Friday, July 26, 2019


Via Vivian Evans

Microwave radiation bio-effects increase synergistically, not merely additively, with the markedly increased complexity of many simultaneous wavelength deployments for 4G/5G Distributed Antenna System (DAS).

5G would deploy more bandwidth and therefore data-per-second than ever deployed in the entirety of human history – combined – to produce more adverse effects than ever previously manifested by wireless systems. Worse, 5G microwave radiation is to be concentrated semi-directionally into a 15-degree arc, which deployment approaches maser-like, direct-energy weaponry (DEW). A maser is a microwave laser or microwave taser.

As a wavelength approaches body-part size, its absorption increases exponentially. Thus, microwaves -- waves in the “size of life” -- have been known for decades as the most bioactive and harmful of radiofrequencies. When a wavelength approximates a body dimension, resonance is achieved: the body part or whole body effectively becomes an antenna. Similarly, this radiation interferes with electronic medical devices. Mobile Communications Safety p 65-94 | RF interference (RFI) of medical devices by mobile communications transmitters.  The ~20” wave penetrates deeply into human and animal bodies, maximizing harm in babies and small children. The ~2” – 4” waves target the primary organs: brain, heart, lungs, liver, thyroid, thymus, kidneys, genitalia, in humans and larger animals. The millimeter (mm) waves target the most critical organs of perception – eyes and ears – in addition to the body’s largest organ: the skin. Resonating at the lengths of insect antennas, these mm microwaves ensure the extermination of pollinating insects such as bees and butterflies within a year of deployment, and birds and all other wildlife thereafter. Farm animals are immediately harmed by 4G/5G DAS radiation operations, which must, wherever deployed, destroy agriculture. Initially torturesome to all living beings by way of neurologic interference, organisms including humans are first incapacitated and then destroyed. The time to halt this is prior to deployment. Do oppose microwave radiation deployment in your neighborhood, municipality and state – before it’s too late!

With the deployment of 5G wireless, the array of currently used and planned, harmful micro-wavelengths and modulation patterns to be deployed in every public and private space, 24-7-365-forever, is staggering. Hold up your hands to illustrate each of these wavelengths, as absorbed in your body and brain:
  • 5G: 600 MHz = cm microwaves of 50cm ≈ 20 inches (“MHz” = Megahertz)
  • 4G: 700 MHz = cm microwaves of ~43cm ≈ 17 inches (“cm” = centimeter)
  • 3G/4G: 800 MHz = cm microwaves of 37.5cm ≈ 15 inches
  • 3G/4G: 900 MHz = cm microwaves of ~33.3cm ≈ 13 inches
  • 3G/4G: 1800 MHz = cm microwaves of ~16.7cm ≈ 6.6 inches
  • 3G/4G: 2100 MHz = cm microwaves of ~14.3cm ≈ 5.6 inches
  • Wi-Fi: 2450 MHz = cm microwaves of ~12cm ≈ 5 inches
  • 5G: 3100 MHz to 3550 MHz = ~9.7 to ~8.5cm ≈ 3.8 to 3.3 inches
  • 5G: 3550 MHz to 3700 MHz = ~8.5cm to ~8.1cm ≈ 3.3 to 3.2 inches
  • 5G: 3700 MHz to 4200 MHz = ~8.1cm to ~7cm ≈ 3.2 to 2.8 inches
  • 5G: 4200 to 4900 MHz = ~7cm to ~6cm ≈ 2.8 to 2.4 inches
  • Wi-Fi: 5800 MHz = ~5cm microwaves of ~2 inches (“mm” = millimeter)
  • 5G: 24,250 to 24,450 MHz = mm microwaves of ~12mm ≈ 0.5 inch
  • 5G: 25,050 to 25,250 MHz = mm microwaves of ~12mm ≈ 0.5 inch
  • 5G: 25,250 to 27,500 MHz = mm microwaves of ~11mm ≈ 0.4 inch
  • 5G: 27,500 to 29,500 MHz = mm microwaves of ~10mm ≈ 0.4 inch
  • 5G: 31,800 to 33,400 MHz = mm microwaves of ~9mm ≈ 0.4 inch
  • 5G: 37,000 to 40,000 MHz = mm microwaves of ~8mm ≈ 0.3 inch
  • 5G: 42,000 to 42,500 MHz = mm microwaves of ~7mm ≈ 0.3 inch
  • 5G: 64,000 to 71,000 MHz = mm microwaves of ~5mm ≈ 0.2 inch
  • 5G: 71,000 to 76,000 MHz = mm microwaves of ~4mm ≈ 0.2 inch
  • 5G: 81,000 to 86,000 MHz = mm microwaves of ~3.6mm ≈ 0.1 inch

Barrie Trower & Mark Steele on 5G

About One Hour

More Bird Deaths - Hundreds of galahs mysteriously found dead in Burra, Australia

About 200 galahs have been found dead in the South Australian town of Burra, prompting investigations by the state's Department for Environment and Water and the local council.

Key points:

  • About 200 galahs found dead in Burra in SA's Mid North
  • Birds otherwise looked healthy and weren't "grain gorging"
  • State Government and council investigating
Dead birds started turning up in the historic Mid North town last Wednesday, with numbers increasing to about 200 by Monday, according to Animal Rescue and Care co-ordinator Ruth Norris.
A Facebook post featuring some of the deceased creatures by Ms Norris has been shared more than 1,600 times.
She said the birds otherwise looked healthy and it was not obvious how they had died.
"We're hoping to send some off to PIRSA [Primary Industries and Regions SA] or a lab to get tested.
"Apart from that, they all appear adult and healthy."
They were all found in a small area around the old courthouse and police house lockup, on Sancreed Street, in North Burra — an area where galahs tend to congregate.
Ms Norris said this meant it was unlikely they had died from gorging on germinating seeds from local farms.
In that case, dead birds would have been found in a much larger area.
A necropsy she did revealed very little grain in their stomachs.
"They've got good body condition so it's not a weather event, it's not a disease, it appears to be a very unusual event or even suspicious," she said.
Cats and dogs which had touched the galahs had not become sick, she said.

State Government and council investigating deaths

A Department for Environment and Water spokeswoman said staff were "looking into the circumstances" of the deaths following the Facebook post and media enquiries, however no official report had been made.
Galahs are not a protected species in South Australia, however they can only be killed by shooting.
Regional Council of Goyder chief executive David Stevenson said the council had sent off some of the dead birds to the Natural Resources office in Clare for investigation.
While galahs were common in the grain-farming area, he said it was concerning to find so many dead in suspicious circumstances.
"We're very concerned, particularly that we don't know what has caused this," Mr Stevenson said.
"It seems that it's only affected galahs.
"I guess the jury's out until we hear from the experts."
Ms Norris said she was surprised by how far her Facebook post had travelled.
"I'm very grateful that so many people care and that it has gone viral," she said.
"So we have to be really careful and think things out really carefully before we say 'I'm going to do this'.
"Because whatever we do has a consequence and if we're aware of that and think of the end result then we can work towards far better management of whatever we're dealing with."

5G – The Global Human Experiment without Consent

5G is the next generation of cell phone infrastructure, yet it is categorically different than its predecessors (4G/LTE, 3G, 2G, etc.). It is not a simple upgrade. It is a major increase – and change – in the type of wireless radiation to which we will all be exposed, without consent, whether we use this service or not.
5G builds on existing infrastructure and, in addition, uses extremely high (millimeter-wave) frequencies of 24 gigahertz (GHz) or more. These 5G signals don’t travel far, so antennas will be installed approximately every 2-10 homes in residential neighborhoods. 5G will significantly increase our wireless RF radiation (radio frequency microwave) exposure on a 24/7 and 365 days a year basis.
The government’s human exposure guidelines haven’t been updated in more than 20 years, while radiation from cell phones, cordless phones, WiFi and wireless baby monitors has increased exponentially in that time.

No Safety Studies
In a February 2019 U.S. Senate hearing, senior telecom executives admitted they have not done any safety testing on 5G, nor do they plan to do any. Currently, there are over two dozen cities in the U.S. and countless cities abroad that have 5G, yet there is no scientific evidence to support any claim of safety for it.
What related research does show is cause for alarm. Thousands of independent studies indicate adverse health impacts from wireless radiation. These range from cancer and sterility to DNA damage. The government’s human exposure guidelines haven’t been updated in more than 20 years, while radiation from cell phones, cordless phones, WiFi and wireless baby monitors has increased exponentially in that time.

Planet Earth Blanketed in Radiation

The 5G agenda is vast. It includes 200 billion transmitting objects, according to estimates, that will be part of the Internet of Things (IoT) by 2020, with one trillion transmitting objects a few years later. 5G is meant to usher in more robotics, artificial intelligence and autonomous vehicles, including 5G antennas installed inside cars – behind our heads and irradiating our brains – so we can talk to people in other vehicles and instruct our driverless cars on where to take us.
5G base stations and 5G devices will have multiple antennas in phased arrays that work together to emit focused, steerable, laser-like beams that track each other. Each 5G phone will function like a mini cell tower, containing dozens of tiny antennas working together to track and aim a narrowly focused beam to search and connect with the nearest cell antenna. The FCC has adopted rules that permit those beams to be as much as 20 watts, ten times more powerful than levels allowed on current phones.
Numerous independent studies on millimeter-wave radiation already show a range of biological effects, indicating that an increase in frequencies may worsen harmful effects.

Alarming Evidence of Harm

More than 10,000 peer-reviewed scientific studies conducted by independent researchers from around the world demonstrate the harmful biological effects of wireless radiation. Because of their developmental stages, children are much more susceptible. In addition, wireless radiation effects are cumulative, putting children at greater risk.
  • Detrimental effects on fetal and newborn development
  • Detrimental effects on young children
  • Brain tumors and other cancers
  • DNA damage and altered gene expression
  • Neurological effects and cognitive impairment
  • Impaired sperm function and quality
  • Learning and memory deficits
  • Cardiovascular disease
  • Altered metabolism
  • And more
The mechanisms of biological harm from wireless radiation were not well understood until Martin Pall, PhD, demonstrated how voltage-gated calcium channels are disrupted, resulting in excessive intracellular calcium ions affecting our cells. Numerous independent studies on millimeter-wave radiation already show a range of biological effects, indicating that an increase in frequencies may worsen harmful effects.
5G is being touted as the next industrial revolution, when, in fact, it amounts to surveillance capitalism, in which intimate details of our lives are tracked, recorded and sold to the highest bidder, irradiating us all the while.

Government Corruption

The Telecommunications Act of 1996, section 704, gives the telecom industry free reign and prohibits opposition to wireless infrastructure based on environmental effects, which includes health effects. Thankfully, this prohibition is being challenged in court right now.
The telecom industry is supposed to be regulated by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC); however, the Harvard Center for Ethics describes the FCC as a “captured agency” that is dominated by the industry it is purported to regulate. The multi-trillion dollar telecom industry wields massive lobbying power and formidable public influence through pervasive, propagandistic advertising and media presence promoting 5G.
In the Information Age, data drives the economy. 5G is being touted as the next industrial revolution, when, in fact, it amounts to surveillance capitalism, in which intimate details of our lives are tracked, recorded and sold to the highest bidder, irradiating us all the while.

Let’s Irradiate the Sky, Too

In addition to millions of new base stations on Earth, 5G includes an eventual 20,000+ satellites in low orbit, affecting the ionosphere. Players include Elon Musk’s SpaceX, OneWeb and Amazon. At this time, 66 5G satellites have already been launched, with more on the way. The direct radiation from these satellites, combined with their contamination of our ionosphere, along with pollution of the global electrical circuit would likely be catastrophic to all life on Earth.
5G threatens to provoke serious, irreversible effects on humans and permanent damage to all of Earth’s ecosystems. Immediate measures must be taken to protect life in all of its forms. One solution is SafeG, wired public networks that allow for wireless inside homes and businesses without forcing it on everyone.
*Article originally appeared at Children’s Health Defense. Reprinted with permission.


France: Samsung Electronics indicted for misleading advertising re. alleged labour abuses & child labour in China, S. Korea & Vietnam

Samsung Electronics is facing charges over alleged labour abuses and child labour in France following a complaint filed by Sherpa and ActionAid France on 25 June 2018 against Samsung France and its parent company in South Korea. ActionAid and Sherpa have accused Samsung of misleading advertising as they say it touts ethical commitments to workers' rights that it does not respect in its factories in China, South Korea and Vietnam. Alleged violations include child labour, health and safety breaches and other labour abuses. The decision to investigate Samsung is historic, as it is rare for a French company to be sued by the courts for its activities abroad.
Samsung has provided a repsonse to the case, saying it disputes the validity of the legal complaint. Its full response is included below.

Samsung's response to Sherpa case

Author: Samsung Electronics
... We are aware of the legal complaint against Samsung... We are disputing its validity, and cannot comment further on the content of the investigation since this is an ongoing proceeding. We wish to remove any ambiguity created by the word “indicted”... Samsung France has been put under examination, which means that the investigation is still ongoing and that no conclusive decision has been taken regarding the allegations...
The issues highlighted by SHERPA date back several years, and concern reports or incidents to which Samsung has responded previously. We wish to share with you specifically how we have dealt and are dealing with Child Labor, responsible minerals as well as our commitments to uphold labor and human rights.
Samsung upholds a zero tolerance policy on child labor - both in our own facilities and the facilities of our suppliers...  all of our subsidiaries and suppliers, and not only in China, must comply with the strict employment process (age verification) to prevent child labor employment...
...we have been investigating all cobalt smelters related to our company...

The Dream of Self-Driving Cars is Running Out of Gas

For years, automakers wildly overpromised on self-driving cars and electric vehicles—what now?

Tech execs and auto company leaders are becoming increasingly pessimistic about the future of AVs—and they are far less sanguine about electric vehicles (EVs) as well—because the raft of rosy projections in recent years have not even remotely come true.

Just before Uber’s IPO in May, court documents were unsealed relating to a lawsuit filed against the ride-sharing company in 2017 by Waymo, Google’s self-driving car unit. In these documents and in testimony during the case, which was settled in 2018, a rare candid view into what auto and tech industry insiders actually believe about autonomous vehicle (AV) development emerged.
Simply put, Uber—and, as it turns out, many other automobile manufacturers—have been wildly overpromising.
Starting around May 2016, Uber projected in public and private presentations that it would manufacture 13,000 autonomous vehicles by 2019, only to change that forecast four months later to over 75,000 units. The company also said that human safety drivers, who take over the wheel when an AV needs help, would not be required on its cars by 2020. And in 2022, the company declared, tens of thousands of fully self-driving Uber taxis would be in 13 of the largest cities.
As it turns out, even Uber didn’t have any faith in these claims. According to the released court files, nobody at Uber vetted its AV deployment figures, which Eric Meyhofer, head of Uber’s Advanced Technologies Group, described as nothing but “hypothetical scenarios.” He added, “They are assumptions and estimates. I don’t think anything in this document would be described as accurate. It’s a set of knobs you turn to try to understand parameters that you need to try to meet.” Perhaps more damning, the Uber employee responsible for the forecasts said that while she was designing them, executives had asked her “to think about a way” to show accelerated Uber AV development.
These unflattering glimpses into Uber’s AV program—which surfaced in connection with Waymo’s allegations in court that a former engineer stole technical secrets and used them to launch Otto, a self-driving truck startup acquired by Uber in 2016—embarrassed Uber. (Waymo ultimately settled for 0.34 percent of Uber’s equity, or about $250 million). And that was before Uber was implicated in the first ever pedestrian fatality involving a self-driving car when one of its Volvos hit a woman who stepped out of the darkness into the road in Tempe, Arizona, last year. The result of all this? Uber is more cautious now in its autonomous vehicle pronouncements. So much so that just this week, the company’s CEO Dara Khosrowshahi said at an Economic Club meeting in Washington, DC, that it will take more than 50 years for all Uber cars to be driverless, a lifetime away.
But if Uber is crowing less, its diffidence reflects a bristling sentiment among big and small auto manufacturers: company executives are becoming increasingly pessimistic about the future of AVs—and they are far less sanguine about electric vehicles (EVs) as well. They have grudgingly reached these dour conclusions chiefly because to their dismay, the raft of rosy projections imagining by 2020 streets full of EVs and at least a flurry of AVs have not even remotely come true.
One example among many from the electric vehicle realm: in 2010, J.D. Power and Associates predicted that within a decade, global hybrid and EV annual sales would top five million units. The EV segment is nowhere near that goal and, if anything, is retrenching. In the first quarter of this year, about 92,000 plug-in cars were sold in the U.S., down from over 100,000 in the prior quarter. Tesla, the number-one player in the EV market, saw its global unit sales fall more than 30 percent, and the company is rapidly burning through cash, drowning in debt, laying off workers, and struggling to survive.
In the U.S. plug-in hybrid segment, sales of market leader Toyota Prius Prime were a lowly 4,026 in the first quarter, a 40 percent decrease from the prior quarter. And GM’s once ballyhooed Chevrolet Volt went out of production. All told, fully battery operated and hybrid EVs are barely a niche market, accounting for about 2 percent of vehicle sales in the U.S.—and that’s with government-backed incentives to encourage buyers. And in China, up until recently a bright spot for EV manufacturers, sales of electric vehicles were only up 1.8% in May compared with a year earlier. That’s the slowest growth rate in about 18 months.
It’s easy to discern why EV sales are so anemic. For one thing, electric vehicles are overwhelmingly sedans, which have not been a consumer favorite for years. Moreover, most EVs still do not match the performance and reliability of internal combustion engine cars and the lack of charging infrastructure makes them unattractive for anything more than short hops.
Meanwhile, the autonomous vehicle market is, of course, nonexistent at this point. Yet, only three years ago, then Renault-Nissan CEO Carlos Ghosn promised hands-free urban driving in his company’s cars by 2020 when “you’re going to have what we call a totally autonomous-driven car—hopefully totally in line with the regulation.”
Nobody talks like this anymore. Instead, top executives in the auto and tech industries, like Uber’s Khosrowshahi, are nervously tamping down expectations. In November, Waymo’s CEO John Krafcik told a tech conference that it will be decades before autonomous cars are widespread on the roads, and they may always need human assistance to drive in multifaceted environments, such as bad weather or areas crowded with construction or emergency equipment. In April, Ford’s CEO echoed those remarks in an appearance before the Detroit Economic Club. “We overestimated the arrival of autonomous vehicles,” Jim Hackett said. While he claimed that Ford would have a driverless vehicle ready by 2021, “its applications will be narrow, what we call geo-fenced, because the problem is so complex.”
The languid EV and AV rollouts are creating a mixture of confusion and desperation in the auto industry and among the tech companies that have staked their claims in it. No one doubts that the automobile is in the midst of a 100-year sea change—electric and autonomous vehicles in some form will eventually be commonplace. But there is a growing suspicion from inside the industry that the way auto companies are navigating this incipient revolution—primarily by wildly investing hundreds of millions of dollars a month in often-redundant research and development efforts whose returns on capital seem to be slipping further away—is foolhardy and lacks imagination. The problem is, a few top executives in the industry privately concede, the auto companies are slapping fresh ideas on old chassis, when the real outcome may be unlike anything that we envision today. Last year, one CEO described the expensive hunt for EVs and AVs as a “down payment on nothing.”
And more recently, another CEO echoed those sentiments: “I don’t know what is going to happen with new styles and powertrains. And I certainly don’t know when it is going to happen. And yet we are all at great expense chasing the same uncertain result, which so far looks a lot like the cars we already make.”
Or, put more pointedly, expenditures on EV and AV development are leaving some automakers—startups and incumbents—in such a deep hole that they won’t survive to place their nameplates on these vehicles when they are finally perfected. A recent study by industry analysts AlixPartners found that by 2023, global auto companies will have earmarked more than $250 billion for R&D and capital costs related to producing electric vehicles. By then, auto companies will have launched some 200-plus EVs and virtually all of them will be unprofitable as the oversaturated market will almost certainly demand elevated incentives in order to sell the cars. Making matters worse, the vehicles will lack the advantages of scale gained from manufacturing at high volume.
The same report found that an additional $61 billion has been earmarked for self-driving car technologies—and that’s just counting the early investments. Uber’s AV unit runs through about $20 million a month, and Waymo has already spent over $1 billion on R&D, while GM acquired AV startup Cruise for about $500 million and since then has attracted funding of well over $1 billion from Honda and venture firms. Still, according to a separate AlixPartners consumer survey, car buyers say they would be willing to pay only $2,300 extra for self-driving functions, about a tenth of the cost of installing self-driving features available today.
Assessing the impact of EV and AV investments, auto specialists at consulting firm Strategy& calculated that at current expense levels, operating margins in the auto industry will fall by half in five years to a woeful 3 percent from an already anemic 6.2 percent today. And return on invested capital will dip under 2 percent from 4.6 percent, well below the cost of capital and trailing other industries, including consumer products (11 percent), aerospace and defense (10 percent), and software (7 percent). John Hoffecker, global vice chairman at AlixPartners, called this untenable financial situation “a pile-up of epic proportions. Auto companies believe that they have the chance of benefitting from first-mover advantages, but they face the possibility of going broke in the process.”
This dire message seems to be getting through to some former EV and AV flag-wavers. A recent flurry of new partnerships and downsizing of business units working on these cars appear to be directed at conserving resources even as these companies are skittish about losing their relevance when electric and autonomous vehicles finally arrive. To that end, GM and Honda are collaborating on battery development; BMW, Volkswagen, and Daimler are in talks to share R&D efforts for autonomous vehicles; and Ford and VW, which had each previously budgeted billions for solo EV and AV projects, are discussing a joint arrangement. Even Apple, which had designs on building a self-driving car, has fired 200 people from this campaign and is focusing instead on new mobility software.
These events do not reflect a strategic plan as much as fear that in the auto industry the center of gravity—the flow of money—is moving away from the big manufacturers and toward companies that are designing the individual components critical to the success of the next iteration of automobiles. The most probable future scenario transforms the auto industry from today’s top-down sector with large automakers in commanding heights above a network of suppliers, dealers, lenders, and service centers—each of whom is figuratively and often literally in debt to the manufacturer—into an ecosystem of interrelated but relatively equal companies. “It is likely that the real automobile revolution we should be paying attention to is not in the vehicles but in the automobile industry itself,” the auto CEO said. “A business model with dozens of auto companies all making the same car will not be viable much longer. Companies need to figure out their most profitable place in the ecosystem and base their business models on that decision.”
Perhaps the most obvious illustration of the ecosystem model is the smartphone arena, in which brand-name handset providers are in essence assemblers of parts and components made by other companies, and the phone is a skeleton on which third-party revenue generating apps and content are placed. Translated to the EV and AV platform, much of the value of these vehicles will reside in parts of the car that traditional automobile manufacturers have little expertise in: sensors, batteries, propulsion software, artificial intelligence systems, route mapping platforms and databases, GPS hardware, and infotainment and connectivity programs. Auto manufacturers will be primarily making the handsets into which these advanced technologies will be placed.
Through that lens, the electric and autonomous vehicle landscape takes on the contours of a series of innovative mobility ideas in which automobiles serve as handmaidens and not as the main attraction, as they are seen today. Among the blueprints gaining currency was posited recently by Larry Burns, former head of research and development at General Motors and the author of Autonomy: The Quest to Build the Driverless Car—And How It Will Reshape Our World. Burns envisions car ownership being a subscription service, in which for a monthly fee customers have self-driving vehicles of their choice on demand. Rather than sitting unused after, for instance, dropping a passenger at a suburban train station, the AV might go back home for additional trips, run errands for the family, serve a one-off passenger, or even take itself in for maintenance, recharging, and upgrading.
That’s just one thought among many. Also viewed as viable is the possibility of massive convoys of AV trucks riding their own lanes on interstates, like trains but more efficient and more flexible in their routes. Or retrofitting highways to wirelessly charge car batteries. Or hydrogen-carrying trucks that deliver fuel to AVs that signal they are low and in between jobs, overcoming the distribution challenges standing in the way of fuel cell vehicles.
Of course, it is more likely that these musings are just hints and bits and pieces of what the next few decades really hold. But the common denominator is that a cluster of companies will be needed to manage the scheduling, logistics, refueling, maintaining, manufacturing, designing, and software engineering to keep EVs and AVs on the road.
Bob Lutz, the former top executive at GM, Ford, and Chrysler, who has become something of a black sheep for claiming “the end of the automotive era” and saying that automakers should “kiss the good times goodbye,” believes that his colleagues have been unimaginative in safeguarding their own survival. “Right now the trends that everybody can understand,” Lutz says, “is trend number one, vehicles are becoming more and more autonomous. Trend number two, electrification is gradually increasing. Those two trend lines they can understand. But they can only understand them for the next two or three years. And beyond that, let’s just say people have great difficulty envisioning further out.”


5G Moratorium Established in Italy - 14 Municipalities Approve Stop 5G Resolutions or Motions

The list of Italian Stop 5G administrations is growing in awareness of social and health risks. Some sixty regions, autonomous provinces and municipalities are questioning the darker aspects of 5G. As in Belgium (federal region of Brussels) and Switzerland (three cantons), a moratorium has also been established in Italy and 14 municipalities have already approved Stop 5G City Council resolutions or motions.


Thursday, July 25, 2019

5G: The New York Times Gets it Wrong Again

Debra Greene, PhD

The 5G Crisis: Awareness and Accountability summit, an online summit exposing the harmful health effects, environmental impacts and global surveillance aspects of 5G small cell deployment, was announced to the world on July 15, 2019. The very same day an article by William J. Broad appeared in the print version of the New York Times with the headline: "Don't Fear the Frequency". The next day the Times published an online version of Broad's article with the title: "The 5G Health Hazard That Isn't". Coincidence? It seems not.
The Times had tried a similar tactic on the eve of the first 5G National Day of Action sponsored by Americans for Responsible Technology to raise awareness about the harmful health effects of 5G small cell infrastructure. The Times article asserted that opponents of 5G are being unwittingly manipulated by Russian fake news. Like that article, the recent piece was released seemingly to coincide with an important awareness raising event. In the last six months the Times has published two articles on 5G "health misinformation" and both have coincided with the only two national events opposing 5G. Like the previous article, the recent piece mentions Russian propaganda again, and, like that article, the recent Times piece is full of inaccuracies, omissions, and is deeply flawed in its basic premise. So much so that it would be better placed in the editorial section as an opinion piece.
Moreover, the recent article hides the Times' conflicts of interest when it comes to 5G, including their investment in a 5G joint venture with telecom giant Verizon. In addition, the Times' pages are frequently filled with expensive full-page color ads for wireless companies like Verizon, companies that stand to make billions of dollars from new services made possible by 5G-enabled small cells intended for deployment on public infrastructure throughout the country.
The byline of the recent Times article, "How one scientist and his inaccurate chart led to unwarranted fears of wireless technology" indicates the crux of Broad's argument. From a multitude of research at that time, Broad cherry-picks, singling out the chart of Bill Curry, PhD, and asserts:
Over the years, Dr. Curry's warning spread far, resonating with educators, consumers and entire cities as the frequencies of cellphones, cell towers and wireless local networks rose. To no small degree, the blossoming anxiety over the professed health risks of 5G technology can be traced to a single scientist and a single chart.
This constitutes the entire premise of Broad's article, yet it amounts to an unsubstantiated claim. The reference Broad cites to support his argument of Curry's alleged far reaching influence is a document, Cell Phone Towers FactPack, of which Curry's graphs appear once in a five page memo, from the year 2000, by Curry to the Broward County School District. This memo is buried (on pages 131-135) among 39 other references contained in the packet. In fact, out of 215 pages of documents in the packet Curry's name and chart appear exactly once. According to Broad, Curry's chart was included in a dismissed lawsuit and began "circulating online", for which Broad includes reference to an obscure website that apparently hasn't been updated since February of 2018. To cite this as evidence of "a single scientist and a single chart" being responsible for 5G health concerns in 2019 is egregious.
Broad then asserts "Dr. Curry and his graph got it wrong" because "according to experts" radio waves become safer at higher frequencies such as 5G, yet no references are given for these many "experts". One would expect a multitude of references to support such a claim, yet not one is referenced. Further, Broad's assertion of 5G safety ignores relevant research that shows "permanent tissue damage even after short exposures" to 5G radio frequency radiation, and "significantly higher power density (PD) and specific absorption rate (SAR) then a current cellular system. Another study in 2018 showed a disconcerting variety of health effects, including increased skin temperature; altered gene expression; cellular proliferation and synthesis of proteins linked with oxidative stressinflammatory and metabolic processes; possible ocular damages; and disturbance of neuromuscular dynamics.
Martin Pall, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry and Basic Medical Sciences at Washington State University, wrote a 90 page paper in which he compiled relevant research demonstrating the health risks of 5G. In his paper Pall includes evidence of 5G harm on the nervous system, endocrine system, reproductive systems, our DNA and 15 different mechanisms of attack on our cells, among other things, all of which were ignored or overlooked by Broad in his article.
Broad goes on to say that "in subsequent years, as the frequencies of wireless devices continued to rise, an associated risk of brain cancer was repeated uncritically" as if a link between cell phone use and brain cancer is fiction. This claim ignores the fact that the World Health Organization (WHO) has categorized radio frequency radiation as a Class 2Bpossible carcinogen based on an increased risk for glioma, a malignant type of brain cancer.
Says Broad, "mainstream scientists continue to see no evidence of harm from cell phone radio waves". Again, in making such a claim one would expect numerous references to back it up, yet not one reference is provided. Further, Broad's assertion ignores the results of the $30 million National Institutes of Health, National Toxicology Program study that took ten years to complete and shows a link between cell phone use and cancerous tumors of the heart, adrenal gland and brain. Broad also ignores this 2016 meta-analysis in the International Journal of Cancer and Clinical Research with 87 references that found accumulated evidence of several types of cancers associated with radio frequency radiation. Of such magnitude is the growing body of research on this type of radiation and cancer that WHO's International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has made it a high priority to consider reclassifying the cancer risk.
Broad goes on to state that Curry's analysis failed to account for the protective effect of human skin, citing as evidence a Cornell University safety guide focused on the thermal effects of radio frequency radiation. This guide mentions the skin exactly once in passing. When researchers are focused on tissue heating, as cited in the safety guide, they are likely to regard the skin as a barrier to heating. However, to infer this means the skin blocks radio frequency radiation is erroneous. In fact, with recent research specific to 5G, the skin has been shown to play a key role as a mechanism of harm, particularly the sweat ducts of the skin which intensely absorb the higher frequencies of 5G and show thermal effects. The skin, with the special properties of the sweat ducts, is shown to act as "arrays of helical antennas" akin to a sub terahertz receiver, potentially compounding the damaging effects of 5G radio frequency radiation.
To further support his erroneous claim that the skin acts as a barrier to 5G radiation, Broad cites two radiologists, one of whom studies magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and the other studies medical ultrasound. When an individual is exposed to radiation from medical interventions the exposure is typically short in duration and isolated in application. Neither of these conditions applies to the type of radio frequency radiation emitted by cell antennas, and neither of the professors referenced specializes in the type of non-medical radiation that 5G produces. In its proposed form, 5G wireless radiation will be large-scale, omnipresent and pervasive. So categorically different than the brief exposure afforded from medical uses as to render them non-applicable. For Broad to refer to these two researchers as comprising "the benign assessment of the medical establishment" is disingenuous.
In sum, Broad's lack of substantive evidence for his central claim and numerous inaccuracies and omissions in his article leave the reader with serious doubts as to the real aim of the writing. These factors, combined with the New York Times' conflicts of interest regarding 5G render the article questionable. Essentially, Broad's article constitutes nothing more than an opinion piece.