Monday, January 04, 2016

SCAPEGOAT: Is Germanwings Pilot Andreas Lubitz Being ‘Framed’ for French Alps Crash?

SCAPEGOAT: Is Germanwings Pilot Andreas Lubitz Being ‘Framed’ for French Alps Crash?


Shawn Helton
21st Century Wire
As the mainstream media continues to spin sensational theories regarding the latest high-flying tragedy involving Germanwings flight 9525 – media consumers must be very careful not to fall prey to over-the-top propaganda…
IMAGE: ‘Dark Skies’ – Investigators sort through the wreckage of Germanwings Flight 9525, in the rough terrain of the French Alps. Why are there no large sections of the fuselage seen in the debris? (Photo link mirror.co.uk)
The Art of Deception
The crash of Germanwings flight 9525, is the latest in series of recent aviation disasters, causing many to speculate what might have occurred on the Dusseldorf bound flight. After the initially flood of ‘official’ mainstream media conspiracy theories, it’s difficult to separate the bevy of circumstantial and speculative hyperbole – from actual hard evidence.
Brice-Robin
‘French Prosecutor’ Brice Robin.
The initial and main source of the current official narrative can be traced to what the western media refer to as “The French Proscecutor“, or Marseille prosecutor Brice Robin. At no time have the mainstream media ever questioned the veracity of Brice’s initial pre-investigation claims that sent the media following a very specific story line. In other words, before the bodies were cold, the case was already ‘solved’.
Following the crash, mainstream news agencies systematically engaged in what can only be described as a post-mortem ‘character assassination’ of Andreas Lubitz, the German-born co-pilot and First Officer of Germanwings flight 9525. Once again, this appears to be a case of trial by media, and a summary execution in the court of public opinion. Lubitz has been charged with deliberately crashing the Lufthansa owned aircraft – prior to a full forensic investigation being completed.
After a sensationalized build-up over the apparent mental status of co-pilot Lubitz, authorities now state, that in the days leading up to the airline disaster, he had been accused of searching on the internet for “suicide methods” and “cockpit security” exactly one day prior to the Germanwings flight 9525 crash. In fact, mainstream media airwaves have been inundated with various and sundry theories about Lubitz.
What is most disconcerting however, are the disparaging talking points describing Lubitz, many of which have included blanket statements condemning him as a mass killer – without any hard evidence or due process. The most transparent attack on the character of Lubitz, was the concern over his religious and political beliefs, as well-known media talking heads were eager to attach the word ‘terror’ to the incident – revealing an all too familiar brand of politics.
Additional official conspiracy theories have cited that due to an apparent deteriorating eye-condition, Lubitz was plagued with anxiety about his future as a pilot, prompting media to carelessly wave this detail as a motive in the mass murder-suicide of 150 passengers and crew. 
Even with all of the media hype and hyperbole regarding Lubitz, there is no definitive evidence proving he deliberately crashed Germanwings Flight 9525 into the French Alps.
The public should question why media outlets and investigators have solely focused on Lubitz, when there are many other real forensic factors to consider concerning the Germanwings disaster. Early reports have stated that the French military had deployed a Mirage fighter jet when the Germanwings plane allegedly was obscured from radar. However, as I noted in the days just after the MH370‘s apparent vanishing, it would have been highly improbable that Germanwings flight 9525 would not have been seen on radar as it was descending, as a ‘skin paint’ radar system would have detected the whereabouts of the commercial airliner, in addition to other tracking methods.
On March 31st, the UK’s Mirror, reported that, “ex-schoolfriends have set up a Facebook campaign – which now has 4,000 likes – decrying the ‘witch hunt’ against (Lubitz) him.”

IMAGE: ‘Damaged Goods’ – Media image which is said to be the actual Germanwings flight 9525’s cockpit voice recorder. (Photo link theguardian.com)
There have been questions surrounding the flight’s two black box recorders, as well as other critical details associated with the crash, such as investigators obtaining “150 DNA profiles” of the plane’s victims, just one week after the crash, as stormy weather approached the French Alps. 
Additionally, initial reports stated that French prosecutor Brice Robin explained how there was “absolute silence inside the cockpit,” and “Nothing, no word during the last 10 minutes” at a press conference on March 26th.  
In a Wall Street Journal news release also on March 26th, it was revealed that authorities had already been able to listen to the first black box recorder found at the scene:
“Investigators succeeded in extracting usable data, including sounds and voices from the damaged black box, Rémi Jouty, director of France’s aviation accident investigation office told a news conference Wednesday in Le Bourget, outside Paris.”
Soon after this, a new piece of ‘evidence’ suddenly appeared. Bizarrely, both Germany’s Das Bild newspaper and French Paris Match magazine claimed to have viewed video footage obtained from a cell phone memory card that was ‘miraculously’ found among the charred and shattered debris at the Germanwings crash site. However, Lieutenant Colonel Jean-Marc Menichini, a French Gendarmerie in charge of the communications at the crash site, later told reporters the video was a hoax. But it was too late, the video narrative had already cascaded over global media.
News of the false video footage preceded information from the flight recorder which revealed that the plane “sped up upon descent”, something which might not be out of the ordinary if you factor in weather conditions, altitude and depressurization – but news outlets have erroneously viewed this as confirmation of the popular ‘Lubitz mass-murder suicide theory’.
You have to wonder how French authorities pieced the Germanwings crash scene together so quickly.
Additionally, could it be possible that the plane suffered some kind of mechanical failure that investigators have yet to determine or have overlooked?
Reports state that the Germanwings Airbus was quite an old model, even though it passed its recent inspection, as the Wall Street Journal noted here on March 25th:
“Airbus said the plane was delivered in 1991 to Lufthansa and had logged around 58,300 flight hours in some 46,700 flights.”
andreas-guenter-lubitz-28-year-old-co-pilot-germanwings-plane-deliberately-crashed-aircraft
IMAGE: ‘Wild Tales’ – Andreas Lubitz, the German-born co-pilot and First Officer of Germanwings flight 9525. (Photo link ibtimes.com)
‘Uninterruptible’ Flight Control

It’s important to once again mention 21WIRE’s lengthy investigation into the history of avionics, following the questionable vanishing of Malaysian flight MH370, and the downing of MH17.
After extensively examining both the unprecedented disappearance of MH370 and the subsequent downing of MH17, certain details came to light regarding the history of the remote autopilot function installed within Boeing commercial airliners.
The Boeing 777 along with other Boeing and Airbus models, can in fact be flown remotely through the use of independent embedded hardware, software and satellite communications system. Once this advanced system is engaged, it can disallow any pilot or potential hijacker from controlling a plane, as the rooted set-up uses digital signals that communicate with air traffic control, satellite links, as well as other government entities operating a central control hun (located in the United States) for the remainder of a flight’s journey. 
This technology is known as the Boeing Honeywell ‘Uninterruptible’ Autopilot System, also refered to as BHUAP or BUAP.



IMAGE: The United States patent and schematics for the Boeing Honeywell Uninterruptible Autopilot dated November, 28th 2006 (Photo flightglobal.com). 

On December 4th of 2006, it was announced that Boeing had won a patent on an uninterruptible autopilot system for use in commercial aircraft. Although this was the first public acknowledgment by Boeing about the existence of such an autopilot system, it is believed that the technology has been operation on many commercial aircraft from as early as the late 1980’s and as late as the mid 1990’s. 
The ‘new’ autopilot patent was reported by John Croft for Flight Global, with the news piece subsequently linked by a Homeland Security News Wire and other British publications around the same time in 2006. According to the DHS news release, it was disclosed that “dedicated electrical circuits” within an onboard flight system could control a plane without the need of pilots, stating that the advanced avionics would fly the aircraft remotely, independently of those operating the plane:
“The “uninterruptible” autopilot would be activated – either by pilots, by onboard sensors, or even remotely via radio or satellite links by government agencies like the Central Intelligence Agency, if terrorists attempt to gain control of a flight deck.”
The Flight Global news wire goes on to report that the uninterruptible autopilot system was designed for “increased security” in the event of a manual hijacking situation, as Boeing itself describes the feature as a preventative measure, keeping unauthorized persons out of a cockpit, setting the stage for an industry wide safety protocol:
“There is a need in the industry for a technique that conclusively prevents unauthorised persons for gaining access to the controls of the vehicle and therefore threatening the safety of the passengers onboard the vehicle, and/or other people in the path of travel of the vehicle, thereby decreasing the amount of destruction individuals onboard the vehicle would be capable of causing.”
Additionally, in the article entitled, “Diagrams: Boeing patents anti-terrorism auto-land system for hijacked airliners,” Croft outlines the clandestine oversight that the US and partner governments have with respect to the uninterruptible autopilot, making note of the auto-land function of the system and stating that the technology has its own power supply, self-sufficient of any electrical systems on the plane:
“To make it fully independent, the system has its own power supply, independent of the aircraft’s circuit breakers. The aircraft remains in automatic mode until after landing, when mechanics or government security operatives are called in to disengage the system.”
Although the information regarding the remote capabilities concerning Boeing were released in the 2006 DHS newswire, it wasn’t until retired military and commercial pilot, Field McConnell, launched a lawsuit against the FAA, NTSB and ALPA in February of 2007, did those specific modifications get pushed out into the open.
According to McConnell’s documents, Boeing is said to have stated that by end of 2009 all Boeing planes would be fitted with the BUAP – making them impossible to manually hijack within the plane but susceptible to remote control by the military, according the flight veteran. 
McConnell has also stated that every airliner should now be classified as a ‘latent’ drone. Additionally, he has suggested that due to flight aviation regulations pilots have ‘unknowingly’ assumed legal responsibility for airliners outfitted with the BUAP system.
It’s important to remember that following the disappearance of MH370, media outlets and authorities were quick to place blame on the plane’s captain, Zaharie Shah, seemingly crafting a“suicide smear campaign” as described by the pilot’s family, while also manufacturing a terror narrative – that was later abandoned.
The mainstream media ignored much of the initial critical information that was revealed concerning the communication of the plane and its actual whereabouts according to eye witnesses in favor of a weak and unsubstantiated motive.

Perhaps the key element to keep in mind regarding the BUAP system – is that at any point during a flight, the plane’s controls can be seized remotely, subsequently overriding manual control.
Nudging BUAP Into Germanwings Story
As the narrative had already spun out of control regarding Germanwings pilot Lubitz following the crash, a Daily Mail article entitled,“Why can’t airlines seize control of doomed jets from the ground?“, emerged, revealing the largest mainstream media roll out, regarding the BUAP fly-by-wire technology. The article was released within 24 hours of the disaster, as if it had been ready to go for sometime. Here’s an excerpt that echoes Croft’s article from 2006:
“Manufacturers in Europe and America have worked on ways of creating a ‘hijack-proof’ aircraft. In 2006, Boeing was awarded a US patent for an ‘uninterruptible’ autopilot system.”
“This would allow pilots, ground controllers or security agencies such as the CIA to activate an automatic flight mode that cannot be turned off by anyone on board.”
“The system could also switch itself on if terrorists tried to fight their way into the cockpit, with pressure sensors on the door responding to excessive force.”
The Daily Mail piece could be seen as a way to preempt and ultimately ease questions concerning the BUAP system, while simultaneously priming the public for automated commercial airliners in the future. Similar reports advocating for a “remote control solution” appeared at exactly the same time on other media outlets, including CNN’s The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer.
The existence of this technology can no longer be denied, along with other anti-hijack patents that have long been established in the field of aviation. The the establishment media are most fearful of here is the PR disaster which will ensue should the public ever connected the BUAP system with the events of Sept 11, 2001 – eventually demanding answers as to why the BUAP was not engaged during any other the alleged hijacked passenger airlines on 9/11.

Take another listen to SUNDAY WIRE host Patrick Henningsen and his guest Field McConnell (start at 1h 29m mark), in an explosive discussion about the latest airline disaster involving Germanwings…
READ MORE MH370 NEWS AT: 21st Century Wire MH370 Files
READ MORE MH17 NEWS AT: 21st Century Wire MH17 Files–

GERMANWINGS PLANE CRASH

GERMANWINGS PLANE CRASH

On the 24th March 2015 a Germanwings Airbus A320 crashed in the French Alps while travelling from Barcelona to Duesseldorf. The German airline plane was carrying more than 140 passengers.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/all-about/germanwings-plane-crash

Objection filed to Google, Inc. license application at FCC for ‘Project Loon’

Objection filed to Google, Inc. license application at FCC for ‘Project Loon’

On December 17, 2015, Global Union Against Radiation Deployment from Space (GUARDS) filed with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), an Informal Objection under Section 5.95 to Application of Google, Inc., Application for Experimental License, File No. 0747-EX-PL-2015.

GUARDS is an international coalition against global WiFi from space, a complex technology of radiation and toxic chemicals endangering all life on Earth.

The following are videos on the project from Google, including lectures by their engineers and spokespeople:






Global Media Giants Are Lobbying For The Most Sinister Privatization Of All: The Airwaves

Global Media Giants Are Lobbying ForThe Most Sinister Privatization Of All: The Airwaves

by Jeremy Rifkin

Question: what is the single most valuable piece of property worth owning at the dawn of the information age? Answer: the radio frequencies - the electromagnetic spectrum - over which an increasing amount of communication and commercial activity will be broadcast in the era of wireless communications. Our PCs, palm pilots, wireless internet, cellular phones, pagers, radios and television all rely on the radio frequencies of the spectrum to send and receive messages, pictures, audio, data, etc. Most of us never give the spectrum a passing thought. We regard it, more or less, like the oxygen we breathe, as a free good. In reality, the spectrum is treated as a `commons´ and is controlled and administered by governments who, in turn, license the various radio frequencies to commercial and other institutions for broadcast. In other words, in every country the electromagnetic system is owned by the government on behalf of the people.

But now powerful commercial media are seeking to gain total control over the airwaves. Imagine a world in which a handful of global media conglomerates like Vivendi, Sony, BskyB, Disney, and News Corporation own literally all the airwaves all over the planet and trade them back and forth as `private electronic real estate´. A strategy is beginning to unfold in Washington DC to make that happen.

On February 7, 37 leading US economists signed a joint letter asking the federal communications commission (FCC) to allow broadcasters to lease spectrum they currently license from the government in secondary markets. The letter, which went virtually unnoticed by the general public, is the opening salvo in a radical plan to wrest control of the entire spectrum from governments around the world, and make the radio frequencies a private preserve of global media giants. If they succeed, the nation state will have lost one of its last remaining vestiges of real power - the ability to regulate access to broadcast communications within its own geographic borders.

This story starts several years ago, when the Progress and Freedom Foundation, a conservative thinktank in Washington with close ties to Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House of Representatives, published The Telecom Revolution: An American Opportunity. The report's authors called for the conversion of the electromagnetic spectrum to private property. Under the plan, broadcasters holding existing licences would be granted title to the spectrum they currently used and would be able to use, develop, sell and trade it as they saw fit. Remaining unused parts of the spectrum would subsequently be sold off to commercial enterprises and be reconstituted as private electronic real estate, while the FCC would be abolished.

The study argued that government control of the radio frequencies led to inefficiencies, and that if the spectrum were converted into private electronic real estate that could be exchanged in the marketplace, the invisible hand of supply and demand would dictate the most innovative uses of those frequencies. Congressional hearings were subsequently conducted on the proposal, quickening interest in the plan.

Still, the notion of selling off the US airwaves to private commercial interests seemed a bit too ambitious, even for the most experienced Washington corporate lobbyists. Then, less than one month after George Bush assumed the presidency, the letter from the 37 economists turned up on the FCC's doorstep.

The new thinking: first, secure a partial privatisation plan, allowing commercial licensees to sell and lease their leased spectrum in secondary markets. Once done, the commercial foundation would be laid for a final conversion from government licensing of the spectrum to a future sell-off to the private sector. Other nations would be encouraged to follow suit and sell off their spectrums to global media companies. If some baulked at the idea of relinquishing control over their airwaves, international trade sanctions could be imposed to force compliance.

In the industrial age, exchanging property in markets was the sine qua non of commerce. The role of national governments was to protect property and markets. But in the new commercial world being born, having access to the flow of information in telecommunications networks becomes at least as important as exchanging property in markets.

If the radio frequencies of the planet were owned and controlled by global media corporations, how would the billions who live on earth guarantee their most basic right to communicate with one another? In an era where more and more of our daily communications take place in cyberspace, access to the airwaves becomes critical. Of course, those who can pay will be connected. But what about the 62% of people who have never made a telephone call, and the 40% who have no electricity? How will they ever secure access to cyberspace in a world where the admission fee is controlled by a few global media giants?

If the flow of human communications is controlled by global media companies, how do we ensure that social and cultural points of view and political expressions that may differ from those of the companies who own the frequencies will be allowed to flow over the spectrum? We might face the prospect of a new form of repression as global media companies tighten their grip on the airwaves.

Equally ominous, when companies like AOL-Time Warner, Disney and Vivendi Universal own the channels of communication as well as much of the 'content' that flows through them, will the rich cultural diversity that has traditionally been created and nurtured in civil society dry up? Will we be left with only a few global media companies as the ultimate arbiters of human culture?

How do we prevent these companies from exerting undue influence over commercial life itself, because of their control over the channels of communications through which business is conducted? And finally, in the new era, when everyone is connected with everyone else in commercial information and telecommunications networks, how do we prevent corporate owners of the radio frequencies from exploiting the data on people's lives that flows through cyberspace? What safeguards will people have over their own privacy when every aspect of their life story is accessible as data bits travelling over corporate-owned and controlled communications channels?

At the dawn of the global media age more than 20 years ago, an American government official made the prescient remark that `trade doesn´t follow the flag anymore, it follows the communication systems'. When our very right to communicate with one another is no longer assured or secured by government but controlled by global media conglomerates, can basic freedoms and real democracy continue to exist?

Jeremy Rifkin is the author of The Age of Access and president of The Foundation on Economic Trends in Washington DC.

Utilities Remove Burned Smart Meter Evidence from Fire Scenes

Utilities Remove Burned Smart Meter Evidence from Fire Scenes

NV Smart Meter Fire PhotoWe’ve had anecdotal evidence for quite some time that utility companies remove burned smart meters from fire scenes before fire investigators can determine the source of home or business electrical fires.  This was more officially reported this past March when “Quebec City firefighters asked Hydro-Québec to leave smart meters alone.”
Quebec City’s fire department says Hydro-Québec has been too quick to remove smart meters from the scenes of fires where faulty wiring may be an issue.  “A fire is considered a crime scene and at a crime scene evidence should be left alone,” said France Voiselle, a department spokeswoman.
Also based upon reporting of the Reno-Gazette Journal in September 2014:
“… an electrician who helps NV Energy replace the meters told the Reno Gazette-Journal that often meters would be fixed before the fire department could even be called.  The RGJ has withheld his name because he continues to do work for NV Energy and didn’t want to put his employment at risk.”
“NV Energy was so quick in having me or one of the other guys out there that the fire department never knew about them,” he said. “We’d have the panel changed out and power turned on within five hours and a guy painting the wall right behind us.”
Norman Lambe, a Property Claims Adjuster in Southern California, has also reported this phenomenon of utilities removing burned smart meters from fire scenes before investigators or insurance company claim adjusters have had an opportunity to examine the meters to determine if they are the cause of the fire.
According to an article by Norm Lambe in March 2014:
“My interest was first turned to the problem of Smart Meter fires because of my work as a Property Claims Adjuster here in Southern California.  As the Smart Meter roll out took place throughout Southern California, I began to see more and more situations where if the Smart Meter had not been installed, the fire would most likely not have taken place.”
Now in July 2015, Lambe again writes:
“When a fire associated with the malfunctioning of a smart meter is reported to the insurance company, the Claims Adjuster will inspect the damage, and attempt to determine what caused the fire.  The Adjuster will then continue the program of the evaluation of the loss and payment of the claim.”
“While the steps outlined take place, the insurance company is also interested in determining the cause of the fire, and if it is due to someone’s negligence or manufacturer’s defect.  The insurance company will begin subrogation efforts to recover the insured’s deductible, as well as the amount the company paid for the repair.”
“Part of the problem I face as a Claims Adjuster and other Adjusters are dealing with, is that when the fire department receives the notice of a fire, one of their first duties is to notify the local public utilities to shut off the utilities, preventing the further spread of the fire.  When the local electrical utility arrives and determines that a smart meter is the issue, they have been removing the meter, and preventing the inspection of the meter by the experts the insurance company will hire to determine who is responsible for the fire.”
“In June of 2015, two black outs occurred in busy Las Vegas Nevada restaurants, believed to be caused by smart meter failures.  Nevada Energy has removed the meters and as of this day the meters have still not been examined, although the claims are in the process of loss evaluation and will be paid by the insurance company.  However, the real issue as to why all the meters are failing is not being dealt with.”
“This is a serious situation, as the utility company, upon removal of the meter is tampering with what is evidence concerning the cause of the fire…”
This website has established why smart meters increase the risk of fires as compared to analog meters and has reported countless incidents of where smart meters were directly involved in fires or the likely cause of fires at homes or businesses.  Yet the utility companies and smart meter manufacturers often deny any fires have been caused by smart meters whatsoever.  As reported in this article, one way they can attempt to deny the fires is to apparently cover up the fires and remove evidence from the fire scenes prior to investigators seeing it.
Source Material for this Article
“Reno smart meter fires more widespread than first feared,” athttp://www.rgj.com/story/news/2014/09/21/reno-smart-meter-fires-widespread-first-feared/15897355/
“Are insurance companies avoiding the smart meter problem?,” athttp://www.examiner.com/article/are-insurance-companies-avoiding-the-smart-meter-problem
Also refer a separate article written subsequent to this posting: “Exploding and melting smart meters in Stockton, California,” at http://www.examiner.com/article/exploding-and-melting-smart-meters-stockton-california

Radiant Times Cartoon - January 4, 2016

Radiant Times Cartoon - January 4, 2016

p.s. Please read what the CDC says about caution and cell phones: http://www.electronicsilentspring.com/cell-phones-cdc/



Image
PO Box 6574
Santa Fe NM 87502
USA 

Sunday, January 03, 2016

At C.D.C., a Debate Behind Recommendations on Cellphone Risk

At C.D.C., a Debate Behind Recommendations on Cellphone Risk

[]

                              
A 2010 study found no overall increase in health risk from cellphone use, but monthly usage time was much shorter then. Zoran Milich/Reuters

When the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention published new guidelines 18 months ago regarding the radiation risk from cellphones, it used unusually bold language on the topic for the American health agency: “We recommend caution in cellphone use.â€

The agency’s website previously had said that any risks “likely are comparable to other lifestyle choices we make every day.â€

Within weeks, though, the C.D.C. reversed course. It no longer recommended caution, and deleted a passage specifically addressing potential risks for children.

Mainstream scientific consensus holds that there is little to no evidence that cellphone signals raise the risk of brain cancer or other health problems; rather, behaviors like texting while driving are seen as the real health concerns. Nevertheless, more than 500 pages of internal records obtained by The New York Times, along with interviews with former agency officials, reveal a debate and some disagreement among scientists and health agencies about what guidance to give as the use of mobile devices skyrockets.

Although the initial C.D.C. changes, which were released in June 2014, had been three years in the making, officials quickly realized they had taken a step they were not prepared for. Health officials and advocates began asking if the new language represented a policy change. One state official raised the question of potential liabilities for allowing cellphones in schools.

C.D.C. officials began debating how to back away from their recommendation of caution, internal emails show. One official proposed saying instead that other countries — “specifically the United Kingdom and Canadian governments†— recommended caution. Others suggested pointing to determinations by agencies in Finland, Israel and Austria. Ultimately, though, no other country was mentioned.

Bernadette Burden, a C.D.C. spokeswoman, said in a statement that the original changes made in June 2014 stemmed from “a C.D.C.-wide effort to make health information for the public easier to understand†but led to confusion that the agency was making a new policy statement.

“To correct that misperception and to confirm that C.D.C. had not changed its policy or recommendations, C.D.C. posted a clarification statement,†she said, adding that the cellphone industry did not weigh in before changes were made.

Christopher J. Portier, former director of the National Center for Environmental Health, the C.D.C. division that made the changes, disagreed with the decision to pull back the revised version. “I would not have removed it,†he said in an interview. “I would have been in support of a recommendation that parents look carefully at whether their children need cellphones or not.â€

Dr. Portier, who led the center when the revision process was initiated, said he believed parents should have been presented “with enough information to say caution isn’t ill advised, because we really don’t know, and there are enough indicators to say we should be cautious.â€

Dr. Portier also served on the International Agency for Research of Cancer, a branch of the World Health Organization that in May 2011 called low-frequency radiation from cellphones and other devices a possible carcinogen, a designation that has also been used for coffee and pickled vegetables. He said the I.A.R.C. declaration led him to seek a review of the C.D.C. guidelines.

Dr. Portier’s view is not shared by many other experts. While sporadic claims about cellphones and cancer go back several decades, most American organizations echo the Federal Communications Commission, which says radio-frequency energy is not “effectively linked†with “any known health problems.â€

Radiation released by nuclear bombs is obviously harmful. Known as ionizing radiation, it is powerful enough to remove electrons from atoms. By contrast, radio-frequency energy is a form of non-ionizing radiation given off by cellular and portable phones, Wi-Fi routers, baby monitors and countless other devices.

John D. Boice Jr., president of the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, said his own research had found “no evidence for associations with brain tumors or any other cancers.â€

The European Environment Agency, like some others in Europe, strikes a more cautious tone than American agencies. “Scientific opinion is split on the issue — many different studies have reached different conclusions based on the same evidence,†the European agency says. It advocates “a precautionary approach to policy making in this area.â€

Regarding children, the European agency says, “There is sufficient evidence of risk to advise people, especially children, not to place the handset against their heads.â€

Given the state of the research, the industry has rejected health concerns. When Berkeley, Calif., passed an ordinance last spring requiring retailers to warn customers that radiation emitted by cellphones could be hazardous, CTIA-The Wireless Association, an industry trade group,sued. It called the ordinance “scientifically baseless and alarmist,†adding that the federal government had determined that “cellphones approved for sale in the United States, however worn, are safe for everyone.†The lawsuit is pending.

The study cited most often is Interphone, a multination review published by the I.A.R.C. in 2010. CTIA, in a statement, noted that Interphone found “over all, no increase in risk.†But Interphone did find “some indications of an increased risk of glioma,†a type of brain tumor, among the heaviest 10 percent of cellphone users, though “the researchers concluded that biases and errors limit the strength of these conclusions and prevent a causal interpretation.â€

Dr. Elisabeth Cardis, Interphone’s principal investigator, said in an interview, “I can’t say for sure there’s an effect, but I can’t say for sure there’s no effect.â€

However, the usage rates studied were far lower than those seen now, she said. The median call time in the study was two to two and a half hours per month. A Nielsen study in 2014 found that Americans used smartphones more than 34 hours a month, on average, though more often for games or social media than for communications.

Dr. Cardis is now conducting a large government-funded study in Europe of the potential risks of cellphone use among children. Nevertheless, she uses a mobile phone herself, as do her children —” though she said it was prudent to use headsets or speakerphone, or to text, instead of holding the device next to your ear.

“If there’s a risk, it’s likely to be greater for exposures at younger ages,†she said, “simply because the skull is thinner and the ears are thinner in children than in adults. Basically your phone is closer to your brain.â€

The C.D.C.’s internal email traffic shows a lengthy revision process for the agency’s recommendations. After the announcement by the I.A.R.C. in 2011, one agency official wrote that there was “outdated information on our current website.†Some changes were made within days, though they did not mention the I.A.R.C. determination.

That would take another three years. It coincided with the C.D.C.’s effort to use clearer language on its website, a bureaucratic process that led to tension between the communications staff and the agency’s Radiation Studies Branch.

One draft of the new language was tested on a focus group in 2013, prompting complaints that the “material did not provide any concrete answers.†Another draft was criticized by an outside expert for including “statements that are scientifically incorrect,†an agency official wrote.

One official proposed posting three different versions of the guidelines on the website, a step rejected by another as confusing.

The vetting process for the revised guidelines posted in June 2014 included an outside expert, James M. Smith, the former head of the Radiation Studies Branch. “I certainly had no intention of suggesting a policy change, since there was no overriding science to justify that,†Mr. Smith said. In retrospect, he said, “it was just a bad choice of words.â€

The new guidelines were not noticed until several weeks after they were first posted. The change aroused alarm within the agency, and concerns from some outside experts. An official from the Vermont Health Department forwarded a letter he had received asking about the state’s legal liability for allowing wireless technology in public schools and libraries.

Within the C.D.C., officials began to retreat from the language. In emails, Robert C. Whitcomb Jr., head of the Radiation Studies Branch, began assuring colleagues at other agencies and universities that the new guidelines were “not an official policy.â€

Another C.D.C. official called it “a teachable moment,†while a third said she had “an incredible guilt complex†for her role in the guidelines published in June 2014.

Dr. Portier, who left the C.D.C. in 2013, sees it differently. “I would have been happy with the original revision,†he said.

Today, the agency’s guidelines include a sidebar explanation noting that they were changed, and then changed again. “During this process, revisions were introduced which inadvertently led some visitors to the web page to believe that a change in position had occurred.â€

“Some organizations recommend caution in cellphone use,†the agency’s guidelines now say. But the C.D.C. is not one of them.