News for USA
|«First ‹Previous Page 2 of 180  Next› Last»|
|Could your next cell phone wreck our weather forecasts?|
|USA||Created: 3 Dec 2019|
Faint signals from water vapor power our super-accurate forecasts—and if we’re not careful, scientists warn, 5G could drown some of them out.
In 2012, Hurricane Sandy came barreling down on the East Coast. It slammed into the New York region and sat there for several days, dumping torrential rain that caused over a hundred deaths, flooded entire communities, and wrecked local infrastructure.
The destruction almost certainly would have been higher without the detailed, precise forecasts of how the storm would proceed along its track, which scientists were able to feed to emergency management personnel well before the storm made landfall.
Meteorological science has gotten better and better over past decades, squeezing ever more information out of the data gathered at Earth’s surface, through the atmosphere, and from instruments mounted on satellites spinning overhead. The result is increasingly sophisticated, far-reaching, and accurate forecasts.
But the precision we’ve become accustomed to from those forecasts may be under threat, scientists are warning. Our ability to predict with confidence what’s coming down the road weather wise could be set back by 40 years, and a key forecasting tool could be seriously degraded.
Telecommunications technologies like 5G internet need space on the electromagnetic spectrum, the range of all types of electromagnetic radiation that includes microwaves, infrared and ultraviolet light, gamma and X-rays. Today that space is at a premium. And much of the information that feeds into sophisticated weather models comes from parts of the spectrum that are right next door to areas telecommunications companies want to use for the new technologies.
“It’s like an apartment building of sorts,” explains Jordan Gerth, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison. “There’s some general expectation that everybody keeps relatively quiet. In the spectrum land, we have our meteorological application, our science applications, and those that require a very quiet environment and adjacent environment. But the telecom signals are typically very loud, and are also susceptible to leaking outside their space.
“It’s like trying to run a daycare for small children who want to take a nap, but one that’s adjacent to a sports bar. There may be a wall between them, but you’re still going to get noise bleeding through.”
Over the past month delegates from countries and trade groups have gathered at the World Radiocommunications Conference to decide on international rules about how strictly to protect the “bands” of the electromagnetic spectrum crucial to weather forecasting—in other words, how much noise from the sports bar they’ll allow to be heard in the nap room.
In the end they came to a decision that some scientists—including Jim Bridenstine, the administrator of NASA—say may degrade the forecasts in a dangerous way, perhaps irreparably.
What’s at stake
One of the crucial bands, says William Blackwell, an atmospheric scientist and engineer at MIT, is around 23.8 GHz. Water vapor absorbs in this microwave band, leaving behind a faint signal that can be read by satellite-mounted instruments that look at the microwave part of the spectrum. The problem now is that telecommunications companies are interested in using parts of the spectrum right next to that water vapor signal.
The electromagnetic spectrum is like water in a river: There’s only so much of it. Some of the water is necessary to keep the habitat healthy, just like some of the spectrum is necessary for making weather forecasts. But most of the rest of the spectrum has already been allocated for all different kinds of wireless communication—GPS, radio navigation, satellite controls, telecommunications, and more. So demands on the remaining clear bits are growing.
“The reason we’re in this tug of war, it’s because of all these cell phones, just like the one that I’m holding,” says Tom Ackerman, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Washington.
In the past, the communications uses were kept far away from the bands used for weather and climate science work.
“But we’re running out of spectrum real estate,” says Ackerman. “Before, we could coexist nicely, but now the sandbox is full.”
Earlier this year, the U.S. Federal Communications Commission auctioned off part of the microwave spectrum right next to the 23.8 GHz water vapor band. Companies, eager for access to the new space, bid over $2 billion.
Prior to the auction, though, Jim Bridenstine, the administrator of NASA, warned that interference—“leaking” of the big 5G signal into the faint water vapor signal in the 23.8GHz band—could degrade forecast quality to levels not seen since before the microwave sounder era, in the mid-1970s.
At around the same time, NOAA’s acting deputy administrator, Neil Jacobs, told a congressional committee that telecommunications activity in the nearby parts of the spectrum could degrade forecasting accuracy by 30 percent, and could cause the lead time on forecasts of hurricanes to decrease by 2 to 3 days, he said.
They and other scientists asked for strict limits on how “loud” the next-door emissions could be—asking for something like the World Meteorological Association had suggested, a limit of -42 decibel watts (more negative numbers mean stronger limits). Instead, the FCC decided to use a limit of -20 decibel watts.
At the World Radiocommunications Conference this month, the decisions fell in between. The interference, decision-makers landed on, could be -33 decibel watts until 2027, at which point the limits would strengthen slightly to -39 decibel watts.
That’s better than what the FCC proposed, says Gerth, but still far from ideal. “This problem isn’t one that’s going to go away,” he says.
The leading trade group for the U.S. wireless industry, the Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association (CTIA), disagrees. Their executive vice president, Brad Gillen, wrote in a blog post that the NOAA and NASA analyses were based on the wrong microwave sounder instrument, and if more modern ones are considered, the problem goes away. But NOAA and NASA and the Navy disagree.
The internal NOAA and NASA studies analyzing this particular issue are not yet public, so non-government weather scientists are still unable to vet the claims directly.
The satellite era changed weather forecasting
A century ago, the best weather forecasts in the world were mostly well-informed guesswork. Cloud patterns and the feel of wind could provide hints about what the atmosphere might get up to in the next few hours, but looking beyond that was impossible. Today scientists can look more than a week into the future and make a solid prediction of what to expect: rain, snow, sunshine, hurricanes.
By the 1970s, scientists had built the bones of the weather forecasting system we know today. They had developed computer models that described the complicated physics that controls the way air flows around the atmosphere. The more they honed in on the details of the physics, the better their predictions got.
But they found that the atmosphere was a fickle beast to understand. To predict what would happen with the weather in the future, they needed to know exactly what the weather conditions were right now, they found: The physics only worked if they had really good understandings of exactly where things started.
The game, scientists and engineers around the world recognized, was to get the absolute best possible data about the current state of the atmosphere. That would get them the best possible predictions of the future, they thought.
More and more effort went into developing instruments that could very precisely map the entire three-dimensional expanse of the atmosphere, things like exactly how warm the air was from the surface up to the stratosphere, and how much water vapor was streaked through the lower sections of the atmosphere versus higher up, over Chicago and Jakarta and in the middle of the ocean.
One of the critical developments was figuring out exactly how much and where the water vapor was. To do that, scientists relied on the fact that water vapor absorbs electromagnetic radiation at several different frequencies.
As the satellite observations improved, so did the precision and accuracy of weather forecasts. Today’s five-day forecasts are as accurate as a one-day forecast in the early 1980s.
More recently, observations from the many instruments called microwave sounders attached to different satellites orbiting the planet have become even more valuable to forecasters. In the last decade, research from the European Center for Medium-Range Weather Forecasting (ECMWF, considered the premier weather forecasting agency in the world) shows that microwave frequency data play a critical role in short-term weather forecasting, providing about 20 percent of the information critical to the forecast models.
Microwave sounders mounted on satellites like NOAA's Joint Polar Satellite System and the European Meteorological Operational (MetOp) satellites sense the amount of microwave radiation coming out of the atmosphere each time they pass overhead. They can tell how much water vapor is present by looking at the emissions in a suite of different bands—one of which is at 23.8 GHz. The water vapor signal in that band, though, is small, like a streamlet. The microwave sounders are now very good at measuring that faint signal.
Even if the part of the spectrum used for weather forecasting is protected thoroughly—and MIT’s Blackwell is not convinced it will be—there are many more bands crucial to weather forecasting that are under threat of similar encroachment.
“The same thing is happening in other parts of the spectrum,” he says. “The 5G spectrum is cozying up to those bands, to this sacred spectral territory. And that’s going to be a problem.”
|Click here to view the source article.|
|Source: National Geographic, Alejandra Borunda, 26 Nov 2019|
|Yet another School experiment kills Watercress with Wi-Fi|
|USA||Created: 21 Nov 2019|
Pioneers Of Science, part 1.
Watch the video of the 1st experiment (4½ minutes):
The young scientists plan to repeat the experiment while controlling for changes in temperature, humidity etc.
More on that when it happens.
Dec 2015, Argentina: Confirmed: Watercress growth damaged by microwave radiation
Apr 2014, USA: 2'nd grader with Biologist Mom replicates Danish watercress experiment
May 2013, Denmark: Experiments with cress seeds in 9th Class attracts international attention
|Click here to view the source article.|
|Source: Smooth Feathers Film Productions, Pioneers of Science, 2019-11-21|
|New 5G flaws can track phone locations and spoof emergency alerts|
|USA||Created: 13 Nov 2019|
Security researchers at Purdue University and the University of Iowa have found close to a dozen vulnerabilities, which they say can be used to track a victim’s real-time location, spoof emergency alerts that can trigger panic or silently disconnect a 5G-connected phone from the network altogether.
5G is said to be more secure than its 4G predecessor, able to withstand exploits used to target users of older cellular network protocols like 2G and 3G like the use of cell site simulators — known as “stingrays.” But the researchers’ findings confirm that weaknesses undermine the newer security and privacy protections in 5G.
Worse, the researchers said some of the new attacks also could be exploited on existing 4G networks.
The researchers expanded on their previous findings to build a new tool, dubbed 5GReasoner, which was used to find 11 new 5G vulnerabilities. By creating a malicious radio base station, an attacker can carry out several attacks against a target’s connected phone used for both surveillance and disruption.
In one attack, the researchers said they were able to obtain both old and new temporary network identifiers of a victim’s phone, allowing them to discover the paging occasion, which can be used to track the phone’s location — or even hijack the paging channel to broadcast fake emergency alerts. This could lead to “artificial chaos,” the researcher said, similar to when a mistakenly sent emergency alert claimed Hawaii was about to be hit by a ballistic missile amid heightened nuclear tensions between the U.S. and North Korea. (A similar vulnerability was found in the 4G protocol by University of Colorado Boulder researchers in June.)
Another attack could be used to create a “prolonged” denial-of-service condition against a target’s phone from the cellular network.
In some cases, the flaws could be used to downgrade a cellular connection to a less-secure standard, which makes it possible for law enforcement — and capable hackers — to launch surveillance attacks against their targets using specialist “stingray” equipment.
All of the new attacks can be exploited by anyone with practical knowledge of 4G and 5G networks and a low-cost software-defined radio, said Syed Rafiul Hussain, one of the co-authors of the new paper.
Given the nature of the vulnerabilities, the researchers said they have no plans to release their proof-of-concept exploitation code publicly. However, the researchers did notify the GSM Association (GSMA), a trade body that represents cell networks worldwide, of their findings.
Although the researchers were recognized by GSMA’s mobile security “hall of fame,” spokesperson Claire Cranton said the vulnerabilities were “judged as nil or low-impact in practice.” The GSMA did not say if the vulnerabilities would be fixed — or give a timeline for any fixes. But the spokesperson said the researchers’ findings “may lead to clarifications” to the standard where it’s written ambiguously.
Hussain told TechCrunch that while some of the fixes can be easily fixed in the existing design, the remaining vulnerabilities call for “a reasonable amount of change in the protocol.”
It’s the second round of research from the academics released in as many weeks. Last week, the researchers found several security flaws in the baseband protocol of popular Android models — including Huawei’s Nexus 6P and Samsung’s Galaxy S8+ — making them vulnerable to snooping attacks on their owners.
|Click here to view the source article.|
|Source: TechCrunch, Zack Whittaker, 12 Nov 2019|
|Will WHO Kick Its ICNIRP Habit?|
|USA||Created: 4 Nov 2019|
Recognition of Non-Thermal Effects Hangs in the Balance.
After eight years of work, the World Health Organization (WHO) is reopening its review of the health effects of RF radiation for a summary report intended to serve as a benchmark for its more than 150 member countries.
The move might suggest that the WHO EMF/RF program is poised to reassess its long-held policy of rejecting non-thermal effects, and to loosen its deep ties to ICNIRP, the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation with its heat-only dogma.
The reputation of both organizations has never recovered from the rampant industry cronyism of Mike Repacholi, who created them in the 1990s. A close look at the WHO radiation program and its approach to this new review show that not much has changed in Geneva.
In other words: Don't count ICNIRP out just yet.
Read our latest story here: https://microwavenews.com/news-center/can-who-kick-icnirp-habit
Louis Slesin, PhD
Editor, Microwave News
|Click here to view the source article.|
|Source: Microwave News, Louis Slesin, 04 Nov 2019|
|Council urged to study health effects of 5G network|
|USA||Created: 3 Nov 2019|
A handful of citizens urged Aspen City Council to do all it can to prevent a barrage of 5G towers coming into town.
The concerns were voiced during public comment, led by Tom Lankering, a chiropractor from Basalt, and focused on the health effects of pervasive 5G signals.
Lankering held up a blank piece of paper, telling the council it was a list on the safety studies on 5G.
“That is the biggest issue we are talking about now, is that there are no safety studies,” Lankering said.
As Aspen has faced the incoming advent of 5G wireless devices and networks, city staff have been preparing to keep as much of a handle on new cell towers as they can. However, in public memos they have cited legislation passed in 1997 that bans local governments from regulating small cell wireless facilities based on health reasons.
“I’m sure this has been relayed to you by all of us that we feel our hands are tied by the FCC and other regulations,” Councilman Ward Hauenstein said in response to the public comment.
“That is only part of the misinformation that has been put out,” Lankering said.
He said other communities are finding ways to ban or delay the implementation of 5G. He also told the council that there is a movement in the statehouse now to repeal HB 17-1193, which he said was passed due to pressure from wireless companies at the expense of public health.
“Part of this is about being able to reclaim our right to protect our own health,” Lankering said.
Lankering asked that a safety study be done before 5G is allowed in town. He offered his own free time, as well as that of a group of citizens who have been gathering to fight the implementation of 5G.
“Electromagnetic radiation is devastating, it’s destructive and destroys brains,” Lankering said, invoking fears of dementia, alzheimers and cancers, as well as social health effects and depression.
5G waves are smaller and thus do not travel as far. This means more towers are needed in any given area than with current cell towers. It is estimated that Aspen would need more than 100 new towers in order to create a reliable 5G network in town. The county as a whole is years away from implementing 5G networks, even though some cell carriers advertise their networks as 5G currently.
Business owner Andrew Sandler told council that he can feel the effects of 4G towers when he travels to areas in Denver that have heavy 4G network. He also voiced concern about the health effects, even from the wi-fi signals created through the network of cell phones present in the council chambers.
“Picture walking through a haze of smoke and pretend that is the wifi frequency that is coming at you,” Sandler said. “Everyone in the room is sitting in a haze of junk and it’s killing us.”
Public comment on the health risks of 5G continued for about 20 minutes, with clapping from the room as each citizen voiced their concerns.
City Attorney Jim True said the city’s legal team is working on crafting Aspen’s own regulations to stay compliant with state and federal codes while also caring for the health and aesthetic preferences of local citizens. He encouraged those who spoke during public comment to send along examples of ways other communities are addressing the health concerns.
“This is just the biggest experiment on humankind that will even happen,” Lankering told the council, “but people are rising up.”
|Click here to view the source article.|
|Source: Aspen Daily News, Alycin Bektesh, 23 Oct 2019|
|Got Anxiety? Brain Fog? Try Reducing Your Exposure to EMF|
|USA||Created: 27 Oct 2019|
In early September I attended the first conference of its kind for health care practitioners in the United States about Electromagnetic Frequencies (EMF). Humans cannot see, touch, taste, or smell EMF, which understandably contributes to our capacity to deny the risks of exposure. Its effects accrue over time, and are proportional to the duration and intensity of exposure.
“Scientists, doctors and researchers have long accepted that ionizing radiation, such as the ultraviolet rays that accompany sunlight, or the X-rays that you are exposed to in your doctor’s or dentist’s office-can harm and destroy DNA. It has been assumed, however, that non-ionizing radiation from power-lines, television broadcasting and cell phones did not harm DNA," writes Dr. Martin Blank in "Overpowered."This is not the case. Non-ionizing radiation can react with and harm DNA which can cause mutations and even cell death and lead directly to serious medical illness.
There is incontrovertible scientific evidence supporting the seriousness and enormity of the deleterious impact of electromagnetic frequencies (EMF) upon both human health and the biosphere. The BioIntiative Report updated from 2014-2019 included 6000 studies concluded that bioeffects are clearly established to occur with very low exposure levels (non-thermal levels) to electromagnetic fields and radio frequency radiation exposures. Electromagnetic frequencies cause damage to our intricate and delicate DNA and is related to the development of cancers, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, obesity, neurodegenerative diseases, infertility, depression and anxiety.
Just as the tobacco industry suppressed the scientific evidence regarding the hazards of cigarette smoking, a similar strategy has been undertaken by lobbyists for the telecommunications industry to manufacture doubt about the negative health effects of wireless technology. There has been a repeated assertion that there is no “proven link”, that the data is inconclusive. “It appears that the response of governments and industry groups to this lack of specific cause and effect relationships between non-thermal exposure to EMF and negative heath effects has been to formulate regulations and safety standards that ignore them completely. While there is plenty of science indicating the presence of significant health risks at non-thermal levels, as far as safety standards and regulatory frameworks are concerned, EMF is harmful to humans only at levels powerful enough to result in increased temperature (the so-called thermal effect). No recognition at all is given to any potential health effects at lower, non-thermal levels of non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation even though non thermal biological effects have been scientifically demonstrated for over a century.” (Overpowered p 161)
Given our ever growing dependence on technology, exposure to EMF’s is a reality that increasingly effects all of us, but pregnant women and children are particularly vulnerable. Children absorb more microwave radiation than adults because their brain tissues are more absorbent, their skulls are thinner and their relative size is smaller. Of particular concern is children’s exposure to EMF in the classroom. Unless we learn to choose safe technology practices, today’s wireless technology continually pulses toxic microwave radiation "electrosmog" at us. This includes our wi-fi routers, cell towers, cell phones, tablets, wearables, Bluetooth, baby monitors, gaming devices, microwaves, smart meters and more.
Early symptoms of EMF exposure may include headaches, nausea, Inability to concentrate (also known as brain fog), chronic fatigue and muscle fatigue without exercise, nose and/or ear bleeds, agitation, m and more.
Symptoms resulting from EMF exposure can be indistinguishable from Mast Cell Activation Disorder, Mold Toxicity, Chronic Lyme Disease and Multiple Chemical Sensitivity. This is because the physiology underlying all of these conditions is the same: cellular inflammation. In addition it appears that these same conditions make a person more vulnerable to electro hypersensitivity. There seems to be a particular synergistic effect between exposures to chemical toxins and electro hypersensitivity.
Building biologists certified through the Building Biology Institute in Santa Fe can be consulted who will assess your home and make recommendations about how to improve its EMF health and safety. One of the most important areas of the home is the bedroom. EMF suppress melatonin production and lower sleep quality. Deep restorative sleep is essential to healing and supporting the health of the immune system.
There were individuals at the conference who were electro hypersensitive and would become very ill from exposure. Thus in the conference auditorium there was no wifi allowed and also none in the sleeping areas. Since attending the conference, and being more mindful to practice EMF safety, I have noticed that I feel cognitively sharper and am having less trouble with my memory and word finding. In addition my mood is improved and I feel less anxious. This was noticeable only after one week of reduced exposure.
I encourage all of my patients to make use technology in a safer way to mitigate against EMF exposure.
Below is a partial list of some of the steps that you can take to reduce your exposure. All of these suggestions are followed by fully elaborated explanations in Dr. Martin Blank's book. These recommendations can feel like an unwelcome hassle. But it’s important. Making even small changes can make a difference cumulatively to protect your health and the health of your loved ones.
There are two key principles:
Minimize your use of of EMF generating technology.
Maximize the distance between you and those EMF sources when they are in use.
Do not live near high voltage power lines.
Stay away from transformers.
Live as far from cell phone antennas as possible.
Don’t use electric blankets or waterbeds.
Run extension cords away from furniture and keep cords organized.
Switch from electric to battery alarm clocks.
Energy efficient appliances generate less pollution than older less efficient models
Don’t use fluorescent lights.
Don’t use dimmers of three-way switches.
Don’t use microwaves, but if you do, get out of the kitchen when the microwave is on.
Put your cell phone on airplane mode when not in use.
Don’t put your cell phone in your pocket.
Laptops are not for laps.
Minimize use of hairdryers and electric razors.
Consider using an ethernet cable rather than wifi in your home.
Turn the wifi router off at night.
Switch to plastic eyeglass frames and foam mattresses that do not function as antennas.
Two important resources are Wireless Education, a non-profit which educates about safer use of technology and the Americans for Responsible Technology. an advocacy group for the safe, reliable and responsible use of technology.
|Click here to view the source article.|
|Source: Psychology Today, Judy Tsafrir MD, 23 Oct 2019|
|We Have No Reason to Believe 5G Is Safe (blog)|
|USA||Created: 27 Oct 2019|
The technology is coming, but contrary to what some people say, there could be health risks.
The telecommunications industry and their experts have accused many scientists who have researched the effects of cell phone radiation of "fear mongering" over the advent of wireless technology's 5G. Since much of our research is publicly-funded, we believe it is our ethical responsibility to inform the public about what the peer-reviewed scientific literature tells us about the health risks from wireless radiation.
The chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) recently announced through a press release that the commission will soon reaffirm the radio frequency radiation (RFR) exposure limits that the FCC adopted in the late 1990s. These limits are based upon a behavioral change in rats exposed to microwave radiation and were designed to protect us from short-term heating risks due to RFR exposure.
Yet, since the FCC adopted these limits based largely on research from the 1980s, the preponderance of peer-reviewed research, more than 500 studies, have found harmful biologic or health effects from exposure to RFR at intensities too low to cause significant heating.
Citing this large body of research, more than 240 scientists who have published peer-reviewed research on the biologic and health effects of nonionizing electromagnetic fields (EMF) signed the International EMF Scientist Appeal, which calls for stronger exposure limits. The appeal makes the following assertions:
“Numerous recent scientific publications have shown that EMF affects living organisms at levels well below most international and national guidelines. Effects include increased cancer risk, cellular stress, increase in harmful free radicals, genetic damages, structural and functional changes of the reproductive system, learning and memory deficits, neurological disorders, and negative impacts on general well-being in humans. Damage goes well beyond the human race, as there is growing evidence of harmful effects to both plant and animal life.”
The scientists who signed this appeal arguably constitute the majority of experts on the effects of nonionizing radiation. They have published more than 2,000 papers and letters on EMF in professional journals.
The FCC’s RFR exposure limits regulate the intensity of exposure, taking into account the frequency of the carrier waves, but ignore the signaling properties of the RFR. Along with the patterning and duration of exposures, certain characteristics of the signal (e.g., pulsing, polarization) increase the biologic and health impacts of the exposure. New exposure limits are needed which account for these differential effects. Moreover, these limits should be based on a biological effect, not a change in a laboratory rat’s behavior.
The World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified RFR as "possibly carcinogenic to humans" in 2011. Last year, a $30 million study conducted by the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) found “clear evidence” that two years of exposure to cell phone RFR increased cancer in male rats and damaged DNA in rats and mice of both sexes. The Ramazzini Institute in Italy replicated the key finding of the NTP using a different carrier frequency and much weaker exposure to cell phone radiation over the life of the rats.
Based upon the research published since 2011, including human and animal studies and mechanistic data, the IARC has recently prioritized RFR to be reviewed again in the next five years. Since many EMF scientists believe we now have sufficient evidence to consider RFR as either a probable or known human carcinogen, the IARC will likely upgrade the carcinogenic potential of RFR in the near future.
Nonetheless, without conducting a formal risk assessment or a systematic review of the research on RFR health effects, the FDA recently reaffirmed the FCC’s 1996 exposure limits in a letter to the FCC, stating that the agency had “concluded that no changes to the current standards are warranted at this time,” and that “NTP’s experimental findings should not be applied to human cell phone usage.” The letter stated that “the available scientific evidence to date does not support adverse health effects in humans due to exposures at or under the current limits.”
The latest cellular technology, 5G, will employ millimeter waves for the first time in addition to microwaves that have been in use for older cellular technologies, 2G through 4G. Given limited reach, 5G will require cell antennas every 100 to 200 meters, exposing many people to millimeter wave radiation. 5G also employs new technologies (e.g., active antennas capable of beam-forming; phased arrays; massive multiple inputs and outputs, known as massive MIMO) which pose unique challenges for measuring exposures.
Millimeter waves are mostly absorbed within a few millimeters of human skin and in the surface layers of the cornea. Short-term exposure can have adverse physiological effects in the peripheral nervous system, the immune system and the cardiovascular system. The research suggests that long-term exposure may pose health risks to the skin (e.g., melanoma), the eyes (e.g., ocular melanoma) and the testes (e.g., sterility).
Since 5G is a new technology, there is no research on health effects, so we are “flying blind” to quote a U.S. senator. However, we have considerable evidence about the harmful effects of 2G and 3G. Little is known the effects of exposure to 4G, a 10-year-old technology, because governments have been remiss in funding this research. Meanwhile, we are seeing increases in certain types of head and neck tumors in tumor registries, which may be at least partially attributable to the proliferation of cell phone radiation. These increases are consistent with results from case-control studies of tumor risk in heavy cell phone users.
5G will not replace 4G; it will accompany 4G for the near future and possibly over the long term. If there are synergistic effects from simultaneous exposures to multiple types of RFR, our overall risk of harm from RFR may increase substantially. Cancer is not the only risk as there is considerable evidence that RFR causes neurological disorders and reproductive harm, likely due to oxidative stress.
As a society, should we invest hundreds of billions of dollars deploying 5G, a cellular technology that requires the installation of 800,000 or more new cell antenna sites in the U.S. close to where we live, work and play?
Instead, we should support the recommendations of the 250 scientists and medical doctors who signed the 5G Appeal that calls for an immediate moratorium on the deployment of 5G and demand that our government fund the research needed to adopt biologically based exposure limits that protect our health and safety.
Joel M. Moskowitz, PhD, is director of the Center for Family and Community Health in the School of Public Health at the University of California, Berkeley. He has been translating and disseminating the research on wireless radiation health effects since 2009 after he and his colleagues published a review paper that found long-term cell phone users were at greater risk of brain tumors. His Electromagnetic Radiation Safety website has had more than two million page views since 2013. He is an unpaid advisor to the International EMF Scientist Appeal and Physicians for Safe Technology.
|Click here to view the source article.|
|Source: Scientific American, Joel M. Moskowitz, 17 Oct 2019|
|American Kids Aren't Getting Enough Sleep and It's Affecting Their Success at School, Scientists Warn|
|USA||Created: 27 Oct 2019|
Around 30 percent of children in the US don't get enough sleep, according to scientists warning of a "public health crisis".
U.S. research found only 63.6 percent of six- to 12-year-olds and 68.1 percent of those aged between 13 and 17 were getting enough sleep on a weeknight. The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends six- to 12-year-olds get at least nine hours on an average weeknight, while 13- to 17-year-olds should aim for at least eight.
The team looked at answers from 49,050 parents of young people aged between six and 17 years old, who took part in the 2016-2017 National Survey of Children's Health. The parents detailed how much their child slept.
The survey also measured what are known as flourishing markers, such as whether the child was curious about new things; if they did all their homework; cared about doing well at school; were committed to finishing tasks; and stayed calm and in control while faced with a challenge.
The under-12s who didn't have enough sleep were less likely to be curious about learning, care about school, do their homework and finish tasks. Those in the older category had similar problems, but were also less likely to stay calm when encountering a challenge.
The authors wrote: "Chronic sleep loss amongst youth is a major public health crisis globally and is associated with a multitude of physical and mental health issues."
They went on to state: "This study demonstrates that insufficient sleep is associated with decreased childhood flourishing, which could have a critical role on the physical and mental health, school performance and well-being of children."
The study is due to be presented at the American Academy of Pediatrics 2019 National Conference and Exhibition, and has therefore not been peer-reviewed.
Dr. Hoi See Tsao, a paediatrician at Massachusetts General Hospital who co-authored the study, told Newsweek: "This research reinforces the importance of increasing efforts to maximize sleep sufficiency for children including addressing digital media usage, bedtime routines and school duration and start times.
"In addition, it can guide future recommendations to school districts and families regarding the importance of sleep, give directions for future targeted public health interventions to increase sleep sufficiency, and thereby enhance the broader effort to optimize childhood flourishing and development."
She suggested parents can help children get sufficient sleep by establishing regular bedtime routines, having all screens off at least 30 minutes before bedtime, and avoiding having any screens such as computers or televisions in children's bedrooms.
Lisa Henderson, a senior lecturer in the department of psychology at the U.K's University of York, who wasn't involved in the study, told Newsweek there is a lot of existing data showing a link between sleep and a child's academic outcomes, as well as supporting neural mechanisms of learning and memory retention.
"However, this data adds a new twist, namely that sleep deprivation may also impact on attitude to learning. An alarming number of children (even pre-adolescents) are not getting enough sleep," she said.
Henderson, an expert on how sleep can affect memory consolidation in children, argued the study was limited because the age ranges of each group assessed were "very broad" and it relied on parents being accurate.
"There are dramatic changes in sleep architecture and also school behaviors that take place from 6 to 12 years, and from 13 to 17 years. So, collapsing across these ranges may be masking important developmental changes in the nature of the relationship under investigation," she said.
The take-home message for parents, she suggested, is to "take note of how much sleep your child is getting and take active steps to maximize their sleep duration."
"Sleep is crucial for pretty much everything. It should be considered as vital as exercise and diet. Schools and parents should be looking to support and encourage healthy sleep habits in children," Henderson said.
Chen Song, of the Cardiff University Brain Research Imaging Centre, also not involved in the study, told Newsweek: "Adolescence is a sensitive period of brain remodeling and cognitive development but it is unknown whether chronic disruptive of sleep at this age will have long-term impacts on brain and behavior."
"This study tested a large sample of participants, and reported a striking impact of chronic sleep restriction during adolescence on flourishing," Song said.
|Click here to view the source article.|
|Source: Newsweek, Kashmira Gander, 10 Oct 2019|
|Let’s stop all ‘knee-jerk’ reactions to 5G|
|USA||Created: 3 Oct 2019|
The Union’s editorial board wrote on Sept 21 to “stop knee-jerk reactions to 5G.” We need to avoid both pro and con “knee-jerk” reactions. It is clear they have not done their homework on the science and legalities concerning this issue.
The Nation magazine published a ground-breaking investigative journalism article in the March 19 issue, “How Big Wireless Made Us Think That Cell Phones Are Safe: A Special Investigation: The disinformation campaign — and massive radiation increase — behind the 5G rollout.” It shows that the wireless industry has gone to much expense to cover up and obscure safety and health issues from the public, media and government for decades.
In fact, tens of thousands of scientific studies documenting serious adverse health effects of exposure to electromagnetic radiation have been published worldwide. The U.S. military has used such radiation (particularly 5G millimeter frequencies) as a weapon in the Middle East and elsewhere for “crowd dispersal.” I and other local citizens have previously sent information and references for many of these published scientific studies to local government officials as well as to The Union. Yet they don’t seem to have properly educated themselves. Now they are now trying to impose their opinions on the county. Despite statements from industry-captured agencies like the FCC and FDA, the evidence points clearly to this technology being unsafe.
Wireless telecoms still try to convince local governments that they cannot reject or regulate local wireless facility applications for health or environmental reasons because their “hands are tied” due to federal regulations of 1996 Telecommunications Act and recent “orders” issued by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).
But a landmark August 10 unanimous decision against the FCC by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit overturned the March 2018 FCC Order that eliminated environmental, health, and historic-preservation criteria for local government review of 4G and 5G “small cell” antenna applications. This means that applications should be reviewed based on NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act, including CEQA in California) and NHPA (National Historical Preservation Act) criteria.
Here are some passages from that case:
“…The [FCC] 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.”
“The FCC also failed to “adequately address possible harms of deregulation and benefits of environmental and historic-preservation review.”
“The GAO [Government Accountability Office] found in 2012 that the existing [FCC] health and safety regulations are dated and may not reflect current knowledge about the health and safety impacts of RF (radiofrequency) emissions. Because the [FCC] Order relies on these dated standards and stale scientific data . . . the Commission’s action is arbitrary and capricious and unlawful.”
“The Commission did not adequately address the harms of deregulation or justify its portrayal of those harms as negligible….The Commission did not satisfactorily consider the benefits of review….failed to address concerns that it was speeding densification without completing its investigation of . . . health effects of low-intensity radiofrequency radiation.”
From the text of the successful plaintiffs in the case:
“There is ample record evidence submitted in this proceeding of negative impacts from the widespread deployment of so-called “small” wireless facilities. This evidence…. includes references and electronic links to peer-reviewed scientific studies and letters from medical professionals. This documentation points to significant potential harm to the human body and brain functioning from RF radiation.”
“Growing evidence indicates that wireless radiation and the frequencies used in 5G can seriously impact wildlife. For example, research shows that 5G radiofrequency radiation could affect the capacity of bees and other insects to pollinate crops. Studies also indicate that this radiation can alter animal navigation, disturb honeybee colonies, damage trees, and impact other plants.”
“Published reviews on 5G, millimeter waves and wireless radiation have cataloged a host of harmful impacts, including … altered gene expression, faster cell growth, inflammatory and metabolic processes, damage to the eyes and cellular stress, memory problems, sperm damage, genetic damage, behavior issues, and brain damage.”
Another recent court decision by the California Supreme Court, April 4, T-Mobile v. San Francisco, affirmed that local governments have the authority to regulate utilities, such as wireless services and electric or water “smart meters.” Such local government bodies can restrict uses that would “incommode” the public use of roads. The court defined “incommode” to include “give inconvenience or distress or to disturb,” Including “generate noise, “cause negative health consequences,” and “create safety concerns.”
There are also additional lawsuits currently underway that will likely further limit the attempts of the FCC and wireless industry to force dangerous, dense 5G and 4G installations.
Faster, better quality internet and telecommunications technology can be safely and securely supplied through wired fiber-optic line connections, DSL and coaxial cable connections.
David Adams lives in Penn Valley.
|Click here to view the source article.|
|Source: The Union, David Adams, 01 Oct 2019|
|An Iowan sounds alarm on new cell technology some say could have serious health effects|
|USA||Created: 20 Sep 2019|
Linda Mason Hunter of Des Moines shuns smart phones in favor of an old-style flip phone, and prefers her devices be wired rather than cellular. "I've lived here 42 years," says the blogger who does a radio talk show,"Green Zone" on KFMG and was an editor for Meredith and Rodale Press. She calls the Kingman Boulevard house she shares with her husband "a healthy home." She wrote a book on how to make homes healthy.
But Hunter has grown alarmed about the next generation of wireless cellular technology known as 5G (G stands for generation, not to be confused with the 5G in your router which refers to gigahertz, or GHz). She warns that even people who don't buy those phones could be susceptible to negative health effects from the infrastructure being installed across communities.
"Numerous peer-reviewed scientific studies show that this type of radiation has both immediate and long-term health effects, including increased cancer risk, cellular stress, changes to DNA, memory deficits, neurological disorders, and insomnia," Hunter wrote. On top of which "there is growing evidence of serious risk to the planet — birds, plants, animals, every living thing, the entire ecosystem."
The new cellular technology involves emissions from relatively low-energy radio waves, microwave radiation, and pulsed millimeter waves which have the most energy, with frequencies from 30 to 100 GHz. (Existing cell phones have 2.4 GHz.) Scientists worry most about the high frequency microwave radiation and pulsed millimeter waves, which weaken the membrane around cells, transmitting radiation deeper into the body," said Dr. Magda Havas, professor emeritus at Trent University in Canada at a recent 5G Summit. She said sweat ducts and fluid in the eyes, as well as metal implants in the body, act as "antenna." lnside the cell, electromagnetic radiation can be a precursor to cancer, turning off antioxidants and allowing free radicals to build up and cause toxicity, she contended.
Industry heads don't dispute 5G will increase electromagnetic frequencies and microwave radiation manifold through transmission devices — boxed antennae installed on light and utility poles, described as a network of millions of cell sites close to the ground. They say they're meeting Federal Communications Commission guidelines.
But in a Feb. 6 Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee hearing on the future of 5G, Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Connecticut) said he had written the FCC commissioner asking for safety studies and received only general statements echoing the Food and Drug Administration, which shares regulatory responsibility for cell phones. The FDA claims to urge businesses to undertake health studies, but when Blumenthal asked industry representatives at the hearing if they'd funded any such studies, they hadn't.
Verizon is already providing 5G home internet in 11 cities and plans to bring it to Des Moines before year's end. Its website boasts connectivity 20 times the speed of 4G. But opponents warn even the microwave radiation produced from exposure to cell phones and tablets close to the body hasn't been tested in 22 years. Besides threatening human and animal health, they say, 5G technology could interfere with weather satellites and enable surveillance.
So Hunter, who has never organized a protest before, began a petition drive and voiced her concerns in a letter to Des Moines City Manager Scott Sanders, among others. He replied that cities and states are prohibited under the federal 1996 Telecommunications Act from regulating placement, construction or modification of personal wireless service facilities over environmental concerns, as long as the facilities comply with FCC regulations. State law, Sanders wrote, forbids a city from rejecting an application based on perceived effects of radio frequency emissions.
Hunter, however, contends those laws relate to radio wave frequencies but not to pulsated microwave frequencies, which are most harmful. She sent Sanders an opinion from her husband, Bob Hunter, a law professor emeritus at Drake University, faulting corporations for trying to rush 5G through with FCC assistance. He said nearly 80 cities and counties are suing in federal court claiming the FCC is exceeding its power by limiting local authority.
Verizon Spokesman David Weissman said the company follows FCC guidelines. Though declining to address the health concerns, he referred me to a July 16 New York Times piece that contends "mainstream scientists" see no evidence of harm from cellphone radio waves. The article critiques a 2000 study by physicist Bill P. Curry that suggested tissue damage increases with rising radio-wave frequency. It says Curry failed to consider "the shielding effect of human skin" in protecting cells inside the body.
In the recent summit critiquing 5G, Environmental Health Trust scientist Devra Davis referred to 1994 studies showing DNA damage to the brain cells of rats exposed to very weak pulsed signals from cell phone radiation. Studies on humans have detected rare cancers to the brain and nerves from cell phone exposure, she said. A Nov. 1, 2018, New York Times piece acknowledged evidence of links to cancer in male rats, but suggested the higher frequencies of current 4G and 5G cellphones make it harder for those radio waves to penetrate bodies.
As one not swayed by conspiracy theories, who believes children should be vaccinated, I'd paid little attention to 5G until Hunter contacted me. But I look back to when microwave ovens were first introduced in the 1980s, and consumers were warned not to stand in front of them while cooking. "Today, we have phones with the same frequency as a microwave oven, on all the time," said Stephanie McCarter, a Dallas environmental medicine specialist at the summit.
The bottom line is, until we have proper studies, we really don't know what's at stake here, and the government agencies created to protect us don't really seem to care. So it's up to communities to push for better answers.
|Click here to view the source article.|
|Source: Des Moines Register, Rekha Basu, 19 Sep 2019|
|«First ‹Previous Page 2 of 180  Next› Last»|