by SDE Staff | Jan 13, 2022 | Bluetooth Risk, Dirty Electricity, Health EMF, Stop Dirty Electricity Concern
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.
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
by SDE Staff | May 4, 2021 | 5G, Bluetooth Risk, Cancer EMF, Children's Health, Health EMF, Stop Dirty Electricity Concern
A new rule enables installation of harmful radiation transmitting antennas on homes, and to extend wireless data/voice services including 5G and satellites, to users on neighboring properties.
Therefore, people adversely affected will have no right to object or prevent these antennas’ installation, even though they will be involuntarily exposed to harmful radiation.
“This rule allows a wireless ‘Wild West,’ and will cause irreparable harm to the many who have already become injured by wireless”
says Dafna Tachover, CHD’s 5G and wireless harms project director. Because OTARD (Over-the-Air Reception Devices rule) preempts federal and state civil rights laws that protect the disabled, those injured will not be able to obtain accommodations and families will be forced out of their homes with nowhere to go.
The most insidious aspect of OTARD is that it eliminates all state and local zoning authority over these arrangements. No permit is required, deed and homeowners’ association restrictions or any other state laws are preempted. No notice to neighboring property owners is required.
by SDE Staff | Mar 24, 2021 | Cell Phone Risk, Children's Health, EMF, Health Concerns EMR, Health EMF, Mental Health, Uncategorized
Overuse Of Technology Can Lead To
Have you ever heard a scatter-brained, stressed out friend mutter ‘I have such ADD today’? It’s become all too common to dismiss our flustered, uninterrupted lives as just part of the everyday new normal. Undeniably, modern society is dictated by our constant connection to technology. Plain and simple, we are married to it – for better or worse. But it’s actually quite serious. In fact, more and more young people who’ve been raised in a digital age are showing signs of short term memory dysfunction as a result of their addiction to technology. What can be done and what does this mean for future generations?
An eye-opening study in Seoul, Korea – where more people are connected to digital devices (over 67%) than anywhere in the world – as well as U.S. study conducted at UCLA has revealed some alarming information about the developing brains of young people. They’re spending upwards of 7 hours a day attached to their iPads, smartphones, computers and gaming consoles. And the effects to their brains are proving to be very damaging.
It’s Called Digital Dementia
“Digital Dementia”, a term coined by top German neuroscientist Manfred Spitzer in his 2012 book of the same name, is a term used to describe how overuse of digital technology is resulting in the breakdown of cognitive abilities in a way that is more commonly seen in people who have suffered a head injury or psychiatric illness.
Have you ever heard a scatter-brained, stressed out friend mutter ‘I have such ADD today’? It’s become all too common to dismiss our flustered, uninterrupted lives as just part of the everyday new normal. Undeniably, modern society is dictated by our constant connection to technology. Plain and simple, we are married to it – for better or worse. But it’s actually quite serious. In fact, more and more young people who’ve been raised in a digital age are showing signs of short term memory dysfunction as a result of their addiction to technology. What can be done and what does this mean for future generations?
An eye-opening study in Seoul, Korea – where more people are connected to digital devices (over 67%) than anywhere in the world – as well as U.S. study conducted at UCLA has revealed some alarming information about the developing brains of young people. They’re spending upwards of 7 hours a day attached to their iPads, smartphones, computers and gaming consoles. And the effects to their brains are proving to be very damaging
Individuals who rely heavily on technology may suffer deterioration in cerebral performance such as short term memory dysfunction. While many of us grew up remembering phone numbers and other key information simply by memorizing it, most kids today have grown up not needing to remember things like phone numbers because we have devices that do it for us.
“Over-use of smartphones and game devices hampers the balanced development of the brain,” Byun Gi-won, a doctor at the Balance Brain Center in Seoul, told the JoongAng Daily newspaper.
It may seem like an easy way out, but can lead to development of the rational, linear, fact-finding skills of the left side of the brain at the expense of the right side which is more intuitive, imaginative and emotional.
The U.S. study blamed modern lifestyles for the problem – saying that spending time on a computer and texting prevents people focusing and memorizing information.
They also blamed stress, saying hectic lifestyles prevent concentration information retention.
A growing number of adults, too, are susceptible to constant connection and overuse of technology which can lead to lateralization of brain function which means the brain suffers imbalance. Damage to the right side of the brain is associated with deficits in ability to concentrate, short attention, memory span, and emotional disturbances, such as depression.
How many of us have a smartphone filled with our contacts whose phone numbers we can readily access but we don’t truly know? Or what if we can’t remember the name of the lead actress in a favorite film? Instead of spending the extra few minutes to recall that information organically — by accessing our natural memory and using our brain — we just go look it up on Google.
We’ve become terrifyingly dependent upon technology to the point that we are ruining our brains.
Can Digital Dementia Be Reversed?
Current thinking seems to say it can. So that means that many of us, including kids who grew up with technology and those of us who adopted it in our later lives as part of living in the modern world, may not be destined to digital dementia indefinitely after. But if we are to reverse the damage, we must take an active — rather than passive — role in the health of our brains.
And we need to start right now.
So how can we do this? Manfred Spitzer asserts that all digital technology should be removed from classrooms. That seems unlikely. But, according to neurologist Dr. Carolyn Brockington from St. Luke’s Roosevelt Medical Center in New York City, we can do other things simply by ‘exercising our brains.’ For example,
1. Use Your Head. Retrieve information from your brain organically – rather than automatically turning to Google to look up that actress you can’t remember immediately. Sit there and concentrate until you can recall it.
2. Crack Open a Book. That’s right. Reading an actual book rather than a tablet has been shown to improve memory retention.
3. Learn a new language. Putting you outside your comfort zone helps your brain work harder, which makes you smarter.
4. Play a new instrument. Instruments require the use of both side of the brain – like the piano or the guitar, for example, which help strengthen and balance it.
5. Get physical. Physical exercise increases blood flow and accelerates the transport of vital nutrients to your brain.
Essentially, we need to be doing anything that can lead to the healthy restructuring or ‘rewiring’ of our brains. We need to be spending less time relying on technology and more time relying on our brain power.
What Can You Do Today?
Use it or lose it, the experts contend. The brain, just like a muscle in our body, can atrophy if we don’t use it.
Perhaps consider a digital sabbatical — like Baratunde Thurston did which was famously published in Fast Company last summer. Although it’s not easy or ideal for most of us who are ‘plugged in’ due to our jobs and the needs of the modern world, we should, at the very least unplug during the weekend. Work can — and should — wait. Facebook can wait. If we focus instead on having real conversations, reading books, getting out into nature, and disconnecting from technology, we will be taking care of our brain health and our emotional health as well.
SOURCE ARTICLE HERE
by SDE Staff | Nov 19, 2020 | Cancer EMF, Cell Phone Risk, Cell Phones Children Risks, EMF Radiation, Health EMF, Mobile Phone Risk, WiFi Risk
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
by SDE Staff | Oct 20, 2020 | 5G, Bluetooth Risk, Cancer EMF, Cell Phone Risk, Dirty Electricity, Electric Radiation, Electromagnetic Radiation, EMF, EMF Consultant Las Vegas, EMF Home Inspections Las Vegas, EMF Radiation, EMF Sensitivity, Health Concerns EMR, Health EMF, Laptop Risk, Microwave Risk, Mobile Phone Risk, Mobile Phone Tower Risks, RF Risk, Wireless Risk
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:
