The public safety LTE & mobile broadband market: 2015 – 2030 – opportunities, challenges, strategies & forecasts

______________________________

The public safety LTE & mobile broadband market: 2015 – 2030 – opportunities, challenges, strategies & forecasts

Release Date: June 2015

Number of Pages: 453

Number of Tables and Figures: 131

Synopsis: Due to the bandwidth limitations of their traditional voice-centric LMR (Land Mobile Radio) networks, public safety agencies are keen to leverage commercial cellular network technology to support their growing broadband application needs. Considering its thriving ecosystem, spectrum flexibility and performance metrics, LTE has emerged as the leading candidate for public safety mobile broadband networks.

http://www.snstelecom.com/public-safety-lte

Announcement of the EBEA Erice School 2016

Announcement of the EBEA Erice School 2016

European Bioelectromagnetics Association, June 12, 2015

We are happy to announce the VIII COURSE of the International School of Bioelectromagnetics “Alessandro Chiabrera”: Electromagnetic Fields and the Nervous System: Biological Effects, Biophysical Mechanisms, Methods, and Medical Applications, organized with COST Action BM1 309, 11-18 April, 2016, Erice, Italy.
Directors of the Course are Vincenzo di Lazzaro (Campus Bio-Medico University, Rome, Italy) and Bernard Veyret (IMS-CNRS, Bordeaux, France), find here the announcement.
http://bit.ly/1RzWKDn

-- Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D., Director
Center for Family and Community Health
School of Public Health
University of California, Berkeley

Electromagnetic Radiation Safety

Website:              http://www.saferemr.com
Facebook:            http://www.facebook.com/SaferEMR
News Releases:    http://pressroom.prlog.org/jmm716/
Twitter:                 @berkeleyprc

WHO: It's time for a change

WHO: It's time for a change

Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D., Electromagnetic Radiation Safety, June 25, 2015

The World Health Organization promotes the radio frequency radiation guidelines adopted by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). Many countries have adopted these guidelines to serve as their regulatory standards for wireless radiation exposure from cell phones, Wi-Fi, and other wireless devices.

ICNIRP has 14 members on the commission. ICNIRP recently announced that is calling for nominations to serve on the Commission from 2016 to 2020. To be eligible for membership, one must be nominated by the Executive Council of the International Radiation Protection Association (IRPA) or an IRPA Associate Society.

Do the selection criteria for ICNIRP membership explain why ICNIRP has not adopted biologically-based guidelines to protect people from non-ionizing radiation?

ICNIRP should be composed of members who possess a comprehensive and deep understanding of the scientific literature regarding chronic, low intensity exposure to non-ionizing radiation and biology or health. In addition, these experts should be unbiased and should not have even the appearance of a conflict of interest.

Recently, 206 scientists signed the International EMF Scientist Appeal, a petition which claims that "the ICNIRP guidelines do not cover long-term exposure and low-intensity effects" and "they are insufficient to protect public health."  All of these scientists have published peer-reviewed research on non-ionizing radiation protection.

Perhaps, it is time for the WHO to replace ICNIRP with an expert committee that has greater expertise regarding non-ionizing radiation protection and use this committee to establish the WHO guidelines for wireless radiation. 

http://bit.ly/1QRUpc3

--

Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D., Director
Center for Family and Community Health
School of Public Health
University of California, Berkeley

Electromagnetic Radiation Safety

Website:              http://www.saferemr.com
Facebook:            http://www.facebook.com/SaferEMR
News Releases:    http://pressroom.prlog.org/jmm716/
Twitter:                 @berkeleyprc

Cell Phones & Wireless Technologies: Should Safety Guidelines Be Strengthened?

Cell Phones & Wireless Technologies: Should Safety Guidelines Be Strengthened?

Commonwealth Club of California, Jun 22 2015  

Commonwealth National Podcast:  http://bit.ly/CCwirelesspodcast  (3:27:32)

The slide presentations and a video of the meeting will be available soon.

Cell Phones and Wireless Technologies: Should Safety Guidelines Be Strengthened to Protect Adults, Children and Vulnerable Populations – and Should Parents, Teachers and Schools Restrict Technology Overuse among Children? 

In the wireless generation, people have embraced and accommodated the cellphone, but how much physical harm could a tiny wireless device cause?

A panel of distinguished researchers will review the science of cellphone risk, mechanisms of action, new genetic questions, and whether the IARC warning should be upgraded to "probable carcinogen" – or even "carcinogen." Special focus will be put on risks to children and the role overuse of wireless technologies may be playing in attention, functional and relational difficulties and risk to the elderly, where cognitive decline might be misconstrued as dementia.

Participants 

Victoria L. Dunckley, M.D.; Psychiatrist

Martin L. Pall, Ph.D.; Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry and Basic Medical Sciences, School of Molecular Biosciences, Washington State University

Beatrice Alexandra Golomb, M.D., Ph.D.; Professor of Medicine, UC San Diego

Suleyman Kaplan, Ph.D.; Professor in Medicine and Vice Rector, Ondokuz Mayis University, Samsun, Turkey

Mary Redmayne, Ph.D.; Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Centre for Population Health Research on Electromagnetic Energy, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia

Nesrin Seyhan, Ph.D., Professor, Faculty of Medicine, and Biophysics Dept. Head, Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey

Devra Davis, Ph.D., MPH; Founder, The Environmental Health Trust

Karl Maret, MD, M.Eng.; President Dove Health Alliance; Senior Research Fellow, National Institute for Science, Law & Public Policy

Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D.; Director, Center for Family and Community Health at the School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley

Camilla Rees, MBA; Founder, ElectromagneticHealth.org

Lloyd Morgan, Senior Research Fellow, Environmental Health Trust

http://bit.ly/1QR6L

--

Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D., Director
Center for Family and Community Health
School of Public Health
University of California, Berkeley

Electromagnetic Radiation Safety

Website:              http://www.saferemr.com
Facebook:           http://www.facebook.com/SaferEMR
News Releases:  http://pressroom.prlog.org/jmm716/
Twitter:                 @berkeleyprc

The synergic effect of glycyrrhizic acid and low frequency electromagnetic field on angiogenesis in chick chorioallantoic membrane

The synergic effect of glycyrrhizic acid and low frequency electromagnetic field on angiogenesis in chick chorioallantoic membrane

Majidian Eydgahi S, Baharara J, Zafar Balanezhad S, Asadi Samani M. The synergic effect of glycyrrhizic acid and low frequency electromagnetic field on angiogenesis in chick chorioallantoic membrane. Avicenna J Phytomed. 2015 May-Jun;5(3):174-81.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Much attention is paid to angiogenesis due to its mutual role in health and disease. Therefore, the effect of various chemical and physical agents on inhibition of this process has been recently studied. This study was conducted to investigate the synergic effect of glycyrrhizic acid and electromagnetic field on angiogenesis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this experimental study, 44 Ross fertilized chicken eggs were randomly divided into four groups, one control and three experimental. Control group was kept with dimethyl sulfoxide on the eighth day, experimental group 1 treated with 200 gauss, 50 Hz electromagnetic field on the 10th day, experimental group 2 treated with 1 mg/ml glycyrrhizic acid on the eighth day, and experimental group 3 simultaneously treated with glycyrrhizic acid on the eighth day and electromagnetic field on the 10th day. On the 12th day, the images of chorioallantoic membrane samples were prepared using photostreomicroscope and the number and length of vessels were measured.

RESULTS: The mean number of vessels in the experimental groups 1 and 3 (29.31±3.60 and 27.43±4.61, respectively) was not significantly different from that in the control group (29.11±4.76) (p>0.05). The length of vessels in the experimental groups 1 and 3 (52.35±3.25 mm and 54.94±4.70 mm, respectively) decreased significantly (p<0 .05="" 23.96="" 2="" and="" both="" br="" compared="" control="" decreased="" experimental="" group="" in="" length="" mm="" number="" of="" p="" significantly="" the="" vessels="" with="">
CONCLUSION:Electromagnetic field and glycyrrhizic acid separately led to inhibition of angiogenesis. However, use of electromagnetic field accompanied with glycyrrhizic acid not only did not increase but also decreased the inhibitory effect.

http://1.usa.gov/1LCCJdJ

Note: I do not have a copy of this paper.

-- 

Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D., Director
Center for Family and Community Health
School of Public Health
University of California, Berkeley

Electromagnetic Radiation Safety

Website:              http://www.saferemr.com
Facebook:            http://www.facebook.com/SaferEMR
News Releases:    http://pressroom.prlog.org/jmm716/
Twitter:                 @berkeleyprc

ACC Confession: “More and more often” APS 'Smart' Meters Don't Work

ACC Confession: “More and more often” APS 'Smart' Meters Don't WorkInformation & Perspective by Warren WoodwardSedona, Arizona ~ June 21, 2015

           Last April I made another Public Records Request of the Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC). I asked for all “smart” meter related emails and documents from January 1^st, 2015 to the date of my request, April 28^th.

           Since the lawless and scandal-ridden ACC has so much to hide, what I received last Friday was mostly redacted. However, there were a few noteworthy unredacted email exchanges. Below is one such exchange.

           This email exchange is between employees of the ACC Utility Division's so-called “Consumer Services” section. Mike Buck works there, and Connie Walczak is the manager of Consumer Services. The other people listed in the “To” heading of the emails are all Consumer Services workers. 

           Connie is explaining to Buck and the others that “more and more often” APS's “smart” meters are not communicating, that the problem can “go on for months,” and so APS is estimating customers' bills as a result.

           This news is not without irony since, in the past, APS has claimed that one of the advantages of “smart” meters was cutting down on the number of estimated bills due to meter access problems. Is anyone surprised that another APS “smart” meter claim turns out to be a lie?

           Last October, APS admitted to replacing some 32,000 faulty “smart” meters between January 1^st and August 31^st of last year alone (see: http://images.edocket.azcc.gov/docketpdf/0000156835.pdf ). With this new revelation in the ongoing “smart” meter fiasco, one wonders how many more “smart” meters have been replaced since then. Of course the ACC wouldn't know because, as with APS's “smart” meter related fires, the ACC is simply too negligent to investigate. After all, laws don't mean a thing at the ACC, especially A.R.S. 40-361.B which states:

“Every public service corporation shall furnish and maintain such service, equipment and facilities as will promote the safety, health, comfort and convenience of its patrons, employees and the public, and as will be in all respects adequate, efficient and reasonable.”

           Are APS's “smart” meters “adequate, efficient and reasonable” “in all respects?” No, not in any respect.

From: Connie Walczak

Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2015  1:32 PM

To: Al Amezcua; Carmen Madrid; Deborah Reagan; Jenny Gomez; Michael Buck; Richard Martinez; Tom Davis; Trish Meeter

Subject: FW: APS SMART METERS

FYI

What you might hear from APS is..... the meter stopped 'communicating' with the company. Seemsthe Smart Meters are doing this more and more often. It may be for only a brief period or a week ora month. APS seems to not have a problem with this 'non' communication, they have Schedule 8, 3.1 to rely on which enables them to estimate the bills. This can go on for months. They do not check the meter when they could retrieve the data, rather, they estimate usage. They do not feel the meter is malfunctioning if it begins communicating again. Even when it continues doing this for more than one month.

From: Michael Buck

Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2015 11:04 AM

To: Richard Martinez; Jenny Gomez; Al Amezcua; Deborah Reagan; Carmen Madrid; Trish Meeter; Tom Davis

Cc: Connie Walczak

Subject: APS SMART METERS

Per Connie,

Has anyone in Consumer Services had any complaints concerning APS's inability to read theirSmart Meter's and estimating the bill? Appreciate the information.

Thank you

Mike Buck

Should Your Self-Driving Car Be Programmed To Kill You If It Means Saving A Dozen Other Lives?

Should Your Self-Driving Car Be Programmed To Kill You If It Means Saving A Dozen Other Lives?

from the I'm-sorry,-Dave dept

Earlier this month Google announced that the company's self-driving cars have had just thirteen accidents since it began testing the technology back in 2009, none the fault of Google. The company has also started releasing monthly reports, which note Google's currently testing 23 Lexus RX450h SUVs on public streets, predominately around the company's hometown of Mountain View, California. According to the company, these vehicles have logged about 1,011,338 "autonomous" (the software is doing the driving) miles since 2009, averaging about 10,000 autonomous miles per week on public streets.

With this announcement about the details of these accidents Google sent a statement to the news media informing them that while Google self-driving cars do get into accidents, the majority of them appear to involve the cars getting rear ended at stoplights, at no fault of their own:

"We just got rear-ended again yesterday while stopped at a stoplight in Mountain View. That's two incidents just in the last week where a driver rear-ended us while we were completely stopped at a light! So that brings the tally to 13 minor fender-benders in more than 1.8 million miles of autonomous and manual driving—and still, not once was the self-driving car the cause of the accident."

If you're into this kind of stuff, the reports (pdf) make for some interesting reading, as Google tinkers with and tweaks the software to ensure the vehicles operate as safely as possible. That includes identifying unique situations at the perimeter of traditional traffic rules, like stopping or moving for ambulances despite a green light, or calculating the possible trajectory of two cyclists blotto on Pabst Blue Ribbon and crystal meth. So far, the cars have traveled 1.8 million miles (a combination of manual and automated driving) and have yet to see a truly ugly scenario.

Which is all immeasurably cool. But as Google, Tesla, Volvo and other companies tweak their automated driving software and the application expands, some much harder questions begin to emerge. Like, oh, should your automated car be programmed to kill you if it means saving the lives of a dozen other drivers or pedestrians? That's the quandary researchers at the University of Alabama at Birmingham have been pondering for some time, and it's becoming notably less theoretical as automated car technology quickly advances. The UAB bioethics team treads the ground between futurism and philosophy, and note that this particular question is rooted in a theoretical scenario known as the Trolley Problem:

"Imagine you are in charge of the switch on a trolley track. The express is due any minute; but as you glance down the line you see a school bus, filled with children, stalled at the level crossing. No problem; that's why you have this switch. But on the alternate track there's more trouble: Your child, who has come to work with you, has fallen down on the rails and can't get up. That switch can save your child or a bus-full of others, but not both. What do you do?"

What would a computer do? What should a Google, Tesla or Volvo automated car be programmed to do when a crash is unavoidable and it needs to calculate all possible trajectories and the safest end scenario? As it stands, Americans take around 250 billion vehicle trips killing roughly 30,000 people in traffic accidents annually, something we generally view as an acceptable-but-horrible cost for the convenience. Companies like Google argue that automated cars would dramatically reduce fatality totals, but with a few notable caveats and an obvious loss of control.

When it comes to literally designing and managing the automated car's impact on death totals, UAB researchers argue the choice comes down to utilitarianism (the car automatically calculates and follows through with the option involving the fewest fatalities, potentially at the cost of the driver) and deontology (the car's calculations are in some way tethered to ethics):

"Utilitarianism tells us that we should always do what will produce the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people," he explained. In other words, if it comes down to a choice between sending you into a concrete wall or swerving into the path of an oncoming bus, your car should be programmed to do the former.

Deontology, on the other hand, argues that "some values are simply categorically always true," Barghi continued. "For example, murder is always wrong, and we should never do it." Going back to the trolley problem, "even if shifting the trolley will save five lives, we shouldn't do it because we would be actively killing one," Barghi said. And, despite the odds, a self-driving car shouldn't be programmed to choose to sacrifice its driver to keep others out of harm's way."

Of course without some notable advancement in AI, the researchers note it's likely impossible to program a computer that can calculate every possible scenario and the myriad of ethical obligations we'd ideally like to apply to them. As such, it seems automated cars will either follow the utilitarian path, or perhaps make no choice at all (just shutting down when encountered with a no win scenario to avoid additional liability). Google and friends haven't (at least publicly) truly had this debate yet, but it's one that's coming down the road much more quickly than we think.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150616/07364131356/should-your-self-driving-car-be-programmed-to-kill-you-if-it-means-saving-dozen-other-lives.shtml%20