5G safe zone around airports to prevent crashes

The FAA on January 13 published 1,478 notices to air missions (notams) related to pending activation of 5G C-band wireless base stations with far-reaching implications for air travel, including emergency medical transportation. https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2022/january/13/faa-publishes-long-expected-5g-c-band-notams

The central issue remains potential interference with radar altimeters, which have for decades operated on frequencies near the C-band and are installed in thousands of aircraft, including commercial airliners, some business jets, and many helicopters flying patients to hospitals surrounded by 5G antennas.

In that last category, helicopters used for emergency medical transportation and flown under Part 135 have been required to have radar altimeters installed since 2017, pursuant to a final rule published by the FAA in 2014. That rule mandated a package of safety requirements and updates, including increased weather minimums that apply to Part 91 helicopter operations.

If 5G can affect airplane electronics what can it do to the brain of pilot’s. So if they find a shield for the radar altimeters will we then see a rash of landing errors by pilot’s whose brains may be affected by these rogue frequencies?

Petition to HHS and FDA about wireless radiation

Non Profit Groups Petition HHS and FDA to Declare Imminent Hazard from Wireless Radiation   Petitioners Claim Inaction by FDA is Causing Confusion and Harm to the Public 
(Washington, DC)

A group of non-profit organizations and private individuals led by the national coalition Americans for Responsible Technology (ART) today petitioned the Health and Human Services Department and its constituent agency, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), to publicly issue a declaration of Imminent Hazard and clarify its position on the safety of human exposure to radiofrequency (RF) radiation emitted from cell phones, cell towers, smart meters, small cell antennas, wireless kiosks, tablets, computers and other wireless devices. The groups contend that the FDA is allowing and encouraging the misleading and false impression that it has engaged in a careful examination of the evidence, reached a science-based conclusion and developed standards for human exposure following government procedures. It has not.

“We’re asking a simple and basic question that Americans have a right to know the answer to: where are the FDA’s science-based standards for exposure to RF radiation?” says ART founder and National Director Doug Wood, whose organization represents more than 130 grassroots organizations across the country. “The FDA is our nation’s primary agency to protect and promote public health and it has a statutory responsibility to evaluate the safety of wireless devices. This is an imminent hazard to human health. The FDA must act.”

The rapid deployment of 5G antennas in neighborhoods across the country, along with the national effort to make every school classroom wireless has raised questions among parents and others as to the safety of near-constant exposure. The concurrent publication of more studies linking RF radiation to cancer, DNA damage and reproductive and neurological problems, has ignited a fierce debate over the wisdom of increasing involuntary exposure to RF radiation. Petitioners argue that the current FCC thermal guidelines, developed more than a quarter century ago, do not address proven biological impacts occurring at levels below the thermal threshold.

“The public is completely uninformed and unprotected,” says Cindy Franklin, founder of Consumers for Safe Cell Phones, a co-petitioner in the action. “Most people think the FDA is carefully evaluating the science, and that FCC regulations are based on properly developed scientific input from the FDA. None of that is true.”

recent lawsuit seeking a judicial review of the FCC’s decision to keep its outdated safety guidelines in place resulted in the Court ordering the FCC to look again at emerging science linking exposure to RF radiation with biological harm, especially to children and the environment. The court called the FCC’s decision to keep its thermal-only guidelines “arbitrary and capricious.”

“People all over the country are suffering from exposure, but may not realize it’s the RF radiation from a nearby antenna, smart meter or router,” says Ellen Marks, founder of the California Brain Tumor Association whose husband developed a brain tumor after years of holding his cell phone against his head. “RF radiation can cause headaches, dizziness, nausea, insomnia, inability to concentrate – and those are just the acute symptoms. Cancer takes longer to develop. We can’t wait. This is a public health crisis that needs to be addressed immediately!”

Demanding Action from FDA on Wireless (mailchi.mp)

OTARD Hearing in MA results..

Hi All, 

We finally arrived at the finish line of the OTARD case and we are finishing with a smile. The hearing on December 7 went well and Scott McCollough did a fantastic job arguing the case. However, it is impossible to predict the outcome. We did the best we could, we are content with our efforts and we are hopeful. The title of a Law360 article published today about the hearing expresses my opinion of it. Full text: DC Circ. Appears Skeptical Of FCC Wireless Antenna Rules.

Court’s Decision – Now we just have to wait for the Court’s decision. The DC Circuit usually issues its decisions within 6 months of the hearing

Join Our OTARD Webinar – I know many people have questions about this case and its implications and have questions. Therefore, on Wednesday, December 15, at 3 pm ET, Scott McCollough and I will conduct a webinar with a Q & A session in which we’ll discuss the case and the hearing.
Register for the Webinar Here (pre-registration is required). We thank 5G Free California for hosting this event. 

Recording of the Hearing – For those who missed the hearing, the recording is available on YouTube. The hearing starts at 30:35 and ends at 1:12:00. It is only 37 minutes and I recommend listening to it. See below links to transcripts of selections from the oral arguments:
Transcript of CHD’s Oral Arguments 
Transcript of FCC’s Oral Arguments

A Snapshot of the Hearing 

The judges asked good questions including several regarding the increase in RF exposure, property and homeowners’ association rights and due process. It seemed they were especially concerned with aesthetics. Judge Randolph asked whether local communities would be allowed to pass regulations to prevent these antennas because “they are ugly and we don’t want them in our town?” The FCC’s attorney admitted that it would likely be considered an “unreasonable restriction” and therefore would be prohibited
 

The judges’ questions led the FCC to reluctantly admit that we are correct in our assertions as to the impact of the rule amendment: no notice of installation of these antennas is required;  there is no ability to object to their installation; and that essentially, the FCC considers any barrier to installation unreasonable and therefore unlawful, so indeed all state and municipal laws are preempted except for compliance with electric, building and fire codes

The judges, especially Judge Millet, who presided over the panel, appeared to see through the FCC’s efforts to minimize the impact this rule has. The FCC continuously argued that the only thing the rule does is to remove the “private use” restriction. McCollough explained that this alleged small change completely flips the whole purpose of the rule, resulting in a massive impact

It felt as if the FCC’s attorney attempted to avoid answering the questions knowing the answers would not help the FCC’s case. It was quite noticeable, even to a child. In a comment on my Facebook page Amy wrote: “I had my 10-year-old son listening and he could understand what she [Judge Millet] was asking. He didn’t understand why the FCC attorney couldn’t answer. While usually attorneys want more time to speak, not less, after yet another intense exchange with Judge Millet, the FCC attorney told the court “I am out of time, your honor.” 

Concluding his arguments, McCollough used vivid comparisons suggested to him by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. to demonstrate the difference between the old and the new rule allowing “really really ugly powerful antennas”: “The difference is like the difference between a porch light to stadium lights emitting out to a mile, or the difference between TV speakers to a large rock band playing at a stadium for people who can hear it up to a mile.“


It Takes A Village


As always, it takes a village. Many people were involved and worked hard and under a lot of pressure. First and foremost – a huge thank you to Scott McCollough, who as always has done a superb job at every step of the way. To Shannon Koenig who is an essential part of our team, and to Ed Friedman for his help with editing even though it was always late and last minute. I have the utmost appreciation for our Petitioners and our Affiants and their family members for being willing to share their personal experiences and hardships. It takes a lot of courage. Thank you Dr. Elliot, Ginger, Jonathan, Angela, Dr. Hoffman, Michele, and Jennifer. Special thanks to the medical experts who filed reports:  Prof. Beatrice Golomb, Prof. Riina Bray and Dr. Toril Jelter.  Most Importantly, thank you Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., and the Children’s Health Defense team and their donors for enabling us to bring this case

Canada limits 5G around airports

Canada Limits 5G To Protect Air Travel (forbes.com)

ISED’s concerns about the potential interference with altimeters by 5G operations in the 3.45 – 3.65 GHz band in Canada emerge the same week that the FCC completed the auction of licenses in the 3.45 – 3.55 GHz band in the United States for more than $20 billion. The FCC order authorizing the auction has no mention of altimeters, much less potential interference.

The Canadian restrictions include “exclusion zones” around 26 airports where outdoor 5G base stations would not be permitted to operate—but indoor 5G operations would be allowed. ISED has also established “protection zones” where 5G operations would be allowed, with restricted power. Furthermore, ISED requires, until it decides otherwise, that the 5G antennas tilt down, rather than horizontally or upward, so as not to interfere with the radio altimeters. These restrictions would be in effect until both domestic and international studies have come to a definite conclusion about the scope of the problem.

Similar discussion is going on in the United States, following the planned rollout of 5G in the 3.7 – 4.2 GHz section of spectrum known as the C-Band, originally due on December 5, now postponed until January 2022. Last year the Federal Communications Commission auctioned the rights to licenses in the C-Band to, among others, Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile to use for 5G services. These companies paid over $80 billion for spectrum that would help provide consumers with faster mobile Internet services. The C-Band is much closer to the spectrum used for altimeters, and consequently the C-Band would reasonably pose greater interference concerns than the 3.45 – 3.55 GHz band. The FCC order authorizing the C-Band auction mentions altimeters but makes no specific accommodation for them.

Confronting the Health Risks of Smart Meters

Link to the video is below the text..

The ubiquitous installation of smart meters raises serious legal and policy concerns over false claims, RFR/EMF exposure, privacy, surveillance, hacking, national security, disability, consumer choice, energy inefficiency, and fire. This webinar will assess the public’s legal rights and remedies and offer a balanced path forward for policy makers

Doug Wood is the co-creator of the TechSafe Schools Program and founder of Americans for Responsible Technology.

Julian Gresser, international attorney, professional negotiator, inventor, and former Professor at Harvard Law School is a principal at the law firm of Swankin and Turner and co-founder of the Broadband International Legal Action Network (BBILAN).

Joshua Hart is Director of StopSmartMeters.org, an advocacy, media outreach, and direct action network providing activism consultation and advice to groups who are fighting the wireless ‘smart’ meter assault.

Nina Beety is an investigative writer and public advocate on the environment and wireless radiation hazards, working for policy changes, and a disability rights advocate. Her reports for public officials on Smart/AMI meters are on her website www.smartmeterharm.org. She lives in California.

Eric Windheim is a Certified Electromagnetic Radiation Specialist, Certified Building Biology Environmental Consultant, and Radio Frequency Safety Officer based in Sacramento, CA. WindheimEMFSolutions.com

Jennifer Andree is a wife, mother, nurse, veteran, and a victim of Smart Meter radiation exposure.

2021-Nov-17 Confronting the Health Risks of Smart Meters — Broadband International Legal Action Network (bbilan.org)

FAA questions air safety and 5G

WASHINGTON (Reuters) –  The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has raised significant concerns about a plan to use spectrum for 5G wireless networks on aviation safety and is planning to issue a formal warning about the issue, according to sources and a letter seen by Reuters.

The aviation industry has voiced alarm about the plan to use C-Band spectrum for more than a year. Network carriers are expected to begin using the spectrum starting Dec. 5 starting in 46 markets.

FAA Deputy Administrator Bradley Mims in a previously unreported Oct. 6 letter said the agency shares “the deep concern about the potential impact to aviation safety resulting from interference to radar altimeter performance from 5G network operations in the C band.”

An FAA spokeswoman said Friday it “continues to engage with other agencies so that aviation and the newest generation of 5G cellular technology can safely coexist.”

The Federal Communications Commission said Friday it remains committed to ensuring air safety as the agency’s successful track record demonstrates, while moving forward with the deployment of new technologies that support American business and consumer needs.”

The FAA held a lengthy Oct. 14 meeting with the aviation industry on the issue. FAA and FCC officials have held numerous discussions about the issue, the sources said.

The FAA is planning to soon issue a Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin and an airworthiness directive about the issue, two officials told Reuters, confirming a Wall Street Journal report.

The aerospace and airline sector met with the FCC in August https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1081157361951/Aviation%20and%20Aerospace%20Ex%20parte%20Notice%20Aug%206%202021%20w%20OET%20WTB%20IB.pdf, warning without changes “major disruptions to use of the National Airspace System can be expected from the rollout of 5G” and added the FAA will be forced to “drastically reduce aviation operational capacity.” 

Wireless trade group CTIA said Friday 5G networks can safely use C-band spectrum “without causing harmful interference to aviation equipment,” and cited numerous active 5G networks using this spectrum band in 40 countries… Any delay in activating this spectrum risks America’s competitiveness.”

One longer-term solution is retrofitting some altimeters with “out-of-band filters,” but it would likely take years and “many thousands of civil aircraft are likely to be impacted, the aviation industry said.

(Reporting by David Shepardson)

Historic Win’: CHD Wins Case Against FCC on Safety Guidelines for 5G and Wireless

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit court ruled the Federal Communications Commission failed to provide a reasoned explanation for its determination that its current guidelines adequately protect against harmful effects of exposure to radiofrequency radiation.

This is an historic win. The FCC will have to re-open the proceeding and for the first time meaningfully and responsibly confront the vast amount of scientific and medical evidence showing that current guidelines do not adequately protect health and the environment.

The court’s decision continued to say:

 “…the FCC completely failed to acknowledge, let alone respond to, comments concerning the impact of RF radiation on the environment…The record contains substantive evidence of potential environmental harms.”

The petitioners in the case filed 11,000 pages of evidence of harm from 5G and wireless technology which the FCC ignored, including evidence of already existing widespread sickness. This historic case was filed by CHD on Feb. 2, 2020. The case challenged the agency’s 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.

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 and Consumers for Safe Cell Phones. The main brief and the reply brief were filed jointly by all petitioners.

GMO and gene editing: altering ecosystems

The genetic engineering process, including gene-editing, creates new entities that have not previously occurred in Nature. When these organisms leave the lab either on purpose or by accident and enter our environment, they may replicate and become a permanent part of Nature’s gene pool. We don’t know how they will interact and impact various ecosystems and typically have no way to recall or remove them without inflicting further environmental damage.

A recent Department of Homeland Security report (DHS, 2020) acknowledged gene-editing technology, including CRISPR, as “a major scientific advance” that gives scientists the ability to “manipulate DNA far beyond previous technology and has opened the door to rapid development in the field of molecular biology.” The report states that gene-editing “has the potential to greatly help or greatly harm the United States.”

The current Regulatory Framework used to approve and regulate GMOs in the US largely ignores numerous shortcomings and side effects of the underlying technology. While the public mistakenly believes that GMOs, like medicines, are extensively tested and shown to be safe, that is currently not the case. The framework was never designed to properly assess the potential long-term impacts on health or the environment. The massive loopholes in the regulatory policy allow the release of genetically modified organisms into the environment with only cursory consideration of their potential environmental impact; this presents significant and unprecedented risks. These risks are particularly striking in the case of microbes.

Read the Institute for Responsible Technology summary on their report: Interesting that this was taken down by techcom…. must have been the truth…

Try this one: https://www.responsibletechnology.org/science-guide/what-is-gmo-2-0-and-why-should-i-care/

 

The Pilot vs. the Pilot Program

Mother’s Day 2021 Voices of Experience

Nina Anderson: The Pilot vs. the Pilot Program

Speaking of tobacco scientists who work for the wireless industry, step-mother Nina Anderson was one of the first women to work as a corporate pilot, at one point flying for Phillip Morris cigarettes. Fast forward a few decades, and in 1995 she founded “The Scientific Alliance for Education.” Her organization focuses on educating the public and providing information that allows individuals to make educated decisions for a course of action. Located in the tri-state corner of the Berkshires, her organization serves MA, CT, and NY, with past educational/ outreach efforts including indoor air pollution, GMOs, and lead paint. SafeHelpsYou is the arm of her organization addressing wireless health risks. Nina single-handedly lobbied her town to establish a smart meter moratorium when she became aware of the Worcester Ngrid pilot, which was foisted on the community without knowledge and consent of the residents. She was especially concerned that Philip Morris tobacco scientist Peter Valberg was the expert who testified before the Worcester Zoning Board to override citizen health concerns. She is actively involved on the 5G issue, working to assist Sheffield to update their telecom bylaws to reflect issues regarding small cells. Like many communities, current bylaws are inadequate for 5G and other telecom expansionist plans. Concerns recently raised in California include overloading poles, proximity to homes, property values, health,  fire risks, lack of insurance, the carbon footprint /energy consumption of wireless, ADA issues, lack of inspection and maintenance, and the fact that deployment does not address the digital divide. 5G does not facilitate voice data or internet connectivity – it only increases download speeds for video, it’s unreliable in bad weather, it’s not cyber secure, and it contributes to climate change because it requires electricity to many more antennas. Nina explains:

The telecommunications industry is engaged in a massive deployment of microwave and millimeter-wave “small cell” antennas across the county to facilitate the next generation of wireless communications known as 5G. This new technology uses existing wireless infrastructure and new types of millimeter radiofrequency (RF) radiation to transmit large amounts of data, but requires significantly closer proximity to users, resulting in the dense deployment of antennas near residences, schools, and hospitals. Because of their short-range transmissions, 5G units may be spaced as close as one every five homes on existing telephone poles. These units can be as large as small refrigerators. 5G will use sub 6Ghz band and mmWave bands so 5G signals will not be able to penetrate buildings and wooded areas. Therefore, many trees may have to be cut down for reliable service. This is not acceptable for our rural landscape. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has not conducted any long-term safety testing of new 5G wireless technologies and has failed to update its human RF microwave radiation exposure guidelines since 1996, despite being advised to do so by the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO), the American Academy of Pediatrics, and hundreds of medical and scientific experts from around the world. The telecommunications industry leaders have publicly admitted that they have not conducted any safety tests to determine the possible adverse health and environmental effects from exposure to RF non-ionizing millimeter waves emitted by 5G-enabled small cell antennas.

-Patricia Burke, StopSmartMetersMass

 

 

5G on your house in exchange for free Wifi Not Good!

Please Make This a Priority —
No Matter How Busy You Are

Dr. Kent Chamberlin, Professor Emeritus and former Chair, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of New Hampshire, will take us through the rigorous legislative investigation NH into 5G and wireless technology.

Like most, when he was assigned to the Commission, he though this would a “slam dunk” — there couldn’t possibly be anything wrong with wireless.

Their investigation of the science and risks documents otherwise.

The Urgency

The Environmental Health Trust and Children’s Health Defense are suing the FCC for ignoring the science, and the federal courts may finally force the FCC to bring their radiation exposure limits in line with the science. This does not bode well for the wireless industry.

So the industry is installing toxic 5G infrastructure as fast as they can in our communities, at close range to our bedrooms, classrooms and offices, before the judges rule.

We just measured the radiation levels in Boston’s historic North End yesterday and they are already in the Extreme Concern category of the Building Biology Precautionary Guidelines for Sleeping Areas. Those guidelines are established based on the peer-reviewed science.

We took power density peak measurement readings using the calibrated Safe & Sound Pro II Radiofrequency Meter, which measures in microWatts per square meter:

  • The No Concern level is less than 0.1
  • The Slight Concern level is 0.1 – 10
  • The Severe Concern level is 10 – 1,000
  • The Extreme Concern level is over 1,000

We were astounded to see peak readings in Boston of 33,000 to 613,000. The science shows it is these peak spikes of radiation at millions/billions of cycles per second that damage our biological cells.

It Gets Worse, Unfortunately

Not only is the wireless industry putting hazardous 4G/5G small cell antennas on poles in the public access way on neighborhood streets — they are already all over Boston and other cities — the FCC just changed the rules and now industry can incentivize residents to put a toxic cell antenna on their rooftops with no warning of the biological harm to people, pets, pollinators or the planet.

If you allow an antenna on your property, you will pulse radiation at yourself, your loved ones and your neighbors 24×7. Many begin to suffer insomnia, headaches, dizziness, anxiety, nausea, depression, anger, cognitive impairment, behavior issues and more when cell antennas go up. Most doctors haven’t been trained yet to treat electromagnetic illnesses so most patients are misdiagnosed.

As the NH report further reveals, wireless radiation is a neurotoxin and an immune suppressant, and long-term exposure can cause DNA damage, cancer, infertility and more. Children are especially vulnerable as their systems are still under development.

Please, Do Your Civic Duty

Mainstream media has conflicts of interest with industry, so you won’t hear the facts through popular channels. That is why it is critical that we listen to the non-industry experts including those who Dr. Chamberlin and the other NH Commissioners interviewed.

This is the first time in the U.S. a true, transparent investigation has been conducted by a legislative body and they debunk the industry’s disinformation campaigns.

Regardless of what you may currently think of the risks, please schedule an hour into your weekend to watch this upcoming discussion with Dr. Chamberlin.

Maybe start thinking about — if you are motivated by what you will hear — who else should also know: loved ones, neighbors, colleagues, your state and federal legislators, your local municipal boards, medical team and emergency responders.

Perhaps start researching emails and phone numbers of those you don’t already have…

There is Good News

We can learn to reduce the radiation exposures coming from our own devices. Our cell phones, DECT cordless phones, routers, baby monitors, gaming devices, wireless security systems, wearables, smart appliances, etc., all pulse this radiation 24×7.

With just a little education many decide to turn off all the antennas and hard-wire technology through cables and adapters, and/or keep devices in airplane mode and only take them out of airplane mode just long enough to send/receive new data.

So many adults and children see remarkable improvements in sleep, energy level, anxiety, depression, anger, headaches, behavior issues, communication disorders and more simply by choosing safe technology and minimizing the wireless radiation.

And, once you hard-wire with cables/adapters, you’ll notice you get a much better, faster, more reliable and secure connection.

For the areas we cannot directly control — cell towers, 4G/5G small cell antennas, utility “smart” meters — there are many efforts underway we can join or initiate to transition our communities to safe technology: legislation, lawsuits and local ordinance updates.

Stay tuned, we’ll be sending the video with Dr. Chamberlin this week. In the interim, feel free to explore the links in my signature. You’ll find the NH report, EMF Medical Conference, and Wireless Education quick training courses for schools, families and companies.

 

Thanks, as ever, for your time and consideration.

Cece & the MA for Safe Technology Team

Cecelia (Cece) Doucette, MTPW, BA
Technology Safety Educator
Director, Massachusetts for Safe Technology
Founder, Understanding EMFs
Education Services Director, Wireless Education
EMF Medical Conference 2021
TechSafe Schools
NH Legislative Commission Report
City of Boston Legal Comment to FCC
HiBR Conference @ NIH
Expert Forum on Wi-fi in Schools
Municipal Presentation on 5G & EMFs
Additional YouTube EMF Talks
Generation Zapped Award-Winning Film

 

 

 

Lake Tahoe fights telecom

Great research on the effects of wireless. They are fighting cell towers and small cell installations.

The Lake Tahoe Region faces severe scenic and environmental degradation thanks to profit-hungry telecom companies.

If successful, our lawsuit will prevent hundreds of cell towers and wireless antennas from being installed and destroying Lake Tahoe’s pristine ecosystem. Luckily, a safe and environmentally-friendly solution to wireless broadband already exists — fiber optic networks.

This will be a landmark lawsuit so if successful will be a model for other towns. Here is the link to their research. https://www.tahoeforsafertech.org/science

5G hurts

Scientists have proven that radio frequency (RF)
radiation can be absorbed by insects, raising
internal temperatures, interfering with
reproduction or triggering other responses. This
has dramatic implications for our natural world
as purveyors of 5G technology push ahead with
their plans to blanket the country with powerful
4G/5G antennas.

References:

Radio-Frequency Electromagne5c Field Exposure of Western Honey Bees. Theilens, A., et al.
Scien5fic Reports 10, 461 (2020).
Exposure of Insects to Radio-Frequency Electromagne5c Fields from 2 to 120 GHz. Theilens, X.,
et al. Scien5fic Reports 8, 3924 (2018).
Effect of high-frequency radia5ons on survival of the honeybee (Apis mellifera L.). Darney, K.
et al. Apidologie 47:703-710 (2016).
Mobile phone-induced honeybee worker piping. Theilens, O., et al. Apidologie (2011).
Exposure to cell phone radia5ons produces biochemical changes in worker honey bees.
Kumar, N.R., et al. Toxicology Interna5onal 18(1):70-72 (2011).
Changes in honeybee behavior and biology under the influence of cellphone radia5ons.
Sharma, V.P. & Kumar, N.R. Current Science 98(10):1376-1378 (2010).
Can Electromagne5c Exposure Cause a Change in Behavior? Studying Possible Non-Thermal
Influences on Honey Bees – An Approach within the Framework of Educa5onal Informa5cs.
Theilens, A., et al. (2006).
Effect of GSM 900-MHz Mobile Phone Radia5on on the Reproduc5ve Capacity of Drosophila
melanogaster, Panagopoulos, D.J., Karabarbounis, A., & Margari5s, L.H. Electromagne5c
Biology and Medicine 23(1):29-43 (2004).
Effects of Mobile Phone Radia5on on Reproduc5on and Development in Drosophila
Melanogaster. Weisbrot, D. Journal of Cellular Biochemistry 89(1):48-55 (2003)
Evidence For Nonthermal Effects of Microwave Radia5on: Abnormal Development of
Irradiated Insect Pupae. Carpenter, R.L. & Livestone, E.M. IEEE Transac5ons on Microwave
Theory and Techniques 19(2) (1971).

source: Americans for Responsible Technology http://www.americansforresponsibletech.org

5G in question

This article explains the subterfuge behind hiding the health risks of cell service and 5G: excerpt but worth a long read..

5G technology uses millimeter waves, along with microwaves (the type in current devices). Because 5G waves can only travel short distances, antennas and towers need to be installed every 300 to 600 feet on every block across the country, to receive and send signals. And this, Philips says, “increases the exposures exponentially.”

Joel Moskowitz, director of the Center for Family and Community Health at the University of California, Berkeley, says “because the technology is so new, we have no way to know about the long-term health effects. But we do know that millimeter waves are absorbed in our skin and on the cornea and can harm the immune, nervous, and cardiovascular systems.

Wireless Hazards

Dutch court: possibly increased health risks transmission tower

Breakthrough!

The judgment of the Gelderland District Court (AWB 19/2184) – in conjunction with judgment AWB 19/2213– on December 18, 2020 is of great importance because the court ruled that even (very broadly) increased health risks under the exposure guidelines are not excluded. The court also ruled that the health interests of local residents who are sensitive to radiation must be included in the weighing of interests. It is the first time in Dutch case law that the exposure limits are no longer leading due to advancing scientific insight. Earlier case law of the Department of the Council of State (Division) in which it always refers to an outdated expert report seems to have been discontinued. This statement offers opportunities for a new substantive discussion about the health effects of radiation,

Click translation button at top of screen to read this:

Bulgaria city bans 5G

BULGARIA: Mezdra banned the 5G network – BNR, 1st January 2021 (auto-translation below)Mezdra became the second Bulgarian municipality after Balchik to ban the 5G network. According to the decision of the Municipal Council, taken at the end of last year, in 2021 in the municipality of Mezdra is prohibited the deployment, use, maintenance and development of 5G network and its facilities. The decision was voted on a proposal by Radoslav Marinov, a municipal councilor from the local coalition of the Ataka party and the Bulgarian Spring movement for radical change. The proposal was supported by a civil petition stating that the development of mobile networks of the new 4G and 5G generation can turn a person into an antenna transmitter, as well as that the use of mobile phones has repeatedly saturated the electromagnetic background, which affects human and animal health, atmospheric processes and environmental pollution. The subscription recommends that mobile operators reduce the prices of services and select devices individually for each customer.