In a letter to the editor published Tuesday by the journal Nature, two dozen scientists from around the world urged the United Nations’ International Law Commission to adopt a Fifth Geneva Convention that creates protections for the environment in armed conflicts.
“We call on governments to incorporate explicit safeguards for biodiversity, and to use the commission’s recommendations to finally deliver a Fifth Geneva Convention to uphold environmental protection during such confrontations.”
The four existing Geneva Conventions and their three additional protocols are globally recognized treaties that establish standards under international humanitarian law for the treatment of wounded troops in the field, soldiers shipwrecked at sea, prisoners of war, and civilians during armed conflicts. Violating the treaties amounts to a war crime.
“Despite calls for a fifth convention two decades ago, military conflict continues to destroy megafauna, push species to extinction, and poison water resources,” notes Tuesday’s letter. “The uncontrolled circulation of arms exacerbates the situation, for instance by driving unsustainable hunting of wildlife.”
The letter—entitled “Stop Military Conflicts From Trashing Environment”—was spearheaded by Sarah M. Durant of the Zoological Society of London and José C. Brito of the University of Porto in Portugal. The 22 additional signatories (pdf) are affiliated with organizations and institutions in Egypt, France, Hong Kong, Mauritania, Morocco, Niger, Libya, Portugal, Spain, the United Kingdom, and the United States.
“We call on governments to incorporate explicit safeguards for biodiversity, and to use the commission’s recommendations to finally deliver a Fifth Geneva Convention to uphold environmental protection during such confrontations,” says the letter, which recognizes that the U.N. commission is meeting this month to discuss expanding on the principles it has drafted (pdf) about protecting the environment in war zones.
Adopting an environment-focused convention “would provide a multilateral treaty that includes legal instruments for site-based protection of crucial natural resources,” the letter explains. It also highlights the importance of companies and governments collaborating to regulate weapons transfers and holding the military industry accountable for its impact on the environment.
“The brutal toll of war on the natural world is well documented, destroying the livelihoods of vulnerable communities, and driving many species, already under intense pressure, towards extinction.”
—Sarah M. Durant, Zoological Society of London
Zoological Society of London’s Durant told The Guardian in an interview published Wednesday that “the brutal toll of war on the natural world is well documented, destroying the livelihoods of vulnerable communities, and driving many species, already under intense pressure, towards extinction.”
“We hope governments around the world will enshrine these protections into international law,” she said. “This would not only help safeguard threatened species, but would also support rural communities, both during and post-conflict, whose livelihoods are long-term casualties of environmental destruction.”
Durant’s co-author Brito added that “the impacts of armed conflict are causing additional pressure to imperiled wildlife from the Middle East and North Africa. Global commitment is needed to avoid the likely extinction of emblematic desert fauna over the next decade.”
A 2008 article from Worldwatch Institute—a U.S.-based environmental research group—details how “widespread concern about the environmental effects of warfare began with the American war in Vietnam,” when soldiers infamously used the powerful herbicide known as Agent Orange to wipe out forest cover and crops.
Global concerns over the environmental effects of war arose again in the 1990s when Iraqi forces burned Kuwaiti oil fields, and the United States used bombs and missiles that contained depleted uranium in Iraq. As The Guardianreported in 2014, “researchers have suggested the radiation from these weapons has poisoned the soil and water of Iraq, making the environment carcinogenic.”
The letter in Nature is not the first demand that international rules of war be crafted to protect the environment. In 2007, the Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management (CIWEM), a U.K.-based charity, issued one such call.
CIWEM’s then-executive director Nick Reeves said at the time that “long-term environmental damage is an inevitable consequence of war. The environment may seem a minor casualty but combined with the destruction of democratic informed decision-making, war prolongs human suffering and undermines the foundation for social progress and economic security.”
“CIWEM demands a convention to examine the establishment of U.N. protocols for the protection of the environment,” said Reeves. “We also need to acknowledge that fighting occurs where resources are scarce due to overpopulation, meaning we need sensible population policies. We must treat the environment and each other with more respect.”
Read the full letter published by Nature Tuesday below:
The United Nations’ International Law Commission is meeting this month to push forward a 2013 program to protect the environment in regions of armed conflict (go.nature.com/2ewdyj). We call on governments to incorporate explicit safeguards for biodiversity and to use the commission’s recommendations to finally deliver a Fifth Geneva Convention to uphold environmental protection during such confrontations.
Despite calls for a fifth convention two decades ago, military conflict continues to destroy megafauna, push species to extinction and poison water resources (see, for example, J. C. Brito et al. Conserv. Lett. https://doi.org/gfhst9; 2018). The uncontrolled circulation of arms exacerbates the situation, for instance by driving unsustainable hunting of wildlife.
A Fifth Geneva Convention would provide a multilateral treaty that includes legal instruments for site-based protection of crucial natural resources. Companies and governments need to work together to regulate arms transfer (see go.nature.com/2lgtfx). And the military industry must be held more accountable for the impact of its activities.
Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.
Austria Poised to Become First EU Nation to Fully Ban Glyphosate
Glyphosate—designated a probable carcinogen by the WHO—is the active ingredient of Roundup, a weed killer produced by Monsanto, which merged with Germany’s Bayer last year. (Photo: Mike Mozart/Flickr/cc)
Austria is on track to become the first country in the European Union to fully ban the world’s most commonly used herbicide after the nation’s lower house of parliament passed a bill Tuesday that would outlaw all uses of glyphosate, which researchers and global health experts have tied to cancer.
“The scientific evidence of the plant poison’s carcinogenic effect is increasing,” the leader of Austria’s Social Democrats, Pamela Rendi-Wagner, said in a statement. “It is our responsibility to ban this poison from our environment.”
Glyphosate is a key ingredient in Roundup—a product of Monsanto, a U.S. company that merged with German pharmaceutical giant Bayer last year. Reutersnoted that “it is now off-patent and marketed worldwide by dozens of other chemical groups including Dow Agrosciences and Germany’s BASF.”
In 2015, glyphosate was classified as a “probable carcinogen” by the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer. Despite that designation, mounting public concerns, and a series of ongoing legal battles launched by cancer patients in the United States, Bayer has maintained that Roundup is safe—and regulators in both the U.S. and E.U. have continued to permit the widespread use of the weed killer.
Katharina Rall, a researcher with the Environment and Human Rights Division at Human Rights Watch, welcomed Austrian lawmakers’ move as “good news.”
Following the lower chamber’s vote Tuesday, German broadcaster Deutsche Wellereported that “unless Austria’s upper house chooses to object the glyphosate ban, the bill will be signed into law by the country’s president, Alexander Van der Bellen.”
DW pointed out that the ban, if it takes effect, will put Austria at odds with the E.U. policy on glyphosate.
This ban would apparently clash with E.U. rules, as, in 2017, the bloc cleared the herbicide for use for the next five years. The E.U. relies on the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the European Chemicals Agency which did not classify glyphosate as carcinogenic. However, reports from earlier this year indicated that some European regulators were copying and pasting from studies conducted by Monsanto itself.
Australia’s massive deforestation in the east coast is a threat to the habitation of koalas and other native species living there.
The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) headed by the president Pavan Sukhdev has given a warning to Australian leaders about the danger in the extinction of koalas by 2050.
“We expect leadership from Australia because you have some of the best brains and most expertise in this area of conservation and management in wildlife,” says Sukhdev. “For us to then find deforestation in your backyard, at such an extreme and alarming rate to a point where here in New South Wales where there used to be millions of Koalas historically, now there’s only 20,000.”
The president also compared the forestal destruction to those of Borneo, Indonesia, and the Amazon.
In an open letter of Sukhdev addressed to Australia’s Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, he mentioned: “the demise of orangutans has come to represent the destruction of rainforests in Borneo and Sumatra. People around the world are drawing parallels to the koala, which is also heading towards extinction because of rampant deforestation.”
WWF said that tree-cleaning in New South Wales has declined the population of koalas by 33% in the last twenty years, and its growing deforestation rate is a major problem. If land-clearing continues at this alarming rate in the most populous state, then this species will be extinct by 2050.
“The rate of deforestation is such that the koala is getting extremely threatened and it is listed as vulnerable,” says Sukhdev. Koalas live and eat eucalyptus trees, and with these being chopped off, there will be no way for them to survive. They are also picky about the eucalyptus trees they will eventually call home, that they end up in urbanized areas where they end up getting ill, hit by cars or attacked by dogs.
Aside from koalas, Sukhdev also brought up his concern regarding the massive death of fish in the Murray and Darling river basin due to the water extraction.
“Koalas need forests, which also produce rain and store carbon; Murray River cod and neighboring communities need water. We must transform energy systems, from coal to renewable energies, to cool the Great Barrier Reef and reduce extreme meteorological phenomena,” Sukhdev said.
WWF support all farmers that allow their land to be used for conservation and the Australian government is currently mapping where these koalas are still living in harmony to keep these areas under land protection.
What are your thoughts?Please comment below and share this news!
They are, and sometimes with considerable success. DW looks at some civil society victories.
Blocking Fossil Fuels
Despite scientific warnings, governments and companies continue to green light fossil fuel projects around the world. But in many instances, these authorizations are accompanied by protests.
1. Hema Thermal Power Plant
Earlier this year, after more than a decade of vocal opposition to the planned Hema thermal power plant, villagers in the coastal Turkish region of Amasra welcomed a court ruling that rejected its construction. Locals had not only feared the destruction of their land, but also the impacts on their health and that of their children.
Amasra villagers have been protesting for years to prevent the construction of a power plant.
The win is a milestone for Turkish climate activists, whose struggle to stop the expansion of fossil fuel plants in the country still has a long way to go.
2. Rocky Hill Open-Cut Mine
Locals around the Australian town of Gloucester experienced similar satisfaction when a national court rejected a plan to build the Rocky Hill open-cut coal mine on the basis that it would increase greenhouse gas emissions at a time when they needed to be reduced. It took those involved in fighting the plans about a decade to achieve success.
It took protesters a decade to fight plans of an open-cut coal mine.
The judge said the negative impacts outweighed its economic and public benefits. Australia is the fourth largest coal producer in the world.
Hundreds of people have spent five years living in tree houses in a bit to prevent a tiny fraction of the Hambach forest in North Rhine-Westphalia from being razed for the expansion of a nearby open-pit coal mine that has already devoured dozens of villages and 90% of the forest.
In 2018, the anti-coal movement brought together thousands of people in Germany’s biggest climate march. A few months later, authorities agreed on a moratorium on logging. Only until 2020, however, so theirs is a bittersweet victory.
4. Divesting Money
More and more people are demanding that investors, such as faith-based organizations and pension funds, withdraw their financial support from fossil fuel projects. The global divestment movement has convinced over 1,000 institutions to commit to divesting from oil, coal and gas companies. This translates to almost $8 trillion (€7 trillion) less in assets from fossil fuel investments.
“The momentum has been driven by a people-powered grassroots movement, ordinary people on every continent pushing their local institutions to take a stand against the fossil fuel industry and for a world powered by 100% renewable energy,” the NGO 350.org says.
‘We Need to Ban Fracking’: New Analysis of 1,500 Scientific Studies Details Threat to Health and Climate
“There is no evidence that fracking can operate without threatening public health directly and without imperiling climate stability upon which public health depends,” according to a new analysis. (Photo: Wendy Shattil/Bob Rozinksi/Creative Commons)
A comprehensive analysis of nearly 1,500 scientific studies, government reports, and media stories on the consequences of fracking released Wednesday found that the evidence overwhelmingly shows the drilling method poses a profound threat to public health and the climate.
69 percent of original research studies on water quality found the potential for, or actual evidence of, fracking-associated water contamination;
87 percent of original research studies on air quality found significant air pollutant emissions; and
84 percent of original research studies on human health risks found signs of harm or indication of potential harm.
“There is no evidence that fracking can operate without threatening public health directly and without imperiling climate stability upon which public health depends,” the Compendium states.
Sandra Steingraber, Ph.D., co-founder of Concerned Health Professionals of New York, said in a statement that “the case against fracking becomes more damning” with the publication of each edition of the Compendium.
“As the science continues to come in, early inklings of harm have converged into a wide river of corroborating evidence,” said Steingraber. “Altogether, the data show that fracking impairs the health of people who live nearby, especially pregnant women, and swings a wrecking ball at the climate. We urgently call on political leaders to act on the knowledge we’ve compiled.”
According to the Compendium, the first edition of which was published in 2014, the “feverish pace” of U.S. fossil fuel extraction—which has accelerated under President Donald Trump—” has spurred a massive build-out of fracking infrastructure,” putting air quality and water sources at risk in communities across the United States.
“Despite efforts by the gas industry to suppress all health data on fracking, the Compendium documents the serious harm fracking holds for pregnant women, children, and those with respiratory disease. We need to ban fracking.”
—Walter Tsou, Philadelphia Physicians for Social Responsibility
In addition to the harmful effects of fracking on those who live near oil and gas development projects, the Compendium found, the drilling practice is “also at odds with the emerging scientific consensus on the scale and tempo of necessary climate change mitigation and with rising public alarm about the impending climate crisis that this consensus has amplified.”
“Despite efforts by the gas industry to suppress all health data on fracking, the Compendium documents the serious harm fracking holds for pregnant women, children, and those with respiratory disease,” Walter Tsou, MD, MPH, interim executive director of Philadelphia Physicians for Social Responsibility, said in a statement. “We need to ban fracking.”
The sixth edition of the Compendium comes just days after more than 100 environmental groups sent a letter urging Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf to investigate the link between fracking and the emergence of rare childhood cancers in rural Pennsylvania counties.
As Steingraber—one of the letter’s signatories—told online environmental outlet The Daily Climate on Wednesday, much of the data in the Compendium comes from Pennsylvania, which is home to over 100,000 active oil and gas wells.
“What makes fracking different from any other industry I’ve studied in public health is that there’s no industrial zone,” Steingraber said. “It’s taking place literally in our backyards, and unfortunately some of the best evidence for both polluting emissions and emerging health crises is coming out of southwestern Pennsylvania.”
5G (5th Generation) is now being actively rolled out in many cities around the world. Simultaneously, as awareness over its horrific health and privacy impacts is rising, many places are issuing moratoriums on it or banning it, such as the entire nation of Belgium, the city of Vaud (Switzerland) and San Francisco (USA). Radiofrequency radiation (RF or RFR) and electromagnetic fields (EMF) are being increasingly recognized as new types of pollution – environmental pollution. Here are 13 reasons exposing the 5G danger, which could turn into unmitigated health and privacy catastrophe if enough people don’t rise up to stop it.
1. 5G Danger: Hijacking Your Sweat Duct Antennae
The 5G network uses and broadcasts frequencies which affect our sweat ducts, which act as antennae. In other words, our largest organ, the skin, can be influenced and manipulated by 5G. As I reported in this the article 5G and IoT: Total Technological Control Grid Being Rolled Out Fast, scientist Dr. Ben-Ishai exposed the connection between 5G and our body’s sweat ducts in this video:
“[The 5G frequencies] will zap [us] with wavelengths that will interact with the geometrical structure of our skin … We found that sweat ducts work like helical antennas … the sweat duct was an integral part of the mechanism for the absorption of energy, electromagnetic, between 75-100 GHz, and that if you changed the character of the sweat duct, i.e. made it work, you could actually change that absorption at some point, and if you could do that you could trace how a person is under stress.“
2. 5G Danger: 5G Amplifies EMF Damage via VGCCs
Wireless radiation and EMF scientist Dr. Martin Pall has done groundbreaking research in explaining exactly how EMFs cause premature aging and injury to the human body, including damage to fertility, brains, hearts and even DNA! He pioneered research showing how EMFs activate the body’s VGCCs (Voltage-gated calcium channels) which causes them to release excess calcium ions into the cell. This then leads to nitric oxide (NO) and superoxide which reacts nearly instantaneously to form peroxynitrite and free radicals. Many studies like this show peroxynitrite damages DNA. Dr. Pall has stated unequivocally that the“5G rollout is absolutely insane.”
3. 5G Danger: Pulsed Wave Far More Damaging than Continuous Wave Radiation
A significant and unique feature of Smart Meters is that they emit pulsed wave radiation not continuous wave radiation. In other words, they run in start-stop cycles of emitting a burst of EMF then going temporarily inactive. This happens an incredibly high amount of times per day; court documents with testimony from utility companies (like Pacific Gas and Electric Company of California) reveal that smart meters send pulsed waves between 9,600 and 190,000 times per day!
In this 2018 video, Dr. Pall states there are 13 studies which show that pulsed wave EMFs are more active (and dangerous) than continuous wave EMFs. You can read the evidence here.
4. 5G Danger: 5G Promotes Deep EMF Penetration
The main reason why cell or mobile phones are more dangerous for children than adults (apart from the fact that radiation absorption is cumulative over a lifetime) is due to EMF penetration.
“The industry has also made claims that more conventional microwave frequency EMFs are limited in effect to the outer 1 cm of the body. We know that is not true, however, because of the effects deep in the human brain, on the heart and on hormone systems. Perhaps the most important two studies demonstrating effects deep within the body are the studies of Professor Hässig and his colleagues in Switzerland on cataract formation in newborn calves. These two studies clearly show that when pregnant cows are grazing near mobile phone base stations (also called cell phone towers), the calves are born with very greatly increased incidences of cataracts.”
“Of 253 calves, 79 (32%) had various degrees of nuclear cataract, but only 9 (3.6%) calves had a severe nuclear cataract. Results demonstrate a relation between the location of veals calves with nuclear cataracts in the first trimester of gestation and the strength of antennas. The number of antennas within 100 to 199 meters was associated with oxidative stress and there was an association between oxidative stress and the distance to the nearest MPBS (Mobile Phone Base Station).”
5. 5G Danger: 5G is a Weapons System Disguised as a Consumer Convenience
Mark Steele has been very outspoken against 5G and has now been widely interviewed, including by Project Camelot and also by Sacha Stone in his documentary 5G Apocalypse: The Extinction Event. Steele claims that although widespread reports state that 5G is operating in the 24-100 GHz range, it is actually sub-gigahertz (meaning under the GHz threshold, so still measured in MHz). He says 5G is a weapons system like long-range radar, phased array radar and directed energy (DEW was used in 9/11 and various fires like the Paradise fires). He claims that when you examine 5G hardware, it has a dielectric lens which is proof it is a weapons system. Autonomous vehicles can use 5G to shine in mirrors of other drivers (which is so strong and damaging it is equivalent to assault). Mark talks about how 5G is powerful enough to kill babies in wombs. He states:
“5G is a weapons system, nothing more, nothing less. It’s got nothing to do with telecommunications for humans. 5G is a machine to machine connection for autonomous vehicles.”
6. 5G Danger: LA Firefighters Develop Ailments After Being Too Close to Towers
In this video, a 25-year veteran firefighter from Los Angeles compares cell towers to cigarettes. He calls for a stop to the cell/mobile phone base stations being built on or near fire stations. Firefighters are not the only ones suffering the effects; it was reported that hundreds of birds fell from the sky in the Netherlands during a 5G test.
7. 5G Danger: Same Frequencies as used for Crowd Dispersal
5G purportedly uses millimeter wave (MMW) frequencies, so called because the frequencies are so high (in the 24-100 GHz range). Since 1 GHz = 1 billion GHz, we are talking about frequencies with very very short wavelength (the distance between the peak of one wave and the next). The distances are so tiny they are measured in millimeters, hence the term millimeter wave. These are the exact same frequencies used by the military for their non-lethal weapons such as Active Denial Systems for crowd dispersal. These weapons have the capacity to cause tremendous injury. Dr. Paul Ben-Ishai said, “If you are unlucky enough to be standing there when it hits you, you will feel like your body is on fire.”
8. 5G Danger: Mutagenic (Causing DNA Damage) and Carcinogenic (Causing Cancer)?
The MMW frequencies of 5G cause mitochondrial DNA damage – which is then passed down generations. 5G is mutagenic. These mutations are inherited by the next generation! This has grave implications for genetic purity. How many people are thinking about this when they can’t stop looking at their screens? This website lists many studies showing the mitochondrial damage that occurs after exposure to EMF radiation.
With mutagenesis usually comes carcinogenesis. In other words, once something is powerful and dangerous enough to cause DNA damage, chances are high it will lead to cancer. Mark Steele says 5G is a class 1 carcinogen, although the WHO (World Health Organization) very conservatively classifies cell phone towers as a class 2b possible carcinogen. It’s important to note, however, that the WHO is an agency of the UN which was set up by the Rockefellers, an illustrious NWO Illuminati family who plan to use the UN as a vehicle to usher in a One World Government.
5G is being rushed out without the proper safety testing done, so we don’t have much data on how 5G specifically causes cancer, but there is an abundance of evidence showing how 2G, 3G, and 4G EMFs are implicated in many kinds of cancer, including brain cancer. This website has a good collection of the many studies done.
9. 5G Danger: Phased Array Densification
5G requires significantly more transmitters or broadcasters than earlier generations. It is a plan of massive infrastructure creation, with stations, towers and bases planned to be put almost everywhere, including in the heart of residential neighborhoods. The effects of this kind of densification could be disastrous.
5G is powerful enough to 3D map the inside of your home and other buildings. Mark Steele specifically highlights the 868 MHz frequency, previously used for battlefield interrogations and which can travel with ease through bricks and concrete. He claims this frequency can single out specific people … interesting given all the electronic harassment and gang stalking which occurs against TIs (Targeted Individuals).
5G infrastructure will consist of small phased array antennas shooting out radiation at their targets like a bullet. The rays of microwaves they produce will be strong enough to pass through walls and human bodies. We will be blanketed with this 24/7/365, and what’s worse, the coverage area is slated to be broader than the current 4G, eventually encompassing every square inch of Earth.
10. 5G Danger: Killing All the Insects?
Insects, birds, and children are the most vulnerable to 5G due to their body size. Claire Edwards is a former UN staff editor who brought the EMF/5G issue to their attention of UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres. She stated in an anti-5G rally speech in Stockholm:
“It’s interesting to note that in the last 20 years we have lost 80% of our insects. And if we get 5G, we’re going to lose 100% of our insects. When the insects go, we go too.”
Both insects and 5G need antennas: insects use them, among other things, in their sense of smell, while 5G uses them to propagate waves. Not surprisingly, insects are sensitive to 5G EMF waves; this recent study showed that insects exposed to 5G radiation experienced an increase in their body temperature.
“Studies have shown that the frequencies used by 5G increase the body temperature of insects. This phenomenon was not observed with 4G or WiFi.”
“Future wavelengths of the electromagnetic fields used for the wireless telecommunication systems will decrease and become comparable to the body size of insects and therefore, the absorption of RF-EMFs in insects is expected to increase.”
“At least five companies are proposing to provide 5G from space from a combined 20,000 satellites in low- and medium-Earth orbit that will blanket the Earth with powerful, focused, steerable beams. Each satellite will emit millimeter waves with an effective radiated power of up to 5 million watts from thousands of antennas arranged in a phased array.”
It is vital to understand the bigger picture of the grand conspiracy here. All these disruptive and hazardous technologies – 5G, wi-fi, wireless radiation, HAARP, ionospheric heating, geoengineering, GMOs, etc. – are going to be woven into one giant integrated system of surveillance, command, and control. Just as one small example, geoengineering involves the spraying of chemtrails loaded with metal particulates – which 5G can use.
12. 5G Danger: Re-Radiation Inside the Body
Way back in 2002, RF researcher Arthur Firstenberg published an analysis of 5G long before the technology was approved. He explained how, due to 5G EM pulses being extremely short and delivered in bursts, they actually replicate inside the body – and end up creating tiny new 5G antennas internally. Firstenberg wrote:
“… when extremely short electromagnetic pulses enter the body, something else happens: the moving charges themselves become little antennas that re-radiate the electromagnetic field and send it deeper into the body …”
“These re-radiated waves are called Brillouin precursors … They become significant when either the power or the phase of the wave changes rapidly enough … This means that the reassurance we are being given – that these millimeter waves are too short to penetrate far into the body – is not true.”
This echoes a previous point made – that 5G penetration is a serious danger.
13. 5G Danger: Insurance Companies Refuse to Underwrite Big Wireless. What Do They Know?
Insurance companies (the most famous of which is Lloyds of London) have made headlines by refusing to insure Big Wireless (the telecommunication corporate conglomerate) against wi-fi and 5G-related illnesses and claims:
“Well, Lloyd’s November 2010 Risk Assessment Team’s Report gives us a solid clue: the report compares these wireless technologies with asbestos, in that the early research on asbestos was “inconclusive” and only later did it become obvious to anyone paying attention that asbestos causes cancer. Keep in mind that Lloyd’s Risk Assessment study of wi-fi was published over 8 [now 9 – Ed.] years ago. Even back then, however, their Risk Assessment Team was smart enough to realize that new evidence just might emerge showing that the various wi-fi frequencies do cause illness.”
Conclusion: 5G Grid Part of Larger Command, Control, Surveillance, and AI Agenda
5G is qualitatively and quantitatively different from 4G. It is much more than just the next step up from 4G. 5G will not only beam tens to hundreds of times more radiation than 4G, but the introduction of MMW technology means a whole new host of hazards. History repeats itself. Just like it took some time for real science to catch up with tobacco/cigarettes, and just like it took some time for real science to catch up with the monstrosity that are GMOs (now rebranded as BioEngineered Foods), so too will real science catch up with 5G. In the meantime, you can expect all sorts of junk science to be put forth to justify it, including misdirections and distractions like only focusing on the thermal effects of wireless (and ignoring the evidence of dangerous non-thermal effects).
Ultimately, 5G is part of the NWO agenda to set up a giant, inescapable command and control grid that eliminates all privacy and allows the manipulators to surveil every single person on the planet all the time. If there was ever a time for activists to step up in the name of freedom, truth, health, privacy, and sovereignty, now is the time.
About the Author
Makia Freeman is the editor of alternative media / independent news site The Freedom Articles and senior researcher at ToolsForFreedom.com, writing on many aspects of truth and freedom, from exposing aspects of the worldwide conspiracy to suggesting solutions for how humanity can create a new system of peace and abundance. Makia is on Steemit and FB.
A new analysis reveals Wednesday that over 20 popular children’s cereals and snacks are contaminated with glyphosate—the main ingredient in the weedkiller Roundup.
The testing was commissioned by the Environmental Working Group (EWG)—the third-round of such testing it’s undertaken—and looked at popular General Mills-made products, including several Cheerios varieties and various kinds of Nature Valley granola bars.
The findings come as glyphosate, which the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer declared a “probable carcinogen” in 2015, faces legal scrutiny as thousands of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma sufferers say that Bayer-Monsanto’s Roundup caused their cancer. Three courts in California have so far sided with plaintiffs and ordered the agri-chemical giant to pay billions in damages.
“As these latest tests show, a box of Cheerios or other oat-based foods on store shelves today almost certainly comes with a dose of a cancer-causing weedkiller,” said Olga Naidenko, Ph.D., vice president for science investigations at EWG.
According to EWG’s new testing of 21 products, the highest concentrations of glyphosate were found in Honey Nut Cheerios Medley Crunch (833 parts per billion,) Cheerios Toasted Whole Grain Oat Cereal (729 ppb), and the maple brown sugar variety of Nature Valley Crunchy granola bars (566 ppb).
The advocacy group puts the health benchmark for children’s daily glyphosate exposure at 160 ppb. That leaves only four of the products tested within the acceptable range: Honey Nut Cheerios (147 ppb); Nature Valley Fruit & Nut Chewy Trail Mix Granola Bars, Dark Chocolate & Nut (76 ppb); Nature Valley Sweet & Salty Nut granola bars, Cashew (158 ppb); and Nature Valley Soft-Baked Oatmeal Squares, Cinnamon Brown Sugar (124 ppb).
In light of the results, EWG is calling on consumers to “tell General Mills to get Monsanto’s weedkiller of out their products.”
“Does General Mills really want to keep using a chemical that independent scientists say causes cancer, made by a company that three juries have found guilty of covering up its health hazards?” asked Naidenko. “Or will they listen to the growing chorus of concerned consumers calling on General Mills and other companies to remove glyphosate from the cereals kids love to eat?”
The Trump administration maintains that glyphosate is safe for public health.
At least 571 plant species, from the Chile sandalwood to the St. Helena olive, have gone extinct in the wild over the past 250 years, according to a new study that has biodiversity experts worried about what the findings suggest for the future of life on Earth.
“It is frightening not just because of the 571 number but because I think that is a gross underestimate.”
—Maria Vorontsova, study co-author
“Plants underpin all life on Earth, they provide the oxygen we breathe and the food we eat, as well as making up the backbone of the world’s ecosystems—so plant extinction is bad news for all species,” study co-author Eimear Nic Lughadha of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew said in a statement.
For the first-of-its-kind study, published Monday in the journal Nature Ecology and Evolution, researchers at Key Stockholm University compiled all known plant extinction records. That effort, Naturereported, stems from a database that Kew’s Rafaël Govaerts started in 1988 “to track the status of every known plant species.”
The researchers’ new findings, according to co-author Aelys M. Humphreys of Stockholm University, “provide an unprecedented window into plant extinction in modern times.”
“Most people can name a mammal or bird that has become extinct in recent centuries, but few can name an extinct plant,” Humphreys said. “This study is the first time we have an overview of what plants have already become extinct, where they have disappeared from, and how quickly this is happening.”
The Guardiannoted how the figure compares with other analyses of species loss:
The number of plants that have disappeared from the wild is more than twice the number of extinct birds, mammals, and amphibians combined. The new figure is also four times the number of extinct plants recorded in the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s red list.
“It is way more than we knew and way more than should have gone extinct,” said Dr. Maria Vorontsova, also at Kew. “It is frightening not just because of the 571 number but because I think that is a gross underestimate.”
Citing the study, Nature reported that “the world’s seed-bearing plants have been disappearing at a rate of nearly three species a year since 1900—which is up to 500 times higher than would be expected as a result of natural forces alone.”
Earth’s seed plants are disappearing 500 times faster than they would without human influence — and that's not counting species that are extinct in the wild or whose populations are too small to survive. https://t.co/Kp0As9G6Jt
While the study sparked alarm, researchers expressed hope that their work will be used to improve conservation efforts—particularly “on islands and in the tropics, where plant loss is common, and in areas where less is known about plant extinction such as Africa and South America.”
To prevent the loss of more plant species, “we need to record all the plants across the world,” Vorontsova said. “To do this we need to support herbaria and the production of plant identification guides, we need to teach our children to see and recognize their local plants, and most importantly we need botanists for years to come.”
Another positive takeaway from the study was rediscovery: the researchers found that 430 species previously believed extinct are actually still around. However, they noted, 90 percent of those species face a high risk of future extinction.
The Chilean crocus, for example, had seemed to disappear by 1950s—but a small population was discovered south of Santiago, Chile in 2001. That population is currently being protected from livestock, and the species is being cultivated in the U.K., but it is still listed as “critically endangered” on the red list.
The new survey follows an “ominous” analysis published last month by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services which found, as Common Dreamsreported at the time, “that human exploitation of the natural world has pushed a million plant and animal species to the brink of extinction—with potentially devastating implications for the future of civilization.”
Louisiana has become the first U.S. state to call for a study on the environmental and health impacts of the ongoing 5G technology roll out.
(TMU) — On May 29, the Louisiana House unanimously voted to have the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality and the Department of Health study the effects of 5G technology on the environment and public health. The Louisiana legislature passed House Resolution 145 with a vote of 103 in favor and zero representatives voting against the measure. The bill calls for the results of the study to be submitted to the Louisiana House Committee on Natural Resources and Environment as well as the House Committee on Health and Welfare no later than sixty days prior to the start of the 2020 Regular Session of the Louisiana Legislature.
5G—or 5th generation cellular technology—is the name for the latest telecom technology upgrade. The new technology is expected to herald the beginning of Smart Cities, where driverless cars, pollution sensors, cell phones, traffic lights, and thousands of other devices interact in what is known as “The Internet of Things.” However, there have been a number of health and privacy concerns raised by opponents of the rapidly advancing 5G expansion. Louisiana is the first state to call for their own independent study of the technology.
The language of HR 145 outlines the reasons that Louisiana state representatives felt the need to pass such a resolution. For example, the bill states that 5G “may pose risks to the environment due to increased radio-frequency radiation exposure,” and “peer-reviewed studies on this topic show the potential for wide-range effects,” therefore “a study is necessary to examine the advantages and risks associated with 5G technology.” The resolution also notes that “the insurance industry may have placed exclusions in policies to exempt damage caused by this technology,” a reference to reports that various insurance companies have excluded coverage related to damages acquired via electromagnetic frequency radiation.
The resolution also acknowledges that 5G technology requires small cellular towers—or small cells—to be placed every 200 to 500 feet—closer than existing towers—for the network to operate correctly. Not only is the installation of small cell sites taking place across the nation as the U.S. government and telecommunications companies roll out 5G cellular technology, but this new infrastructure is also being built on top of already existing 3G and 4G technology infrastructure.
Despite the growing concern from state representatives, scientists, health professionals, and journalists, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) have wholeheartedly endorsed the rollout of 5G, claiming that there are no public health concerns. In fact, Louisiana’s HR 145 may end up being challenged in court due to current FCC regulations.
The Mind Unleashed has previously reported, cities and localities are raising alarm bells due to the federal government and their partners in Big Wireless usurping local control of 5G expansion. The Mayor of Danville, California went so far as to admit that the city council had “lost control” of the 5G rollout to the federal government and Big Wireless.
According to the FCC’s regulations, local governing bodies are not allowed to consider health risks when making their decisions. This is because the federal law known as the Wireless Communications Act of 1996 prohibits local jurisdictions from considering perceived health effects when taking an action on a proposed facility. Instead, cities and towns can only regulate cell sites based on the aesthetics and placement of the devices. This problem was only made worse in September 2018, when the FCC passed a new rule putting the federal government in complete control of the 5G rollout. In April, President Trump issued an executive order stating that local and state bodies must now approve new 5G infrastructure within 90 days. The Trump administration also initiated a cap on the fees local governments can charge telecom companies wanting to install 5G technology.
Even with the Trump administration’s endorsement of 5G, the concerns of the Louisiana House have been echoed by other state representatives and senators. On January 24, Frank Pallone, Chairman of the U.S. House Commerce Committee, accused the FCC of colluding with Big Wireless on the massive 5G rollout. Pallone sent a letter to the FCC asking for copies of communications between the FCC and the corporations involved in the current rollout of 5th generation cellular technology.
Additionally, in early February, the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee held a hearing on the future of 5G wireless technology and its impact on the American people and economy. At the hearing, U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) raised concerns about the lack of scientific research and data on the technology’s potential health risks. In early December 2018, Senator Blumenthal and California Representative Anna Eshoo held a press conference asking the FCC to provide evidence that 5G technology is safe. “To ensure we communicate accurate information to our constituents we respectfully request you provide to our offices the 5G safety determination from FCC and relevant health agencies that you referred to during the field hearing,” Blumenthal wrote.
More recently, New York Congressman Thomas Suozzi sent a letter to the FCC seeking answers about the technology. “Small cell towers are being installed in residential neighborhoods in close proximity to houses throughout my district,” said Rep. Suozzi in his letter. “I have heard instances of these antennae being installed on light poles directly outside the window of a young child’s bedroom. Rightly so, my constituents are worried that should this technology be proven hazardous in the future, the health of their families and the value of their properties would be at serious risk.”
New Jersey Congressman Andy Kim also sent a letter, noting that, “Current regulations governing radiofrequency (RF) safety were put in place in 1996 and have not yet been reassessed for newer generation technologies. Despite the close proximity to sensitive areas where these high-band cells will be installed, little research has been conducted to examine 5G safety.” Oregon Representative Peter A. DeFazio, House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman, wrote a letter to FCC Chairman Ajit Pai and acting FDA Commissioner Sharpless regarding the status of the government’s research into the potential health effects of RF radiation and its relation to the FCC’s guidelines for safe human RF exposure levels.
5G relies primarily on the bandwidth of the millimeter wave, known to cause a painful burning sensation. It’s also been linked to eye and heart problems, suppressed immune function, genetic damage and fertility problems
FCC admits no 5G safety studies have been conducted or funded by the agency or telecom industry, and that none are planned
The FCC has been captured by the telecom industry, which in turn has perfected the disinformation strategies employed by the tobacco industry before it
Persistent exposures to microwave frequencies like those from cellphones can cause mitochondrial dysfunction and nuclear DNA damage from free radicals produced from peroxynitrite
Excessive exposures to cellphones and Wi-Fi networks have been linked to chronic diseases such as cardiac arrhythmias, anxiety, depression, autism, Alzheimer’s and infertility
Exposure to electromagnetic field (EMF) and radiofrequency (RF) radiation is an ever-growing health risk in the modern world. The Cellular Phone Task Force website1 has a long list of governments and organizations that have issued warnings or banned wireless technologies of various kinds and under various circumstances, starting in 1993.
A long list of organizations representing doctors and scientists are also among them, including an appeal for protection from nonionizing EMF exposure by more than 230 international EMF scientists to the United Nations in 2015, which notes that:2
“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,3,4,5 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.”
A call for a moratorium on 5G specifically was issued in September 2017 by more than 180 scientists and doctors from 35 countries,6,7 “until potential hazards for human health and the environment have been fully investigated by scientists independent from industry,” noting that “RF-EMF has been proven to be harmful to humans and the environment,” and that “5G will substantially increase exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) on top of the 2G, 3G, 4G, Wi-Fi, etc. for telecommunications already in place.”
In an article8 on the Environmental Health Trust’s website, Ronald Powell, Ph.D., a retired Harvard scientist of applied physics, notes “there is NO SAFE WAY to implement 5G in our communities; rather there are only ‘bad ways’ and ‘worse ways,'” and rather than argue about who should have control over its deployment, we should focus on preventing its employment altogether.
Health Concerns Over 5G Abound
Wall Street analyst Sunil Rajgopal recently warned mounting health concerns may delay the implementation of 5G, Fortune magazine reports.9 Some countries have already taken steps to slow 5G deployment due to health risks, Rajgopal notes. The question is, can it be stopped?
5G testing was recently halted in Brussels, Belgium,10 and Switzerland are delaying its 5G rollout in order to create a system to monitor radiation.11 Syracuse, New York, is also attempting to set up some safeguards and has “negotiated the right to conduct on-demand safety inspections of 5G antennas,” to allay public concerns.12 According to Forbes:13
“In New Hampshire, lawmakers are considering establishing a commission to study the health impacts of 5G networks. And Mill Valley, Calif., near San Francisco, last year banned new 5G wireless cells.”
Many other areas, however, have chosen to trust the Federal Communications Commission and the wireless industry trade association, CTIA, which has created a “Cellphone Health Facts” website citing research showing no risk. However, if you believe the FCC is assessing health risks, you’d be wrong.
At a recent Senate commerce hearing (above), the FCC admitted that no 5G safety studies have been conducted or funded by the agency or the telecom industry and that none are planned.14,15 In a speech given at the National Press Club in June 2016, Tom Wheeler, former FCC chairman and prior head of the wireless industry lobbying group, made the agency’s stance clear when he said:16
“Stay out of the way of technological development. Unlike some countries, we do not believe we should spend the next couple of years studying … Turning innovators lose is far preferable to letting committees and regulators define the future. We won’t wait for the standards … “
In light of the more than 2,000 studies showing a wide range of biological harm from EMFs, assurances from the FCC and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration that wireless radiation exposures, including 5G, is safe, seem disingenuous at best. As noted in a recent Counterpunch article:17
“Telecom lobbyists assure us that guidelines already in place are adequate to protect the public. Those safety guidelines, however, are based on a 1996 study of how much a cell phone heated the head of an adult-sized plastic mannequin. This is problematic, for at least three reasons:
living organisms consist of highly complex and interdependent cells and tissue, not plastic.
those being exposed to radiofrequency radiation include fetuses, children, plants, and wildlife – not just adult male humans.
the frequencies used in the mannequin study were far lower than the exposures associated with 5G.”
What Level of EMF Can Humans Withstand?
EMF exposure at many biological impacting frequencies, such as those that run cellphones and Wi-Fi, has increased about 1 quintillion times over the past 100 years.18,19 Unfortunately, EMF exposure is so widespread these days, it’s virtually impossible to conduct controlled population studies anymore, as no population is truly unexposed or unaffected. This lack of a control group makes it very difficult to determine what the real-world effects are.
That said, one controlled exposure study has been done, revealing it’s nowhere near as harmless as people think. At the beginning of the 20th century, there were two populations in the United States — rural and urban. Urban areas were by and large electrified, while rural areas were not electrified until around 1950.
Dr. Sam Milham, an epidemiologist, painstakingly analyzed mortality statistics between these two populations over time, clearly showing there was a wide difference in mortality from heart disease, cancer, and diabetes between these two groups. Then, as rural areas became electrified, the two curves merged.
Today, we not only live and work in electrified surroundings, but we’re also surrounded by microwaves from wireless technologies. Soon, 5G may be added to the mix, making exposures all the more complex and potentially harmful. As noted by Counterpunch:20
“5G radiofrequency (RF) radiation uses a ‘cocktail’ of three types of radiation, ranging from relatively low-energy radio waves, microwave radiation with far more energy, and millimeter waves with vastly more energy …
The extremely high frequencies in 5G are where the biggest danger lies. While 4G frequencies go as high as 6 GHz, 5G exposes biological life to pulsed signals in the 30 GHz to 100 GHz range. The general public has never before been exposed to such high frequencies for long periods of time.”
Health Concerns Linked to 5G Exposure
The added concern 5G brings is the addition of the millimeter wave (MMW). This bandwidth, which runs from 30 gigahertz (GHz) to 300GHz,21 are known to penetrate up to 2 millimeters into human skin tissue,22,23 causing a burning sensation.
This is precisely why MMW was chosen for use in crowd control weapons (Active Denial Systems) by the U.S. Department of Defense.24 MMW is also used in so-called “naked body scanners” at airports.25
Research has shown sweat ducts in human skin act as receptors or antennae for 5G radiation, drawing the radiation into the body,26,27,28,29,30 thereby causing a rise in temperature. This in part helps explain the painful effect. As noted by Dr. Yael Stein — who has studied 5G MMW technology and its interaction with the human body — in a 2016 letter to the Federal Communications Commission:31
“Computer simulations have demonstrated that sweat glands concentrate sub-terahertz waves in human skin. Humans could sense these waves as heat. The use of sub-terahertz (millimeter wave) communications technology (cellphones, Wi-Fi, antennas) could cause humans to percept physical pain via nociceptors.
Potentially, if 5G Wi-Fi is spread in the public domain we may expect more of the health effects currently seen with RF/ microwave frequencies including many more cases of hypersensitivity (EHS), as well as many new complaints of physical pain and a yet unknown variety of neurologic disturbances.
It will be possible to show a causal relationship between G5 technology and these specific health effects. The affected individuals may be eligible for compensation.”
MMW has also been linked to:32,33,34,35,36
Eye problems such as lens opacity in rats, which is linked to the production of cataracts,37 and eye damage in rabbits38,39
Impacted heart rate variability, an indicator of stress, in rats40,41,42 and heart rate changes (arrhythmias) in frogs43,44
Suppressed immune function46
Depressed growth and increased antibiotic resistance in bacteria47
As noted in a recent Gaia.com article:48
“Many scientists understand that the electromagnetic radiation leaking through the doors of our microwave ovens are carcinogenic, and therefore, can cause cancer. Most of these scientists also believe that these waves are mutagenic, meaning they change the DNA structure of living beings.49
The launch of 5G will be similar to turning on your microwave, opening its door, and leaving it on for the rest of your life. There’s good reason why hundreds of scientists are taking action against the wireless industry.”
Understanding EMFs’ Mechanisms of Harm
As explained in my 2017 interview with Martin Pall, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus of biochemistry and basic medical sciences at Washington State University, the primary danger of EMFs, in general, is that it causes excess oxidative stress that results in mitochondrial dysfunction.
According to Pall’s research,50,51,52,53 radiofrequency microwave radiation such as that from your cellphone and wireless router activates the voltage-gated calcium channels (VGCCs) located in the outer membrane of your cells.
According to Pall, VGCCs are 7.2 million times more sensitive to microwave radiation than the charged particles inside and outside our cells, which means the safety standards for this exposure are off by a factor of 7.2 million.
Low-frequency microwave radiation opens your VGCCs, thereby allowing an abnormal influx of calcium ions into the cell, which in turn activates nitric oxide (NO) and superoxide which react nearly instantaneously to form peroxynitrite54 that then causes carbonate free radicals, which are one of the most damaging reactive nitrogen species known and thought to be a root cause for many of today’s chronic diseases.
For an in-depth understanding of peroxynitrites and the harm they inflict, see “Nitric Oxide and Peroxynitrite in Health and Disease”55 — a 140-page free access paper with 1,500 references written by Dr. Pal Pacher, Joseph Beckman, and Dr. Lucas Liaudet.
One of its most significant hazards of peroxynitrite is that it damages DNA. The European REFLEX study published in 2004 revealed the nonthermal effects of 2G and 3G radiation are actually very similar to the effects of X-rays in terms of the genetic damage they cause.56
Your body has the capacity to repair that damage through a family of 17 different enzymes collectively called poly ADP ribose polymerases (PARP). However, while PARP works well, they require NAD+ for fuel and when they run out of NAD+ they stop repairing your DNA.
This, in turn, can lead to premature cell death, since 100 to 150 NAD+ molecules are needed to repair a single DNA strand break. NAD+ is central to maintaining cellular and mitochondrial health, so the fact that PARP consumes NAD+ to counteract EMF damage is an important concern.
Cancer Is Not the Primary Health Risk of EMF
The voltage in your body appears to play a significant role in health and disease. Your body’s production of electricity allows your cells to communicate and perform basic biological functions necessary for your survival. However, your body is designed to operate at very specific levels and frequencies.
It seems logical that being surrounded by man-made EMFs that are 1 quintillion times higher than the natural EMF environment of the Earth may interfere with your DNA’s ability to receive and transmit biological signals.
While the controversy over EMF damage has centered around whether or not it can cause cancer, especially brain tumors, this actually isn’t your greatest concern. Since the damage is strongly linked to activation of your VGCCs, it stands to reason that areas, where VGCCs are the densest, would be most vulnerable to damage.
As it happens, the highest density of VGCCs is found in your nervous system, your brain, the pacemaker in your heart and in male testes. As a result, EMFs are likely to contribute to neurological and neuropsychiatric57 problems, heart and reproductive problems.
This includes but is not limited to cardiac arrhythmias, anxiety, depression, autism, Alzheimer’s and infertility. Indeed, this is what researchers keep finding, and all of these health problems are far more prevalent and kill more people than brain cancer.
What’s more, seeing how many are already struggling with electromagnetic hypersensitivity, saturating cities and suburban areas with MMW radiation will undoubtedly make the problem more widespread, and make life unbearable for those already feeling the effects of wireless radiation.
Most Recent Media Ploy to Detract From 5G Concerns: Blame the Russians
In a recent Medium article,58 Devra Davis, Ph.D. — a well-respected and credentialed researcher on the dangers of cellphone radiation — highlights a recent media trend: Write off scientists warning about 5G dangers as “untethered alarmists … linked to Russian propaganda.”
“Could it be a coincidence that following on the heels of the NY Times story, the Wall Street Journal and the UK Telegraph have echoed the same smear of guilt by association,” she writes,59 adding:
“These otherwise credible media sources ignore the substantial body of science pinpointing hazards of wireless radiation and 5G detailed in independent journalistic investigations that have appeared extensively in media throughout Europe and been covered by major networks …
Could the failure to report these critical 5G issues and correct misleading information regarding health effects of wireless and 5G in the New York Times have anything to do with the their new joint venture with Verizon in 5G journalism, or the fact that the Times board of directors includes officials from Facebook, Verizon, Media Lab, and other stalwarts of the telecom industry, while Carlos Slim, head of some of the largest telecom firms in the world, has downsized and now owns just 15 percent of its stock?”
Davis also points out a clear difference between American and Russian scientific expertise with regard to EMF:
“The history of research on the environmental and public health impacts of radio frequency microwave radiation (‘wireless radiation’) reveals some uneasy parallels with that of tobacco.
In the 1950s and 1960s, scientists who showed the harmful impacts of tobacco found themselves struggling for serious attention and financial support. The validity of their views was only accepted after the toll of sickness and death had become undeniable.
For health impacts from wireless radiation, a similar pattern is emerging. Each time a U.S. government agency produced positive findings, research on health impacts was defunded.
The Office of Naval Research, the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, and the Environmental Protection Agency all once had vibrant research programs documenting dangers of wireless radiation. All found their programs scrapped, reflecting pressure from those who sought to suppress this work.
Russian’s 50 years of research on electromagnetic radiation since the Cold War has led to their clear understanding that this exposure does have biological effects. The Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection issued 2011 Resolution60recommending persons under 18 not use a cell phone.”
Brain Cancer Risk Is Likely Real
While heart disease, dementia, and infertility overshadow the risk of brain cancer, the possibility of cancer still remains and may be a far more significant concern for young children who are growing up surrounded by wireless technologies than we realize.
The fact is, we won’t know for sure whether in utero and early cellphone use will increase brain cancer rates until a decade or two from now when today’s youths have grown up. Mounting research suggests cellphone radiation certainly influences your risk, and there are a number of compelling anecdotal reports that are hard to ignore.
In her article,61 Davis mentions Robert C. Kane, a senior telecom engineer “had willingly served as a guinea pig for Motorola and other companies developing new wireless technologies in the 1980s.”
“Never in human history has there been such a practice as we now encounter with the marketing and distributing of products hostile to the human biological system by an industry with foreknowledge of those effects.”
FCC Is a Captured Agency That Cannot Be Trusted
Davis also highlights another crucial problem, namely the fact that the FCC has been captured by the telecom industry, which in turn has perfected the disinformation strategies employed by the tobacco industry before it. She writes:64
“… [I]n 2015 a Harvard expose tracked the revolving door between the FCC and the telecom industry and concluded that the FCC is a captured agency and that ‘Consumer safety, health, and privacy, along with consumer wallets, have all been overlooked, sacrificed, or raided due to unchecked industry influence.'”
The book in question is “Captured Agency: How the Federal Communications Commission Is Dominated by the Industries It Presumably Regulates,” written by investigative journalist Norm Alster.65
As just one example, before his role as FCC chairman, Wheeler headed up the CTIA, which is the lobbying group for the wireless industry, which explains his commentary on 5G and why the FCC doesn’t believe in studying its health risks and “won’t wait for the standards.”
The book also shows how the telecom industry is manipulating public opinion by undermining the credibility of scientists that speak of dangers, cutting funds for research, publishing manipulated studies showing no harm and claiming “scientific consensus” of no harm when no such consensus actually exists. Naturally, the telecom industry also spends millions of dollars lobbying the FCC on issues that might impact its bottom line.66
5G Threatens Weather Prediction
Interestingly, aside from potential health ramifications, a global 5G network will also threaten our ability to predict weather which, in addition to putting civilians at risk will also jeopardize the Navy.67According to a recent paper68 in the journal Nature, widespread 5G coverage will prevent satellites from detecting changes in water vapor, which is how meteorologists predict weather changes and storms.
Davis quotes69 Stephen English, a meteorologist at the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts: “This is the first time we’ve seen a threat to what I’d call the crown jewels of our frequencies — the ones that we absolutely must defend come what may.”
Alas, the FCC ignores such concerns and, according to Davis, “weather experts within the U.S. government are being muzzled.” In a recent letter to the FCC, Sens. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., urged the agency to rein in the expansion of wireless communications in the 24 GHz band for this reason.70
Educate Yourself About the Health Risks of 5G and Protect Your Family From Harm
I am currently writing a book on EMF dangers, which will be a comprehensive resource on current technologies. In the meantime, to learn more about 5G and help educate others, you can download a two-page 5G fact sheet71 from the Environmental Health Trust. On their website, you can also access a long list of published scientific studies showing cause for concern.72
To reduce your EMF exposure, read through the suggestions below and implement as many of them as possible. Additional guidance and solutions for mitigating electric and magnetic fields can also be found at the end of “Healthy Wiring Practices,”73 a document created by building biologist Oram Miller, whom I’ve interviewed on this topic.
Use Stetzer or Greenwave filters to remove voltage transients from your electricity and use meters to confirm that they are in a safe range.
Use a battery-powered alarm clock, ideally one without any light. I use a talking clock for the visually impaired.74
Consider moving your baby’s bed into your room instead of using a wireless baby monitor. Alternatively, use a hard-wired monitor.
If you must use Wi-Fi, shut it off when not in use, especially at night when you are sleeping. Ideally, work toward hardwiring your house so you can eliminate Wi-Fi altogether. It’s important to realize that if you have a Wi-Fi router, you have a cellphone tower inside your home. Ideally, you’d eliminate your Wi-Fi and simply use a wired Ethernet connection.
If you absolutely must have a router, you can place it inside a shielded bag when not in use. You can find shielded items online, or make your own using Swiss Shield fabric. If you have a notebook without any Ethernet ports, a USB Ethernet adapter will allow you to connect to the internet with a wired connection.
For more extensive shielding, you can consider painting your bedroom walls and ceiling with special shielding paint, which will block RF from outside sources, such as cell towers, smart meters and radio/TV towers. Windows can be covered with metal window screen or film. For your bed, consider a shielding bed canopy.
Daytime strategies to reduce unnecessary EMF exposure
To reduce EMF exposure during the daytime, consider using Stetzer filters to decrease the level of dirty electricity or electromagnetic interference being generated. You can also take these with you to work or when you travel. This may be the single best strategy to reduce the damage from EMF exposure since it appears that most of it are generated by the frequencies that the filters remove.
Connect your desktop computer to the internet via a wired Ethernet connection and be sure to put your desktop in airplane mode. Also avoid wireless keyboards, trackballs, mice, game systems, printers, and portable house phones. Opt for the wired versions.
Avoid carrying your cellphone on your body unless in airplane mode and never sleep with it in your bedroom unless it is in airplane mode. Even in airplane mode, it can emit signals, which is why I put my phone in a Faraday bag.75 They are really inexpensive and only $10 for two of them. I tested them and they are highly effective at blocking radiation.
When using your cellphone, use the speakerphone and hold the phone at least 3 feet away from you. Seek to radically decrease your time on the cellphone. I typically use my cellphone for less than 30 minutes a month, and mostly when traveling. Instead, use VoIP software phones that you can use while connected to the internet via a wired connection, or better yet, use a landline telephone.
General household remediation
If you still use a microwave oven, consider replacing it with a steam convection oven, which will heat your food as quickly and far more safely.
Avoid using “smart” appliances and thermostats that depend on wireless signaling. This would include all new “smart” TVs. They are called smart because they emit a Wi-Fi signal and, unlike your computer, you cannot shut the Wi-Fi signal off. Consider using a large computer monitor as your TV instead, as they don’t emit Wi-Fi.
Replace CFL bulbs with incandescent bulbs. Ideally, remove all fluorescent lights from your house. Not only do they emit unhealthy light, but more importantly, they will actually transfer current to your body just being close to the bulbs.
Dimmer switches are another source of dirty electricity, so consider installing regular on/off switches rather than dimmer switches.
Refuse smart meters as long as you can, or add a shield to an existing smart meter, some of which have been shown to reduce radiation by 98 to 99 percent.76
What they didn’t say is that there is research that has already proven that 5G is harmful. That’s why opposition to 5G continues to increase in the U.S. and around the world. Here are excerpts from a recent news story from KNKX:
Activists are asking city or county governments of at least seven Pacific Northwest communities to defy the federal government. They want to stop the deployment of next-generation 5G cellular service.
But the Federal Communications Commission and Trump administration have made the speedy rollout of faster wireless networks a national priority. City officials find themselves pulled in multiple directions with their options becoming more limited by federal preemption with each passing season.
The cross-currents were on display at the most recent public forum — open mic night, basically — of the Eugene City Council. The public comments there could have just as well been heard at council or commission chambers from Bellingham, Port Angeles and Gig Harbor in Washington, to Portland, Corvallis, and Ashland in Oregon.
I want to say first the 5G situation is a nightmare and an emergency,” said Eugene resident Sabrina Siegel when her name was called Tuesday. “You are really dragging your feet on it.”
“It is foolish and irresponsible to allow the rollout of 5G with no definite evidence of the safety of this technology,” Philip Anderson, another Eugene resident, told the council members.
“The members of the City Council would have complete authority to pass a moratorium halting the further placement of 5G small cells throughout Eugene,” resident Becky Bruckner asserted, citing “anti-commandeering doctrine.”
Siegel, Anderson, Bruckner, and others objected to the antennas going in atop power poles and street lights about every six blocks in Eugene. Wireless company contractors are hard at work in other Northwest cities too, in preparation for 5G service to become operational next year.
Council members said federal law doesn’t allow for the permitting moratorium requested by the 5G opponents.
The millimeter wave frequencies used for 5G carry way more data than current generation cell service, but the radio waves don’t travel as far. So, wireless carriers need to deploy thousands more of these new, small cell transmitter antennas.
The objectors raise a myriad of health concerns to what one local group dubbed as “electrosmog.”
“I’ve changed my opinion on this,” Joshua Korn, an alternative medicine online merchant, testified facetiously in Eugene. “Now I fully support 5G because I want more cancer, more disrupted sleep, more adrenal problems, more reproductive problems, more birth defects, more compromised immune systems.”
Right on, Joshua.
Despite 5G proponents insistence that everybody wants 5G, there’s at least one U.S. city which installed it and few have signed up for it: Sacramento, CA.
Research suggests that nearly six months later, fewer than one-tenth of one percent of people living in single-family homes here have signed up for the service. The study concedes that while multi-family dwellings could boost the percentage, it was not possible to determine the number of subscribers in a large apartment and condominium complexes.
The research revealed that the 273 small 5G cell sites installed by Verizon under an agreement with the city of Sacramento cover less than six percent of residential addresses in the seven zip codes analyzed — and of those eligible addresses, fewer than half have signed on with Verizon.
The Facts:The notion that the planet is warming at an alarming rate due to an increase in man-made CO2 emissions is not nearly as proven by real science as the politicians, lobbyists, and activists would have you believe.
Reflect On:Can we recognize the patterns used in consensus-building and perception-building of global issues to help us discern between truth and deception?
I believe that it is now a firmly established fact that Western Industrialization has been harmful to the planet. Ecosystems have been disrupted, species have become extinct, the soil has been degraded, and our water and air have become polluted in ways that we know for certain are harmful to human life and to life on the planet in general.
Human beings of conscience have long petitioned our leaders to make changes, and in the obvious absence of any meaningful actions on the part of our governments and industries to stem the tide of pollution and degradation, our planet has continued to suffer.
The impact of Western Industrialization on ‘climate change’ is a bit of a different animal. Since Al Gore’s presentation of ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ back in 2006, the argument was made that Western Industrialization through the use of fossil fuels was creating a “greenhouse effect” in the atmosphere and, if nothing was done to reduce greenhouse gas emissions–and most importantly CO2 emissions–then the planet would experience cataclysmic disasters threatening all forms of life on the planet.
Naturally, many people of conscience applauded the revelations and vowed to support initiatives that sought to reduce carbon emissions in our society. The only problem–and it still remains today–is that there is no way of proving that increased CO2 levels cause global warming.
With all the proven and clearly demonstrable negative environmental effects of Western Industrialization, we should be looking with a Spockian eyebrow into why it is only CO2 emissions that continues to get the lion’s share of attention from politicians, activists, and lobby groups. It would also be helpful to examine why these groups try to convince us of the virtual certainty that CO2 is the culprit of our climate woes, and dismiss any alternative views as coming from ‘deniers.’
The 97% Line
The famed line that ‘97% of Climate scientists agree that Climate Change is real’ is often bandied about in mainstream discourse by those with an agenda to hit the fossil fuel industry (and as a consequence, the general public) with a carbon tax or a global emissions trading scheme.
Let’s put aside the question as to whether the 97% figure was arrived at by using biased statistical methods, and just focus on the statement itself. Its supreme vagueness makes it difficult to discount–by design. When it speaks of ‘Climate Change’ is it to be taken literally (i.e. that the climate changes over time)? If so, then one could probably not argue the obvious and expect that 100% of scientists would agree. Climate Change itself is observable and has been recorded throughout our history. There are warming trends and cooling trends over long periods of time.
The phrase that used to be used was ‘Global Warming,’ however, in recent years some small but clear signs of a cooling trend have made the term ‘Global Warming’ too easily negated, so the switch was made to ‘Climate Change.’
But what the ‘97% phrase’ literally means is not as important as what proponents of carbon reduction schemes want the public to think it means: They want you to think it means that 97% of scientists believe that the scientific evidence PROVES that CO2 emissions are the MAIN cause of Global Warming (a.k.a. ‘Climate Change’). The honest truth is–scientists DON’T KNOW.
What The Science Really Tells Us
We are led to believe that there are only two groups of scientists, two ‘camps’. One is the group of scientists who believe that CO2 emissions are the MAIN cause of Global Warming, while the other group doesn’t believe that CO2 emissions cause Global Warming. The latter group is labeled ‘Climate Deniers’ (again, a meaningless, pejorative term that literally means that some scientists don’t believe in climate).
In actual fact, the vast majority of climate experts, actual scientists who conduct the studies and analyses, fit somewhere in a very ‘inconvenient’ camp in the middle and see trends, signs, and a host of broad correlations across many variables, but recognize that they don’t have the ability to certify whether or not CO2 or even greenhouse gases as a whole have a significant impact on Global Warming. And we don’t have to cherry-pick our justification for saying this from so-called ‘climate deniers’ either. We can go straight to the documentation of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a group of scientists which the United Nations brought together to essentially find scientific backing for the idea that mankind and our current dependence on fossil fuels is causing the planet to warm at such an accelerated rate as to threaten human existence.
In the IPCC documents, we can see how tenuous the link between climate change and CO2 emissions are, in their findings entitled ‘Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis.’Here was one of their recommendations:
Explore more fully the probabilistic character of future climate states by developing multiple ensembles of model calculations. The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future exact climate states is not possible. Rather the focus must be upon the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions.
In other words, there is no way of doing ‘experiments’ within this system in which the effects of CO2 are isolated and measured. There is no way to create a simulation of our climate and study the impact of CO2 on climate under laboratory conditions. The suggestion here is that the best that can be done is to create a host of different models based on parameterizing the variables and then creating a probability distribution of projections of the weather going forward. In other words, a weak ‘maybe’ is the best that science can actually produce with the climate system in terms of the effects of rising man-made CO2 levels.
Nonetheless, the models used by the United Nations ALL have the built-in bias that rising CO2 levels have a significant impact on warming. And as a consequence, these models have predicted far greater warming of the planet that is actually occurring year after year.
We’re at a pivotal point in history right now. We have created so much waste in an attempt to make our lives better that the planet is choking in our excess. Billions of plastic particles litter the streets, oceans, and land, and we are now realizing how dire the situation is. Companies are trying to come up with ways to get rid of all this plastic before it’s too late, and volunteers from all over the world have started to gather for community cleanup projects.
We produce over 300 million tons of plastic every year.
50% of this is for single-use purposes. We might make use of the plastic for just seconds, but it can last for hundreds of years on Earth.
More than 8 million tons of plastic is dumped into the ocean annually.
33% of marine species have been found tangled in some type of plastic litter.
Over 90% of all seabirds have plastic in their stomachs.
40% of all plastic usage is accounted for by packaging products.
500 billion plastic bags are used globally every year. This is over one million bags every minute.
In the last 10 years, we have produced more plastic than in the entire last century.
The Great Pacific Garbage Patch
According to The Ocean Cleanup, one area where plastic has accumulated called the Great Pacific Garbage Patch is the largest in the world, measuring twice the size of Texas or 1.6 million square kilometers. At the time scientists did a sample, they found that there were more than 1.8 trillion pieces of plastic floating in the patch that weighed around 80,000 tons. This is equivalent to the weight of 500 Jumbo Jets. Furthermore, they said that 1.8 trillion is a mid-range estimate, and it could be as high as 3.6 trillion pieces.
The Great Pacific Garbage Patch is created from an ocean gyre in the central North Pacific. When various ocean currents meet, they form a swirling vortex, which prevents the plastic from moving out of the oceans onto shores where it can be cleaned up. The garbage patch was first discovered in the mid-1980s and is approximately halfway between California and Hawaii. Since the garbage patch is twice the size of Texas, space satellites can easily detect it.
The Ocean Cleanup Creates Special Ocean Cleanup Technology to Rid the Oceans of Plastic
“We need to respect the oceans and take care of them as if our lives depended on it. Because they do.” – Sylvia Earle
Last September, The Ocean Cleanup, a company committed to ridding the oceans of plastic debris, started a massive project using advanced technology to clean trash floating in the Great Pacific Garbage Patch. They deployed a floating boom system from San Francisco Bay to start performing testing before beginning the project. On their website, the company estimates that their systems can clean 50% of the garbage patch in the Pacific every 5 years.
How does it work?
The company was founded by 18-year-old Dutch inventor Boyan Slat in 2013. Their mission is to use “advanced technologies to rid the world’s oceans of plastic.” They will use dozens of floating booms to trap floating plastic and carry it out of the oceans. Each boom will capture up to 150,000 pounds of plastic per year as they float between California and Hawaii along the currents.
The floating boom systems were towed out 1,400 miles to the garbage patch last October to start the process of collecting plastic and other trash. The boom was designed to drift along with the currents, creating a U-shape. This helps clean up the trash efficiently since it can move with the motion of the currents.
When Greg Wetherbee sat in front of the microscope recently, he was looking for fragments of metals or coal, particles that might indicate the source of airborne nitrogen pollution in Rocky Mountain National Park. What caught his eye, though, were the plastics.
The U.S. Geological Survey researcher had collected rain samples from eight sites along Colorado’s Front Range. The sites are part of a national network for monitoring changes in the chemical composition of rain. Six of the sites are in the urban Boulder-to-Denver corridor. The other two are located in the mountains at higher elevation.
The monitoring network was designed to track nitrogen trends, and Wetherbee, a chemist, wanted to trace the path of airborne nitrogen that is deposited in the national park. The presence of metals or organic materials like coal particles could point to rural or urban sources of nitrogen.
He filtered the samples and then, in an inspired moment, placed the filters under a microscope, to look more closely at what else had accumulated. It was much more than he initially thought.
“It was a serendipitous result,” Wetherbee told Circle of Blue. “An opportune observation and finding.”
In 90 percent of the samples Wetherbee found a rainbow wheel of plastics, mostly fibers and mostly colored blue. Those could have been shed like crumbs from synthetic clothing. But he also found other shapes, like beads and shards. The plastics were tiny, needing magnification of 20 to 40 times to be visible and they were not dense enough to be weighed. More fibers were found in urban sites, but plastics were also spotted in samples from a site at elevation 10,300 feet in Rocky Mountain National Park.
The findings are detailed in a report published online on May 14.
Where did the plastic fibers come from? Are they locally produced, or carried from distant states or countries? How do they affect fish and other aquatic life after the plastics precipitate out in rain? And just how much plastic is aloft? Austin Baldwin, a study co-author, would like to know.
“There are more questions than answers right now,” Baldwin, a USGS hydrologist who studies microplastics, told Circle of Blue.
Plastic pollution is ubiquitous, an unfortunate residue of contemporary consumer culture. Bottles, bags, and containers litter beaches and clog streams. Seabirds and whales eat the debris, their stomachs coming to resemble a garbage bin.
These are the most visible signs of an even deeper problem. The consequences of microplastics, those comparable to grains of salt or human hairs, are less well understood. Baldwin said there are even fewer studies to date that have examined microplastics in rain. He mentioned two studies from Paris and one from the Pyrenees. “It’s kind of exciting,” in the sense of scientific discovery, he said.
‘What Could Be More Important?’: World Leaders, Media Ignore Biodiversity Report Detailing Mass Extinction Event Now Underway
Scientists at the UN’s Intergovernmental Science‑Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) released a study showing that a million species are at risk for extinction earlier this month—but the report was largely ignored by the corporate news media. (Photo: Danny Perez Photography/flickr/cc)
Scientists at the United Nations’ intergovernmental body focusing on biodiversity sounded alarms earlier this month with its report on the looming potential extinction of one million species—but few heard their calls, according to a German newspaper report.
Deutsche Wellereported Thursday that partially because the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) released its report on what it called nature’s “unprecedented” decline on the same day that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex had their first child, news reports on the study’s grave implications were few and far between.
While some international and progressive outlets—including Common Dreams—published high-profile stories on the report when it was released, just two of Britain’s national newspapers included any reporting about biodiversity on their front pages on May 7, the day after the royal baby was born to Meghan Markle and Prince Harry.
Deutsche Welle’s report was mirrored by revelations in a Media Matters report published earlier this week which showed that ABC News devoted more time to covering the royal baby’s birth in the week after the child was born than it had to stories about the climate crisis in all of 2018—even as organizers like 16-year-old Greta Thunberg led worldwide climate strikes.
“Where [is] the breaking news?” tweeted Thunberg the day after IPBES released its report. “The extra news broadcasts? The front pages? Where are the emergency meetings? The crisis summits? What could be more important?”
Where are the breaking news? The extra news broadcasts? The front pages? Where are the emergency meetings? The crisis summits?
What could be more important? We are failing but we have not yet failed. We can still fix this. But not if we continue like today. Not a chance. https://t.co/qzeAJpJHei
IPBES’s report detailed how “The health of ecosystems on which we and all other species depend is deteriorating more rapidly than ever,” the panel’s chairman, Sir Robert Watson said in a statement.
By rapidly expanding livestock and crop production, degrading land, concentrating activity in urban areas at more than double the rate than two decades ago, and increasing pollution by tenfold since 1980, humans are “eroding the very foundations of our economies, livelihoods, food security, health and quality of life worldwide,” Watson said.
“If we continue to lose biodiversity, if we continue to fragment our ecosystems, then human well-being will indeed suffer. This is something the average American should care about.” —Sir Robert Watson, IPBES
In addition to the potential loss of one million species, the biodiversity crisis carries substantial risks for world economies, food security, and the spread of disease, scientists warn.
The report calls on policymakers to take immediate concrete action to protect nature by promoting sustainable agricultural practices, inclusive and equitable water management, renewable energy sources and other reforms.
On Wednesday, Democrats in the U.S. House attempted to call attention to the ecological crisis which is causing the rapid loss of life among millions of species, with a House Natural Resources Subcommittee holding a hearing on the issue, including testimony from Watson and other IPBES officials.
Biodiversity, Watson told the subcommittee, “is the substance behind food security, water security, it does control our climate in part, it does control pollination, it does control storm surges. These are things that affect everyday Americans. If we continue to lose biodiversity, if we continue to fragment our ecosystems, then human well-being will indeed suffer.”
“This is something the average American should care about,” he added.
But as The Guardianreported, lawmakers at the hearing also heard from climate science deniers who had been invited to testify by Republican committee members, diluting the urgency of IPBES’s message.
Scientists have published more than 20,000 articles in 45 languages on the subject of biodiversity loss in recent years, Deutsche Welle reported.
Without the media reporting on and lawmakers expressing the urgency of the biodiversity crisis, the public has found little reason to become interested in the issue. The same day most news outlets devoted their coverage to the royal baby, Google searches for Prince Harry and Meghan Markle outnumbered those for biodiversity by 14 and 31 to one, respectively.
Deutsche Welle reported that while politicians and the news media have slightly increased the attention they’ve given to the climate crisis recently, under pressure from campaigners, the same consideration has not been given to biodiversity.
“Nature’s unprecedented decline, which has quietly sped up, is, in isolation, less dramatic than extreme weather events brought by global warmings—such as flash floods and wildfires. Its contributions to humans are also hard to grasp,” reported Ajit Niranjan in the newspaper. “An obscure earthworm may form part of an ecosystem that keeps soil fertile and helps put food on our plates. But its death rarely stirs hearts the way a polar bear on melting ice does.”
With its latest report, IPBES aimed to change that perception.
“One of the great things about the report is that it highlights…the different ways we value nature,” environmental scientist Kathryn Williams told the outlet. “Not just tangible ways like food and clean air, but also the ways that we relate on a more emotional level.”