+ Reply to Thread
Page 43 of 43 FirstFirst 1 33 43
Results 841 to 846 of 846

Thread: Stop 5G before it's irreversible!

  1. Link to Post #841
    Netherlands Avalon Member ExomatrixTV's Avatar
    Join Date
    23rd September 2011
    Location
    Netherlands
    Language
    Dutch
    Age
    55
    Posts
    7,179
    Thanks
    6,412
    Thanked 36,724 times in 6,349 posts

    Default Re: Stop 5G before it's irreversible!

    • CEO Frank Clegg challenges a President of Rogers Communications on 5G Safety Claims!

    Source: https://www.bitchute.com/video/Tgy7oBg8MHiK

    source
    ~no need to follow anyone, only consider to broaden (y)our horizon of possibilities
    ~Stop5G.net & FB groups/Stop5G

  2. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to ExomatrixTV For This Post:

    Alecs (19th May 2021), DaveToo (5th May 2021), Icare (4th May 2021), onawah (19th May 2021)

  3. Link to Post #842
    Netherlands Avalon Member ExomatrixTV's Avatar
    Join Date
    23rd September 2011
    Location
    Netherlands
    Language
    Dutch
    Age
    55
    Posts
    7,179
    Thanks
    6,412
    Thanked 36,724 times in 6,349 posts

    Exclamation Re: Stop 5G before it's irreversible!

    • 5G Summit - Ronald Melnick - Clear Evidence of Cancer: The 30 Million NTP Survey:

    Source: https://www.bitchute.com/video/non2phOTNNzx


    Interviewer: Josh del Sol; translated by Vera Groen. This translation is a pre-release of a selection of the transcripts from the 5G Summits 2019/20:
    PDF

    Which will be published in book form in the Netherlands. The translator is one of the volunteers participating in this project.

    Dr. Ronald Melnick spent 28 years as a lead toxicologist and independent consultant at
    the National Toxicology Program of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS),
    which is part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). He led the design and interpretation of
    toxicological and mechanistic studies on chemicals in the environment and working environments. He has served
    on numerous scientific review committees and advisory panels, including the
    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the World Health Organization (WHO) and the International
    Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). In 2011, the IARC classified radio frequency radiation as
    possibly carcinogenic. Dr. Melnick led the NTP investigation into cell phone radiation.
    He retired before the end of the study, but he still took part in the
    2018 peer review. Melnick also spent a year at
    the White House 's Office of Science and Technology Policy .


    Josh: Participant at the Summit today is Dr. Ronald Melnick. Ron, thank you very much for being with us.
    Dr. Melnick: I am happy to be there. Thank you.
    Josh: Can I have you Ron or Ronald or Dr. Call Melnick?
    Dr. Melnick: My friends call me Ron.
    Josh:Okay. Thank you. You were in charge of the National Toxicology Program's research into
    radiofrequency radiation, which cost $ 30 million and was initiated about 20 years ago.
    So your story really comes first hand. We get important information from someone who has
    actually done the real scientific work. We hear his opinion about the
    study, the results, the safety standards, and about 5G. So an important interview.
    Dr. Melnick: Yes, just a point to clarify. I led the design. I retired
    before the investigations were completed. I did participate in the peer review of the study.
    Josh: That was in 2018.
    Dr. Melnick: In 2018, yes.

    The National Toxicology Program

    Josh: Ron, you have an extensive background and it's nice to talk to you about it. I would
    like to go deep into things. I really want to understand them and try to get a clear picture of
    the NTP research that was funded by the government. How big was it in size and what was
    your role in it?
    Dr. Melnick: I wonder if I shouldn't even go back a step further, for people who may
    not know what the National Toxicology Program is.
    Josh: Please.
    Dr. Melnick:The National Toxicology Program dates back to 1978. The then Secretary of
    Health and Wellness thought it better to merge the different bodies in HEW (which is now DHHS
    ) into one program - instead of doing their own toxicity studies.
    So the National Toxicology Program is actually a combination of multiple agencies. It
    currently includes the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), and
    the National Institutes of Health, headquartered at the NIEHS. It grew out of a
    cancer research program conducted at the National Cancer Institute, that
    eventually moved to Research Triangle Park in North Carolina. I
    spent over 28 years there at the NIEHS National Toxicology Program.
    Josh: Okay, great. Thank you.
    Dr. Melnick: The National Toxicology Program accepts nominations for studies from multiple
    sources - all sources, in fact. They can come in through agencies. The main source of
    nominations is usually the National Cancer Institute. But they can come from the Occupational Safety and
    Health Administration, or the EPA, maybe even the FDA, but also citizens or
    unions or whatever group. The nominations are assessed and eventually the
    selected candidates in a general sense within the National Toxicology Program.
    Cell phone radiation entered the National Toxicology Program from the FDA.
    Josh: Who commissioned this big investigation?
    Dr. Melnick: They asked.
    Josh: Okay.

    Tissue warming

    Dr. Melnick: They were asked to conduct animal experiments in order to assess whether there is a risk to
    humans from the radiation from mobile phones. The exposure guidelines that
    existed at the time were based on thermal damage or heating of tissue during short term
    exposure. They thought it important that we tried to understand whether or not there are
    long-term health effects from non-thermal exposures, if you
    were to reduce the warming effect.
    As most people know, it is microwave radiation. When you are exposed to
    a high level, it causes heating. That's why you put your food in the microwave. But at lower
    levels you can minimize the warming effect. That's like the radiation from cell phones.
    But are there possible health effects even without the tissue heating?
    Josh:So you look at possible effects that occur at levels well below the threshold of what is
    necessary to heat tissue - what the standards are based on.
    Dr. Melnick: Yes.
    Josh: Okay.
    Dr. Melnick: I can tell you a little more about that standard if it interests you.
    Josh: Please.

    The exposure standards

    Dr. Melnick: The standard was developed as a result of exposures. They were done in monkeys; they
    were exposed to this type of microwave radiation. There was a dose - I'll try to explain
    - and it was 4 watts per kilogram. That's a numerical value to keep in mind for a while;
    but so the body temperature did not rise by one degree Celsius. That then became the target
    for cell phone exposures.
    That value of 4 watts per kilo was divided by 50 to determine that this would be a safe dose
    for human whole body exposure. And 4 divided by 50 is 0.08 watts per kilo.
    But there is another standard involved besides that for whole body exposure. The
    other aspect is local tissue exposure. For one gram of tissue they set the
    exposure value at 1.6 watts per kilo.
    These values ​​are called SAR: Specific Absorption Ratio (or SAT: Absorption Rate). If you search in the
    menu of your mobile phone, you have to look under Settings general - Legal
    information - Radiation. This will help you find out what the permitted exposure or emission of your mobile
    phone is - what it has been tested for. The standard is therefore 1.6 watts per kilo.
    These figures are important because they underlie the design of the study.
    Josh: Why is the whole body exposure figure a much more stringent
    threshold, while the other figure for exposure to a specific point is much higher?
    Dr. Melnick:I'm not exactly sure why. The whole body, as I said - that was based on a
    rise in temperature, a rise in whole body temperature. For example, you have exposure
    when you walk past or are close to a cell tower; the whole body is then exposed. But
    if the whole body is exposed, then there may be a higher level at the tissue level, as long as
    the whole body stays within the limit.
    I want to explain something about that, namely the importance of the difference between the values ​​1.6 and 0.08. The
    NTP studies were designed for 1.6 watts per kilo. That has to do with the location of the
    antenna, because it emits the radiation from the mobile phone. Suppose I hold a cell phone
    to my head. The tissue that is heated is the tissue that is right next to the antenna
    . So my concern is that 1.6 watts per kilo applies to that fabric.
    Dividing that value by my entire body weight, including my ankles, my calves, the rest of my body, would
    virtually eliminate the exposure of the local tissue.
    So you have a local SAR of 1.6 watts per kilogram, and a whole body SAR of 0.08 watts.
    When designing the NTP study, I was mainly concerned with the 1.6 watts per kilo, because that is the
    permitted exposure.

    Distance is decisive

    Josh: So we are at 1.6 watts per kilo, that is the SAR standard, the specific absorption ratio. That is the
    permissible microwave radiation threshold from a cell phone for the tissue next to it. And
    only warming is assumed. Okay, please move on.
    Dr. Melnick: The experiments at the NTP were done with animals. You cannot measure SAR in
    living animals or humans. A model must be devised for it. The value that you find in your mobile
    phone is obtained by holding the antenna next to a simulation liquid, a liquid
    with properties comparable to fabric. And that provides a model for the analysis.
    It comes down to how close the antenna is to the tissue. If the antenna is further away, the
    impact decreases with a square of the distance. So if I double the distance between the antenna and my
    head, the impact is a quarter instead of half.
    Why animal testing?
    Dr. Melnick: So the NTP conducts research on animals. And why do we conduct research on animals
    instead of humans? Well, first of all ...
    Josh: Ethics.
    Dr. Melnick: That's one reason. Another reason is that many disease processes occur in animals
    take place in the same way as in humans. Every human carcinogen known to us
    has also been shown to be carcinogenic in animal studies that have been properly conducted.
    Another reason is the issue of disruptions when conducting human research. They are
    exposed to one influence, but there are also other environmental influences that occur. And
    was it the specific influence you were focusing on, or was it a result of other disruptive
    factors? However, with animals, we can very carefully design a study to
    really measure the exposure in those animals appropriately.
    Finally, if there is a anticipated effect, regulators can use the data to
    reduce exposures in order to limit the risks. Cancers can have a long
    reaction time. It can take thirty years before we really know whether something is safe or not. This in
    contrast to animal experiments, where it can be done in much less years.
    Josh: So it was a twenty-year study. And it happened with radiation from 2G and 3G, right?
    Can you confirm that?
    Dr. Melnick: The investigation took about 20 years. But it actually involved researching
    chronic animal exposure. It was a study in stages. The animals in the cancer study
    were actually exposed for over two years.
    Josh: So collecting data for two years, is that right?
    Dr. Melnick: Two years of exposure. I can go through the different steps in the process a bit
    .
    Josh: A quick overview, yes. That would be helpful.

    Assessing the risk

    Dr. Melnick: So the actual cancer exposure was two years. I was the project leader
    for the design of the experiment. Because how do you do that, animal experiments with cellular radiation
    Phones? Of course you sometimes see a cartoon with mobile phones and animals. But in
    reality, we had to find a way to expose animals to the radiation
    without disrupting their normal life.
    A few studies had been done on this type of radiation. At the time, we found them insufficient
    to understand whether or not there is an effect. When the research was conducted - and this is important
    - it was assumed that the only effect of this type of radiation is heating. Because it is non-ionizing radiation, that is to say, it does not break chemical bonds.
    So we wanted to test that hypothesis: is there an effect that has nothing to do with global warming? And
    if there is such an effect, can we gather enough information for what we call a dose response analysis? Can we more or less quantify the risks? because animal testing can be
    regarded as relatively insensitive in this respect.
    We usually work with 50 copies. But in this study we had 90 animals per group. In
    such a study, you will not reach statistical significance until you see an increase of at least 5 percent
    over the control level.
    Now 5 percent in a human population would be epidemic. So animal testing is usually
    done with much higher levels of exposure than what humans experience. By means of a
    dose-response analysis we try to estimate the risk at lower levels. So it is
    clear that a risk of 10 percent is unacceptable. But what is acceptable? Is one in
    1000 a risk?
    We think 250-300 million people in the US have a cell phone, so one in 1000
    is a lot of people. How about one in 100,000? Or one in a million? Those are tough
    questions when it comes to what the tolerable risk is. It's something the Supreme Court
    dealt with in the 1980s. What is an acceptable risk? Do you want to hear their conclusion?
    Josh: Sure. What did they say?
    Dr. Melnick:They took a little guess. If the risk was less than one in a billion, it was
    insignificant. If it was greater than one in 1,000, it was extremely significant. So they left a
    big gap between one in 1,000 and one in a billion. EPA took one in a million. OSHA, the
    Occupational Safety and Health Administration, took one in 1,000 - which is quite different.
    In any case, we want to know what the risk is. Because if you understand the risk, you can try to mitigate it
    by adjusting the device or taking other precautions.

    Reverberation room with paddles

    Josh: Before we go into the findings, I would like to confirm this: it was about
    2G and 3G technology, is that right? And were they mice or rats; or which animals were used?
    Dr. Melnick: We use mice and rats. The main effects were seen in rats.
    Josh: Okay.
    Dr. Melnick: Basically it concerns 2G. Much of 3G is still like 2G, just faster.
    So all this in terms of setting up the study, and that's why it took a long time. I
    contacted engineers and physicists at the National Institute of Standards and
    Technology because another group there had helped us with radiation from electricity, the very low-
    frequency radiation.
    I spoke to someone there, his name was Perry Wilson, and we talked about the concept of reverberation chambers. We
    investigated the feasibility of conducting tests in a reverberation room. That is a space that resembles a large
    microwave. In that room you have an antenna and it emits the radiation. You also have
    rudder paddles, which actually bounce the radiation in all directions. This way you have a
    homogeneous environment with this radio frequency radiation within a short time .
    We wanted to see if we could do our animal experiments in a reverberation room. So we had to
    show that you could create a homogeneous environment, so that animals living in one part of the
    room, receive the same radiation level as animals in another area. It took a
    while to develop that.
    We reached out to a group in Zurich, Switzerland. And we were concerned with
    modeling the nature of the absorption dose in animals and their specific tissues when exposed in
    a reverberation chamber. So they developed the particular model for quantifying at the frequencies that
    we were using, at the level of the doses to be absorbed. We used two frequencies: 900
    megahertz and 1800 megahertz. Because those are the central frequencies that are used for mobile
    telephone communication.
    Josh:Does that apply to 2G and 3G respectively?
    Dr. Melnick: Yes. I believe they are still in use. Yes, 3G and ... I'm not sure. But I also
    think 4G. 5G will be very different. 5G has a much higher frequency.

    Room to move and water

    Josh: Let's look at the findings. What have you discovered?
    Dr. Melnick: I wasn't done yet ...
    Josh: Okay, I'm a little impatient. But I will let it go. Because you are laying a very
    important basis here before we go into the findings. Please go on.
    Dr. Melnick: That's what I'm trying to do ...
    So back, we wanted to look at effects other than global warming. So we did what we called a
    thermal pilot study, in which we exposed animals to different levels of radiation.
    We had temperature measurements taken; because we didn't want to increase body temperature by more than one
    degree Celsius. Because that is the basis for the guidelines for cell phones.
    There were four rats where we could go up to 6 watts per kilogram instead of 4 watts per kilogram.
    That ended up being the highest exposure we used in our rats.
    As I said before, you usually sit much higher on a toxicity test. You then do a
    quantitative risk analysis and then extrapolates to lower values. But we couldn't
    go higher than 6, because at 6 you'd get the warming effect.
    The first thing we had to do now was set the highest level. We used the usual
    modulation. You have GSM, the Global System for Mobile Communication, which is commonly used in
    Europe. I also believe in two networks in the US. I thought AT&T; not sure if it is also with TMobile. The other is CDMA, Code Division Multiple Access. These are modulations with which you give many
    people access to the network. So we included both GSM and CDMA in our studies
    .
    To give a study more weight, we increase the number of animals. A normal NTP study has 50 animals per group. When we switched to the chronic part,
    we increased to 90, with the highest exposure now being 6 watts per kilogram. We also used 3 watts per
    kilogram and 1.5 watts per kilogram. So essentially halving the dose so that if there was an effect it
    would be possible to do a dose response analysis for a quantitative risk assessment.
    To get a higher sensitivity in the rats, we took rats from pregnancy to
    delivery and then for another two years.
    A typical NTP study takes two years: from about six weeks old. But let me first
    explain something about the reverberation room, I think this is also important.
    In a reverberation room the animals walk around freely in their cage. This is important, because in previous
    studies the animals were confined in tubes during exposure. In previous
    experiments, the animals also had no access to water; therefore exposure
    periods were limited to two hours per day.
    We wanted to increase the exposure time because we could not increase the exposure dose. We came
    up with a way for the animals to get to water during exposure. You ca
    n't just put a bottle in it, because that bottle of water would absorb energy and get warmer. You can use the
    do not shield the bottle and just work with a large hose. That water would also heat up and you could have
    scattering effects between the animals when they are drinking. So we had an
    automatic water system in the design with a valve, so the animals could drink without
    their heads being exposed to the radiation.

    Schwannomas and Gliomas

    Dr. Melnick: The study was conducted for two years after the design was completed. There
    were multiple effects in the rats. Some of the effects observed were increases
    in heart schwannomas. Schwann cells are the cells that make up the myelin sheath around the nerve.
    That was one type of tumor effect in the males. The other kind was a glioma. This is a
    brain tumor that was also seen in the exposed animals and not in the control animals.
    So we had four groups. We had a control group, exactly the same room, with a rudder paddle.
    There was even an antenna too; but it had no power. The other groups were
    exposed to different levels of radiation under exactly the same conditions; we maintained
    1.5 watts, 3 watts, or 6 watts per kilogram for the animals throughout the study. As they increased
    , the intensity of exposure could increase, but the actual dose of SAR remained
    constant.
    Josh:So you found schwannomen in the heart. Is that a malignant tumor?
    Dr. Melnick: Yes.
    Josh: And then gliomas in the brain, is that right?
    Dr. Melnick: That's right. In addition, if you look at those effects before making a decision, how
    strong is the evidence? They are rare tumors, which you don't see very often in the control groups, and that
    gives them more priority against the rest of the background. So you see a small number of increases, but
    because it is a rare tumor that you hardly encounter in such a program, this has more
    relevance.
    Josh: And are schwannomas and / or gliomas rare?
    Dr. Melnick: Yes, they are unusual.

    No Risk Assessment

    Josh: You said the Supreme Court reported between one in 1,000 and one in a billion, somewhere in
    that gray area, but OSHA one in 1,000. And EPA one in a million. What are the numbers for
    the NTP study? How much increase in those two cancer tumors was there?
    Dr. Melnick: You can only answer that question if someone does a risk analysis with the data.
    And that did not happen. The purpose of this study - nominated by the FDA - was that
    a quantitative risk analysis could be done. And if that could be done, the
    information is provided to the FCC, which establishes the guidelines. The intention would be to
    develop guidelines that protect health, rather than guidelines based on the assumption that you have
    absorption and no warming effect. This quantitative risk analysis has not been carried out.
    Josh: In other words, the FDA asked for the study to be carried out and it was. There
    were significant findings showing increases in cancer - those cancerous tumors.
    What happened then? They just let it be; or what has been the effect of these findings
    ? Are you satisfied with the effect they have had?
    Dr. Melnick:Well, I am not satisfied. That's for sure. Because the FDA said we
    can't apply this information to humans.
    Josh: Why?
    Dr. Melnick: They didn't give a reason. They just explained it. The director of the
    Radiological Wireless Equipment Department simply put it this way: this doesn't apply to humans. But
    it just doesn't make any sense because the FDA nominated it with the intention that we
    would do a quantitative ... a risk assessment for humans. So the FDA is essentially shying away from
    its responsibility and not living up to the intent of its own nomination.

    Advice for users

    Josh:You wrote an article saying, "The FDA states that" existing exposure guidelines are
    based on protection against acute injury from thermal effects of exposure to
    radio frequency radiation, but they may not protect against non-thermal effects of
    long-term exposure. " But by taking this new position, and
    ignoring the NTP results , the FDA is clearly evading its responsibility for assessing
    the impact of radiofrequency radiation on human health. ”
    We could go in different directions now. But the mere meaning of realizing that there is
    about $ 30 million has been invested to see if cell phones are at or below the
    allowable level for cancer in rats! And the answer is that there was a significant increase
    in schwannomas in the heart and gliomas in the brain. And then they left it at that.
    I would like to ask the following question. It's speculation, but we know what
    Harvard 's Department of Ethics has written about the FCC: that it's industry controlled. But in the other
    interviews at this Summit, we've also heard a lot about the FDA. What is actually going on
    , and what is the significance of this, Ron? The investigation was carried out, there was cancer
    demonstrated, and then they left it for what it was. What kind of picture does this fit?
    Dr. Melnick: I can't tell you why they decided it that way. All I can say is
    that at this point, as far as I know, they decided not to do anything about it. In fact, the information had already become
    available in 2016, when the NTP released some partial findings due to the
    potential impact of these findings on the general population. The tumors in the heart and the
    tumors in the brain - that was already known in 2016.
    They may not want people to think that their cell phone is at risk of cancer
    entails. Maybe they have other reasons. I can't say whether or not the industry has an
    influence, but it is certainly a possibility. But from a public health point of view
    , it seems to me that you want to understand, and quantify, and do something about the risks.
    Recommend precautions, at least for humans.
    On many sites nowadays you see: If you are concerned, you can do this and that and so and so. A
    commoner using a cell phone might think, "If the FDA isn't
    worried, and if the FCC isn't worried, why bother?" According to
    at the very least they should have told me, "This and that is what you should do, given the
    outcomes we see in determining the risks." That would also put a little more pressure on
    the industry to reduce the amount of radiation emitted by the phones.
    The industry has made some improvement to their cell phones since then, so far.
    Like I said, the radiation comes from where the antenna is. That location has a major influence on the dose that
    the tissue receives there. The antenna has now been moved from right next to your ear to the speaking part. So a
    little lower; it gives a little more distance. But it depends on how people use their cell phones
    use. As far as I am concerned: at least give certain recommendations, just sensible advice.
    People text more, which is good because then you don't hold your phone next to your head. Do people know
    when the signal is weak? You can see that on your phone, the number of dashes. When the signal is weak,
    the phone has to work harder to keep the communication good. It then emits more radiation
    than with a stronger signal.
    Josh: In some cases it's thousands of times more. I actually tested it with my
    Cornet electrosmog meter. It's really shocking how much your phone's radiation goes up when you
    only have one or two bars.
    Dr. Melnick: Exactly, but most people don't know that. The FDA should encourage this
    kind of information to be out there, instead of just saying we're just ignoring it.

    Acceptance and Liability

    Josh: How else should the FDA and FCC respond to the NTP results? How
    should they apply it?
    Dr. Melnick: They should do a quantitative risk analysis. We should be able to
    track the exposure levels. It could be an exposure and exposure
    duration associated with a cancer risk of, for example, one in 100,000. Take that as a risk:
    that people know that the risk is, say, one in 1,000 for calling one hour a day for a year.
    I'm just making up these numbers. That you know that the risk is one in 1000 if you keep your mobile
    phone next to your head for one hour a day. Then people could say, "Well, that's not a
    risk I want to accept." And they would act accordingly.
    There is one more aspect, for children, that I am also concerned about. The radiation penetrates
    deeper into a child 's brain. Brains are more sensitive to tissue damage factors
    in the case of the developing brain. There are many kinds of toys for children
    made that are a concern. Because children don't see any difference between a real phone and a
    device that looks like it. That should be curtailed.
    If you don't know the risk ... It's hard to know how people react. If they understand the risk and
    the FDA makes recommendations ... For example, we're working to reduce emissions.
    But do give that advice in the meantime. You know, if you're in an elevator and you've only got one
    dash, that might not be a good time to call. You also disturb the other
    people who are in that confined space with you.
    Josh:Yes, a kind of liability applies here, isn't that possible? I mean, it may not be your
    expertise, your area of ​​expertise. But what if you think about the reasons that industry and
    government have. If they said, Are you in an elevator, or if you only have one line, don't hold the
    phone next to your head. Then that would work.
    But maybe as they view it, they don't want to cause panic. Because really, they
    worry about their liability once it hits a certain threshold. Why else do
    Lloyds of London and other major insurance companies not insure wireless products
    from companies?
    Dr. Melnick:I hadn't thought of that. But it does make sense.

    Assumption versus Effects

    Josh: What else did you encounter? Tell.
    Dr. Melnick: Let me mention this: In addition to the tumors, there were a few other effects. There was also
    a condition called cardiomyopathy, heart muscle disease. This is a disease of the
    muscle tissues of the heart, which showed a very clear dose response. And there was DNA damage in
    the brains of rats.
    A number of mechanistic studies have been done since the IARC review in 2011. These
    may provide clues as to why there is observable DNA damage in the brain
    occurs. In addition, as I said, the rats were exposed during gestation, ie in the
    womb, and the young had reduced body weight.
    So there also seem to be other effects. And in fact, when you see these kinds of effects, we
    now know that that initial assumption - which the research was supposed to challenge - is false. The assumption that the
    only effect may be tissue heating is incorrect, as we have tried to control the effect of
    temperature to the limit.
    Now with several of these effects, we can no longer rely on assumptions when it comes to
    wireless devices.
    Josh:And in the early 1970s, Dr. Zory Glaser for the United States Navy research 2,300 reports, each containing five pages of effects of microwave radiation of
    varying intensities. That should also be mentioned. I mentioned that in my documentary Take
    Back Your Power.
    Now my question is: So you have looked at different effects and you have
    seen different effects in this NTP study. What about all the other possible effects that haven't been looked at?
    You can assume that this kind of exposure to microwave radiation affects life - affects biology in
    multiple areas. I want to talk about your role, because you have a lot of work
    done for the WHO IARC panel.
    Dr. Melnick: That's right.
    Josh: I also want to ask you, what effect did the NTP study have on the IARC? And could you briefly
    summarize the work you have performed for the IARC?

    The Interphone study

    Dr. Melnick: The IARC panel met in 2011. NTP data was available at the time. At
    that point, the IARC panel, as you probably know, concluded that radiofrequency
    radiation was potentially carcinogenic to humans.
    The IARC has a certain type of process that most people probably don't understand, they do
    have no idea. People from all over the world are invited to come to Lyon,
    France, to prepare a so-called monograph. That is actually a book. For
    radiofrequency radiation from mobile phones, as well as for chemicals, the participants are divided into
    four groups. One group looks at the exposures and emissions. The second looks
    at animal cancer studies. The third to the available studies in humans or
    epidemiology. And the fourth group looks at the mechanistic information available at the time
    .
    IARC had sponsored a supposedly multinational evaluation of cell phone radiation, under the name
    Interphone. This had a major influence on the discussions during the IARC meeting. In addition, a
    number of studies had been carried out by the Swedish scientist Lennart Hardell. He had also
    reported on numerous studies that found an increased risk of brain cancer;
    it was about tumors, gliomas. They also found schwannomas of the nerve sheath near the ear; which
    shows agreement between the NTP study and the human studies. At the time,
    studies in animals were considered limited.
    There were no similar studies with conventional models. There were a number of
    so-called promotional studies or co-carcinogenic studies that had a positive effect
    showed; but it was very limited. IARC uses certain terms. Limited means that
    the data on animals was inconclusive.

    Possibly carcinogenic

    Dr. Melnick: The data on humans was also considered limited. This
    is because different types of studies have been conducted in humans. One of these is a
    so-called case-control study. This is a study in which, for example, you have people who have a
    certain tumor, or who have died of a tumor, or who have a certain type of cancer. You look at
    that population; it could come from a hospital, for example. Then you compare the characteristics of those
    population with the same population that does not have that type of cancer. So gender, age, perhaps other
    factors, everything else the same.
    The Interphone study and Hardell studies were case control studies. The
    problem that emerged at the meeting was that a case-control study
    may contain bias. Because you question people or their descendants afterwards about the
    phone use of the person with cancer. They designed the questionnaire in such a way that it did not
    seem to focus exclusively on that one issue. But there may be some bias when someone says, 'Oh,
    sure, he used his cell phone on this side of the head and that's where the tumor
    originated. " So you have that possibility of bias.
    The other type of research concerns the so-called cohort studies. You look at a large
    population and try to see within that population whether the tumor ratio is higher in people who use
    mobile phones more often, compared to a population in which there is no or much less use
    of mobile phones. This type of research gave negative results; but they have major problems
    with the classification of the exposure.
    For example, if they take a large population, you know, thousands and thousands of people, they
    sometimes look at the calling data. But they may not reflect the actual use of the person who has the
    telephone subscription. So the cohort studies were negative. The case-control
    studies , from Interphone, were positive at the highest exposure level, as were the Hardell studies.
    The IARC panel then concluded that human data was limited.
    Limited does not mean that there were no effects. It means that there was a causal interpretation
    that was credible; but you couldn't get accidental bias or confusion to a reasonable degree
    rule out, and so they kept it limited. So if you
    have limited results in both humans and animals, the IARC will qualify that as 'possibly carcinogenic' to humans. Limited
    in humans but sufficient in animals would have resulted in "probably carcinogenic" to
    humans.

    The World Health Organization

    Josh: There is a movement among scientists, in the world of science,
    to reclassify radiofrequency radiation as 2A, "probably carcinogenic," or group 1, "recognized
    carcinogen."
    Dr. Melnick:Hardell and others have done more studies. In France you have another
    study with positive outcome regarding gliomas. There is a nomination process at the IARC for
    studies that have been notified and will be evaluated in the near future. They operate
    at five-year intervals. As far as I know, radio frequency radiation has been discussed and is on the
    list for re-evaluation. I don't think it's fair to say that the societal pressure to classify it
    as this or that has to do with it. Because it is an evaluation process.
    In 2011 it concerned about 25 people. Judgment plays a big part in all of this. You know, I have mine
    own conviction as to what would be appropriate; but others may think otherwise.
    It is a scientific debate between the experts during the meeting, who then come to
    a conclusion.
    Josh: I want to go into more detail before we get to the end of the conversation. You said the FDA is
    avoiding its responsibility by
    not recognizing and acting on the data from this $ 30 million NTP study . Doesn't the World Health Organization also shirk
    its responsibility here?
    Dr. Melnick: I think they are in a process. It takes a while to bring all the data together
    for a panel. As far as I know, it's in the schedule. I don't know if it's on the roster,
    but it's in the plans for the next five years to re-evaluate radiofrequency radiation.

    Assumption versus Evidence

    Josh: We are switching to 5G. Because in the meantime, as we know, the industry continues to implement
    it in the United States and around the world. This is done without
    having done any research to show its safety, and without even intending to do any research
    . I feel very strongly that it is because they know what they will find when they are real
    if they actually did research. Are you very concerned about what is happening,
    and if so, why?
    Dr. Melnick: Well, I can give a number of reasons. One of these, as you just said, is falling back
    on assumptions without data. The assumption is, "Okay, this is safe." But we
    should have learned from the radiofrequency radiation from cell phones that assumptions are not necessarily really in the
    interest of public health. So I'm saying there should be a certificate of security rather than
    just a statement of security.
    In fact, recently there was a Senate hearing about 5G and Senator Blumenthal brought
    this question emerges. He wanted to be sure of safety and was told, "Well, there is no
    consistent evidence of damage." Yes, because there are no studies. And of course, if you don't have any investigations, you ca
    n't provide evidence of damage. But you cannot substantiate the assumption that it is safe
    . So that's a problem for me.
    The other issue is the antennas. Due to the way in which 5G works, the radiation does not get very far.
    It also does not pass through buildings. That is why the antennas in neighborhoods are placed very close together
    . I hear they might be about 200 to 300 meters apart: on lampposts, something
    above street level, just with people walking around. So if you walk past a
    lamppost in the city , you are close to an antenna, which emits a type of radiation about which we
    know little about effects.
    Now 5G does not penetrate the body to the same extent as radio frequency radiation. Well, that's what
    they were talking about, okay. Thus, it is largely absorbed into the skin. But are you outside ... remember
    when I talked about disruptions? If you are outside in the environment, you are exposed to more
    than just 5G radiation. On a sunny day you are exposed to UV radiation. If UV radiation is of influence
    on the development of melanomas, what happens when you have 5G radiation and UV radiation together?
    We can say, either we assume there is no effect, or we test the hypothesis and
    demonstrate that there is no effect. Because what about the eyes? Is there a risk to vision if
    people walk past those antennas? Is there any injury? I don't know those answers. But there is
    no one who can say they have the answers, because no tests have been carried out.
    So I fear that we are exposing the population to something without knowing the risks or the health effects
    of it. And I would be happy if there were no adverse health effects. But I would
    be happier if I knew proven that there are no adverse health effects, rather than
    just an assertion.

    The Precautionary Principle

    Josh: We know from Dr. Devra Davis and others we speak to at this Summit that there are independent
    studies on millimeter-wave radiation that show really extraordinarily serious biological effects
    . There is some indication that the effects can penetrate into the body. One study is about
    the sweat ducts and how they can act as spiral antennae,
    sending energy into the body and causing effects deeper within. Obviously a worrying situation.
    What, from your perspective, would it take to change the paradigm, the way
    business is done by the industry, those 'grabbing', claims of security
    backed by nothing ? They just go for profit, they push and ram it through, no matter how.
    You mentioned the precautionary principle - which is not recognized in all countries in Europe - or the principle
    of weighing evidence. Would you like to say something about that, what do you think is needed?
    Dr. Melnick: It's a tough situation right now, because 5G is political too. In the political sphere
    in which we operate, we are in competition with the Chinese. They are developing 5G, and we have to make them work
    to win.
    Politics also controls what will happen, bypassing local authorities. As they think about
    whether you can place cell towers within a municipality - you can't do that. All they
    say is: it is possible, it is safe, so we are going to do it.
    I think we need to gather the necessary knowledge first. Because the properties of 5G have not
    yet been fully determined. When we talk about 5G, we don't even know: what exactly is
    being broadcast by those antennas? What are its specifications? We just know it's 5G and it's going to be
    a high frequency. How do you test something if you don't even have the specifications of what you
    are testing?
    I think - instead of getting in here - it would be best to first determine: this is
    safe, and that is harmful. Bring industry and the scientific community together and say
    we want to address this issue. We want to have safety for health. What do
    we need to do to make sure we don't increase health risks by installing these
    new antennas in our neighborhoods? Then you get one side opposite the other. And if politics
    prefers one side, then it has won.
    So the FDA says we will ignore the NTP radiofrequency study. As far as I
    can see, there is no pressure on them to do anything except by myself and others
    who speak out against it. The government has kept quiet. If they did something, and they
    demonstrated the risks, it could cause problems for the industry, for the government
    itself, or for the FCC. If RF radiation is a risk, what to do with 5G? They have no
    answer for that.

    Accountability and Responsibility

    Josh: So what you say we really need to take the next step in response to this incredibly important
    study that you designed. Because the NTP research is intended for a risk analysis by the FDA.
    Dr. Melnick:That would be a first step; with a simultaneous recommendation to take
    precautions.
    Josh: And also investigate the frequencies of 5G, look much broader, bring in science. For
    that to happen, the voice of the population is needed. As you said, you and a number of others are speaking
    out against this. But we need people to put pressure on the agencies, which unfortunately
    are dominated by commercial interests. And also liability actions to
    hold them accountable ; responsibility and accountability must be there.
    Dr. Melnick:Unfortunately, our system works in such a way that if the regulators do nothing, the decision is made in
    court. It's the lawsuits that sometimes enforce something that
    is ignored by the government . That's how it happened with a number of chemicals. I am not
    involved in any lawsuits over radiofrequency radiation, but I understand there are currently a few pending cases involving people
    who have developed brain cancer.
    To me, that's not the way our health should be protected. It is better
    if the government, scientists, regulators and industry would work together and
    say, we don't want problems, how can we avoid them?
    Josh:Thank you. Dr. Ronald Melnick, thank you very much for your time, for your many years of work as a
    scientist and your help in defining and putting into perspective this problem; for your
    efforts to resolve this issue. Thanks again.
    Dr. Melnick: I really hope there will be a solution someday. By the way, there's another person who ... I do
    n't know if you interviewed him or if he was going to be interviewed ... did you
    speak to Senator Blumenthal ? Namely, he raised this issue, but received no answer. Has he
    received an answer since then? Is he still going after it? Because - and we talked about that already -
    it's about the people who get in the gun. With a senator you are stronger; just like with
    people who have a little knowledge of the matter. It would be interesting to hear what Senator
    Blumenthal says to your questions.
    Josh: We haven't been able to get in touch with him, but it's a really good idea. We
    haven't actually heard anything back at all.
    Dr. Melnick: I want to be a contact person.
    Josh: Thank you. (VG)
    ~no need to follow anyone, only consider to broaden (y)our horizon of possibilities
    ~Stop5G.net & FB groups/Stop5G

  4. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to ExomatrixTV For This Post:

    Alecs (19th May 2021), onawah (12th May 2021)

  5. Link to Post #843
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    15,119
    Thanks
    35,433
    Thanked 70,461 times in 13,586 posts

    Default Re: Stop 5G before it's irreversible!

    Satellites, Data, and Nature
    Arthur Firstenberg <info@cellphonetaskforce.org>
    5/11/21
    from: Arthur Firstenberg <info@cellphonetaskforce.org>



    "The purpose of these newsletters is to inform, support, and collaborate in bringing humanity out of denial. Levels of radio-frequency radiation that are
    10 billion times higher than what life evolved with are destroying this planet.
    TO SUBSCRIBE: https://www.cellphonetaskforce.org/subscribe/

    SATELLITES, DATA, AND NATURE

    Two years ago, in May 2019, I wrote an article titled Planetary Emergency, in which I explained what was about to happen to our world, listed the board members, chief officers and principal investors in SpaceX and OneWeb, and asked for help in reaching out to them. I wrote:

    “Please contact me if you know any of the gentlemen or ladies I have listed, or if you know someone who can get us an audience with one of them. All we need is one. An opening into that community of billionaires, to begin a dialogue that will save this planet...

    “All these people have families and children and have a stake in the future of the Earth. Some -- for example, Kimbal Musk and his wife, Christiana -- are long-time advocates for the environment and investors in environmental causes.”

    In two years not a single person has answered that plea, and we are now only months away from global catastrophe. Below I will update you on the extraordinary escalation of the assault on the Earth’s life-giving envelope that is in progress, and I will renew my call for help.

    MARCH 24, 2021 AND BEYOND

    Last month’s newsletter (Survey Results) contained a summary of about 1,000 emails I received from subscribers reporting sudden illness in themselves and their spouses, children, parents, neighbors, friends, coworkers, clients, cats, dogs, chickens, goats, and cows that I received from all over the world. On March 24-25, the first time that SpaceX and OneWeb both launched satellites on the same day, most people that I spoke with or heard from experienced similar, dramatic illness that came out of nowhere. Pain and itching all over their bodies, especially their legs, feet and head. Sudden increase in the ringing in their ears. Profound exhaustion and complete inability to sleep. Muscle spasms. Skin rashes. Stomach aches and diarrhea. Nosebleeds. Heart palpitations. Inflamed eyes. Ill temper, depression or suicidal thoughts.

    In the following weeks it became clear that something extraordinary had happened, and is continuing to happen, not only to my friends and subscribers, and not only to people and their pets and farm animals.

    In my newsletter of May 5, 2020 (The Evidence Mounts), I reported the sudden illness and deaths of thousands of blue tits and other small birds in Germany, in the Mosel River Valley and other areas with poor cell phone reception. They were described as “apathetic birds with breathing problems.” This occurred during March and April 2020, while Vodafone was upgrading its cell phone service in these regions from 2G to 4G LTE and building hundreds of new cell towers.

    The German environmental organization NABU has been monitoring the health of these birds ever since and, like illnesses in the humans I heard from, blue tit deaths spiked in Germany beginning on March 25, 2021:

    And lest anyone think that there aren’t animals that know what is going on, consider this report from a subscriber in Ireland:

    “One of our cats now sometimes howls during the night, then takes my daughter upstairs, stands by the WiFi box demanding it’s turned off, then settles down to sleep.”

    As I reported in my last newsletter, March 25 registered the second highest number of COVID-19 cases worldwide this year, and the fifth highest since the pandemic began.

    There was a sudden spate of mass shootings in the U.S. in the news in March and April. A colleague asked me if that, too, had spiked on March 24 or 25. It had. The number of mass shootings rose suddenly on March 25 and remained high for three weeks. An average of 6 shootings involving 4 or more victims occurred every day between March 25 and April 13.

    There were strange natural anomalies reported as well, that I cannot explain but neither can anyone else. A woman in Hoboken, New Jersey took this picture of worms arranging themselves in a great spiral on the sidewalk. It was on March 25, 2021:

    And photographs of hundreds of unusually silent sheep, also arranged in a perfect spiral, were taken by by Christopher Hogg, a lecturer at Royal Holloway University, London on March 26, 2021:.

    SPACEX TO BEGIN COMMERCIAL SERVICE THIS SUMMER
    OneWeb to Begin Service by End of Year

    Both SpaceX and OneWeb have announced that they plan to begin commercial service this year. They are both racing to convert the most beautiful place in the world, whose unchanging vista has given a sense of peace and belonging to millions of generations of people, animals and birds -- the heavens -- into the world’s largest garbage dump, streaking with moving lights and the refuse of burned up and exploded satellites.

    With its launches of April 28, May 4 and May 9, 60 more satellites per launch, SpaceX now has 1,554 operating Starlink satellites in low orbit around the Earth. For command and control of these satellites it has already built 61 ground stations in the U.S., 1 in Canada , 6 in New Zealand, 9 in Australia, 2 in Germany, 2 in France, 3 in the UK, and 7 in Chile, and many more are under construction. More than 10,000 customers are now beta testing the satellite network, and 500,000 people worldwide have pre-ordered user terminals. SpaceX expects to fill all their orders and begin commercial service of high-speed Internet from space this summer. At that time, users will still only be able to receive stationary service in a single location. By the end of 2021, SpaceX expects to also be able to provide mobile service anywhere in the world with user terminals that can be mounted on ships, planes, RVs and trucks.

    With its launch of 36 more satellites on April 25, OneWeb now has 182 satellites in low polar orbit. It has announced that by June of this year, after two more launches, it will be able to provide connectivity to the UK, Alaska, northern Europe, Greenland, Iceland, the Arctic Seas and Canada, that it will begin commercial service to those northern regions before the end of this year, and that it will provide global service in 2022.

    SpaceX states in its application to the FCC for approval of its mobile user terminals that it is responding to consumer demand. It states that by 2022 approximately 4,800 billion gigabytes of data will be exchanged worldwide per year. “No longer are users willing to forego connectivity while on the move,” writes SpaceX.

    And that is exactly the problem. People are treating data, which didn’t even exist as a commodity until the 1990s, as their God-given right. They do not understand that “data” is not something abstract but has its source in a finite and increasingly scarce natural world. That when you manipulate “data” you are manipulating forests, oceans and wildlife. People do not understand that the more data you shoot all over the world, the quicker you scramble this planet’s ecosystems until there is nothing left of them.

    Meanwhile, building and launching rockets is becoming quicker, easier and cheaper all the time. A company called Relativity Space is now able to produce rockets using the world’s largest 3-D printer, dubbed “Stargate.” It already has contracts with Lockheed Martin, Telesat, Iridium and other companies and plans to begin launching its disposable rockets this fall. It advertises on its website that its rockets have “100 times fewer parts” and that it can go “from raw material to flight in 60 days.”

    Now, virtually anyone can destroy the Earth.

    SECOND CALL FOR HELP

    The list of board members, officers and investors in SpaceX and OneWeb in Planetary Emergency is still accurate. I remain convinced that Kimbal Musk, who is both an environmentalist and a board member of SpaceX, as well as being the younger brother of Elon Musk, is the most likely person to begin a dialogue with us. If you would like to help me contact him, please get in touch with me."

    Arthur Firstenberg
    Author, The Invisible Rainbow: A History of Electricity and Life
    P.O. Box 6216
    Santa Fe, NM 87502
    USA
    phone: +1 505-471-0129
    arthur@cellphonetaskforce.org
    May 11, 2021

    The last 18 newsletters, including this one, are available for downloading
    and sharing on the Newsletters page of the Cellular Phone Task Force.
    Some of the newsletters are also available there in
    German, Spanish, Italian, and French. "
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    Alecs (19th May 2021)

  7. Link to Post #844
    Australia Avalon Member s7e6e's Avatar
    Join Date
    25th January 2021
    Location
    Down Under
    Language
    English
    Age
    44
    Posts
    68
    Thanks
    135
    Thanked 477 times in 65 posts

    Default Re: Stop 5G before it's irreversible!

    I think there's no more point in fighting the manifestations of these low level vibrating individuals. The fight worth fighting, the only one with colossal potential, is spiritual. Manifest your will every single day and night. Wish the change, will the change!

    The only thing they have access to, is the crude low vibration matter. It's the only thing they can change.

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to s7e6e For This Post:

    onawah (13th May 2021)

  9. Link to Post #845
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    15,119
    Thanks
    35,433
    Thanked 70,461 times in 13,586 posts

    Default Re: Stop 5G before it's irreversible!

    Internet of Things: What IoT Deployment Means for Your EMF Exposure
    By R Blank
    Last Updated
    May 17, 2021
    https://www.shieldyourbody.com/inter...bfck%2BA%3D%3D

    "The Internet of Things, or IoT, is a huge jump for humanity at a technological level. Tech pioneer Kevin Ashton coined the term in 1999, and his vision was for computers to manage all individual things. When the IoT began, it promised a revolution in the way we live and work, and so far, it hasn’t failed to impress us.

    From when the IoT was just a concept to this day, we’ve seen mind-blowing developments in the tech industry. We now have machines doing things for us that once required hours of manual labor.

    But the Internet of Things doesn’t only come with benefits — it has a downside that requires a more in-depth exploration. This is the EMF side.

    IoT systems emit a hefty amount of EMF, which adds to our already EMF-polluted environment. And that’s a concern on a number of levels.

    So, let’s dive into this topic to better understand the IoT’s pros and cons and how you can protect yourself from the EMF problem it will eventually cause.

    Table of Contents
    What is the Internet of Things?
    The Internet of Things essentially refers to the billions of devices, objects and appliances connected to the internet through wireless networks.

    Related Articles
    EMF Radiation Health Dangers for Women: 3 Things To Know
    EMF & Nutrition: Foods & Supplements That Protect Against EMF Exposure
    Why Use Wifi Calling? To Cut Your EMF Radiation Exposure
    Home Office & EMF: How to Reduce EMF Exposure When Working from Home?
    EMF & Brain Health: How EMF Exposure Affects Your Brain’s Functioning

    An additional characteristic of an IoT device is that it can send your user data to the cloud of whichever company manages it, which then uses machine learning to decode your behavior and enhance your user experience.



    Thanks to the omnipresence of wireless internet, you can now turn anything from a pill to an airplane into an IoT object.

    How Does IoT Work?

    The IoT uses smart computer chips for data collection. It collects things like your location and gadget-specific behavior. The company from whom you’ve purchased the device keeps a cloud where they gather the data and analyze it using AI or artificial intelligence. It then puts the analyzed data into a machine learning software that identifies and applies the necessary changes required to enhance your user experience.

    The process of machine learning is relatively simple – not the development part obviously, but the way it works. It’s automatic, and it learns and grows using the collected data.

    Think of this: whenever you search a certain video on YouTube and watch it along with 2-3 similar videos, the next time you refresh your homepage, it will be filled with videos similar to what you previously searched. That’s machine learning at work.

    IoT uses a similar program to understand your behavior and make changes accordingly. A real-life example of IoT would be smart refrigerators. These refrigerators scan most of the products and send a notification to your phone whenever a certain product is about to expire or run out.

    Smartphones also play a crucial role in the IoT infrastructure, as most of these products come with a mobile phone application.

    IoT Devices
    There are many categories of IoT devices. Some of them are available right now, and some are in their developmental phase. These categories include:

    Home appliances
    Home security systems
    Farming equipment
    Smartwatches like Fitbit and Apple watch
    Factory equipment
    Inventory trackers
    Biometric cybersecurity scanners
    Shipping container and logistics tracking
    Connected cars, and many more.
    Here’s an interesting thing that IoT experts say: In the future, we won’t need traffic lights. Self-driving vehicles will overtake the market, and since they will be connected to the internet, these cars will be able to communicate with each other without any human intervention.

    Data on the internet travels at the speed of light, so your car can notify another car that it’s coming from a certain direction at a certain speed, and all other cars on the road will adjust accordingly.

    They even go as far as to say that, since AI reacts a thousand times faster than humans, road accidents will be a thing of the past.

    IoT Applications
    The current IoT infrastructure is distributed into different categories according to their design like consumer, medical, infrastructure, and military.

    Consumer Applications

    A major portion of IoT devices are created for consumer use. This is partly because of the expensive nature of IoT. Without selling it to the general public, it would be tough to continue its development and reach its highest potential.

    Some of the device categories that I mentioned above are designed specifically for consumer use.

    You may have heard of smart homes, one of the most outstanding achievements in IoT development. These homes can have a lot of benefits, especially for the elderly and people with disabilities.Smart homes are also referred to as home automation because almost everything in these homes is automatic. From lighting, heating, air conditioning, and security systems to media and camera systems, everything has its own intelligence to knows when to operate. And if a certain automation feature isn’t for you, you can control it right from your phone.

    For instance, let’s say that you leave for work at 9 a.m and arrive home at around 6. After a few days of sampling, you can expect things like your heater heating your room to the perfect temperature right before you arrive and your lights turning off automatically right after you leave.

    Similarly, elder care and assisting people with disabilities is one of the key features of home automation. It can monitor for things like medical emergencies and perform various duties to make life easier.

    Medical Applications
    Internet of Medical Things, or IoMT, sometimes referred to as “smart healthcare,” is also one of the public-benefitting uses of the Internet of Things. This is primarily dedicated to patient health monitoring, especially after implant device surgeries.

    Smartwatch companies have also contributed to the IoMT infrastructure by developing products that allow patient health monitoring.

    Infrastructure Applications

    The infrastructural side of IoT monitors and controls operations of sustainable urban and rural infrastructures. It sends real-time data from places like bridges and railway tracks, allowing the authorities to increase safety where required and lower the risk of accidents.

    Examples of IoT’s infrastructural applications are metropolitan scale deployments, energy management, environmental monitoring, and living labs.

    Military Applications

    Internet of Military Things are IoT devices used for surveillance, recon, and many other combat-related strategies.

    Recently, the U.S. Army Research Laboratory (ARL) launched the Internet of Battlefield Things project. This project focuses on basic IoT-related science to enhance a soldier’s abilities on a battlefield.

    Similarly, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) also launched a project named “Ocean of Things,” which they use to monitor environmental and vessel activities data.

    IoT is Vulnerable

    Even though IoT is relatively new, there’s a huge competition between tech companies to be the first ones to release new concepts. Because of this, they have to work faster, and the time crunch sometimes leaves security gaps in the devices.

    These vulnerabilities obviously don’t reach the IoT’s military applications because of the strict testing phases products go through before being deployed to the military.

    The devices that I am referring to are the ones sold to the general public.

    Dark Reading, one of the most-read cybersecurity news sites on the internet, says that IoT is exposed to the eight most common firmware vulnerabilities.

    These vulnerabilities are:


    Unauthenticated access
    Weak authentication
    Hidden back doors
    Password hashes
    Encryption keys
    Buffer overflows
    Open-source code
    Debugging services
    So, even if you buy these devices, you need to make sure that you follow the best cybersecurity practices.

    Relationship Between IOT and 5G

    5G was engineered from the ground-up to support the network requirements of IoT. This is because IoT devices require a high-speed internet connection with minimal latency, and the current 4G infrastructure isn’t enough to support its needs.

    According to the GSMA, 1.8 billion users will connect to 5G by 2025, which means that the massive deployment of high-performing IoT gadgets is not too far away.

    The 5G Concern

    Contrary to what most tech companies say, non-ionizing radiation has been proven to cause health issues ranging from minor sleep disorders to chronic diseases like cancer. There are literally thousands of peer-reviewed research papers on this subject, and together they make it crystal clear that EMF affects humans, flora, and fauna.

    The current 5G network also comes under the non-ionizing category of EMF, but it operates on a much higher frequency than 4G. A paper published in the Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health says that 5G lacks clarity on what tech is being used and lacks enough scientific evidence to be considered entirely safe. Adding to this, they conclude that 5G deployment should be halted until enough research is done and we know for sure that it’s safe for living beings.I have an entire series of articles dedicated to 5G. There I talk about the nature of 5G, its health risks, and the actions you can take to protect yourself.




    What Does Massive IoT Deployment Mean for You?
    We’re already facing unprecedented levels of EMF in our environment. This is often referred to as EMF pollution because its presence is unnatural, is increasing, and, though invisible, is detrimental to human health. With gadgets like cell phones, WiFi routers, smart meters, laptops, and tablets, it is more challenging than ever to escape heavy EMF exposure.

    On top of that, the number of new gadgets being introduced to the market continues to explode. For example, just when we thought we had all the Apple devices we could ever need, along came AirTags – tiny, button-sized tracking devices that attach to your most important personal belongings.

    While sticking an Apple AirTag to your car keys will certainly make it harder to lose them, this technology means that a plethora of your personal items – like your keys or you wallet – that are not currently sources of EMF, will become sources of EMF. This is a clear and immediate example of the impending explosion in the number of sources of EMF to which we are exposed in our daily lives.

    Right now, it is still possible to lower your exposure by reducing your tech use and maximizing your distance from EMF sources.

    This most certainly won’t be the case when IoT devices deploy on a massive scale.

    IoT devices depend on 5G, which has a shorter range than 4G. This means that small cells (portable 5G towers) will have to be installed everywhere, emitting high-frequency EMF on a huge scale.

    We still don’t know what frequency the 5G network will operate on when it reaches its full potential. The chances are that our current EMF shielding techniques like using conductive materials will start to fail, because conductive materials like silver have a limit to the amount of EMF they can shield.

    This could leave us in a vulnerable state where high-frequency EMF is everywhere, and there isn’t much that we can do about it.

    What Can You Do?

    IoT devices only emit EMF when they’re connected to a network. So, IoT is indeed a matter of concern, but so is 5G. If there’s no 5G, the IoT deployment will automatically decrease.

    But my goal is not to keep you from enjoying new technology. I just want you to take the necessary precautions to make it safer to use.

    Again, you can visit my 5G content hub to learn more about the subject.

    Recently, lots of people are asking their respective governments to stop the 5G rollout. And many countries have also invoked a temporary halt to 5G deployment until research confirms that it is safe.

    You can share your knowledge with your family and friends. But note that you’ll have to talk with them in a way that convinces them to make changes in their lives.

    For this, I’ve created an EMF advocacy training guide which you can download for free.

    The second step would be to refrain from buying unnecessary tech gadgets. This is actually a big problem. Every year people purchase new tech gadgets and realize later on that they didn’t even need them.

    Reducing unnecessary tech purchases will reduce your EMF exposure by a lot. This is super important to remember, especially in a few years when IoT gadgets will roll out on a massive scale. They’ll certainly look amazing and some may give you incredible benefits. But do I actually need this? — is the question you should be asking every time it crosses your mind.

    Final Thoughts
    The Internet of Things is certainly a massive leap for humanity. It promises to give us things that we’ve never seen or experienced before, and there’s not a shred of doubt about its ability to change our lives.

    Our current ways will be old someday, and it’s inevitable that we’ll be completely tech-dependent given the pace at which the tech industry is advancing.

    But we’re not there yet. IoT and 5G haven’t reached their full potential. So right now, your main goal should be to keep yourself and your loved ones safe from the increasing levels of EMF that are currently in our environment.

    Minimizing your tech use and maximizing your distance from EMF sources will take you far in the journey of reducing your EMF exposure.

    There are many other ways to mitigate your exposure further, and I’ve written about them all on this blog. You can start by browsing my Healthy Living Tips. It’s accessible to everyone and the tips are mostly free or affordable to implement, so you’ve nothing to lose by giving them a shot.

    Resources
    5G
    Safety Tips
    Health Effects
    Babies & Children
    EMF in the Home
    Safety Regulations
    EMF Tech
    EMF Testing
    Advocacy
    Shop Protection
    Phones
    Headsets
    Headsets
    Apparel
    Babies
    Laptops & Tablets
    Home & Office
    Related Articles
    EMF Radiation Health Dangers for Women: 3 Things To Know
    EMF & Nutrition: Foods & Supplements That Protect Against EMF Exposure
    Why Use Wifi Calling? To Cut Your EMF Radiation Exposure
    Home Office & EMF: How to Reduce EMF Exposure When Working from Home?
    EMF & Brain Health: How EMF Exposure Affects Your Brain’s Functioning"
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  10. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    Alecs (19th May 2021), OmeyocaN777 (5th June 2021)

  11. Link to Post #846
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    15,119
    Thanks
    35,433
    Thanked 70,461 times in 13,586 posts

    Default Re: Stop 5G before it's irreversible!

    EMFs, ADHD, Autism and The Brain Immune Gut Masterclass
    From: Lloyd Burrell | ElectricSense lloyd@electricsenseinterviews101.com via gmail.mcsv.net
    https://us20.campaign-archive.com/?u...&id=0be7b542d9
    6/12/21

    "Wrapping up this week, I am so grateful to share several powerful events and opportunities. This is a little longer than usual. Please take your time and go through all of this valuable information, in a step-by-step way, so you don’t miss anything.

    Thank you for sharing today’s newsletter and features with those you love. Enjoy!

    First, for those families navigating ADHD and Autism, there are several tools to support you today, including a free 15-minute consultation with Brain Harmony Group (who recently won the NBCOT Award for the incredible results they’re getting with children on the spectrum and supporting the elderly who are dealing with cognition issues). Click here to learn more: https://ui548.isrefer.com/go/Attention/LB2021/ (These links might only open in Chrome.)

    And, for ALL families who are managing more stress than normal during this time, or sorting through anxiety due to ever-increasing EMF connectivity, click here to download “4 Steps to Creating Calm in the Home” https://ui548.isrefer.com/go/CALMhome/LB2021/

    VIP Invitation to discover my EMF Solutions Club

    The truth is that protecting your loved ones - young and old - from the omnipresent threat of EMF toxicity and how it especially impacts the brain - must be an every day TOP priority. So I want to invite you to join my EMF Solutions Club.

    In it, you get unlimited (immediate) access to a unique audio resource of over 150 solution oriented interviews on EMFs and health, plus a monthly live Q&A where you can get all your EMF questions answered (by me), plus two new interviews (and the transcriptions) with world class experts, researchers and educators every month.

    You will ALSO get a huge gift - The EMF Fast Start Pack (Easy Steps to See a Significant Improvement in Your Health In 30 Days or Less). In this dynamic 4 part BONUS package (previously sold for $197) you’ll learn:
    The 4 distinct categories of EMF exposures you need to measure and how precisely to measure them so you can maximise your chances of fast relief
    The number one thing you must understand to effectively deal with EMFs… overlook this and you can spend years wasting your time and slip into chronic illness
    When and when not to shield from EMF exposures – because shielding can sometimes make matters worse
    The 5 steps you need to follow to achieve effective whole room shielding and 3 things to consider before buying shielding film
    The systematic holistic model and ‘secret sauce’ which forms the basis of my unique step by step approach to ‘Ultimate EMF Protection’
    The 3 detox protocols you need to integrate into your health regime to open the door to some very powerful results – literally overnight in my case
    The key tool which allows you to create a ‘feedback loop’, tune into the minute changes in your condition and practically guarantee a successful recovery
    The 3 free and easy subtle energy healing modalities which when used daily can render a massive improvement in your health – I continue to use them every day!

    Please click above to learn more and join for only $19.95 per month:
    https://electricsenseinterviews101.com/offer-aw1/
    I AM SPEAKING TODAY - JUNE 12 - at the BRAIN DEGENERATION SUMMIT

    Yes, my talk on the Brain Degeneration Summit is TODAY (the day I am mailing this weekly wrap up). But don’t worry if you open this late - there is an encore weekend where you can still get my talk - coming up on June 19th and 20th. Click here to get my talk: “EMFs - The Missing Link in Brain Health?”
    Learn how EMFs impact brain health
    5G: Should you be concerned?
    Protecting your brain health
    It’s never too late to make changes to optimize your brain health, it’s also never too early, so get started today to live your best life!

    Remember, many causes of cognitive decline are also related to constant exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMFs), and are treatable — even potentially curable. And for many struggling with neurodegeneration, protecting yourself and your family is crucial.


    In case you need it, here’s the link to join this event. https://braindegeneration.byhealthme...?idev_id=11469 (These links might only open in Chrome.)
    UNLOCKING ADHD & AUTISM WITH PERSONALIZED NUTRITION

    Learn about the link between food sensitivities and behavior challenges, symptoms and testing options. EMF protection is important, clearly, but nutrition can turn things around — from despair to hope, from struggle to improved behavior.

    Get the vital information you need to:
    Understand how diet and nutrition can improve autism and ADHD
    Personalize a special diet that supports health and healing
    Navigate past common picky eater issues
    Empower kids to get involved in the kitchen


    Please pass this event along to those families you know and love who are navigating the spectrum with their kids. Just knowing events like this are out there can add inspiration - and tools - to their journey. https://nourishinghope.byhealthmeans.com/?idev_id=11469
    Discover a Powerful New Masterclass on the: BRAIN - IMMUNE - GUT AXIS

    Make no mistake, your brain is command central, and when one part of the Brain-Immune-Gut Axis becomes defective, due to toxic load (including EMFs), the other parts start to malfunction. Here’s what that looks like:

    * Brain symptoms such as brain fog, fatigue, depression, memory loss, anxiety
    * Immune symptoms such as autoimmune disease, inflammation, infections
    * Gut symptoms such as gas, bloating, heartburn, reflux, IBS
    * And more…

    Removing these triggers and stabilizing your fuel delivery mechanisms can jumpstart your quality of life and heal your body from the inside out!

    I hope you will sign up to attend the upcoming BIG Masterclass, offered at no cost by Dr. Peter Kan. No cost, just priceless information for my community. Don’t miss it!

    This masterclass does a deep dive on immunity and the gut / brain axis and how to reduce inflammation and toxic load.


    Click here to attend and share this event: https://wy270.isrefer.com/go/6260/LloydBurrell/ (These links might only open in Chrome.)
    Thank you for your time today.

    Don’t forget to download your 36-PAGE Neurometabolic Gut Repair Program to reduce inflammation, tame food sensitivities, and optimize your brain, immune and gut health!

    This is loaded with powerful new protocols to protect and improve your gut health to optimize your BRAIN health journey.

    And feel free to share the link: https://wy270.isrefer.com/go/gutrepair/LloydBurrell

    Thank you for your time today. I know there was a lot to cover, but there’s no minimizing how important brain health is - and how, because of neuroplasticity, we can ALWAYS improve our brain.

    To you and your family,

    Lloyd Burrell "
    ElectricSense
    Live a naturally healthy life in our electromagnetic world!
    EMF protection is IMPORTANT
    please share ElectricSense emails
    with your friends and colleagues.
    Please share ElectricSense emails
    with your friends and colleagues.

    Our mailing address is:
    ElectricSense
    132 avenue de rochefort
    Royan 17200
    France
    Last edited by onawah; 12th June 2021 at 19:21.
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

+ Reply to Thread
Page 43 of 43 FirstFirst 1 33 43

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts