News for USA

«First  ‹Previous   Page 2 of 186   Next›  Last» 

Why Are Carriers Telling Us to Turn Off 5G?
USA Created: 6 Mar 2021
When carriers are telling people to turn off 5G to save battery, there's a problem, and it's not just power drain.

Both Verizon and T-Mobile were caught this week telling their users to turn off 5G to save battery, a sort of egg-on-face, foot-in-mouth situation that maybe we shouldn't read too much into. But I will! I will read more into it, because when a carrier's tech support people and its marketing people are saying opposite things, something's clearly up.

Verizon started the ball rolling with an unfortunate, now-deleted tweet telling people to "turn on [4G] LTE" on their iPhones to conserve battery. On a recent iPhone, that means turning off 5G. T-Mobile's sin appeared on a slew of device support pages, which suggest going down from 5G to 2G to preserve battery, which is really amusing. That will make your phone basically not work. T-Mobile has reduced its 2G network to an absolute minimum, mostly to support machine-to-machine devices like point-of-sale systems.

The relationship between 5G and battery drain is…tricky. The first-generation 5G phones based on the Qualcomm X50 modem frequently overheated and consumed battery very quickly, but those problems appeared to be solved with the current X55 and X60 modems. That doesn't mean 5G mode is as battery-efficient as 4G mode is, even on new phones. The current problems are more in network design.

All the carriers are guilty of often asking phones to connect to more distant 5G signals rather than nearer 4G-only signals, so they can show 5G coverage. That burns battery. T-Mobile has a long-range, low-band 5G network that uses a shorter-range, mid-band 4G network as its control channel, and your phone sometimes has to strain to hear the control channel. That burns battery. The DSS system Verizon and AT&T both use as part of their "nationwide 5G" systems was shown in a recent paper to reduce data rates and increase interference. You know what increased interference burns? Battery.

New technologies are coming to reduce 5G power consumption. As T-Mobile switches to standalone 5G, that drops the mid-band control channel and results in less battery drain. When Verizon and AT&T turn on C-band next year, they won't rely on DSS as much, which will also help battery life. Over time, more sites will have 5G and your phone won't have to stretch as much, and that means—you guessed it—less battery drain. Qualcomm is also doing some wild things with RF tuning in its new X65 chipset for next year's phones; it too will help with battery.

But ultimately the big gap here is that people are seeing their batteries dip and don't feel like they're getting anything for it. If the existing 5G has similar performance to 4G, and no exclusive applications…why not turn it off?
Click here to view the source article.
Source: PCMag, Sascha Segan, March 5, 2021

Verizon support says you should turn off 5G to save your phone’s battery
USA Created: 1 Mar 2021
This, despite the carrier’s relentless promotion of its 5G network.

Despite its relentless promotion of 5G phones and the fact that it spent more than $45 billion bidding on a new faster spectrum, Verizon support now is advising people on Twitter to turn off their phones’ 5G access to preserve battery life.

In a Sunday morning tweet, Verizon support helpfully suggested that “one way to help conserve battery life is to turn on LTE” if users found their batteries were “draining faster than normal.” That step would, of course, turn off 5G in a phone that has it available. It’s also worth pointing out that you don’t actually “turn on LTE” when doing this step — LTE is always enabled as a fallback for the 5G network. But Verizon is obviously being cautious so as not to actually tell its customers to “turn off 5G”.

Twitter users naturally pointed out that switching to LTE-only would mean turning off 5G (which is available in some newer phones), but the helpful support person said it was important to troubleshoot “steps to find the root cause of any issues with speed,” adding that Verizon is “quickly launching more 5G areas, and making updates constantly to improve speeds.” Verizon’s nationwide 5G network uses a technology called DSS, which in many instances is actually slower than the LTE network it’s trying to replace.

Verizon announced its big 5G plans for 2021 last month, after formally launching its next-gen network in October 2020. One of its top priorities is expanding coverage of its ultra-fast mmWave coverage, which is currently restricted to parts of some cities in the US. It’s also heavily dependent on how close you are to a Verizon 5G site.

Both Verizon and AT&T spent big bucks in the FCC’s Auction 107, bidding on the C-band spectrum. Verizon spent $45.4 billion— twice as much as AT&T’s $23.4 billion. AT&T’s current nationwide 5G network also relies on DSS with speeds close to or lower than 4G LTE.

The new frequencies won’t become available until the end of the 2021 at the earliest, and will be available in limited locations first.
Click here to view the source article.
Source: The Verge, Kim Lyons, 28 Feb 2021

Why I'm challenging the FCC about antiquated safety standards for wireless devices
USA Created: 24 Feb 2021
Would you let your family fly in a plane or ride in a bus that meets 25-year-old safety standards? Yet, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) assures us that wireless devices that meet last-century standards can safely be used by infants, toddlers and the rest of us.

During a fascinating hearing before the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals on Jan. 25, the FCC maintained that 1996 standards can safely apply to testing devices many of which did not exist when those standards were first established.

The FCC readily concedes it is not a health agency. For health advice, it relies on the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). In 1999, the FDA asked the National Toxicology Program (NTP), the government’s flagship testing program, to use standard animal testing protocols routinely used for extrapolation to humans and evaluate the impacts of non-thermal lifetime exposures to cellphone radiation. In 2018, the NTP issued the results of that $30 million state-of-the-art study, finding clear evidence of cancer and DNA damage.

In a remarkable about face, the FDA summarily rejected findings from the very study it had invited, reviewed and approved at several junctures, nonsensically questioning their relevance to humans, living up to its reputation as a captured agency.

In reviewing our case, Environmental Health Trust et al v. FCC, the court asked the agency to show what expert advice it had relied on to dismiss the NTP study and thousands of pages of peer-reviewed science. The FCC had invoked the Interagency Radiofrequency Radiation Work Group, but could provide no evidence that this loosely affiliated, unfunded informal federal Work Group has either met or offered the FCC any advice in the past two years.

The court then asked specifically whether the FDA had sought advice from its own Technical Electronic Product Radiation Safety Standards Committee, The FCC was forced to concede that that technical advisory committee has not met since 2016, is next scheduled to meet in fiscal 2021, and has never considered cellphone safety. In fact, that committee chiefly focuses on ensuring that electronic products do not interfere with each other. So you can be pretty sure that your phone will not block your tablet from working, but you have no idea whether either of them might interfere with your heart or cause damage to your DNA.

Apple last week admitted that its iPhone 12 needs to be kept off the body — away from any implanted pacemaker that can interfere with its operation. That hot new device sports a MagSafe gizmo so you can attach accessories magnetically and charge wirelessly. Of course, our heart is our natural pacemaker.

So, what’s a safe distance? If you have a pacemaker, more than six inches in normal use and more than a foot if charging wirelessly. But what if you just want to be sure that you will not need a pacemaker or avoid atrial fibrillation or DNA damage?

One judge noted that during the pandemic, the use of wireless radiating devices had flourished as had hours spent with them on our bodies and those of our children. Yet, the FCC was effectively asking the court to infer the absence of any health impacts from wireless radiation, without substantial evidence in the agency record, without having tasked specific designated competent agencies to look at this, and without showing it had made a systematic, rational effort to review submitted information.

The court asked: “You want us to construe, as deliberation, that silence should be construed … that these relevant committees actually deliberated, actually reviewed the record and studies. So you are asking us to infer something that’s significant.” The judge noted that agencies get a lot of discretion: “You get a long leash. But, at some point that leash goes too far and becomes unreasonable without a little bit of followup by the FCC — to make… to verify… just to pin down that the information is responsive.”

The FCC appears to be saying it need not comply with the National Environmental Policy Act requiring assessment of all major federal actions, the Administrative Procedures Act demanding record-based reasoned and rational decision-making, or the Americans for Disability Act requiring accommodations for those with disabling electromagnetic illness.

Instead, in an audacious display of regulatory chutzpah, the FCC relies on the thin evidence provided by a limited FDA review, and rejects advice from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding potential dangers to wildlife, the NTP and thousands of studies directly linking exposure to a wide range of illnesses.

Just last month, the Swiss government expert advisory group on electromagnetic fields and non-ionizing radiation released a stunning new evaluation of the experimental literature — much of which the FDA did not consider. Those experts conclude that EMF exposure, even in the low range, can cause or worsen a number of chronic illnesses, including diabetes and heart disease, and that children, the elderly and those with comorbidities, need special protections.

In 1996, Congress decided the FCC should have the primary responsibility for protecting the public from radiation exposure even though it has no health expertise and typically sides with phone companies rather than citizens. That was a mistake, and something that must be changed. But until then we have to rely on the courts to ensure the FCC fulfills its duty.

• Devra Davis is president of EHTrust.org who served as a Clinton appointee from 1994-99 and was a member of the IPCC Awarded the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize.
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Washington Times, Devra Davis, 23 Feb 2021

Is Wi-Fi Sickness a Disability? California Appellate Court Holds That It Is Under FEHA
USA Created: 24 Feb 2021
Is Wi-Fi sickness a disability? The California Court of Appeal just said it is in Brown v. Los Angeles Unified School District (2d Dist., Div. Eight), Case No. B294240. In a case that tests the limits of California’s liberal pleading standard, the appellate court green-lighted a claim of a woman who asserted a disability of “electromagnetic hypersensitivity,” or, as the concurring justice put it, “Wi-Fi sickness.”

The trial court had sustained a demurrer, granting judgment for the employer, a school district. The appellate court revived the plaintiff’s claim for failure to provide a reasonable accommodation.

The court acknowledged that it is likely the first to recognize Wi-Fi sickness as a disability under laws against discrimination. In fact, the court discussed contrary federal court authority, distinguishing those cases by concluding that the definition of “disability” in California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act is broader than in the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Apart from the holding that Wi-Fi sickness is a disability under FEHA, California employers should take note of the facts alleged about the failure to provide a reasonable accommodation.

After the school district installed a new Wi-Fi system, the plaintiff teacher complained of headaches and other symptoms caused by exposure to the electromagnetic waves. The school district initially tried to accommodate the teacher by turning off the Wi-Fi in her classroom and an adjacent one. The teacher said that her symptoms persisted and asked for additional accommodations. By that point, the school district’s consultant had reported that the Wi-Fi and radio frequencies at the school “evidenced a safe and non-hazardous working environment.” Based on that report, the school district did not grant any further accommodation, and the teacher sued.

In his concurring opinion, Justice Wiley expressed reluctance “about giving any sort of green light to this unprecedented and unorthodox disability claim.” But that’s exactly what the court did.

The decision serves as a reminder of just how easy it is to survive a pleading challenge in California.
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Lexology, Dykema Gossett PLLC, 23 Feb 2021

Apple wireless Airpod headphone users reporting tinnitus
USA Created: 14 Feb 2021
After using my AirPods for a while, I noticed a high pitched ringing in my ears (that doesn't go away). I didn't know what it was, so I looked it up and it turns out to be tinnitus. Now understand, I don't listen to music, or anything for that matter, loud. As a matter of fact, I carry a pair of earplugs in my pocket, just in case I encounter anything loud that would damage my hearing.


Having said all that, now I notice that when I put my AirPods in my ears and have nothing playing, they emit a high pitched tone that I would say exactly replicates the tone of my tinnitus, leaving me to believe that the AirPods actually caused my tinnitus.

(By time of posting this on Mast-Victims, 725 Apple customer had clicked "I have this question too".)

See Apple support forum thread via source link below...
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Apple Support Forum, MacbookProRetinaGuy, 24 Nov 2019

Judge to FCC: ‘I am Inclined to Rule Against You’
USA Created: 27 Jan 2021
During oral arguments Monday in CHD’s landmark case against the FCC, Judges appeared skeptical of the FCC's support for its own findings that cellphones and other connected devices pose no risks to human health.

Children’s Health Defense (CHD) held a press conference Tuesday regarding oral arguments Monday in its landmark case against the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

Judges Karen Henderson, Patricia Millett and Robert Wilkins sat on the D.C. Circuit panel. Judge Henderson, a chemical engineer by training, told the FCC, “I am inclined to rule against you.”

Related news:
Jan 2021, USA: 11,000 Pages of Evidence Filed in Landmark 5G Case Against the FCC, Hearing Set for Jan. 25

Judge Millet consistently pushed the FCC to answer why the FCC and/or the U.S. Food and Drug Administration didn’t review the evidence on non-cancer effects of wireless technology; why they addressed only cell phones when there is evidence on effects from various other devices and infrastructure; and why they didn’t address the cumulative effects from the chronic exposure for numerous devices.

At the end of the hearing, the panel ordered the FCC to file supplementary evidence detailing the existence and composition of the two U.S. Food and Drug Administration working groups by the end of the next business day.

CHD’s case challenges the FCC’s refusal to review its 25-year-old obsolete wireless “health guidelines” and to adopt scientific, biologically based radio frequency emissions rules that adequately protect public health from wireless devices and infrastructure, including 5G. The petitioners filed 11,000 pages of evidence at the hearing.

“This is a landmark case and it is of the utmost importance to Children’s Health Defense,” said the CHD’s Chairman Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

“The overwhelming experimental and human evidence which the FCC has ignored leaves no doubt that wireless technology is a major contributory factor to this epidemic. The FCC has shown that its chief interest is protecting the telecom industry and maximizing its profits. Its position, as put forward in its brief, and as we saw today in court, is simply indefensible.”

Children’s Health Defense and the Environmental Health Trust filed separate cases against the FCC, but filed joint briefs. While Environmental Health Trust has been represented by attorney Ed Meyers, because of a court decision that only one attorney would be allowed to present in the oral arguments, Scott McCollough, CHD’s attorney, argued for both organizations.
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Children's Health Defense Team, 27 Jan 2021

Apple issues new warning: Keep your iPhone 6 inches away from your pacemaker
USA Created: 26 Jan 2021
An important heads-up for iPhone owners: Apple is warning customers that its smartphones could interfere with medical devices, including pacemakers.

In a notice published on Apple's support page Saturday, the company expanded upon previously issued safety information, warning users that iPhones contain magnets and radios that emit electromagnetic fields, both of which "may interfere" with medical devices such as implanted pacemakers and defibrillators.

The Saturday notice specifically warns users about "the magnets inside" all four iPhone 12 models, as well as MagSafe accessories. Apple (AAPL) notes that iPhone 12 versions contain more magnets than prior iPhone models, but it also said they don't pose a greater risk of magnetic interference with medical devices than earlier models.

Apple said in the update that medical devices can contain sensors that may react to magnets or radio waves that come in close proximity. The company recommends keeping iPhones and MagSafe chargers a "safe distance" away from medical devices — which it defines as more than 6 inches apart, or 15 inches apart when wirelessly charging.

When Apple unveiled the iPhone 12 last fall, the company also announced the return of MagSafe — formerly a beloved MacBook feature — for the iPhone. Customers can buy MagSafe charging docks to wirelessly juice-up their devices, and other magnetic accessories including cases and wallets that attach to the back of the phones.

Apple did not immediately respond to a request for comment on why it is now expanding on the safety guidance. But the Heart Rhythm Journal released a report earlier this month claiming that the magnets in the iPhone 12 that make it compatible with MagSafe accessories could interfere with an implanted defibrillator.

Health experts have long cautioned not to use or hold cellphones too close to implanted medical devices — for example, warning people not to store them in shirt pockets.

"Consult your physician and medical device manufacturer for information specific to your medical device and whether you need to maintain a safe distance of separation between your medical device and iPhone or any MagSafe accessories," Apple said in the notice.
"Manufacturers often provide recommendations on the safe use of their devices around wireless or magnetic products to prevent possible interference."

If a customer feels like their iPhone 12 or MagSafe charger is interfering with their medical device, they should stop using them, Apple said.

Another thing iPhone 12 users should be aware of when using MagSafe chargers: Avoid placing credit cards, security badges, passports or key FOBs between your phone and your MagSafe charger, as the magnets might damage magnetic strips or RFID chips in these items, Apple warns. If you have a phone case that holds such items, be sure to remove them before wirelessly charging your device.
Click here to view the source article.
Source: CNN Business, Clare Duffy, 25 Jan 2021

11,000 Pages of Evidence Filed in Landmark 5G Case Against the FCC, Hearing Set for Jan. 25
USA Created: 22 Jan 2021
After the FCC last month found no evidence of harm caused by wireless technology, CHD and other groups sued — and included 11,000 pages of evidence refuting the FCC’s conclusion.

For decades, the public has been told there is no evidence that wireless technology is harmful. Claims of 5G harms have been dismissed as “conspiracy theory.”

A landmark case against the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) contests these statements and asserts that the harms are proven and that an epidemic of sickness exists.

Recently, the leading environmental and health advocacy organizations that filed the case submitted 11,000 pages of evidence in support of their claims. (Links to the evidence are provided below).

The case is being heard by the U.S. Courts of Appeals of the DC Circuit. Oral arguments are scheduled for Jan. 25 at 9:30 a.m. EST. The public can listen to it on YouTube.

In December 2019, the FCC closed an inquiry it initiated in 2013 in which the commission asked the public to submit comments to the inquiry’s docket as to whether or not the FCC should review its 1996 health guidelines for Radio Frequency (RF) radiation emitted by wireless devices and infrastructure.

About 2,000 comments — an exceptionally large number — were filed with the FCC. These comments were filed by scientists and science organizations, such as the BioInitiative and EMF Scientist, by doctors and medical organizations, by cities, such as Boston and Philadelphia, and by hundreds of individuals including parents of children who were injured by this technology. The comments referenced thousands of studies showing clear and profound evidence of harm.

Nevertheless, the FCC order, published on Dec. 4, 2019, concluded there is no evidence that wireless technology causes harm, and no need to review the guidelines. The FCC decision didn’t provide an analysis of the science, disregarded the evidence of sickness and didn’t defend its decision with evidence.

Consequently, two lawsuits were filed against the FCC. One by the Environmental Health Trust (EHT) and Consumers for Safe Cell Phones, and one by the Children’s Health Defense (CHD) and additional petitioners including Prof. David Carpenter who is the co-editor of the BioInitiative Report, the most comprehensive review of the science by 29 leading scientists and public health experts.

CHD’s case was also joined by physicians who see the sickness in their clinics and by parents of children who have become sick with radiation sickness. One petitioner is a mother whose son died from a glioblastoma, the same brain tumor that killed Beau Biden, President Joe Biden’s son.

The petitioners of both the EHT and CHD cases filed joint briefs. They argued that, considering the overwhelming evidence that was submitted to the FCC’s docket, and since the FCC’s order lacked evidence of reasoned decision-making, the FCC violated the Administrative Procedures Act and that the commission’s decision is capricious, arbitrary, abuse of discretion and not evidence-based.

The petitioners also argued that the FCC violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) because the Agency failed to consider the environmental impacts of its decision, and didn’t comply with the 1996 Telecommunications Act (TCA) because it failed to consider the impact of its decision on public health and safety.

The Opening Brief was filed by petitioners on July 29, 2020. The FCC filed its brief on Sept. 22, 2020; and the petitioners filed their Reply Brief on Oct. 21, 2020.

The court has ordered that in the oral arguments scheduled for Jan. 25, only one attorney will present the case for all the petitioners. It allocated 10 minutes for oral arguments for the petitioners as well as for the FCC.

EHT and CHD have agreed to have CHD’s attorney, Scott McCullough, former Assistant Texas Attorney General and a seasoned telecom and administrative law attorney, present the petitioners’ joint argument.

The three-judge panel in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that presides over the case includes the Honorable Karen Henderson, Patricia Millett and Robert Wilkins.

EHT is represented by attorney Edward B. Myers, who intervened in the successful case against the FCC with the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and several Native American tribes when the court upheld the relevance of NEPA in FCC proceedings.

The NRDC filed an amicus brief in the case. An amicus brief was also filed by the Building Biology Institute, and by an executive from the telecom industry, Joe Sandri. Sandri’s brief included a statement of Dr. Linda Birenbaum, director of the National Institute of Environmental and Health Services (NIEHS) from 2009-2019, stating that the evidence of carcinogenic effects of wireless technology has been established.

The evidence referenced in the case shows profound harmful effects and widespread sickness from wireless technology. The evidence (called the “Joint Appendix”) was recently filed and includes 11,000 pages of scientific and human evidence, yet, it is only the tip of the iceberg.

In this type of case only evidence that was submitted to the FCC’s docket can be used. There s much evidence that wasn’t submitted.

The Joint Appendix contains 440 documents. The table of contents alone is 54 pages. Because of the sheer volume of evidence, it had to be divided into 27 volumes. The court requires seven sets of the Joint Appendix, and therefore, 189 binders each containing approximately 500 pages were shipped to the court. The printing and shipping costs for the Joint Appendix amounted to more than $15,000.

The Joint Appendix includes references to thousands of peer-reviewed scientific studies showing DNA damage, reproductive harm, neurological effects such as ADHD, and radiation sickness, which seems to be the most widespread manifestation of wireless harms.

The evidence shows effects on the brain, including impaired blood flow and damage to the blood-brain barrier, cognitive and memory problems and effects on sleep, melatonin production and mitochondrial damage. Causal mechanism of harm was also established. Oxidative Stress, a mechanism of harm that can lead to cancer, non-cancer conditions and DNA damage, was found in 203 out of 225 studies.

Unlike industry statements, both the majority of the studies and the weight of the evidence leave no doubt that the harms are proven.

The Joint Appendix also includes reports of leading expert scientists such as the BioInitiative Report; opinions of medical associations such as the California Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics; appeals of leading expert scientists; U.S. government agencies’ reports (U.S. Access Board, NIBS, the Department of Interior, U.S. Navy, the Military, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; government studies including the recent National Toxicology Program (NTP), a $30 million study that found clear evidence of cancer and DNA damage; as well as acknowledgement of harm by U.S. government agencies and scientists contradicting the FCC position.

In December 2020, the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (NAS) issued a report determining that the most likely cause of the symptoms suffered by the U.S. diplomats in Cuba and China is Radio-Frequency (wireless) weapons. The NAS was appointed by the Department of State. The report references much of the same evidence filed in the case against the FCC.

The NAS invited Prof. Beatrice Golomb, M.D., Ph.D., to present to the committee. Golomb’s 2018 paper was the first to show that pulsed RF is the most likely explanation for the diplomats’ symptoms. She pointed out the diplomats likely suffer from the same condition experienced by growing segments of the population from wireless technology known as radiation sickness/ microwave sickness/ electrosensitivity. Golomb’s paper was referenced in the case.

Hundreds of testimonials of people who have become sick like the diplomats and statements of doctors were filed to the FCC’s docket. The petitioners argued that the FCC guidelines that deny sickness are being used to deny accommodation for the injured, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Nevertheless, the FCC denied the evidence, the sickness and did not address the accommodation issue. For those who have been injured this case has profound consequences.

“Environmental Health Trust has worked for over a decade to protect the public from radiofrequency radiation, testified to Congress and published critical research on why children are more vulnerable,” said Devra Davis Ph.D., MPH, president and founder of Environmental Health Trust. “The FCC has ignored our extensive submissions to the FCC over the years which clearly document harm. As the legacies of lead, asbestos, and tobacco teach us, this issue deserves the immediate attention of our federal government in order to protect our children’s healthy future.”

“This is a landmark case and it is of the utmost importance to the Children’s Health Defense which works relentlessly to eliminate the epidemic of sickness in children,” said the organization’s chairman, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. “The American public has been poorly served by the FCC. The FCC’s guidelines are decades-old and are based on scientific assumptions that were proven false. Its failure and disregard of public health is evident in the growing and widespread conditions involving brain damage, learning disabilities, and a host of complex neurological syndromes.”

Kennedy added: “The overwhelming experimental and human evidence which the FCC has ignored leaves no doubt that wireless technology is a major contributory factor to this epidemic. The FCC has shown that its chief interest is protecting the telecom industry and maximizing its profits, and its position as put forward in its brief is simply indefensible.”

The oral arguments are the final stage of this case. After the hearing, all that will be left is to wait for the court’s decision, said Dafna Tachover, director of CHD’s Stop 5G and Wireless Harms Project, who has initiated and led the case for CHD. “We have invested significant resources in this case and all of us worked very hard for the past 13 months. We believe that we have a strong case. Now it is up to the court. As William Wilberforce, who fought slavery said, ‘You may choose to look the other way, but you can never say again that you didn’t know.’”

Find all the evidence for download at the source link below...
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Children's Health Defense Team, 21 Jan 2021

5G Satellite Protest Rally March 19 at SpaceX, Hawthorne, CA.
USA Created: 20 Jan 2021
A number of Safe Technology, Pro-Health and Environmental organizations have come together to plan a national protest rally at the headquarters of SpaceX in Hawthorne, CA on Friday, March 19th, 2021. This event will “kick off” the next 5G Global Protest Day, scheduled for the following day, March 20th.

Protestors are calling for an immediate halt to SpaceX and other 5G satellite approvals due to inadequate assessment of the impacts of launching tens of thousands of satellites into the earth’s atmosphere. Approvals for satellites must be given only after thorough safety assessment.

5G is currently being rolled out around the world at breakneck speed. An “all things connected” world will wirelessly connect every “thing”, “event”, and place on the planet to the internet. To do so will entail a huge increase in radio frequency exposure, energy consumption, and greenhouse gas emissions from the manufacturing, use, and disposal of trillions of IoT “things”, devices and accompanying infrastructure. More and more people are questioning the harms to health, wildlife, climate, human rights, privacy and cyber security.

SpaceX and other companies are deploying thousands of low orbit satellites (potentially 100,000 or more) and complementary earth base stations, none of which have been tested for environmental safety. Dangers include depletion of the ozone layer, pollution from rocket launches and from “dead” satellites burning up in the atmosphere, radiation levels that exceed even the FCC’s antiquated maximum exposure limits, mega energy consumption, projected tripling or more of energy, permanent compromise of the night sky, space debris accumulation and likely satellite collisions, interference with astronomical research and weather forecasting, and effects on wildlife and humans.

Unfortunately, SpaceX is not the only company launching satellites. One Web, Telesat, Amazon, Facebook and Lynk all have plans to join the global 5G race. Many other countries also have their own satellite programs.

Wired technology such as fiber or coaxial cable is safer, faster and far more reliable and cyber secure than wireless. Wired connections should be used for the vast majority of all internet and telecommunications technology, reserving wireless for emergency use, and recognizing that the cultivated demand for always-on wireless data harvesting, under the guise of connectivity, is unnecessary, unsustainable and a breach of privacy.

Collaborating organizations include Stop 5G International, the International Appeal to Stop 5G on Earth and in Space, Environmental Health Trust, Americans for Responsible Technology, Children’s Health Defense, Moms Across America, and 5G Free California

For questions contact David Goldberg, 5G Colorado Action at dgoldberg36@gmail.com

For more information, visit https://stop5ginternational.org/5g-spacex-satellite-protest-march-19-2021/
Facebook – https://www.facebook.com/groups/548912049259423/
Twitter – https://twitter.com/Stop_5G_Intl
Instagram – https://www.instagram.com/stop5ginternational/

Consider also signing and sharing the Healthy Heavens Trust Declaration, https://www.5g-ilan.com
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Stop 5G International, 17 jan 2021

Going for broke: 5G Rivals Face an $81 Billion Tab After Spectrum Buying Spree
USA Created: 19 Jan 2021
AT&T, Verizon expected to turn to bond markets and banks to finance bids in record-setting FCC airwaves auction.

Bidders spent a record $80.9 billion in a U.S. government airwaves-license sale, capping a frenzied auction that will demand a commensurate wave of borrowing in an already-indebted telecom sector.

AT&T Inc., Verizon Communications Inc. and others competed in the Federal Communications Commission’s sale of C-band spectrum rights—a hot commodity for cellphone carriers seeking more frequencies for 5G services. The sale ended Friday ahead of a second phase that determines the specific frequencies each company will receive.

The public won’t likely learn the names of the auction’s winners for several weeks, but Wall Street is already taking cues from traditional network operators seeking loans or issuing bonds that could be used to foot the bill.

AT&T is in talks with banks about a possible one-year loan of around $14 billion and recently borrowed about $3.5 billion in the short-term commercial-paper market, according to people familiar with the matter. T-Mobile US Inc. raised $3 billion through a high-yield bond sale earlier this month. Verizon is widely expected to issue bonds in the coming weeks, analysts said.

The new debt this year adds to several billion dollars in bonds that carriers issued in 2020 before the auction started. AT&T’s discussion with banks was earlier reported by Bloomberg News...
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Wall Street Journal, Drew Fitzgerald & Sam Goldfarb, 17 Jan 2021

«First  ‹Previous   Page 2 of 186   Next›  Last» 
 News item: