- Newest data from the New Hampshire legislative commission confirms wireless technology produces significant negative effect on humans, animals, insects and plants
- In the race for hyperfast internet speed and connectivity, experts are making comparisons between the release of 5G and the lies told by the tobacco and oil industries
- The structure required to support 5G will place cell antenna ports close to your home and workplace, making it nearly impossible to avoid and raising your risk of excessive oxidative stress that may lead to anxiety, depression and Alzheimer’s
- It is important to get involved in helping to prevent implementation of 5G by contacting your local lawmakers and signing local petitions. Consider taking steps in your home to reduce exposure
Flying under the radar, so to speak, during the media coverage of the COVID-19 pandemic, is the rollout of a hyperfast speed 5G wireless network. As millions of Americans are suddenly working remotely, it has proven to be a powerful opportunity for regulators to move 5G forward. Yet, in the face of expanding wireless connections, a landmark study recommends reducing exposure.
Despite concern by many experts, the implementation is moving forward under the guise of bringing a faster and more efficient internet, at any cost. The term 5G stands for the fifth generation of wireless access, which Jonathon Adelstein, head of the Wireless Infrastructure Association, characterizes as “4G on steroids.”1 The association represents nearly 200 companies in the telecommunications industry.2
However, Adelstein’s characterization of 4G on steroids is not quite accurate. While the 4G network uses under 6 gigahertz (GHz) on the radio frequency spectrum, 5G will occupy from 30 GHz to 300 GHz, which are shorter millimeter wavelengths.3 The health effects of consistent exposure to pulses of these wavelengths have not been thoroughly studied, but the initial evidence shows it is likely dangerous.
If faster speed and reliability are truly the end goals, then fiber optic connections are a far better and safer way forward. It’s not the faster speeds of 5G that are of concern to scientists but, rather, the distribution of wireless data when in most cases it could be routed more easily and less expensively over fiber optic cables.
Newest Data Confirms Past Evidence
Following the passage of New Hampshire House Bill 522, the New Hampshire legislative Commission to Study the Environmental and Health Effects of Evolving 5G Technology was formed.4 The commission was engaged to “study the environmental and health effects of 5G wireless technology in 2019.”5
The commission was made up of 13 members whose education included epidemiology, occupational health, toxicology, physics, engineering electromagnetics and a representative from the wireless industry. As quoted from EMF Safety Network, the commission was asked to answer eight pointed questions, including:6
- Why thousands of peer-reviewed radiofrequency (RF) studies that show a wide range of health effects, including DNA damage, brain and heart tumors, infertility and many other ailments, have been ignored by the Federal Communication Commission (FCC)
- Why the FCC guidelines do not account for health effects of wireless technology
- Why the FCC RF limits are 100 times higher than those in other countries
- Why the FCC is ignoring the World Health Organization classification of wireless as a possible carcinogen
- Why, when the world’s leading scientists signed an appeal to protect public health from wireless radiation, nothing has been done
The commission heard from experts and ultimately all except the telecommunication representative acknowledged that RF radiation coming from wireless devices had an effect on humans, animals, insects and plants. The commission wrote:7
“There is mounting evidence that DNA damage can occur from radiation outside of the ionizing part of the spectrum. The Commission heard arguments on both sides of this issue with many now saying there are findings showing biological effects in this range. This argument gets amplified as millimeter waves within the microwave range are beginning to be utilized.”
Their first recommendation was “an independent review of the current RF standards of the electromagnetic radiation in the 300MHz to 300GHz microwave spectrum” to assess the health risks that were linked to cellular communications.8
The remaining recommendations included those that would reduce an individual’s exposure to the 5G network and increase the public’s knowledge and awareness of their exposure.
Included was a shorter minority report written by the business and industry representative and the telecommunications representative, who were not in agreement with the majority of experts. The EMF Safety Network wrote, “This minority report parrots the language of the telecommunications industry and exposes their agenda to ignore science and continue to confuse the public.”9
Safety Is Taking A Backseat To Speed
In much the same way the tobacco industry convinced the public that smoking was not dangerous, so is the telecommunications industry selling the public on speed over safety. In the interview above with Greater Earth Media, IT professional Jon Humphrey made the glaringly obvious comparison between the actions of telecommunication, tobacco and leaded gas industries, saying:10
“So, they know the technology is dangerous and that’s why they’re just trying to get as much of it out there as they can before they’re finally held accountable. Sadly, we’ve seen this all before.
We saw it with big tobacco, we saw it with leaded gas and in every single case the big corporations did what they always do — they lied and then they paid off politicians and they paid scientists and they silenced people and discredited them and sadly they did get away with a lot of it and that’s what we need to make sure doesn’t happen with 5G.”
The promise is that speeds will be from 10 to 100 times faster than 4G running primarily on millimeter-wave (MMW) bandwidth. According to EMF coach and author Lloyd Burrell, the signals will likely be weaker since the wavelengths do not penetrate buildings and tend to be incorporated into rain and plants. To adjust, the 5G network will use:11
“… smaller cell stations (and the technology of beamforming) that’ll scramble/unscramble and redirect packets of data on a no-interference path back to us. This could mean wireless antennas on every lamp post, utility pole, home and business throughout entire neighborhoods, towns and cities.”
This requires a new infrastructure mounting 5G cell stations on existing structures, such as utility poles. During U.S. Senate hearings on the topic, when asked about the safety studies on these small cell stations, representatives from the industry stated they were not aware if any such studies existed.12
This led Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., to say, “So there really is no research ongoing. We’re kind of flying blind here.” An article published in Scientific American by Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D., director for the Center for Family and Community Health in the School of Public Health at the University of California, Berkeley, identified another challenge:13
“5G will not replace 4G; it will accompany 4G for the near future and possibly over the long term. If there are synergistic effects from simultaneous exposures to multiple types of RFR, our overall risk of harm from RFR may increase substantially. Cancer is not the only risk as there is considerable evidence that RFR causes neurological disorders and reproductive harm, likely due to oxidative stress.”
How is 5G Different From 4G?
One of the significant problems with the technology is that it relies primarily on MMW, which is known to penetrate human tissue up to 2 millimeters, where it is absorbed by the surface of the cornea and is conducted by sweat glands within the skin.14 Each of these factors leads to an association with a number of potential health problems.
For example, the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) is using MMW in crowd control weapons called the Active Denial System because it produces a severe burning sensation. The DOD writes, “The Active Denial System generates a focused and very directional millimeter-wave radio frequency beam.”15
MMW is also known to suppress your immune function16 and increase cellular stress, harmful free radicals, learning deficits17 and, potentially, bacterial antibiotic resistance.18 There is nothing to suggest that 5G will produce less harm than the current technology, and there are thousands of studies demonstrating the harmful effects from that.
Research by Martin Pall, Ph.D., details how excessive oxidative stress triggered by microwave exposure from wireless technology can lead to reproductive harm and neurological disorders, such as anxiety, depression, autism and Alzheimer’s.19
Without the Choice to Opt-Out, What Can You Do?
Once it’s installed in your neighborhood, you won’t have a choice to opt out of 5G exposure. “5G will be virtually everywhere, with the options of being able to simply “get away from it” being very limited as millions of small cell devices are rolled out,” Humphrey says.20
There’s no doubt in my mind that microwave radiation from wireless technologies is a significant health hazard that needs to be addressed if you’re concerned about your health. Unfortunately, the rollout of 5G will make remedial action difficult, which is why we all need to get involved and do what we can to prevent it in the first place, such as contacting your local lawmakers and signing local petitions.
Below are several suggestions to help reduce your exposure and mitigate the damage from wireless technology. In addition, you can download a free chapter from my book, “EMF*D,” that summarizes many of the major recommendations. This is handy to keep on your desktop as a reference as you’re making changes in your home.
Source article from Transcend.org
(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
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:
Jersey City Council postpones 5G utility pole installation.
“The Jersey City Council has unanimously tabled an ordinance to approve the upgrade and installation of 72 utility poles which the council says will include 5G technology after members of the public spoke against the ordinance.
Resident and registered nurse Lucille Shah said she was against 5G utility pole installation.
“My children’s bedroom faces the street, and they can potentially be sleeping just a few feet away from a 5G tower,” she said, noting that the World Health Organization has yet to issue an opinion on the possible health impacts of the technology.
She said that several European countries have halted their installation until more studies have been concluded.”
Want to know more? Check out the rest of the story here.
City of San Diego Awarded GE Mass Surveillance Contract Without Oversight.
San Diego is now home to the largest mass surveillance operation across the country
While the California Legislature passed and Governor Brown signed the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) into law in 2018, ostensibly to help California consumers protect their online data, state and local government doesn’t appear to be required to comply with this law.
Recently we learned that the Department of Motor Vehicles is earning more than $50-million a year by selling California drivers’ personal information, and the public is not offered an opt-out option of sharing personal information.
Now we learn that San Diego City Attorney Mara Elliott gave the approval to General Electric to outfit 4,000 new “smart street lights” with cameras and microphones in 2017. These CityIQ Nodes are listed on this city map and in the screen shot below.
The City of San Diego appears to now be in the business of enabling mega-data companies to cash in on city residents’ privacy.
Want to know more? Check out the rest of the story HERE.