Author: blogmeister

A great website to help stop 5G in schools.

blogmeister Uncategorized
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/child-health-topics/action/no-5g-near-schools/
SEPTEMBER 09, 2022

Link copied

Stop 5G near schools

Our kids need your help to protect them from harmful 5G and cell tower radiation! Schools are accepting financial incentives from telecom giants to add cell towers to their properties. In true Big Tech fashion, corporate profits have taken priority over public health.

Children’s Health Defense (CHD) wants to stop the uncontrolled rollout of 5G and cell tower equipment near schools and residential neighborhoods. We need your help to force legislative action to stop the ever-increasing risk to our children caused by dangerous radiofrequency (RF) radiation emitted by this equipment.

Contact your elected officials today to demand they introduce and support federal and state legislation banning cell towers and small cells from being on or near school grounds.

Canada bans Huawei 5G

blogmeister Uncategorized ,

Joining the rest of the Five Eyes intelligence-sharing network, Canada is banning China’s Huawei Technologies and ZTE Corp (OTCPK:ZTCOY) from providing 5G (and even 4G) services in the country. Providers who have already installed the gear will also be required to remove it without compensation or reimbursement. With regards to deadlines, 5G machinery must be taken out by June 2024, while companies using related 4G equipment must clear them from their networks by the end of 2027.

Snapshot: The decision follows a nearly four-year national security review, prompted by the U.S. due to espionage concerns. Washington has cited fears over the potential use of 5G equipment as a backdoor for spying by the Chinese government, even warning allies it would limit intelligence sharing with countries that use Huawei equipment. “This is very much in line with what our allies have been doing in order to protect a critical piece of infrastructure,” said François-Philippe Champagne, Canada’s Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry. 

Fearing an eventual ban, Bell Canada (NYSE:BCE) and Telus (NYSE:TU), two of the nation’s largest wireless players, had already started to exclude Huawei from their network buildouts, opting for alternative gear from Sweden’s Ericsson (NASDAQ:ERIC) and Finland’s Nokia (NYSE:NOK). The Chinese embassy in Canada was quick to slam the announcement, calling it politically motivated and a violation of the principles of free trade and market economies. “China will take all necessary measures to protect the interests of Chinese companies,” according to a spokesperson.

5G around airports and compromised safety.

blogmeister Uncategorized ,

FAA: More on 5G and flights. Jan. 19, 22

The agency issued its first major update since AT&T Inc. and Verizon Communications Inc. began using new frequency bands for fast 5G mobile phone service in dozens of metropolitan regions around the U.S. The radio waves are close to those used by aircraft radar altimeters and the FAA has said there is a risk that they could cause interference.

“Even with these approvals, flights at some airports may still be affected,” the FAA said in the statement.

The expansion occurred because three additional models of altimeters were found to be resistant to interference from 5G, the FAA said. It had earlier cleared two altimeter models.

“The FAA also continues to work with manufacturers to understand how radar altimeter data is used in other flight control systems,” the agency said. “Passengers should check with their airlines for latest flight schedules.”

Absent from the list of cleared aircraft are any of the regional jet models that perform roughly half of all scheduled airline flights.

Ed[what about General Aviation (private) and helicopter operations that operate off airport?]

5G safe zone around airports to prevent crashes

blogmeister Uncategorized

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

blogmeister Uncategorized

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.”

A 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..

blogmeister Uncategorized

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

blogmeister Uncategorized

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

blogmeister Uncategorized

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

blogmeister Uncategorized

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

blogmeister Uncategorized , , , ,

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

blogmeister gmo , , ,

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

blogmeister 5G , , ,

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