-Gila Region Community News, Calendar, Forum-

Reader Supported Silver City News & SW New Mexico, Grant County NM, Gila NF
* Login   * Register

* FAQ    * Search

All times are UTC - 7 hours

News     Columns     Food: Growing, Fixing     Features     Water     Health     Business     Education     DIY & How-tos     Classifieds     Forum     Home 

Silver City Food Coop



We Are Reader Supported
Your recurring contribution goes to support the Forum, Calendar, and Email List, which exists to further local, sustainable, place-based community.
MONTHLY RECURRING GIFT
    Bill Me Now For: $

ONE-TIME GIFT
Bill Me Now For: $

You may also mail a check or cash to
Moses Clark
PO Box 1792
Silver City, N.M. 88062


Get your ad here








Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 23 posts ] 
Author ------ Message
 Author: necessejamais
PostPosted: Sun Jun 03, 2018 10:00 am 
IF YOU WANT SOMETHING ELSE TO BE DISCUSSED, START YOUR OWN TOPIC. "How come you made the movie you made, and not the one I would have made?" :D https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDW7PViQts0

*Dangers of 5G, from Newsweek: http://www.newsweek.com/migratory-birds ... ion-934830
"RADIATION FROM CELL PHONES, WIFI ARE HURTING THE BIRDS AND THE BEES; 5G MAY MAKE IT WORSE"

*The Nation discussing the risks of 5G infrastructure implementation:
https://www.thenation.com/article/how-b ... stigation/

*Human chain June 16-17, in Segovia, Spain, protesting 5G implementation:
https://www.stop5g.electroyquimicosensibles.org/

"Los riesgos para la salud de los Campos Electromagnéticos no-ionizantes despiertan polémica.

Sin embargo, la evidencia científica que señala graves peligros va creciendo: incremento de riesgo de cáncer, infertilidad, deficits en el aprendizaje y la memoria, trastornos neurológicos, electrohipersensibilidad,…

En los últimos años hemos asistido a denuncias de colectivos ciudadanos y de científicos, investigadores y expertos (independientes de la industria) sobre los conflictos de interés de los comités que deciden sobre los niveles permitidos a los que estamos expuestos toda la población.

Según diversos expertos cada vez más investigaciones apuntan a la necesidad de elevar la clasificación de la radiación de radiofrecuencias como carcinógeno a 2A o incluso a 1. (Telefonía móvil, wifi, Teléfonos inalámbricos DECT,…) Esto unido a la evidencia de importantes efectos biológicos no térmicos refuerza la pertinencia de la aplicación del principio de precaución en lo relativo a la bajada de los niveles de exposición, con especial atención a los colectivos más vulnerables como son los niños.

En contraste, el avance hacia la tecnología 5G implica un aumento radical de los niveles de contaminación electromagnética. Por ello 180 médicos y científicos de 36 países han escrito una carta pública a la Unión Europea pidiendo una moratoria en su implantación."


Last edited by necessejamais on Thu Jun 07, 2018 10:29 am, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: JE1947
PostPosted: Mon Jun 04, 2018 5:07 am 
OF ALL THE ISSUES that used to be covered here, this is what emerges? And endless comments about Western's physical prowess, ways of spending? This is what we discuss?
Sorry, but there are other things that used to get coverage here ... I may have missed some ... I don't read much beyond the latest "head lines" about some sports matter at Western.
Whats going on in our country and this? Surely important to some. I will see if I can run this through a translator program ... the Defense Department had a classified program that tested machine intelligence that translated any number of foreign languages that were from nations we had tension with. It was an early program in the 1980s. Google has such a program.
I ran into Van Clothier the other day, and he said he had done 80 separate water harvesting actions, I believe, solely in Silver City.
One is mine.
I love seeing mine fill six or seven times a year, and have planted flowers and a tree there ... and we spoke of what another 80 would accomplish. Or double that. The people who want to sequester water continue to jerk around with Plans that tilt towards a diversion of the Gila River. Hey! Another option! $1000 for every resident of Catron, Grant, Hidalgo and Luna Counties. In an effort to state that such plans might not be for every one ... each person can sign away their right to one thousand of water harvesting measures ... too much government? Well, if that is their view, let the rest of us use our $1000 to add to the overall harvesting of rain water, when it comes.
If you've driven up Market Street when it pours, you'll see that the erosion, and junk that used to wash down the street and often require a mechanical street clean up ... has been moderated. That's my neighborhood. It looks pretty good. Local solutions, local jobs, local conservation of "the rain that falls on the just and unjust." Demand that that $1000 per person be freed up for more water harvesting. Imagine God raining down on all of us, as split as we are ... here ... use this as a gift from me. I've taken many photos of my water harvesting pool, and feel so happy to have been part of that project. In S. Korea and then South Vietnam, the monsoon for guys sitting in foxholes night after night, fording raging streams, sliding and slipping around in the mud until we looked like pigs in the morning when we woke up, with leech check a normal part of the wake up procedures ... well, that was where we were in a war many only now begin to say to those who fought it: "Thank you for your service. I was ... whatever ... for, against, felt it was pathetic encroachment on the power of others ... but for you, who were there ... thank you for your service!" If people only knew how much Agent Orange is killing Vietnam veterans off now. To be a person who visits the VA, WE Vietnam Vets KNOW that we are now lined up against a wall that will claim more of us. At 71, I wonder ... when?
I hope and pray I have a chance to serve and please God by helping people in someway to participate in a miracle ... local government demands $1000 in grant money, perhaps coupled with other monies, to harvest more water through simple methods. What a miracle these counties could be to the rest of the state. Go to Silver City, or Deming, or Duncan, and see how that money has been used to harvest one of the purest gifts God gives.
Let this forum cover the range of issues it used to. Please. I am not someone people likely give much credence to. That's fine. Don't need that. But that water that pools in my front yard ... the changes that have come there ... the water that pours into my rain barrels that can be released more slowly ... two more 150 gallon barrels and associated gutters .... wow. Big stuff for an old guy to see happen.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: BigBird
PostPosted: Mon Jun 04, 2018 10:31 am 
Credence to you!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: Kevin B
PostPosted: Mon Jun 04, 2018 12:24 pm 
The seed topic here is not asserting that artificial electromagnetic radiation causes harmful tissue or cellular effects, but rather disruption in orientation and guidance effecting migration and spatial senses. The claim suggests this result is altering the behavior of some life forms consequential enough to explain the extinction of species. Arguably if this is true what's under discussion here could have a dramatic effect on communications technologies and their attendant market and financial interests. What's more, the basic claim does sound plausible, and given the way wireless communications have become interleaved into society such an emerging knowledge could lead to profound and potentially even abrupt social changes. Hardly is this irrelevant, which brings me to asks, is it true?

Advancing the issue seems to be a body of knowledge from various research initiatives drawn together by a European Agency who calls itself EKLIPSE. Their website at http://www.eklipse-mechanism.eu/home sounds compelling. In the small print at the bottom of their page is the statement, "This project has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement number 690474."

So with all this in mind I sought to find out more about this agency and its agenda.

So far, I can find no references to EKLIPSE. Notably there's no Wikipedia discussion of it, and no mention of the group or its claims other than in a Newsweek article, not exactly a first line scientific publication. I can also find no confirmation of their connection with the Horizon 2020 project and every search return for the cited grant number points back EKLIPSE's website.

This is not to say the organization or its claims are illegitimate, but nor does its presence seem consistent with the standing of a peer accepted program within the scientific community. This whole thing could be a ruse, and given the scope of what's at issue here I'd expect the source of this pronouncement to hold up better to a bit of surface drilling.

Has anyone else dug into this and uncovered anything more substantial?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: necessejamais
PostPosted: Mon Jun 04, 2018 3:12 pm 
Unless you can personally prove that artificial RF wireless is safe, move along. Reading what an industry portrays as fact, doesn't qualify anyone to determine what discussion is "legitimate." The NCBI link below refers to an abstract of a peer-reviewed, double-blinded study by an industry-independent neurology department at an accredited university. There are thousands of similar studies proving that we must upgrade our RF wireless exposure safety standards, unless we want many people who are kids now to die of neuroblastoma in their late 30s. I posted about the human chain in Segovia because Europe already recognizes artificial RF wireless as a public health problem. This was the "seed topic." I added the other links because they're related. There is no such thing as a safe power level for artificial wireless frequencies. In one way or another, everyone is electromagnetically sensitive, as artificial wireless EMR's ability to penetrate the blood-brain barrier means that it can trigger any disease from asthma to neurodegenerative to psychosis to stroke. The telecom industry has a lot more money than industry-independent researchers. This is how 'big wireless' has prevented RF wireless from being considered definitively carcinogenic, by the W.H.O., though for now, it's recognized as a Class 2B carcinogen by the W.H.O. (This means that wireless RF will cause cancer in a certain proportion of the global population, it's just not considered predictable HOW MANY people will get cancer from artificial wireless, or what groups are put at higher risk w/ this tech). Hope this clarifies something for you. Take care. :)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21793784

Electromagnetic hypersensitivity: evidence for a novel neurological syndrome.
McCarty DE1, Carrubba S, Chesson AL, Frilot C, Gonzalez-Toledo E, Marino AA.
Author information
Abstract
OBJECTIVE:
We sought direct evidence that acute exposure to environmental-strength electromagnetic fields (EMFs) could induce somatic reactions (EMF hypersensitivity).

METHODS:
The subject, a female physician self-diagnosed with EMF hypersensitivity, was exposed to an average (over the head) 60-Hz electric field of 300 V/m (comparable with typical environmental-strength EMFs) during controlled provocation and behavioral studies.

RESULTS:
In a double-blinded EMF provocation procedure specifically designed to minimize unintentional sensory cues, the subject developed temporal pain, headache, muscle twitching, and skipped heartbeats within 100 s after initiation of EMF exposure (p < .05). The symptoms were caused primarily by field transitions (off-on, on-off) rather than the presence of the field, as assessed by comparing the frequency and severity of the effects of pulsed and continuous fields in relation to sham exposure. The subject had no conscious perception of the field as judged by her inability to report its presence more often than in the sham control.

DISCUSSION:
The subject demonstrated statistically reliable somatic reactions in response to exposure to subliminal EMFs under conditions that reasonably excluded a causative role for psychological processes.

CONCLUSION:
EMF hypersensitivity can occur as a bona fide environmentally inducible neurological syndrome.

Y'know all those LED lights in laptops, vehicle headlights, street lamps, etc.? They damage the retina, which is why many of us are stuck using older computers (pre-2009), older vehicles, and living outside city limits.

https://www.news-medical.net/news/20170 ... amage.aspx

"We did not expect such high cell death. It should be taken into consideration that the life expectancy of these animals is 10 years and that they were only exposed to light for 3 months.

At that time both dead neurons (23%) and indicators of the death process were very high compared to the control animals and the expected results."

http://www.ehs-mcs.org/fichiers/1441982 ... INITIF.pdf

"We, physicians, acting in accordance with the Hippocratic Oath, we, scientists, acting in the
name of scientific truth, we all, medical doctors and researchers working in different countries worldwide, hereby state in full independence of judgment,
 that a high and growing number of persons are suffering from EHS and MCS worldwide;
 that EHS and MCS affect women, men and children;
 that on the basis of the presently available peer-reviewed scientific evidence of
adverse health effects of electromagnetic fields (EMFs) and various chemicals, and on
the basis of clinical and biological investigations of patients, EHS is associated with
exposure to EMFs and MCS with chemical exposure;
 that many frequencies of the electromagnetic spectrum (radio- and microwavefrequencies
as well as low and extremely low frequencies) and multiple chemicals are
involved in the occurrence of EHS and MCS respectively;
 that the trigger for illness can be acute high intensity exposure or chronic very low
intensity exposure and that reversibility can be obtained with a natural environment
characterized by limited levels of anthropogenic EMFs and chemicals;
 that current case-control epidemiological studies and provocative studies aiming at
reproducing EHS and/or MCS are scientifically difficult to construct and due to the
present design flaws are in fact not suitable to prove or disprove causality; in particular
because objective inclusion/exclusion criteria and endpoint evaluation criteria need to
be more clearly defined; because responses to EMFs/chemicals are highly individual
and depend on a variety of exposure parameters; and finally because test conditions
are often reducing signal-to-noise ratio thereby obscuring evidence of a possible
effect;
 that the nocebo effect is not a relevant nor a valid explanation when considering
scientifically valuable blind provocation studies, since objective biological markers are
detectable in patients as well as in animals;
 that new approaches are emerging for clinical and biological diagnosis and for
monitoring of EHS and MCS including the use of reliable biomarkers;
 that EHS and MCS may be two faces of the same hypersensitivity-associated
pathological condition and that this condition is causing serious consequences to
health, professional and family life;
 finally that EHS and MCS ought therefore to be fully recognized by international and
national institutions with responsibility for human health.
In view of our present scientific knowledge, we thereby stress all national and international
bodies and institutions, more particularly the World Health Organization (WHO), to recognize
EHS and MCS as true medical conditions which acting as sentinel diseases may create a major
public health concern in years to come worldwide i.e. in all the countries implementing
unrestricted use of electromagnetic field-based wireless technologies and marketed chemical
substances."

http://www.cellphonetaskforce.org/planetary-emergency/

“The proliferation of satellites we are about to witness—unless this world wakes up soon—is mind boggling, and nobody seems to have considered that popping thousands of them up there like so much confetti might have consequences for our atmosphere and our climate.” I wrote about the expected ozone loss; the destruction of the Van Allen belts; global warming from the addition of water vapor to the stratosphere; toxic wastes; groundwater pollution; space junk; microwave radiation; and the vandalism of the night sky. My 1997 book is posted here, courtesy of the Spanish website AVAATE, one of the best websites on this issue: http://www.avaate.org/IMG/doc/Microwavi ... enberg.doc

A year later the radiation problem asserted itself. On September 23, 1998, the world’s first satellite phones became operational. Service was provided by 66 satellites in low orbit around the Earth, launched by the Iridium Corporation. They unleashed a new kind of rain that turned the sky red and emptied it of birds for a couple of weeks.

A six-nation telephone survey was done of electrically sensitive people, support groups, and nurses and physicians serving this population. The results: 86% of electrically sensitive people and a majority of patients and support group members became ill on Wednesday, September 23 exactly, with typical symptoms of electrical illness including headaches, dizziness, nausea, insomnia, nosebleeds, heart palpitations, asthma attacks, ringing in the ears, etc. Follow-ups revealed that some of these people were acutely ill for up to three weeks. Some were so sick they weren’t sure they would live. In the United States the national death rate rose by 4% to 5% for two weeks. During those two weeks, very few birds were seen in the sky and thousands of homing pigeons failed to return home in pigeon races throughout much of the country. This was all documented in No Place to Hide, Vol. 2, No. 1, Feb. 1999, pp. 3-4.

The second satellite service, Globalstar, began commercial service on Monday, February 28, 2000. Widespread reports of nausea, headaches, leg pain, respiratory problems, depression, and lack of energy began on Friday, February 25, the previous business day, and came from people both with and without electrical sensitivity. See No Place To Hide, Vol. 2, No. 3, March 2000, p. 18.

Iridium, which had gone bankrupt in the summer of 1999, was resurrected by a contract with the United States Armed Forces. On March 30, 2001, commercial service resumed. Again the sky turned red. Again came reports of nausea, flu-like illness and feelings of oppression. But the events that made the news were catastrophic losses of race horse foals that were reported throughout the United States and as far away as Peru. On June 5, 2001, Iridium added data and Internet to its satellite phone service. Again came widespread reports of nausea, flu-like illness and oppression, and this time also hoarseness. See No Place To Hide, Vol 3, No. 2, Nov. 2001, p. 15.

Additional details are provided in chapter 17 of my new book, The Invisible Rainbow: A History of Electricity and Life.[*]

Between 2001 and now, our skies have not essentially changed. Iridium and Globalstar, operating 66 and 40 satellites respectively, are still the only providers of satellite phones. The amount of data raining on us all from space is still dominated by those two fleets. The predicted fleets of thousands of satellites have not materialized. But they are about to now, unless we stop them. Everything we know and love is at stake—not just hawks and geese, pigeons and race horses, not just the human race, but life itself. This is a mortal threat not just to our children and grandchildren, but to all of us, immediately, within two years.

The Details

The biggest threats are from Boeing, OneWeb, and SpaceX, all of which have similar applications before the FCC. SpaceX’s 12,000 satellites will operate in two constellations, at 700 miles and 210 miles in altitude. They will operate at millimeter wave frequencies and they will be phased arrays. Each satellite will have thousands of antenna elements that will aim focused, steerable beams at any desired point on the surface of the earth. Each beam from the 4,425 satellites already approved at the 700-mile height would have a maximum effective radiated power of up to 8,800 watts. The revised application for 12,000 satellites is requesting an increase to 5,000,000 watts per beam (for the upper constellation of 4,425 satellites) and 500,000 watts per beam (for the lower constellation of 7,518 satellites). The satellites will communicate both with individual users and with gateway earth stations, of which there will be several hundred just in the United States.

OneWeb’s founder and Executive Chairman is Greg Wyler. So far, OneWeb has applied to the FCC for only 4,540 satellites, but it is partnering with Airbus, which will build the satellites; Blue Origin, a subsidiary of Amazon, which will provide the rockets; and Virgin Galactic, which will launch them. Its investors include Qualcomm, Hughes Network Systems, Intelsat of Luxembourg, Marker LLC of Israel, Grupo Salinas of Mexico, SoftBank of Japan, Bharti Enterprises of India, and Coca-Cola. It received a license from the FCC for 720 low-orbit satellites in June 2017, but has already sold most of their capacity to Honeywell and other companies. Honeywell plans to use satellite transmissions to supply fast Internet to business, commercial, and military aircraft worldwide. On January 4, 2018 OneWeb filed an application for an additional fleet of 2,560 medium-orbit satellites, and on March 19, 2018 it filed an application for 1,260 additional low-orbit satellites. It is now touting its enterprise as an essential element of the worldwide rollout of 5G technology. Like SpaceX, OneWeb’s satellites will have antennas in phased arrays and use the millimeter wave spectrum. Their maximum effective power will be 6,000 watts. OneWeb intends to launch 36 satellites every 21 days beginning in the last quarter of 2018, and to begin service with the first few hundred satellites in 2019.

Boeing, which has its own plans for a fleet of 2,956 low-orbit satellites, and already has FCC approval for them, may now be backing OneWeb. In December, Boeing asked permission from the FCC to transfer its license for the 2,956 satellites to a company named SOM1101 LLC. Greg Wyler, the founder of OneWeb, is the sole owner of SOM1101.

A fourth company, Telesat Canada, was granted an FCC license on November 3, 2017. It plans to have a minimum of 117 satellites up and running by 2021. It intends to add satellites “as needed” to increase capacity. These satellites will also be phased arrays and they will also be for global internet to “unserved and underserved” communities, businesses, governments and individuals. They will have a maximum effective power of 8,000 watts.

Iridium, in an effort to compete with all these new companies, is presently in process of replacing its original fleet with a new fleet of 66 satellites called Iridium Next that will offer additional services.

These five companies together have approved and pending applications before the FCC for almost 20,000 low and medium orbit satellites to provide Internet to the world from space.

If 66 satellites providing only voice communication caused widespread illness and mortality among birds, horses, and people, what will a 20,000-satellite Internet-in-the-Sky do to us all?

The Way to Understanding

The original Iridium satellites were (and are still) at 1,000 watts of effective power and 483 miles in altitude. They are spread out around the Earth so that only one satellite is above any given point on the earth at any time. If a 1,000-watt tower were to be placed on a mountaintop that was 483 miles from the nearest person, no one would be alarmed. Why, then, worry about satellites in space? Five million watts is a lot scarier, but even a 5-million-watt beam from 700 miles away will produce a power level of only 13 picowatts (trillionths of a watt) per square centimeter on the ground, a level that is far below the levels most of us are exposed to already from WiFi, cell phones, and cell towers.

The answer has to do with what atmospheric physicists call the global electrical circuit, and with what Chinese medicine calls qi. Electricity is not only something “out there” that powers our lights and machinery, it is the force that orchestrates growth and healing and keeps us alive. The global electrical circuit flows through the earth, up to the sky in thunderstorms, through the ionosphere, and back down to earth through the atmosphere and through our bodies. The current enters our bodies through the top of our head, circulates through our acupuncture meridians, and reenters the earth through our feet. In addition to direct current, it contains 8 Hz, 14 Hz, 20 Hz, 26 Hz, and 33 Hz components. These ELF frequencies are the Schumann resonances, and are identical to the brain wave frequencies of every animal. It also contains VLF frequencies. These are generated by lightning, vary seasonally, and regulate our annual biorhythms. We pollute this circuit at our peril."


Last edited by necessejamais on Thu Jun 07, 2018 10:01 am, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: Kevin B
PostPosted: Mon Jun 04, 2018 10:32 pm 
Okay necessejamais, thanks for all that. The point however, is that the issues raised by this EKLIPSE outfit concern orientation and guidance as it effects migration and spatial sense. This is a completely different topic from claims about blood-brain penetration, asthma, neurodegenerative disease, psychosis, stroke, somatic reactions and the other physiologic conditions you're on about. What's more, there's strong evidence showing that migrating, pollinating and homing animals do in fact navigate, at least in part, by aligning their directionality against naturally occurring magnetic fields. So in fact those biologic systems might be susceptible to interference generated from artificial sources. Still however, this hardly verifies the legitimacy of this EKLIPSE agency nor their claims, so again I ask, has anyone dug into this and uncovered anything more substantial?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: mabaraba
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2018 5:52 am 
There is more information about this subject here:
http://www.cellphonetaskforce.org/planetary-emergency


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: rearnheart
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2018 6:06 am 
watch this space.......
r.earnheart


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: Kevin B
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2018 3:59 pm 
mabaraba, nothing in that link about the effect on orientation, guidance, migration, spatial sense or this EKLIPSE agency?

r.earnhear, watching....


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: mabaraba
PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2018 6:12 pm 
In the column on the left of the article there are links that have to do with the assault on nature. The first is "Assault on Nature", second: "Bees", 3rd: "Articles by Alphonso Balmori". At the end of the "Articles by Alphonso" there are more links. More info about the effects on birds can be found by googling.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: Bruce
PostPosted: Wed Jun 06, 2018 12:23 pm 
This is not a serious discussion. None of the links address real issues. A protest against 5G networks would have to address these questions:

- If 5G were built, would it significantly increase the ambient level of radiation?
- How does the maximum amount of predicted 5G radiation compare to the radiation already coming in from the sun?
- Does natural radiation far outweigh new sources of radiation?
- What frequency is the 5G radiation?
- How does this compare to other forms of radiation such as Wi-Fi, 4G or 3G cell phones, wireless devices, radio, and television?
- Is the 5G frequency more or less dangerous than other radiation?
- Would an increased quantity of communications based on 5G networks affect the total amount of radiation?

If this discussion is going to be done at the superficial level of the water meter debate, we might as well not have it. If there are scientific arguments against 5G, I’d like to hear them. But I don’t need complaints that are little more than superstition.

I suspect that the physical effects of 5G are trivial compared to its cultural effects. There will be huge and unpredictable effects when every person and every device can have almost instant communications with every other person and device. As an example, the implications of self-driving cars exchanging data in real time are staggering.

We’re in for some big changes, and like many changes in the past, they will probably be implemented without adequate research. If we want to be relevant in a discussion of these changes, we need to do our homework.

Bruce


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: samarpan
PostPosted: Thu Jun 07, 2018 7:49 am 
Thank you, Bruce, for your questions. These articles might be of interest. I have excerpted quotes from the abstracts. A library could provide the full-text of the articles.

5 G wireless telecommunications expansion: Public health and environmental implications.
Environ Res. 2018 Apr 11. pii: S0013-9351(18)30016-1. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2018.01.016. [Epub ahead of print]
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29655646

"Like other common toxic exposures, the effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation (RF EMR) will be problematic if not impossible to sort out epidemiologically as there no longer remains an unexposed control group. This is especially important considering these effects are likely magnified by synergistic toxic exposures and other common health risk behaviors. Effects can also be non-linear. Because this is the first generation to have cradle-to-grave lifespan exposure to this level of man-made microwave (RF EMR) radiofrequencies, it will be years or decades before the true health consequences are known. Precaution in the roll out of this new technology is strongly indicated."

==============

The human skin as a sub-THz receiver - Does 5G pose a danger to it or not?
Environ Res. 2018 May;163:208-216. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2018.01.032. Epub 2018 Feb 22.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29459303

"Starting from July 2016 the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has adopted new rules for wireless broadband operations above 24 GHz (5 G). This trend of exploitation is predicted to expand to higher frequencies in the sub-THz region. One must consider the implications of human immersion in the electromagnetic noise, caused by devices working at the very same frequencies as those, to which the sweat duct (as a helical antenna) is most attuned. We are raising a warning flag against the unrestricted use of sub-THz technologies for communication, before the possible consequences for public health are explored."

==============

On-body calibration and measurements using personal radiofrequency exposimeters in indoor diffuse and specular environments.
Bioelectromagnetics. 2016 Jul;37(5):298-309. doi: 10.1002/bem.21975. Epub 2016 Apr 28.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27121268

"For the first time, response of personal exposimeters (PEMs) is studied under diffuse field exposure in indoor environments. To this aim, both numerical simulations, using finite-difference time-domain method, and calibration measurements were performed in the range of 880-5875 MHz covering 10 frequency bands in Belgium. Two PEMs were mounted on the body of a human male subject and calibrated on-body in an anechoic chamber (non-diffuse) and a reverberation chamber (RC) (diffuse fields). This was motivated by the fact that electromagnetic waves in indoor environments have both specular and diffuse components. Both calibrations show that PEMs underestimate actual incident electromagnetic fields. This can be compensated by using an on-body response. Moreover, it is shown that these responses are different in anechoic chamber and RC. Therefore, it is advised to use an on-body calibration in an RC in future indoor PEM measurements where diffuse fields are present. Using the response averaged over two PEMs reduced measurement uncertainty compared to single PEMs. Following the calibration, measurements in a realistic indoor environment were done for wireless fidelity (WiFi-5G) band. Measured power density values are maximally 8.9 mW/m(2) and 165.8 μW/m(2) on average. These satisfy reference levels issued by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection in 1998. Power density values obtained by applying on-body calibration in RC are higher than values obtained from no body calibration (only PEMs) and on-body calibration in anechoic room, by factors of 7.55 and 2.21, respectively."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: necessejamais
PostPosted: Thu Jun 07, 2018 9:58 am 
Bruce, FYI: 5G is a whole untested SPECTRUM of artificial RF frequencies, which are radically different from what organisms on Earth evolved to be safely exposed to (which are, namely, sun coming thru atmosphere, the EMF generated by our own hearts, and the Earth's magnetic field).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: elektron
PostPosted: Thu Jun 07, 2018 5:07 pm 
There is much mysticism being posted here. I will 1) Support Bruce and 2) Comment only on the link about the alleged impact of cell phones on honeybees. I'm a beekeeper. I read the beekeeping literature. These "cell phones-impact-bees" allegations have been refuted by real science. For those who really tremble about the alleged impact of placing cell phones in beehives, I have a suggestion. Don't put cell phones in beehives. Problem solved. And I have no doubt that my comments here will result in more links to more outrageous and fraudulent web stories about "research" into cell phones harming bees. After all, if it's on the web, it's got to be true.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: necessejamais
PostPosted: Thu Jun 07, 2018 7:41 pm 
PubMed and NCBI sites only publish what you refer to as, 'real science.' https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3052591/

"Lipids are the major energy reserves of insects. Certain lipid classes are structure components of membranes while others are raw materials for a variety of hormones and pheromones. Estimation of total lipids and cholesterol during the present study showed that the trend was similar to that of carbohydrates. After an initial increase in concentration at the 10 and 20 min exposure period, a decline was observed in the concentration of total lipids and cholesterol at 40 min exposure."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: elektron
PostPosted: Fri Jun 08, 2018 5:10 am 
A strange little study from India. Lots of estimates. Has additional research confirmed this? If it came from a major research university, for example, I'd be interested. But it doesn't. The large Cornell Dyce Lab for Honeybee Research isn't interested in this topic, either. And let me point out that the American Beekeeping Federation also isn't concerned with alleged evils of cell phones. And for good reason. Insecticides and parasites are their focus. And Africanized honeybees, of course. Ok. So let's go to the USDA Ag Research Center. What do they worry about? "parasites and pests, pathogens, poor nutrition, and sublethal exposure to pesticides." They add that "neither cell phones nor cell towers have been shown to have any connection to Colony Collapse Disorder or Honeybee health." They add that a number of allegations have been made but "none of them held up to detailed scrutiny." Ok. QED.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: necessejamais
PostPosted: Fri Jun 08, 2018 9:48 am 
So, when you don't like the findings of a study, you call it "strange" and "little." Interesting. Chronic exposure to neonicotinoid pesticides is causing some decline in honeybee populations, but that's not what this topic is about. It's also interesting that you're attempting to play devil's advocate while insisting that people concerned about the fx of artificial wireless on bees should just not put cell phones near bees. I brought peoples' attention to ubiquitous, chronic exposure to a whole untested spectrum, because they will be physically unable to keep themselves away from it. No industry or individual can prove that manmade wireless EMR at any frequency or power level is safe, whereas, there are thousands of double-blinded, peer-reviewed studies proving that artificial wireless EMR does not have to be ionizing (i.e., heat up tissue) to cause cellular damage. This documented health hazard is often referred to as the "non-thermal" effects of RF wireless. There are even frequencies so low that nothing can shield them. You're very welcome for the public health warning. :)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5504984/

"The meeting at WHO was an obvious disappointment. During the discussion the two WHO officials showed little interest to collaborate with the scientists convened at the meeting in spite of the scientific evidence on adverse health effects. Their in-house experts seem to be members of ICNIRP, although not exclusively. This may explain why only short-term thermal effects from RF radiation are accepted as proofs of harm, and why non-thermal biological effects are ignored. In the draft of the Monograph a large bulk of peer-reviewed scientific publications on non-thermal effects are dismissed, c.f. as also by ICNIRP (19). Most remarkable is that WHO has no intention to replace the Core Group of experts affiliated with ICNIRP. Thereby ICNIRP is given full access to and exclusive possibilities to influence the Monograph. In view of the huge economic interests built into the ICNIRP guidelines, and several of its expert members' ties to industry, no doubt this is a large conflict of interest that will seriously undermine not only the credibility of the Monograph on RF radiation but also the credibility of WHO as a protector of world health. Seriously enough, the Monograph will be the hallmark for years to come on evaluation of health hazards from RF radiation and pave the way for increasing exposure to RF radiation to people and environment, e.g. the fifth generation (5G), internet of things, etc. [...]

Protests and comments by scientific experts and several organizations seem to be ignored. The Monograph might be political and industry supportive more than scientific and health promoting. For a definitive conclusion a more thorough review of the whole draft document would be needed. By now it is time for laymen, NGOs and scientists to exert pressure on politicians to change the WHO agenda on RF radiation and health hazards and decide that WHO's purpose is to support world health instead of industry interests. It is also time to evaluate the competence of the persons making the evaluations and decisions before publishing the Monograph. Of note, evidence has been published (52) which indicated that members of ICNIRP have written scientifically incorrect and misleading information. It is unknown if WHO has responded to this evidence of suggested scientific misconduct.

To evaluate cancer risks it is necessary to include scientists with competence in medicine, especially oncology. Furthermore, what are the personal advantages, at least in the short time, for those refusing to accept peer-reviewed scientific publications on adverse effects on health and environment from RF radiation? Ironically enough, whether knowingly or not, the WHO staff seems to protect themselves from high involuntary RF radiation levels at least in the measured areas within the Geneva building."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: elektron
PostPosted: Fri Jun 08, 2018 9:56 am 
Pure mysticism. Again. I'll move on.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: Kevin B
PostPosted: Fri Jun 08, 2018 5:08 pm 
necessejamais, thanks for the link to https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3052591/. It's good to know the potential for cell phone frequencies interfering with (at least) bee behavior is not going unheeded, people are looking at this, even if that research is being done in India. I'm actually surprised to not see a plethora of this work being done in Brazil, or maybe it is and just hasn't surfaced here yet. In any case it's equally valuable to hear from our beekeepers. These are truly the guys with boots on the ground, if anyone would be aware of influences on bee behavior it would be their keepers. But it's also interesting to see the Punjab Univ. study referenced by the NIH. Clearly the NIH is an authoritative supporter who's not at all focused on zoology. Nonetheless these are findings the NIH wanted put out there, almost certainly to encourage more research into the area.

Specifically with regard to changes in migration and orientation patterns though, it's clear the Punjab Univ study reports no such findings. Moreover, the investigators assert, "[t]hat the behavior of honeybee is altered to some extent by high or low energy fields or electromagnetic radiations has been known for quite some time. - Cartensen EL. Biological effects of transmission line fields. Bioelectromagnetics. 1987;8:456–67". In fact, Cartensen's 1987 study didn't look at cell phone systems at all, but rather EMF transmissions from high voltage power lines. And what Cartensen actually found was, "effects related to power lines were apparently due to electrical shocks that the bees receive when they contact surfaces in the hives rather than to the influence of the EMF as such." That's a significant distinction from what we're seeking to understand here. Being subjected to radiation and getting electrocuted are two totally different things, and in that respect the Punjab study is misleading.

Finally, while Punjab did find increases in carbohydrate levels coincident with aggression, wing beating, and proximity changes, these were apparently related to the cell phone being in "talk-mode" versus "listening-mode". Punjab lulls the reader into presuming these effects were due to changes in radiation field strength, without actually saying it, and apparently having made no effort to verify it either. There's no reason to think these responses weren't due to variations in sound pressure, heat, or mechanical vibrations. In any case, Punjab offers nothing to indicate any connection between cell phone systems of any frequency or strength and disruptions to bee navigation or migration. Still, it is good to know investigators are out there looking for it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: mimbresgranny
PostPosted: Sat Jun 09, 2018 10:46 am 
Thank you, Kevin, for your review. I was having trouble making sense of it. We know EMF has effects but pinning it all down is another story. The hope that bees could provide some clarity seems to be a long shot now. Nothing replaces long term human statistics, some of which we have but it seems the factors are so complex that it is difficult to isolate them. Much like smoking, is it the tobacco or the formaldehyde doing the damage. Since it is the tobacco that provides the addictive chemicals and that is inseparable from the processing chemicals, and the use is inseperable from modern life, all we can say is smoking is linked to cancer. Not all smokers get cancer. Some get cancer who don't smoke. EMF is just such a conundrum although I suspect our embassy employees are about to provide some answers.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: necessejamais
PostPosted: Sun Jun 10, 2018 9:51 am 
Chronic exposure to artificial RF wireless is essentially the same thing as taking a daily sip of orgahophosphate pesticides, which are confirmed carcinogens. (Also: Thank you for mentioning aldehydes. Aldehydes (& other preservatives) are also what make some of us unable to tolerate vaccines or live in trailers. I have a friend who can't get dental anaesthetic b/c the clove oil is suspended in formaldehyde, & they won't let them use pure clove oil with no preservative, even though essential oils preserve themselves.)

http://www.electricalpollution.com/docu ... tCrazy.pdf
"Neurological function can be seriously impaired by radiofrequency radiation. Ca2+ homeostasis and gap
junction function are key to neurological function. Cholinesterase enzyme activity is impaired by
exposure to radiofrequency radiation in a manner similar to impairment caused by organophosphate
pesticides, often rendering a person with radiofrequency sickness particularly sensitive to small amounts
of chemicals.22 Radiofrequency radiation can lower the pain threshold, slow reaction times, cause
fatigue, muscle weakness, headaches, difficulty concentrating, short-term memory problems and even
memory loss."

References
1) Johnson Liakouris AG. Radiofrequency (RF) sickness in the Lilienfeld study: An effect of modulated microwaves
Archives of Environmental Health; May/Jun 1998; 53, 3.
2) Santini R, Santini P, Le Ruz P, Danze JM, and Seignel M. 2003 Survey Study of People Living in the Vicinity of
Cellular Fhone Base Stations. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine Vol. 22, No. 1, pp. 4149.
3) Hyland GJ. Physics and biology of mobile telephony. The Lancet, Vol 356, November 25, 2000.
4) Marha K, Musil J, and Tuha H. Electromagnetic Fields and the Life Environment. Institute of Industrial Hygiene and
Occupational Diseases, Prague, Czechoslovakia. English Translation 1971
[...]22) Grant L. Microwaves Imitate Pesticides. U.S. Department of Energy Risk Management Quarterly, Volume 5-3


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: Kevin B
PostPosted: Mon Jun 11, 2018 11:50 am 
We've certainly given this topic a fair shake but at this point it does appear the opening assertion, "radiation from cell phones, wifi are hurting the birds and the bees," is without merit. Nothing further has surfaced to authenticate the Eklipse agency either so I'm leaning toward this matter amounting to speculation and unsubstantiated claims if not a complete hoax. Unfortunately there's times we just need to dig into something to bare it out one way or the other.

Necessejamais, reality takes the shape of what we allow ourselves to believe. I hope you find a path to ease your concerns.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Author: judithelise
PostPosted: Mon Jun 11, 2018 8:03 pm 
"Reality takes the shape of what we allow ourselves to believe". I like that. Truer words never spoken. I so worry about people who have unresolved disharmony within and search for disharmony without to project onto.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 23 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 7 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
News     Columns     Food: Growing, Fixing     Features     Water     Health     Business     Education     DIY & How-tos     Classifieds     Forum     Home 
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group