|«First ‹Previous Page 2 of 747  Next› Last»|
|5G – a building biology perspective|
|Germany||Created: 2 May 2020|
Everybody is talking about 5G - The electrosmog debate has been stirred up again and all those concerns about the exposure to electromagnetic fields as well. The industry in particular, but also many other people would like to have faster and more powerful data networks. Yet others are concerned about radiation risks and data security. So what can building biology contribute to the solution, what do we know so far, and what do we have to expect from the future development of our ambient wireless environment?
5G – what is it?
5G refers to the latest generation of wireless technologies for cellular networks. This fifth generation goes well beyond basic communication between cell phones or the mobile Internet. After the first generation (1G) of analog networks (A, B, and C) in the 1960s and 1980s and the digital standards of the second generation (2G) GSM (D, E networks since 1991), the third generation (3G) UMTS/HSPA (since 2000), as well as the fourth generation (4G) LTE (since about 2010), wireless communication is now even faster (latency or response times will be about 1 millisecond).
It is not anymore just about communication from person to person, but also from person to machine as well as from machine to machine, including such applications as the Internet of Things (IoT), smart homes, autonomous driving, telemedicine, intelligent power supply, smart metering, smart farming, or smart cities. These applications have come to infiltrate our daily lives at an accelerated pace. The new model VW Golf 8, for example, is designed to be online at all times and stay connected with the cloud. This car can also talk to other cars and to the driver’s home. The goal of 5G developers and providers is the “totally connected society.”
New bandwidths, frequencies, and pulses
5G offers many new technical advancements. Besides the previously mentioned extremely fast transmission speed, data rates are also very high. With up to 10 gigabits per second – ten times more than LTE – the electromagnetic signals require a greater bandwidth. First measurements of active 5G cell antenna sites in Germany (e.g. in Düsseldorf, Cologne, or Darmstadt) showed “frequency hills” as wide as 50 or 100 MHz.
The initial 5G carrier frequencies will be not much different from the ones currently in use with 4G: Previous networks (2G, 3G, and 4G) mostly operated at 800 MHz, 900 MHz, 1800 MHz, 2100 MHz, and 2600 MHz and networks used inside homes such as Wi-Fi/WLAN (wireless local area network) and cordless phones (DECT) at 1900 MHz, 2.4 GHz, and 5.2–5.7 GHz. 5G networks will at first mainly use 3.4–3.7 GHz, from 2021 also 2.1 GHz. In Germany, four telecommunications providers secured those frequencies (for a total revenue of ca. 6.6 billion euro) during an auction in spring 2019. In addition to Telekom, Vodafone, and Telefonica, there is now also 1&1 Drillich.
The significantly higher frequency ranges of about 24–28 GHz and 32–33 GHz or even higher, which are often hotly debated, will most likely only become deployed in a few years.
So-called pulses – which constantly and strictly periodically switch the wireless signals on and off, several times per second – are expected to be similar to LTE because the modulations are similar (e.g. 100 Hz or 2000 Hz). There will be a new pulse of 50 Hz, at least in the frequency range about 3.5 GHz (due to the TDD modulation used). During our first measurements, these nonstop pulses could also be clearly shown, both in “zero span” mode of a spectrum analyzer and as an audio signal with broadband RF meters.
New antennas and cell sizes
When we analyze and evaluate 5G signals, it is important to consider the new antenna design. They are called “smart,” especially since they are able to form beams of radio and microwaves (so-called beamforming). As a result, wireless radiation is not spread indiscriminately everywhere, but it is directed, at least the main portion of it, toward the user of a smartphone or other mobile device. The emissions in the user’s direction will be possibly higher and thus greater safety distances must be calculated for cell antenna sites. In the past, safety distances around cell antennas ranged typically from 3 to 9 meters and now rather from 15 to 20 meters, as documented in the site certificates of the German Federal Network Agency.
New is also the much more frequent deployment of so-called small cells, whose coverage extends to just 200 meters. They are, for example, mounted at street lights, traffic lights, on-street parking meters, utility poles, garbage cans, or house facades, but also inside buildings. Though the transmit power of small cells is lower, people are also much closer to these (small and almost invisible) antennas; in addition, cellular network providers are not required to have a site certificate (due to the low output power below 10 W) because the exposure limits of the 26th Federal Pollution Control Ordinance do not apply here (however, the sites are to be reported to the German Federal Network Agency).
There are hardly any research results available about risks specifically associated with the use of 5G wireless radiation. Already in 2017, more than 180 scientists and physicians from 36 countries signed an appeal. In this appeal, they warn of severe health risks associated with 5G wireless technologies and recommend putting a moratorium on the deployment of the fifth generation of wireless communication technologies until possible risks to human health and the environment have been fully researched by industry-independent scientists. They also state that it has been proven that radio-frequency electromagnetic fields are harmful to human health and the environment. The use of 5G will significantly increase the exposure to electromagnetic fields in the radio-frequency range since this new layer of signals will be added to the already existing networks of GSM, UMTS, LTE, Wi-Fi, and so on.
Since mid-band frequencies of 800, 2000, and 3500 MHz feature similar modulations and/or pulses as are found in GSM and LTE, associated risks are also expected to be similar. Should the above-described 50 Hz pulse turn out to be present at all times, this could make for more serious effects.
Regarding high-band frequencies above 20 GHz, we know rather little and rather little research has been done so far. Due to their short wavelengths, these waves hardly penetrate the body, but are absorbed at the surface of the body. First studies suggest that adverse health effects predominantly occur in eyes, skin, and sweat glands, possibly also ECG effects.
It is the official position of the Federal Office for Radiation Protection in Germany that any developments shall be closely watched, but that the compliance with the exposure limits of the 26th German Federal Pollution Control Ordinance are sufficient for now.
Will the exposure to wireless radiation increase with 5G?
Based on the currently available scientific evidence, it is not possible to answer with a clear: yes or no. Due to the higher amount of data that can be transmitted, there will certainly also be an increase in total transmissions. And with many more antennas and smaller cell sizes, people will get much closer to them. (Consequently, personal exposure levels in the immediate vicinity of small cell antennas can be higher despite the antennas’ lower output power). Because of the characteristic beamforming, it could also be possible that in some – or even many? – locations where 5G is available, but not actively used by a user, exposure levels could even be much lower compared to LTE.
Furthermore, the higher frequencies about 3.5 GHz are typically much more strongly attenuated than those at 2 GHz or even 1 GHz, which is why in the former case indoor exposure levels could be lower.
The pending shutdown of the UMTS networks will result in some reduction of exposure levels. So this specific type of wireless radiation, also including its pulses and risks, will disappear; however, these very frequencies will be added to 5G networks and thus exposures in this frequency band will continue to occur after all.
In the future, possibly many new devices will operate at 5G frequencies inside buildings, which may contribute to much higher indoor exposure levels. It will be important to review on a case-by-case basis how much, how often, when, and where a given network is actively transmitting.
Caution is advised with higher frequencies, which are expected to be deployed later. As discussed earlier, in this higher frequency range, there will probably be other or additional risks.
Whether smartphones in 5G mode will emit more radiation than handsets in 2G, 3G, or 4G mode remains to be seen; 5G emission levels are currently not known or have not yet been measured by us (though the levels of intensity will most likely be similar to previous ones).
Currently, there are 2000 telecommunications satellites zipping around the Earth and about 10,000 new ones are planned to be added – with 5G capabilities. From a building biology perspective, it could be an advantage that the great distance to the Earth’s surface translates into very low exposure levels (lower than 0.1 µW/m²), though admittedly everywhere.
Building biology recommendations
Everybody is encouraged both to raise awareness in a factual and constructive way among family members, friends, and coworkers and to campaign against 5G antennas or for installations with the lowest emissions possible. (Unfortunately, many of the 5G antennas will not be subject to approval so that actions in this regard may be limited.) The consumer protection organizations “Diagnose Funk” and “Kompetenzinitiative,” which fight against wireless radiation pollution, are here to help you, but also need your support.
To reduce your personal exposure, it is best to choose high-mass building materials; in the case of lightweight construction – for the entire building or just the roof structure – a layer of shielding material should be integrated. Shielding materials (paints, fabrics, screens), which have been in common use to date, do not show much of a difference in their shielding effectiveness in the frequency range from around 1 to 3 GHz compared to current sources of wireless radiation such as 2G, 3G, 4G, Wi-Fi, DECT, etc. At higher frequencies above 20 GHz, mesh materials such as fabrics and screens are less effective, but high-mass building materials and continuous surface treatments such as paints are more effective.
If in doubt, have exposure levels verified by measurements; looking up the EMF Monitor at the German Federal Network Agency (or equivalent databases of cellular antennas in other countries) can already reveal important information.
It will be important to ensure that devices and systems with 5G wireless antennas (or other wireless technologies) are not installed inside buildings unless they can be disabled – at least at night, there should be wireless silence. Whenever possible, smart home applications should use hardwired solutions via network cables or cable bus systems. (In new construction, an abundance of data cables should be run.) Caution is also advised with all electrical appliances that come equipped with wireless functions: Either do without wireless functions or make sure that the wireless mode used only transmits infrequently and for short periods.
From a building biology perspective, it is generally recommended not only to focus on 5G, but also to consider other stress factors (e.g. ELF electric and magnetic fields, static electric and magnetic fields, formaldehyde, radioactivity, etc.) and to always take a holistic approach to problem solving, measurements, and mitigation.
Many things regarding 5G are not yet known, but enough to use caution and to reduce one’s exposure to 5G radiation as much as possible. One thing is for sure, the introduction of 5G will lead to an increased personal exposure in various situations, at work, in public, or even at home. It is possible, as discussed above, that wireless radiation levels may drop compared to current levels. The how and where of exposure levels must be verified on a case-by-case basis, preferably with measurements.
The main goal of the building biology approach is to keep the sleep environment as free of wireless radiation exposure as possible, also including 5G. With regard to indoor wireless sources, main strategies include prudent avoidance, shutting off devices, or keeping a safe distance; with regard to outdoor wireless sources, shielding measures are in order.
How to measure 5G
Ideally, spectrum analyzers are used to measure 5G signals, which allow for the most detailed measurements. Depending on the situation, broadband RF meters can also be used. In the latter case, there will be certain measurement errors due to “crest factors” similar to LTE and even higher bandwidths, but they should all be manageable in the context of building biology assessments.
In any case, the measurement device must cover the frequencies used: Since many 5G applications will transmit around 3.4-3.7 GHz, spectrum analyzers or broadband RF meters must at least detect up to 4 GHz. For higher frequencies above 10 GHz, there are no broadband meters available as of yet and only very few building biology professionals own spectrum analyzers that can detect such high frequencies.
In the building biology community, experience with 5G measurements is still rare. Owing to the low traffic on 5G networks at this time, first measurements should be treated with caution. In the future, measuring 5G signals will be most likely rather difficult because of the great fluctuations in power levels, depending on who transmits how much data where. For example, emissions from base station antennas to mobile devices will at least partly form beams. How should one calculate maximum power levels based on random measurements? And when there is no data traffic, 5G emissions may even be shut off completely!? These aspects will present new challenges to 5G exposure measurements.
|Click here to view the source article.|
|Source: Baubiologie Magazine, Dr. Manfred Mierau, 26 Apr 2020|
|Glastonbury calls for 5G inquiry|
|United Kingdom||Created: 30 Apr 2020|
Following six months of investigation, Glastonbury Town Council has resolved unanimously to adopt the recommendations of their ‘5G Advisory Committee’, which was set up in 2019 to explore the safety of 5G technology.
The recommendations include:
writing to MPs asking them to establish an inquiry into the safety of 5G;
calling for the UK Government and Public Health England to undertake an independent scientific study into:
The non-thermal effects of 5G, and
and lobbying the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) to take into account the non-thermal effects of radiofrequency EMFs in their Guidelines on Limiting Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields.
In addition to the recommendations, Glastonbury Town Council resolved unanimously to continue their adoption of the Precautionary Principle; opposing the roll-out of 5G until further information is made available on the safety or otherwise of the technology.
“The Town Council is greatly indebted to the members of the 5G Advisory Committee, who have met regularly; collected and studied a large volume of literature – and received presentations from a number of academics and professionals, including the Director of Mobile UK, the organisation overseeing the roll-out of 5G in the UK.
As chair of the advisory committee, I have been impressed by the number of councils and local authorities who have been in contact; requesting copies of the committee’s report and recommendations… However, I must stress that a Town Council, such as Glastonbury, has absolutely no power to stop the roll-out of 5G, which is why it is so important to bring our report to the attention of MPs, the Government, Public Health England, and the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection.”
Cllr. Jon Cousins, Deputy Mayor of Glastonbury, and Chair of the 5G Advisory Committee.
*** See source link below for full report ***
|Click here to view the source article.|
|Source: Glastonbury Town Council, 29 Apr 2020|
|FCC blocked from dismissing lawsuits|
|USA||Created: 29 Apr 2020|
On April 1st, 2020, the FCC finally published its December 4, 2019 “RF Order” (FCC 19-126) in the Federal Register. The Federal Register notice addresses the FCC’s outrageous refusal to update its radiofrequency (RF) exposure limits or reconsider whether outer ears should be treated differently than other extremities since users often place cell phones on the ear (Docket 13-84), the final rule amendments making it easier to prove compliance with the outdated rules (Docket 03-137). The publication in the Federal Register follows Children’s Health Defense’s (CHD) motion in its case against the FCC, CHD v FCC, to force the FCC to publish its decision. As a result, the FCC will have no basis to seek dismissal of CHD’s or the Environmental Health Trust’s (EHT) case and will likely prevent the FCC from being able to control venue – where the cases will be heard. The FCC much prefers the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
The Federal Register is part of the National Archives and Records Administration. It is the official “newspaper” of the federal government. Every decision, order, regulation or law must be published in the Register. The office annually compiles all current regulations into bound volumes of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Most federal agency actions are not effective or final for judicial review purposes until they are published in the Federal Register.
On December 4, 2019 the FCC closed Docket 13-84 and released FCC 19-126. There were 2 relevant actions: a “Resolution of Notice of Inquiry” in ET Docket No. 13-84 regarding “Reassessment of Federal Communications Commission Radiofrequency Exposure Limits.” The FCC decided there is no evidence of harm from wireless technology and therefore, no need to review the RF safety guidelines. Most appalling was the FCC’s refusal to reconsider the impact on children or take into account that many users still place their cell phones right on their ear, and thereby receive more radiation exposure than the rules contemplate. CHD’s case (Petition for Review) against the FCC, claim the decision is arbitrary, capricious, not evidence based and an abuse of discretion. The FCC also released a “Second Report and Order” and Memorandum Opinion and Order” in ET Docket No. 03-137. This part amended the existing exposure guidelines to allow industry to even more prodigiously inflict harm on an unsuspecting and vulnerable public.
Under the Administrative Procedure Act, an injured party can sue the FCC within 60 days of the “date of public notice,” which is usually understood to be the date of publication in the Federal Register. However, 60 days after the FCC released its decision, the decision was not published in the Federal Register. To prevent any FCC argument that the window for review petitions closed on the 60th day after the December 4, 2019 release Children’s Health Defense filed a case in the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on February 2, 2020. The Environmental Health Trust filed a case as well, 2 days earlier, in the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
Under federal law, when cases are submitted in different courts against the same government agency’s decision, the cases are transferred to one court. The venue is typically determined by a multi-jurisdictional panel in what is referred to as the “lottery process.”
The FCC, however, devised a nefarious plan that would allow it to control timing and venue and even perhaps block judicial review. It purposefully delayed publication to prevent the lottery and push venue to the court it prefers – the DC Circuit – and potentially even obtain dismissal or a long delay until it finally got around to publishing notice. The FCC’s efforts to get the case out of the Ninth Circuit and before the DC Circuit strongly indicates FCC thinks it will do better there and would have a harder time defending the decision before the Ninth circuit.
On 2/12/2020 the FCC submitted a Motion to Transfer, asking the Ninth Circuit to transfer CHD’s case to the DC Circuit claiming that because EHT’s submitted the case two days before CHD, EHT has won a “race to the courthouse” and the cases should be heard in the DC Circuit Court. EHT submitted an Amicus Brief in support of the FCC motion to transfer our case to the DC circuit based on the same argument. CHD replied that the “race” never started because the “starting gun” (Federal Register publication) had never sounded, and, indeed, there was not supposed to be a race at all.
Scott McCollough, the attorney who leads CHD’s case together with Robert F. Kennedy Jr., saw through the FCC’s the FCC’s effort to game the rules, and quickly responded. CHD submitted a “Motion for Affirmative Relief and an Opposition to Motion to Transfer” on 2/18/20. CHD’s motion claimed the FCC was purposely withholding publication in the Federal Register. It further explained that under the courts’ procedural rules and statutes once Federal Register publication happens petitioners have a 10 day window to invoke the lottery process. This means that where the cases should be heard should not be based on a “race to the courthouse.” The Motion states:
“The Motion to Transfer is the FCC’s opening move in a game of “gotcha.” If the FCC prevails on its motion the Commission will promptly reverse course, abandon its apparent contention before this Court that the “Order” is presently reviewable, and tell the D.C. Circuit that since there has been no Federal Register publication both cases are “premature” and must be dismissed. If the D.C. Circuit agrees the FCC will succeed in completely immunizing the “Order” from any review whatsoever until the FCC gets around to publishing notice, if it ever does so.”
The FCC obviously realized its gambit would not work, so it finally stopped trying to delay and went forward with publication. CHD’s efforts won the day. We forced the FCC to publish in the Register; prevented the FCC from being able to dismiss the cases claiming they are premature; and ensured that the proper process to set venue is used: a Multi-Jurisdictional panel lottery process (rather than the FCC) should now decide which court will hear CHD’s & EHT’s cases. The 4/1/20 publication means the two review petitions will soon be able to move forward to consideration on the merits.
|Click here to view the source article.|
|Source: Childrens Health Defence, Dafna Tachover, 01 Apr 2020|
|Electrohypersensitivity: How to Diagnose, Treat, and Prevent It|
|France||Created: 29 Apr 2020|
Since 2009, we built up a database which presently includes more than 2000 electrohypersensitivity (EHS) and/or multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS) self-reported cases.
This database shows that EHS is associated in 30% of the cases with MCS, and that MCS precedes the occurrence of EHS in 37% of these EHS/MCS-associated cases.
EHS and MCS can be characterized clinically by a similar symptomatic picture, and biologically by low-grade inflammation and an autoimmune response involving autoantibodies against O-myelin.
Moreover, 80% of the patients with EHS present with one, two, or three detectable oxidative stress biomarkers in their peripheral blood, meaning that overall these patients present with a true objective somatic disorder.
Moreover, by using ultrasonic cerebral tomosphygmography and transcranial Doppler ultrasonography, we showed that cases have a defect in the middle cerebral artery hemodynamics, and we localized a tissue pulsometric index deficiency in the capsulo-thalamic area of the temporal lobes, suggesting the involvement of the limbic system and the thalamus.
Altogether, these data strongly suggest that EHS is a neurologic pathological disorder which can be diagnosed, treated, and prevented.
Because EHS is becoming a new insidious worldwide plague involving millions of people, we ask the World Health Organization (WHO) to include EHS as a neurologic disorder in the international classification of diseases.
|Click here to view the source article.|
|Source: Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, Belpomme, D.; Irigaray, P, 11 Mar 2020|
|Petition: Delay 5G in the UK until there’s been an independent investigation|
|United Kingdom||Created: 28 Apr 2020|
I would like to see a full independent investigation and report to declare the findings on the 5G network in relation to radio activity and the health implications.
The inquiry should be undertaken by independent medical institutions that are not linked in any way to the telecoms industry, to ensure they are impartial to the findings of health in relation to 5G.
As a member of the public, I demand to know the truth in regards how safe 5G is.
Sign the petition here: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/312997
|Click here to view the source article.|
|Source: Petition Parliament, Claudia Pinto, 20 Apr 2020|
|The Lies Must Stop — Disband ICNIRP|
|USA||Created: 11 Apr 2020|
Facts Matter, Now More Than Ever.
We’re all frazzled and anxious. The world has changed, seemingly overnight, and we don’t know when and how we will ever go back to normal —whatever that means. One thing we don’t have to worry about is whether 5G radiation is responsible for COVID-19. It’s not. There’s no credible evidence to suggest otherwise.
Yet, there is at least one parallel between how we’ve been struggling with COVID-19 over the last few months and how we have been dealing with electromagnetic radiation for the last few decades in the U.S. and elsewhere: Science has taken a back seat to politics.
The public has been fed lies and half-truths about the health effects of RF/microwave radiation for as long as I have been involved, since the 1970s. The campaign has created a culture of confusion. In this environment, why would anyone be surprised that sensational conspiracy theories about 5G have found a footing?
The Microwave News website is full of articles describing how the public has been misled time and time again. In my latest article, I offer two current examples from those who are supposed to serve as the world’s experts, the members of the International Commission of Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, ICNIRP for short.
Read the full story here:
Louis Slesin, PhD
Editor, Microwave News
|Click here to view the source article.|
|Source: Microwave News, Louis Slesin, 09 Apr 2020|
|WATCH: Debate raging on link between 5G technology, coronavirus pandemic|
|South Africa||Created: 26 Mar 2020|
Dr Thomas Cowan hypothesises that the coronavirus may be history repeating itself and caused by 5G at the Health And Human Rights Summit in Tucson, Arizona.
Cape Town – Claims that 5G technology played a role in spreading the coronavirus worldwide would have further alarmed residents concerned about the impact of its roll-out in Cape Town.
China was reportedly the first country to have more than 100 000 5G towers, with Wuhan being the first to contract the new coronavirus.
It has been claimed that Wuhan was the first city to introduce blanketed 5G, with Iran, cruise ships and Italy being among other places where 5G was introduced.
In a video recorded at the Health And Human Rights Summit in Tucson, Arizona, on March 12, doctor and anthroposophist Thomas Cowan says every time a fundamentally new electrical technology is introduced, we see a pandemic.
"A biological shock wave occurs, because our organism does not know what to do with the stressful new situation. Many people die and the rest survive, but with an excited biology," Cowan said.
This happened in 1918 with the Spanish flu, which occurred with the worldwide introduction of radio traffic.
Cowan says when they asked renowned anthrophosist Rudolf Steiner about the millions of victims of the Spanish flu in 1918, he replied: "Viruses have nothing to do with it. Viruses are reactions of the poisoned cell that, in defence against the poison itself, secretes the viruses to allow the cell to survive.
"Viruses are therefore waste products of the human cells and therefore do nothing themselves.”
Considering the numerous ways in which people are poisoned by antibiotics, radiation, insecticides, radioactivity, medicines, junk food, polluted water and air, and other harmful substances, Cohen says their resistance and their cells are destroyed. The cells themselves secrete the viruses as a defence response.
One version of 5G, called millimeter wave, runs on very high-frequency radio waves. Those signals can't travel long distances, which requires towers to be placed close together and installed in more locations.
That has reignited worries that the 5G radio waves – emanating from land and in space – could produce harmful radiation, causing brain cancer, reduced fertility, headaches and other illnesses.
5G will supposedly be 600 times faster than the current speed of 4G mobile networks, and 10 times faster than the fastest fibre-optic connection in South Africa.
More than 4 000 people have signed a petition on www.change.org to "Stop 5G rollout in Cape Town, South Africa. and while we're at it, the world".
The petition motivation says: "Our health may be under threat on many levels (depending on proximity). Wireless technologies (microwaves) have been shown in countless peer reviewed studies (links below) to have negative effects on cell health, be they minor and debilitating, or severe.
"5G now poses an even more poorly controlled potential threat with extremely high frequency, short range antennas almost everywhere.
"The roll-out has started around the globe with a suspicious urgency on the part of the corporations responsible. To the point of legal immunity from appeals from concerned communities. However, some have succeeded in the USA and hopefully will have an easier time elsewhere…
"It is not enough for local authorities to say that they follow the guidelines for safety, as new standards are desperately needed, tested on actual living cells, drawing from all the research done over the past 20 years.
"It has been shown many times over now, that not only ionizing radiation/heating has a noteworthy effect on cells and that non-ionizing radiation has plenty of effects."
Hout Bay local Angie Curtis has also organised a Facebook group opposed to 5G technology.
“If we allow the 5G Trojan Horse to enter our cities, we will be condemning ourselves to a future of ever-escalating exposure to harmful wireless radiation that will accompany 5G and beyond,” Curtis says.
However, Professor Antoine Bagula, head of the Department of Computer Science at the University of the Western Cape, told the Weekend Argus in November last year: “What is different with 5G compared to other technology is that it’s using high frequencies. It will be much more powerful radiation.
"But the good news is that when you look at the electromagnetic spectrum, there is ionising and non-ionising radiation.
“The ionising is like X-rays and gamma rays – these are the ones which are dangerous to health, which can produce cancer. But 5G is deployed in non-ionising frequencies.”
The 5G claims were also debunked by FullFact, a UK fact checker.
"As we’ve written about before, there is no evidence that 5G is harmful to humans. 5G is the next generation of wireless network technology, following on from 4G.
"Like 4G, 3G and 2G before it, 5G mobile data is transmitted over radio waves – a small part of the whole electromagnetic spectrum (which includes microwaves, visible light and X-rays).
"These radio waves are non-ionising, meaning they don’t damage the DNA inside cells.
"Public Health England has said that there’s no 'convincing evidence' that exposure below the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation guidelines can cause adverse health effects.
"These guidelines go up to 300GHz, whereas the maximum for 5G will probably only be in the tens of GHz.
"And regardless, the claimed symptoms of 5G exposure shown don’t match the symptoms of the new coronavirus.
"The post claims that symptoms of 5G exposure include nausea, hair loss and bone marrow damage but the symptoms of Covid-19 include fever and coughing.
"Other symptoms include shortness of breath, aches and pains, nasal congestion, runny nose, sore throat or diarrhoea."
Keri Hilson, an American singer with 4.2 million followers on Twitter, on Sunday sent several tweets that attempted to link the coronavirus to 5G.
"People have been trying to warn us about 5G for YEARS. Petitions, organizations, studies... what we're going thru is the affects (sic) of radiation. 5G launched in CHINA. Nov 1, 2019. People dropped dead."
The Food and Drug Administration and Federal Communication Commission in the US insist there is nothing to be worried about. Most studies haven't found a link between radio frequency signals from cellphones or cell towers and disease, the agencies say.
But because 5G is so new, there's no definitive way to know if it will cause long-term health problems.
|Click here to view the source article.|
|Source: IOL, 18 Mar 2020|
|Is 5G really worth developing?|
|United Kingdom||Created: 23 Mar 2020|
Is developing a 5G network viable in a world reeling from the effects of coronavirus?.
The massive investment required to get 5G up and running is making a lot of people look closely at their budgets and the value of the technology, says Dr Ramsey Faragher, founder and CEO of Cambridge-based Focal Point Positioning.
The weight of 5G technology being added to masts is the first challenge, says the GPS expert, whose ‘supercorrelation’ technology dramatically improves GPS accuracy.
“The physical infrastructure in the ground will need to be changed if the masts are not strong enough to hold the 5G structures,” Dr Faragher notes. “5G can use five times the amount of power consumption than is used currently and is much heavier - not all existing masts can support those changes.”
The uncertainty comes as the first UK mobile operator switches on its 5G service, and 5G gaming platforms start up in the US. The main 5G markets are in Japan, South Korea and the US. But the technology is hugely controversial, with concerns about the increased exposure to radio frequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) on one side set against those who say the risks are negligible. In the middle are those who suggest we have no reason to believe the technology is safe.
Another view is that 5G simply isn’t necessary. Dr Faragher says the William Webb book, The 5G Myth, “has been saying 5G isn’t needed basically”. Prof Webb’s argument is that 4G still hasn’t been fully utilised and should be before the costs of 5G become justifiable. Dr Faragher says improving efficiency is the solution.
“We’re trying to get to the bottom of how useful we can be for 5G,” he says. “The massive MIMO involved is very expensive.”
Multiple Input/Multiple Output - “MIMO” - refers to the use of multiple transmitters and receivers (multiple antennas) on wireless devices for improved performance.
“The equipment required to the masts is very heavy and uses a lot of power so the network operators are looking to lower costs and there is another method.
“Electronics beam steering is where the handset tells the mast where it is. The mast points a narrow beam to the phone and keeps it in use as you move. This method is cheaper in power terms and in the size of the masts required, as well as the amount of data processing required - but the device needs to be very accurate to tell the mast your location but this would involve lower costs and higher efficiency. We’re chipping away at this: speaking to people involved in the technology is important at this time.
“Traditional 4G sectoring uses three 120-degree beams to cover all of he directions around the mast.” In order to give you much higher bandwidths 5G “dedicates more of the frequency to you by only using a very narrow 20-degree beam - rather than 120 - and as you move around this beam needs to be steered to keep pointing at you. One way to enable this is for the phone to keep telling the mast exactly where it is - indoors or outside. So accurate positioning is very important.”
Focal Point Positioning was started in 2015 and has since successfully built two products based on supercorrelation: S-GPS and D-Tail. Both involve proprietary software-based improvements to existing technology by using GPS. S-GPS puts new software inside the GPS chip itself, and D-Tail provides its improvements outside the GPS chip, by combining data from other sensors with advanced models of movement. Thecompany employs 28 people.
“We’ve been working very hard for five years filing the patents and building the software, and now it’s coming to fruition,” says Dr Faragher, whose company has been funded by venture capital thus far, with revenues from D-Tail and S-GPS commencing this year.
The company is “in the middle of negotiating a licensing deal with a major smartphone company, and has signed a deal with a major chip maker” which will include supercorrelation features in 2021 smartphones, thereby ensuring that those nagging issues of not being able to use your smartphone in busy areas or shops will soon be permanently eradicated.
|Click here to view the source article.|
|Source: Cambridge Independent, Mike Scialom, 23 Mar 2020|
|Electromagnetic Radiation due to Cellular, Wi-Fi and Bluetooth technologies: How safe are we?|
|India||Created: 9 Mar 2020|
Surprisingly, this article has been accepted for publication by the IEEE even though it concludes that use of wireless equipment is definitely hazardous.
ABSTRACT: The electromagnetic radiation (EMR) emitted out of wireless communication modules invarious electronic devices have been identified by researchers as biologically hazardous to humans as well as other living beings.
Different countries have different regulations to limit the radiation density levels caused by these devices.
The radiation absorbed by an individual depends on various factors such as the device they use, the proximity of use, the type of antenna, the relative orientation of the antenna on the device, and many more.
Several standards exist which have tried to quantify the radiation levels and come up with safe limits of EMR absorption to prevent human harm. In this work, we determine the radiation concern levels in several scenarios using a handheld radiation meter by correlating the findings with several international standards, which are determined based on thorough scientific evidence.
This study also analyzes the EMR from common devices used in day to day life such as smartphones, laptops, Wi-Fi routers, hot-spots, wireless earphones, smartwatches, Bluetooth speakers and other wireless accessories using a handheld radio frequency radiation measurement device.
The procedure followed in this paper isso presented that it can also be utilized by the general public as a tutorial to evaluate their own safety with respect to EMR exposure.
We present a summary of the most prominent health hazards which have been known to occur due to EMR exposure. We also discuss some individual and collective human-centric protective and preventive measures that can be undertaken to reduce the risk of EMR absorption. This paper analyses radiation safety in pre-5G networks and uses the insight gained to raises valuable concerns regarding EMR safety in the upcoming 5G networks.
* SNIP * read the entire article via the source link below...
|Click here to view the source article.|
|Source: IEEE, Naren et al., 26 Feb 2020|
|Head of Swiss Radiation Protection Committee accused of 5G-swindle. Nordic countries deceived, too.|
|Norway||Created: 28 Feb 2020|
A few weeks ago, the president of Switzerland and her counsel received a serious letter.
The authors were a number of the world's foremost scientists in the field of radiation protection and health.
The researchers warned that Martin Röösli (picture), the man who chairs the BERENIS committee, a committee responsible for providing the Swiss government with advice on radiation protection guidelines, should be scrutinized for impropriety –or to put it more bluntly –for scientific fraud.
About time, was my initial reaction. Then, I began to ponder: Is Martin Röösli an outright fraudster? Or are his mischaracterisations of the science the result of the application of unreasonable scientific criteria in his search for truth? It seemed to be an interesting topic worthy of reflection...
*SNIP* read the entire article via the source link below...
|Click here to view the source article.|
|Source: Einar Flydal, 27 Jan 2020|
|«First ‹Previous Page 2 of 747  Next› Last»|