This video clip shows research evidence that 5G networks are correlated with outbreaks of Covid-1984.
This video clip was created using the following article:
This video clip shows research evidence that 5G networks are correlated with outbreaks of Covid-1984.
This video clip was created using the following article:
5G, 5G, 5G……It’s supposed to be the best thing since sliced bread.
Take a look at this short video below, which presents:
A key quote from the video above is “but what exactly is a 5G network? The truth is that experts can’t tell us what 5G actually is because they don’t even know yet . . .”
Never underestimate the lobbying power of BIG TELECOM MONEY in Washington, DC or in our State Capitols, to execute the Republican/ALEC agenda in an era when MONEY = FREE SPEECH. We are witnessing a disaster that rapes and pillages the public interest to further enrich our already-obscenely-profitable and monopoly-power-drunk Telecom firms which are grabbing for all they can get during this short-lived Trump administration.”(1)
“Since much of the US population is unwisely bathing itself 24/7/365 in data-carrying, pulsed, Radio-Frequency Microwave Radiation (RF/MW radiation), it is important to understand what we are actually doing to ourselves, our loved ones and our environment. Duration of exposure to these micro-second pulses of electrical power, not intensity, is the most important factor.
Therefore, always-on wireless infrastructure antennas are hazardous to one’s health — that is why wireless telecommunications base station antennas belong 200 feet off the ground and at least 2,500 feet away from homes, schools, hospitals, public buildings, parks and wilderness areas. That is why installation of so-called “Small Cell” Distributed Antenna Systems (DAS) anywhere near second-story bedroom windows is a disaster — no matter what government guideline is quoted to justify this assault.
The common thread that ties of WiFi, 4G and 5G together is the reliance on OFDM/OFDMA modulation — sophisticated mathematical transformations that pack huge amounts of digital data onto carrier microwaves in order to transmit the data through the atmosphere. The pulsed microwaves either penetrate or reflect off of anything in their path: any flora, fauna and man-made structures you can imagine, including human adults and children, pets, and already threatened species of pollinators birds, bees and butterflies.
What is WiFi and why should you turn off your Wireless Router/Access Point?
Pulsed Microwave Radiation is the Foundation of Wireless Mobile Data. Microwave Radiation, when used to transfer data from Point-A to Point-B, is comprised of micro-second pulses of electrical power sprayed through the atmosphere. Microwaves either penetrate or reflect off of anything or anyone in their path, The data transferred are electrical pulses or ”bullets” traveling at the speed of light, about 670 million miles per hour. These pulses of data can cause biological harm to many living organisms, including humans.
How Do Microwaves Radiate Over Long Distances?
Electromagnetic waves are produced whenever charged particles are accelerated. In the near-field region (within 3-4 wavelengths from the source antenna charges), waves are incoherent, erratic and choppy with high micro-second peaks of Electric and Magnetic fields. This creates a toxic “hell-stew” of powerful zaps, crackles and pops that are difficult to characterize with any degree of accuracy. Unfortunately, this is the range where people typically hold their wireless devices. Whenever one sends/receives digital data wirelessly from their device, a toxic, spherical cloud 36″ to 48″ in diameter forms around the device, exposing everyone nearby to peaks of RF/MW radiation.
Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) is neither an accurate nor a scientific measure of the hazards created by this mixture of Electric and Magnetic fields in the near-field region. SAR is a misleading ‘average of an average’, designed to hide the peaks of Electric and Magnetic power that surround one’s device. These peaks of power interrupt the sensitive electrical signals of our body and causes DNA and neurological damage, suppress the immune system, and interrupt hormone production and regulation.
How Do Microwaves Send and Receive Digital Data?
A wavelength carries massive numbers of erratic pulses of digital data, that wirelessly transmit text, image, audio and video data to and from computers, tablets, phones and the (predicted) billions of IoT (Internet of Things) machines, appliances, “things,” sensors and devices. Unfortunately, the microwaves used for this purpose are not the smooth sine waves you may have learned about in text books that describe the transmission of visible light (430 to 770 THz) or Alternating Current electrical power (60 Hz).
Natural Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) come from two main sources: the sun, and thunderstorm activity, with the Earth’s Schumann Resonance centering around 7.83 Hz. Being Man-made, pulsed RF/MW radiation differs from natural EMF. Man-made Radio-Frequency Electromagnetic Fields (RF/EMF) and the resulting RF/MW radiation are defined by the equation: c = f λ, where c = the speed of light, f = the frequency, and λ = the wavelength. This means that since c is a constant, as frequency increases, wavelength decreases. Frequency is measured in a unit called Hertz, which represents the number of cycles or oscillations of a wave in one second. The unit Hertz is named after Heinrich Rudolph Hertz a German scientist who first demonstrated that electromagnetic waves radiate at a constant speed.
In order to transmit digital data, an antenna’s microchips distort the waves’ shape or pace to modulate (encode) the data stream onto the carrier waves at the source before the antenna transmits them. At the destination, other microchips demodulate (decode) the data stream so the destination device can display the text/image or play the audio/video. A modem is a device that literally modulates and demodulates data streams; engineers shortened the name to modem. Each antenna in this scheme is a two-way microwave transmitter/receiver.
There are an infinite number of combinations of wavelength, frequency, intensity and modulation, the mathematical transformations that encode data onto a carrier wave. Each combination is a new digital fingerprint that uniquely identifies a new man-made toxic agent that, when transmitted into the air, instantly fills our homes, schools, workplaces or public spaces.
Microwaves have different properties, depending on their wavelength. The longer waves (20″ down to 5″) travel further and penetrate deeper into buildings and living tissue. The shorter waves (0.5″ down to 0.1″) are called millimeter waves (mm-waves) because they measure from 10 mm (at 30,000 MHz = 30 GHz), down to 1 mm (at 300,000 MHz = 300 GHz). The mm-waves are not as efficient because they don’t travel as far, tend to reflect off of buildings, and deposit mainly into the eyes and skins of living organisms.”(3)
Some have suggested that 5G will be whatever interesting developments happen from 2018 onwards. There is much political capital expended in claiming that 5G will be deployed early in a country. MNOs and Governments will simply claim from 2018 onwards that they have 5G even though all that has been deployed is evolved 4G. For all the debate, 5G could be a label, not a technology.
End users will be told that they now have 5G even though they have not changed their handsets nor received any improvements in service. Or alternatively, in the case where 5G is the label applied to the introduction of IoT, consumers may be told that 5G is not about their handset but about the ability to connect their devices. In the US, the term 5G might be applied to fixed wireless deployments, with “5G to the home:. Given the confusion around what 5G is, this second “label whatever we have as 5G: approach could be used in Europe and the US alongside the first “limited millimeter wave deployment” approach happening in Asia Pacific.
This is the chilling observation: these planning documents for the recently installed 4G Palo Alto Small cells, show that even though the RF/MW radiation calculations were made for 6 watts of input power, the actual input power for each small cell antenna is 300 to 500 Watts and the “associated equipment” power supply cabinet is 17.5 cubic feet — one for each antenna!
Similar documents for a 2017 Verizon 4G Small Cell deployment in Weston, MA state that each antenna outputs 1,257 Watts of Effective Radiated Power (ERP), a significant RF/MW radiation exposure. These military-grade RF/MW radiation exposures do not belong in residential zones not matter what over-the-rainbow promises are being made about 5G by those who wish to profit for 4G/5G Distributed Antenna Systems (DAS) installations everywhere.
As SB.649 contains no language for real-time monitoring of the levels of RF/MW radiation and no warning or detection systems if the RF/MW radiation reaches hazardous levels, then the equipment is already in place to easily increase the power input from 6 watts to 500 watts, which constitutes a Microwave Radiation weapon on every block in downtown Palo Alto — not unlike weapons the Federal Government has already designed and deployed.
Here is an actual, already designed and deployed actual millimeter wave application . . .
The military exploits the fact that Radio-Frequency Microwave Radiation (RF/MW radiation) is biologicially active while the Wireless industry denies that RF/MW radiation is biologically active. Which one is lying?
smoke screen/hype machinebeing used to sell this vision to the politicians.
This is actually a real-estate scheme: AT&T and Verizon want to invade neighborhoods and secure cut-rate, rent-controlled access to publicly-owned structures (utility poles, light poles, traffic lights, street signs) so they can expand their operations, at will, without regulation. AT&T and Verizon will install 4G/LTE today to make obscene profits now . . . and perhaps never upgrade it to 5G.
“Who doesn’t want faster, bigger (or smaller), more efficient? Take wireless mobile telecommunications. Our current broadband cellular network platform, 4G (or fourth generation), allows us to transmit data faster than 3G and everything that preceded. We can access information faster now than ever before in history. What more could we want? Oh, yes, transmission speeds powerful enough to accommodate the (rather horrifying) so-called Internet of Things. Which brings us to 5G.
Until now, mobile broadband networks have been designed to meet the needs of people. But 5G has been created with machines’ needs in mind, offering low-latency, high-efficiency data transfer. It achieves this by breaking data down into smaller packages, allowing for faster transmission times. Whereas 4G has a fifty-millisecond delay, 5G data transfer will offer a mere one-millisecond delay–we humans won’t notice the difference, but it will permit machines to achieve near-seamless communication. Which in itself may open a whole Pandora’s box of trouble for us – and our planet.
Let’s start with some basic background on 5G technology. Faster processing speeds require more bandwidth, yet our current frequency bandwidths are quickly becoming saturated. The idea behind 5G is to use untapped bandwidth of the extremely high-frequency millimeter wave (MMW), between 30GHz and 300GHz, in addition to some lower and mid-range frequencies.
High-frequency MMWs travel a short distance. Furthermore, they don’t travel well through buildings and tend to be absorbed by rain and plants, leading to signal interference. Thus, the necessary infrastructure would require many smaller, barely noticeable cell towers situated closer together, with more input and output ports than there are on the much larger, easier to see 4G towers. This would likely result in wireless antennas much closer together, on every lamp post and utility pole in your neighborhood.
Here are some numbers to put things into perspective: as of 2015, there were 308,000 wireless antennas on cell towers and buildings. That’s double the 2002 number. Yet 5G would require exponentially more, smaller ones, placed much closer together, with each emitting bursts of radio-frequency radiation (RFR)–granted, at levels much lower than that of today’s 4G cell towers–that will be much harder to avoid because these towers will be ubiquitous. If we could see the RFR, it would look like a smog that’s everywhere, all the time.”(2)
“Definition of Microwave Sickness:
Original Merriam-Webster® link here.
a condition of impaired health . . . that is characterized by headaches, anxiety, sleep disturbances, fatigue, and difficulty in concentrating and by changes in the cardiovascular and central nervous systems and that is held to be caused by prolonged exposure to low-intensity microwave radiation”(1)
“It’s important to know that in 2011, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer classified RFR as a potential 2B carcinogen and specified that the use of mobile phones could lead to specific forms of brain tumors.
Many studies have associated low-level RFR exposure with a litany of health effects, including:
“As mentioned, the new 5G technology utilizes higher-frequency MMW bands, which give off the same dose of radiation as airport scanners.
The effects of this radiation on public health have yet to undergo the rigors of long-term testing. Adoption of 5G will mean more signals carrying more energy through the high-frequency spectrum, with more transmitters located closer to people’s homes and workplaces–basically a lot more (and more potent) RFR flying around us. It’s no wonder that apprehension exists over potential risks, to both human and environmental health.
Perhaps the strongest concern involves adverse effects of MMWs on human skin. This letter to the Federal Communications Commission, from Dr Yael Stein of Jerusalem’s Hebrew University, outlines the main points. Over ninety percent of microwave radiation is absorbed by the epidermis and dermis layers, so human skin basically acts as an absorbing sponge for microwave radiation. Disquieting as this may sound, it’s generally considered acceptable so long as the violating wavelengths are greater than the skin layer’s dimensions. But MMW’s violate this condition.
Furthermore, the sweat ducts in the skin’s upper layer act like helical antennas, which are specialized antennas constructed specifically to respond to electromagnetic fields. With millions of sweat ducts, and 5G’s increased RFR needs, it stands to reason that our bodies will become far more conductive to this radiation. The full ramifications of this fact are presently unclear, especially for more vulnerable members of the public (e.g., babies, pregnant women, the elderly), but this technology
Furthermore, MMWs may cause our pain receptors to flare up in recognition of the waves as damaging stimuli. Consider that the US Department of Defense already uses a crowd-dispersal method called the Active Denial System, in which MMWs are directed at crowds to make their skin feel like it’s burning, and also has the ability to basically microwave populations to death from afar with this technology if they choose to do so. And the telecommunications industry wants to fill our atmosphere with MMWs?
Animal research worldwide illustrates how microwave radiation in general and MMW’s in particular can damage the eyes and immune system, cell growth rate, even bacterial resistance. An experiment at the Medical Research Institute of Kanazawa Medical University showed that 60GHz millimeter-wave antennas produce thermal injuries in rabbit eyes, with thermal effects reaching below the eye’s surface. This study, meanwhile, suggests low-level MMW’s caused lens opacity–a precursor to cataracts–in rats’ eyes. A Chinese study demonstrated that eight hours’ of microwave radiation damaged rabbits’ lens epithelial cells. A Pakistani study concluded that exposure to mobile phone EMF prevented chicken embryo retinal cells from properly differentiating.
This Russian study revealed that exposing healthy mice to low-intensity, extremely high-frequency electromagnetic radiation severely compromised their immune systems. And a 2016 Armenian study concluded that low-intensity MMW’s not only depressed the growth of E. coli and other bacteria, but also changed certain properties and activity levels of the cells. The same Armenian study noted that MMW interaction with bacteria could lead to antibiotic resistance–distressing news, considering immunity to bacteria is already compromised due to the overuse of antibiotics.
Again, if these findings translate to humans, our rampant cellphone use would likely cause profound, adverse health effects; an increase in MMW’s as more bandwidth is introduced could further complicate the matter. But what’s also important to note here is that 5G technologies will not only have a profound impact on human health, but on the health of all living organisms it touches, including plants, as we shall see.
Equally disturbing, 5G technology puts environmental health at risk in a number of ways. First, MMWs may pose a serious threat to plant health. This 2010 study showed that the leaves of aspen seedlings exposed to RFR exhibited symptoms of necrosis, while another Armenian study suggested low-intensity MMW’s cause “peroxidase isoenzyme spectrum changes”–basically a stress response that damages cells–in wheat shoots. Plant irradiation is bad news for the planet’s flora, but it’s bad news for us, too: it could contaminate our food supply.
5G will potentially threaten natural ecosystems. According to several reports over the last two decades–some of which are summarized here–low-level, non-ionizing microwave radiation affects bird and bee health. It drives birds from their nests and causes plume deterioration, locomotion problems, reduced survivorship and death. And bee populations suffer from reduced egg-laying abilities of queen bees and smaller colony sizes. More evidence of ecosystem disruption comes from this 2012 meta-study, which indicates that 593 of 919 research studies suggest that RFR adversely affects plants, animals and humans.
It bears repeating: 5G is bad news for all living creatures and the planet we share.
Despite being fully aware of all these unsettling results, threats and concerns, the US corporatocracy continues to maintain a gung-ho attitude about 5G. The Mobile Now Act was passed in 2016, and many US states have since gone ahead with 5G plans. The telecom industry’s biggest players have basically co-opted government powers to enforce their 5G agenda, with companies like AT&T and Qualcomm having begun live testing. And despite research showing serious threats to humans and the planet, the FCC Chairman announced intentions to open low-, mid- and high-frequency spectrums, without even mentioning a single word about the dangers.
They’re going to sell this to us as ‘faster browsing speeds’ – but the truth is, you’ll barely even notice the difference. They’re going to call anyone who protests against 5G a ‘Luddite’ or ‘technophobe’. But why such a willingness to embrace another new technology – even though it carries serious risks and brings spurious benefits? Why not heed the lessons learned from killer products like asbestos, tobacco and leaded gasoline?
Because a tiny percentage of people will gain an awful lot of money, is one reason. And because companies and governments will be given unprecedented amounts of power over civilians is the other.
All isn’t doom and gloom, though. At least one US politician is maintaining some level-headedness: in October, California Governor Jerry Brown stopped legislation that would have allowed the telecom industry to inundate the state with mini-towers. Brown’s bold actions have permitted localities a say in where and how many cell towers are placed.
The state of Hawaii has stopped 5G and smart meters by collectively threatening to charge every person who installed such meters with liability for any health problems residents may suffer. Moreover, 180 scientists have started a petition to warn of 5G potential health effects. Maybe these actions will afford more time for additional studies and data collection. Just as importantly, maybe they’ll cause other politicians and figureheads to reflect on what they’ve been pushing for.
Millimeter waves (from 10-mm|30GHz to 1-mm|300GHz) are readily absorbed by the atmosphere and by the eyes and skin of living organisms
In the first quarter of 2017, the US population was being irradiated primarily by the following pulsed microwaves:
In the near future, if Verizon, AT&T and others wireless carriers have their way, the US population will be radiated with additional, pulsed microwaves (24 billion to 90 billion microwaves per second) for 5G services and for navigation-assisted cars.
As with any toxic agent, the proper way to evaluate its toxicity is to consider not just the rate of exposure (as the Federal RF/MW radiation guidelines do), but consider total exposure over time. Below is a graph of RF/MW radiation exposures from Wi-Fi of an elementary school student using a wireless iPad. One can see extremely high peaks of electrical power. These peaks cannot be seen using SAR tests.
In May of 2016, scientists at the US Federal National Toxicology Program released “partial findings” from the $25 million study on cellphone radiation, that found that both hyperplasias (abnormal increases in volume of a tissue or organ caused by the formation and growth of new normal cells) and tumors occur at significantly higher rates in the presence of continuous RF/MW radiation,
Disregarding these findings, six short weeks later, the FCC approved a move to 5G, and the wireless industry got to work installing Distributed Antenna Systems on utility poles as quickly as they possibly could. Some antennas have been placed as close as 20 feet from second story bedroom windows and will spray 4G or 5G RF/MW radiation 24/7/365 into these bedrooms.. Cancer clusters have been documented for people living closer than 2,000 feet to mobile communications base stations,.Antennas for mobile communications base stations should never be lower than 200 feet, and never closer than 2,000 feet to people and other living organisms.
Massive electromagnetic pollution is spiraling out of control, with both Industry and Government denying the scientific proof of harm from RF/MW radiation. Our Government and the Wireless Industry should not transmit digital data wirelessly, using the data-dense modulation schemes: Orthogonal Frequency-Division Multiplexing (OFDM/OFDMA) used in Wi-Fi, 4G/LTE and 5G — because the US Government has already proven that the data-sparse 2G modulation is hazardous. We must, instead, transmit data from Point A to Point B to every business, every home, every school and farm with far superior fiber optic cables.”(3)
“5G will use pulsed millimeter waves to carry information. But as Dr. Joel Moskowitz points out, most 5G studies are misleading because they do not pulse the waves. This is important because research on microwaves already tells us how pulsed waves have more profound biological effects on our body compared to non-pulsed waves. Previous studies, for instance, show how pulse rates of the frequencies led to gene toxicity and DNA strand breaks.
AT&T have announced the availability of their 5G Evolution in Austin, Texas. 5G Evolution allows Samsung S8 and S8 + users access to faster speeds. This is part of AT&T’s plan to lay the 5G foundation while the standards are being finalized. This is expected to happen in late 2018. AT&T has eyes on 19 other metropolitan areas such as Chicago, Los Angeles, Boston, Atlanta, San Francisco and so on. Indianapolis is up next on their 5G trail due to arrive in the summer.
Charter, the second-largest cable operator in the US, has been approved for an experimental 28 GHz license in Los Angeles. The outdoor tests will use fixed transmitters with a 1 km or smaller effective radius.
Qualcomm has already demonstrated a 5G antenna system with about 27 decibel gain. According to ABI Research, is “about 10 to 12 more db than a typical cellular base station antenna.” Not a good sign.
Many more private sector companies such as HTC, Oracle, Sprint, T-Mobile are playing a role in the developing of testing platforms by contributing time, knowledge or money.
In the UK the 3.4GHz band has been earmarked for 5G use with contracts awarded to O2, Vodaphone, EE and Three. While the 2.3GHz band, awarded to O2, is likely to be used for 5G too in time.”(4)
“In the meantime, we as individuals must do everything we can to protect ourselves. Here’s what you can do:
(1) What are 4G/5G?
More info from Deborah Taveres on the microwave control grid:
Following is an interview of Barrie Trower on some of the history and dangers of microwave technology:
An excellent interview by Deborah Tevares with Barrie Trower:
“In today’s world, everyone is exposed to two types of EMFs: (1) extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields (ELF) from electrical and electronic appliances and power lines and (2) radiofrequency radiation (RF) from wireless devices such as cell phones and cordless phones, cellular antennas and towers, and broadcast transmission towers. In this report we will use the term EMFs when referring to all electromagnetic fields in general; and the terms ELF and RF when referring to the specific type of exposure. They are both types of non-ionizing radiation, which means that they do not have sufficient energy to break off electrons from their orbits around atoms and ionize (charge) the atoms, as do x-rays, CT scans, and other forms of ionizing radiation.
1) Scientists and public health policy experts use very different definitions of the standard of evidence used to judge the science, so they come to different conclusions about what to do. Scientists do have a role, but it is not exclusive and other opinions matter.
2) We are all talking about essentially the same scientific studies, but use a different way of measuring when “enough is enough” or “proof exists”.
3) Some experts keep saying that all studies have to be consistent (turn out the same way every time) before they are comfortable saying an effect exists.
4) Some experts think that it is enough to look only at short-term, acute effects.
5) Other experts say that it is imperative we have studies over longer time (showing the effects of chronic exposures) since that is what kind of world we live in.
6) Some experts say that everyone, including the very young, the elderly, pregnant women, and people with illnesses have to be considered –others say only the average person (or in the case of RF, a six-foot tall man) matter.
7) There is no unexposed population, making it harder to see increased risk of diseases.
8) The lack of consensus about a single biological mechanism of action.
9) The strength of human epidemiological studies reporting risks from ELF and RF exposures, but animal studies don’t show a strong toxic effect.
10) Vested interests have a substantial influence on the health debate.
“Today’s public exposure limits for telecommunications are based on the presumption that heating of tissue (for RF) or induced electric currents in the body (for ELF) are the only concerns when living organisms are exposed to RF.
“In the last few decades, it has been established beyond any reasonable doubt that bioeffects and some adverse health effects occur at far lower levels of RF and ELF exposure where no heating (or induced currents) occurs at all; some effects are shown to occur at several hundred thousand times below the existing public safety limits where heating is an impossibility.
“It appears it is the INFORMATION conveyed by electromagnetic radiation (rather than heat) that causes biological changes – some of these biological changes may lead to loss of wellbeing, disease and even death.
“Effects occur at non-thermal or low-intensity exposure levels thousands of times below the levels that federal agencies say should keep the public safe. For many new devices operating with wireless technologies, the devices are exempt from any regulatory standards. The existing standards have been proven to be inadequate to control against harm from low-intensity, chronic exposures, based on any reasonable, independent assessment of the scientific literature. It means that an entirely new basis (a biological basis) for new exposure standards is needed. New standards need to take into account what we have learned about the effects of ELF and RF (all non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation and to design new limits based on biologically demonstrated effects that are important to proper biological function in living organisms. It is vital to do so because the explosion of new sources has created unprecedented levels of artificial electromagnetic fields that now cover all but remote areas of the habitable space on earth. Mid-course corrections are needed in the way we accept, test and deploy new technologies that expose us to ELF and RF in order to avert public health problems of a global nature.
“There may be no lower limit at which exposures do not affect us. Until we know if there is a lower limit below which bioeffects and adverse health impacts do not occur, it is unwise from a public health perspective to continue “business-as- usual” deploying new technologies that increase ELF and RF exposures, particularly involuntary exposures.
Childhood Leukemia and Other Childhood Cancers
“The evidence that power lines and other sources of ELF are consistently associated with higher rates of childhood leukemia has resulted in the International Agency for Cancer Research (an arm of the World Health Organization) to classify ELF as a Possible Human Carcinogen (in the Group 2B carcinogen list). Leukemia is the most common type of cancer in children.
“There is little doubt that exposure to ELF causes childhood leukemia.
“The exposure levels for increased risk are quite low –just above background or ambient levels and much lower than current exposure limits.
“There is some evidence that other childhood cancers may be related to ELF exposure but not enough studies have been done.
Brain Tumors and Acoustic Neuromas
“Radiofrequency radiation from cell phone and cordless phone exposure has been linked in more than one dozen studies to increased risk for brain tumors and/or acoustic neuromas (a tumor in the brain on a nerve related to our hearing).
“People who have used a cell phonefor ten years or more have higher rates of malignant brain tumor and acoustic neuromas. It is worse if the cell phone has been used primarily on one side of the head.
“For brain tumors, people who have used a cell phone for 10 years or longer have a 20% increase in risk (when the cell phone is used on both sides of the head). For people who have used a cell phone for 10 years or longer predominantly on one side of the head, there is a 200% increased risk of a brain tumor. This information relies on the combined results of many brain tumor/cell phone studies taken together (a meta-analysis of studies).
“People who have used a cordless phone for ten years or more have higher rates of malignant brain tumor and acoustic neuromas. It is worse if the cordless phone has been used primarily on one side of the head.
“The risk of brain tumor (high-grade malignant glioma) from cordless phone use is 220% higher (both sides of the head). The risk from use of a cordless phone is 470% higher when used mostly on only one side of the head.
“For acoustic neuromas, there is a 30% increased risk with cell phone use at ten years and longer; and a 240% increased risk of acoustic neuroma when the cell phone is used mainly on one side of the head. These risks are based on the combined results of several studies (a meta-analysis of studies).
“For use of cordless phones, the increased risk of acoustic neuroma is three-fold higher (310%) when the phone is mainly used on one side of the head.
“The current standard for exposure to the emissions of cell phones and cordless phones is not safe considering studies reporting long-term brain tumor and acoustic neuroma risks.
Other Adult Cancers
“There are multiple studies that show statistically significant relationships between occupational exposure and leukemia in adults (see Chapter 11), in spite of major limitations in the exposure assessment.
“The evidence for a relationship between exposure and breast cancer is relatively strong in men (Erren, 2001), and some (by no means all) studies show female breast cancer also to be elevated with increased exposure (see Chapter 12). Brain tumors and acoustic neuromas are more common in exposed persons (see Chapter 10). There is less published evidence on other cancers, but Charles et al. (2003) report that workers in the highest 10% category for EMF exposure were twice as likely to die of prostate cancer as those exposed at lower levels.
“In total the scientific evidence for adult disease associated with EMF exposure is sufficiently strong for adult cancers that preventive steps are appropriate, even if not all reports have shown exactly the same positive relationship. This is especially true since many factors reduce our ability to see disease patterns that might be related to EMF exposure: there is no unexposed population for comparison, for example, and other difficulties in exposure assessment, The evidence for a relationship between EMF exposure and adult cancers and neurodegenerative diseases is sufficiently strong at present to merit preventive actions to reduce EMF exposure.
“There is rather strong evidence from multiple areas of scientific investigation that ELF is related to breast cancer. Over the last two decades there have been numerous epidemiological studies (studies of human illness) on breast cancer in both men and women, although this relationship remains controversial among scientists. Many of these studies report that ELF exposures are related to increased risk of breast cancer (not all studies report such effects, but then, we do not expect 100% or even 50% consistency in results in science, and do not require it to take reasonable preventative action).
“The evidence from studies on women in the workplace rather strongly suggests that ELF is a risk factor for breast cancer for women with long-term exposures of 10 mG and higher.
“Breast cancer studies of people who work in relatively high ELF exposures (10 mG and above) show higher rates of this disease. Most studies of workers who are exposed to ELF have defined high exposure levels to be somewhere between 2 mG and 10 mG; however this kind of mixing of relatively low to relatively high ELF exposure just acts to
dilute out real risk levels. Many of the occupational studies group exposures so that the highest group is exposed to 4 mG and above. What this means is that a) few people are exposed to much higher levels and b) illness patterns show up at relatively low ELF levels of 4 mG and above. This is another way of demonstrating that existing ELF limits that are set at 933-1000 mG are irrelevant to the exposure levels reporting increased risks.
“Laboratory studies that examine human breast cancer cells have shown that ELF exposure between 6 mG and 12 mG can interfere with protective effects of melatonin that fights the growth of these breast cancer cells. For a decade, there has been evidence that human breast cancer cells grow faster if exposed to ELF at low environmental levels. This is thought to be because ELF exposure can reduce melatonin levels in the body. The presence of melatonin in breast cancer cell cultures is known to reduce the growth of cancer cells. The absence of melatonin (because of ELF exposure or other reasons) is known to result in more cancer cell growth.
“Given the very high lifetime risks for developing breast cancer, and the critical importance of prevention; ELF exposures should be reduced for all people who are in high ELF environments for prolonged periods of time.
“Reducing ELF exposure is particularly important for people who have breast cancer. The recovery environment should have low ELF levels given the evidence for poorer survival rates for childhood leukemia patients in ELF fields over 2 mG or 3 mG. Preventative action for those who may be at higher risk for breast cancer is also warranted (particularly for those taking tamoxifen as a way to reduce the risk of getting breast cancer, since in addition to reducing the effectiveness of melatonin, ELF exposure may also reduce the effectiveness of tamoxifen at these same low exposure levels). There is no excuse for ignoring the substantial body of evidence we already have that supports an association between breast cancer and ELF exposure; waiting for conclusive evidence is untenable given the enormous costs and societal and personal burdens caused by this disease.
“These are just some of the cancer issues to discuss. It may be reasonable now to make the assumption that all cancers, and other disease endpoints might be related to, or worsened by exposures to EMFs (both ELF and RF).
Changes in the Nervous System and Brain Function
“Exposure to electromagnetic fields has been studies in connection with Alzheimer’s disease, motor neuron disease and Parkinson’s disease. (4) These diseases all involve the death of specific neurons and may be classified as neurodegenerative diseases. There is evidence that high levels of amyloid beta are a risk factor for Alzheimer’s disease, and exposure to ELF can increase this substance in the brain. There is considerable evidence that melatonin can protect the brain against damage leading to Alzheimer’s disease, and also strong evidence that exposure to ELF can reduce melatonin levels. Thus it is hypothesized that one of the body’s main protections against developing Alzheimer’s disease (melatonin) is less available to the body when people are exposed to ELF. Prolonged exposure to ELF fields could alter calcium (Ca2+) levels in neurons and induce oxidative stress (4). It is also possible that prolonged exposure to ELF fields may stimulate neurons (particularly large motor neurons) into synchronous firing, leading to damage by the buildup of toxins.
“Evidence for a relationship between exposure and the neurodegenerative diseases, Alzheimer’s and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), is strong and relatively consistent.
“Alzheimer’s disease is a disease of the nervous system. There is strong evidence that long-term exposure to ELF is a risk factor for Alzheimer’s disease.
“Laboratory studies show that the nervous system of both humans and animals is sensitive to ELF and RF. Measurable changes in brain function and behavior occur at levels associated with new technologies including cell phone use. Exposing humans to cell phone radiation can change brainwave activity at levels as low as 0.1 watt per kilogram SAR (W/Kg)*** in comparison to the US allowable level of 1.6 W/Kg and the International Commission for Non-ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) allowable level of 2.0 W/Kg. It can affect memory and learning. It can affect normal brainwave activity. ELF and RF exposures at low levels are able to change behavior in animals.
“There is little doubt that electromagnetic fields emitted by cell phones and cell phone use affect electrical activity of the brain.
“Changes in the way in which the brain and nervous system react depend very much on the specific exposures. Most studies only look at short-term effects, so the long-term consequences of exposures are not known.
“There is large variability in the results of ELF and RF testing, which would be expected based on the large variability of factors that can influence test results. However, it is clearly demonstrated that under some conditions of exposure, the brain and nervous system functions of humans are altered. The consequence of long-term or prolonged exposures have not been thoroughly studied in either adults or in children.
“The consequence of prolonged exposures to children, whose nervous systems continue to develop until late adolescence, is unknown at this time. This could have serious implications to adult health and functioning in society if years of exposure of the young to both ELF and RF result in diminished capacity for thinking, judgment, memory, learning, and control over behavior.
“People who are chronically exposed to low-level wireless antenna emissions report symptoms such as problems in sleeping (insomnia), fatigue, headache, dizziness, grogginess, lack of concentration, memory problems, ringing in the ears (tinnitus), problems with balance and orientation, and difficulty in multi-tasking. In children, exposures to cell phone radiation have resulted in changes in brain oscillatory activity during some memory tasks. Although scientific studies as yet have not been able to confirm a cause-and-effect relationship; these complaints are widespread and the cause of significant public concern in some countries where wireless technologies are fairly mature and widely distributed (Sweden, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Switzerland, Austria, Greece, Israel). For example, the roll-out of the 3rd Generation wireless phones (and related community-wide antenna RF emissions in the Netherlands) caused almost immediate public complaints of illness.
“Conflicting results from those few studies that have been conducted may be based on the difficulty in providing non-exposed environments for testing to compare to environments that are intentionally exposed. People traveling to laboratories for testing are pre-exposed to a multitude of RF and ELF exposures, so they may already be symptomatic prior to actual testing. Also complicating this is good evidence that RF exposures testing behavioral changes show delayed results; effects are observed after termination of RF exposure. This suggests a persistent change in the nervous system that may be evident only after time has passed, so is not observed during a short testing period.
Effects on Genes (DNA)
“The European research program (REFLEX) documented many changes in normal biological functioning in tests on DNA. The significance of these results is that such effects are directly related to the question of whether human health risks might occur, when these changes in genes and DNA happen. This large research effort produced information on EMFs effects from more than a dozen different researchers.
“Both ELF and RF exposures can be considered genotoxic (will damage DNA) under certain conditions of exposure, including exposure levels that are lower than existing safety limits.
Effects on Stress Proteins (Heat Shock Proteins)
“Very low-level ELF and RF exposures can cause cells to produce stress proteins, meaning that the cell recognizes ELF and RF exposures as harmful. This is another important way in which scientists have documented that ELF and RF exposures can be harmful, and it happens at levels far below the existing public safety standards.
“An additional concern is that if the stress goes on too long, the protective effect is diminished. There is a reduced response if the stress goes on too long, and the protective effect is reduced. This means the cell is less protected against damage, and it is why prolonged or chronic exposures may be quite harmful, even at very low intensities.
Effects on the Immune System
“There is substantial evidence that ELF and RF can cause inflammatory reactions, allergy reactions and change normal immune function at levels allowed by current public safety standards.
“The body’s immune defense system senses danger from ELF and RF exposures, and targets an immune defense against these fields, much like the body’s reaction in producing stress proteins. These are additional indicators that very low intensity ELF and RF exposures are a) recognized by cells and b) can cause reactions as if the exposure is harmful. Chronic exposure to factors that increase allergic and inflammatory responses on a continuing basis are likely to be harmful to health. Chronic inflammatory responses can lead to cellular, tissue and organ damage over time. Many chronic diseases are thought to be related to chronic problems with immune system function.
“There is very clear evidence that exposures to ELF and RF at levels associated with cell phone use, computers, video display terminals, televisions, and other sources can cause these skin reactions. Changes in skin sensitivity have been measured by skin biopsy, and the findings are remarkable. Some of these reactions happen at levels equivalent to those of wireless technologies in daily life. Mast cells are also found in the brain and heart, perhaps targets of immune response by cells responding to ELF and RF exposures, and this might account for some of the other symptoms commonly reported (headache, sensitivity to light, heart arrhythmias and other cardiac symptoms). Chronic provocation byexposure to ELF and RF can lead to immune dysfunction, chronic allergic responses, inflammatory diseases and ill health if they occur on a continuing basis over time.
Plausible Biological Mechanisms
“Plausible biological mechanisms are already identified that can reasonably account for most biological effects reported for exposure to RF and ELF at low-intensity levels (oxidative stress and DNA damage from free radicals leading to genotoxicity; molecular mechanisms at very low energies are plausible links to disease, e.g., effect on electron transfer rates linked to oxidative damage, DNA activation linked to abnormal biosynthesis and mutation). It is also important to remember that traditional public health and epidemiological determinations do not require a proven mechanism before inferring a causal link between EMFs exposure and disease.
“Oxidative stress through the action of free radical damage to DNA is a plausible biological mechanism for cancer and diseases that involve damage from ELF to the central nervous system.
The complete BioInitiative Report:
“Electric and magnetic fields, or EMF, are emitted from electrical devices or anything that uses electricity. Earth currents are low electrical currents found in soil. Natural activity deep within the earth causes some of these currents along with above ground electrical energy to produce low magnitude electrical currents. Transients and high frequency noise or signals come from the wiring of buildings, and from the use of common electrical devices found in homes and offices. The noise is created when electrical current is transmitted and interrupted.
“In these characterizations of electrical pollution, high frequency signals pollute regular electrical currents traveling in wires and currents through the earth. To better understand the background for the causes of electrical pollution, it is helpful to learn the basics of how the electrical current works.
“Regular “clean” power enters homes, buildings, and offices at 60 Hz. The increased use of electrical power overloads electrical grid base, which distributes the power. Power is “dirty” or polluted when it contains the high frequency signals flowing through overloaded wires, and not just clean 60 Hz power.
“The pollution of electricity is often compared to how water is polluted. At the source, water is clean. It is what comes with the water and pollutants along its path to the recipient that makes the water harmful to humans. However, like water pollution in many ways, electrical pollution is complex and often difficult to understand for the common consumer. The causes are varied and sometimes cannot be identified with certainty. However, the bulk of overloaded electricity bases can be attributed to the reliance on electrical appliances in today’s environment.
“In the 1950’s, the National Electrical Safety Code required a neutral wire to return wire to utilities. In this code it was forbidden to use the earth as a neutral return. This was a worsening problem in rural, farm areas where the currents were being returned to the soil affecting the feeding of animals. Later, the Public Service Commission allowed utilities to use grounding rods to serve as neutral wires for return. This was done instead of increasing the size of the neutral rods. Installing ground rods is a less costly solution than making the neutral rods larger in size. The grounding rods serve as an alternate and additional pathway for the energy to return to the substation instead of to the earth.
“Those concerned about electrical pollution say the size of neutral wires to make sure energy is returned to its source needs to be much larger. The current regulated size of the neutrals is not large enough to handle the load due to the greater use of electricity. The currents that are not properly directed are emitted into the environment or into homes or offices where electrical devices are widely relied upon by consumers. Neutral wires are not often sized for the modern electrical load. Power that is misdirected into the earth or home environments contains a much higher frequency that the 60 Hz classification making it “dirty” or unclean.
“Dr. Robert O. Becker, author of Cross Currents and the Body Electric stated that “I have no doubt in my mind that at the present time that the greatest polluting element in the earth’s environment is the proliferation of electromagnetic fields. I consider that to be far greater on a global scale that warming”.
“The high frequency currents most commonly created by computers and other electronic devices are circulated by various wires and systems, emitting the high frequency currents into home or office environments. Many cases have been documented where decreasing the amount of “dirty” electricity has lessened the effects of health problems and complications. Some of those health problems being attributed to electrical pollution include fibromyalgia, attention deficit disorder, asthma, chronic fatigue syndrome, diabetes, and asthma. There are also cases that detail that electrical pollution aggravates other preexisting conditions like multiple sclerosis and migraine headaches.(2)
“The diseases of civilization or lifestyle diseases include cardiovascular disease, cancer and diabetes and are thought to be caused by changes in diet, exercise habits, and lifestyle which occur as countries industrialize. I think that the critical variable which causes the radical changes in mortality accompanying industrialization is electrification. Beginning in 1979, with the work of Wertheimer and Leeper, there has been increasing evidence that some facet of electromagnetic field exposure is associated epidemiologically with an increased incidence of leukemia, certain other cancers and non-cancers like Alzheimer’s disease, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, and suicide. With the exception of a small part of the electromagnetic spectrum from infra red through visible light, ultraviolet light and cosmic rays, the rest of the spectrum is man-made and foreign to human evolutionary experience. I suggest that from the time that Thomas Edison started his direct current electrical distribution system in the 1880s in New York City until now, when most of the world is electrified, the electricity carried high frequency voltage transients which caused and continue to cause what are considered to be the normal diseases of civilization. Even today, many of these diseases are absent or have very low incidence in places without electricity.
“When Edison and Tesla opened the Pandora’s box of electrification in the 1880s, the US vital registration system was primitive at best, and infectious disease death rates were falling rapidly. City residents had higher mortality rates and shorter life expectancy than rural residents. Rural white males in 1900 had an expectation of life at birth of over 10 years longer than urban residents.
“Although the authors of the 1930 US vital statistics report noted a 58.2% cancer mortality excess in urban areas, it raised no red flags. The census bureau residential electrification data was obviously not linked to the mortality data. Epidemiologists in that era were still concerned with the communicable diseases. Court Brown and Doll reported the appearance of the child- hood leukemia age peak in 1961, forty years after the US vital statistics mortality data on which it was based was available. I reported a cluster of childhood leukemia a decade after it occurred, only because I looked for it. Real time or periodic analysis of national or regional vital statistics data is still only rarely done in the US.
“The real surprise in this data set is that cardiovascular disease, diabetes and suicide, as well as cancer seem to be strongly related to level of residential electrification. A community-based epidemiologic study of urban rural differences in coronary heart disease and its risk factors was carried out in the mid 1980s in New Delhi, India and in a rural area 50 km away. The prevalence of coronary heart disease was three times higher in the urban residents, despite the fact that the rural residents smoked more and had higher total caloric and saturated fat intakes. Most cardiovascular disease risk factors were two to three times more common in the urban residents. Rural electrification projects are still being carried out in parts of the rural area which was studied.
“It seems unbelievable that mortality differences of this magnitude could go unexplained for over 70 years after they were first reported and 40 years after they were noticed. I think that in the early part of the 20th century nobody was looking for answers. By the time EMF epidemiology got started in 1979 the entire population was exposed to EMFs. Cohort studies were therefore using EMF-exposed population statistics to compute expected values, and case-control studies were comparing more exposed cases to less exposed controls. The mortality from lung cancer in two pack a day smokers is over 20 times that of non-smokers but only three times that of one pack a day smokers. After 1956, the EMF equivalent of a non-smoker ceased to exist in the US. An exception to this is the Amish who live without electricity. Like rural US residents in the 1940s, Amish males in the 1970s had very low cancer and cardiovascular disease mortality rates.
“If this hypothesis and findings outlined here are even partially true, the explosive recent increase in radiofrequency radiation, and high frequency voltage transients sources, especially in urban areas from cell phones and towers, terrestrial antennas, wi-fi and wi-max systems, broadband internet over power lines, and personal electronic equipment, suggests that like the 20th century EMF epidemic, we may already have a 21st century epidemic of morbidity and mortality underway caused by electromagnetic fields. The good news is that many of these diseases may be preventable by environmental manipulation, if society chooses to.(1)
Sam Milmam’s Dirty Electricity Website:
The link above is to the Antenna Search site, which can be used determine the locations of cell towers and antennas that are operating around a specific location.
Get detailed information on more than 1.9 million towers and antennas in the U.S.
Includes Google maps, ownership details and contact information.
Pinpoint existing towers, future towers and even small hidden antennas.
Get detailed information on:
Existing Towers: Registered and Non-Registered structures where antennas are placed. Towers may be used for various services including Cellular, Paging, Microwave and others.
Future Towers: Newly filed (or pending) applications to construct new towers. Application info includes location coordinates and detailed ownership data.
Antennas: The actual emitters of radio signals. Antennas can be placed on towers (multiple) or can be installed stand alone on top of existing buildings. Stand alone antennas are small (well below 200 ft). You may also check multiple antennas to determine which cell phone carriers are located on a particular tower.
– Quick Statistics (as of Sunday 3/13/2016 Weekly Update) –
Total(US) Top State
Towers 599,462 Texas (58,648)
Antennas 1,818,436 California (134,144)
Living organisms are complex electrochemical systems that up until very recently have interacted with a relatively simple and weak magnetic field and few EMF energy emitters.
“A wide range of living organisms, including humans, [utilize EMF] energy to regulate various critical cellular systems; we see this in the complex of circadian rhythms.
“Thus, it is not surprising that the massive introduction of electromagnetic fields in an enormous range of new frequencies, modulations, and intensities in recent years has affected living organisms. In fact, it would be incredible and beyond belief if these electromagnetic fields did not affect the electrochemical systems we call living organisms.
“Much of the literature on electromagnetic field interactions published before the middle 1980s is irrelevant to biologists. Most of it was generated by the engineering community’s attempt to find out if their high-power equipment creates a hazard. Thus, little attention was paid to the variables that are important in biology. Instead, efforts were wasted in fruitless controversies such as whether the effects seen were thermal or non-thermal.
“In recent years, though, the convergence of a number of lines of research has led a diversity of biologists to carry out experiments using low-intensity electromagnetic fields to study the function of living cells and systems.
“The toxicology model used by investigators in earlier years was not the appropriate model on which to design experiments. It was assumed that electromagnetic fields are a foreign substance to living organisms, like lead or cyanide. With foreign substances in a toxicology model, the greater the dose, the greater the effect-a dose-response relationship. Thus, experiments tended to be designed with high doses and with little regard for other parameters such as modulation and frequency. This is one reason why those earlier studies yielded so little useful information.
“As noted [above], electromagnetic fields are not a foreign substance. Living organisms are electrochemical systems that use emfs in everything from protein folding through cellular communication to nervous system function. A more appropriate model of how living organisms can be expected to respond to em fields would be to compare them to a radio receiver.
“An electromagnetic signal a radio detects (let us call it signal x) and transduces into the sound of music is almost un-measurably weak. Yet the radio is immersed in a sea of em signals from power lines, radio stations, TV stations, radars, etc. The radio doesn’t notice the sea of signals because they are not the appropriate frequency or modulation. Thus, they don’t disturb the music we hear. If we expose the radio to an appropriately tuned em signal or harmonic, however, even if it is very weak compared to signal x, it will interfere with the music. Similarly, if we expose a living system to a very weak em signal, if the signal is appropriately “tuned,” it could facilitate or interfere with normal function. This is the model that much biological data and theory tell us to use, not a toxicology model. And this is the model that is now starting to be used so fruitfully.”(1)
And yes, more researchers understand this and realize the need to use this approach in their experiments, but funding for research has been and is currently limited, as is any motivation by the controlled media to expose the results of those studies that have been done.
And currently there are nearly as many cell phones as there are people.
That’s a lot of lab rats…….
Just standard operating procedure to keep the cash flow uninterrupted.
Where have we seen this before?
“Radiofrequency radiation (RFR), e.g. electromagnetic waves emitted by our cell phones and Wi-Fi, are referred to as non-ionizing. This means that in contrast to the ionizing radiation, which does induce ionization of water and biologically important macromolecules, RFR does not have a capacity for such effects. Unlike, for example X-rays, the energy of RFR is not enough to break electrons off the molecules. However, is RFR completely safe for public health? Traditionally, the industry and the public bodies said yes. Nevertheless, new research data change this perception.
“Oxidative stress is an induced imbalance between pro-oxidant and antioxidant systems resulting in oxidative damage to proteins, lipids and DNA; and is closely connected to overproduction of reactive oxygen species (ROS) in living cells. The notion that the low intensity RFR can bring about significant oxidative stress in living cells has been doubted for years. The logic is simple: as low intensity radiofrequency electromagnetic waves are not able to ionize molecules, they can do nothing wrong for the living tissues. However, during the last decades a worldwide increase in penetration of wireless communication systems, including cellular telephony and Wi-Fi, attracted massive attention to possible biological effects of low intensity RFR. Consequently, the recent epidemiological studies unexpectedly indicated a significant increase in the occurrence of various tumors among longterm and “heavy” users of cellular phones. These include brain tumors, acoustic neuromas, tumors of parotid glands, seminomas, melanomas and lymphomas. Similarly, an increase in tumor incidence among people living nearby cellular base transmitting stations was also reported. As a result, in 2011 the World Health Organization/International Agency for Research on Cancer classified radiofrequency radiation as a possible carcinogen to humans.
“To that, a new medical condition, so-called electro-hypersensitivity, in which subjects suffer due to RFR exposure has been described. Typically these people suffer from skin and mucosa related symptoms (itching, smarting, pain, heat sensation), or heart and nervous system disorders after exposure to computer monitors, cell phones and other electromagnetic devices. This malady is growing continuously: starting from 0.06% of the total population in 1985 this category now includes as much as 9-11% of the European population.
“A number of experimental studies demonstrate metabolic effects induced by low intensity RFR. Notwithstanding the non-ionizing nature of RFR, profound mutagenic effects and features of significant oxidative stress in living cells under low
intensity RFR exposure were detected using various biological models. Some of the papers however still show an absence of biological effects. To clarify the picture, we analyzed peer-reviewed publications on oxidative effects of RFR and found
altogether 80 currently available papers, of which a remarkable part, 76 papers (92.5%), reported the detection of significant oxidative stress. These effects most often included overproduction of ROS, lipid peroxidation/increased concentrations of malondialde-hyde, protein peroxidation, increased concentrations of nitric oxide (NO) and changes in the activity of antioxidant enzymes. Some papers point to the role of particular ROS and the ROS related pathways.
“Whatever the particular first-step molecular mechanisms, it is clear that the substantial overproduction of ROS in living cells under low intensity RFR exposure could cause a broad spectrum of health disorders and diseases, including cancer in humans. Undoubtedly, this calls for the further intensive research in the area, as well as to a precautionary approach in routine usage of wireless devices.”(1)
Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars, An Introduction Programming Manual was uncovered quite by accident on July 7, 1986 when an employee of Boeing Aircraft Co. purchased a surplus IBM copier for scrap parts at a sale, and discovered inside details of a plan, hatched in the embryonic days of the “Cold War” which called for control of the masses through manipulation of industry, peoples’ pastimes, education and political leanings. It called for a quiet revolution, putting brother against brother,
and diverting the public’s attention from what is really going on.
Some quotes from the text:
“It is patently impossible to discuss social engineering or the automation of a society, i.e., the engineering of social automation systems (silent weapons) on a national or worldwide scale without implying extensive objectives of social control and destruction of human life, i.e., slavery and genocide. This manual is in itself an analog declaration of intent. Such a writing must be secured from public scrutiny. Otherwise, it might be recognized as a technically formal declaration of domestic war. Furthermore, whenever any person or group of persons in a position of great power and without full knowledge and consent of the public, uses such knowledge and methodologies for economic conquest – it must be understood that a state of domestic warfare exists between said person or group of persons and the public.
“You have qualified for this project because of your ability to look at human society with cold objectivity, and yet analyze and discuss your observations and conclusions with others of similar intellectual capacity without the loss of discretion or humility. Such virtues are exercised in your own best interest. Do not deviate from them.
“In 1954 it was well recognized by those in positions of authority that it was only a matter of time, only a few decades, before the general public would be able to grasp and upset the cradle of power, for the very elements of the new silent weapon technology were as accessible for a public utopia as they were for providing a private utopia.
“All science is merely a means to an end. The means is knowledge. The end is control. Beyond this remains only one issue: Who will be the beneficiary?
“Consequently, in the interest of future world order, peace, and tranquility, it was decided to privately wage a quiet war
against the American public with an ultimate objective of permanently shifting the natural and social energy (wealth) of the undisciplined and irresponsible many into the hands of the self-disciplined, responsible, and worthy few. In order to implement this objective, it was necessary to create, secure, and apply new weapons which, as it turned out, were a class
of weapons so subtle and sophisticated in their principle of operation and public appearance as to earn for themselves the name “silent weapons”.”(1)
Short video by Deborah Taveres on the Silent Weapons System:
A reading of the document Silent Weapons For Quiet Wars:
(1)A link to the document Silent Weapons For Quiet Wars: