LAS VEGAS (KLAS) — Residents in a northwest neighborhood are fired up over the thought of a 5G cell tower coming to their neighborhood.The tower is supposed to be built in a homeowner’s backyard near Campbell and West Washburn Road. Many residents got a document in their mail box asking them to come to the planning commission meeting Tuesday to voice their concerns
The neighborhood is tucked away from the hustle and bustle of central Las Vegas and the quiet is what drove Troy Wayne to this area 12 years ago. “The rural preservation area out here kind of protects us,” Wayne told 8 News Now.
Now Wayne is worried the rural lifestyle he loves will be disrupted after a company called IntelliSites announced plans to build the tower. “We are going to look over that way we are going to see a big tower with fake tree limbs hanging out of it and from what i have read it has adverse effect on wildlife,” Wayne said.
Another neighbor, Randy Anderson, said he will be able to see it from his backyard, “Right behind these palm trees is where you would see it, right on the other side of this wall,” Anderson said. “The tower would be twice as close to my house than it would be to my house so I dont think it belongs there. I dont want it and I vote no.”
The property owner of the land where the tower would be built would not talk to 8 News Now on camera but says they are in a contract with the company and cannot back out. They also said if plans move forward they would get an average of $4,000 a month.
8 News Now reached out to the county and was told the planning commission could approve or deny this plan by the end of its meeting, but residents have the option to appeal a decision.
Our very own Bill Cadwallader was consulted in appealing this decision.
Source article here: KLAS
Mobile technologies have shaped our way of life, but are they also discreetly killing us? That’s the question raised by the documentary short WI-FRIED?, a thought-provoking look at the secret dangers which may lurk in the midst of our globally connected society.
Everywhere you turn, people are buried in their mobile devices and tablets. Children are also an integral part of this phenomenon as these technologies take greater precedence in the school system. As a result, users of all ages worldwide are being exposed to minute amounts of microwave radiation that they never had to contend with in years past before these devices came into being. While officials have dismissed the notion that this exposure can harbor ill health effects in the long term, many scientists and other insiders are speaking out in disagreement.
Dr. Devra Davis, a highly regarded cancer epidemiologist, is one such critic of the widespread and frequent use of these devices. Her arguments are based upon common medical sense. The heart and brain thrive on electrical impulse. When these internal mechanics absorb an influx of electromagnetic signals for countless hours, it stands to reason that a biological disturbance could likely occur as a result.
Have these technologies advanced too quickly to allow for the thorough evaluation and study of their potential dangers, or does this represent a sinister corporate cover-up? Perhaps both of these points possess more than a shred of truth. The film highlights a few factors to which the public is largely unaware. Safety protocols have been advertised for the use of cellular technologies among users with pacemakers, but should this admonition be expanded to include all users? Radiofrequency radiation – the same energy that powers our cell phones and tablets – has been classified as a possible carcinogen. In the face of this uncertain determination, should additional safety measures be adopted as a precautionary measure until further study proves more conclusive?
Watch the documentary here: WI-FRIED DOCUMENTARY
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:
There’s a lot of confusing information out there about how electronics effect our health. 5G is just one hot-topic discussion. Are you looking for actionable items and bypass all the techno-babble? This book is for you and has some edgy photos which might just catch the attention of your skeptic teenagers. Leave it out on the coffee table and see if they pick it up. Get it here:
Quick and Easy EMF Guide
It has been demonstrated that even ELFs (Extremely Low Frequencies) and VLFs (Very Low Frequencies) can:
• Break DNA single and double-strands
• Cause oxidative damage
• Disrupt cell metabolism and communication
• Increase blood-brain barrier permeability
• Reduce melatonin production
• Alter brain glucose metabolism
• Generate stress proteins
• Disrupt voltage-gated calcium channels
This is just to name a few.
In this age of COVID-19, (and other pandemics to follow), doesn’t it make sense to do everything possible not to unnecessarily over-tax our immune systems?
You can give your body the edge it needs by following some simple tips. Find out how from our new book today.
BUY THE BOOK HERE
“We all live in a sea of electromagnetic radiation coming
through the air and from the wires.
How much is too much?
No one really knows for sure. But the fact is, there have been
• No pre-market studies.
• No long-term studies.
• No opportunity for an individual to opt-out of this
• It is EV-ery-where…”