CALL US 702-845-5794 bill@stopdirtyelectricity.com

Cell Towers On The Ocean Floor- An Ecological Disaster

One blue sky above us,
One ocean lapping all our shores,
 One earth so green and round,
Who could ask for more?- Pete Seeger

In 2018, on land and in space, preparations to deploy millions of antennas were very publicly being made and advertised, for “5G,” “Smart Cities,” and the “Internet of Things.” At the same time, and without any publicity, governments, research laboratories, and commercial and military interests were collaborating on plans to create “Smart Oceans” and the “Internet of Underwater Things” (IoUT). They did not consult the fishes, whales, dolphins, octopuses, and other inhabitants of those depths.

In the United States, the National Science Foundation funded what it called the SEANet Project. The goal was to enable broadband wireless communication from any point on or in the oceans to anywhere else on the planet or in space. The Internet of Underwater Things is being designed to enable all the same communicationcapabilities that are being provided on land, including “real-time video streamingfrom underwater.”

In the last three years, a flood of papers have been published by scientists and engineers in the U.S., China, Pakistan, Qatar, South Korea, Spain, Australia, Greece,

Italy, France, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, and elsewhere. In 2020, the IEEE Internet of Things Journal published a Special Issue on Internet of Things for Smart Ocean. In 2019, the journal Sensors published a Special Issue on Smart Ocean: Emerging Research Advances, Prospects and Challenges, and the same journal is now publishing another Special Issue on Internet of Underwater Things.

Some of the activities that supposedly “need” this technology in the oceans are:

  •  climate change monitoring
  •  pollution control and tracking
  •  disaster prevention including tsunami warning systems
  •  ocean exploration
  •  fishing and aquaculture
  •  coral reef harvesting
  •  tectonic plate monitoring
  •  navigation
  •  global oceanic trade
  •  oil and gas exploration and production
  •  military communication and surveillanceThe infrastructure that is beginning to be deployed, throughout the oceans, includes:
  •  sensors and antennas (“nodes”) on the ocean floor
  •  nodes at different depths
  •  surface nodes
  •  relay antennas at different depths to transmit data vertically from theocean floor to the ocean surface, and horizontally between nodes
  •  Autonomous Underwater Vehicles (AUVs)
  •  Autonomous Surface Vehicles (ASVs)
  •  underwater robots
  •  wireless surface buoys
  •  smart boats and ships
  •  smart submarines
  • smart shores

Communication being more difficult to accomplish underwater than through the air, and more subject to interference, several different types of communication media are being used in the oceans to send data at different speeds and over different distances. Acoustic waves, radio waves, lasers, LED light, and magnetic induction are all being used to flood the oceans with data. An underwater GPS system is being developed. Most of these media work only for short- to medium-range communication. Long-range communication relies on acoustic waves, and is similar to the technology used in ocean sonar.

These technologies are already being marketed commercially and installed in theworld’s oceans today. At the 2022 Oceanology International conference, which willbe held in London from March 15 to 17, dozens of these companies will be exhibiting their products.

WaterLinked sells underwater sensor technology through distributors around theworld for use in aquaculture, and in underwater navigation. “Our Wireless SenseTMtechnology enables reliable wireless communication and innovative subsea sensorsolutions,” says their website.

EvoLogics sells underwater acoustic modems, both mid-range and long-range, that“provide full-duplex digital communication.”

SonarDyne International sells underwater acoustic modems to the oil and gas industry and to governments and navies.

Voyis sells short- and long-range underwater laser scanners.

GeoSpectrum sells “integrated, end-to-end acoustic systems” for oil and gasexploration and for military purposes.

page3image10168

Dynautics sells autonomous underwater vehicles (AUVs).Seaber sells “off-the-shelf micro-AUVs.”

Hydromea markets “the first ever tether-less underwater drone.”

Mediterraneo Señales Maritimas sells “data buoys that integrate sensors throughour datalogger so the data can be transmitted to a remote station and displayed onour software.”

3D at Depth, Inc. “provides advanced subsea LIDAR laser systems.”

Teledyne Marine sells Autonomous Underwater Gliders, Autonomous UnderwaterVehicles (“unmanned robot submarines”) and “laser systems for both shallow anddeep-sea submerged diving.”

“Underwater robots swarm the ocean,” says a page on the website of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute. The Institute has developed an acoustic-based navigation system that is enabling large numbers of underwater robots to work together. “Instead of using just a single, larger and more expensive underwater robot to cover an area of the ocean, we want to have hundreds or even thousands of smaller, lower-cost robots that can all work in sync,” says their webpage.

Ocean protection organizations have long been campaigning against noise pollution in the oceans, but they are only beginning to be aware of this new type of assault, which has the potential to dwarf all previous noise assaults in its scope and magnitude. For example, one of the campaigns of the environmental organization,Sea Shepherd, is “Silencing the Deafening Roar of Ocean Noise Pollution.” They write:

“In 1953, Jacques Cousteau published a classic memoir on his early days of underwater exploration. He titled this book The Silent World. Today, human activities make a mockery of that title. Over the past several decades, marine noise pollution has grown at an exponential rate. Noise from vessel traffic is doubling every decade. Pile-driving, dredging, sonar, and seismic exploration for oil and gas add to the cacophony. For marine wildlife, and especially for acoustically-sensitive cetaceans, this anthropogenic racket poses a grave and growing threat. Ocean noise pollution causes severe stress, behavioral changes, masking (i.e., difficulty perceiving important natural sounds), strandings, and noise-induced loss of hearing sensitivity.”

To this mix is now being added the Internet of Underwater Things, which is beginning to flood the oceans with sound in order to connect them to the Internet. And this sound will be pulse-modulated with the same harmful frequencies as radio waves in order to carry the same data. And to communicate over large distances, some of the underwater acoustic modems that are being marketed are capable of producing sound as loud as 202 decibels. That is equivalent to 139 decibels in air. It is as loud as a jet engine at a distance of 100 feet, and is above the threshold for pain in humans. These modems blast modulated sound at frequencies ranging from 7 kHz to 170 kHz, encompassing almost the entire hearing range of dolphins, which use sound for hunting and navigating.

The effects of sonar on whales and dolphins have been widely publicized. But the effects of noise pollution on fish and other denizens of the deep are just as devastating, as Lindy Weilgart details in her 36-page report for OceanCare. She reviews 115 research studies on the effects of noise on 66 species of fish and 36 species of invertebrates.

“Most fish and invertebrates use sound for vital life functions,” she writes. “Noise impacts on development include body malformations, higher egg or immature mortality, developmental delays, delays in metamorphosing and settling, and slower growth rates… Anatomical impacts from noise involve massive internal injuries, cellular damage to statocysts and neurons, causing disorientation and even death, and hearing loss… Behaviorally, animals showed alarm responses, increased aggression, hiding, and flight reactions; and decreased anti-predator defense, nest digging, nest care, courtship calls, spawning, egg clutches, and feeding… Some commercial catches dropped by up to 80% due to noise, with larger fish leaving the area.”

If the new assault continues, it will provide the last nails in the coffins of our oceans, and — since the oceans are the source of all life — of our planet. Already in 1970, just 17 years after he published The Silent World, Jacques Cousteau, returning from 31⁄2years of exploration in which he traveled 155,000 miles, told the world: “The oceans are dying. The pollution is general.”

“People don’t realize that all pollution goes to the seas,” said Cousteau. “The earth isless polluted. It is washed by the rain which carries everything into the oceans wherelife has diminished by 40 per cent in 20 years. Fish disappear. Flora too.” And what was not being poisoned was being mined for food as though ocean life was an inexhaustible resource. “The oceans are being scraped,” he said. “Eggs and larvae are disappearing. In the past, the sea renewed itself. It was a complete cycle. But this balance was upset with the appearance of industrial civilization. Shrimps are being chased from their holes by electric shocks. Lobsters are being sought in impossible places. Coral itself is disappearing. Even in the Indian Ocean, which is little traveled.”

Life in the oceans today is hanging by a thread. If the rate of population declines continues, there will be no almost fish left in the oceans by 2048.1 The oceans are absorbing 24 million tons of carbon dioxide every day, are 26% more acidic than before we began burning fossil fuels,2 and have absorbed 93% of the heat generated by greenhouse gases since the 1970s.3 The damage already done to coral reefs by acidification, rising temperatures, and bottom trawling would take 100,000 years for nature to repair.4 Diatoms — a type of algae at the base of the ocean’s food chainthat is also the source of a third of the world’s oxygen production — have been declining by more than 1% per year for two decades.5 Populations of krill — the small shrimplike crustaceans that make up a large portion of the diet of many species of whales, penguins and seals — have declined by 80% since the 1970s.6 And the deepest layers of the oceans are severely depleted of oxygen — so much so that deep-diving fish no longer dive deep but remain near the surface in order to breathe. And populations of fishes that live in the deep sea are drastically declining. Warming oceans can no longer hold as much oxygen, and it is the deepest waters that are depleted of oxygen first.7,8,9,10 Large numbers of bottom-dwelling crabs have suffocated off the coast of Oregon.11 More than a thousand manatees died of starvation in 2021 off the coast of Florida because the seagrass they eat has been killed by pollution.12 And there is so much plastic throughout the oceans13 that sardines sold in an Australian fish market contain 3 milligrams of plastic in every gram of their tissue.14

Although many are the assaults on the oceans, and on the Earth, the single most urgent assault, which is destroying the planet the quickest, is wireless technology. It is the most destructive itself, and it speeds up and coordinates all the other assaults. And driving all of wireless technology, including wireless technology on land, in space, and in the oceans, is the cell phone. All of wireless technology, from 2G to 5G to the Internet of Things to the Internet of Underwater Things, requires everyone to be holding a cell phone in their hands. It is the director, it is the target, and without it, the present rate of destruction could not continue.

As Hillel said two thousand years ago, “If not now, when? If not me, who?”____________________

Source article from Cellphonetaskforce.org

 

5G Exposure Significant Factor In COVID Cases/ Deaths

 

(Natural News) The National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) has published a new study warning about the dangers of 5G technology, including how it directly contributes to the symptoms commonly associated with the Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19).

For the study, Beverly Rubik and Robert R. Brown referenced an earlier paper published in May 2020 that showed a “statistically significant correlation between the intensity of radio-frequency radiation and mortality from SARS-CoV-2 in 31 countries throughout the world.”

They also highlighted a U.S.-based study showing that areas of the country with 5G infrastructure already in place and operating showed significantly higher rates of serious illness and death attributed to covid, all independent of population density, air quality and latitude.

Only 5G matched three different causal analyses used in the study. Population density, air quality and latitude, meanwhile, only matched one or two analyses each, meaning 5G was the verified culprit in negative covid outcomes.

Rubik and Brown used these findings to draw a comparison between the bioeffects of WCR (wireless communications radiation), including 5G, and the symptoms commonly attributed to covid, which they then used to create a list of overlapping physical effects.

“Symptoms from both WCR and COVID-19 included blood changes such as short-term rouleaux (blood ‘clumping’), and long-term reduced hemoglobin (in severe COVID-19 cases); oxidative stress and injury in tissues and organs; immune system disruption, including suppression of T-lymphocytes and elevated inflammatory biomarkers; increased intracellular calcium, which facilitates virus entry and replication; and arrhythmias (heart beat irregularities),” reported LifeSiteNews.

Wireless radiation exposure reduces levels of “master antioxidant” glutathione

One particularly disturbing finding in Rubik and Brown’s study is the observable decrease in glutathione, the body’s “master antioxidant,” upon exposure to 5G and really all wireless radiation. (RELATED: Donald Trump funneled billions of American taxpayer dollars into subsidizing a more rapid 5G rollout.)

At least two other study have found that WCR exposure correlates to greatly diminished glutathione levels, the symptoms of which just so happen to match those of the Fauci Flu.

Rubik and Brown made specific notes in their paper about how “the finding of low glutathione levels” in Chinese Virus patients “further supports oxidative stress as a component” of covid infection.

WCR is already widely recognized as a “physiological stressor” that causes detrimental health effects ranging from increased cancer risk and DNA damage to learning and memory problems.

Sure, correlation does not always mean causation, but in this case it is more than probable that WCR – and particularly the early activation in 5G in Wuhan, the epicenter of the plandemic – is directly contributing to the spread and severity of the Wuhan Virus.

“The evidence for the connection between COVID and 5G, as well as other forms of wireless communications radiation (WCR), consisted of two main findings: the statistical correlation between COVID-19 symptoms / mortality and area-specific WCR intensity, including that of 5G; and the overlap between WCR effects on the body, and COVID-19 symptoms,” LifeSiteNews further reported.

One reader commented that 5G radiation apparently “stirs up” the graphene hydroxide found in the injections, causing bleeding and clotting.

“Graphene hydroxide is a metal and is affected by 5G,” this person added. “Graphene hydroxide never leaves your system and accumulates with every shot or booster.”

Another wrote that while taking NAC (N-Acetyl L-Cysteine) is powerful, as mentioned in the article, vitamin D plays a much bigger role in protecting against covid and other respiratory ailments.

“If you are already low in vitamin D as a great many are, as soon as your body is attacked by a virus, those reserves get depleted further which then puts you in a very dangerous area,” this person added.

Source article from NaturalNews.com 

 

 

 

FCC Harms Children’s Health

 
The FCC Guidelines are harming our children and enabling 5G deployment. The court ruled that the FCC failed to consider EVIDENCE of 5G and wireless harm.
 
On August 13, 2021 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled in favor of the Children’s Health Defense (CHD) in its landmark case against the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) challenging the FCC’s decision not to review its health and safety guidelines regarding 5G and wireless technology. The court’s decision states that the FCC failed to provide a reasoned explanation for its determination that its current guidelines adequately protect against harmful effects of exposure to radiofrequency radiation and failed to review the extensive evidence – scientific evidence and evidence of existing sickness – that was filed with the FCC.
 
Just because a vested organization says something is “safe” does not mean we have reason to believe them.

On February 2nd, 2020, the Children’s Health Defense (CHD) filed an historic case against the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), challenging its decision not to review its 25-year-old radio-frequency emissions (“RF”) guidelines which regulate the radiation emitted by wireless technology devices (such as cell phones and iPads) and infrastructure (cell towers, Wi-Fi and smart-meters), and to promulgate biologically and evidence-based guidelines that adequately protect public health.

In 1996, the FCC adopted guidelines which only protect consumers from adverse effects occurring at levels of radiation that cause thermal effects (temperature change in tissue), while ignoring substantial evidence of profound harms from pulsed and modulated RF radiation at non-thermal levels. The FCC hasn’t reviewed its guidelines or the evidence since, despiteclear scientific evidence of harm and growing rates of RF-related sickness.

In 2012, the Government Accountability Office of Congress published a reportrecommending that the FCC re-assess its guidelines. As a result, in 2013 the FCC published an inquiry to decide whether the guidelines should be reviewed. It opened docket 13-84 for the public to file comments. Thousands of comments and scientific evidence by scientists, medical organizations and doctors, as well as hundreds of comments by people who have become sick from this radiation were filed in support of new rules. Nevertheless, on December 4, 2019, the FCC closed the docket and published its decision, affirming the adequacy of its guidelines without proper assessment of the comments or the evidence.

The FCC decision provided the first opportunity in 25 years to challenge the agency in court, expose its fecklessness, and give a voice to those who have been injured by the FCC’s disregard for human health. The lawsuit, called a Petition for Review, contends that the agency’s decision is arbitrary, capricious, not evidence-based, an abuse of discretion and in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA).

CHD’s lawsuit was joined by nine individual Petitioners. (Plaintiffs are referred to as petitioners in such lawsuits.) They include Professor David Carpenter MD, a world-renowned scientist and public health expert who is also the co-editor of the BioInitiative Report, the most comprehensive review of the science on RF effects; physicians who see the sickness caused by wireless radiation in their clinics; and a mother whose son died of a cell-phone related brain tumor.

CHD’s lawsuit was filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. However it was transferred to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit where it was joined with a similar lawsuit filed by the Environmental Health Trust (EHT) and Consumers for Safe Cell Phones. The main brief and the reply brief were filed jointly by all Petitioners. CHD’s case was initiated and led by Dafna Tachover Esq. The attorneys representing CHD are Robert F. Kennedy Jr., CHD’s Chairman, and Scott McCollough, who is the lead attorney for the Case. Scott is a seasoned telecommunications and administrative law attorney

Want to know more? Check out the full story HERE
Is 5g Technology Bad For Our Health?

Is 5g Technology Bad For Our Health?

Is 5G technology bad for our health?
As 5G wireless technology is slowly making its way across the globe, many government agencies and organizations advise that there is no reason to be alarmed about the effects of radiofrequency waves on our health. But some experts strongly disagree.
“Further experimental and epidemiologic studies are urgently needed in order to better and fully explore the health effects caused in humans by the exposure to generic or specific […] RF-EMF frequencies in different age groups and with increasing exposure density.”
Dr. Agostino Di Ciaula
Check out the full article here: Medical News Today 

1996: When Cell Phone Safety Guidelines Were Last Updated

 

In a Washington Post op-ed (June 4), “5G conspiracy theories threaten the U.S. recovery,” Thomas Johnson Jr., the Federal Communications Commission’s general counsel, declared: “Conjectures about 5G’s effect on human health are long on panic and short on science.”

The FCC, however, has been “short on science” for more than two decades. Along with the World Health Organization, the FCC abdicated its responsibility to protect the public’s health from hazards associated with exposure to radio frequency, or RF, radiation. As a result, almost 400 international scientists and doctors have called for a moratorium on deployment of 5G, and 150 community groups have tried to block its rollout in the United States. Recently, the Environmental Health Trust and Children’s Health Defense, along with multiple plaintiffs, sued the FCC over its inadequate RF exposure limits and cell phone testing procedures.

The FCC relies on other agencies, such as the Food and Drug Administration, for health expertise. However, without a comprehensive review of all peer-reviewed science and a formal risk assessment, the FDA in a letter advised the FCC that “the available scientific evidence to date does not support adverse health effects in humans due to exposures at or under the current limits.” The letter “concluded that no changes to the current standards are warranted at this time.”

In a Senate Commerce Committee hearing, Senator Blumenthal “blasted” the FCC and FDA for “failing to conduct any research into the safety of 5G technology . . . and deferring to industry. . . . We’re kind of flying blind here, as far as health and safety is concerned.”

Last December, the FCC reaffirmed its obsolete RF exposure limits, ignoring critical input from more than 50 scientists, hundreds of scientific studies, and hundreds of people who have suffered illness from RF radiation.

Originally adopted in 1996, these limits were based upon a behavioral change in rats and monkeys exposed to microwave radiation and were designed to protect humans only from short-term heating risks due to RF radiation exposure.

Since 1996, the preponderance of peer-reviewed research—more than 500 studies—has found harmful biologic or health effects from RF radiation exposure at intensities too low to cause significant heating. Thus stringent exposure limits based on biological effects are needed to protect human health.

Citing this body of research, over 240 scientists who have published peer-reviewed research on the biologic and health effects of nonionizing electromagnetic fields, or EMF, signed the International EMF Scientist Appeal, which calls for stronger RF exposure limits. The signatories have published over 2,000 papers and letters on nonionizing EMF in professional journals and arguably constitute the majority of experts in this field.

The appeal proclaims:

Numerous recent scientific publications have shown that EMF affects living organisms at levels well below most international and national guidelines. Effects include increased cancer risk, cellular stress, increase in harmful free radicals, genetic damages, structural and functional changes of the reproductive system, learning and memory deficits, neurological disorders, and negative impacts on general well-being in humans. Damage goes well beyond the human race, as there is growing evidence of harmful effects to both plant and animal life.

In 2018, a $30 million study conducted by the U.S. National Toxicology Program reported “clear evidence” that two years of exposure to cell phone radiation increased cancer in male rats and damaged DNA in rats and mice of both sexes. The Ramazzini Institute replicated the NTP’s key finding using much weaker cell phone radiation exposure over the rats’ lifespan.

The WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer classified RF radiation as “possibly carcinogenic to humans” in 2011. We are seeing increases in head and neck tumors in cancer registries from multiple countries, which may be attributable to the proliferation of wireless device use. These increases are consistent with case-control studies that found increased tumor risk in long-term cell phone users.

Moreover, cancer is not even the most common hazard, because there is substantial scientific evidence that RF radiation causes neurological disorders and reproductive harm.

The volume of peer-reviewed scientific evidence on earlier technologies suggests that exposure to microwaves and millimeter waves used in 5G is likely harmful.

According to Johnson, “if we delay 5G deployment based on irrational fears and unproven theories, it will only hurt the American people.” But can we trust the FDA or FCC’s evaluation of the science? Should we gamble on our health and invest hundreds of billions of dollars deploying 5G, a technology that requires 800,000 new cell antenna sites installed next to our homes and workplaces? Or should we develop RF exposure standards that fully protect humans and the environment and institute a risk management system based upon a formal risk assessment?

SOURCE ARTICLE HERE

FCC Telecommunications Act 1996: 

 

EMFs: The Silent Killer In Your Home

Anna Wright is 15 years old. Three years ago her brother got sick from EMFs and Mold Biotoxin Illness. Since then her family’s journey has been a difficult one.
So she decided to do her 9th-grade research paper on EMFs:
Did you know that there are man-made frequencies bombarding us everyday? And no, it’s not “the force”. There is harmful radiation coming from your phone and wifi router called Electromagnetic Field Radiation (EMF) or Radio Frequencies (RF). They are affecting every single person, constantly, around the world. It’s something everyone in the world should know about, but almost no one does.
What Is EMF And Why Should I Care?
First, What Is “EMF”?
EMF stands for “electromagnetic field”. Breast Cancer Awarness.org and the National Cancer Institute [1,2] say EMFs are, “a type of non-ionizing radiation that emit low-frequency radiation and are caused by electromagnetic fields.”
What Objects Are Threatening And How Do They Hurt You?
Many experts including Dr. Joseph Mercola, and Dr. David Carpenter, agree everyday household items can give off harmful EMF like: hairdryers, electric toothbrushes, baby monitors, smart clocks, electric mixers, microwave ovens, blenders, PlayStations, computers, smart televisions, Bluetooth, cell phones, wifi, etc…
Want to know the rest of the story and what you can do to protect yourself?