5G is not a new technology. I downloaded Tiros satellite data from 50-60 GHz in 1978 while compiling Earth's Global Satellite Temperature Data-set now used for modeling Climate Change-see 1974 study below. While most of the traffic of 5G is from demands of cellphone video - with more and half of that pornography; RF/Electrical Engineer, Pawel Wypychowski and EMF Health Expert, Nick Pineault couple to show dangers of coming vehicular radar, which is going to be used on all newer motor vehicles. But first some info from Keysight Technologies on speeding up the often difficult radar modulation configurations of the mass production, assembly-line and deployment readying techniques.
by Mark Taylor 5G is not a new technology. I downloaded Tiros satellite data from 50-60 GHz in 1978 while compiling Earth's Global Satellite Temperature Data-set now used for modeling Climate Change-see 1974 study below. While most of the traffic of 5G is from demands of cellphone video - with more and half of that pornography; RF/Electrical Engineer, Pawel Wypychowski and EMF Health Expert, Nick Pineault couple to show dangers of coming vehicular radar, which is going to be used on all newer motor vehicles. But first some info from Keysight Technologies on speeding up the often difficult radar modulation configurations of the mass production, assembly-line and deployment readying techniques.
0 Comments
by Mark Taylor Full Measure news anchor Sharryl Attkission interviews Professor Martin Pall who personally carries no cell phone, shields his body, uses a wired & shielded computer/peripherals because he studies and has found deleterious health problems with our burgeoning wireless world Here is Sharryl's commented transcript and video clip: Maybe you’ve heard about exciting, new 5G technology that promises to make our connections to the Internet— and all of the things connected to the Internet— faster and better than ever. Like other cell phone technology, 5G emits radiation. Two federal agencies recently said the available scientific evidence to date does not support the idea 5G emits enough radiation to hurt people. But some scientists disagree. At first, the concerns sounded far-fetched. We were surprised by what we learned. Today’s cover story is: 5G-Whiz. Chances are you haven’t met many people like Professor Martin Pall. Sharyl: Is it true that you do not carry a cell phone? Martin Pall: Yes, I don't carry a cell phone. Sharyl: How do you possibly communicate in today's world without your cell phone? Pall: I use a wired mouse, I use the wired connection from my computer to my printer. And so everything's wired and, and I even have a shield over the, over the screen so that I get less EMF from the screen. EMF— electric and magnetic fields—are invisible areas of energy or radiation produced by items like electric appliances, computer screens and cell phone technology. Pall is so worried about the potential for health risks from EMF, he even has special clothes with lots of little metal wires to shield him from the rays. We had no idea when we asked, but yes— he’s wearing the fabric right now. Sharyl: Is that a shirt? Pall: It’s a T shirt, yeah. And it has little metal fibers in it, and it helps to shield your torso. Sharyl: Makes them bounce off or not come through? Pall: Yeah. But before you make the mistake of writing off Pall as a nutty professor, you should know he’s considered one of the world’s pre-eminent scientists on Electro Magnetic Fields. And his concerns are backed up by dozens of peer-reviewed scientific studies. Sharyl: You got your BA at Johns Hopkins University, very prestigious institution. You got your PhD at the California Institute of Technology. So you are someone who comes to this issue with a great set of credentials and experience. Pall: Yes, and my bachelor's degree is in physics and my PhD is in biochemistry and genetics. So I've got both the life sciences and the physics. It's the way in which these two interact which is crucial for understanding how EMF impact the cells of our bodies. The rollout of this new technology is happening as we speak. President Trump: And we're going to have 5G. We're going to have the best 5G in the world, just like we have everything else Sharyl: What was 1-G? Woman on phone: Hi, how are you? Adelstein: 1-G was just basic voice on your phone. Sharyl: 2-G? Adelstein: 2-G was when we went to a little bit of data. You could get a text, for example. Sharyl: Jonathan Adelstein heads the Wireless Infrastructure Association and represents companies like Verizon, T-Mobile and AT&T. Sharyl: 3-G? Adelstein: 3-G was actual text. You could get the Internet on your phone easily. Sharyl: 4-G? Adelstein: And 4-G you can stream video. All of a sudden you had much faster connection, really a broadband connection, not just an Internet connection. Sharyl: And what is 5-G? Adelstein: 5-G is going to be 4-G on steroids. It’s going to be data that's faster and more of it, but it also enables the connection of more devices to the network. But the same magic that makes 5-G bigger, better and faster poses serious health risks to people, says Pall. Pall: We know that the EMF impact the cells of our bodies, all the cells of our bodies by activating some channels. And when they do that, they produce all kinds of effects. And those include neurological neuropsychiatric effects. They include reproductive effects, they include oxidative stress, which is involved in essentially all chronic diseases. So I'm, I'm deeply concerned about the situation. Sharyl: Is it your feeling that mobile phone use and 5-G in the future have been and are causes of chronic disease epidemics in this country? Pall: I believe that the exposures we already have are producing major effects already on our health. And that 5-G will be vastly worse than anything that we, we are already exposed to. At least three expert medical groups have linked certain kinds of electromagnetic fields or EMFs to cancer, particularly childhood leukemia: The U.S. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, a working group under the World Health Organization, and a European Scientific Committee - which studied cell phones in particular. Pall says there’s more to worry about. Pall: what's been shown is you get depression, you get, “I can’t sleep, tired all the time. I'm depressed. I've got headaches. I can't concentrate. I'm anxious.” All the things that everybody complains about now we know are caused by EMF exposures and not just one type, but multiple types of EMF exposures. Protesters chant: Stop 5G. We want safe technology. The concerns are shared by citizens and scientists around the world who are campaigning against 5-G Protestors: We want fiber, not 5G. A small sidewalk rally last May in Bethesda, Maryland Concerned citizen: Hello council, thank you for hearing my presentation And in Sacramento, California last June Concerned citizen: These antennas are being installed without our permission, without any warning at all. Many of us do not want to be guinea pigs in this experiment but we apparently have no say in the matter. Still, U.S. regulators insist there’s nothing to fear. After reviewing “hundreds of studies,” the Food and Drug Administration recently told Congress “the current safety limits for cell phone radiation remain acceptable for protecting the public health.” At the same time, the FDA did urge the cell phone industry to support new research on cell phone safety. Sen. Richard Blumenthal: We’ve heard from a lot of witnesses about the very important potential of 5G At a hearing in February, Senator Richard Blumenthal asked wireless representatives if they had funded new safety studies as the FDA asked. They said Steven Berry, Wireless Industry executive: No I’m not aware of any Sen. Blumenthal: So there really is no research ongoing, we’re kind of flying blind hereas far as health and safety is concerned. Sharyl: Senator Blumenthal correct— that we're flying blind? Adelstein: It’s something that's been well studied. It's continuing to be studied. We follow all the guidelines and the World Health Organization. You know, we defer to the scientists as the industry who say it's safe. You can't ever prove a negative, but there've been no indications of any problems. Let, you know, the government do whatever it needs to do to set strongest possible guidelines and industry will adhere to them. Sharyl: How do you explain them saying the science doesn't exist, that there's nothing that gives us cause for concern? Pall: It’s all corruption. There’s no other explanation. I think they're at least 25 different reviews that have been published on this over the years. Sharyl: You’re implying that the industry, the telecommunications industry is so powerful here in this country, is that a reason you think why our government hasn't commissioned these studies and isn't talking about it? Pall: I can't figure out any other reason. Whatever the case, 5-G deployment in the U.S. is moving full steam ahead. 5-G for mobile phones is already being deployed with broader expansion coming in 2020 - especially in big cities. Supporters say there’s no reason to think it’s dangerous. Critics say there’s no evidence it’s safe. Sharyl: It strikes me that there is probably zero chance we're going back from the technology that creates this kind of exposure. Pall: We need to dramatically decrease exposures. We’re taking risks of the sort that no rational society can possibly take. We're doing it blindly and, and in my judgment with absolute stupidity. The FCC has been criticized for not updating cellphone safety standards since 1996. But FCC officials insist there’s “nothing special about 5G” and the higher-frequency signals used to deliver it pose no health risk. http://fullmeasure.news/news/cover-story/5g-whiz Lloyd Burrell of ElectricSense Interviews Theodora Scarato, a Licensed Social Worker Employed by The Environmental Health Trust and Who Specializes in Neurological Diseases in Children Scientifically Linked to Telecom's Race to Implement Sub-Optical 5G By covering Up Independent Research and Substituting Their Own Flawed Research Which Instead Claims 5G's Safety While testing this particular new 2018 TOYOTA PRIUS PREMIUM PLUGIN as soon as I started the engine/motor even I (being not hypersensitive to magnetism) could feel the presence of a magnetic field so strong I hadn’t felt the likes of since my tour of SLAC inside the magnetic accelerator tunnels (pictured below). While currently the ambient Earth magnetic field runs at 2x10¹² mG (and presently getting smaller all the time - readying for polarity switch) this thus becomes the standard for Homo sapiens health for approximately 200,000 years at our evolutionary punctuation of origin. Thus any magnetism over this level becomes a target of possible non-adaptivity and a starting point for use of the cautionary principle. The first chart shows various countries' actual standards and includes an EMF abatement standard at 2x10⁷ mG suitable for those who find themselves more sensitive than the FCC/EPA standard at 1x10³ mG.
By Jeffrey Mark Taylor To teach my children that this happens, I did a simple test with a aluminized mylar emergency sleeping bag (outgassed over 6 months). 1. Wearing a cellphone in the off position and standing put the sleeping bag over your body. 2. Make sure you can safely get used to it (acclimate) for 10 minutes-otherwise stop and take it off 3. Now turn on the phone-Do you start to feel things are different? Are you now able to get used to it (acclimate)? 4. I have 5 children they all had to take the sleeping bag off in less than 1 minute into step 3. 5. All 5/5 experienced classic EHS symptomatology only after turning on the cell phone (step 3). https://www.fda.gov/about-fda/fda-organization/jeffrey-shuren Who is Jeffrey Shuren? And why should you care? Dear Friend, Last week, FCC Chairman, Ajit Pai, proposed to maintain current radio-frequency microwave radiation (wireless radiation) safety guidelines, ignoring pleas from the medical and scientific community to protect the American public from increasing exposure to wireless radiation. Who convinced him to do this? Dr. Jeffrey Shuren, director of the Center for Devices and Radiological Health at the FDA, who wrote the following to Ajit Pai: “[t]he available scientific evidence to date does not support adverse health effects in humans due to exposures at or under the current limits…” and “[n]o changes to the current standards are warranted at this time.” Dr. Shuren's statement could not be further from the truth. There are hundreds of studies that indicate serious health problems associated with exposure to wireless radiation at levels far below the FCC "guidelines." This Tuesday, email Dr. Shuren at [email protected] and tell him to urge the FCC to reevaluate its outdated and ineffective human wireless radiation safety guidelines. Technical Electronic Product Radiation Safety Standards Committee, advising on "technical feasibility, reasonableness, and practicability of performance standards for electronic products to control the emission of radiation under 21 U.S.C. 360kk(f)(1).”is under Jeffrey Shuren, For those interested, a link to that committee is here: https://www.fda.gov/advisory-committees/technical-electronic-product-radiation-safety-standards-committee/roster-technical-electronic-product-radiation-safety-standards-committee His FDA Bio: https://www.fda.gov/about-fda/fda-organization/jeffrey-shuren Here is the committee roster and some members may also be reachable, including: Antoinette W. Stein, Ph.D. (GP) Expertise: Standards Development Term: 10/24/2016 – 12/31/2019 Deputy Director Occupational Environmental Health and Safety Alliance and Research Engineer Environmental Health Trust P.O. Box 58 Teton Village WY 83025 https://www.fda.gov/advisory-committees/technical-electronic-product-radiation-safety-standards-committee/roster-technical-electronic-product-radiation-safety-standards-committee Write your own email, or use parts or all of the following. Email Address: [email protected] Subject: URGENT: Outdated Wireless Radiation Safety Guidelines Dear Dr. Shuren, I am writing to express deep concerns about your recommendation to the FCC regarding current human wireless radiation safety guidelines. You wrote: “[t]he available scientific evidence to date does not support adverse health effects in humans due to exposures at or under the current limits…” and “[n]o changes to the current standards are warranted at this time.” As I know you are aware, the FDA commissioned the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) to study potential adverse biological effects from exposure to wireless radiation in 1999. Just last year, the NTP concluded “clear evidence” of increased cancer risk associated with chronic, low-level exposure to just 2G/3G wireless radiation frequencies. It doesn't get clearer than "clear evidence" of cancer. This is not the only study that has found a clear correlation between exposure to wireless radiation and biological harm. A robust body of independent, peer-reviewed science, which you can review here, has accumulated over the last 50 years indicating that wireless radiation exposure can also lead to reproductive health problems, neurological problems, cognitive dysfunction and other illness. Lastly, the United States has the most lenient public exposure guidelines in the world for wireless radiation when compared to other developed countries. It’s time we reevaluate 23+ year-old, thermal-based guidelines and adequately protect the public from increasing exposure to wireless radiation. Thank you for your consideration and concern. Sincerely, Jane Doe Anywhere, USA It's time to turn up the heat on the wireless radiation issue. We need all hands on deck! Send those emails, folks! Thanks for all you do and please let us know if you have any questions or concerns. -The 5G Crisis Team Share Tweet Forward Donate 5G Crisis is a project of Americans for Responsible Technology, an association of organizations and individuals across America who are committed to promoting new technologies that advance our common interests while protecting the health, safety, security, privacy and property values of all Americans. Americans for Responsible Technology is managed by Grassroots Communications, Inc., a non-profit organization. Copyright © *5G Crisis* All rights reserved. Contact us: [email protected] 516-883-0887 For conflicts of interest you have look no further than Mr. Shuren's wife:https://www.arnoldporter.com/en/people/s/shuren-allison-w The legal basis of protecting US citizens from electronic radiation hazards: Section 360kk. Performance standards for electronic products21 U.S. Code § 360kk.Performance standards for electronic products(a)Promulgation of regulations (1)The Secretary shall by regulation prescribe performance standards for electronic products to control the emission of electronic product radiation from such products if he determines that such standards are necessary for the protection of the public health and safety. Such standards may include provisions for the testing of such products and the measurement of their electronic product radiation emissions, may require the attachment of warning signs and labels, and may require the provision of instructions for the installation, operation, and use of such products. Such standards may be prescribed from time to time whenever such determinations are made, but the first of such standards shall be prescribed prior to January 1, 1970. In the development of such standards, the Secretary shall consult with Federal and State departments and agencies having related responsibilities or interests and with appropriate professional organizations and interested persons, including representatives of industries and labor organizations which would be affected by such standards, and shall give consideration to-- (A) the latest available scientific and medical data in the field of electronic product radiation; (B) the standards currently recommended by (i) other Federal agencies having responsibilities relating to the control and measurement of electronic product radiation, and (ii) public or private groups having an expertise in the field of electronic product radiation; (C) the reasonableness and technical feasibility of such standards as applied to a particular electronic product; (D) the adaptability of such standards to the need for uniformity and reliability of testing and measuring procedures and equipment; and (E) in the case of a component, or accessory described in paragraph (2)(B) of section 360hh of this title, the performance of such article in the manufactured or assembled product for which it is designed. (2) The Secretary may prescribe different and individual performance standards, to the extent appropriate and feasible, for different electronic products so as to recognize their different operating characteristics and uses. (3) The performance standards prescribed under this section shall not apply to any electronic product which is intended solely for export if (A) such product and the outside of any shipping container used in the export of such product are labeled or tagged to show that such product is intended for export, and (B) such product meets all the applicable requirements of the country to which such product is intended for export. (4) The Secretary may by regulation amend or revoke any performance standard prescribed under this section. (5) The Secretary may exempt from the provisions of this section any electronic product intended for use by departments or agencies of the United States provided such department or agency has prescribed procurement specifications governing emissions of electronic product radiation and provided further that such product is of a type used solely or predominantly by departments or agencies of the United States. (b)Administrative procedure The provisions of subchapter II of chapter 5 of title 5 (relating to the administrative procedure for rulemaking), and of chapter 7 of title 5 (relating to judicial review), shall apply with respect to any regulation prescribing, amending, or revoking any standard prescribed under this section. (c)Publication in Federal Register Each regulation prescribing, amending, or revoking a standard shall specify the date on which it shall take effect which, in the case of any regulation prescribing, or amending any standard, may not be sooner than one year or not later than two years after the date on which such regulation is issued, unless the Secretary finds, for good cause shown, that an earlier or later effective date is in the public interest and publishes in the Federal Register his reason for such finding, in which case such earlier or later date shall apply. (d)Judicial review (1) In a case of actual controversy as to the validity of any regulation issued under this section prescribing, amending, or revoking a performance standard, any person who will be adversely affected by such regulation when it is effective may at any time prior to the sixtieth day after such regulation is issued file a petition with the United States court of appeals for the circuit wherein such person resides or has his principal place of business, for a judicial review of such regulation. A copy of the petition shall be forthwith transmitted by the clerk of the court to the Secretary or other officer designated by him for that purpose. The Secretary thereupon shall file in the court the record of the proceedings on which the Secretary based the regulation, as provided in section 2112 of title 28. (2) If the petitioner applies to the court for leave to adduce additional evidence, and shows to the satisfaction of the court that such additional evidence is material and that there were reasonable grounds for the failure to adduce such evidence in the proceeding before the Secretary, the court may order such additional evidence (and evidence in rebuttal thereof) to be taken before the Secretary, and to be adduced upon the hearing, in such manner and upon such terms and conditions as to the court may seem proper. The Secretary may modify his findings, or make new findings, by reason of the additional evidence so taken, and he shall file such modified or new findings, and his recommendations, if any, for the modification or setting aside of his original regulation, with the return of such additional evidence. (3) Upon the filing of the petition referred to in paragraph (1) of this subsection, the court shall have jurisdiction to review the regulation in accordance with chapter 7 of title 5 and to grant appropriate relief as provided in such chapter. (4) The judgment of the court affirming or setting aside, in whole or in part, any such regulation of the Secretary shall be final, subject to review by the Supreme Court of the United States upon certiorari or certification as provided in section 1254 of title 28. (5) Any action instituted under this subsection shall survive, notwithstanding any change in the person occupying the office of Secretary or any vacancy in such office. (6) The remedies provided for in this subsection shall be in addition to and not in substitution for any other remedies provided by law. (e)Availability of record A certified copy of the transcript of the record and administrative proceedings under this section shall be furnished by the Secretary to any interested party at his request, and payment of the costs thereof, and shall be admissible in any criminal, exclusion of imports, or other proceeding arising under or in respect of this part irrespective of whether proceedings with respect to the regulation have previously been initiated or become final under this section. (f)Technical Electronic Product Radiation Safety Standards Committee (1) (A)The Secretary shall establish a Technical Electronic Product Radiation Safety Standards Committee (hereafter in this part referred to as the “Committee”) which he shall consult before prescribing any standard under this section. The Committee shall be appointed by the Secretary, after consultation with public and private agencies concerned with the technical aspect of electronic product radiation safety, and shall be composed of fifteen members each of whom shall be technically qualified by training and experience in one or more fields of science or engineering applicable to electronic product radiation safety, as follows: (i) Five members shall be selected from governmental agencies, including Stateand Federal Governments; (ii) Five members shall be selected from the affected industries after consultation with industry representatives; and (iii) Five members shall be selected from the general public, of which at least one shall be a representative of organized labor. (B) The Committee may propose electronic product radiation safety standards to the Secretary for his consideration. All proceedings of the Committee shall be recorded and the record of each such proceeding shall be available for public inspection. (2) Payments to members of the Committee who are not officers or employees of the United States pursuant to subsection (c) of section 210 of title 42 shall not render members of the Committee officers or employees of the United States for any purpose. (g)Review and evaluation The Secretary shall review and evaluate on a continuing basis testing programs carried out by industry to assure the adequacy of safeguards against hazardous electronic product radiation and to assure that electronic products comply with standards prescribed under this section. (h)Product certification Every manufacturer of an electronic product to which is applicable a standard in effect under this section shall furnish to the distributor or dealer at the time of delivery of such product, in the form of a label or tag permanently affixed to such product or in such manner as approved by the Secretary, the certification that such product conforms to all applicable standards under this section. Such certification shall be based upon a test, in accordance with such standard, of the individual article to which it is attached or upon a testing program which is in accord with good manufacturing practice and which has not been disapproved by the Secretary (in such manner as he shall prescribe by regulation) on the grounds that it does not assure the adequacy of safeguards against hazardous electronic product radiation or that it does not assure that electronic products comply with the standards prescribed under this section. (June 25, 1938, ch. 675, § 534, formerly act July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title III, § 534, formerly § 358, as added Pub. L. 90–602, § 2(3), Oct. 18, 1968, 82 Stat. 1177; amended Pub. L. 91–515, title VI, § 601(b)(2), (3), Oct. 30, 1970, 84 Stat. 1311; renumbered § 534 and amended Pub. L. 101–629, § 19(a)(1)(B), (2)(B), (3), (4), Nov. 28, 1990, 104 Stat. 4529, 4530; Pub. L. 103–80, §§ 3(w), 4(a)(2), Aug. 13, 1993, 107 Stat. 778, 779.) |
AuthorMark Taylor is concerned with the unprecedented proliferation (>4 magnitudes in <7 years) of sub-optical levels of anthropogenic radio frequency (RF) radiation which severely impact the health of all life forms on Earth. This is even more dangerous than second hand cigarette smoke - perhaps as dangerous as lead poisoning was at the time of the fall of the Roman Empire. CategoriesArchives
April 2022
|