The "5G Beast System," Part II

I know, I know..."AGAIN WITH THE CELL PHONE THINGY?"  I'm afraid so folks.  See there's kind of a good reason we're doing a part 2...maybe because it THREATENS ALL LIFE ON OUR PLANET MAYBE???  Or how about it threatens all life on our planet... in as soon as 2 years or sooner, in certain cities?  That might be a good reason too.  I don't know 'bout you all, but I'd kinda like to enjoy my later golden years, and not be cramped into a corner holding my head, complaining about the watermelon sized tumor in my brain, blind, and with my skin crawling every moment of every day.

Add to that, since encountering the usual asleep behavior most people exhume, I can't tell you how many times A.  No one has even HEARD the phrase 5G, let alone does anyone really know the true dangers of this newest technology; and B.  Lumps this into that tired old political pocket, where they don't deal with politics....I MEAN, WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE?  This isn't about politics...THIS CONCERNS YOUR LIFE, YOUR VERY EXISTENCE, FORCHRIST'SSAKE.  And, of course, we always and forever hear letter C.  "Everyone is entitled to their opinions and their beliefs," though it has absolutely NOTHING to do with opinion at all.  Everything I told you in part one is absolute truth, based on facts and figures hammered out by 1000's of studies.  You think I just make this shit up?  Get real.  I do MY homework...unlike the majority of America, who just takes whatever the Propagand....I mean whatever "the news" tells them...or doesn't tell them.  You really believe the news is going to tell you that this billion dollar technology is bad for your health?  REALLY?  Riiiiiiiiight.  Just like your political puppets aren't going to tell you that they need 3 billion dollars to take children in just one county in California, or that we need to pay your elected officials to incessantly appeal cases you win against the government, until you give up or can't afford to continue doing so.  No, your taxes are, more than likely, going to fix the roads they never fix, like just about every other dollar they justify needing to gouge you for these days.  Anyhoo, I digress...per usual.

So I find this video one day, just appeared recently, and I watch it.  Now granted, it's just another one of those "You got three minutes, none of it we have to listen to" kind of things; but the idea is that this is going to be just one of MANY of hundreds of videos we're going to be finding on this in the ever so near future.  Worse yet, there are videos of people fighting this in the EU, and other places in the world...and for good reason!  Here is that video, and you really should endure at least the first ten minutes of it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kp0_zGHH3KA&t=1973s

Then, I'm surfing merrily along, and what do I find?  The granddaddy of all articles on 5G, the one that has it all.  So, part II will be the reprint of this entire web page.  In it, you'll find studies done, facts related, organizations and doctors telling you like it is; and if they can't, where to find someone who DOES know what the truth really is.

I will however, preface this reprint with this:  You guys know I live out on a limb...and yes, you're coming out with me onto that very limb today.  The dangers are indeed real.  But there's more to it, and leave it to me to suggest it....it's not about the dangers.  EVERYONE knows the dangers, that has any coin invested in this.  But there's another reason they're not telling you anything, besides the obvious billions of dollars they're going to make.  Folks, they're putting this everywhere on this blue ball we call home.  Every place they can stick it on the Earth.  Where the natives live, out in the Amazon.  On top of old Smokey.  Over hill and dale.  Hither and yon...even "where no man has gone before."  Why???  One can only speculate, and you can believe I already have.  This is not only going to be your NWO prison grid, where everything you do and everywhere you go will be known by...EVERYBODY (and "every thing" as well; see IoT, the "Internet of things"); the real intention of this is nothing short of a kill zone, people.

C'mon...it's going to be the death of us anyway, all you have to do is read what I'm posting here!  The kind of beams they're going to be flinging at us at the power they're going to be flinging them will kill us in 10-15 years...TOPS.   I am NOT ALONE IN THIS THINKING, NOT BY A FAR CRY!

The only reason people aren't out and out saying it, is because what I'm suggesting doesn't sound like it's real.  Who would want to be so evil that they would go so far as to out and out endanger our very existence?  Oh, but there ARE "those people" out there.  They've been around for hundreds of years, and lately?  They've been coming out of the shadows like GANGBUSTERS!  They're everywhere, and they're not even trying to hide anymore!  They're out there wiping people's brains that have any kind of influence on us sheep at all!

Look, you don't have to listen to me...listen to THEM!  Ted Turner, one of the biggest NEWS moguls of all time wants 250,000 million people here on Earth; AND NO MORE.  Mr. Dead Rocka Fella, who I'm sure has more than programmed his offspring and blood in exactly the same thinking, says he wants a world Government...he's guilty of wanting it...AND he's proud of being guilty of wanting it.  Lady Gaga does her one eye thingy, Little Wayne does his, Rihanna does hers, Jay-Z does his, along with countless others, and almost every one of them says...ON STAGE...IN CONCERT; or in their LYRICS, AND OTHERWISE, "I've sold my soul to the Devil", or "God sucks" in whatever way...and you still doubt what's happening?  These people are influencing your children, and telling them Satan is the way to go...and you just don't get it.  I don't know if they're clones, or brainwashed, or possessed...and I don't care!  Whatever the reason, they are telling your children to DITCH GOD, AND FOLLOW SATAN FOR CRYIN'OUTLOUD.  What more do you need???

And yet, there you are...watching stupid TV, and eating your GMO junkfood, thinking everything's gonna be OK.  The way I see it?  If one way doesn't do you in, another will.  The smart meter idea was great...but it wasn't fool proof.  CELLULAR phones, on the other hand...what are the chances you're gonna do without that?

Enough said.  On with the reprint, and to Hell...LITERALLY, with those who refuse to see.

Cellular Phone Task Force is the site!  Give them credit for helpin' me out here!

CELL PHONES: Questions and Answers

by Arthur Firstenberg 

How much radiation does a cell phone emit, compared to what exists in nature?

If Neil Armstrong had brought a cell phone to the moon in 1969, it would have appeared from earth to be the brightest object in the universe in the microwave spectrum. In the daytime, the sun would have been brighter, but at night, the cell phone would have outshone every star.

There is a reason cell phones are outlawed in Green Bank, West Virginia: even a single cell phone, even from miles away, would blind the radio astronomers there and make it impossible for them to see the stars. Astronomers measure radio waves in units called janskys. A typical star shines at 10 to 100 janskys. The Sun shines at about 500,000 janskys. When you hold a cell phone against your head, you are pumping energy at the rate of about 100,000,000,000,000,000 janskys into your brain.[1]

How does that compare to radiation from a cell tower?

Suppose there is a 2,000-watt cell tower two blocks from your house. The part of your brain next to a cell phone is absorbing up to one hundred thousand times as much radiation from the phone as it is from the tower.[2]

Are the FCC’s exposure limits the same for cell phones and cell towers?

No. Cell phones are exempt from the limits imposed on cell towers. The FCC measures exposure in milliwatts per square centimeter. Depending on frequency, the FCC’s limit for whole body exposure to radiation from distant sources is about one milliwatt per square centimeter (1 mW/cm²). The limit for partial body exposure to a cell phone is approximately 20 mW/cm² (for the brain), which assumes the phone is held at least one and a half centimeters away from your head. It is 50 mW/cm² (for the hands, wrists and ears). If you hold the phone flush against your head, like most people do, or tightly between your head and your shoulder, the exposure to the brain can approach 50 mW/cm² also.[3]

Who set the exposure limits?

A radar scientist named Herman Schwan who was brought to the United States from Germany after World War II as part of Project Paperclip. He made some assumptions about the rate at which the human body is capable of getting rid of heat, and on that basis he estimated that the body could safely absorb an amount of radiation equal to 100 mW/cm². His assumptions were soon proven wrong, since experimental animals died within minutes when exposed to that much radiation. So over the years, the safe level was reduced first to 10 mW/cm² and later to the current limit of 1 mW/cm².

Why is the brain exempt from those limits?

Because those limits would make cell phones impractical. And because new assumptions were made about how much heat the brain could safely absorb, and the rate at which the body could dissipate that heat. It was decided that the brain could be safely heated by up to 1° C
(1.8° F).

Have these assumptions proven correct?

No. A 1° C rise in temperature is usually considered a fever. And although the brain as a whole is heated less than 1° C by a cell phone, the absorption is not uniform. DNA, for example, resonantly absorbs microwave radiation. In experiments done at the Food and Drug Administra­tion during the 1980s, DNA absorbed 400 times as much radiation as expected.[4] Research done at the Max Planck Institute in Germany in 2006 found that brain synapses may be resonantly heated by up to 100° C while the brain as a whole is heated by only 1° C.[5]

I don’t get a headache from my cell phone. Can it be that bad?

Because brain tissue has no pain receptors, we don’t feel the injury. Even a headache doesn’t tell you what’s happening inside your head. Neurosurgen Leif Salford and his colleagues in Sweden found that a single two-hour exposure to a cell phone permanently destroys up to two percent of a rat’s brain cells.[6] Superficially the rats are fine, but two percent of their brain is gone. The experiments gave similar results even when the exposure level was reduced a hundredfold. And in experiments on the blood-brain barrier, they reduced the exposure level ten thousandfold and found that damage to the blood-brain barrier was worse when the exposure level was reduced.[7]

That means that holding the phone away from your head does not protect you. It means that if you use a Bluetooth headset, which emits only 2.5 milliwatts, you are doing more damage to yourself than if you hold the phone to your head. The blood-brain barrier keeps bacteria, virusus, and toxic chemicals out of your brain and maintains the brain at constant pressure. Too much intracranial pressure can lead to a stroke.

How fast does the damage to the blood-brain barrier happen?

Leakage of the blood-brain barrier is detectable within two minutes of exposure and probably begins within seconds.

What do the stroke statistics tell us?

The incidence of stroke overall is steady or declining but it is rising in adults younger than 50,[8] and shockingly so in very young adults. A Danish study published in 2016 examined the rate of strokes in people aged 15 to 30. The annual number of strokes in that age group in Denmark rose 50 percent between 1994 and 2012, and the annual number of transient ischemic attacks (mini-strokes) in that age group tripled.[9]

I’m confused. Which is safer, low power or high power?

Neither. The higher the power, the more heat. The lower the power, the more leakage of the blood-brain barrier. The higher the power, the more your metabolism is disturbed.[10] The lower the power, the more calcium leaks out of your cells.[11] Microwave radiation injures the body in many different ways. It depends on which effect you are looking at.

What about the near field plume? Isn’t a cell phone safer when it is held more than six inches away from your head?

There is no such thing as a near field “plume.” The near field is simply the region near a source of radiation where the electric field is separate from the magnetic field and the strength of either cannot be exactly predicted. There is no sharp boundary between near field and far field and the fundamental properties of the radiation do not change.

What about those shielding products that you stick on one side of your phone to block the radiation in the direction of your brain?

The people who designed those products forgot that your arm, being an electrical conductor, is also an antenna. When you hold a cell phone in your hand, your whole arm, and not just the cell phone, becomes a radio transmitter that sends and receives the cell phone signal and conducts it into the rest of your body. Putting reflective material on one side of the phone doesn’t do very much. To the extent that it does anything, it makes the phone work harder and actually increases the amount of radiation instead of decreasing it. The designers of those products forgot to test them on phones that someone was actually holding.

Is a cell phone safe if I use a wired headset?

In 2000, testing by Consumers’ Association in the UK showed that using a wired headset actually tripled the radiation to the brain. Instead of protecting the user, the wire conducts the radiation from the cell phone directly into the user’s ear and brain.[12] In addition, phones operate at greater power and emit more radiation when held below the level of the head. And if you operate one while it is in your pocket, it is irradiating your hip, colon, and reproductive organs while the headset is irradiating your brain.

Is it safe to keep a cell phone in my pocket when I’m not using it?

That’s what most people do. And total hip replacements have skyrocketed. Between 2000 and 2010 the number of annual hip replacements in the U.S. more than doubled, and the rate of hip replacements among people aged 45-54 more than tripled.[13]

Rates of colon cancer among Americans aged 20-54, which had been declining for decades, began to rise in 1997 when widespread cell phone use began. The rise has been steepest and began earliest (1995) in people aged 20-29: the rate of colon cancer in young men and women aged 20-29 doubled between 1995 and 2013.[14]

Rates of prostate cancer have been rising worldwide since 1997.[15] The number of cases of prostate cancer among Swedish men aged 50-59 was stable for decades until 1996 and rose ninefold between 1997 and 2004.[16] The incidence of metastatic prostate cancer among American men under 55 increased 62% between 2004 and 2013, and nearly doubled for men aged 55-69 during the same period.[17]

Several studies have found that men who keep their cell phones on standby in their pocket or on their belt lower their sperm count by up to 30 percent.[18] A study conducted from 2003 to 2013 found that young men now had lower sperm counts than their elders, and that people born between 1990 and 1995 had on average 40 percent lower sperm counts than men born earlier.[19] Almost every study that has been conducted has found a direct relationship between cell phone use and sperm count, motility, and/or morphology.[20]

Is it safe for women to keep a cell phone in their bra?

Women in their twenties and thirties who keep their cell phones in their bras are getting a distinctive type of breast cancer directly underneath where they keep their phones.[21]

How far does the radiation from my cell phone travel?

The signal goes out forever. It does not just travel to the nearest cell tower, and it does not travel in only that direction. It goes on forever, in all directions, as long as there are no hills or objects in the way. It pollutes your entire neighborhood and it travels upward to the sun and stars. It just keeps on going.

Those few people who owned an analog cell phone back in 1996 may remember how far apart cell towers used to be. As long as there were no hills in the way, you used to be able to get a signal from 90 miles away. The only reason cell towers have to be so close together today is because a single tower can only serve a limited number of people. The more users, the more towers have to be built. Also the more bandwidth, the more towers have to be built: using cell phones as computers and not just phones means there have to be a lot more towers. That, and the fact that digital signals are more subject to interference than analog signals. But the radiation still goes on forever.

Isn’t it my choice? The radiation is out there anyway, so why shouldn’t I use it? I need my cell phone.

There are so many cell towers everywhere today that it is easy to assume you are not making anything worse when you make a cell phone call—that all you are doing is tapping into what’s already out there, like putting one more automobile onto an interstate highway that has already been built.

That is an illusion. When everyone’s phone is turned off, the cell towers are operating at minimal power on one setup channel that has to broadcast at all times in case someone wants to make a call. Things are a little more complex today because more frequencies are in use but that is the basic situation.

What happens when you turn on your phone and make a call is that the nearest cell tower has to turn on a voice channel just for you, which also broadcasts in every direction and also pollutes the whole neighborhood and goes on forever out into the universe. If you have a smart phone and use the Internet the cell tower also opens up a data channel just for you. And in order for you to reach the person you are calling, the cell tower nearest to him or her also has to open up a channel just for that person and send radiation in all directions and that person has to answer their phone and send more radiation in all directions. And on weekdays during the evening commute, and all day Saturday and Sunday, when everyone in the world is on their phone, every cell tower has hundreds of channels operating on hundreds of frequencies and emits much more radiation than late at night when everyone is off their phone. When your phone is off, multiple cell towers are quieter. When you are using your phone, you are polluting your own and at least one other person’s neighborhood.

I only keep my phone for emergencies when I travel. That has minimal impact, right?

The other thing that happens when you make a call is you are demanding service. When you turn on your phone in a remote location where cell phone service is poor or non-existent, your provider registers that as a request for service. If it gets enough requests for service in that location, it will build a cell tower there. Even in a city, when more people make calls at the same time than there is capacity for in the nearest tower, or when everyone starts using more bandwidth or gets more apps than the tower can handle, calls start to be dropped, each dropped call is registered as a request for service, and soon your city has applications for even more cell towers to handle the increased traffic.

I got sick from a smart phone. My flip phone is much safer, right?

Smart phones didn’t come among us until 2004. But the first wave of digital, voice-only cell towers in the United States in 1996 killed at least ten thousand people in a matter of months,[22] and millions more from diabetes, heart disease, and cancer in the succeeding years.[23]

How did the Cellular Phone Task Force get its name?

Pelda Levey and I named our organization the Cellular Phone Task Force in 1996 with several purposes in mind, foremost among them being that the threat to our world that we were facing was and is the cell phone. WiFi came among us in 2001, smart phones in 2004, smart meters in 2007, 5G in 2017, each building on a foundation that has become so big and so omnipresent that most people, even most of the injured, take it for granted. Like the proverbial blind men touching the different extremities of the elephant, we have become oblivious of the beast itself. The problem with smart phones isn’t that they are smart, but that they are phones. Even smart meters are only an arm of the wireless torso, the central creature to which it is attached and to which our civilization and culture have become so dependent, in the short span of two decades, that we can no longer imagine that it is not only possible but necessary to live without it. Only then will we stop 5G. Only then will we keep our landlines. Only then will we save our planet.

[1] 1 jansky = 10^-26 mW/m²/Hz. The values given are for cell phone frequencies.

[2] Exposure decreases with the square of the distance.

[3] Cell phones are regulated by their Specific Absorption Rate (SAR), which is given in watts per kilogram (W/kg). The SAR limit for cell phones in the U.S. is 1.6 W/kg for the brain and 4 W/kg for the hands, wrists and ears. The far-field equivalents are 20 mW/cm² for the brain and 50 mW/cm² for the hands, wrists and ears.

[4] Mays Swicord, Chain-Length Dependent Microwave Absorption of DNA, Biopolymers 22: 2513-2516 (1983).

[5] C. Holtze et al., The Microwave Absorption of Emulsions Containing Aqueous Micro- and Nanodroplets: A Means to Optimize Microwave Heating, Journal of Colloid and Interface Science 302: 651-657 (2006); Max Rauner, “Hot Conversations,” Die Zeit, Aug. 21, 2006 (in German).

[6] L. G. Salford et al., Nerve Cell Damage in Mammalian Brain after Exposure to Microwaves from GSM Mobile Phones, Environmental Health Perspectives 111(7): 881-883 (2003).

[7] B. R. R. Persson et al., Blood-brain Barrier Permeability in Rats Exposed to Electromagnetic Fields Used in Wireless Communications, Wireless Networks 3: 455-461 (1997).

[8] Y. Bejot et al., Trends in the Incidence of Ischaemic Stroke in Young Adults Between 1985 and 2011: the Dijon Stroke Registry, Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry 85: 509-513 (2014); J. Putaala et al., Analysis of 1008 consecutive Patients Aged 15 5o 49 with First-Ever Ischemic Stroke: the Helsinki Young Stroke Registry, Stroke 40: 1195-1203 (2009);
A. Rosengren et al., Twenty-four-year Trends in the Incidence of Ischemic Stroke in Sweden from 1987 to 2010, Stroke 44: 2388-2393 (2013).

[9] M. Tibæk et al., Increasing Incidence of Hospitalization for Stroke and Transient Ischemic Attack in Young Adults: A Registry-Based Study, Journal of the American Heart Association 5: e003158 (2016).

[10] A. Firstenberg, The Invisible Rainbow: A History of Electricity and Life (AGB Press, 2017), chapters 10-14; A. Sanders et al., The Differential Effects of 200, 591, and 2,450 MHz Radiation on Rat Brain Energy Metabolism,” Bioelectromagnetics 5: 419-33 (1984); M. Blank and R. Goodman, Electromagnetic Fields Stress Living Cells, Pathophysiology 16(2-3): 71-78 (2009).

[11] Calcium efflux from brain cells occurs at specific power “windows.” Reducing the power 3000-fold can quadruple the effect. S. Dutta et al., Microwave Radiation-Induced Calcium Ion Flux from Human Neuroblastoma Cells: Dependence on Depth of Amplitude Modulation and Exposure Time. In Biological Effects of Electropollution, S. Dutta and R. Millis, eds. (Information Ventures, 1986), pp. 63-69.

[12] “Special Report: The Ring of Truth.” Which? Magazine, April 11-17, 2000.

[13] M. L. Wolford et al., Hospitalization for Total Hip Replacement Among Inpatients Aged 45 and Over: United States, 2000-2010, NCHS Data Brief No. 186, Februrary 2015.

[14] R. L. Siegel et al., Colorectal Cancer Incidence Patterns in the United States, 1974-2013, Journal of the National Cancer Institute 109(8): djw322 (2017).

[15] M. C. S. Wong et al., Global Incidence and Mortality for Prostate Cancer: Analysis of Temporal Patterns and Trends in 36 countries, European Urology 70: 862-874 (2016).

[16] Ö. Hallberg and O. Johansson, Apparent Decreases in Swedish Public Health Indicators after 1997 – Are They Due to Improved Diagnostics or to Environmental Factors? Pathophysiology 16(1): 43-46 (2009).

[17] A. B. Weiner et al., Increasing Incidence of Metastatic Prostate Cancer in the United States (2004-2013), Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases 19: 395-397 (2016).

[18] I. Fejes et al., Relationship between Regular Cell Phone Use and Human Semen Quality, Abstracts of the 20th Annual Meeting of the ESHRE, Berlin, Germany, 27-30 June 2004, p. i57; A. Zilberlicht et cl., Habits of Cell Phone Usage and Sperm Quality – Does It Warrant Attention?, Reproductive BioMedicine Online 31: 421-426 (2015).

[19] G. M. Centola et al., Decline in Sperm Count and Motility in Young Adult Men from 2003 to 2013: Observations from a U.S. Sperm Bank, Andrology 4: 270-276 (2016).

[20] La Vignera et al., Effects of the Exposure to Mobile Phones on Male Reproduction: A Review of the Literature, Journal of Andrology, 33(3): 350-56 (2012); J. A. Adams et al., Effect of Mobile Telephones on Sperm Quality: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis, Environment International 70: 106-12 (2014); K. Liu et al., Association between Mobile Phone Use and Semen Quality: a Systemic Review and Meta-analysis, Andrology 2: 491-501 (2016); B. J. Houston et al., The Effects of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Radiation on Sperm Function, Reproduction 152: R263-R276 (2016);

[21] J. G. West et al., Multifocal Breast Cancer in Young Wemen with Prolonged Contact between Their Breasts and Their Cellular Phones, Case Reports in Medicine, article ID 354682 (2013).

[22] A. Firstenberg, “PCS Kills Ten Thousand,” No Place To Hide 1(4): 6-7 (1998); A. Firstenberg, “Mortality Statistics (continued),” No Place To Hide 2(2): 11-14 (1999).

[23] A. Firstenberg, The Invisible Rainbow: A History of Electricity and Life (AGB Press, 2017), chapters 11-13. The Invisible Rainbow is available for purchase at www.cellphonetaskforce.org.

5G - FROM BLANKETS TO BULLETS

by Arthur Firstenberg

The single most important fact about 5G that nobody is talking about is called “phased array.” It will totally change the way cell towers and cell phones are constructed and will transform the blanket of radiation which has enveloped our world for two decades into a million powerful beams whizzing by us at all times. Blake Levitt, author of Electromagnetic Fields: A Consumer’s Guide to the Issues and How to Protect Ourselves (Harcourt Brace, 1995), brought this to my attention. A mutual friend, with whom I was speaking during the campaign to defeat S.B. 649 in California, passed on a message from Blake: “5G antennas will be phased arrays; Arthur will know what that means.” And I did.

Phased arrays were one of the first things I learned about in the very beginning of my long, involuntary journey from medical student to campaigner against wireless technology. After I was injured by X-rays in 1980, I began to read everything I could get my hands on that had to do with electromagnetic radiation and its effects on life. And one of the first books I read was Paul Brodeur’s The Zapping of America (W.W. Norton, 1977).

Early warnings

Brodeur was a staff writer for the New Yorker who had purchased property on Cape Cod, Massachusetts, only to discover that 30 miles inland, across the bay from his future home, the Air Force was planning to construct the world’s most powerful radar station. It was going to scan the Atlantic Ocean as a key early warning element protecting us against the threat of sea-launched ballistic missiles from the Soviet Union. Although it emitted an average power of only 145,000 watts, similar to some FM radio stations, it did not broadcast that energy from only a single antenna and it did not spread that energy out uniformly in all directions. Instead, it had 3,600 antennas arranged in two “phased arrays” of 1,800 antennas each. The antennas in each array worked together as a unit to focus all their energy into a narrow, steerable beam. Each beam had an effective power of four billion watts, and the peak radiation level exceeded 0.3 milliwatt per square centimeter—the FCC’s safety limit today—at a distance of ten miles in front of the radar station. The facility was called PAVE PAWS (Precision Acquisition of Vehicle Entry Phased Array Warning System).

The Defense Department acknowledged in a 1975 report, quoted by Brodeur, that such systems “energize thousands of operational elements, are electronically steered at high search rates, and operate at a frequency range having a maximum whole body energy transfer to man and for which little bioeffects data exists.”

Shortly after I read this, I discovered firsthand what some of the bioeffects were. Attempting to finish my M.D. almost cost me my life. I collapsed one day with all the symptoms of a heart attack, whereupon I resigned from school and moved up to Mendocino to recover. There I was in the path of the other PAVE PAWS, the one that scanned the Pacific Ocean. This PAVE PAWS was due east of Mendocino, in California’s Central Valley at Beale Air Force Base. And for nine months, every evening at precisely 7:00 p.m., no matter where I was or what I was doing, my chest would tighten and I would be unable to catch my breath for the next two hours. At precisely 9:00 p.m., my body would relax and I could breathe. I lived in Mendocino from 1982 through 1984, and although I eventually recovered my health, I was always aware of an uncomfortable pressure in my chest whenever I was on the coast. I also lived in Mendocino from 1999 to 2004, and felt that same discomfort whenever I was there, and always felt it suddenly vanish when I drove out of range of PAVE PAWS, and suddenly return at the same point on my journey home.

Directed beams

5G is going to be at a much higher frequency range, which means the antennas are going to be much smaller—small enough to fit inside a smartphone—but like in PAVE PAWS they are going to work together in a phased array, and like in PAVE PAWS they are going to concentrate their energy in narrow, steerable high power beams. The arrays are going to track each other, so that wherever you are, a beam from your smartphone is going to be aimed directly at the base station (cell tower), and a beam from the base station is going to be aimed directly at you. If you walk between someone’s phone and the base station, both beams will go right through your body. The beam from the tower will hit you even if you are standing near someone who is on a smartphone. And if you are in a crowd, multiple beams will overlap and be unavoidable.

At present, smartphones emit a maximum of about two watts, and usually operate at a power of less than a watt. That will still be true of 5G phones, however inside a 5G phone there may be 8 tiny arrays of 8 tiny antennas each, all working together to track the nearest cell tower and aim a narrowly focused beam at it. The FCC has recently adopted rules allowing the effective power of those beams to be as much as 20 watts. Now if a handheld smartphone sent a 20-watt beam through your body, it would far exceed the exposure limit set by the FCC. What the FCC is counting on is that there is going to be a metal shield between the display side of a 5G phone and the side with all the circuitry and antennas. That shield will be there to protect the circuitry from electronic interference that would otherwise be caused by the display and make the phone useless. But it will also function to keep most of the radiation from traveling directly into your head or body, and therefore the FCC is allowing 5G phones to come to market that will have an effective radiated power that is ten times as high as for 4G phones. What this will do to the user’s hands, the FCC does not say. And who is going to make sure that when you stick a phone in your pocket, the correct side is facing your body? And who is going to protect all the bystanders from radiation that is coming in their direction that is ten times as strong as it used to be?

And what about all the other 5G equipment that is going to be installed in all your computers, appliances, and automobiles? The FCC calls handheld phones “mobile stations.” Transmitters in cars are also “mobile stations.” But the FCC has also issued rules for what it calls ”transportable stations,” which it defines as transmitting equipment that is used in stationary locations and not in motion, such as local hubs for wireless broadband in your home or business. The FCC’s new rules allow an effective radiated power of 300 watts for such equipment.

Enormous power

The situation with cell towers is, if anything, worse. So far the FCC has approved bands of frequencies around 24 GHz, 28 GHz, 38 GHz, 39 GHz, and 48 GHz for use in 5G stations, and is proposing to add 32 GHz, 42 GHz, 50 GHz, 71-76 GHz, 81-86 GHz, and above 95 GHz to the soup. These have tiny wavelengths and require tiny antennas. At 48 GHz, an array of 1,024 antennas will measure only 4 inches square. And the maximum radiated power from a base station will probably not be that large—tens or hundreds of watts. But just as with PAVE PAWS, arrays containing such large numbers of antennas will be able to channel the energy into highly focused beams, and the effective radiated power will be enormous. The rules adopted by the FCC allow a 5G base station operating in the millimeter range to emit an effective radiated power of up to 30,000 watts per 100 MHz of spectrum. And when you consider that some of the frequency bands the FCC has made available will allow telecom companies to buy up to
3 GHz of contiguous spectrum at auction, they will legally be allowed to emit an effective radiated power of up to 900,000 watts if they own that much spectrum. The base stations emitting power like that will be located on the sidewalk. They will be small rectangular structures mounted on top of utility poles.

The reason the companies want so much power is because millimeter waves are easily blocked by objects and walls and require tremendous power to penetrate inside buildings and communicate with all the devices that we own that are going to part of the Internet of Things. The reason such tiny wavelengths are required is because of the need for an enormous amount of bandwidth—a hundred times as much bandwidth as we formerly used—in order to have smart homes, smart businesses, smart cars, and smart cities, i.e. in order to connect so many of our possessions, big and small, to the internet, and make them do everything we want them to do as fast as we want them to do it. The higher the frequency, the greater the bandwidth—but the smaller the waves. Base stations have to be very close together—100 meters apart in cities—and they have to blast out their signals in order to get them inside homes and buildings. And the only way to do this economically is with phased arrays and focused beams that are aimed directly at their targets. What happens to birds that fly through the beams, the FCC does not say. And what happens to utility workers who climb utility poles and work next to these structures everyday? A 30,000-watt beam will cook an egg, or an eye, at a distance of a few feet.

The power from a base station will be distributed among as many devices as are connected at the same time. When a lot of people are using their phones simultaneously, everyone’s phone will slow down but the amount of radiation in each beam will be less. When you are the only person using your phone—for example, late at night—your data speed will be blisteringly fast but most of the radiation from the cell tower will be aimed at you.

Deep penetration into the body

Another important fact about radiation from phased array antennas is this: it penetrates much deeper into the human body and the assumptions that the FCC’s exposure limits are based on do not apply. This was brought to everyone’s attention by Dr. Richard Albanese of Brooks Air Force Base in connection with PAVE PAWS and was reported on in Microwave News in 2002. When an ordinary electromagnetic field enters the body, it causes charges to move and currents to flow. But when extremely short electromagnetic pulses enter the body, something else happens: the moving charges themselves become little antennas that re-radiate the electromagnetic field and send it deeper into the body. These re-radiated waves are called Brillouin precursors. They become significant when either the power or the phase of the waves changes rapidly enough. 5G will probably satisfy both requirements. This means that the reassurance we are being given—that these millimeter waves are too short to penetrate far into the body—is not true.

In the United States, AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, and T-Mobile are all competing to have 5G towers, phones, and other devices commercially available as early as the end of 2018. AT&T already has experimental licenses and has been testing 5G-type base stations and user equipment at millimeter wave frequencies in Middletown, New Jersey; Waco, Austin, Dallas, Plano, and Grapevine, Texas; Kalamazoo, Michigan; and South Bend, Indiana. Verizon has experimental licenses and has been conducting trials in Houston, Euless, and Cypress, Texas; South Plainfield and Bernardsville, New Jersey; Arlington, Chantilly, Falls Church, and Bailey’s Crossroads, Virginia; Washington, DC; Ann Arbor, Michigan; Brockton and Natick, Massachusetts; Atlanta; and Sacramento. Sprint has experimental licenses in Bridgewater, New Brunswick, and South Plainfield, New Jersey; and San Diego. T-Mobile has experimental licenses in Bellevue and Bothell, Washington; and San Francisco.

– January 22, 2018

WIFI IN THE SKY

WI-FI IN THE SKY

“Just a little rain falling all around

The grass lifts its head to the heavenly sound

Just a little rain, just a little rain

What have they done to the rain?”

– Malvina Reynolds

On September 23, 1998, 66 satellites, launched into low orbit by the Iridium Corporation, commenced broadcasting to the first ever satellite telephones. Those phones would work equally as well in mid-ocean, and in Antarctica, as in the middle of Los Angeles—a remarkable achievement.

But telephone interviews revealed that on that day exactly, electrically sensitive people all over the world experienced stabbing pains in their chest, knife-like sensations in their head, nosebleeds, asthma attacks, and other signs of severe electrical illness. Many did not think they were going to make it. Statistics published by the Centers for Disease Control reveal that the national death rate rose 4 to 5 percent during the following two weeks. Thousands of homing pigeons lost their way during those two weeks, all over the United States.

Several companies are now competing to provide not just cell phone service, but Wi-Fi and the equivalent of 5G, to every square inch of the earth from satellites in space in low earth orbit. Their target dates are 2019 or 2020. They are planning not 66 satellites, but tens of thousands of satellites. There isn’t much time to prevent a global ecological catastrophe.

The companies with the biggest schemes include:

SpaceX: 12,000 satellites

OneWeb: 4560 satellites 

Boeing: 2956 satellites

Spire Global: 972 satellites

Honeywell has already has signed a memorandum of understanding to become OneWeb’s first large customer—it plans to provide high-speed WiFi on business, commercial, and military aircraft throughout the world.

SpaceX would like to provide the equivalent of 5G to every person on the planet.

Press image from OneWeb’s website

In addition to microwaving the Earth, these plans have the potential to destroy the Earth’s ozone layer and add to global warming.

The New York Times (May 14, 1991, p. 4) quoted Aleksandr Dunayev of the Russian Space Agency saying “About 300 launches of the space shuttle each year would be a catastrophe and the ozone layer would be completely destroyed.”

At that time, the world averaged only 12 rocket launches per year. Maintaining a fleet of 12,000 satellites, such as SpaceX is proposing to do, each with an expected lifespan of 5 years, will likely involve enough yearly rocket launches to be an environmental catastrophe.

Elon Musk’s SpaceX, and probably the other huge satellite schemes, would require the launch of hundreds of kerosene-burning rockets annually.

It is a misconception that liquid fuels, such as kerosene, are environmentally friendly and destroy no ozone. This was analyzed in 2009 by scientists at the Aerospace Corporation in a paper titled “Limits on the Space Launch Market Related to Stratospheric Ozone Depletion.” They found that although liquid fuels do not contain chlorine, they still produce significant amounts of nitrogen and hydrogen oxides, as well as water vapor and soot when burned, all of which destroy ozone. “The assumption that liquid rocket engines are green as far as ozone is concerned is not correct,” they wrote. Even if liquid fuels optimistically destroyed only 2% as much ozone as solid fuels, a 50-fold increase in the rate of rocket launches, which is about to happen unless the world wakes up, would destroy just as much ozone. And the authors state that their 2% figure is little better than a guess because of “the nearly complete lack of data and models.”

Martin Ross of the Aerospace Corporation was also the lead author of a paper published in 2010 titled “Potential climate impact of black carbon emitted by rockets.” The authors developed a computer model to predict what would happen in different parts of the planet if the number of launches burning kerosene (then 25 annually) increased by a factor of 10. Their model predicts as much as a 4% loss of ozone over the tropics and subtropics, as much as a 3-degree Celsius summertime increase in temperature over the South Pole, more than a 1-degree Celsius overall increase in Antarctic temperature, and a decrease in Antarctic sea ice by 5% or more.

In a 2011 Aerospace article titled “Rocket Soot Emissions and Climate Change,” Ross states “The Aerospace study shows that the radiative forcing of soot from a given hydrocarbon rocket scenario is as much as 100,000 times that of the carbon dioxide from the rockets.” Obviously, the soot or black carbon emissions would be an important factor in accelerating climate change if the planned launches move forward.

Solid state rocket exhaust is no better. It contains ozone-destroying chlorine, water vapor (a greenhouse gas), and aluminum oxide particles, which seed stratospheric clouds. Complete ozone destruction is observed in the exhaust plumes of solid state rockets.

The recent finding, in 2018 , that stratospheric ozone is still declining despite the Montreal Protocol took everyone by surprise. The unrestrained proliferation of ever-more-powerful rocket launches may be one factor, but nobody is paying attention.

An international coalition, Global Union Against Radiation Deployment from Space (GUARDS) has been formed.

5G from Space

On Valentine’s Day, 2018, Elon Musk announced an audacious plan to launch 12,000 low-orbit satellites “to beam an ultrafast, lag-free Internet connection” to every square inch of the earth. They will contain PHASED ARRAY ANTENNAS and will operate in the MILLIMETER WAVE SPECTRUM. In other words, 5G FROM SPACE. The first two test satellites were launched on a Falcon 9 rocket one week later. News reports say “The initial satellites in the network are expected to come online next year.”

Each satellite will be the size of a mini-refrigerator and weigh about 400 kg. 4,425 satellites will be at an altitude of about 700 miles and 7,518 satellites will be at an altitude of only 210 miles.

To give you an idea of just how radical of an assault this will be, as of September 2017 there were a grand total of 1,738 operating satellites in orbit. About 1,000 of them were in low orbit (less than 1,000 miles above the earth). None of them were lower than 250 miles in altitude. Only 208 low orbit satellites were used for communication. Only 125 (Iridium and Globalstar) were for cell phone service. None of them provided high speed data. None of them were phased arrays.

The earth has never experienced anything like this. Even if Musk’s Falcon Heavy rocket could launch 100 of these satellites at a time, which is likely, that still means 120 rocket launches. If he wants to get them all up there in a year’s time, that’s one launch every three days. And there are other companies that want to launch thousands of satellites each to do the same thing. OneWeb plans to launch the first ten of its planned 4,560 satellites in May 2018. Boeing plans a fleet of 2,956 satellites.

The earth’s protective ozone layer is still being depleted, scientists have just discovered, even though everyone thought the problem was solved by the Montreal Protocol. With so many rockets blasting holes in the atmosphere these days, that could be the reason. But nobody is talking about it.

The most current satellite database, kept by the Union of Concerned Scientists, is here: https://s3.amazonaws.com/ucs-documents/nuclear-weapons/sat-database/9-1-17-update/UCS_Satellite_Database_9-1-2017.xlsx

Musk’s scheme alone could cause catastrophic ozone loss, and it could also destroy all life on the planet. Musk’s company, SpaceX, is calling this project “Starlink.”

GUARDS (Global Union Against Radiation Deployment from Space (http://stopglobalwifi.org) is actively opposing this project. We need people with ideas, connections, and skills. Contact me if you want to help.

Now these are just the primary articles.  I fully expect you to read even more, at their primary website, http://www.cellphonetaskforce.org

Other places you can go for more information:

www.stopthecrime.net
www.thefullertoninformer.com

and just go to youtube, type in 5G Dangers, and wait for all the fun to begin.