Microwave sickness is becoming more common as wireless radiation exposure increases in our environment. FCC safety guidelines are inadequate & do not protect public health. They do not consider long-term exposure to pulsed modulated non-ionizing wireless radiation at non-thermal levels. Cumulative daily radiation exposure is associated with serious health effects. This I know.
Allegedly... I'm sorry. He said. I'm sorry about installing this radiation emitting device outside your home. It's my job. And I'm paid well to do it. But. And there is. A "but." But I know... Radiation in our environment, AKA "electrosmog"... It's making people sick. Animals too. Yeah, I know. But I'm sorry. It's my job. And I'm paid well. To do it. * * * [Caption on the image from HERE: In the Puranas it was predicted that toward the end of Kali Yuga humanity would be driven to acts of madness. It is very dangerous that people do not recognize this state...But how do you explain to people that their leaders and their teachers are insane? ~Agni Yoga, Supermundane, (1938)]
Starling W. Childs, M.S., Geologist and Forestry Consultant, Adjunct Faculty, Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, President, Berkshire-Litchfield Environmental Council:
"We've known, certainly, that electromagnetic fields affected trees..."
Of critical importance to humans, trees play a major role in producing the oxygen we breathe and cleaning carbon dioxide out of the air. They also stabilize the environment, prevent erosion, and provide food and shelter for wildlife. One large tree can provide a day's supply of oxygen for four people.
But trees, like humans, are affected by electromagnetic fields.
Cell towers (large mega-towers, 5G or 5th Generation small cells, DAS nodes/towers), antenna, smart meters and other wireless transmitting utility meters (electric, natural gas and water), WiFi, cellphones, and other wireless devices introduced in the U.S. within the last 40 years or so, all create electromagnetic fields we were not exposed to previously.
The majority of people in the U.S. were still using land-lines prior to 2002, and at that time Internet was "largely stationary," which means that everything was hard-wired, not wireless.
More facts and information about the demographics of mobile device ownership and adoption in the U.S. can be found HERE.
The above picture shows how one tree was damaged by a nearby cell tower. More images and information on how "Wireless Kills Trees," can be found HERE.
This above image shows a vine surrounding a 'smart' meter in Ontario Canada, and the dangerous effects spiked (pulse modulated) transmitting utility meter radiation has. Image and story HERE.
In a school experiment, the plate of cress seeds on the LEFT were germinated in a school room that had WiFi routers. The plate on the RIGHT was germinated in another room without any WiFi routers.
The cress on the left were clearly affected by the electromagnetic fields from the WiFi router. Read the full story HERE.
Within the last several years, electromagnetic fields in our everyday environment have increased exponentially, and with the "roll-out" of 5G small cell towers, it will only increase more exponentially.
"Wireless radiation has biological effects. Period."
Instead of ignoring the evidence of harm done by wireless technology, let's begin to reduce our exposure so that we don't end up like the cress on the left, mutated and/or dead, prematurely.
For more information on this seriously important topic, please see:
May 29, 2018 | Michigan Senator Patrick Colbeck Testifies in Opposition to 5G Small Cell Tower Legislation
"This is not an issue of getting access to technology for people..."
"This is about radiation..."
"The FCC is staffed by former members of the telecommunications industry. They're effectively indemnified against adverse health impact lawsuits when the acceptable limits are higher than the limits actually shown to cause harmful health effects."
"We're talking about carcinogenic effects due to tumors. We're talking about issues with DNA replication... autism and other impacts..."
"The studies have also shown that the people most susceptible to these adverse health impacts are the youngest among us..."
"Our primary concerns are supposed to be the health of our citizens..."
~ ~ ~
Some of the studies showing harmful effects from wireless radiation:
“…Julie Watts asks the question you’re not supposed to
ask: Are there legitimate health
concerns?"
Why are you not supposed to ask that question?
The Telecom Act of 1996 made it illegal to refuse the
installation of telecom equipment for health reasons (radio frequency emissions). Telecom can, will, and have sued us if we do.
Why do you think it was necessary to include that in the Telecom Act of 1996?
Maybe because cell phones were released with NO pre-market
testing, and, after-market testing plus the experience of perhaps thousands of
people, show that cell phone use can lead to, or contribute to, cancer,
especially cancers where the cell phones are held or carried.
In fact, a highly credentialed cancer researcher recently released a statement definitely linking cell phone radiation to cancer.
However, in the video above, California Assembly Member, Bill Quirk, former NASA scientist, says, “I know scientifically that putting up these… cell towers
are safe.” Later in the interview he admits that he is
motivated by votes, (not health or safety).
What we really need is actual human safety testing.
That is why I propose all the people in government who want
to support 5G small cell towers and DAS nodes in public right of ways, to have them installed every 500 feet
INSIDE their property first, and get back with us in a generation.
“The bottom line is that caution is often less convenient,
Letter to Senator Thune in response to Kevin Mottus's request in the above video (at about 5 minutes in):
January 23, 2017
Dear Senator Thune,
Topic selected was "Telecommunications
and the Internet" because it was the closest to the topic I wish to
address, which is the Mobile Now Act, 5G technology, and wireless radiation
health effects.
We know that people are
getting brain tumors from cell phones, and neurological effects from other electronic
and wireless technology (smart meters, WiFi, cell towers, antenna, etc).
The Mobile Now Act, which you
have introduced, will put 5G technology, high frequency microwave radiation
into our environment, and will certainly make even more people sick.
This high frequency radiation
has never been tested for biological effects.
Because it pulses more, and has more waves per second, people will get
sicker, faster, with 5G technology.
Current safety standards are
sorely inadequate.
Here are a few links to critical
information concerning health effects from wireless and electronic technology:
Please do everything to can
to assure the safety of the people of America by stopping the Mobile Now Act, stopping the 5G
roll-out, stopping the smart meter roll-out, and invoking the Precautionary
Principle in regards to all wireless and electronic technology.
Most Sincerely,
Jeanine Deal
I encourage YOU to call or write Senator Thune also. Feel free to use my letter, though it would be better if you stated it in your own words. Bless us all!
Since the National Institute on Disability, Independent Living and Rehabilitation Research, said they would take unlimited comments (until December 12, 2016), I submitted the following written comment after giving my oral comment (here). The evidence of harm is rather overwhelming. I pray that 2017 is the year Analog Utility Meter Choice legislation is passed in Michigan, and anywhere else citizens are asking for a choice.
~
Ladies and Gentlemen,
This is in addition to my first comment, submitted at the December 5, 2016 call-in Listening Session.
"The precautionary principle (or precautionary approach) to risk management states that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public, or to the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus (that the action or policy is not harmful), the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking an action that may or may not be a risk."
Harm from wireless and electronic technology is becoming epidemic, as you witnessed on the December 5, 2016 Listening Session call, when 83% of the comments were about this very topic.
The numbers of people adversely affected by wireless and electronic technology continues to grow. There are at least ten electromagnetic-hypersensitivity (EHS) "support groups" on social media (Facebook), populated by people like me, who have become sensitive to, and functionally impaired by, wireless and/or electronic technology. Many of us became so severely ill that we questioned whether life is worth living. Some of us take refuge and sleep in our cars, or in the woods, away from wireless and electronic technology.
The "International EMF Scientist Appeal" to His Excellency Ban Ki-moon, Secretary-General of the United Nations, has been signed by 223 professionals from 43 different nations. These scientists have collectively published over 2,000 peer-reviewed papers on the biological and health effects of non-thermal electromagnetic radiation, and are calling for "more protective EMF guidelines" in regards to wireless and electronic technology.
Dr. Martin Blank, from the Department of Physiology and Cellular Biophysics at Columbia University, says, "We are scientists and engineers, and I am here to tell you - we have created something that is harming us, and it is getting out of control! Putting it bluntly, they are damaging the living cells in our bodies and killing many of us prematurely.” EMFScientist.org
STUDY - Electromagnetic hypersensitivity - an increasing challenge to the medical profession: Some people exposed to electromagnetic radiation, including the frequencies utilized by the new water meters, develop Electromagnetic hypersensitivity. While some cannot discriminate between an active radio frequency signal and placebo, others showed observable changes following exposure; reactions in the pupil, changes in heart rhythm, damage to red blood cells, and disturbed glucose metabolism in the brain: Electromagnetic hypersensitivity--an increasing challenge to the medical profession. - PubMed - NCBI
Comments on the Draft Report by the California Council on Science & Technology “Health Impacts of Radio Frequency from Smart Meters,” by Daniel Hirsh, Nuclear Expert & Lecturer, University of California, Santa Cruz: Showing that smart meters produce between 50 & 160 times more cumulative whole body exposure than the cell phone: Health Impacts of Radio Frequency from Smart Meters
“Not presently known,” means that they (the FCC) really doesn't know. We have been jumping off the dock into dark water without knowing what was underneath!
Campanelli & Associates, P.C., anti-cell-tower lawyers in New York State , pose the question on their web site: Isn’t the FCC protecting us? Their answer: “No. To the contrary, the FCC has employed, and continues to employ its power to assist the wireless industry…”Isn't the FCC Protecting Us?
FCC standards have been considered by some local government agencies as a "safety net" when in fact, they are not.
Reliable disease biomarkers characterizing and identifying electrohypersensitivity and multiple chemical sensitivity as two etiopathogenic aspects of a unique pathological disorder: Reliable disease biomarkers
The American Academy of Environmental Medicine's view of smart meter microwave radiation and how they OPPOSE smart meters being installed on homes: "Emissions given off by 'smart meters' have been classified by the World Health Organization International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) as a Possible Human Carcinogen. Hence, we call for: (1) An immediate moratorium on 'smart meter' installation until these serious public health issues are resolved. Continuing with their installation would be extremely irresponsible. (2) Modify the revised proposed decision to include hearings on health impact in the second proceedings, along with cost evaluation and community wide opt-out. (3) Provide immediate relief to those requesting it and restore the analog meters."
The BioInitiative Report: "...1800 or so new studies report abnormal gene transcription (Section 5); genotoxicity and single-and double-strand DNA damage (Section 6); stress proteins because of the fractal RF-antenna like nature of DNA (Section 7); chromatin condensation and loss of DNA repair capacity in human stem cells (Sections 6 and 15); reduction in free-radical scavengers – particularly melatonin (Sections 5, 9, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17); neurotoxicity in humans and animals (Section 9), carcinogenicity in humans (Sections 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17); serious impacts on human and animal sperm morphology and function (Section 18); effects on offspring behavior (Section 18, 19 and 20); and effects on brain and cranial bone development in the offspring of animals that are exposed to cell phone radiation during pregnancy (Sections 5 and 18). This is only a snapshot of the evidence presented in the BioInitiative 2012 updated report." Conclusions from the BioInitiative Report 2012
The "Electrosensitive Society" gives a brief history of this "illness":
The term “radio wave sickness” was first used by Russian doctors to describe an occupational illness developed by large numbers of workers exposed to microwave or radiofrequency radiation. The symptoms were called “neurasthenic.” “Neurasthenia” was an older term for this group of symptoms, which was coined by an American physician, George Beard, in 1868, to describe a new type of illness that followed the building of the railroads and the telegraph system in this country.
The illness was particularly common among telegraph, and later among telephone operators. The term “neurasthenia” fell out of fashion in the twentieth century in North America, when this cluster of symptoms, or a large number of them, began to be referred to as “anxiety” symptoms, presumably of purely psychological origin. Illness by radio waves has been rediscovered, and is now classed with illness caused by electricity in general, under the term “electrical sensitivity.”
Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D., Director, Center for Family and Community Health, School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, writes about Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity here:
Please invoke the precautionary principle in regards to wireless and electronic technology. Please help protect those of us who already feel the adverse health affects from wireless and electronic technology. Please help protect our children and future generations.
Do you consider yourself sensitive to wireless technology and/or electromagnetic fields?
Has a physician diagnosed you as sensitive to electromagnetic fields?
Would you like to have public places you can go that are free of WiFi routers,
cell towers and antenna for health reasons?
The National Institute on Disability, Independent Living and Rehabilitation Research (NIDILRR) is taking public comments during their Stakeholder Listening Session, which is going on until December 12, 2016. Catherine Kleiber of ElectricalPollution.com wrote:
If you are experiencing environmentally induced functional impairment from wireless technology (a.k.a. radiofrequency sickness, electrotoxicity, etc.), please take a moment to participate in the listening sessions... Environmentally-induced functional impairments are covered under the 2008 ADA Amendments.
~ We have until December 12, 2016 to submit a written comment ~
The NIDILRR requests that your comments answer the following questions:
What issues (barriers) make it challenging for you to be an active member of your community?
What improvements (name the top one or two) would make your daily life better?
What has changed, for better or worse, in the last five years that as affected your ability to achieve your goals?
There are also opportunities to speak in-person, or over the phone, regarding environmentally induced functional impairment, though that opportunity ends on December 5, 2016. Please see the Stakeholder Listening Session page for more details about in-person or phone comments.
Catherine wrote:
It is imperative that they hear from as many people as possible with narrow specific needs e.g. no wireless, especially WiFi, in public buildings and public spaces, especially medical facilities. If you have time and are able to do so, please back up your story and the need for wireless-free public buildings and public spaces with research. If not, your story and the stated accessibility barrier are sufficient.
Ask that they stop funding wireless broadband, repeal section 704 of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, give the EPA authority to establish population-based biologically-protective limits for wireless radiation, and ban WiFi from public buildings and public spaces.
They need to hear about this continually from everyone before they will act. Only rarely do people take action on new information the first time they hear it.
Thank you for taking the time to participate. Change will not happen without your active participation.
~ Please submit your written comment by December 12, 2016 ~
Following is the three minute comment I gave at the December 1st Battle Creek City Commission meeting. The video of the meeting is here. "General Public Comments" begins at about 48:00 and my comment begins at about 53:40.
~
I'm here to talk about the wireless technology that is being used by the Water Department, and all over. We are living in rapidly changing times. When I was growing up in Chicago, no one had a cell phone, not even the Moms.
Today, most Moms and children have cell phones.
We are now also seeing more and more schools installing WiFi for wireless laptops and tablets the students use on a daily basis.
There was no WiFi, not even in Chicago, when I was growing up.
And recently we’ve been introduced to smart meters, though not all of the new wireless utility meters are called smart meters. Some are called encoder-receiver-transmitters. But the one thing they all have in common is that they are wireless devices that communicate with cell towers or antennas by sending multiple micro-pulses of radiation throughout our homes, and our bodies, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. This is what is called continuous low-level exposure.
Cancer clusters have been developing in areas where people live, work, or go to school close to cell towers.
People are developing cancerous tumors in body areas where cell phones are held or stored.
Some parents have sued their child’s school, claiming the WiFi is making their children very sick. Parents are forming independent groups for safer use of technology in schools because they can see the harmful effects wireless has on their children, yet school officials aren't doing anything.
We hear small children describing “flash headaches” while walking by a smart meter, and heart palpitations when opening up wireless laptops in schools.
Current FCC guidelines are based upon the assumption that wireless signals are received from just ONE transmitting antenna at a distance. However, we are no longer exposed to just one transmitting antenna, let alone at a distance.
Within a 4 mile radius of where we are right now, you wont believe how many cell towers. Guess! Eighty-one. There are 81 cell towers and 253 antennas.
We have not gone one generation with the level of wireless technology that is commonplace today. The science is showing that it’s long-term continuous low-level exposure that leads to serious injury in health. See EMFscientist.org
If we are to error in regards to wireless technology, is it not best that we error on the side of caution?
Thank you for listening ~ May We All Truly Be Blessed!
