«First  ‹Previous   Page 3 of 753   Next›  Last» 

Luxembourg Govt. to Debate 5G Deployment and Health Effects
Luxembourg Created: 13 May 2020
A Message from Citizens of Luxembourg who have been working to raise awareness of the health and environmental effects of 5G.

“Here is what we made happen:

– on Friday April, 24th our petition claiming to permanently stop the deployment of the 5G in Luxembourg was open for on-line signatures on the website of the Chambre des députés (our local Parliament). In only 4 days (!!!) we collected the necessary number of signatures to provoque a public debate in the Parliament between our citizen’s collective and the members of the Government about the 5G deployment. We will be detailing in front of the Parliament the arguments that lead us to ask the government to give up the 5G deployment and will debate with them about it. We will of course keep you posted on the outcome of that debate (at the earliest by mid-June).

– on Saturday April, 25th, rallying the 2nd global protest day, we published on our FB page the e-mail addresses of all our local MPs & of the members of the government and a letter detailing the risks involved in deploying the 5G tech, reminding them all that they are the representatives of the people, that their duty is to preserve the health of the population and that, in case of doubt, it is their specific duty to apply the precautionary principle and to stop the deployment of the 5G.

We then asked all our followers to mail the letter to all of the MP and, despite the fact that we don’t know exactly how many sent it, they must have been quite a lot as some MPs moaned on their FB profiles about people spamming their mailbox with anti-5G messages, treating them as ignorant fools

*SNIP* read the entire article via the source link below...
Click here to view the source article.
Source: EHTrust, 13 May 2020

Jersey City Council postpones 5G utility pole installation
USA Created: 10 May 2020
The Jersey City Council has unanimously tabled an ordinance to approve the upgrade and installation of 72 utility poles which the council says will include 5G technology after members of the public spoke against the ordinance.

The critics cited a lack of transparency, lack of notice, and lack of information as well as data expressing concerns on the possible health ramifications the technology could have on residents despite the Federal Communications Commission’s ruling that the technology is safe.

Resident and registered nurse Lucille Shah said she was against 5G utility pole installation.

“My children’s bedroom faces the street, and they can potentially be sleeping just a few feet away from a 5G tower,” she said, noting that the World Health Organization has yet to issue an opinion on the possible health impacts of the technology.

She said that several European countries have halted their installation until more studies have been concluded.

Resident and former councilman Chris Gadsden said that residents have not been notified that the utility poles would be coming to their neighborhoods.

“I just want to caution and hold up on the installation of these towers because just like how we notify the community of CCTV camera installations, and different construction projects, and street paving, I just think we need to afford the public the same courtesy,” he said, saying that the new towers will primarily be installed in Ward A and Ward F, possibly near senior citizen homes and apartment complexes, without residents being made aware of it.

Resident Esther Wintner also pushed for the council to hold off on the ordinance because people were preoccupied with the current the public health emergency due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Nick Strasser of the city’s law department quoted federal law stating, “No state or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate placement construction and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent such facilities comply with the commissions regulations concerning such emissions.”

“Simply put, the FCC has reviewed this and deemed the equipment in this ordinance to be safe to the public, and Congress has given the FCC exclusive jurisdiction to determine what is safe and is not and has prevented states and municipalities from individually deciding what is safe and is not from an emissions standpoint on this equipment,” he said.

Several council members voiced their frustration over seemingly having their hands tied. Council President Joyce Watterman asked Strasser whether the council could send a resolution or letter to the federal government to express their concerns.

“It’s always within the Council’s jurisdiction resolution to send a resolution to Congressmen Albio Sires and Donald Payne, and the U.S. Senators from New Jersey, to notify them of your frustration with the state of the federal law, you always have that ability,” Strasser said.

He also explained that the city still has the ability to restrict certain aspects of the installation itself.

“What you can’t do is say it is on the basis of the emissions coming from the equipment, because the FCC has already reviewed that from a safety standpoint and said that it is safe,” said Strasser. “But what the city does have the ability to do is to regulate the fees as it does in here or the engineering review of the individual towers… the city also has the ability to decide where they go from a public safety standpoint” if they are to close to fire hydrant or driveway, for example.

He added that the council can also have a say when it comes to the design of the poles, especially in historic neighborhoods, because they would have to comply with the historic requirements of any historic preservation district.

According to Business Administrator Brian Platt, the vendor will have to notify residents who are within 200 feet of a utility pole instillation site before they are installed.

That notification will include information regarding the technology’s safety.

“Council people spent the last month trying figure out what to do with this, and its bad to think the FCC is in control of what we do here in Jersey City,” said Councilman Jermaine Robinson. “I want to put people first and make sure they know exactly what’s going on here in our city.”

Council President Joyce Watterman urged members of the public to petition and write letters to their state and federal leaders expressing their concerns.

Ultimately, the council decided to table the ordinance to further explore their options after Platt noted that the council has 150 days to make a decision on the ordinance.

The ordinance will return before the council on final reading on May 20th.
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Hudson Reporter, Marilyn Baer, 08 May 2020

UK Legal action against 5G
United Kingdom Created: 10 May 2020
We are groups of individuals nationwide, including doctors, scientists and engineers, supported by a strong team of lawyers headed by Michael Mansfield QC, who have joined forces to commence legal proceedings to challenge the UK government’s failure to take sufficient notice of clearly identified health and safety risks of wireless radiation and the increased exposure from the deployment of 5G.

The risks are foreseeable and preventable, current standards are not fit for purpose and obsolete. The case concerns defending our fundamental right to privacy and protection from experimentation.

*SNIP* Visit the website, here: https://actionagainst5g.org/
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Action Against 5G, 10 May 2020

If all roofs were developed as ‘green’ what would happen with the phone masts?
United Kingdom Created: 9 May 2020
I WRITE in support of the tenants and residents of Haddo House, who are currently living with the threat of having mobile phone masts placed on the roof of their Camden Council owned block.

In several similar cases, namely Chester Court, Lissenden Gardens, Winifred Paul House and Monmouth House, such plans were ditched after meeting very strong opposition.

In the case of Monmouth, the mobile phone masts that were planned for our roof eventually appeared on the roof of a commercial premises just past the main entrance to Regis Road industrial estate on a building that has the words Kentish Town written on its side in large graffiti.

If you took mobile phone mast law at face value, it would tell you that the mobile phone firms can choose to put their masts on any roof, whether the property owner likes it or not, unless the owner has the intention to develop their roof.

I still maintain Camden could end all threat of mobile phone masts being placed on its residential buildings by proving that its green credentials are more than just talk through implementing a programme of developing all its roofs as green roofs.

That said, if the opposition is strong enough, these firms will find an alternative site on a non-residential building.

I would urge any TRA that is under threat from having such masts placed on their roofs to read the many letters written by myself and others on this whole subject in recent months in the CNJ Letters section.

The dates and letters are as follows: in 2019 (Act now on mobile phone masts, May 2), (Are we living amid danger that we don’t understand? May 9), (New dangers with the roll-out of 5G, May 16) and (concerned), (Why the silence on mobile phone masts? May 30), (Waves are worrying, June 6), (Phone masts questions, July 4), (Stop these phone masts, July 11), (Signals safety first, please, August 1), (Danger signals for the 5G roll-out, August 8), (Scrap digital rooftops programme, September 19), (Scrap the 5G programme, October 10), (5G safety is not assured, October 31), and, on January 9 2020, Never mind phone masts, let’s green our rooftops.

Raglan Street, NW5
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Camden New Journal, LOUIS LOIZOU, 08 May 2020

Senate asks Govt. to suspend deployment of 5G network in Nigeria
Nigeria Created: 6 May 2020
The Senate on Tuesday directed the Federal Government to suspend the planned deployment of the Fifth Generation Network in Nigeria.

The Senate resolution is sequel to a motion on the present status of 5G Network in Nigeria. The motion was sponsored by Sen. Uche Ekwunife (PDP Anambra), who in her lead debate said there were growing concerns on the on-going discussion about the current status of 5G network in Nigeria, especially in regards to the question, ‘if Nigeria is presently connected to 5G.’

She said there were further concerns by some scientists and medical experts that emission from 5G towers could adversely affect the health of citizens by causing symptoms like damage to the eyes and immune systems, among other adverse effects.

She, however, said that 5G network has also been reported to hold a lot of promises for mobile broadband services because of its faster speed and better capacity.

She expressed concern over the uncertainty surrounding whether or not the 5G network has been launched in Nigeria will continue to fuel the speculations and rumours concerning the deployment of 5G network and its faster effect on the citizen of Nigerian.

She said that several countries, including Switzerland, one of the world leaders in the roll out of 5G mobile technology has placed an indefinite moratorium on the use of 5G network because of the health concern.

She said that it was important to investigate the status of 5G network in Nigeria to ensure that Nigerian citizens are not exposed to unreasonable risk of great bodily injury or harm.

The Senate in its other resolution directed the concerned committees to also investigate the technological impact of the network on Nigerians and report back to plenary within two weeks. (NAN) The red chamber, however, asked the relevant federal agency supervising the ICT operations in the country to suspend the 5G deployment until a thorough probe to determine its suitability for human health had been achieved.
Click here to view the source article.
Source: Vanguard, 06 May 2020

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).

Health risks

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).

5G satellites

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
Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity;
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

«First  ‹Previous   Page 3 of 753   Next›  Last»