We Have No Reason to Believe 5G Is Safe...

Beware of 5G, Peeps.

5G (for the 1st time) employs millimeter waves as well as microwaves.

Do you remember when the cell phone industry was declaring cell phones were absolutely harmless (because they were making $$$ hand-over-fist)?

Now... All cell phone manufacturers advise customers to NOT keep their cell phones in their pockets/on their person due to the increased risk of cellular damage/cancer.

(A "no-brainer" to me as the technology is microwave-based. i.e. Close proximity to cell phone boosters causes my skin to feel like I'm under an intense heat lamp)

From Scientific American: "... Short-term exposure (to 5G) can have adverse physiological effects in the peripheral nervous system; immune system and cardiovascular system. The research suggests that long-term exposure may pose health risks to the skin (e.g., melanoma), the eyes (e.g., ocular melanoma) and the testes (e.g., sterility)."

So, contrary to widely-held, yet, untested belief...

From: Scientific American...

We Have No Reason to Believe 5G Is Safe

I Don't Think They Heard Me: The Less-Than-Helpful Reply From the F.C.C.

Question:  Are YOU willing to trust your health and well-being (and that of all of your loved ones) to an over-whelmed, understaffed and (IMHO) far too WiFi Industry-cozy federal agency ("Trust us, we're with the government.") ?

(Please note:  I'd contacted the F.C.C. (please see previous blog post) out of concern regarding a real public health hazard:  I'd felt my shoulder being burned by a retail, wall-mounted, WiFi booster antenna at a local shopping mall - not to complain about any "provider".)

F.Y.I. ~ The F.C.C.'s own website claims that public, wireless, network antennas don't emit the type of extremely high R.F. (Radio Frequency aka "microwave") radiation that can damage human flesh. 

In the wake of my recent experience, I beg to differ.

*The Wireless Industry's sole motivation is the raking in of Profit.

*My sole motivation has always been and continues to be Public Safety.)

Here's the REPLY that I received from the F.C.C.:

"Thank you for sharing your story. Your Ticket No. is 1324555.

Your story will not be served on a provider but will be shared internally to inform policy and potential enforcement. You will not receive any further communication from the FCC. 

If you want to file an informal complaint that will be served on your provider, please go to www.consumercomplaints.fcc.gov and select a complaint category.

Your story provides the FCC with important information we can use to develop policies to protect consumers, remedy violations of the Communications Act, and encourage future compliance with the law.

Thank you for your help in furthering the FCC’s mission on behalf of consumers."

Hmm...

If I won't "... receive any further communication from the FCC. ", then how will I know if this information ever reached the appropriate persons/parties at the agency?

Can You Hear Me NOW?: An Open Letter To The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Re: Public Safety, RF Radiation & Cell Phone Antennas

An Open Letter To The Federal Communications Commission (FCC): (Subject: The Immediate Public Health Hazard Posed By Excessive and Unsafe Levels of RF Radiation Emitted By Retail, Wall-Mounted Cell Phone Booster Antennas.) "November 22, 2016

Hello FCC Staff:

I am writing to share with you my concerns for the public health following a recent experience of mine.

I was sitting with a friend at a table in the courtyard of an open-air shopping center.  There are small restaurants on either side of the courtyard.  The exterior facades are all brick.  At one point, I leaned back in my chair and felt a significant amount of heat on my left shoulder and upper arm.  Initially, I assumed that I'd inadvertently sat beneath a nearby restaurant's patio heat-lamp.  A few moments later, when my friend and I got up to leave, I turned to my left, expecting to see a commercial heat-lamp behind me.  But, much to my surprise, there was no heat -lamp.  There was only a small, white, commercial cell-phone booster antenna mounted on the wall, about 7-ft. off of the ground.  I raised my arm, so that my hand was directly in front of it, and I immediately felt heat on my skin.

It was my understanding, from all that I've read on the subject, that cell-phones and wireless network devices are required by law to emit such a low amount of radiation as to not cause heating of human tissue.  I'd read that only large antennae - on rooftops or on hilltops were likely to emit enough (non-ionising?) RF radiation so as to noticeably heat and damage tissue - and that 's why maintaining distance from them is important.

Is there a specific department or office at the FCC that I should report this to?

My concern is that this antenna may be only of many that might be exposing countless men, women and children to a harmful amount of RF radiation on a daily basis.

I look forward to your response and appreciate any pertinent information you are able to provide.

Thank you."

An Open Letter To The EPA Re: Cellphone Boosters, RF Radiation and Burning Skin, Oh My!

An Open Letter/Email To The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Re: Cellphone Boosters, RF Radiation and Burning Skin (Oh My!):

"Dear EPA:

I am concerned about a recent experience I had while sitting in a public courtyard at a local open-air shopping mall.  I was sitting at a table with a friend and suddenly realized that I felt a focused heat on my left shoulder and upper arm.  Initially, I assumed that I had, inadvertently, sat too close to a nearby restaurant's patio heat-lamp.  But, when I got up to leave, I turned to look for the lamp and there was no heat-lamp... in fact, there was only an exterior, wall-mounted, cellphone booster antenna nearby.  It was placed about 8-ft. above the ground.  But, I definitely felt it heating my skin and deeper.  Like I said, I had thought it was a heat-lamp before I turned around.

I am concerned because, according to your own website, "At very high levels, RF energy is dangerous.", but the non-ionizing radiation from wireless technology that is capable of heating the body's tissues rapidly is supposed to be "... found only near certain equipment, such as powerful long-distance transmitters." and you go on to say that, although cellphone and wireless networks emit RF radiation, it's "not at levels that cause significant heating."

My recent experience definitely refutes these statements and I am concerned, not only for my own, but also for the public's safety.  Especially if there's no regulation of or laws regarding the amount of RF radiation that is being emitted from these widely-used, human-adjacent devices.

Please let me know - including the EPA - to whom and at what agency should I report this?

Thank you!

San Francisco, California

(From: "About Non-Ionizing Radiation From Wireless Technology)
... At very high levels, RF energy is dangerous. It can heat the body's tissues rapidly. However, such high levels are found only near certain equipment, such as powerful long-distance transmitters. Cellphones and wireless networks produce RF, but not at levels that cause significant heating. In addition, RF energy decreases quickly over distance. At ground level, exposure to RF from sources like cellphone towers is usually very low.""

Gas Fracking/Oil Drilling In North Dakota: What Could Possibly GLOW Wrong?

Gas Fracking & Oil-Drilling: "It's not just about earthquakes, anymore".

Oil companies overjoyed with their massive fracking/drilling boom in North Dakota are celebrating by throwing confetti... er, no... they're celebrating by throwing socks.

No, I'm not kidding: They're throwing socks away.  Which wouldn't be all that noteworthy if the socks I'm speaking of weren't industrial filter "socks" that are loaded with RADIOACTIVE WASTE.

And, no, of course they aren't throwing them into sealed, radiation leak-proof containers (if such things exist - I don't think so.) and placing them in official radioactive-waste dumps (cringe).

No... These brain-donors are dumping radium-contaminated filter socks - by the many thousands - into industrial waste bags full and then dumping those inside unsuspecting businesses' dumpsters, inside Native American Reservations, inside abandoned vehicles and - in the worst case (sigh), thus far, they filled an abandoned gas station with them.  That one ranks as the worst, human-caused radioactive accident in N.D.  And, again, I say "thus far".

Because these gas/oil guys don't quit.  And (obviously) they don't care.

When you're making that much money, hand over fist, the chorus line goes:

"Drill, baby... Drill...".

*Hey! I have a great idea: Since we all know they won't stop fracking/drilling/polluting, let's make each and every company that does so account for each and every sock filter they purchase!

Taa-daa... Another Problem Solved!

Check out this Happy Fracking video from The Rachel Maddow Show...

Mobile Phone Radiation Wrecks Your Sleep

Feeling Like You're In A Fog? (and you don't live in S.F. or London?)...
Not Sleeping Well?...
Headaches Harassing You?...
It Might Not Be Your Mate, Job or Schedule...
It Might Just Be Caused By Your Cell Phone...

Mobile Phone Radiation Wrecks Your Sleep

Phone makers' own scientists discover that bedtime use can lead to headaches, confusion and depression

From: The Independent (Apparently, the U.S. Media hasn't bothered to report this YET.)
By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor
Published: 20 January 2008

Radiation from mobile phones delays and reduces sleep, and causes headaches and confusion, according to a new study.

The research, sponsored by the mobile phone companies themselves, shows that using the handsets before bed causes people to take longer to reach the deeper stages of sleep and to spend less time in them, interfering with the body's ability to repair damage suffered during the day.

The findings are especially alarming for children and teenagers, most of whom – surveys suggest – use their phones late at night and who especially need sleep. Their failure to get enough can lead to mood and personality changes, ADHD-like symptoms, depression, lack of concentration and poor academic performance.

The study – carried out by scientists from the blue-chip Karolinska Institute and Uppsala University in Sweden and from Wayne State University in Michigan, USA – is thought to be the most comprehensive of its kind.

Published by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Progress in Electromagnetics Research Symposium and funded by the Mobile Manufacturers Forum, representing the main handset companies, it has caused serious concern among top sleep experts, one of whom said that there was now "more than sufficient evidence" to show that the radiation "affects deep sleep".

The scientists studied 35 men and 36 women aged between 18 and 45. Some were exposed to radiation that exactly mimicked what is received when using mobile phones; others were placed in precisely the same conditions, but given only "sham" exposure, receiving no radiation at all.

The people who had received the radiation took longer to enter the first of the deeper stages of sleep, and spent less time in the deepest one. The scientists concluded: "The study indicates that during laboratory exposure to 884 MHz wireless signals components of sleep believed to be important for recovery from daily wear and tear are adversely affected."

The embarrassed Mobile Manufacturers Forum played down the results, insisting – at apparent variance with this published conclusion – that its "results were inconclusive" and that "the researchers did not claim that exposure caused sleep disturbance".

But Professor Bengt Arnetz, who led the study, says: "We did find an effect from mobile phones from exposure scenarios that were realistic. This suggests that they have measurable effects on the brain."

He believes that the radiation may activate the brain's stress system, "making people more alert and more focused, and decreasing their ability to wind down and fall asleep".

About half of the people studied believed themselves to be "electrosensitive", reporting symptoms such as headaches and impaired cognitive function from mobile phone use. But they proved to be unable to tell if they had been exposed to the radiation in the test.

This strengthens the conclusion of the study, as it disposes of any suggestion that knowledge of exposure influenced sleeping patterns. Even more significantly, it throws into doubt the relevance of studies the industry relies on to maintain that the radiation has no measurable effects.

A series of them – most notably a recent highly publicised study at Essex University – have similarly found that people claiming to be electrosensitive could not distinguish when the radiation was turned on in laboratory conditions, suggesting that they were not affected.

Critics have attacked the studies' methodology, but the new findings deal them a serious blow. For they show that the radiation did have an effect, even though people could not tell when they were exposed.

It also complements other recent research. A massive study, following 1,656 Belgian teenagers for a year, found most of them used their phones after going to bed. It concluded that those who did this once a week were more than three times – and those who used them more often more than five times – as likely to be "very tired".

Dr Chris Idzikowski, the director of the Edinburgh Sleep Centre, says: "There is now more than sufficient evidence, from a large number of reputable investigators who are finding that mobile phone exposure an hour before sleep adversely affects deep sleep."

Dr William Kohler of the Florida Sleep Institute added: "Anything that disrupts the integrity of your sleep will potentially have adverse consequences in functioning during the day, such as grouchiness, difficulty concentrating, and in children hyperactivity and behaviour problems."

David Schick, the chief executive of Exradia, which manufactures protective devices against the radiation, called on ministers to conduct "a formal public inquiry" into the effects of mobile phones.