What do YOU mean when you say ‘5G’?
By now, almost everyone has seen/heard something about the “next generation” wireless technology. Be careful what you look/listen for, and be sure to understand what you oppose – or want.
It’s a rather complex and confusing issue by itself, and not even the Industry has settled all details. To make things even worse, in the talk about “5G,” questionable and erroneous information, omissions, and sometimes propaganda, exist alongside fact. This has made fact-finding a challenge to say the least.
Some assertions in this overview are solid, others “depend,” some are of necessity speculation. Things change and new information arises such that articles need updating almost the moment they’re published. Therefore, anyone having verifiable information clarifying, enhancing, correcting, or refuting anything said here, PLEASE share via Comments.
The “next generation” is dangerous enough by itself (as is each previous G by itself), but some assertions about it make opposition and protests themselves dangerous. Confusion begins right off the bat, with the term “5G.” It’s being flung carelessly about — in articles, protests, news reports, corporate bulletins, by politicians — even by scientists, and in submissions and comments to official bodies.
As seen below in “5G Rollouts”, for accuracy one must at least distinguish 1) between 5G/‘small-cell’ infrastructure and 5G/small cells per se; 2) between 5G infrastructure and 5G high-frequency radiation; and 3) between high frequency 5G and mid- to low-band 5G (there is no defined ‘5G spectrum’).
Most people are familiar with the frequency designations used herein (cycles per second, or hertz – Hz). Megahertz (MHz) = millions of cycles/second. Gigahertz (GHz), billions; and terahertz (THz), trillions. It boggles the mind.
Most often brought to mind by “5G” is the high frequency microwave range often called “millimeter wave” (MMW) – specified overall as 30 GHz to 300 GHz, and wavelength 10 millimeters to 1mm respectively. “5Gmmw” is used herein to mean high frequency radiation as applied to telecom/WiFi, and “5Gmlb” for traditional telecom/WiFi frequencies. Another term used here is “fixture,” meaning an attached enclosure housing antennas.
One might see warnings such as: 1) “5G small cells are not small”; 2) the installations can be “hundreds of pounds, right in your front yard”; and 3) antennas will be densely located — “every few homes.” True or not, strictly speaking, a cell is not an antenna. “Small cell” is misused regularly this way, even by the Industry trade association (CTIA). A cell is the effective area/range of an antenna’s radiation.
5Gmmw has a short range (can be increased with substantial power boost), which decreases with higher frequency. Its cell is comparatively small, and signal-blocking obstructions, including even leaves, tend to require more fixture locations. Even heavy rain can interfere. Call it nitpicking if you will, but why not be accurate instead of creating misconception or ‘making cases’? And there seems to be some ‘mystery’ as well around tower/fixture location density. Call it ‘fixture location density’ (FLD) (more later).
One interesting discovery came up for me working on this article: Small cells are not new, either, and were not developed for 5G. Small cells have long been deployed in 3G and 4G networks and have become an industry choice to deliver MMW and enable better MLB performance if desired.
Traditionally, there have been three types of small cells (more now), defined as they should be by antenna range. Some early deployments were in the US in 2007 and in the UK and Europe in 2009. “According to Small Cell Forum (who would have thought?), 18 million small cells had been deployed globally across a range of use cases by the end of 2016.”
But have we not been led from the outset, and even continue to be, to think that 5G is small cells/MMW? Saying “5G” to indicate MMW only is inaccurate, misleading and dangerous, as we’ll see.
A 10/8/19 bulletin from Project Censored was forwarded to me via an email group which received it from Joel M. Moskowitz, PhD, of UCal Berkeley Public Health. A typically careless statement says, “The telecom industry is promoting the replacement of the current cellular network, known as 4G, with a new generation of higher frequency 5G wavelengths to power the “Internet of Things…” As a generalization, this is either shameful unawareness or untruth/propaganda, as we’ll see.
Opposition also asserts that the skin’s sweat ducts (spiral) act as “receiving antennas for 5G.” This refers to an Israeli study, “The human skin as a sub-THz receiver – Does 5G pose a danger to it or not?” Frequency ranges don’t transition abruptly, but sub-THz usually means a range of 300 GHz down to 90, which is the upper end of 5Gmmw (FCC defines 5G high frequency range as 24 GHz to 90 GHz).
The study Abstract uses two unquantified terms, “sub-terahertz band” and “sub-THz region.” I think “region” is more accurate, meaning the range, or “spectrum” as understood by scientists. A band is an interval between a lower and upper frequency. For instance, a transmission between 40 and 50 MHz is a 10 MHz band (width). But “band” is also used to designate a single frequency.
Study frequencies were 75 GHz to 110 GHz, but no wireless provider I’m aware of (in the US) has announced a mobile 5Gmmw service anywhere near 75 GHz.
Things seem a bit different in the UK, however. At least one rural test area is reportedly using a 60 GHz “wireless mesh” setup (no mobility) for ‘super WiFi.’ Other rural testbeds are on unused TV bands called “TV white space” — VHF to UHF frequencies, mostly MHz bands. This is 5G, mind you.
However, spectrums 71 to 76 GHz, 81 to 86 GHz and 92 to 95 GHz are available in the US for “high-density” (high power) “fixed-wireless” services: “…the operation of wireless communication devices or systems used to connect two fixed locations (e.g., building to building or tower to building) with a radio or other wireless link…”, which would have to be line-of-sight. The higher the frequency, the greater are transmission challenges, so these would be very tight beams, with no obstacles and probably no human exposure (watch out, pigeons).
Study conclusion: “We are raising a warning flag against the unrestricted use of sub-THz technologies for communication, before the possible consequences for public health are explored.” Seems sane enough (within the insane context called wireless telecom/WiFi – see “Wireless Technology: The Plain Physics & Biophysics” (needs update).
Opposers fail to emphasize that the warning flag: Applies conceptually to all G’s; presumes there is a safe dose of MLB; and, as usual, neglects the ecosystem). But — enough for protesters to say sweat ducts are 5G antennas? Making cases? I confess I fell for this one myself, though, in my early research on wireless.
Another favorite whine is, “5G is a weapon,” usually referring to the military’s “non-lethal” ADS technology for dispersing crowds. It’s a high density millimeter wave at 95 GHz – hardly commercial 5Gmmw. More ‘making cases’?
I haven’t been able to find the range of ADS power output (anyone?), which is adjustable. And adjustable enough to do serious harm, like a weapon. The higher frequency/shorter wavelength for ADS was chosen to limit penetration depth. Not that it’s a good thing, not to mention it’s misleading (more later), but MMW is no more weapon than 2G-4G.
It’s well to keep in mind that high-enough density 3G/4G (at a ‘lowly’ 2.5 GHz) will cook you like a microwave oven (2.45 GHz) — that is, very deeply, unlike ADS. Microwave ovens operate between 600 and 1200 watts. Max output of traditional cell towers is 10 watts – phones, 2 watts.
There’s a very powerful Air Force radar system called Pave Paws at three US locations, operating at 420 to 450 MHz. Installations have two large circular arrays of antenna elements, each array radiating 580 kW. It can detect a basketball at 12 miles, and small planes caught in the beam have blown up. So don’t swallow the rhetoric about MMW.
Finding a wattage output figure for new, 5G MLB or MMW antennas proved fruitlessly time consuming (anyone?), but I did find a study establishing a SAR rating for a particular 5Gmmw antenna design for 28 and 38 GHz. Values were “…0.37 and 1.34 W/kg < 2 W/kg according to the European IEC Standard at 28 and 38 GHz frequency…” Current US/FCC SAR standard is 1.6W/kg. This is given just for a sense of comparison, because SAR is useless for determining the amount of RF absorption in biosystems during typical conditions of use,. See “5G” Safety Testing below.
And case-makers should know that wireless tech, beginning with 2G, is adapted stealth-weapon technology that uses very low power, and that the entire wireless system is a functional and potential weapon on various levels (more below).
“5G” Safety Testing
A popular complaint, “The Industry admits that ‘5G’ has not been safety tested,” refers to MMW (the FCC openly admits it too) – with the unstated, erroneous and dangerous implication that 2G-4G was. With accurate use of “5G”, however, the complaint becomes accurate.
The Commission’s assertion that “5G” poses no risk and needs no testing is based on the bogus rationale it used originally to run interference for 3G in 1996. That is, if the radiation doesn’t heat you, it can’t harm you. Power-level exposure limits worldwide are based on a standard which was originally identified as ANSI/IEEE C95.1-1992. There were window dressings in 2004, 2005, and 2010, the latest being ANSI/IEEE C95.1-2019.
Peer reviewed independent science beginning in the 1950s and still going, demonstrating myriad effects at non-heating levels, brings the integrity of C95.1-1992 through 2019 into question. Was *proper* testing ever done? The FCC discredits or merely dismisses the science and such questions: ‘No convincing evidence exists, but we’re keeping an eye on it.’ For details on the original safety testing, aka scientific fraud, see Sections Cell Phone Output and Exposure Limits for Users in my main article — Wireless Technology: Ultra Convenient. Endlessly Entertaining. Criminally Instigated. Terminally Pathological.
The testing/exposure-level issue brings up a 2G-4G ‘flotsam’ often seen: The current FCC exposure limit is “outdated.” An irresponsible and childish ploy, used even by scientists, as seen near the end of this report. “Outdated” implies that guidelines were at one time valid or sufficient, when they were never any such thing. This always comes with the even more irresponsible and impossible suggestion that “safer”, “safe”, or “biologically based” exposure limits are needed, when no such thing can exist.
That there is no set 5G spectrum has been omitted from early opposition (but is getting more attention of late). Emphasis has been on millions of new, closely spaced fixture installations nationwide, up and down ‘Your Street USA,’ due to the short range and easy block-ability of MMW. We still see this. But things seem to have changed – or something…
Here’s a discussion on new Qualcomm MMW smartphone antennas that cover four bands between 26.5GHz and 40GHz. Also discussed are antennas for the top end of MLB: “…a four-member family of radio modules designed for larger cell 5G coverage – that is, outside the dense urban areas and indoor environments … The QPM56xx RF module family works with the Snapdragon X50 modem to work in the sub-6GHz bands [emphasis added] … The modules include switching designed to optimize massive MIMO applications…” “MIMO” refers to new antenna design/operation.
As noted, even the Industry hasn’t settled on final arrangements (pun intended). The following synthesis is the result of wading through too many articles to give credit to any one. Some even disagree with each other.
So here goes: A new “5G NR” international wireless standard has been issued, comprising two frequency ranges, FR1, FR2. Number one is for current bands below 6 GHz (5Gmlb), such as 600MHz, 1900MHz, and 2.5GHz; two is for MMW — mostly 24 to 40 GHz for mobile, and higher for special applications.
5G NR includes a more efficient way of processing data, which entails multiple technologies needing only a mention, such as beamforming, MIMO antennas, small cells and more. Thus, 5Gmlb can use the same towers as 4G, have the same distance and penetration with shorter delay, and provide at least 35 percent more speed. Plans are also in place for 5G deployments using shared spectrum in the (unlicensed, Citizens Broadband Radio Service) 3.5 GHz frequency, and all key players really want in. This is 5G, mind you.
Things get a bit stickier when it comes to needing a new phone or not. Current phones should be able to get updates to process FR1, but a new chip is needed to “transceive” FR2/5Gmmw. New phones will run into money. The advice generally is not to move yet, and here’s an example with Samsung’s $1300 5G phone (see good shot of a 5Gmmw “node”).
Which brings up a story that has drawn wide attention, especially in the UK, and one that seemed to present a puzzle. It’s about the 6/26 2019 Glastonbury Festival in Pilton, Somerset County, England, for which a decision was announced about installing “5G” network towers on festival grounds for a system demo/test.
Despite the fact that “Glastonbury officials [said] that move will allow festival attendees to access the Internet on their smartphones at faster speeds,” the announcement created a huge protest. In this story, 2G, 3G, 4G, 5G are mentioned, but “5G” is not specified as MLB or MMW — as anything, in other words.
The protest article is laced with dubious statements, notably that “5G” constitutes a massive experiment on all species. Even some much-admired professional associates/contacts of mine promote this careless notion. I must respectfully, and strongly, disagree, because the implication is that 2G-4G were/are not an experiment — even though they were/are not in a certain context. Distinctions must be made.
It’s crucial to know that all deleterious effects of EMF/RF were well understood by the wider scientific community, the UN/WHO, militaries and governments by the mid-1970s (but beginning much earlier). What was known then was later hushed up.
The decision was callously made long ago to put people/life at risk to have the technology (see Summary section 1.1.6). Thus, any “experiment” is not whether there will be harm from microwave, but the time window in which ongoing, cumulative damage — across all frequencies — will manifest in a cascade of widespread intractable illness (more in History of Awareness below). Not to worry, though, that fate might be avoided: Ecosystem collapse could bring the house down beforehand.
“While obviously not many festival-goers are likely to have a 5G phone by June, EE will be showing off what the network can do at its stand.” Once again, unspecified 5G. So was the Glastonbury demo about 5Gmmw or 5Gmlb? Whatever, tickets sold out in less than 45 minutes.
Just so, reports on the 9/21/19 protest in Bern, Switzerland clearly reflect the confusion and careless use of “5G.” This Agence France-Presse story says, “By early July, 334 antennae (sic) stations for 5G were operational across the country, authorities have told AFP.” Location and density info aren’t revealed, but could be urban or ‘near-urban.’ The number doesn’t seem to correspond to FLD in neighborhoods, but who knows, thanks to sloppy reporting (and perhaps oblivious “authorities”). The news reader is therefore in the dark about exactly what’s going on, but probably assumes it’s MMW.
Here’s what’s happening on the ground, however. T-Mobile plans a nationwide 5Gmlb rollout at 600 MHz and an undisclosed application of “28 and 39” (see video). AT&T plans to use 5Gmmw only in selected areas, mostly urban/densely populated suburban, while outlying areas will get 5Gmlb. T-Mobile, and Verizon will use at least some 5Gmmw, in some cities. Verizon will use 28 GHz and 39 GHz.
None of this means things can’t change. It’s early. In other words, the MLB rollout may be just a prelude to an FLD invasion.
Officially, 5Gmmw is being tested in urban areas, most likely its final destination. On this page is a map of Verizon 5Gmmw coverage in Sacramento, spotty as yet. But other cities are forestalling 5G plans on precautionary principles — right move, very wrong reason. Ecocidal, pathological 3G/4G still rages, which again reflects the danger of specific 5G/MMW opposition.
Many “5G” critics cite the Internet of Things (IoT) as specific to 5Gmmw, but these two Israeli Qualcomm techies seem to disagree, saying 4G can handle IoT. Propaganda? Who knows. It’s safe to assume, however, they refer to the new, faster 4G. This makes sense, because if IoT is exclusive to MMW, and if that won’t be everywhere as it seems at this point (on the ground), it trashes the plan to ‘connect’ (index, catalog, surveil, track, control) “…everything from pill bottles to watering cans” – former FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler. He didn’t say, “… and you, of course” (being somewhere between pill bottle and watering can).
As noted, one aspect drawing most early 5G protest was the expected need for closely spaced antenna fixtures. As noted also, there seems to be some mystery, given the above information on rollouts.
In the entrained, FLD frame of mind, I was suspicious in the main article of Verizon CEO Lowell McAdams’ statement in a 5/15/18 CNBC interview that antennas in your face is “…one of the myths about 5G…” But it seems he was correct, if careful not to depict 5G accurately. As McAdam touted, 5Gmmw seems to be mostly about Smart cities, driverless cars and virtual reality — all good reasons for planetary and health destruction.
I didn’t bother spending the rest of my life trying to find precisely where FLD installations are occurring. Based on the above provider rollout information, though, it would seem to be only in dense residential areas very close to or within cities. Anyone who’s seen close installations in any area, please share details in Comments.
Now if FLD is occurring outside major cities or densely populated areas, question arises about the purpose. It’s further complicated by the question of how the many thousands of planned satellites fit into the overall picture. Obviously, coverage comes immediately to mind; but it could also be a ‘division of labor,’ meaning, for example, ground fixtures for mobile – satellites for media, entertainment, maybe a mix for Smart cities (more below).
Reports of “5G” Harm
Here and there, people are claiming adverse effects when “5G” is turned on, implying 5Gmmw. This would seem unlikely, virtually impossible, outside test cities. People see new infrastructure dense or not, or/and feel effects, and apparently assume MMW is in use, as we saw in the Bern example.
Radiation/RF meters have been used to support claims. Existing meters, ranging from around $120 to $400, top out at 8 GHz. As noted, cellular frequencies range from 600 megahertz to 2.5 GHz in the US, with 3.5 GHz coming. WiFi is 2.4 and 5 GHz. Recall, Verizon MMW is 28 GHz and 39 GHz. Thus, current meters can’t read MMW.
Thus, if there is harm in outlying areas, what are they proving with meters? Worse, not even understanding? One question might be whether new data processing, as well as “MIMO” antennas, pose a greater health threat than ‘normal.’ This would tend to validate 5G safety hysteria. Even if so, however, it’s academic, since the ‘pre-5G’ endgame is the same – fatal. Focus on MMW is like fretting about a wildfire 10 miles away while your house is burning down.
Here’s an example (potential harm) concerning Glastonbury. The author attributes radiation measurements taken at the festival to the “5G” towers. She doesn’t seem to understand the meter issue, with no mention of the contribution of many thousands of phones in use.
Thus, the grand protest by potential attendees was both macabrely amusing and tragic: They were prepared to irradiate themselves constantly in huge numbers (up to 200,000 fans in attendance using phones/Smartphones), but fretted over “5G”, not even knowing it could have been their much beloved 4G poison…reborn.
We can come to partial conclusion about harm-associated frequencies by type of effect. Known effects of MMW (a rather limited volume of science) differ from MLB effects long reported in the voluminous dismissed science. MMW potentially threatens skin and eyes. 5G-harm stories consistently report symptoms existing before anyone even heard of 5G. Long before.
It’s not that MMW can’t create MLB effects, but it’s rather speculative at this point. It’s possible, however “…since nerves, blood vessels and other electrically conducting structures can carry radiation-induced currents deep into the body” (see section 5G is qualitatively and quantitatively different from 4G)
Meters that cover both ranges would reveal all, but high frequency ones are expensive pieces of professional, highly technical, equipment. Anyone unequivocally claiming harm from 5Gmmw better have one on hand, have a phone with MMW function, or have specific official information.
On one level, however, meters are not much help for most people. The radiation is everywhere, most bio-effects are power-independent, no amount of exposure is safe, and effects are cumulative (see History of Awareness below). A meter might come in handy for those with overt symptoms of electro-sensitivity using some form of shielding, to see at what level symptoms abate – which doesn’t mean trouble stops.
Following are two news reports, a fairly well-known one in San Joaquin County, CA, another in Cincinnati, suggesting that folks are not only in the dark about what 5G is, but about thinking that shutting down or moving a tower is going to make them safe or “safer” in general (of course, no one’s talking ecosystem).
The San Joaquin report, from 3/12/19 concerns a tower/antenna near an elementary school in Ripon, people blaming “5G” for cancer, a classic 4G effect. The lone, tall, new-look tower with the cylindrical fixture (close-up in the video) is not the 5Gmmw/small-cell type shown in the 5G-phone report in the 5G Rollouts section, that people worry about coming down their street. It could be for multiple duty – 4G, 5Gmlb, WiFi as well? Maybe WiMax?
The Cincinnati report, from September 2019 also involves a tall tower and cylindrical fixture. It seems Sprint is responsible for these. A story update on 9/27/19 shows a video interview with a concerned nurse, a perfectly programmed “5G-hysteriac” without full understanding of the wireless threat. She’ll feel safer if that nasty tower with the unknown effects goes away.
The video also shows that shorter, black towers are also popping up — Verizon’s, currently broadcasting 4G LTE, but convertible to future “5G” – meaning what?
As to cancer, whether the Ripon tower radiated 4G, 5Gmlb, 5Gmmw (latter very doubtful), or even WiFi/WiMax, is less important than the fact that at least one cancer case arose in 2016 – before the tower existed. So there could be other environmental factors.
But “All in all, three teachers and four students have been battling various cancers since 2016,” plus a 22-year-old former male student. Of course, those teachers and that young man never used a wireless device… This doesn’t seem to dawn on people.
The case is interesting, since the tower was officially said to have tested within federal standards. An independent expert was consulted, who said it exceeded standard. Sprint subsequently shut it down and agreed to relocate, which is proper, according to the 1996 Telecommunications Act, for any fixture exceeding standards. Apparently, Sprint suffered no other consequence for the alleged violation. The move was good PR.
This story should raise questions for anyone thinking all will be well if “5G” is stopped, that it’s the greater threat, and that “5G” antennas are too close, because of the bogus advice that ‘distance is your friend,’ aka the argument for slow death over quicker death.
Truth is, any telecom/WiFi antenna you’re exposed to is too close: The absolutely critical aspect of latency/cumulative effect is usually and dangerously overlooked. For example, it’s well known that cigarette tobacco and ionizing radiation (like a hospital X-ray), show cumulative effect.
In the 5G-harm stories I’ve seen, a corollary to the distance issue is that folks seem to think they’re harmed for the first time. This is fatal error. Telecom/WiFi microwave radiation also ‘adds up’ in biosystems (more below in History of Awareness).
Felt or not, effects can occur at any time during or after exposure, so people have no way of knowing they weren’t ‘due’ anyway. Except, there’s no ‘after’ for the most part. Exposure occurs 24/7 with the overall system operating, whether you use a device or not. I’ve got 5 WiFi channels coming through my place and I don’t even own a wireless device.
That’s why anyone who understands the dangers but still uses wireless technology – for whatever self-involved ‘excuse’ – is irradiating others directly with devices and by supporting the tower system ‘bathing’ everything. This makes the user an accessory to criminal behavior leading to ecocide, genocide, and global enslavement in the technosphere.
Known and reported effects are a big red flag for what awaits society at large. Even if society relinquished all commercial wireless devices and services immediately, which is what we should be doing instead of worrying about what’s coming, we could still have devastating scenarios from the ‘momentum’ of latency. Next week would not surprise. More detail for this section is here: Wireless Technology: The Plain Physics & Biophysics.
There are also stories where people or animals affected by, say, a Smart meter, regard symptom abatement when the meter is removed as complete recovery. More fatal error. Anyone, including fetuses, exposed at the time 2G was introduced, has had virtually non-stop exposure for about 27 years. This is on top of a variety of other analog and digital EM fields.
It’s going to explode, folks.
A Big Question
How much of today’s rampant illness – that is, already named and diagnosable – is attributable in whole or part to telecom/WiFi wireless radiation (or even the whole radiation gamut to which we expose ourselves)? If officials even know (doubtful), they’re not telling. So even for sick users — who are much habituated, obsessed, and addicted — seeing and feeling nothing they attribute to wireless, there’s little incentive to quit 3G/4G.
But quitting 3G/4G is what must be done for survival, and that’s how to beat 5G — on the ground, anyway. Allowing 4G to continue, with ANY level of exposure, potentiates the noted imminent effects – eco-collapse and massive health crises.
An Idaho organization, ehsidaho.com, collects reports on the incidence and effects of what’s being called electrohypersensitivity, or EHS. I call it “OES,” Overt Electro-Sensitivity, because no living thing is insensitive to the radiation, whether it manifests outwardly or not. Of the 1.6 million Idaho population, an estimated 35% suffer mild to moderate symptoms, with 3% to 10% “devastating, life-altering.”
The rest of society is thumbing its nose at these unfortunate people. But the price will be paid.
Claire Edwards, a former UN staffer, top writer and wireless activist said to me in an email that the estimate is 100 million ‘EHS’ globally. As bad as this sensitivity is, it’s not nearly as bad, either in incidence or severity, as things could quickly and easily get.
At this writing, the takeaway generally speaking is that 5G infrastructure (outside cities and dense population areas and absent proper meters) is showing us harm from 3G/4G frequencies, not MMW. As I’ve suggested elsewhere several times, if we don’t stop 3G/4G, welcome all 5G. It will mercifully hasten an end to the coming agony.
History of Awareness
Old, official reports exist acknowledging harm, including the aforementioned 1981 WHO document, Environmental Health Criteria: Radiofrequency and Microwaves. Biologic Effects and Health Hazards of Microwave Radiation: Proceedings on International Symposium 1973 (I’ve always thought it unfortunate that “environmental health” is not about the environment).
The document is long, and covers frequencies from 100 KHz to 300 GHz; but real-world telecom/WiFi harm for the last three decades has come from digital 2G-4G frequencies. As forthright as the WHO publication purports to be, the Summary reveals a certain ruthlessness. It’s all most people need to read.
Section 1.1.3 Biological effects in experimental animals: “It has been demonstrated that low-level, long-term a exposure may induce effects in the nervous, haematopoietic (production of blood cells and platelets), and immuno-competent cell systems of animals. Such effects have been reported in small animals (rodents) exposed to incident power density levels as low as 0.1-1.0 mW/cm2” (thousandths of a watt per square centimeter), FCC limit: .2mW/cm2).
“The reported effects on the nervous system include behavioural, bioelectrical, metabolic, and structural (at the cellular and subcellular levels) changes. Erythrocyte production and haemaglobin synthesis may be impaired and immunological reactivity changed.” OK so far (except for exploiting/hurting animals).
Section 1.1.6: Health risk evaluation as a basis for exposure limits: “… A highly conservative approach would be to keep exposure limits close to natural background levels. However, this is not technically feasible [emphasis added]. A reasonable risk-benefit analysis has to be considered.”
“Not technically feasible”? Well, of course. Technology is more important than health in some minds. “Reasonable risk-benefit”? The Summary doesn’t say how many sick or dead per million is a ‘reasonable risk-benefit.’ (Please see also)
One wonders if they were aware of the earlier-noted studies, referred to by Andrew Michrowski, PhD at the 2009 Toronto Whole Life Expo (see section, Key Testimony in Toronto in the main article):
“…Precise, quality, straightforward medical and scientific research since 1950s details radiofrequency and microwave effects – without influence of stocks, PR and lawyers. By 1970s, electromagnetic, electrochemical, cascade effect equations were well defined for tissues, cells, intracellular & extracellular fluids and macromolecular effects on living systems…”
“Analysis of 1950 -1974 mortality of 40,000 Korean War veterans shows that microwave exposure effect is cumulative [emphasis added] it affects all deaths … doubling to tripling cancers of eye, brain and central nervous system, lymphatic and hematopoietic [blood-cell/platelet-forming] and digestive systems. This means that even ‘weak’ and short exposures from wireless systems accumulate over the years and decades to engender serious diseases” [emphasis added].
Nor did they consider/reveal that the military began stealth-weapon research in the 1950s. See Sections Assault: From Weapon to Telecom and Ultimate Atrocity in the main article.
Other older documents showing awareness have come from NASA, Defense Intelligence Agency, Naval Military Research Institute and EPA (4).
For a masterful exposé of a shining example of the ongoing cover-up and dereliction of duty by mainstream news, see BBC Fake News on 5G Decoded: Health Impacts Denied Despite Overwhelming Scientific Evidence by former UN staffer Claire Edwards. Yeoman work by Edwards, shameful performance by the BBC. It contains a trove of resources.
Protesters are always tugging heartstrings about ‘protecting you and your family.’ As suggested previously, however, the paramount issue gets relatively meager attention: Threat to ecosystem. Scientists report that a million species are set to go extinct in the next 10 years, with no apparent way of stopping it.
Now, insects are highly susceptible to telecom/WiFi microwave, especially to MMW, which we haven’t even had yet. In the last quarter century or so, coinciding closely with the introduction of 2G, 75% of the global biomass of insects has disappeared. The study specifies “protected areas,” meaning it’s probably worse in areas where other threats co-exist. But no exposed living thing is immune.
While most 5G opposition focuses on antennas, another massive program proceeds: At one point, up to 20,000 satellites were planned to blanket the globe. But the number keeps growing. Madman Elon Musk’s SpaceX has dibs on 12,000 for 5Gmmw. A few other companies, including Boeing and OneWeb, account for at least 8,000 more.
Here is news that Madman is applying for 30,000 more. 42,000 satellites will be about 5 times the total spacecraft launched since 1957 (8,500). So, 50,000 in all. This is considered sane.
Much still seems to be up in the air on the satellite program. Since launches proceed as we speak, the plan seems to be shoot them up first, answer their own questions later, while dismissing anyone else’s. In Europe, there are currently calls for papers, with submissions deadline being the Ides of March 2020.
Pollution. Some 150 tons of refined kerosene and 340 tons of liquid oxygen per Musk 5G launch (60 satellites, 400 kg each). Do the math, even for 12,000. There seems to be no concern for consequences, such as potential damage to the ozone layer, major interference with earth’s energy field, or even increased atmospheric CO2 (for the faithful). Not to mention, free oxygen (very cool interactive graph) that could have been breathed.
Might such arrogance indicate a certain level of para-corporate power from which this atrocity originates? Insane is a good word for it, but psychopathic puts a more specific tag on it. See subsections Same Old Story… and …with a Twist in the main article.
It’s strongly suggested that an outcry on satellites – and drones, for that matter – should drown out the one on antennas. But I emphasize again, the best way to beat 5G, on the ground at least, is to quit 4G. Again, allowing classic 4G to continue potentiates imminent disaster due to cumulative effect.
Taking into account what’s known about unnoticed effects accumulating over time; and what physics and biophysics suggest about power levels and biosensitivity; and what the WHO document reports about effects and safe level; and the fact that environment and we have been exposed for almost 3 decades now, does anyone feel that 2G-4G wireless is not by itself a quite sufficient terminal nightmare?