Giving life the electric chair – the plain physics and biophysics of phone and wifi radiation

0
42
Giving life the electric chair - the plain physics and biophysics of phone and wifi radiation


Giving life the electric chair – the plain physics and biophysics of phone and wifi radiation

Revised/Updated from 12/28/20

In plain language for all, technical aspects of a terminal threat to life are discussed, whereby “safer,” “safe,” and “responsible” (advanced) technology become oxymorons. Even a casual technical grasp can help people see more clearly through official deceit and dubious reassurances – even from scientists, writers and activists.

Summary

The Physics. Electricity. Magnetism. They’re closely related. Artificial energy sent through the air to carry information to and from your phone, or for WiFi, has electric and magnetic properties. It’s called radiofrequency electro-magnetic radiation (RF EMR – hereafter EMR). Its continuous waves are polarized – ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ aspects like a battery or magnet.

Special properties added to the wave make telecom/WiFi possible. For optimal performance, the EMR is digitized, meaning processable by computer. For content (voice, pictures, etc), capacity and speed, a type of radiation called microwave is used. Content (voice, text) ‘surfs’ on a ‘carrier’ wave, which is modified in ways that introduce rapid variations in the signal.

Widget not in any sidebars

Due to polarization, waves from multiple sources can interact as they ‘meet’ in the air and within objects, including organisms. Sources include waves from all vertical antennas for commercial radio, digital TV, fire, police, and mobile-phone base stations.

The result is a highly complex, rapidly varying pattern of electric and magnetic forces.

The Biophysics. A ‘funny’ thing about life, it’s also electro-magnetic. Artificial electro-magnetic energy disastrously interferes with bio-electro-magnetics, and that’s the nuts and bolts of this long article. It’s also what authority isn’t telling.

Biological systems are extremely sensitive, even to very low-power artificial forces. It’s not toxic like chemicals, however, but more like ‘static’ in your FM radio. And that’s called radiofrequency interference (RFI).

Interaction also occurs within biological systems, between EMR and technociety’s main contribution to the environment: Chemical toxins, especially metals. Last, but not least, in the list of threats is cumulative effect over time.

An extensive list of resulting medical conditions described in the scientific literature is provided. Because we’re whole-body irradiated virtually non-stop, and because all naturally electrically charged and polar regulatory and metabolic biological elements inside and outside cells are susceptible, the list is quite impressive. The ‘connection’ is not being made.

Most importantly, the most perilous threat is to the ecosystem. But it’s not ‘merely’ about radiation. Rapacious, toxic mining; processing; manufacturing; and final disposition take a heavy toll (international intrigue, corporate crime, violent and economic aggression, and social injustice are also involved).

The sum of all parts — basic wave characteristics, added properties, interactions, and cumulative effect (regardless of “G” iteration or power level below what would ‘microwave’ you) — inflict chaotic, pathological influence on organisms’ balanced and proper function.

Effects detailed in the text include the “electric chair,” cumulative effect, the ‘oscillation’ of charged and polar elements, and mitochondrial dysfunction (can be secondary to oscillation). Key exposure variables cannot be in play under controlled testing and study conditions. Therefore, it’s literally impossible to establish a safe exposure level – for all life, forever.

Summary/Conclusion. Mobile telecom/WiFi is, without remedy other than termination, one of the most devastating environmental and health threats (and threats to liberty) ever created.

The prospect of “safe/safer” wireless technology is about as remote as things get. Mitigations (reducing exposure, etc) are futile. Appeal to regulators is futile, since there is no safe exposure. And they already know the threat, or are controlled by those who do.

An exceptional book by pioneer researcher Robert O. Becker, MD is entitled The Body Electric: Electromagnetism And The Foundation Of Life. With artificial EMR from phones and all wireless devices, are we tampering fatally with the foundation of life? Is that a rhetorical question?

The genuine solution for survival (and what remains of liberty – see Addendum) is for people to break the trance and quit all wireless devices and systems – en masse. Except, disturbingly, it seems many/most would rather die. They may well get their ‘wish.’

But they may also bestow demise on Nature, the unborn, young, and those who’ve seen the light. If the reader ‘gets it’ at this point, there’s no need but curiosity to read further. The Biophysics section is the core of the article. Please spread the word — and recycle those brain-entraining, addictive, pathological toys if you haven’t

Addendum – Other Considerations. An optional ‘digression’ with focus on the rather unsavory potentials wireless systems provide to ruthless people. Digital wireless telecom/WiFi is a descendant of sorts from military stealth weapon technology.

It’s also the foundation of a far-reaching, data gathering, surveillance, and societal/individual control system rapidly gestating in the global technosphere — in my view, its primary purpose within a long tradition. Telecom/WiFi, extreme artificial dependency, and the collection of obsessive/addictive appeals make up the ‘hook.’ Just try to take someone’s phone away, especially a kid’s… This is real trouble.

Introduction

Although the situation has improved somewhat of (too) late, the wireless ‘cautionary’ community – scientists, activists, and writers – has placed dangerous, disproportionate focus on human concerns rather than ecosystem. Sources are given below on environmental assault, but much of the text here is about humans, because that’s the focus of captured-FCC regulation, which is a boondoggle, an insult to science, and a dire threat to Nature.

Based on biophysics, no living thing routinely, even intermittently, exposed to the radiation is ‘exempt’ from potentially harmful influence (virtually impossible to avoid/escape exposure these days).

A possible exception may be at least some bacteria, two of which are known to become stronger – more antibiotic resistant. Cumulative effect and individual susceptibility to RFI — along with the rest of our techno-barrage on life and health (pets too) — determine outcomes.

Interestingly, a precursor to wireless telecom/WiFI was research on military stealth weapons beginning in the 1950’s. By the mid-1970’s, the harms were well and widely understood internationally. Absolute proof is provided below.

Obviously, a context for mobile telecom/WiFi is technology per se. Regardless of benefit, one thing is certain about most of that, especially advanced technology: Somewhere along the line from the acquisition of resources (extractivism), to processing, manufacture, use, and disposal, it’s chemically and energetically devastating to planet/biosphere. Wireless encompasses that entire line.

In the developed world, or ‘technociety,’ as opposed to low-tech/indigenous, destructive environmental plunder, politely called ‘natural resources,’ has long been acceptable behavior for meeting ‘human needs.’ Or is it mostly ‘wants.’ Either way, Nature pays the price. Of humans, however, most susceptible to RFI and toxins are fetuses and kids up to 21 years.

“5G” remarks are included below because physics and biophysics make 2G-4G a quite sufficiently terminal nightmare, making pointed opposition to “5G” per se, instead of all wireless, misguided, unscientific — and quite dangerous.

Please see section Bent Wheel on the “5G” Bandwagon in “5G” Hysteria Times Corona Hysteria Equals Hysteria Squared (at time of writing, I hadn’t discovered 5G difference isn’t about frequency, as protests voiced, but new antenna systems, which, with a couple of potential threats based on frequency, seem to be the greatest new threat from 5G).

Backward priorities slowly reversing of (too) late, appear in today’s deluge of “Stop 5G!” hysteria: 1) Human emphasis, 2) traditionally, inflaming paranoia about ground infrastructure (some of it erroneous) rather than satellites; and 3) scant/no emphasis on cumulative, thus more imminent, threat from continual, long-term exposure to 2G-4G (c. 30 years). This could erupt without warning into an irreversible cascade of eco-collapse and/or human illness.

Opposition to “5G” per se squanders precious time. It implies that we can dance with the 2G-4G ‘devil’ and come away clean — but only if we (but not Earth) take (futile) precautions, like ‘reducing exposure’ and ‘distancing.’ Isn’t it rather foolish to demand that “5G” be proven safe before deployment, when no previous G has been? All harms cited most frequently when “5G” has been turned on are classic 2G-4G symptoms.

As clarified in the text, a radiation exposure level causing no effects, forever, for all life — even if it could exist — would simply not run the system. This was widely known and openly declared at least two decades before 2G (digital, 1G was analog). Treacherous scientific fraud followed, and a convenient bias was created: Harm comes only from tissue heating. This unscientific ploy underlies today’s official criminal assurance of safety – internationally.

The Physics – Tech Talk Made Easy

The following may be ‘under’ the heads of some readers, but we can’t assume. If so, skip to The Biophysics (core of the article).

As noted, electromagnetic waves are energy having electrical and magnetic ‘components’ or properties. The terms ‘electromagnetic radiation’ (EMR) and ‘electromagnetic field’ (EMF) are central to discussion of the threat of phones and WiFi. EMFs can be static, so you could say EMR is EMF in motion. As noted also, EMR used in telecom/WiFi systems is artificial (where trouble begins), and is critically different from natural EMR – from the sun, the earth and the ionosphere. So don’t let anyone tell you you’re ‘getting it anyway.’

EMR is described by its wavelength and frequency. As shown in the (very simplified) diagram, wavelength is the distance in meters between two crests, or peaks, like we see in ocean waves.

Frequency is how often the waves come. It’s measured in waves, or cycles, per second, called “hertz” (Hz). One Hz is one cycle per second. ‘X’ number of Hz is used till we get to a thousand, then it’s kilohertz (KHz). Next, a million, megahertz (MHz). Then a billion, gigahertz (GHz). There are even THz, trillions. Per second. Challenging to get the mind around.

As noted, phones and WiFi employ a type of artificial EMR called ‘microwave, ’micro’ in this case meaning short-er wavelength. The microwave range is usually said to extend from three hundred million cycles (300 MHz / 30 GHz) to three hundred billion cycles (300 GHz), with wavelengths between 1 meter and 1 millimeter respectively (the radiofrequency spectrum overall extends from 3 Hz (100,000 kilometers wavelength!) to 3,000 GHz (3THz).

As the chart shows, microwave covers the ranges from Ultra High Frequency (UHF) to Extremely High Frequency (EHF). It is used in telecom/WiFi to achieve great data capacity and speed. Despite how the chart might look, transition between ranges is gradual, or overlapping.

[Note: Strictly speaking, ULF: 0-3 Hz, ELF: 3-3000 Hz]

Frequencies used ‘traditionally’ in telecom/WiFi (2G-4G) are sometimes called “sub-6 GHz,” although the range can extend to 7.125 GHz. Therefore, I use ‘mid-/low-band’ (MLB) for that range. These frequencies provide good object penetration and range for reliable two-way transmission.

Higher – GHz – frequencies, called “millimeter wave” (MMW) due to their wavelengths, have been added for 5G, creating two ‘entities’ with different specifications, but which together are called “5G”. This distinction is usually omitted in opposition rhetoric. Ultimately, ‘5G4G’ – or 5Gmlb – may supplant pre-5G 4G. Get it?

Thus, “5G” is in quotes, because generally speaking, “5G” discussion, opposition or warning that doesn’t proceed on the distinction between its two specifications, especially when it comes to harm, safety testing, areas of deployment, and density of antenna location, is highly suspect.

It’s a very complex scenario that most opposers seem to want to avoid. Much easier just to jump on the bandwagon. The term “5G” is tossed carelessly about, causing confusion and misunderstanding.

Perhaps there is fear that “Stop 5G!” might be weakened if people knew that 5Gmlb can provide at least 30% more speed without MMW? But then come those new antenna systems, which I hope to address in a future article on 5G. We don’t need it here.

Polarization

Unlike natural electromagnetic fields, artificial EMR is polarized, meaning it exhibits opposing energies like a battery or magnet. This is a major factor in all harmful effects.

Digital Waves

It may be coincidence, but no sooner did 2G (digital) arrive in the US (1991-1) than trouble arose. It was first revealed on a 1993 Larry King Live™ show devoted entirely to the legal case of  a brain cancer in the same shape as the area of concentrated radiation immediately surrounding a phone antenna.

The show created a national furor. For more on the interesting, unsavory history, and for more insight into the politics of wireless, please see section High-Level Deceit in Wireless Technology: Ultra Convenient. Endlessly Entertaining. Criminally Instigated. Terminally Pathological.

Exposure Variability

Constant change in signal characteristics inflicts impactful chaos on charged and polar biological elements. Explained below, it comes in several forms: A pulsing technique called frame repetition (for efficient transmission); modulation for content; and interactions among EM waves from various sources in the field.

Transmitted waves are called “carrier frequencies” – for example,1900 MHz, for cordless phones. The station numbers on your FM radio – e.g., 88.9 –  represent carrier frequencies, also in the MHz range, as the chart shows. Carriers carry and deliver the ‘mail’ (content) –  text, voice, music, images, video and websites (we’ll call it all ‘data’ for simplicity).

Frame repetition – as noted, for reliable radio transmission – is a form of variability called pulsing. It’s very techie, but all we need to know, it varies the signal, increasing chaos. There are also subframe, multiframe, reference, and synchronization pulsations. Disruptions of biological electromagnetics is therefore remarkable.

‘FM’ radio stands for frequency modulation. Relatively small variations in the carrier frequency represent/encode data. Without modulation there would be nothing to see or hear. Modulating the carrier wave also creates signal variability. I use the term ‘puls/mod’ when referring to both.

Interaction occurs in the field between and among waves from multiple sources, including telecom base stations (tower antennas) and mobile devices, as well as from other systems entirely, as noted in Summary. Interaction/synergy also occurs in biosystems between radiation and toxins. These features will be detailed later.

‘Physics-speaking,’ it comes down to this: For data capacity and speed, digital microwave is needed. Polarization arises as the wave is created, and is unavoidable. For transmission reliability, the frame techniques and other noted pulsations are added; and for content, modulation. Interactions have just been noted.

The Biophysics – Biological Effects of Radiation

A key distinction exists between biological effects per se, for example, disturbance of charged and polar elements on the one hand, and medical issues – symptomologies/pathologies – that may consequently arise, on the other (RF as medical treatment will be discussed later).

It should be taught as early as possible in school that life forms have critical electromagnetic elements that are highly sensitive to disruption from artificial EMR (and static fields – EMF). These elements regulate and maintain/repair biosystems. As noted, a possible exception is at least some bacteria. Ominously, two have been shown to become more antibiotic resistant – Listeria and E. Coli

Ecosystem. Since the early 1990s, 2G-4G has been playing a significant role in collapsing the ecosystem. Smaller species such as insects — already in alarming decline — are most susceptible. This should be of paramount urgency Bees, Birds and Mankind.

A series of enviro studies is here, with detailed information. And here’s one with detailed technical discussion and 379 related references (there may be some overlap of sources among the two links).

In most studies, the politically correct techno-jargon ‘risk’ is used instead of the more accurate ‘dire threat.’ (Concerning extractivism, processing, manufacturing and so on, the sibling to Electric Chair… is Advanced Technology: Does Society’s Obsession Reflect a Form of Collective Mental Illness?)

I was stunned to learn years ago that flowers communicate to bees with minute electrical signals. To such subtlety, EMR has the effect of very loud noise on quiet conversation.

‘Technociety’ has long been threatening life with artificial EMR. Guglielmo Marconi developed the first “wireless” in the 1890s (it’s a myth that Tesla did), and today’s wireless gadgets have evolved from devices that have been around since the 1940s.

Following the advent of digital technology in the late 1940s, microwave and weapon research gained considerable momentum in the 1950s. By 1962, the severe dangers and stealth-weapon potentials of microwave were well understood by science, militaries and governments (“5G” in video title reflects poster’s bias).

In 1973, an international symposium entitled Biologic Effects and Health Hazards of Microwave Radiation was held in Warsaw. A review of it was published in 1981 by the WHO, entitled Environmental Health Criteria 16: Radiofrequency and Microwaves. It would be helpful before continuing for the unfamiliar to see the important guide to the Summary of the review in the section History of Official Awareness of What Do YOU Mean When You Say “5G”?.

As noted earlier, the radiation is not ‘toxic’ like chemicals. A simplified analogy, further detailed below, is noise/static in your FM or AM radio caused by an external RF source. Also noted, this is known as radiofrequency (RF) interference (RFI). It might be from an unshielded or improperly shielded external device, like a motor.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is meticulous about regulating RFI with design specifications for electrical and electronic equipment: They’re not allowed to interfere with each other’s circuits. Ironically, biological systems get no respect where the FCC heating bias reigns. No doubt, if humans were robots, we’d be better – but still not sufficiently – protected.

Biological Sensitivity

From the 1981 WHO document quoted in the History… section, we learn that the (apparently) safe exposure level – called “highly conservative” – was thought to be “close to natural background levels” (‘cosmic background,’ described in that section). This was declared “not technically feasible,” however; meaning not enough power to operate systems.

The corresponding rhetoric was, “A reasonable risk-benefit analysis has to be considered.” Nowhere to be found, that apparently morphed into the heating bias, concocted as the baseline for establishing safety.

Contradicting the document’s own natural-background suggestion, it’s a convenient, arbitrary conclusion that heating is the only harm. Did the claim arise out of risk-benefit studies/deliberations that should have taken place, but didn’t? The term for this convenience is ‘scientific fraud.’

With foreknowledge of harm, then, digital EMR technology was adapted to commercial 2G mobile telecom. As noted, no sooner did it arrive than pathology appeared. The number of pathological influences in play at all times in the field are drastically reduced in controlled testing and study conditions.

Should the reader have unquestioning faith in science and, especially, assurances of safety from official sources, please see this article by Richard Horton, editor-in-chief of the prestigious British medical journal The Lancet, about error in medical science.

We won’t look at evidence that such trouble goes beyond medical science, but four significant factors in scientific research are: funding sources; author ‘connection’ to special/conflicting interests; author “incentivisation,” as Horton notes. And, especially, care to avoid endangering job/career by challenging prevailing meme or by threatening big bottom lines.

Power Levels

Designated in watts per square area, radiation power penetrating organisms is called ‘power flux density’ or just power density. The square area makes it ‘density,’ like the difference between pouring an ounce or a pint onto a square foot. The values shown below are used comparatively, so the reader doesn’t even need to know what a watt is to get the point.

Because 2G-4G wavelengths pass easily through living systems, the square centimeter roughly becomes a ‘tube’ going through your body. Since we’re whole-body irradiated, the body becomes a mass of such tubes. Or, one could say, a composite tube.

It should be noted, FCC does no testing. It’s done by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), then “filtered” through ANSI, the American National Standards Institute, a private organization funded and controlled by industry. In 1996, FCC finally adopted the standard identified as ANSI/IEEE C95.1-1992. The latest is ANSI/IEEE C95.1-2019.

The FCC’s adopted tissue-heating exposure limit is expressed in milliwatts (mW – one thousandth of a watt) per square centimeter (cm, about 4 tenths of an inch). As of this writing, it’s one thousandth of a watt per square centimeter – 1 mW/cm2 (for a range of frequencies). By coincidence, it’s the same “as-low-as” level at which harm was noted in the WHO document.

An organization called the BioInitiative Working Group (BWG) assumed and executed the daunting task of reviewing the massive volume of science literature – many thousands of papers – discussing biological effects and pathologies from non-heating power densities, then selecting and collating 3800 studies over two reports.

Note: BWG reports of are cited here to demonstrate the existence of independent, peer-reviewed science FCC and FDA say doesn’t exist or is not “consistent or credible” (note smiling picture, phone to ear, which all manufacturers warn against Unfortunately, the title of the BioInitiative Report (BR) says A Rationale for Biologically-Based Public Exposure Standards… which, as suggested here, can’t be established.

BR editors acknowledge that suggested values might need to be lowered (or even raised!) While the ‘cosmic confession’ and risk-benefit rhetoric in the WHO document put safety into serious question, discussion below on power levels should remove all doubt. BWG has been accused of bias and ‘cherry picking’ for effect, but this is a cheap ploy, as explained below in Exposure Variability: Wave/Wave Interaction.

The Group’s first extensive review published in 2007 (2000 studies), suggested a non-heating exposure limit of one tenth of a microwatt (μW, a millionth of a watt) per square centimeter. One tenth of a millionth of a watt per square centimeter – .1 μW/cm2. Only ten thousand times lower than the FCC limit (no sarcasm).

By 2012 BR (1800 additional studies), it became 0.003 μW/cm2 to 0.006 μW/cm2. We’re talking three to six thousandths of a millionth of a watt! Last look in the 2014-2020 update, 0.003 μW/cm2 stands alone “for lowest observed effect level” [emphasis added]. It would seem that “lowest observed” implies possible unobserved?

To 0.003, a ten-fold safety “buffer” has been added: …for chronic exposure, if needed … 0.3 nanowatts to 0.6 nanowatts per square centimeter as a reasonable, precautionary action level for chronic exposure to pulsed RFR. That translates to .0003 to .0006 microwatts, yet still open-ended. BioInitiative 2012 – Conclusions (last two paragraphs). Do such figures inspire a feeling for the sensitivity of biological systems? Even if one doesn’t know what a watt is?

In microwatts, the FCC thermal limit is 1000 μW/cm2, about 1,670,000 to 1,333,000 times higher than the BR 2020 buffer values. But the strictest ‘biologically-based’ public power density limit proposed to date is a million billion times higher than the estimated cosmic background level.

Thus, the WHO’s “highly conservative” / “close to natural background levels” statement almost certainly represents a wide margin indeed. Even though it’s not a sound comparison from the physics standpoint due to key differences between natural and artificial EMR, we’re talking about intention here. What they thought they knew.

A cell phone on the moon would give more background radiation than the rest of the universe. As we’ll see, however, there is, critically, more to it biologically than mere ‘brute’ power.

As noted, the call from those recommending the 0.0003 μW/cm2 to 0.0006 μW/cm2 range (not sure if that would run the system) refers to chronic exposure “…if needed.” What else is there? Hopefully, it means for all life forever. In any case, it seems a bit equivocal given what’s at stake.

How do you predict for constantly varying conditions and responses even seconds ahead, never mind a few months or years (cumulative effect also in play). There’s every reason to be quite concerned about a sudden cascade of environmental calamity or human illness beyond remedy.

Thus, the process of constantly adjusting limits as more is learned begs for disaster. Though it was considered “precautionary,” that’s what .1 μW/cm2 was begging for 16 years ago – a period squandered on futile appeals to (corrupted) authority. And what happens in the time between introducing a new standard and discovering later it’s no good?

Note: The FCC Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) is based on a 30-minute exposure. From a single device. It would seem likely they know the great variability and complexity posed by the sum of all factors creates an unfathomable situation. So they just keep it simple-y deadly.

Also based on 30 minutes is the FCC test to establish safe device output – Specific Absorption Rate (SAR), established by a procedure similar to that for MPE – irradiating fluid-filled plastic dummies called “phantoms.”

A 2013 study shows that SAR is dangerously inadequate for biological systems. Various biological elements react to RF radiation differently from each other and from fluid in phantoms. For example, ions, such as sodium (Na+), the smallest charged elements, are more susceptible to chaotic forces than larger molecules such as proteins, fats, and nucleic acids. Emphatically, the latter are not exempt, but ions are at the effects forefront.

Adding up, all the science presented at Warsaw and reviewed by the WHO; all the science presented in the BR and all the science not netted therein (many thousands of papers); and all the science continuing to pour out of the global scientific community by the day, has been pronounced unworthy of consideration by the FCC/FDA.

What an embarrassing situation for the EMF/R scientific community! It seems many, many scientists must go sit in the corner for creating a first in science history where many thousands of papers saying the same thing are wrong all at once?

Biological Effects

What follows are effects produced by the various characteristics and behaviors of telecom/WiFi radiation. Effects can occur any time during or after exposure – nominally speaking, since there is normally no escape.

The “Chair”

Our title here begins with Giving Life the Electric Chair. It was inspired by the fact that while there is EMF, there’s also emf, or electromotive force. It’s voltage, or electrical action generated in a conductor, like a wire, by a non-electrical source, like a changing magnetic field. It’s called induction.

With telecom/WiFi, nerves and blood vessels become conductors in which voltages are induced by the radiation. See also Introduction Section II. Thus, in addition to direct assault with radiation, we are slowly giving life ‘the chair.’

Slow electrocution is particularly interesting for the smart utility meter issue. Smart meter opponents take note: Putting one on a building should violate wiring code by exposing occupants to what is essentially an open electrical circuit. No insurance or building occupation should be allowed in an improperly ‘wirelessed’ building. This might go for WiFI networks within as well.

Effects Cumulative

Effects ‘build up’ over time and can be irreversible. It’s probably the main reason people begin to show symptoms after having been exposed for a long time without having had any. One aspect of irreversibility is unrelenting exposure, to which the environment and most people are subjected these days, and in many cases, have been for decades.

Stories are told about unpleasant symptoms abating when an offending device is removed or distance increased. Some people seem to think this means harm has stopped. This error could underly the comforting misguidance: “Distance is your friend.” Any antenna to which you are exposed is too close.

Quote:

There are some credible articles from researchers reporting that cell tower-level RF exposures (estimated to be between 0.01 and 0.5 μW/cm2) produce ill-effects in populations living up to several hundred meters from wireless antenna sites…  BR 2012 PDF p.1482 (see also mast-victims.org).

A concerning example of immediate irreversibility is damage to ovarian follicle DNA. It’s irreversible and passed on to female offspring, thus potentially cumulative generationally as well, while ‘fresh’ damage is occurring. In the paper linked just below, the concern is a generation of up to 50% genetically damaged babies in the not-too-distant future.

Quote:

I ask for any scientist(s) from industry / government to ‘humiliate’ me live ‘on-air’ with their expert knowledge by answering one question: ‘What is the safe level of microwave irradiation for the ovarian follicles during the first 100 days development of the embryo? – Barrie Trower, Wi-Fi – A Thalidomide in the Making. Who Cares? (Page 12)

Ten years, no takers, despite it having been sent several times to several prominent EMF scientists calling for “safer”, “safe”, or “biologically based” exposure limits. Given that sperm damage has also been shown, it’s reasonable to be concerned that chronic exposure across generations could result in total human reproductive failure – see again.

Yet, it’s sometimes said in science papers that results are conflicting overall. No “consensus” reached. The implication seems to be, we’ll take the chance until we find out for sure. Shades of FCC/FDA. Sanity?

Mitochondrial Dysfunction

A critical effect of telecom/WiFi radiation is disruption of mitochondria, the millions of tiny energy generators in the cells of all plants, animals and fungi, and having several other key functions. (An interesting aside is that evidence shows they evolved from primitive bacteria.)

By causing functional impairment of special regulating channels in cell membranes (called “voltage gated ion channels”), RFI causes disturbance of mitochondrial ‘membrane potential’ and ‘electron transport.’ But channel disruption is secondary to what’s discussed below in the Exposure Variability sections. Effects on mitochondria may also be direct.

One result is called oxidative stress, or excess “ROS” – Reactive Oxygen Species – chemicals having important normal function. Too many is trouble, however, because they can damage molecules: lipids, proteins, carbohydrates and nucleic acids. One proffered ‘solution’ is to take anti-oxidant supplements, but one can get too much of that too. Frequent monitoring might be needed. But anything to avoid the logical solution.

Exposure Variability/Polarization

Polarization of phone and WiFi radiation occurs as the waves are generated. Even in the quite-technical paper linked below, the Abstract, Introduction and Discussion are reasonably accessible to the lay reader.

The paper concerns two interrelated effects of polarized EMR on electrically charged or polar elements: 1) The oscillation (to and fro motion across the original position) of charged and polar elements — at the rate of the puls/mod frequencies (see below); and 2) effects of the chaos resulting from interaction in the field between/among waves from multiple antenna sources.

The consequences of biological effects can be numerous serious pathologies and a syndrome inaccurately called “EHS,” or ElectroHyperSensitivity. The first is described in the following quote. The second will be discussed below.

Quote:

All critical biomolecules are either electrically charged or polar. While natural unpolarized EMF/EMR at any intensity cannot induce any specific/coherent oscillation on these molecules, polarized man-made EMFs/EMR will induce a coherent forced-oscillation on every charged/polar molecule within biological tissue. This is fundamental to our understanding of the biological phenomena. … a coherent polarized oscillation of even millions of times smaller energy than average thermal molecular energy can initiate biological effects [emphasis added]. Polarization: A Key Difference between Man-made and Natural Electromagnetic Fields, in regard to Biological Activity

Exposure Variability/Pulsing & Modulation

It’s generally understood that pulsed and modulated (the latter sometimes inaccurately called pulsing) EMR is much more biologically active than is continuous wave (no data). Download PDF, type ‘pulse’ in search window. We need understand only that both carrier modifications create constant and rapidly changing forces, preventing stabilization. And both forces augment the chaos created by polarization.

Note: A serious challenge exists for studies on biological effects – apart from official deceit going on – that may underlie the positive/negative disparity in results. The disparity is falsely and foolishly cited as justification for allowing wireless systems.

Studies showing no effect from non-heating wireless transmissions, especially those ‘IndustryGovernment’-funded/controlled, may have questionable design, particularly in terms of using signals produced by laboratory equipment or test phones, rather than emissions from commercial devices in normal use.

Quote:

…studies employing real mobile phone exposures demonstrate an almost 100% consistency in showing adverse effects. This consistency is in agreement with studies showing association with brain tumors, symptoms of unwellness, and declines in animal populations.

The validity of conventional exposure limits is further questioned in the Conclusions of Comparing DNA Damage Induced by Mobile Telephony and Other Types of Man-Made Electromagnetic Fields.

Quotes:

The importance of exposure variability shown in the present study implies the need to define EMF-exposures not only by frequency components and average intensity values, but by reporting maximum and minimum intensity as well, frequency variations, pulsing or continuous wave, modulation, and – of course – polarization.

Thus, the present study makes the point that once a specific EMF is polarized (and coherent), includes ELFs [meaning puls/mod – pt], and has adequate intensity, then variability in its parameters (especially in its intensity) is of decisive importance in terms of its bioactivity.

“Intensity” notwithstanding, a key point is that below heating, power becomes less important than variability  — polarization, interactions, puls/mod and technical specifics about very short peaks in the signal. That is, if you have enough power (and without power there is no wave) to cause “bioactivity” that can manifest as potentially fatal pathologies— especially given 24/7 exposure — there is no ‘need’ for more, even though increase may intensify effects.

Now come what appear to be the ultimate exposure-limit coups de grâce: Wave/toxin interaction in the organism and wave/wave interaction occurring anywhere, including within an organism.

Exposure Variability: Wave/Toxin Interaction

EMR safety testing commits a scientific fallacy similar, for example, to the EPA’s in setting ‘safe dose’ levels for single chemical toxins. Toxins are known to interact/synergize (like medical drugs do), and rarely if ever exist alone in biosystems due to environmental saturation. Like tests for radiation limits, toxicity tests are done under controlled laboratory conditions, and for one at a time. Is there correlation with the real-world toxic mix biosystems collect?

Microwave and toxins also interact, and one can worsen the other’s effects. This example concerns cancer, but by no means are corresponding symptoms limited to that. How is such potential accounted for when setting radiation limits, especially when wave/wave interaction is occurring, and especially when there are altogether unknowns?

Strictly speaking, this isn’t wave/toxin interaction, yet remains a serious threat: Wireless Technology: Ultra Convenient. Delivers Mercury Vapor from Dental Fillings – Free Shipping

Exposure Variability: Wave/Wave Interaction

Quotes:

Interactions among fields from multiple sources can intensify effects. Several oscillating electromagnetic fields of the same polarization – such as the fields from different antennas vertically oriented – may also produce constructive interference effects and thus, amplify at certain locations the local field intensity, and the amplitude of oscillation of any charged particle within the medium (and within living tissue). At such locations, living tissue becomes more susceptible to the initiation of biological effects.

[Radiation sources include] …the waves from all different radio, television, and mobile telephony antennas vertically oriented. Then, the resultant fields/waves are … varying, creating momentary constructive interference at unpredictably different locations each moment. This fact may represent an extraordinary ability of man-made/polarized EMFs to trigger biological effects [emphasis added].

The bigger the number of coherent superimposed waves/fields (from the same or different sources), the higher and narrower the peaks. That situation can create very sharp peaks of wave and field intensities at certain locations, not easily detectable by field meters, where any living organism may be exposed to peak electric and magnetic field intensities. Such locations of increased field/radiation intensity, also called “hot spots”, were recently detected within urban areas, due to wave/field superposition from mobile telephony base towers [end quotes]. Polarization: A Key Difference between Man-made and Natural Electromagnetic Fields, in regard to Biological Activity

Both the polarization and DNA papers suggest that the official approach — which looks only for heating; often uses test phones or lab equipment; ignores signal peaking by averaging values over time; and ignores multiple devices/antennas — is unscientific at best. At ‘worse,’ it’s a grim joke. At worst, it’s nature is strongly suggested by foreknowledge of serious harm simply being dismissed, behind a convenient show of integrity.

Provided commercial devices in normal use are employed in independent testing, some variability parameters – polarization exacerbated by modulation and frame repetition – will be in play in attempting to establish a level for lowest observed effects — even though it’s an open-ended scenario. As noted, levels for chronic exposure are a guess, while averaging ignores critical peaks.

In what testing (or study) scenario, however, can wave/toxin interaction – variable by the individuality of organisms and by radiation properties; and multiple radiation sources and wave/wave interaction – variable by time, location and individual reactivity – be taken into account?

How can a “safe,” or even “buffered,” limit be established or even approximated (ill advised anyway), against extreme complexity changing from one moment, place, and organism to the next?

Not to mention, again, that cumulative effect is in play, which means organism sensitivity, also variable by individual, may constantly be on the rise, invalidating previous conclusions. Even if at a very slow pace, it could amount to significantly increased susceptibility over time and over an increasing percentage of population of human and other species.

A question becomes: Why are laboratory conditions are still deemed valid for establishing a ‘safe’ level for…whom/what? Again, is the ‘rule’ that we must continue with wireless until we find it’s too late to save life on earth? If so, who made it?

Since it seems that all controlled studies on EMR biological effects and pathology fall short in some manner, it’s suggested that studies showing negative results may ipso facto be invalidated, while positive lab results would most likely be even worse if all factors were (impossibly) in play.

OK, make appeals to (corrupted) authority and calls for new (impossible) exposure standards. It’s all good for posture, career and publicity. But why not at least acknowledge, if not stress, that there just ‘might’ be no safe use, and that there’s historical and current science to that effect?

There has been no appeal to authority for, or legal case concerning, new exposure limits that brings the ‘no-safe’ view. Again, it can be said that many years have been squandered by not unflinchingly drawing attention to this ‘inconvenience.’

Obviously, calling for new standards means continued existence of wireless systems. It’s accompanied meanwhile by various “tips” and “ways” to “reduce exposure, including antenna distancing, protective devices and shielding. If there is no safe ‘dose’, or no way to find one, these measures become in effect dangerous ploys.

Now, some overtly electrosensitive people need some protection just to be able to function day to day (again, relief does not mean harm stops). But to indulge in protection with intent to use – environment go to blazes, thank you – is a severe crisis of narcissism and moral conscience. Not hard to find in technociety.

Moreover, some shielding is dangerous. A full discussion is here Shielding methods and products against man-made Electromagnetic Fields: Protection versus risk.

‘Unwittingly’ (at the time) suggesting another dimension to biological effects is a fascinating, quite plausible, proposal from MIT scientist Stephanie Seneff, PhD concerning energy/electric-charge management and transfer in blood, capillaries and body cells. The video is rapid fire and gets technical in spots, but for our purpose here, a most important aspect is depicted in the diagram below, a powerpoint slide from the paper linked below the picture.

Moving RBC Creates Electromagnetic Field that induces release of nitric oxide and relaxation of artery wall*

It’s highly unlikely, to say the least, that telecom/WiFi EMR would be a welcome addition to this environment, although I wouldn’t speculate on consequences. Seneff said in a 9/7/20 email it’s “…definitely on my mind…” as a likely disruptor of the body’s electrical system. Since oxygenation is a treatment for alleged COVID pathology, however, one can’t help wondering if RFI disruption in this system could play a role.

One of the more remarkable aspects of Seneff’s proposal is that this sub-system is so important the body will engage pathological behavior to maintain it. This implies yet another (two-pronged) pathway for radiation-induced illness.

For the technically minded, Seneff’s most recent publication at this writing, based on her review of the literature, is: Sulfate’s Critical Role for Maintaining Exclusion Zone Water: Dietary Factors Leading to Deficiencies

Note that only one blood cell can fit through a capillary at a time. Then we see that even short-term exposure to cell phone radiation causes 1) “spiked” red blood cells and 2) red cells to cling together in a form called rouleau: Does Short-term Exposure to Cell Phone Radiation Affect the Blood?

Symptomologies

Since any charged or polar element in or out of the cells of organisms is susceptible, the range of potential pathology is impressive. Three of the worst for humans, even though cancer is played up, are disruption of endocrine (hormone) balance, damaged blood/brain barrier, and, potentially, eventual species-wide reproductive failure.

Exposure to radio frequency radiation below FCC guidelines can result in the genesis of several types of cancer, DNA and chromatin damage and/or dysfunction, mutagenesis, teratogenesis, neurodegenerative and neurocognitive disorders, reproductive problems, excessive reactive oxygen species/oxidative stress, inflammation, apoptosis, blood-brain barrier disruption, pineal gland/melatonin production dysfunction, sleep disturbance, headache, irritability, fatigue, concentration difficulties, depression, dizziness, tinnitus, burning and flushed skin, digestive disturbance, tremor, cardiac irregularities, and general dysfunction of the neural, circulatory, immune, endocrine, and skeletal systems.

Just a thought on radiation-induced hormone imbalance… Could it have anything to do with the marked increase in recent times of gender ‘differences’?

The question has been asked, “If wireless is so bad, why isn’t everyone sick and dying?” Simple answer, many people are sick and dying. Not to mention billions in the environment. Could it be that the connection simply isn’t (sufficiently) being made/realized?

This isn’t about strange, rare, esoteric human illness; it’s about everyday issues attributed to “known,” or often unknown, causes. Of humans, most susceptible overall are fetuses and the young up to about 21 years.

Here is a massive, detailed, documented compendium of the existing evidence on human impact: Kostoff RN. The largest unethical medical experiment in human history. PDF.

Yet, we get the “Stop 5G!” Manifesto-in-Effect (MIE): “We know how harmful, even fatal, 2G-4G are, so we must stop 5G or we’ll be more dead.”

The unsettling thing is that people take MIE seriously, which may have to do with its presentation by zealots with seemingly little passion for detail and the whole picture. It reminds one of COVID fear programming — except for the satellite issue, where, it’s suggested, all “5G” protest energy should be concentrated.

Speaking of BioInitiative, here is a list of studies on weakened immune function, which might be of particular concern these days. Studies Reporting Disrupted Immune Function from Exposure to Low-Intensity Radiofrequency Radiation (Non-thermal). Official authority is careful not to mention: Techno-toxic way of life per se is a major threat to immunity.

Based on preliminary evidence, the possibility of radiation-induced addiction also exists. Henry Lai, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Bioengineering, University of Washington, Seattle, WA USA said to me in a 10/10/19 email:

What I basically found was that radiofrequency radiation (RFR) activated a group of chemicals called endogenous opioids in the brain of the rat. These compounds  are involved in addictive behavior. However, it needs more research to establish that RFR-activated endogenous opioids in the brain cause addiction. Activation of endogenous opioids by RFR has also been reported by other researchers.

‘Biophysics-speaking,’ it comes down to this: Given extreme biological sensitivity, the basic nature of artificial microwave; the irrevocable additions for telecom/WiFi; cumulative effect; and particularly the noted interactions, all present unrelenting chaos in which biological systems cannot stabilize. The possibility of “responsible/safe” wireless tech for humans is about as remote as things get; and that applies to dire threat to ecosystem.

Where Are the Whole-Truth Tellers?

It’s more than fair to ask, however, how key assertions made just below can be true when a majority of international EMF scientists are 1) asking for safer, safe, biologically based exposure limits from regulatory authority, and 2) not disposed to mention, even as a possibility, the (dreaded) solution.

Part of the answer may lie in the hullaballoo reportage in September 2020 that in France, over 60 mayors and officials called for a “5G” moratorium. In articles about this exists an extensive, grand list of letters and official briefings on “5G”, from many scientists (most amount to the “Stop 5G!” MIE). To read all would be daunting, but one can scan, select a random few, and easily come up with a good indication of the answer to the above two-part question.

Here are four quotes from the letters of prominent scientists. I usually have no qualms about naming names, but will refrain here (giving the source for the letters would counter that):

1) A major figure in the cautionary community: We are all at risk from these toxic (sic) exposures until our nation adopts biologically-based standards for radio-frequency radiation.

2) A giant in the field, with a monster CV: There is a large and growing body of scientific evidence indicating that the densification of 5G and small cells will create serious health and environmental impacts due to the increased radiofrequency radiation exposure.

3) A noteworthy compiler of research: I certainly am not advocating for abandoning all of these forms of wireless communication, as they have clear benefits to society. However I am concerned that with evidence of harm among individuals with excessive exposure to current technology we should be very cautious in expanding to new frequencies that are likely to be more dangerous.

4) Lecturer: Wireless technology should be reserved for essential mobile technology like cell phones and GPS in cars. If transmission of information on all non-mobile devices (Internet access, smart meters, wireless printers, etc.) were placed onto wires, exposures would significantly decrease and some people would be able to recover resulting in a healthier population, reduced health care costs, less time off work and off school, and a healthier environment for other living species.

One wonders how apparently intelligent folk can write such things with a ‘straight face’ and with such milquetoast understatement (one doesn’t like to imagine them smirking at the keyboard)? I wonder if #3, for example, would hold fast, if the writer’s health and/or life were known to be forfeit immediately for the “clear benefits.”

Professor (“We need a Nobel Prize for common sense”) Olle Johansson, formerly of the Karolinska Institute (medical college) in Stockholm, is a prime example of what can happen to truth-tellers — ‘even’ in science. He lost his highly distinguished career in 2017 for having the audacity to speak truth to the matter of safety. He’s still taking abuse today.

Example: The “cosmic background” link above leads to:  “A Comment About Health Impacts of Cell Phone Radiation”, by Johansson, which includes assertions about cosmic background, no safe ‘dose,’ the futility of “reducing” or “minimizing” exposure, and the need to quit wireless.

(It must be noted again that strictly speaking, from a physics standpoint, cosmic microwave isn’t the same as the artificial ‘stuff,’ in that it’s not a continuous wave, and not polarized or digitalized.)

Four truth-tellers from other venues who have paid the price of integrity come immediately to mind: Galileo Galilei on astronomy; Peter Duesberg, PhD, for submitting a paper challenging the HIV/AIDS hypothesis; Andrew Wakefield, MD, demonized by his ‘peers’ and stripped of privilege for suggesting further research on MMR vaccine and autism (subsequently exonerated); and Judith Curry, PhD on the politics of CO2 climate science.

Career threat could, in part at least, be why EMF scientists have seemed to ‘keep their heads down.’ But if they would come ‘in numbers,’ such reprisal would be much more difficult to bring without exposing the game.

An unpleasant possibility is what one might call a ‘cancer’ running through the academic, research and publishing communities, which Lancet Editor Richard Horton, MD discussed in the editorial linked earlier. Although it concerned medical research per se, it could be considered naive, to say the least, to assume the same forces are not at work in other fields where special interests roam. There are the principles of science and then there’s research in hands subject to human frailty, influence and control.

Wireless is sold as a great boon, and claimed with utter mendacity to be safe – even though it has been classified by the WHO/IARC as a possible human carcinogen. It’s based, however, on only one type – glioma, whereas, the Group 2B category includes Chlordane, lead, diesel fuel, DDT, Parathion, the very nasty PFOA of Teflon® fame, and many others. Should parents and adults who shower wireless toys on kids be asked if they’d expose them to these other 2Bs?

Voluminous peer-reviewed science exists, including the decades-old Warsaw/WHO documents, which clearly suggest that something other than honesty, to put it delicately, has long been, and is, at work.

In terms of scientific principle, however, “voluminous” is not necessarily the main point. In assurances of safety (even in warnings), one might see expressions such as “weight of evidence” or “most scientists” or “balance of opinion.” They amount to ‘legal speak.’

In science – in a rational context – although exact repeatability can be difficult to accomplish, we need, not the thousands we have, but even one sound, repeatable study showing societally unacceptable harm in order to invoke the Precautionary Principle. And depending on circumstances, forbid or revoke an offending technology.

But is a society that has brought its source of life to the brink; that has created the context for rampant illness; and that is literally poisoning its unborn and young — for money, convenience and entertainment — a rational context? Or is it one where obsession/addiction has been induced/programmed and normalized?

Summary/Conclusion

Author José Argüelles has aptly defined (advanced) technology as a “feedback loop of artificial dependencies, leading to neurotic and addictive behavior” (sometimes recognized as such, but mostly considered ‘normal’). And one can add suicidal to behavior. Similarly, Marshall McLuhan: “We shape our tools and then our tools shape us.” Loop-de-loop. De-loopy.

Wireless telecom/WiFi technology is fundamentally a life-negative, pathological threat towering in our midst and cradled jealously in the hands of appallingly misled, artificially hyper-dependent obsessed and addicted users.

RF healing has been promoted as the new wave of the future in medicine, a concept too narrowly focused, as usual, on what might be good for humans – and maybe in the short-term only. Toxic medical drugs also work apparent ‘wonders’ – until the ‘dawn’ breaks. We’re even seeing “promising” RF and nano-enhanced cancer treatment and vaccine “delivery”.

The short of it all for me is, Wisdom-less technomasturbation with little regard for ecosystem impact that comes with all advanced technology. I suggest the possibility also that a main difference between the harm of wireless and RF ‘healing’ is exposure time.

Scientists at the end of WW II were hanged for experimentation today’s scientists are getting away with and being highly paid for. Absent a public awakening even mainstream news can’t ignore, the ongoing, sinister violation of the Nuremberg Code (informed consent to be experimented upon) will play on, perhaps to fatal conclusion.

With wireless, the experiment is not if there is, or will be, harm, but when it will bring the house down – ecosystem, humans or both. In ‘perfecting’ Western technomasturbation, China has wreaked havoc on its environment and has some of the worst air in the world, Wuhan the worst of that.

And now society’s insatiable corporate beast is turning its bloodshot eyes to the ocean floor for minerals needed to sustain the ‘low-carbon’ techno-shiny electric, battery-driven future. What cannot go wrong?

In a tangle of ecocidal, pathological obsession and artificial dependency – even directly induced addiction to the radiation, if proven – does techno-humanity shine by living/acting destructively in fear of an allegedly deadly virus, while madly embracing a threat worse by orders of magnitude?

One cannot be faulted for suspecting that COVID symptoms are being induced by microwave (willfully or not, telecom or otherwise), and/or that COVID is convenient for ‘explaining’ illness otherwise caused – and making $billions to boot.

Most EMF/R scientists favor more research. Interesting at best, not necessary. Perhaps they feel that after tens of thousands, the next one might ‘do it.’ Meanwhile, many innocent creatures will suffer and be sacrificed in laboratories to meet the self-involved ‘needs’ of — the most important species on Earth, of course. Ironically or appropriately, depending on one’s level of cynicism, that species is also paying the price for its reckless, self-involved fascinations and dearth of common sense.

Author/activist Arthur Firstenberg’s book, The Invisible Rainbow: A History of Electricity and Life, is widely admired, making the claim that energy disruptions from technologies based on electricity is behind many environmental problems and major human illness. I mention this without yet having vetted it — but the EMF scientist community certainly should do so! Especially the references. And this article as well!

With no help in view from governments or protective agencies; no rightful, unified opposing front from EMF/R scientists; and with too many scientists and activists shuddering with “5G” hysteria, the whole truth languishes, portending a grim, or no, future.

Is there a glimmer of hope in current lawsuits? Some perhaps, but most miss the point, as the big one against the FCC did. Again, the immediate issue: Is a ‘race’ well underway between ecosystem collapse and human-health collapse? If so, for life’s survival, the hope would be for the latter, as a wake-up call. No one knows how much time we have left – except perhaps the perpetrators.

A preferable development would be mass rejection of 2G-4G at the consumer-use level. That may seem as impossible as setting an exposure limit. To do so, however, would collapse 5G – on the ground anyway. If we can’t or won’t, then welcome all 5G. It will mercifully shorten the coming environmental decline and pathological agony. The people have mainly themselves to count on now.

Again, the stunning book by pioneer researcher Robert O. Becker, MD comes to mind: The Body Electric: Electromagnetism And The Foundation Of Life. Is the second part of the title ominously profound? Three Books Tell a Tale for Survival.

Advanced technology per se can be seen as the greatest addiction of all time. Author José Argüelles – saying it’s “extruded by DNA” – called it a feedback loop of artificial dependencies leading to neurotic and addictive behavior. Best general definition I’ve heard Again, Marshall McLuhan: We shape our tools, and thereafter our tools shape us. Loop-de-loop … de-loopy.

In a 1956 (!) CBS radio interview, Brave New World author Aldous Huxley said,

Man has been subordinated to his own inventions. Science, technology, social organization – these things have ceased to serve man. They have become his masters.

But could it be deeper than even Huxley saw? That a good system didn’t get corrupted, as much as it was created and shaped to be further corrupted? Most analyses examine the further corruption, or symptoms, not so much the baseline condition. That’s ‘sacred,’ you see. A bred belief system?

As technology has advanced, has insufficient distinction been made between “we can” and “should we”? As discussed in the Addendum, few if any major societal developments have been entirely spontaneous.

Technological development exponentially increasing artificial dependencies seems now to be a runaway train. Discretion and discernment, absent. For survival and health, might we need to de-technologize – gradually – rather than seek ways to maintain and increase planet-threatening, pathological addictions?

The mountains, rivers, earth, grasses, trees, and forests are always emanating a subtle, precious light, day and night, always emanating a subtle, precious sound, demonstrating and expounding to all people the unsurpassed ultimate truth. – Attributed to “Yuan-Sou”

Are we seeing? Are we listening? Will we save the bees and flowers? Or will we continue arrogantly and selfishly to tamper fatally with the foundation of life?

Addendum – Other Considerations

This ‘optional’ section goes a step beyond radiation impact on planet and health to: 1) global implications and potentials of wireless as weapon and a central mechanism for global surveillance and control; and 2) some insight into how the show is being run.

Microwave can function as a weapon of two kinds. Following the advent of digital technology in the late 1940s, microwave research included military stealth weapons, which gained considerable momentum in the1950s (must-see also).

A plethora of research articles reveal its function now as the foundation of a global surveillance/tracking and monitoring system (emphatically, not just ”5G”). For example, invasive contact tracing and all invasive “Smart” technology.

Many people are realizing that wireless also feeds a massive, burgeoning data aggregate destined to become the infamous ‘total information awareness,’ with even the US Air Force getting into the game (see esp. paragraph beginning “SignalFrame”).

Not to mention, US Military plans to make the human brain the new battlefield with something called “Cognitive Warfare.” Search the page for “cell phone.” See also: Military Intelligence connection to the push for digital vaccine passport.

Tyranny often comes dressed with ‘noble’ purpose. Fundamentally, wireless is about data mining and control – defining/cataloging/indexing/tracking (as in the Internets of) all things, all natural resources and all humans, but especially those using wireless devices, especially phones. There is only one privacy and liberty perspective in the cybersphere that counts: It’s an illusion.

Just 12 years after this 1958 Mike Wallace interview of Aldous Huxley (author, Brave New World, 1932), in which they discuss technology, education, and propaganda, came this statement from a prominent Elite insider, Zbigniew Brzezinski:

Another threat … confronts liberal democracy. More directly linked to the impact of technology, it involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled and directed society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite whose claim to political power would rest on allegedly superior scientific knowhow. Unhindered by the restraints of traditional liberal values, this elite would not hesitate to achieve its political ends by using the latest modern techniques for influencing public behavior and keeping society under close surveillance and control. “Between Two Ages…” (1970)

It’s no stretch to see things going beyond ‘mere’ surveillance to a global ‘microwave neural net’ – a hi-tech/wireless gulag and direct societal/human-control system – a bid for your personal autonomy – a 1984 / Brave New World on ‘techno-steroids’ — wireless, nanotech and AI — to control brain/mind and micromanage society and people’s daily lives.

Our society is run by insane people for insane objectives. I think we’re being run by maniacs for maniacal ends and I think I’m liable to be put away as insane for expressing that. That’s what’s insane about it. – John Lennon

Note: ‘our society,’ not just governments. Research strongly suggests that this high level of ancient power and control over technociety is also knowingly targeting life, especially the environment, fetuses and the young. It further suggests that Brzezinski’s “unhindered” indicates a quite ruthless mentality. Not “unhinged,” though, as has been said. A psychopathic hinge, meaning no consequence off the table to achieve the goal.

Here’s a favorite glimpse – older, with cash still alive – foretelling in part the kind of control toward which the psychopaths have nudged technociety for millennia: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNJl9EEcsoE Talk about ‘pizzagate’

Here’s a quite good presentation with many interesting details, although the author might have done well to emphasize wireless tech as a major fulcrum for tyranny: Big Brother in Disguise: The Rise of a New, Technological World Order

In the Huxley interview, the USSR is discussed from different perspectives, one being the increasing success of a totalitarian regime. Neither gentleman seemed aware, however, or was saying, that Wall Street financed the Bolshevik Revolution and that for 30 years during the Cold War, US corporations (with contributions from England and Germany) provided extensive, heavy-industry technological and material assistance to the ‘enemy’ to build the industrial/military ‘complex’ of an ideologically polar enemy of the West.

The story is meticulously detailed in The Best Enemy Money Can Buy (Antony Sutton,1986). This is a perfect example of supposedly autonomous nations being folded into the Agenda of a ‘global financial elite,’ of which the USG has long been a tool (Founding forward).

And 30 years prior to the Huxley interview linked above, just prior to his book, came this statement from another perceptive and pioneering societal analyst Edward Bernays:

The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country…we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons…who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind. – “Propaganda” 1928

Propaganda has become the primary means whereby the wealthy communicate with the rest of us metanoia-films.org/psywar.

Here’s some insight into the well-sold illusion of separateness between governments and their agencies on one hand, and the corporate ‘monolith’ on the other:

And it’s worth mentioning that the NSA doesn’t have a “secret relationship” with AT&T, GTE, and all of the other telephone companies, because they ARE the telephone companies. And there’s a 1996 regulation wherein approximately $10 billion of U.S. Taxpayer money was used to modernize and upgrade the NSA’s ability to monitor, process, and/or record each and every single telephone interaction that goes on anywhere in the country–to say the least. – Richard Andrew Grove, corporate insider and 9/11 whistleblower

Thus, one way of looking at the telecom/WiFi system is that if dire threat to planet/life is the price of a centralized power to monitor, track, data-mine, file, index and dictate/control every aspect of human life, so be it.

The social credit system in China, which perfected Western technomasturbation with a little help from its friends, is a global control-system component. Ever hear of Yale China?

Its totalitarian system has been admired in the West for ‘model’ governance in re COVID-19 ‘management.’ But then, that’s another fraudulent scenario. Again, “5G” Hysteria Times Corona Hysteria Equals Hysteria Squared (as noted, an older article in need of update on critical aspects of 5G.)

The Elite plan for allegedly-free nations is for the masses to embrace various means of enslavement and control in ‘freedom’s clothing’ (see Advanced Technology…) Most visions of the future extol a shiny, electronic, wireless techno-salvation — and carbon-neutral green, of course

A danger is that resistance focus will be on the overt aspects – business, finance, economics, socio/geopolitical and so on – while enslaving techno-aspects are brought gradually to full function: Direct thought, emotion, choice and behavior control at the ‘push of a button,’ via wireless, nanotech in the body/brain, and AI.

Discussion/debate will then be over, because people could wake up one morning and not realize that last thought they had wasn’t their own. Even memories can be created. Thus, you will be happy, no matter what.

Advanced Technology… makes the case that the worst development of all time – other than the “Dawn” of (techno) “Civilization” – was the first Industrial Revolution – a Power Elite operation. And I ask anyone, please name a major environmental or health threat not directly or indirectly tech-sourced. Might advanced/high technology better be called TOXnology?

Exemplifying just how far down the wrong road technociety has been led, we’re now facing the threat of super technology, a major plank in the platform of the World Economic Forum’s WEF) “Great Reset” – Power’s ‘scheme’ for an unelected gaggle of social engineers to thoroughly re-order global society ‘for the good of all’ in a COVID-colored cocoon of microwave radiation.

Because the very foundation of WEF’s Fourth Industrial Revolution (notice it tells you “how to respond” is wireless (“…billions of people connected by mobile devices…”). It’s digitalism über alles, happily “…blurring the lines between the physical, digital, and biological spheres.”

Indeed, absent awakening, we must rethink what it means to be (trans) human. Oh, wait, absent awakening, that will be taken care of.



By Peter Tocci

Peter Tocci is a retired massage therapist and wellness consultant with an abiding interest in exploring ‘managed’ history, nefarious covert agendas, and mainstream/mainstream-alternative news-media dereliction, distortion and suppression.

Email

(Source: naturalblaze.com; February 22, 2023; https://tinyurl.com/yf7nbkes)