D., of “Nutritionfacts.org” advises those who use a cellphone, “It’s best to use a headset or the speakerphone option and limit the time children use [such devices].”

A hands-free operational mode, including Bluetooth headsets, reduces brain exposure by a factor of 100 or more.

And don’t use so-called anti-radiation gizmos that may actually worsen things by causing your phone to boost the signal.

It may be wise to keep your phone turned off when not in use or expecting a call, and to avoid placing it in the vicinity of your head or genitalia. One study found sperm motility to be reduced by 8% in men using cellphones. This may be a result of carrying the phone in a trousers pocket. There is also evidence using a laptop on your lap, if you are a man, can result in damage to your reproductive organs.

Some population studies found increased risk, while others did not. Interestingly, it was studies funded by the telecommunications industry that had about 10 times less likelihood of finding adverse effects. This can be compared with industry-funded studies done on pharmaceutical drugs (about four times as likely to not find adverse effects of their product), or tobacco—where a whopping 88 times the likelihood was noted. A similar, but more extreme, bias was found in studies of the dangers of nuclear power plants such as Chernobyl.

Don’t expect the government to warn you of these dangers, as they are influenced by the industry, which wants to pooh-pooh the hazards possibly associated with their products.
Click here to view the source article.
Source: American Free Press, John Tiffany, 17 May 2018

Show Me the Studies! “The Nation” Resurrects an Old Controversy
USA Created: 8 May 2018
George Carlo is back - Again.

He has a leading role in an exposé in The Nation magazine, where he is portrayed as the inside man who was hired to run a $25 million health research project for the telecom industry and was later fired when he found out that cell phones present a cancer risk.

At least that’s what Carlo wants you to believe. The truth is a lot messier and a lot less favorable.

I revisit this old story because two seasoned reporters for The Nation call my views "preposterous."

Read my challenge for Carlo to settle the dispute by releasing a list of the 50 studies he says he sponsored during the 1990s here: http://microwavenews.com/news-center/carlos-50-studies

And read my (second) response to The Nation here:
http://microwavenews.com/sites/default/files/docs/Further%20Response%20to%20Nation_1.pdf
Louis Slesin, PhD
Editor, Microwave News
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Microwave News, Louis Slesin PhD, 07 May 2018

Are Electromagnetic Fields Keeping Your Patients/Clients Sick?
USA Created: 1 May 2018
The Problem: The severe lack of serious, credible, evidence-based education on how EMFs fit in the functional medicine healing puzzle.

The Solution: Just like mold, heavy metals, water quality and air quality, electromagnetic fields (EMFs) are an environmental toxin you cannot ignore.

According to Dr. Klinghardt, one of the top pioneers in functional medicine, “the MOST overlooked factor in healing is to create a clean electromagnetic environment for patients/clients.”

Even though there’s no denying the topic is still controversial in medicine, an overwhelming amount of studies have now linked excessive EMF exposure with cancer, autoimmunity, infertility, neurological symptoms, chronic fatigue, and poor sleep.

And for the first time in History, health practitioners have access to focused, evidence-based education on how to add EMFs as an environmental factor in the functional medicine healing puzzle.

*SNIP* Read the rest at the source link below...
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Electrosmog RX, Nicolas Pineault, 01 May 2018

5G 'Revolution': Don't give up right to say no to massive radiation increase
USA Created: 28 Apr 2018
Throughout human history, technological innovations have caused big changes to our societies — some for better, some for worse, but all occurred without foreknowledge of consequences.

With the Industrial Revolution, we began altering the biogeochemistry of the planet’s atmosphere, with a direct-line consequence of warming the oceans. That we have lost more than 50 percent of coral reefs is just one example of the unanticipated consequences of fossil-fuel dependent technology.

We are on the precipice of another global technological revolution. This time full-throated warnings are being sounded, but the vast majority of people are not yet aware.

The telecommunications industry wants to keep it that way.

In the 1990s, cellular technology that uses microwave radiofrequency radiation as a carrier for voice and data was introduced to the public via cell phones. From there, the seemingly magical ability to send information wirelessly spread to a variety of devices.

Now, “Big Wireless” is pushing the immediate adoption of the Fifth Generation of cellular technology by every city and county in the country. On every street and in front of our homes, the industry wants to install millions of small cell towers to enable this most powerful but short-range radiofrequency radiation.

The big prize the industry is seeking is the “Internet of Things,” in which everything that can be chipped with a wireless radiofrequency radiation transmitter will be. From phones to appliances to homes to driverless cars and much more — all can be connected.

Even in the earliest iterations of cellular and wireless technology, however, there were known and suspected impacts to human health and the environment. Enter the 1996 Telecommunications Act. Still in force today, it is used to silence pubic opposition on precisely those grounds to cellular infrastructure — such as cell towers — near homes and schools.

In the last two years, a flurry of legislation has been passed that quickens — and mandates — adoption of 5G by local governments. Gov. Rick Scott signed such legislation in spite of opposition by the Florida League of Cities.

A clue to the hurry lies in the reason why insurance companies are not willing to sell product-liability policies for health impacts from cellular radiofrequency radiation, according to a recent expose in The Nation, “How Big Wireless Made Us Think that Cell Phones are Safe.”

It is evident the industry has “war-gamed” the science, as Big Tobacco did for smoking. People are getting ill and filing lawsuits.

After having alerted the United Nations in 2015 to an emerging worldwide public health crisis due to the exploding use of radiofrequency radiation, an independent body of international scientists and doctors in 2017 called for an urgent moratorium on the rollout of 5G.

In reviewing the non-industry-associated peer-reviewed scientific literature, it became clear what is an artificial, evolutionarily unknown radiofrequency radiation is biologically active and interferes with key cellular processes in humans, animals and plants.

DNA and genetic damage, as well as increased oxidative stress, can lead to cancer, such as gliomas (brain cancer).

Impacts have been found in every system of the body.

Alternatives such as wired fiber optic exist. It is 10,000 times faster, more cyber secure and reliable.

On May 1, the St. Lucie County Commission will hold a first reading on a proposal to adopt 5G.

Let us not be hoodwinked into accepting what will be a massive radiation increase. Demand your representatives hold public hearings. We have a right to know the full measure of the risk we are being asked to assume.

Insist on our right to say no.

Shari Anker serves as president of the Conservation Alliance of St. Lucie County and is a member of the group Electromagnetic Radiation Awareness of the Treasure Coast. She experiences microwave radiation sickness upon exposure to radiofrequency radiation.
Click here to view the source article.
Source: TCPalm, Shari Anker, 27 Apr 2018

How Big Wireless War-Gamed the Science on Risks, While Making Customers Addicted to Their Phones
USA Created: 20 Apr 2018
We continue our conversation with Mark Hertsgaard, The Nation’s environment correspondent and investigative editor, who co-authored a major new exposé, “How Big Wireless Made Us Think That Cell Phones Are Safe.” He discusses how wireless companies “war-gamed the science” by funding friendly studies and attacking critical ones; the potential dangers of the pending expansion of 5G with the “internet of things”; the role of the telecommunications industry officials turned federal regulators; and how companies deliberately addicted customers to this technology through the addition of social media.

Video and transcript available at source link below...
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Democracy Now!, Mark Hertsgaard, 05 Apr 2018

Doctors See Increase of Ear Tumor Cases
USA Created: 18 Apr 2018
Doctors say they're seeing more and more cases of ear tumors called acoustic neuroma.

When longtime Dallas radio personality Mark McCray started to lose some of his hearing, he thought maybe it was just a hazard of the job. He went to a doctor to get it checked out, but was told it wasn't anything to worry about.

Years later, the hearing loss got worse and he began to suffer nausea and dizziness.

"Once I finally realized that there was something that was off, I had an ENT suggest that I get an MRI," said McCray.

Doctors found a four centimeter tumor on the nerve that connects his ear to his brain.

Acoustic tumors are benign, which means they won't spread to other parts of the body, however, if left untreated, they'll continue to grow on the nerve.

"The symptoms just increase. The dizziness increases. The hearing loss increases and eventually the brain stem, which is a very important part of your brain, gets compressed and it can take your life," said Dr. Yoav Hahn, Board-Certified Otologist/Neurotologist and Otolaryngologist at Medical City Dallas.

Today's advanced imaging technology is helping doctors catch the tumors, which is why the number of cases is on the rise.

The tumors, if small, are monitored, but if medium or large in size, will be treated with surgery or radiation.

"Once they are removed, the prognosis is very good. In fact, the chances of them coming back are very low," said Dr. Hahn.

McCray permanently lost hearing in his right ear as a result of the surgery, but the tumor and its deadly potential are gone.

"Overall, I'm a positive person, so I just think of it as, yeah it's something that nobody wants, but I've been able to use the platform that I have a radio personality to talk about it and bring awareness to it."

See a doctor if hearing loss is worse in one ear over the other or you have ringing (tinnitus) in one ear or if you get vertigo or dizziness.

Ear tumors can develop in anyone at any age.
Click here to view the source article.
Source: NBCDFW, Bianca Castro, 05 Apr 2018

«First  ‹Previous   Page 19 of 60   Next›  Last» 
 News item: