Microwave - and other forms of electromagnetic - radiation are major (but conveniently disregarded, ignored, and overlooked) factors in many modern unexplained disease states. Insomnia, anxiety, vision problems, swollen lymph, headaches, extreme thirst, night sweats, fatigue, memory and concentration problems, muscle pain, weakened immunity, allergies, heart problems, and intestinal disturbances are all symptoms found in a disease process the Russians described in the 70's as Microwave Sickness.
Good luck to anyone who's relying on the global navigation satellite system.
The European Union's Galileo global navigation satellite system hasn't worked since last Thursday. This is apparently due its ground infrastructure suffering technical problems.
A service status page lists 24 of its 26 satellites as "not usable" or "not available," while the remaining two are "testing" -- which our sister site ZDNet reports means they aren't usable. Only the search and rescue service, which is used to find people who get in trouble at sea or in the mountains, is still operating, the European GNSS Agency noted.
"Experts are working to restore the situation as soon as possible," the agency wrote in its release.
The problem may lie with the Precise Timing Facility, a ground station in Italy that gives each satellite in the system an accurate time reference, Inside GNSS said.
The Galileo program launched its first satellite in 2011, so that the EU wouldn't have to rely on the US Global Positioning System, or GPS, for commercial, military and other applications like guiding aircraft.
The agency didn't immediately respond to a request for further comment.
On May 23rd, 2019, SpaceX launched the first batch of its Starlink constellation, a fleet of satellites that will fulfill Elon Musk's promise to provide broadband satellite-internet access to the entire planet. The deployment of these 60 satellites was the first in a series of six planned launches that would see around 720 satellites orbiting at an operational altitude of 550 km (340 mi).
Over the course of the past month, SpaceX announced that all 60 of the satellites were responsive, but recently indicated that contact had been lost with three of them. According to a statement issued by a company spokesperson on June 28th, these three satellites pose no danger as they will deorbit "passively" and burn up in the atmosphere.
When the first batch was launched in May, they rose to an altitude of 440 km (273 mi) before powering up their onboard propulsion rockets to raise their orbit to an operational altitude of 550 km (340 mi). After deploying from their Falcon 9 launch vehicle, observers noticed that some of the Starlink satellites had not initiated orbit raising.
According to the statement issued by the SpaceX spokesperson, the rest of the satellites are functioning well and almost all of them have successfully reached their operational orbit. In the near future, two will deorbit along with the three non-functioning ones in order to test the satellite's ability to propulsively deorbit:
"Three satellites which initially communicated with the ground but are no longer in service will passively deorbit. Due to their design and low orbital position, all five deorbiting satellites will disintegrate once they enter Earth's atmosphere in support of SpaceX's commitment to a clean space environment."
So far, 45 of the satellites have completed raising their orbit, five are still in the process of doing so, and another five are completing system checks before engaging rockets. Once they are all operational, these satellites will test the signal speed and capacity of the Starlink network, as well as its ability to deliver reliable low-latency, high-bandwidth internet services from space.
The plan for the proposed constellation has evolved considerably since Musk announced it back in 2015. Originally, the plan was to deploy 12,000 satellites to low-earth orbit (LEO) by the mid-2020s that would be capable of broadcasting in the Ka- and Ku-bands. However, in recent years, SpaceX decided to expedite things and opted to launch an initial batch of satellites to a lower orbit of 550 kilometers (340 mi).
These satellites also had a simplified design that was smaller, lighter, and which broadcast in the Ka-band alone. The modified nature of this batch of satellites was also indicated in the company statement issued on June 28th:
"SpaceX implemented slight variations across the 60 satellites in order to maximize operational capability across the fleet. While we are pleased with the performance of the satellites so far, SpaceX will continue to push the operational capabilities of the satellites to inform future iterations."
The purpose of sending these satellites to a lower operational altitude was apparently made to reduce the risk of space junk. This is a growing problem as far as missions to LEO are concerned, and is only expected to get worse with all the next-generation satellites scheduled for launch in the coming years.
However, the lower altitude has benefits that go beyond orbital clutter. At 550 km (340 mi) above the Earth's surface, signal lags (latencies) of around 15 milliseconds will be possible, unlike geostationary satellites that often have a half-second or more of signal lag. Last, but not least, a lower operational altitude also means SpaceX can send more satellites up sooner, which favors their expedited schedule.
Based on their current schedule, SpaceX plans to deploy the first half of their Phase I constellation (1,584 satellites) by April of 2024, followed by Phase II (another 2200 satellites) by November of 2027. In the meantime, SpaceX is facing competition from telecom providers that are ramping up their efforts to establish orbital internet constellations.
These include the U.K.-based company OneWeb and Canadian startup Kepler Communications. While the former launched the first six of its proposed 650-satellite constellation back in February of 2019, the latter launched two of its planned 140 a year prior. Jeff Bezos, not to be left behind, is also committed to creating an Amazon constellation, while airlines like Delta and American are also interested.
INT J OCCUP ENVIRON HEALTH, VOL 16/NO 3, JUL/SEP 2010
CONCLUSIONS
Despite variations in the design, size and quality of these studies as summarized in Table 1, it is the consistency of the base-station epidemiological literature from several countries that we find striking. In particular, the increased prevalence of adverse neurobehavioral symptoms or cancer in populations living at distances < 500 meters from base stations found in 80% of the available studies.
AT&T is one of many telecoms who have been warning their investors – but not the public – that they may eventually be held liable for harm caused by their products and transmitting infrastructure (i.e. cell towers).
Despite this, they continue to install 5G wireless throughout the U.S. (see 1, 2) even though telecom industry representatives have provided no scientific evidence that it’s safe, plenty of research already proves it isn’t, and an increasing number of credible sources are opposed to installation for a variety of reasons in addition to biological and environmental risks (see 1, 2, 3).
In February 2019, competitor telecom heavyweight Sprint took legal exception to AT&T’s 5G E advertising campaign, calling it false and misleading “by deceiving customers to believe that its 4G LTE Advanced network is actually 5G.”
The plaintiffs allege that AT&T’s false claims about 5G E (which stands for 5G Evolution) are “causing irreparable damage to its own 5G network investment” by creating consumer perception that AT&T is rolling out new technologies that are more advanced than those of their rivals.
[…]
Consumer confusion over existing 4G LTE (Long Term Evolution) and AT&T’s fanciful 5G E, according to Sprint, will cause “significant lost sales” because “AT&T’s deception guts Sprint’s opportunity to reap the full commercial benefits of Sprint’s 5G network launch that it has been developing for years at enormous expense.”
2. Investors versus AT&T
Two different groups of investors have filed class-action lawsuits against AT&T which charge that the international telecom misled them about the ability of DirecTV Now to grow its market and raise the corporation’s stock value. Pomerantz LLP law firm filed on behalf of an investor group while Klein Law Firm is representing a shareholder member class.
At that time, AT&T promised customers and investors alike that prices for DirecTV Now (a subscription streaming TV service) would plummet. That didn’t happen and the members of one class action lawsuit are claiming that AT&T purposely misled everyone.
AT&T canceled its existing streaming bundles and raised fees for new bundles. Later, AT&T reintroduced the older bundles and charged higher prices for them.
The sour investors further claim that AT&T “touted false and misleading financial results, trends, and metrics and omitted material facts rendering those financial results, trends, and metrics materially misleading.”
267,000 customers abandoned DirecTV Now in the fourth fiscal quarter of 2018 even as AT&T continued to issue false and misleading information with the express purpose of hiding their financial loss.
I have made some changes to S. 1625. Once I realized what this bill was fundamentally, which really isn't a 5G bill, but rather a national security bill, I knew there was no way we were going to stop it. Period. I do think we stand a chance of getting it amended. The amendments I have proposed are really quite simple and there aren't that many of them. They broaden the scope of the bill and actually better achieve its national security purpose than the original version of S1625 without promoting 5G.
If Congress is concerned about Chinese and other questionable companies compromising the integrity of communications they don't want to specify only 5G. Other communications systems are at risk too.
Statements of purpose steer the course of policy and this legislation in its original form clearly supports 5G so supporting it in its original form while opposing 5G is clearly counter productive. 5G is inherently a security threat because a technology that weakens our country by harming our residents' health and the environment is necessarily a national security threat. Thus, 5G should not be promoted in a security-oriented piece of legislation.
The bill, amended as I propose, protects the security of U.S. communication networks without endangering public health or the environment, and would, thus, serve far better to protect national security than the unamended bill.
Could you bring the amended version of S. 1625 to the attention of your Senators, along with the rationale for the amendments? While you are at it, ask that they support S. 2012 / H.R. 530 which restore local control over deployment of 5G and abolish the FCC rules.
Thank you,
Catherine
Protecting our health and the environment by using a hardwired computer in a low RF environment. For more information, see www.electricalpollution.com
