News for USA

«First  ‹Previous   Page 2 of 167   Next›  Last» 

Two Major Apple Shareholders Push for Study of iPhone Addiction in Children
USA Created: 8 Jan 2018
Two big shareholders of Apple Inc are concerned that the entrancing qualities of the iPhone have fostered a public health crisis that could hurt children -- and the company as well.

In a letter to the smartphone maker dated Jan. 6, activist investor Jana Partners LLC and the California State Teachers’ Retirement System urged Apple to create ways for parents to restrict children’s access to their mobile phones. They also want the company to study the effects of heavy usage on mental health.

“There is a growing body of evidence that, for at least some of the most frequent young users, this may be having unintentional negative consequences,” according to the letter from the investors, who combined own about $2 billion in Apple shares. The “growing societal unease” is “at some point is likely to impact even Apple.”

“Addressing this issue now will enhance long-term value for all shareholders,” the letter said.

An Apple spokesman declined to comment on the letter, which was reported earlier by the Wall Street Journal.

Parental Controls

It’s a problem most companies would kill to have: Young people liking a product too much. But as smartphones become ubiquitous, government leaders and Silicon Valley alike have wrestled for ways to limit their inherent intrusiveness.

France, for instance, has moved to ban the use of smartphones in its primary and middle schools. Meanwhile, Android co-founder Andy Rubin is seeking to apply artificial intelligence to phones so that they perform relatively routine tasks without needing to be physically handled.

Apple already offers some parental controls, such as the Ask to Buy feature, which requires parental approval to buy goods and services. Restrictions can also be placed on access to some apps, content and data usage.

The activist pressure is the latest in a series of challenges for the tech giant. Last week, Cupertino, California-based Apple said that all of its Mac computers and iOS devices, which include both the iPhones and iPads, faced security vulnerabilities due to flawed chips made by Intel Corp. At the tail end of 2017, the company apologized to customers for software changes that resulted in older versions of its iPhones running slower than newly introduced editions.
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Bloomberg, Luke Kawa, 08 Jan 2018

A Former Facebook VP Says Social Media Is Destroying Society. And He’s Right.
USA Created: 6 Jan 2018
Chamath Palihapitiya, the former vice president for user growth at Facebook, has spoken out about social media - While platforms like Facebook and Twitter can bring people closer together, they can also have the opposite effect.

Feedback Loop

Speaking at a recent event at the Stanford Graduate School of Business, Chamath Palihapitiya – a former vice president for user growth at Facebook – expressed a concern that social media platforms have become “tools that are ripping apart the social fabric of how society works.”

Palihapitiya brought up the example of a WhatsApp hoax campaign in India that led to a string of lynchings. However, new technology is also having more subtle effects on the way that we interact with one another.

“The short-term, dopamine-driven feedback loops we’ve created are destroying how society works,” said Palihapitiya, according to a report from The Verge. Interactions such as ‘liking’ a photograph or ‘favoriting’ a tweet are perhaps more about short-term gratification than the basis for meaningful communication and relationships, Palihapitiya suggested.

“I think that Pallhapitiya points out a very real issue regarding social media and immediate gratification,” said Lizbeth M. Kim, a doctoral candidate in social psychology and women’s, gender, and sexuality studies at Penn State whose research looks at social media, to Futurism. “I view his message as an important reminder of the part of the picture that we may often willfully ignore.”

She emphasized that today’s social media platforms allow for anyone’s message to be heard, amplified, and given credibility. This can allow for anything from small-scale cases of cyberbullying to much broader harassment campaigns to take root.

We’ve seen that terrorist groups have used the likes of Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube in an attempt to attract new recruits. Smartphone usage has been linked to teen depression and suicide, although there are now attempts to use artificial intelligence to watch out for users who might be at risk.

Like any kind of new technology, the impact of social media is a reflection of its user base. There’s always a capacity for people to misuse the tools that are available to them – but there are also very real benefits if used positively.

Social Hierarchy

“While there is increasing public attention placed on the ‘dark side’ of social media, in my work, I’m curious about what happens when people try to use social media platforms for the greater good,” said Kim.

Social media has all kind of benefits, like making useful information available to the general public, helping to build communities, and allowing for links between different social groups. However, people’s overt behavior on social media is only one part of the equation – the reactions to that behavior should also be taken into account.

Kim performed a study where subjects were shown a fictitious comment thread where one user confronted another for making a sexist comment. Responses to that thread proved to be different depending on whether the person doing the confronting was male or female, with the latter being perceived as less likable and more angry.

“People who saw the female confronter perceived the sexist perpetrator as more credible compared to when seeing the male confronter,” said Kim. “So, the same altruistic online behavior can be perceived differently based on subtle cues and stereotypes about identity and credibility.”

There are distinct differences between the way we interact with one another in person, and the way we communicate online. When we can disassociate the individual from their social media account, it’s easier to mistreat people, ranging from minor misdeeds to more serious transgressions.

“It is difficult to make a singular claim about the effects of social media on modern-day relationships,” said Kim. “As time goes on and more research is done to examine this, I think we will have a more nuanced idea about the specific features and activities built into websites like Facebook that are contributing to these positive and negative outcomes.”

It’s important to remember that social media is still a relatively new phenomenon, even though it’s become a huge part of everyday life for lots of people. We’re still learning about its effect on society at large – and it’s important that we consider both the good and bad that come from it.
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Futurism, Brad Jones, 05 Jan 2018

Upgrade to 5G Costs $200 Billion a Year, May Not Be Worth It
USA Created: 5 Jan 2018
In the wildest dreams of wireless engineers, the mobile network of the future controls our cars, lets our refrigerators talk to the grocery store to order more milk, and provides fast, reliable broadband connections to our homes so we can sever ties with cable companies.

But it’s going to cost the mobile-phone companies, chipmakers, device manufacturers and software developers about $200 billion a year in research and capital spending to get to that point, with engineers laboring to work around interference from trees and rain and provide a strong enough signal to handle so much demand.

Even if they’re successful, making a profit on that investment will be difficult in an industry that isn’t growing much anymore. In most developed countries, like the U.S., the wireless market has reached saturation, and there are few new subscribers to sign up without undercutting rivals on price.

“Historically, 1G to 4G, it’s been a pretty straightforward evolution from the point of view of business and technology,” said Chetan Sharma, a wireless consultant. “The revenue grew proportionate to the usage.”

The future of 5G, as the next-generation wireless network is known, is already beginning, as a handful of carriers including Verizon Communications Inc. move from trials to deployments. The first technical standards everyone can use to design their networks, phones and chips for 5G will be released at a summit that starts Monday in Lisbon.

Most mobile-phone companies are targeting 2020 for the initial rollout of the technology, which promises 10 times faster speeds and lower latency, or lag time in transferring data when it’s requested. After that, wireless carriers’ revenue will grow about 2.5 percent a year through 2025 -- only about half a percentage point more than their growth in the prior five years, according to industry group GSMA.

This time around, it’s not clear that 5G will translate into more revenue until perhaps five or 10 years from now, Sharma said. New applications like the Internet of Things -- using wireless connectivity to let machines on the factory floor talk to each other, and for autonomous cars on the freeway to talk to light signals -- may take years to materialize, and may not pay that much.

After all, many of these applications can be handled by Wi-Fi networks, while others -- like driverless cars - would likely use onboard communications rather than cellular for safety reasons, said Craig Moffett, an analyst with MoffettNathanson LLC.

“What’s left in the middle is undoubtedly still a real opportunity, but it’s not clear it’s a very big one,” he said.

First, engineers have to figure out how to make 5G work. Rain, fog and trees have long been the enemy of high frequency radio waves. AT&T Inc. is among the companies that have been exploring the problem. With environmental conditions “you get degradations but we haven’t lost signals completely,” said Andre Fuetsch, president of AT&T Labs and chief technology officer.

Given the relatively short, fragile nature of high-frequency 5G signals, carriers have to configure networks differently. They’re shifting more of the network hardware from tall towers that are scattered to spread signals over broad areas, to smaller, more clustered sites like rooftops and street poles.

These “small cells” use cabinets that look like mini-refrigerators mounted on poles or rooftops. Inside the cabinets there’s an array of more than 1,000 antennas, says Ed Chan, senior vice president of network planning for Verizon. In dense, urban areas, network engineers will have to install lots of small cells to handle demand for data, adding to the costs of 5G.

Some companies, including Verizon, aim to make money by offering up 5G as an alternative to home broadband connections, competing with cable and landline phone providers. High costs could make that commercially unviable.

“Carriers are all looking at 5G for fixed wireless broadband, even though the technology isn’t particularly well suited to that application,” Moffett said. “That’s largely because it is almost impossible to identify any other real revenue opportunities for the technology.”

Verizon says it will take a targeted approach, which will require a few years of spending before there’s enough 5G service to prove that it can be a viable source of revenue.

The company has told analysts and investors that the goal for the first phase of its 5G network is to build a coverage area of 30 million homes starting next year in Sacramento, California, and possibly four additional cities. It will take a “short number of years” of network investment to have 5G within reach of that many homes and a few years before it shows some returns, Verizon Chief Financial Officer Matt Ellis said at a UBS investor conference earlier this month.

“As we’ve seen with other products, you build up to your penetration levels over some period of time,” Ellis said. After enough customers sign on, it “starts to be significant to our financials in the next two to three years,” he said.

Each of the top four wireless carriers in the U.S. decided to take different paths with 5G. AT&T plans to sell both a direct-to-home wireless service and a mobile service. T-Mobile US Inc. is adapting its network to 5G through a software update, and Sprint Corp. is planning to upgrade its antenna towers with advanced network gear. Neither T-Mobile nor Sprint have specified how they plan to generate revenue from 5G.

Verizon and AT&T have been testing the 5G technology in controlled settings. The trials have gone well enough to take the service to consumers starting late next year.

Sprint plans to boost network spending from about $4 billion this year to as much as $6 billion in 2018 as it kicks off a four-part upgrade plan, Chief Financial Officer Tarek Robbiati said at an investor conference earlier this month.

T-Mobile, meanwhile, is saying it will be the first to offer 5G service nationwide, though it’s not clear if they’re referring to the same type of technology others are implementing.

“The capital we’re putting in the ground, starting now, is future ready,’’ Chief Operating Officer Mike Sievert said this month at the same conference. “We’re not hyping it right now like our competitors because we actually have a story in the part of a business where the revenues and profits are.”
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Bloomberg, Olga Kharif and Scott Moritz, 18 Dec 2017

Tell legislators we don’t want or need 5G
USA Created: 4 Jan 2018
The next generation of wireless cellular technology, also known as 5G, is scheduled to be rolled out in two years. If released as planned, 5G would blanket the entire country with extremely high frequency microwave radiation, with major implications for health, privacy, property rights, and local control.

Most cell phone carriers currently offer fourth generation (4G) wireless cellular service, a service which has been upgraded each decade since first generation analog service of the 1980s. However, 5G is far more than a simple technological upgrade for faster downloads. Prior generations of cellular service used low-band frequencies, from 300 megahertz — a million hertz — to 300 gigahertz — a billion hertz, as is used by 4G. To put this into perspective, the electro-magnetic radiation produced by household appliances ranges from 3 Hz to 300 Hz. Unlike the low frequency 4G being used now, 5G represents a significant change as it will use extremely high frequency microwave radiation called millimeter waves. Higher frequency waves have shorter transmission ranges, so the technological fix is to pepper communities with powerful small cell antennas, requiring pervasive neighborhood and city-wide 5G antennas. The distribution of these small cell antenna systems is placement on utility and light poles and other public infrastructure, and within feet of single family homes, on multifamily homes, schools, day care centers, nursing homes, recreation centers, and more, beaming intense microwave radiation onto anyone living or sleeping in those areas.

To enable the widespread deployment of 5G antennas, the telecommunications industry has been offering financial incentives to states and the federal government to pass enabling legislation without public input. Already 18 states have either passed or have bills slated to pass on rapidly deploying 5G statewide, stripping authority from local governments and state citizens. Several communities around the U.S. are already organizing to pre-empt implementation and maintain local control, including over 80 municipalities in Ohio.

There is good reason for this. When the Federal Telecommunications Act was passed in 1996, the telecommunications industry made certain that there was a clause included in this legislation that explicitly prohibits claiming health hazards as a reason to prevent placement of a cell tower near a person’s property.

Research shows that 5G millimeter wave radiation will make people sick, especially unborn children, young children, pregnant women, and individuals with chronic illness. The predicted adverse health effects include cancer, infertility, cataracts, headaches, neurological malfunction, cardiac irregularities, and insomnia, in much higher numbers and potency than that being experienced as a result of 4G by electro-hyper-sensitive people today. With as much as 10 percent of the population now showing signs of EHS to WiFi/wireless radiation, and cancer now affecting 1 out of every 2 people, we cannot afford to allow the telecom industry and our government to push 5G on us without our permission, and in spite of documented health hazards to humans, animals, birds and wildlife.

The World Health Organizations International Agency for Research on Cancer has classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as a Group 2B carcinogen based on an increased risk for glioma, a malignant type of brain cancer associated with wireless phone use. Dr. Olle Johansson, neuroscientist at the Karolinska Institute (which awards the Nobel Prize for Physiology and Medicine), has stated that the proof of harm from radiofrequency electromagnetic fields is overwhelming and that children should never be allowed to be victims of a WHO-classified possible carcinogen. Dr. Ronald Powell, a Harvard-trained physicist, is also concerned about the potential for widespread harm from EMF radiation, particularly 5G. Brain and central nervous system tumors are the second most common cancers in children, making up about 26 percent of childhood cancers. Do we want to increase the risk of cancer in children by forcing them to be exposed to one of its known causes? In Idaho, we still have a chance to put a halt to 5G by spreading the word, contacting our legislators, and letting them be aware of statewide opposition.

Following is a link to an informative article from Wise Traditions (Fall, 2017), the quarterly journal of the Weston A. Price Foundation. (, which provides the documentation for the above information. Then tell our legislators to please oppose this proposed new technology.


Priest River
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Bonner County Daily Bee, ANNE WILDER CHAMBERLAIN, 31 Dec 2017

California says the only safe way to talk on your cell phone is to text
USA Created: 30 Dec 2017
Earlier this month, the California department of health released guidelines warning residents to avoid putting mobile phones up to their heads.

“Keep your phone away from your body,” the state health department writes. “Although the science is still evolving, some laboratory experiments and human health studies have suggested the possibility” that typical long-term cell phone use could be linked to “brain cancer and tumors of the acoustic nerve,” “lower sperm counts,” and “effects on learning and memory.”

Mobile phones emit radiation, which is measured in radio-frequency (RF) energy. In the manual that comes pre-installed on your iPhone, Apple explicitly tells you to use a hands-free option like speakerphone or headphones while talking in order to “reduce exposure to RF energy.” The manual also notes that cell phones are currently tested for radiation assuming the devices would be kept at least 5 mm (0.2 in) away from the body while being carried. That’s a lot more than the thickness of pocket fabric. (On an iPhone 6 and above, you can find this information by going to Settings > General > About > Legal > RF Exposure.)

Previous iPhone manuals were even more conservative: The manual for the iPhone 5 says users should carry their iPhones a full 10 millimeters (or 0.39 inches) away from their bodies at all times.

US law demands that all cell phones function in such a way that they cause less than 1.6 watts of radiation to be absorbed by the human body, per gram of body tissue (known as specific absorption rate, or SAR 1.6). The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) tests all mobile phones coming onto the market for compliance. But that rule is designed only to prevent harm from excess heat that can be generated by RF waves. It doesn’t consider (pdf) other potential biological effects, like DNA damage or altered protein expression—the FCC calls these all “ambiguous and unproven.”

Further, while cell phones are tested against a simulated human head in the “talking” position, they are not tested against the body (or in a pocket) in the “carrying” position. Instead, the tests assume the user is holding the phone away from the body whenever the phone is broadcasting at full power. And since RF energy exposure increases sharply if the phone is in contact with your body, and falls off rapidly at a distance, some worry that FCC testing is missing a lot of actual exposure.

Experts and organizations like the nonprofit Environmental Working Group have expressed concern over these rules, citing studies that show links between cell phone radiation exposure and heightened cancer risk. In 2011, a World Health Organization report classified radiation from cell phones as “possibly carcinogenic to humans”; in particular, the WHO noted that cell phone use correlated with an increased risk for glioma, a malignant type of brain cancer.

Jonathan Samet, the dean of the University of Colorado-Denver School of Public Health, and the lead investigator on the working group that produced the WHO report, told the Verge that there is “some indication” of risk, but it is still unclear how much.

“I’m not saying there’s a public health crisis by any means,” Samet told the Verge, “but I’m saying here’s a very widespread exposure in our society and we should make sure we understand it.”
Keep your phone away from your body

The California guidelines have been in the works since 2009, but after 27 draft versions the state abandoned the document without publishing it. It took a lawsuit from a Berkeley professor to get the guidelines released. Joel Moskowitz, the director of the Center for Family and Community Health at UC-Berkeley’s School of Public Health, sued the state in 2016 under the California Public Records Act after learning the document existed. Although lawyers for the state that the guidelines would cause unnecessary panic, according to the San Francisco Chronicle, a judge eventually compelled them to publish.

The guidelines include a long list of precautions people should take to limit radiation exposure, noting that, because radiation drops off sharply with distance, “keeping your phone just a few feet away from you can make a big difference.” Here’s the first part of the list:

- When you talk on your cell phone, avoid holding it up to your head—use the speakerphone or a headset instead. Wireless (Bluetooth) and wired headsets emit much less RF energy than cell phones.

- Send text messages instead of talking on the phone.

- If you are streaming or if you are downloading or sending large files, try to keep the phone away from your head and body.

- Carry your cell phone in a backpack, briefcase, or purse; NOT in a pocket, bra or belt holster.

The guidelines also note that when your wireless signal is weak, and when you are on a fast-moving car, bus, or train, the phone has to work harder to make a connection, which means it emits higher levels of radiation. One option to improve safety is to turn your phone to “airplane mode” when service is bad or nonexistent. Phones emit no RF energy in airplane mode.

Other steps one should take to reduce exposure, according to the health guidelines:

- To watch movies or listen to playlists on your phone, download them first, then switch to airplane mode while you watch or listen.

- Don’t sleep with your phone in your bed or near your head.

- Unless the phone is off or in airplane mode, keep it at least a few feet away from your bed.

- Take off the headset when you’re not on a call. Headsets release small amounts of RF energy even when you are not using your phone

- Don’t rely on a “radiation shield” or other products claiming to block RF energy, electromagnetic fields, or radiation from cell phones. According to the US Federal Trade Commission, products that interfere with the phone’s signal may force it to work harder and emit more RF energy in order to stay connected, possibly increasing your exposure.

- Children, especially the very young, may be more at risk

The guidelines have a separate warning about cell phones and children. “RF energy can reach a larger area of a child’s brain than an adult’s brain,” the California health department writes, simply because the former is smaller in relation to a phone. In addition, because the brains and bodies of children and teens are still developing, the effects of exposure may be “more harmful and longer lasting” than in adults.

Plus, any kid who uses a cell phone “will have many more years of exposure to RF energy in his or her lifetime than someone who started using a cell phone as an adult,” the document reads. “There is not a lot of research about the effects of cell phone RF energy on children or teenagers, but a few studies have shown that there may be hearing loss or ringing in the ears, headaches, and decreased general well-being.”

The California health department document, though, is essentially just a warning. Any actual changes to manufacturing standards would have to originate at the FCC. In 2013, the American Academy of Pediatrics urged the FCC to begin taking child users of cell phones into account. “Children are not little adults and are disproportionately impacted by all environmental exposures, including cell phone radiation,” their letter to the FCC reads. But the FCC still maintains that “currently no scientific evidence establishes a causal link between wireless device use and cancer or other illnesses.”
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Quartz, Zoë Schlanger, 22 Dec 2017

1981: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency knew of 3627 scientific studies on RF bioeffects
USA Created: 28 Dec 2017
ABSTRACT: Considerable research effort has been made into the biological effects of electromagnetic radiation over the frequency range of 0-100 GHz. This work intensified since 1966 when occupational exposure guidelines were made by the American Standards Institute - C95.9.

During this period and especially in the last several years it has become clear that a cumulative bibliography of peer reviewed publications reporting this research was needed. This publication lists 3627 articles published in world literature dealing with the biological effects of electromagnetic radiation over the frequency range of 0-100 GHz. The contents have been compiled from the data bases of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Navy Department.

The bibliography covers the published work that was available to March 1980.

Read and/or download the document via the source link below.

(Archived copy here: )
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Environmental Protection Agency, 01 Mar 1981

California issues guidance on cell phones and health
USA Created: 26 Dec 2017
California this week entered the long-running debate over whether cell phone use poses a health hazard when a state agency issued guidelines for reducing exposure to wireless signals.

The guidelines, which come from the California Department of Public Health (CDPH), don't state that cell phone are dangerous, nor do they push to abandon cell phone use completely. Instead, they take a more cautionary tone by stating that multiple studies have suggested that the radiofrequency (RF) signals from phones may be linked to certain types of cancer, lower sperm count, memory problems and loss of sleep.

"Some scientists and public health officials believe RF energy may affect human health," the guideline sheet says. "These studies do not establish the link definitely, however, and scientists disagree about whether cell phones cause these health problems and how great the risks might be."

The CDPH's suggestions for reducing exposure to wireless signals are simple and nothing that we haven't already heard from public health advocates. They include not carrying a phone in a pocket or bra, using a headset or speakerphone and limiting cell phone use when your signal is weak. (The FCC also makes these recommendations though it also says it doesn't endorse the need for them.)

The sheet also has a section on limiting cell phone use for young children, who have thinner skulls and developing brains. Some research has suggested that RF energy may cause headaches or hearing loss in kids.

The CDPH's guidelines were issued in draft form last March and then only after a lawsuit from Dr. Joel Moskowitz, the director of the Center for Family and Community Health at UC Berkeley's School of Public Health. Moskowitz, who's been one of the loudest voices pushing for more research and regulation on cell phone use, argued that the CDPH had the responsibility to publicly release the document after first preparing it in 2009.

In a statement, Moskowitz welcomed the release of the guidelines but pushed for more action. "Although California's new cell phone warnings underplay the state of the science, many people consider this action by the largest state public health department to be a significant development," he wrote. "I would like to thank the current leadership of CDPH for their courage to stand up to a powerful industry."

Connecticut published similar guidelines in 2015, but the wireless industry has long pushed back on any such steps from state or local governments. In one of the more prominent cases, the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association in 2013 successfully blocked the city of San Francisco from issuing notices about the possible dangers of wireless use, arguing that the FCC has concluded using cell phones is safe within certain exposure limits. The tables turned last year, however, when the industry lost a court battle to prevent the city of Berkeley, California, from implementing a similar warning.
Click here to view the source article.
Source: CNET, Kent German, 16 Dec 2017

Wireless company lawsuit against Rye City dismissed
USA Created: 26 Dec 2017
A federal judge dismissed a lawsuit filed by wireless company Crown Castle against the City of Rye earlier this month.

Judge Vincent Bricetti ruled that Rye did not violate the Telecommunications Act when it required the wireless company to conduct additional reviews of its proposal to build new cell equipment throughout the city.

In its complaint, Crown Castle claimed the City had violated state and federal laws when it adopted a positive declaration under the State Environmental Quality Review Act in April.

"This order recognizes the importance of a diligent review process," said Rye City Mayor Joseph Sack in a statement last week. "To have Judge Briccetti affirm that we have acted in accordance with federal law is gratifying."

The city's victory comes after almost two years of community opposition to the company's proposal to install cell tower equipment throughout the city.

Crown Castle, which has built in communities throughout Westchester and Rockland, proposed in 2015 to install "cell nodes," or small metal boxes that function as antennae across the city, to boost cell coverage and internet speeds.

But residents, citing noise and aesthetic concerns, pushed back.

In April, the City Council required the company to conduct studies on possible noise, sight and health impacts from the proposed equipment. The review, known as SEQRA, is ongoing.

Officials with the company declined to comment.

Rye City Mayor-elect Joshua Cohn, who defeated Sack in November, said he expects the company to appeal the decision.

"It'll be my administration in conjunction with the city's attorneys that will look at how to combat Crown's anticipated appeal," Cohn told the Journal News/lohud in an interview earlier this month. "It will also be a priority of my administration to see that there is a full SEQRA review of alternatives to Crown's existing proposal."
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Lohud / USAToday, Gabriel Rom, 18 Dec 2017

California to set guidelines limiting cellphone radiation exposure
USA Created: 19 Dec 2017
A recent study finds 95 percent of Americans are now using cellphones, and that has prompted public health officials in California to issue groundbreaking guidelines to limit exposure to cellphone radiation. John Blackstone reports.

Watch the video:
Click here to view the source article.
Source: CBS News, John Blackstone, 15 Dec 2017

Was a spy’s Parkinson’s disease caused by a secret microwave weapon attack?
USA Created: 6 Dec 2017
One of the first signs came at the keyboard - Mike Beck, a National Security Agency counterintelligence officer, could always bang out 60 words a minute. But in early 2006, Beck struggled to move his fingers at their usual typing speed. He had to hunt and peck.

Soon after, a brain scan showed why: Beck had Parkinson’s disease, the second-most-common neurodegenerative disorder in the United States, behind Alzheimer’s. He was only 46 — unusually young for Parkinson’s. No one in his family had ever had it. Then, in an unsettling coincidence, he learned that an NSA colleague — a man he’d spent a pivotal week in 1996 with in a hostile country — had also just been diagnosed with Parkinson’s.

Eventually, Beck read a classified intelligence report that convinced him that he and his co-worker were likely the victims of a covert attack on the trip that led to their illnesses — and have led to a highly unusual workers’ compensation claim.

Beck believes that while he and his colleague were sleeping in their hotel rooms, the hostile country, which he cannot name for security reasons, deployed a high-powered microwave weapon against them, damaging their nervous systems.

*SNIP* Read the entire article via the source link below...
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Washington Post, Ian Shapira, 05 Dec 2017

«First  ‹Previous   Page 2 of 167   Next›  Last» 
 News item: