Saturday, August 31, 2019

FUKUSHIMA NOW: WHY GOVERNMENT LIES & HIGHEST RADIATION EVER REPORTED CONTINUES

Koide Hiroaki, retired professor from the Kyoto University Research Reactor Institute: “The Tokyo Olympics will take place in a state of nuclear emergency. Those countries and the people who participate will, on the one hand, themselves risk exposure, and, on the other, become accomplices to the crimes of this nation.”



IN ONE OF THE MOST TELLING INTERVIEWS WE MAY BE ABLE TO READ ABOUT WHY JAPAN HAS NOT ALLOWED OUTSIDE HELP TO STOP THE LEAKS OR LET IN LONG-TERM INVESTIGATIVE TOURS BY OTHER NATIONS, DR. YOICHI FUNABASHI BLOWS THE LID OFF THE FEARS WITHIN THE JAPANESE GOVERNMENT THAT JAPAN WOULD BE TAKEN OVER BY BOTH RUSSIA AND THE U.S. IF THEY FAILED TO HANDLE THE NUCLEAR NIGHTMARE THAT FUKUSHIMA WAS, IS TODAY, AND WILL BE FOR ANOTHER 40 TO 100 YEARS.

IT'S AN AMAZING INTERVIEW.

THE MAIN QUESTION WE MAY ASK AFTER READING THIS AND OTHER SCANT ARTICLES BY THOSE WHO WERE INVOLVED IN THE FUKUSHIMA COVER-UP FROM THE BEGINNING, IS WHY, IN THE NAME OF SANITY AND REASON, HASN'T THE WORLD COMMUNITY DEMANDED EXACTLY WHAT KAN AND ABE AND SO MANY MORE IN JAPAN FEARED...THE COMPLETE REMOVAL OF JAPAN'S GOVERNMENT, ITS NUCLEAR INDUSTRY AND NUCLEAR REGULATORY AGENCY FROM THE DECONTAMINATION EFFORTS?
WHY?
IS IT SIMPLY ALREADY TOO LATE?  


WHY DIDN'T JAPAN IMMEDIATELY ASK FOR INTERNATIONAL HELP TO CONTAIN THE RADIATION? 

"Early on March 15, 2011, when then-Prime Minister Naoto Kan went to TEPCO headquarters, he said if nothing was done, eastern Japan would be devastated. If Japan was unable to do anything, it could be occupied by the United States and Russia. "If that should occur, what would happen to Japan?" Kan said at that time."

 WHY HASN'T TEPCO AND THE ABE REGIME DONE MORE TO CONTAIN THE RADIATION?

"In the case of Fukushima, Japan’s power companies and regulatory bodies fear that any safety improvements would provoke criticism that the existing safety provisions and regulations were inadequate— and then such criticisms would have to be addressed.

In addition, they feared that the public would demand that nuclear reactors be shut down until all such safety improvements had been fully implemented."

ACCORDING TO 'THE ATLANTIC':
Katsunobu Onda, author, explains it this way:
“If TEPCO and the government of Japan admit an earthquake can do direct damage to the reactor, this raises suspicions about the safety of every reactor they run.
They are using a number of antiquated reactors that have the same systematic problems, the same wear and tear on the piping.”
Politicians inside the ruling bloc , after the Japanese government's latest attempts to stop Japanese experts from leaking news, are saying, “It can’t be denied that another purpose is to muzzle the press, shut up whistleblowers, and ensure that the nuclear disaster at Fukushima ceases to be an embarrassment before the Olympics.”



THE LIES ABOUT JAPANESE FOOD PRODUCTS BEING SAFE IS ONLY ONE LIE AMONG HUNDREDS.

THERE HAVE BEEN OTHER EXPLOSIONS AT DAIICHI SINCE 2011.
'Fukusima Aware' website posted the following in January, 2014:
"Russia’s Department of Defense reported that Russia's Red Banner Pacific Fleet detected two “low-level” underground atomic explosions occurring in the Fukushima disaster zone on 31st of December 2013, the first measuring 5.1 magnitude in intensity, followed by a smaller 3.6 magnitude explosion moments later.
These explosions were reported as 'earthquakes' in the U.S.

Important to note, this report continues, was that the architect of Fukushima Daiichi Reactor 3, Uehara Haruo, warned on 17 November 2011 that a “China Syndrome” (aka: hydrovolcanic explosion) was “inevitable” due to the melted atomic fuel that had escaped the container vessel and is now burning through the earth."   

[As reported by 'JAPAN TODAY', on September 20, 2011, Hiroaki Koide, assistant professor at Kyoto University's Research Reactor Institute, estimated that material from the nuclear fuel rods may be twelve meters deep underground at reactors one and three. The atomic power plant continues to release very high levels of radiation.]

EARTHQUAKES NEAR THE PLANT DO CAUSE RADIATION SPIKES BUT TEPCO AND ABE DENY IT.

NOVEMBER 16, 2016: A "RadCon 5" radiation alert was issued for Raleigh, NC as Gamma radiation levels in that city spiked to 632 Counts-Per-Minute in the 600-800 (Kev) range, as recorded by the US Environmental Protection Agency's RadNet monitoring system. This spike came just four days after a 6.2 magnitude earthquake in Japan rattled the severely damaged Fukushima Daiichi nuclear site.
Alarms around the Fukushima plant indicated a major radiation spike there after the recent earthquake. 

SUCH SPIKES HERE IN THE U.S. HAVE BEEN REPORTED SEVERAL TIMES BY THE EPA SINCE 2011.
IN 2014, MICHAEL COLLINS WAS PROVING THAT IN HIS REPORTS. 

HIS VIDEO SHOWING THESE SPIKES IS MOST TELLING.

Despite the issuance of MANY RADCON-5 Alerts, no mass-media in ANY of those cities, bothered to report the condition.


A MILITARY VETERAN, CONCERNED THAT THE AMERICAN [PUBLIC HAS BEEN LIED TO, GATHERS THE RADIATION READINGS AND DISTRIBUTES THEM BY INTERNET EACH WEEK. .
MANY U.S. CITIES HAVE 'JOINED THE MILLION A WEEK CLUB', SHOWING GAMMA LEVELS OVER A MILLION RAD-CPMs EACH WEEK, MANY TIMES MAXIMUM SAFE LEVELS. 

"The Radiation is cumulative so the Total Gamma Radiation continues to increase as long as humans continue to produce the Rads with nuclear power factories and nuclear detonations. One way to measure the Rad became widespread in the States.

That is by measuring, recording and publishing the Total Gamma Radiation at ground level at many locations in the US. Those Rad Numbers are presented here."

TEPCO, THOUGH BUSTED NUMEROUS TIMES, JUST CAN'T SEEM TO STOP LYING. 


TIMES OF INDIA, FEBRUARY 10, 2014:

"TEPCO announced last week that what was recorded as 900,000 becquerels per liter of deadly beta radiation from a test-well last July was wrong and the actual level should read 5 million becquerels per liter. That's five times more than what they announced."

What this means is that the water pouring out of that plant today is just as poisonous as the water that came out the first day this accident took place; and it has been that way for over 8 long years. 

FEBRUARY 25, 2015: NEWSWEEK MAGAZINE
The fallout from the Fukushima disaster is far from over.

"The operator of the crippled nuclear power plant announced Sunday that sensors in its drainage system had detected a leak of contaminated water 50 to 70 times more radioactive than radioactivity levels already seen on its campus

Tepco has been “aware since last spring” that the rainwater pooling in one corner of the roof contained 23,000 becquerels per liter of radioactive material cesium 137, which is more than 10 times more radioactive than samples of water taken from other parts of the roof, Reuters reports."

DID U.S. MAINSTREAM MEDIA HAVE ANY HEADLINES ABOUT THE UNDERGROUND EXPLOSIONS, THE NUMEROUS RAD5 ALERTS THROUGHOUT THE YEARS?
OF COURSE NOT.
AFTER ALL, WE HAVE LEAKING NUKE PLANTS HERE, TOO.
IN FACT, OUR HANFORD 'SUPER SITE' MAY BE WORSE THAN FUKUSHIMA.


THE FOLLOWING IS WHAT WE NO LONGER READ IN OUR MAINSTREAM MEDIA...THE TRUTH.  


Dr. Yoichi Funabashi is Chairman of the Asia Pacific Initiative (formerly the Rebuild Japan Initiative Foundation), a Tokyo-based independent think tank.
He is a former editor-in-chief of Japan's 'Asahi Shimbun', a leading news agency there.
He is a writer for 'Foreign Affairs Magazine'.    

Funabashi gathered some of Japan's top scientists and academics and launched what they called the Independent Investigation Commission on the Fukushima Nuclear Accident.

[NOTE: That web page is no more, deleted, but was archived at the link provided above.
However, even that has dead-ends.]

In its months of interviews and inquiries, the commission found plenty of failures of design and performance behind the meltdowns. But, Funabashi says, the biggest problem the commission identified wasn't with technology — it was with the culture of Japan's "nuclear village."

It was a culture, Funabashi says, in which “regulators pretended to regulate, [and] operators pretended to be regulated.”

Funabashi describes this "nuclear village" as a closed world of nuclear power plant operators and regulators in Japan — impervious to public scrutiny and accountability within Japan, and resistant to innovations and new safety technologies from elsewhere.

Within this bubble, he says, the Japanese nuclear village built up a myth of the absolute safety of the country's plants, and the firm belief that the country’s reactors were the safest and most advanced in the world.

“I think they actually have found themselves caught in their own trap,” says Funabashi.

The myth of absolute safety blocked implementation of the so-called ‘backfit approach,’ in which new scientific knowledge and the latest technological developments are incorporated into existing nuclear power generation systems in order to improve security.

In the case of Fukushima, Japan’s power companies and regulatory bodies feared that any safety improvements would provoke criticism that the existing safety provisions and regulations were inadequate— and then such criticisms would have to be addressed.

In addition, they feared that the public would demand that nuclear reactors be shut down until all such safety improvements had been fully implemented.”


FROM THE BULLETIN OF ATOMIC SCIENTISTS: 

Dr. Yoichi Funabashi, chairman, 'Rebuild Japan Initiative Foundation' and report co-author, said: “Three years after March 11, 2011, this crisis has not ended, because of the unsolved issue of the contaminated water and the fact that there has been little change in the human side of the equation: the whole system of Japan’s governance and leadership on nuclear matters.
Putting aside the question of the issues with nuclear technology, the human factor that led up to the Fukushima crisis must remain a major concern. We need to learn the Fukushima lessons more seriously in pursuing a new way of decision-making, a new way of crisis management, a new form of governance and leadership. Otherwise, we run the risk of an even more disastrous situation in which Japan would have gained little in terms of wisdom from the Fukushima experience.”


The Independent Investigation Commission on the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Accident, a civilian-led group, consisted of a working group of more than 30 people, including natural scientists and engineers, social scientists and researchers, business people, lawyers, and journalists, who researched this crisis involving multiple simultaneous dangers. They conducted over 300 investigative interviews to collect testimony from relevant individuals. The responsibility of this committee was to act as an external ombudsman, summarizing its conclusions in the form of an original report, published in Japanese in February 2012. That report was substantially rewritten and revised for this English-language book edition.The English edition includes the reviews by 3 world-renowned experts, Professor Frank von Hippel (Princeton University), Dr. Jessica Mathews (President of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace), and Professor Paul t’Hart (Utrecht University School of Governance).

HERE IS THE BULK OF THAT INTERVIEW, VERY LENGTHY, BUT ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL TO READ. I HAVE HIGHLIGHTED SOME SENTENCES WITH BOLD ITALIC TYPE.[BEGIN INTERVIEW]

INTERVIEW/ YOICHI FUNABASHI: Fukushima nuclear crisis revealed Japan's governing defects

February 29, 2012 

"The first report by a private-sector committee investigating the accident at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant, which was announced earlier this week, has drawn wide international attention for its detailed research that digs out many facts about what had really happened at the plant.

The report was put together by the Independent Investigation Commission on the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Accident, a committee of the Rebuild Japan Initiative Foundation, led by Yoichi Funabashi, a former editor in chief of The Asahi Shimbun.

In an interview on Feb. 29, Funabashi presented his view that the Japan-U.S. alliance was in a crisis situation in the first week after the Fukushima nuclear accident. He also expressed understanding for the sense of fear that former Prime Minister Naoto Kan felt about the possibility Japan would have to come under the control of the United States and Russia if it was unable to handle the accident by itself.

Excerpts of the interview follow:

The Asahi Shimbun AJW: What is the key fact that you concentrated on about the confused government response, including micromanaging by Kan?

Funabashi: The one area that we were really interested in, as well as what many people wanted to know, was how serious Tokyo Electric Power Co. was about pulling all of its workers out of the Fukushima No. 1 plant because there was nothing they could do.

We wanted to find out if there was the intention among top TEPCO management to make the decision or come one step toward making the decision to pull out all of its workers.

In that respect, from late March 14 through early March 15, Masataka Shimizu, the TEPCO president, tried to phone Banri Kaieda, the then industry minister, then Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano and Goshi Hosono, then special adviser to Kan. Shimizu called Kaieda a number of times because he did not answer.

The question arose as to why he had to make so many phone calls that late at night. If it involved simply temporarily evacuating the workers to the Fukushima No. 2 nuclear power plant, he would not have had to do what he did. There must have been some very important development for him to do that. We wanted to find out what that was.

In its interim report issued last year, TEPCO explained that the company was only thinking about a temporary withdrawal rather than the complete withdrawal of all workers. That has become the company's official position.

In the interviews we conducted with the politicians who were at the center of the government, they all said their view was that TEPCO wanted to withdraw completely.

Politicians tend to say things that are popular with the public and since there was the possibility that all the politicians were told to give the same story, we searched for individuals who took memos as well as interviewed bureaucrats to find out what TEPCO officials told them.

There were other TEPCO officials who were at the Prime Minister's Official Residence. So, we looked into such matters as much as possible.

From that, we feel that many of the bureaucrats also held the view that TEPCO wanted to withdraw all of its workers.

So, it was not only politicians who felt that the company wanted to pull out all of its workers.

The government's interim report takes the view that the politicians had misunderstood. If one takes that view, that would mean they were making much ado about nothing because they had become frightened by the situation they faced.

But our investigation finds that there was something much deeper and that TEPCO seriously considered withdrawing all of its workers.

But, we were unable to reach a definite conclusion in our report.

We presented the possibility that TEPCO had considered withdrawing to a much greater degree than was contained in the government's interim report due to the circumstantial evidence that we found.

That is the one area that we really wanted to uncover.

Q: Are you saying the bureaucrats felt that way about TEPCO'S intention?

A: Not all of them held that interpretation.

For example, Nobuaki Terasaka, the then head of the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency, talked with Shimizu before Shimizu tried to call Kaieda. Terasaka said he never felt that Shimizu asked to withdraw all TEPCO employees when they held discussions on what should be done as the No. 2 reactor approached a dangerous stage.

We included what Terasaka said in our report.  

I hope the Diet investigative committee will thoroughly look into this matter, by checking internal TEPCO documents, telephone records and memos. All the teleconference sessions between TEPCO headquarters and the Fukushima plant are recorded and should still be in storage somewhere. The Diet should force the company to release those recordings to look into what was said by whom.

Q: Since the report was published on Feb. 27, have you received any reaction from TEPCO?

A: Surprisingly, there has been no response. They may just ignore us until the very end.

Q: If it does come out that TEPCO executives had called for a complete withdrawal, would that have been simply an unthinkable decision?

A: The government put together a worst-case scenario. I only learned about that in September.

While Kan unintentionally revealed the existence of such a scenario, all other government officials were in unison in denying such a scenario.

We only obtained a copy of the scenario in December.

The development described in that scenario is similar to what would have happened if TEPCO had withdrawn all of its workers. The trigger for the worst-case scenario is a situation where the radiation levels were so high that no workers could enter the area. The No. 4 reactor was considered the most vulnerable link in that scenario.

The No. 4 reactor was not operating because it was undergoing a periodic inspection. The fuel rods were moved to a storage pool. In the scenario, if the fuel rods became exposed, it would heat up and come into contact with the concrete and begin a reaction that would melt through it. Because the fuel rods were not in the containment vessel or pressure vessel, but exposed, all workers nearby would not be able to work there.

A similar situation would have occurred if all workers left.

It is at that time that Kan probably felt the fear of having Japan come under control of the international community.

Early on March 15, when Kan went to TEPCO headquarters, he said if nothing was done, eastern Japan would be devastated. If Japan was unable to do anything, it could be occupied by the United States and Russia. "If that should occur, what would happen to Japan?" Kan said at that time.

When one reads such comments now, one probably will think something was wrong with Kan, but I can really understand the fear that he felt. That would mean that Japan was saying to the world that it did not have the ability to handle its own problems.

That would mean the end of Japan because it could not even handle its own nuclear accident even though it had the Self-Defense Forces. I think that is the sense of fear held by Kan at that time.

When I knew that, I felt I had come to the true core of the fear that Kan felt.

Q: Was the decision by Kan to stop TEPCO from withdrawing the watershed in the crisis?

A: Kan did many things that were unnecessary, raising questions about minor details. That is a form of accident management. Leaders should not be involved in accident management, but should only handle crisis management.

While he excessively micromanaged, he also understood what the government had to do at the most vital time of the crisis and what decision had to be made at that time.

At that time, Kan was correct.

Even among bureaucrats who were displeased with the Democratic Party of Japan-led government, especially METI (Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry) officials who were made out to be the villains, many acknowledged privately that Kan was the right man for the job at that time.

Q: What does the report say about crisis management at such times?

A: That is a difficult issue. The Fukushima nuclear accident was one where manuals about what should be done were worthless because the events that unfolded were not contained in any manual. At such times, what becomes the decisive factor is who the leader is.

The fact that it was Kan who was the leader at that time may have been lucky for Japan.

There were other factors that were also lucky.

March 11 was a Friday, meaning there were 6,000 workers there. If it had been on the weekend, there would only have been one-tenth the number of workers.

The winds also blew out toward the Pacific every day until March 15, which helped the venting process.

Rain also did not fall, which would have brought radiation to the ground with it.

For the first four days, there was good luck.

Another incident was the storage pool for nuclear fuel at the No. 4 reactor. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission said there was no water covering the pool. However, for some reason an explosion at the No. 3 reactor sent water to the storage pool in the No. 4 reactor. That is nothing more than sheer luck.

However, our report states that while another crisis will not arise in a similar manner so will there never be another instance of such good luck coming our way either.

Q: Do you feel the maturity of Japanese democracy was tested by the crisis?

A: What was most tested at that time was the ability of the nation to govern as well as the capability and structure for crisis management.

Many of the problems related to governance emerged at the same time, such as risk-adverse thinking, stovepiping and bureaucratic turf battles.

What was probably most lacking was the desire to form a partnership with the public to deal with the crisis.

For example, there was no attempt to explain what the situation was and provide context for the information to be supplied.

Information has to be provided in the proper context and explanations about what will be done in order to seek out cooperation from the people. While that stance and words and the presence of such a leader is what is most necessary to deal with a crisis, that is what was most missing in the Fukushima case.

Q: What sort of information should the government have released more quickly?

A: One problem was waiting until March 22 before releasing information from the System for Prediction of Environmental Emergency Dose Information (SPEEDI).

Another major problem was not being able to measure conditions within the nuclear reactors because measurement devices were not working.

The problem then becomes one of what does the government tell the people when it does not have the information. It may have to say we do not know.

That is most difficult for the Japanese government because officials always want to believe they know everything.

If government officials said they did not have the information, they would face criticism from the media, so those officials would have to bear with that criticism.

In an interview with us, Edano told us the most difficult experience he had was when the No. 1 reactor exploded on March 12. After two hours, they had no idea what happened, but reporters were asking why was no explanation given and saying the public would become worried if nothing was announced. But, he did not know what to say when he had no data to announce to the people.

The issue becomes one of whether the government had the will to communicate with the public.

But, when the government later decided that the public were still children who would panic if given the true information, that was when the fundamental mistake was made by the government in how it handled the crisis because it failed to gain the trust of the public.

Even amid the crisis, support ratings for the Kan Cabinet only rose by 6 percentage points at the most. That was because the government failed to give off a sense of trust in the public.

Q: What was the interaction between the governments of Japan and the United States in the immediate aftermath of the Fukushima nuclear accident?

A: We were fortunate to have Nobumasa Akiyama, an expert on nuclear non-proliferation at Hitotsubashi University, interview officials in the United States, including Steven Chu, the U.S. energy secretary, as well as officials at the NRC, White House, Pentagon and State Department.

In a word, between March 11 and March 17, the Japan-U.S. alliance was in a crisis situation.

It appeared when the United States issued a travel advisory recommending not entering an 80-kilometer radius from the Fukushima No. 1 plant when the Japanese government had established a 20-kilometer radius evacuation zone.

Japan did not provide adequate information to the United States, including the fact that it was unable to obtain the necessary information.

While the United States may have been somewhat pushy, Japan should have moved faster in setting up meetings with Japanese officials when NRC officials came to Japan.

Fundamentally, Japanese officials were embarrassed and did not want the U.S. officials to see what had happened. Japanese officials may have also had a sense of pride at being able to handle the situation by themselves.

On March 15, an NRC delegation led by Charles Casto arrived in Japan and that changed the situation.

He made the appropriate judgments and also had consideration for what the other party was going through. That led to an increase of trust among Japanese officials.

On March 17, Japan demonstrated its will as a nation when the SDF dropped water from helicopters over two reactors at the Fukushima No. 1 plant.

The United States was frustrated that Japan was not employing all the assets that it had, including the SDF. That message was eventually passed on to Kan and Defense Minister Toshimi Kitazawa.

Hosono, former parliamentary defense minister Akihisa Nagashima and others met with U.S. officials, including Ambassador John Roos, on March 18. A decision was made that the Prime Minister's office had to take the initiative to establish a bilateral body to deal with the nuclear accident on March 22.

That led to a more coordinated effort by the Japanese government, although it took 11 days to achieve.

Q: Turning to your original motivation, what were the reasons and significance behind your decision to set up a private-sector committee to investigate the Fukushima nuclear accident?

A: After March 11, I thought about how to view the accident.

Some of my friends asked me "Isn't what is happening a total meltdown?"

Others said, "I have two young children, and I am thinking about fleeing to Hong Kong."

Those were some of the concerns being raised by my friends.

Because of my long background as a journalist, I also received many questions from people who said, "You must know something."

I also wanted to find out what was happening so what I did was interview politicians and those in the policy field, such as top officials in the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry.

I also had the question in my mind of "What exactly is going on here?"

From about March 16 or 17, more blogs emerged about the accident and my friends called me and said, "Isn't something really major happening?"

I also followed media reports closely and I also interviewed a number of government officials, including those at the very center of authority. But, despite those efforts I still did not know was happening in the first few days.

I realized later, sometime in late March or early April, that something really terrible likely occurred. It was only in May that TEPCO admitted that a meltdown had actually occurred. That was when everyone understood that something really bad had happened.

When I realized the extent to which I had not understood what had happened as well as the extent to which the public was not informed about the accident, I asked myself what was it that caused the government to not properly handle the situation.

The Japanese government faced with a similar situation in the past has never accurately passed on information to the public or conducted investigations. The Diet has also done nothing. That was repeated a number of times in the past, but I felt that could absolutely not be allowed to happen this time.

I thought about entering into a partnership with a university, but, although this is not easy to say, starting with TEPCO, the electric power industry and the Federation of Electric Power Companies of Japan have considerable influence by distributing subsidies and if I were to work with any institution that received such funds it would be difficult to do.

I felt that I had to start something new and ask for funds and start from zero because that would be much cleaner. I discussed this with my friends from about April and decided to set up the foundation.

What was important there was the concept of independence.

Japan is a heavily interlocking society with nepotistic ties prevalent everywhere.

Everyone is connected to someone so people do not want to say the truth because that may cause trouble to others. So, people remain silent even if they know something and there is no discussion. That has often been repeated in the past.

But I held the feeling that such a situation could never be allowed this time.

So, that is the major motive behind setting up the committee.

Q: What were your guiding principles for your investigation effort?

A: The slogan for creating the organization was "Truth, independence and humanity."

The model we were trying to emulate was the investigative committees set up by NASA to look into the accidents involving the space shuttles Challenger and, especially, Columbia.

The NASA report about the Columbia accident was lent to me by my friend John Hamre, the president and CEO of the Center for Strategic and International Studies. I met him in Washington in late April and asked for his advice in setting up the foundation. He lent me the report and after reading it I felt that the United States had outstanding oversight capabilities because the work involved an independent group of investigators with a wide variety of backgrounds and expertise who were given access to interview those involved and confirm each and every fact. They were very thorough.

In the United States, it is usually Congress that plays a leading role in such investigations, but think tanks also play such a function. There were actually a number of committees set up to look into the Columbia accident.

At that time, the Japanese government had already decided to set up its own investigative commission, but I thought a totally independent investigation should be carried out.

We brought together about 30 such individuals and began forming an organization from June before the foundation was actually established.

We were not trying to conduct a kangaroo court and look for the guilty parties. What we were interested in was finding out what actually happened, what response was carried out, what judgments were made for those responses, what actually happened as a result, what appraisal was made of those actions and as a result what policy results emerged.

That was our true aim.

The third factor of humanity is related to the fact that Japan is like the Galapagos in being satisfied if only it was safe and being overly confident that they were in fact safe.

But, there was a major blind spot there. That is one thing we have learned through our investigation.

Q: A blind spot?

A: We learned that the United States asked on a number of occasions if Japan had really taken the necessary precautions if all power sources were lost. While the United States had not considered the possibility of tsunami for the total loss of power sources, they did think about a terrorist attack. But, preparations for both situations are the same. So, if the adequate security measures had been prepared, such a major disaster at Fukushima would never have occurred and Japan would not have shown the world just how thoroughly unprepared it was.

One factor was that after the Three Mile Island accident in 1979, the United States has not constructed a single new nuclear reactor. But Japan has constructed several so there was the thinking that Japan had become an advanced nation in terms of nuclear energy technology. Japan ignored the warnings made by foreign nations.

One argument made by Japan early on was that terrorist attacks do not occur here.

But, after realizing that such an argument was not convincing, Japan decided in 2005 to strengthen measures for reprocessing spent nuclear fuel and the nuclear reactors. Those measures were in a sense designed also against terrorist attacks at nuclear reactors.

However, those measures were not very effective.

There is no other field like the nuclear business where there are as many international regulations because of the dangers associated with it. There are many regulations related to nuclear non-proliferation and nuclear safety.

We wanted to conduct our investigation within such a global context because we feel that is a common theme of humanity regarding safety.

We felt that even if our group was a small one, the most important factor was to be totally independent.

In the end, that is what we most wanted--independence.

Q: What were the barriers that were raised because of that independence?

A: We were prepared for that.

For one thing, TEPCO was uncooperative throughout the entire process.

We submitted written requests for interviews with the top executives at the time of the accident as well as those in charge at the Fukushima plant.

But, we received no cooperation. That was very regrettable.

We did speak with some TEPCO sources on deep background.

We also spoke to retired executives, but we wanted to know what decisions had been made by those in the top positions at the time of the accident. That would mean talking to those who were making those decisions at that time.

To be honest, that is one area where I felt the limits to what we could do.

Q: How did you try to overcome these difficulties?

A: We also created a channel on the Internet to allow individuals to provide information, be they TEPCO employees, those who worked to deal with the accident as well as evacuees.

We wanted information and data that could provide help in uncovering what happened rather than opinions.

There were a few that were like diamonds in the information that was contained.

We included the information from one such individual in the prologue. The individual worked in the on-site center designed to withstand quake damage at the time of the earthquake and tsunami.

The individual described what Masao Yoshida, the head of the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear plant, and others in the operation center said in their discussions with TEPCO headquarters. While we received the information in an e-mail message, we did not know if everything was accurate, so we had one of our investigators spend a day checking on the facts with the individual. After we determined the individual was genuine we decided to use what was described in the prologue of our report.

That may not necessarily be a pursuit of truth because all it is is what one individual experienced at the time of the accident.

Because our work involves humans investigating humans, we decided to include such information as what humans felt at that time and what the blind spots or misperceptions felt by humans are. By checking on such factors, we could determine what may have been mistaken and we included that additional information that we uncovered.

Q: You have interviewed a number of key political leaders involved in the crisis management at the prime minister's office.

A: Starting in September and lasting until February, we conducted in-depth interviews with those who were at the core of government, such as Kan, Kaieda, Edano, Hosono, and Tetsuro Fukuyama, then deputy chief Cabinet secretary.

We had a two-hour interview with Kan and later met him on three other occasions.

Unfortunately, we wanted more contact with TEPCO executives, but because we couldn't we used the Internet channel for information.

While there were limits to what the government investigative committee could do, the report on what happened on-site, such as which reactor was the first to experience meltdown, why the venting process was delayed and other analysis of operational and technical matters, including confirmation of what actually happened, was very detailed.

Because we could not meet directly with TEPCO officials, we relied to a considerable extent on the interim report of the government investigative committee.

However, there were several differences in the conclusion we reached and the nuances to the reports that were released by our organization and the government committee.

Q: What do you think will be the international perception or appraisal of what Japan did or should have done?

A: While everyone is looking critically at the response now, things could change in 10 to 20 years.

People might change to an appraisal that Japan actually did a good job considering the extent of the disaster. It will depend on whether any severe radiation cases emerge in the future. Despite the amount of radiation released, no one has yet died, including among the workers who dealt with the accident.

The sense of purpose and courage of the Fukushima 50 should be praised.

There were problems with the systematic negligence on the part of TEPCO and the decision by executives to send in the workers under very dangerous conditions was very problematic. At the same time, we also have to separate that from what the workers who went into the reactors risking their lives did.

And, finally, when Kan and his team decided that TEPCO could not withdraw and realized that the nation had to in the end take responsibility that was what saved the nation.

Having said that, there were also many problems including a lack of proper regulation.

There was also the self-defeating logic of the myth of total safety in nuclear plants in Japan. Under the logic that nuclear plants are 100 percent safe, no further preparations should be made for any sort of accident.

Anyone would realize how wrong that logic is."  


[END INTERVIEW]
YOU MAY READ THE FULL 21-PAGE PDF REPORT OF FUNABASHI AND HIS TEAM AT ...
Fukushima in review: Acomplex disaster, a disastrousresponseYoichi Funabashi and Kay Kitazawa


WHEN WE BEGIN TO SEE THE AFTERMATH OF KAN'S DECISION TO NOT EVACUATE TOKYO AND MOST OF JAPAN, WHEN CHILDREN ARE BORN SIMILAR TO THOSE STILL BEING BORN AFTER CHERNOBYL, MANY WILL DESPISE HIM FOR 'SAVING FACE'. 

"Now what would have happened if this molten material had escaped from the containment?… A radius of 250 kilometers — which includes the city of Tokyo — anyone living in this area, if you count them up it comes to 50 million or 40% of the Japanese population, and they would all have had to be evacuated."
~ Former Japanese PM Naoto Kan

THEY STILL HAVE NOT LOCATED ALL THE CORIUM AND MANY HAVE ADMITTED TOKYO AND MOST OF JAPAN SHOULD HAVE BEEN EVACUATED



The Lid Comes Off Fukushima Daiichi.
"Abe at Ground Zero: the consequences of inaction at Fukushima Daiichi"

 THE ASIA PACIFIC JOURNAL, March 17, 2013, Volume 11 | Issue 12 | Number 1

AUTHORS:
Professor Andrew DeWit is Professor in the School of Policy Studies, Rikkyo University.

Dr. Christopher Hobson is an Assistant Professor in the School of Political Science and Economics, Waseda University, and a Visiting Research Fellow at the United Nations University.

"The most recent opinion poll, released by the Mainichi Shimbun on August 25, shows that no less than 91% of the Japanese public wants the government to intervene. Clearly, Abe’s August 7 gambit of publicly declaring “Tepco: shape up!” convinced few that he was doing enough. Indeed, while the Mainichi was in the midst of polling, Abe was being lambasted by an August 23 editorial in Nishinihon Shimbun. The editors demanded he act, expressing open dismay that he would call for decisive action from Tepco given its shameful record of endless mishaps and denials.

The August 28 Business Times Singapore spoke up from the East, and excoriatingly editorialized that “Mr Abe appears grudging in his occasional statements of ‘regret’ at the ongoing crisis but resentful that it continues to dent Japan’s international image. Certainly, it embarrasses a country anxious to promote overseas sales of nuclear reactors and to bring other idled reactors back on line.” The editors highlighted the proliferating “international dimensions” of the crisis and cautioned that if Fukushima Daiichi “is not an international threat, then it is difficult to see what is.”

As for China, on August 21 the state officially expressed “shock” over the situation, with its Foreign Ministry calling for Japan to “take effective steps to put an end to the negative impact of the after-effects of the Fukushima nuclear accident.”
But the government was also careful to declare domestically that the Chinese State Oceanic Administration’s survey results show radiation flows (including Cesium 134) from Fukushima Daiichi into the aquatic environment but not into areas under Chinese jurisdiction. They also stressed they were doing follow-up surveys of the marine environment, and have stated they reserve the right to request entry into waters near Daiichi to conduct to assess the impact the ongoing leaks were having on the ocean.

Influential actors within the ranks of Abe’s LDP also began openly questioning his government’s management of the situation. On August 28, LDP Diet member and party deputy secretary general Kohno Taro bluntly derided the most recent promise for closer supervision: “The METI way of thinking is crazy…TEPCO doesn’t want to spend money, and TEPCO doesn’t want to use their personnel. The government has to step up and take responsibility for all of this, otherwise we won’t get on top of the situation.”

Every day, according to the Japanese Agency for Natural Resources and Energy, the Nos 1 to 4 area of the Daiichi site receives about 1000 tons additional groundwater flow from the nearby mountains. Of this amount, it appears that roughly 400 tons come in contact with the reactors’ structures and underground radioactive wreckage and is thus contaminated, with roughly 300 tonnes of that flowing into the ocean. The remaining 600 tons appears not to be going into the reactor basements, but some volume of it appears to be getting contaminated elsewhere before flowing into the sea.

Tepco uses about 400 tons of water per day to inject into the ruined reactor facilities (especially the area around the three 100-ton molten fuel cores) in order to keep them cooling. That amount is mixed with the 400 tons flowing in as groundwater. Tepco recycles half and pumps out the latter 400 tons of contaminated water and puts it into these above-ground tanks, each with 1000 ton capacity.38 So every 2.5 days, a new tank is necessary, for an annual total of roughly 150,000 tons. About 350 of the 1000 tanks already in place were for “temporary” storage, hastily thrown together with bolts and bits of cast-off material, and some of them are already leaking.

This is Not Just About Water

Without downplaying the seriousness of the contaminated water, and the other setbacks at Daiichi, it is important to recognise that things could very easily, and very quickly, get much worse.

Understandably, most commentary on Daiichi focuses on the multiple leaks of water laced with high- and low-level radiation, but the oncoming challenges are far more serious.
As Robert Alvarez, former Senior Policy Advisor at the US Department of Energy and one of the world’s top spent fuel pools experts, has warned, sites such as Fukushima Daiichi “have generated some of the largest concentrations of radioactivity on the planet.” They need to be handled by the most competent and best-equipped expertise available.

[T]here are 1,533 used fuel rod assemblies tightly packed together in the spent-fuel pool above the reactor.50 They weigh a total of 400 tons, and contain radiation equivalent to 14,000 times the amount released by the Hiroshima atomic bomb.
The spent-fuel pool stands 18 metres above ground, was damaged by the earthquake and tsunami, and is in a deteriorating condition. It remains vulnerable to any further shocks, and is also at risk from ground liquefaction.

One might add there is a significant terrorist threat, considering the damage that could be done with a light plane or some similar attack. Removing the spent fuel from No 4 and the other pools, bundles that among other fission products contain deadly plutonium, is clearly an urgent task but must be done properly.

Even under ordinary circumstances spent-fuel removal is a difficult task, normally requiring the aid of computers. But due to the damage, removal of the total 6840 spent fuel bundles from Daiichi No. 4’s spent fuel pool, the five other reactors’ pools, and the entire unit’s common pool will have to be done manually.

This work will also be undertaken under arduous conditions, increasing the risk of yet another mishap. And if something does go wrong, the consequences could be far more severe than any nuclear accident the world has ever seen.

This crisis at Fukushima Daiichi transcends the politics of being being pro- or anti-nuclear.

The evidence overwhelmingly indicates that Fukushima Daiichi’s current management is an unsustainable threat to the future of the country.

To be polemical: Abe can save Japan or TEPCO, but he can’t save both.

When put in those terms, the choice is an easy one. Or at least it should be."



ABE MADE HIS CHOICE. HE CHOSE TO TELL THE WORLD THAT THE DANGER IS OVER, THAT EVERYTHING IS FINE IN JAPAN, SO COME TO THE 2020 SUMMER OLYMPICS AND HELP PAY FOR ABE'S SILENT NUCLEAR WAR AGAINST PLANET EARTH. 


The Fukushima nuclear disaster: 8 years on
MARCH 11, 2019

Eight years after the world’s most complex nuclear disaster, the damaged Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plants and spent fuel ponds are still leaking and dangerous, vast amounts of contaminated water continue to accumulate, 8,000 odd clean-up workers labour daily and will need to for many decades, the needs of people exposed to radioactivity are still neglected, no one is in prison for a disaster fundamentally caused by the negligence of the operator and the government, and most of the lessons of Fukushima have yet to heeded.

Professor Kiyoshi Kurokawa, who chaired the Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission, Japan’s first ever independent parliamentary investigation commission, has written recently that since the Commission submitted its recommendations to the national Diet in 2012, “little progress of significance can be observed”.

He describes the regulatory changes as “only amounting to cosmetic changes”.

The Japanese government seems determined to present the Fukushima disaster as a past problem with things essentially back to normal and under control in the lead-up to the 2020 Olympics in Japan. The start of the Olympic torch relay, softball and baseball games are scheduled to take place in Fukushima. Grossly misleading claims by Prime Minister Abe in 2013 underpinned Japan’s bid for the Olympics. He stated that “the situation in Fukushima is under control”, that “it has never done nor will do any damage to Tokyo”, and that “there have never been any health problems nor will there be”.

There may have been more than misrepresentation about Fukushima involved in Japan securing the 2020 Olympics. On 10 Dec 2018, Tsunekazu Takeda, the president of the Japanese Olympic Committee, and chair of the International Olympic Committee’s marketing commission, was indicted on corruption charges in France. France’s financial crimes prosecutors contend that money was paid to African Olympic committee officials to vote for Japan’s Olympic bid.By Sep 2018, the Japan Reconstruction Agency identified 2202 deaths as related to the nuclear disaster – principally through suicide and interrupted or diminished medical care. However comprehensive long-term prospective mechanisms linked to radiation exposure have not been established to monitor population health impacts of the nuclear disaster. If you don’t look, you won’t find. Given the fragmented and incomplete nature of cancer registries in Japan, it is quite possible that health effects would not be detected.

The one area that promised to be an exception was monitoring for thyroid cancer through regular ultrasound screening among those in Fukushima aged under 18 years at the time of the disaster. By Dec 2018, 166 surgically confirmed thyroid cancer had been identified among 207 cytologically suspected cancers.

In 2012, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Realisation of the Right to Health, Anand Grover visited Fukushima and made multiple recommendations in a report to the UN Human Rights Council. They included independent monitoring and regulation of the nuclear industry; accurate information for the public and evacuations driven by radiation exposure level dose (including hot spots), not simply distance; public provision of unbiased radiation risk information; a timeline for achievement of 1mSv maximum additional radiation exposure; comprehensive long-term health studies in all affected areas; patients having better access to their medical results and documentation; long-term monitoring and treatment for nuclear workers; financial support for those in contaminated areas who chose to evacuate or to stay; TEPCO and not taxpayers should pay for the costs of the disaster; and public participation in all aspects of post-disaster management, such as design of shelters and health surveys, and decontamination implementation. The Japanese government was hostile to Human Rights Council attention and these landmark recommendations, and has implemented very few

In 2017 in a periodic review of Japan, a number of delegations made recommendations to Japan in the UN Human Rights Council: 

– Austria urged provision of continued support for voluntary evacuees from the high-radiation areas of Fukushima, with housing, financial and other life-assisting means and with periodic health monitoring of those affected, in particular those who were children at the time of the accident;

– Portugal called for the application of the UN Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement to all those impacted by the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster, in order to ensure full and equal participation for both women and men in decision-making processes regarding their resettlement (forcible return of evacuees is contrary to these principles);

– Germany advocated respect for the rights of persons living in the area of Fukushima, in particular of pregnant women and children, to the highest level of physical and mental health, notably by restoring the allowable dose of radiation to the 1 mSv/year limit, and by a continuing support to the evacuees and residents;

– Mexico recommended guarantee of access to health services for those affected by the Fukushima nuclear accident, as well as for the generations of survivors of the use of nuclear weapons.

While Japan responded that it was or would implement these recommendations (but not any particular provisions for second and subsequent generation survivors), no corresponding measures have yet been taken.

While attempting to create a misleading illusion of return to normality, the government is still now, 8 years after the disaster, applying an allowable radiation annual dose limit for the public of 20 mSv. It is the only government worldwide to accept such a high level so many years after a nuclear disaster. It has even established 4 reconstruction sites in areas where residents would accumulate more than 50 mSv/y, and scheduled returns to these areas by 2023. People who have relocated from areas where restriction orders have been lifted are under significant pressure to return to an unacceptably hazardous environment, or lose all financial support."

[NOTE: The source of the article directly above, International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, is a non-partisan federation of national medical organizations in 64 countries, representing tens of thousands of doctors, medical students, other health workers, and concerned citizens who share the common goal of creating a more peaceful and secure world freed from the threat of nuclear annihilation.]


Former Japan PM accuses Abe of lying over Fukushima pledge. BLOOMBERG NEWS:September 7, 2016   
"Junichiro Koizumi disputes current leader’s description of situation at stricken nuclear power plant as being under control.
“When [Abe] said the situation was under control, he was lying,” Koizumi told reporters in Tokyo. “It is not under control,” he added.”             

IT'S A NUCLEAR WAR WITHOUT A DECLARATION OF WAR. 

Bear in mind that the average nuclear warhead only contains about 20 pounds of nuclear fuel, and a nuclear power-plant, such as Fukushima, contains thousands of tons of nuclear fuel. this is the reason why just one nuclear meltdown has the capacity to destroy an entire nation.
A single nuclear disaster, such as the ongoing possibility at Fukushima's reactor units 3 and 4, can release more radiation than the combined radiation of all the nuclear weapons tests ever conducted.
It will never be possible to safely shut down all 450 operating nuclear reactors and recover or maintain control of perhaps thousands of nuclear waste facilities around the world.

Big Nuke's obligation is to provide safe and secure storage for all their radioactive waste for a million years. Mankind has yet to build a structure which will last 50 thousand years, let alone a million, and the nuclear industry has no intention of spending the trillions of dollars it would cost to store nuclear waste FOREVER. 


Japan's Nuclear Migraine; A Never-Ending Disaster at Fukushima

From 'Spiegel Online':

"Japan is stumbling helplessly from one crisis to the next as it battles the ongoing disaster at the Fukushima nuclear power plant. US nuclear inspector Dale Klein is demanding the intervention of foreign experts, but a quick solution is unlikely.

Dale Klein describes it as "very sobering." Klein, who was head of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission until 2009, now serves as chair of the Nuclear Reform Monitoring Committee, which advises Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO).

Klein is generally a polite man, but he recently announced in public exactly what he thinks of the company that hired him. "You do not know what you're doing," Klein told company president Naomi Hirose in person. "You do not have a plan."

In accordance with Japanese custom, the company head, thus chastised, inclined his head and replied, "I apologize for not being able to live up to your expectations."

Stumbling "from crisis to crisis," Klein says. And with no improvement in sight.

[Klein] says Japan should form a new company to apply knowledge from international experts to the cleanup efforts. TEPCO, he believes, is simply not capable of handling the extremely difficult water issue, a problem that, he says, they will be dealing with "for the next decade."
THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN, NOR IS IT LIKELY TO. 
The Japanese government has too much to hide to allow serious investigation from outside sources. 
Outsiders just might uncover how much uranium they were enriching, where and how and how far they had gone toward acquiring FULL NUCLEAR CAPABILITY..."THE BOMB". 


WE ARE NOW TOLD TO EXPECT NO RESOLUTION FOR AT LEAST FORTY YEARS. 


WHY ARE WE ALL STILL SUFFERING THE CONTINUAL FALLOUT, THE UNENDING RADIATION RELEASED INTO THE ATMOSPHERE, INTO THE OCEAN AND RIVERS, INTO THE SOIL AND INTO HUMAN BODIES?

NATIONAL PRIDE, THE 'SAVING OF FACE'?
YES.

GOVERNMENT AND NUCLEAR REGULATORY AGENCIES CORRUPTION AND COLLUSION?
YES.

THE DESIRE OF A MADMAN TO REGAIN JAPAN'S FREEDOM TO RAISE AN ARMY AND ATTAIN NUCLEAR CAPABILITY?
YES.

A COVER-UP OF THE FACT THAT WE HAVE ALL BEEN ADVERSELY AND IRREPARABLY AFFECTED BY JAPAN'S NUCLEAR FALLOUT?
YES.

TO PREVENT AN UPRISING OF THE MASSES AND A DEMAND THAT NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS CEASE TO EXIST?
YES, YES, YES!

IT WOULD COST TRILLIONS OF U.S. DOLLARS TO DECOMMISSION ALL NUCLEAR REACTORS, AND EVEN MORE TRILLIONS TO STORE AND MONITOR THE NUCLEAR WASTE AND FUEL RODS AND MATERIALS FROM ALL THOSE POWER PLANTS...FOR UP TO, AND IN SOME INSTANCES MORE THAN, 100,000 YEARS.

IT'S COST US AND OUR CHILDREN'S CHILDREN, TO 10,000 OR MORE GENERATIONS, THE HOPE OF A SAFE FUTURE WITHOUT DAILY DOSES OF LIFE-ROBBING RADIATION.


NO ONE ASKED US IF WE WERE WILLING TO PAY SUCH A DAMNABLE, HEINOUS PRICE, DID THEY?  

In the words of renowned novelist Haruki Murakami:

“However, this time it was not a bomb being dropped upon us, but a mistake committed by our very own hands... We set the stage, we committed the crime with our own hands, we are destroying our own lands, and we are destroying our own lives.”


EVERY DAY THAT WE ALLOW FUKUSHIMA'S REACTORS TO SEND OUT THEIR POISONS, WE DROP MANY BOMBS...OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN...











______________________________




Related articles

The Fukushima Nuclear Disaster Is a Serious Crime.” Interview with Koide Hiroaki by Katsuya Hirano and Hirotaka Kasai. APJ-Japan Focus, Vol 14, Issue 6:2, March 15, 2016.


Save the Town”: Insolvable Dilemmas of Fukushima’s “Return Policy.” Interview with Namie Town Mayor Baba Tamotsu by Katsuya Hirano with Yoshihira Amaya and Yoh Kawano. APJ-Japan Focus, Vol. 16, Issue 3:2, February 1, 2018.


David McNeill and Paul Jobin, Japan’s 3.11 Triple Disaster: Introduction to a Special Issue 特集 3.11. APJ-Japan Focus, Vol 12, Issue 7:1, February 16, 2014.






//WW

Wednesday, August 28, 2019

5G NETWORK: SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE AGAINST ITS DEPLOYMENT



THE NEW 5G NETWORK IS A $12 TRILLION, YES, TWELVE TRILLION DOLLARS, VENTURE.

THERE ARE NO LONG-TERM STUDIES ON ITS HEALTH EFFECTS ON HUMANS, AS ADMITTED BEFORE A SENATE HEARING. 

In May 2011 the WHO/ International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) listed radio frequency electromagnetic radiation as a Class 2B carcinogen. A team of 31 scientists from 14 countries made the decision after reviewing scientific data on non-ionizing microwave radiation and its association with brain tumors.

THE TEA ROOM'S CHIEF CONCERN, AS ALWAYS, IS FOR THE HEALTH AND WELFARE OF CHILDREN.
A SHORT READ INTO  THE DANGERS OF 5G ON CHILDREN'S HEALTH  SHOULD ALARM ANYONE.

"In fact, the “giant uncontrolled experiment” on children and adults has already begun, despite an urgent international appeal by tens of thousands of scientists, doctors, environmental organizations and citizens calling for a halt to 5G deployment."




CBS This Morning
Published on June 14, 2018

"The wireless industry is in a race to roll out 5G service. It's supposed to be up to 100 times faster than current data speeds. But it requires cellphone tower equipment to be closer to users than before. Tony Dokoupil reports."

THAT BRIEF 'REPORT' DID NOT MENTION THE FOLLOWING: 





   Feb 9, 2019
"U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal criticizes the FCC & FDA for inadequate answers on outstanding public health questions.

Wireless carriers concede they are not aware of any independent scientific studies on the safety of 5G technologies. 

At the end of the exchange, Blumenthal concluded, “So there really is no research ongoing. We’re kind of flying blind here, as far as health and safety is concerned.”

In November 2018, the National Toxicology Program released the final results of the longest and most expensive study to date on cellphones and cancer. Those studies found “some evidence” of a link to cancer, at least in male rats. However, the study only focused on the risks associated with 2G and 3G cell phones.

The latest 5G wireless technology relies on the deployment of many more new antennas and transmitters that are clustered lower to the ground and closer to homes and schools. There has been even more limited research with respect to the health ramifications of 5G technology, and the FCC has thus far failed to adequately explain how they have determined 5G is safe." 

"In a 2004 pilot study involving functional brain scans of fire fighters who had worked for up to five years in fire stations with 2G cell towers, the researchers concluded that the only plausible explanation for the firefighters’ symptoms—“slowed reaction time, lack of focus, lack of impulse control, severe headaches, anesthesia-like sleep, sleep deprivation, depression, and tremors”—was the radiofrequency radiation exposure from the towers. The International Association of Fire Fighters then went on record as opposing “the use of fire stations as base stations for towers and/or antennas for the conduction of cell phone transmissions until a study with the highest scientific merit and integrity…is conducted and it is proven that such sightings are not hazardous to the health of our members.”

"One of the novel dangers introduced by 5G technology is its reliance on high-frequency millimeter waves (MMWs), a bountiful and not previously commercialized portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. While 5G’s enthusiasts are quick to promise support for literally billions of devices, there is one catch—the shorter millimeter wavelengths cannot travel as far as the lower frequencies used for earlier generations of mobile technology. Thus, while there were about 300,000 wireless antennas on U.S. cell towers and buildings as of 2016 (a doubling since 2002), 5G will require “exponentially more”—millions of small cell towers every 500 feet “on every street corner.”


PHYSICIANS FOR SAFE TECHNOLOGY WRITES: 
(PLEASE NOTE: Reference numbers are left within text quoted and can be followed by the vast numbered links at the end of this blog**.)

"Digital and wireless devices have provided many benefits, however, we are now realizing that the rapid adoption of this novel technology has not been accompanied by adequate regulation, monitoring or safety precautions.

Widespread use of digital media and near constant exposure to wireless devices has caused increasing concern among scientists, health care professionals, psychologists, educators and the public who are now considering this is not only a public health issue but a looming public health crisis. (11,108) It appears that we are at the same point of emerging science similar to early recognition of health impacts associated with tobacco, asbestos, coal dust and lead. (119) These concerns are amplified by industry proposals for a massive expansion of wireless infrastructure and connectivity.

Through both science and observation, we are learning that there are significant adverse health, psychosocial, environmental, privacy and security issues associated with the use of this modern technology. This raises many challenges and questions for physicians and other health care professionals, patients and our society regarding the development and use of this technology. To date digital technology has not been addressed in the U.S. from a public health, individual health or environmental perspective.

The abundance of peer reviewed science showing harm coupled with obsolete radiofrequency safety guidelines that fail to address long term health effects and non-thermal biological effects indicate that a precautionary approach is essential to reduce potential harm to the public and the environment. Human bodies are a complex arrangement of cells that are guided by fragile biologic and electric signaling. The nervous system, heart and intricate cellular processes use an interplay of both molecular and minute electrical charges which control and direct precise responses to internal and external stimuli, thus influencing function and development. Environmental influences, both chemical and electrical, can interfere with and adversely affect these biological processes and thus our health.

Radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation (RF EMR) emitted by common wireless devices that we are exposed to, such as cell phones, laptops, tablets, DECT cordless phones, wireless routers and smart meters, has been well demonstrated in the literature to have non-thermal toxic effects on our cell biology, even when used on lower power settings.

The increasing use of wireless devices and computers has spawned an abundance of research revealing a variety of health concerns including cancer, neurodevelopmental harm, neurodegeneration and reproductive abnormalities.

Studies indicate that radiofrequency EMR has broad effects on the body and negatively affects sperm, ovaries, liver, kidneys, the immune system, melatonin production, DNA, protein synthesis, the blood brain barrier, and nerve cell viability and function. (11)

Prenatal developmental effects are especially worrisome as they can be heritable. The damage to cells is cumulative and increases with longer exposure. Commercial use of wireless devices began in the late 1990’s and because of long latency periods between exposure and diseases such as brain cancer, the full negative effects on public health may not be realized for many years with exposure. (121)

In addition, a condition called electrosensitivity (ES) is emerging in the population. People with ES develop symptoms of insomnia, headaches fatigue and impairment of concentration with near exposure to wireless devices, smart meters and cell towers.

Current U.S. exposure guidelines to radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation (RF EMR) are an engineering standard based only on thermal (heat) effects. These guidelines do not consider the significant body of research demonstrating biological harm with non-thermal low-level EMR exposure which are identified at and below current safety standards. (14) We have thus, a heat standard without a more relevant biological standard of safety, which if taken into consideration would indicate a much lower exposure should be applied to current guidelines."  

Scientific evidence of the health hazards of microwaves has been well documented  for over 20 years and there exist over 70,000 studies that proved these known dangers.
WHY did no one in the industry seem to take that into consideration before pushing this hard for 5G?  



Scientists and Doctors Demand Moratorium on 5G
Apr 26, 2018

In April, 2018, the International Society of Doctors for the Environment (ISDE) and its member organizations in 27 countries, adopted a declaration calling for a moratorium on the deployment of 5G (fifth generation cellular technology) in the European Union.


The declaration is entitled, "5G networks in European Countries: appeal for a standstill in the respect of the precautionary principle."

"We believe it should be unethical to ignore the available evidence waiting a possible “a posteriori” demonstration of health damages in the presence of a present and potentially manageable risk for public health.
Thus, in the respect of the precautionary principle and of the WHO principle “health in all policies”, we believe suitable the request of a standstill for the “5G experimentations” throughout Europe until an adequate and active involvement of public institutions operating in the field of environmental health (health ministry, environmental ministry, national environmental and health agencies) will be effectively planned."


FORMER U.N. EMPLOYEE WARNED THE U.N. SECRETARY GENERAL YEARS AGO: 

"I found a threat that starts at the highest levels of government, involves billions of taxpayer dollars, and benefits no one except the world’s largest energy companies.

"A threat that involves…

Your privacy…

Your financial future…

Your health…

Your freedom…

… and so much more…."

~ Claire Edwards, BA Hons, MA, United Nations Editor and Trainer in Intercultural Writing from 1999 to 2017.
Since May 2018, she has collaborated with Arthur Firstenberg to publish the International Appeal to Stop 5G on Earth and in Space (www.5gspaceappeal.org).
The Appeal has attracted over 70,000 individual and group signatories from more than 167 countries. She warned the U.N. Secretary-General about the dangers of 5G during a meeting with UN staff in May 2018, calling for a halt to its rollout at UN duty stations.

She created a website with free information for the people of earth to learn the facts about what is in store for them if/when the 5G network has been completely rolled out.

RECENTLY, THE FOLLOWING PUSH-BACK AGAINST 5G HAS OCCURRED IN SEVERAL NATIONS:

--IN AMERICA

--USA, 24 March: Portland Oregon city officials state clear opposition to the installation of 5G networks around the city, supported by the mayor and two commissioners.

USA, 5 April: California Supreme Court Justices unanimously uphold a 2011 San Francisco ordinance requiring telecommunications companies to get permits before placing antennas on city infrastructure.

[NOTE: SEVERAL U.S. cities have passed ordinances restricting 5G small cell installation. 
I AM ONLY FAMILIAR WITH 21 CITIES AT MY LAST COUNT, BUT THERE ARE SURE TO BE MORE AS CITIZENS FIND OUT THE FACTS. NOT ALL CITIES SEEM CONCERNED WITH HEALTH ISSUES AS MUCH AS THEY ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE PLACING OF THE MULTITUDE OF SMALL ANTENNAS IN YARDS, NEAR SCHOLS, ETC.]

-- IN ITALY
Italy, 28 March: Florence applies the precautionary principle, refusing permissions for 5G and referring to “the ambiguity and the uncertainty of supranational bodies and private bodies (like ICNIRP)”, which “have very different positions from each other, despite the huge evidence of published studies”.

Italy, 28 March: One Roman district votes against 5G trials, with others expected to follow. Other motions to Stop 5G are expected in the four regional councils, one provincial council and other municipal councils of Italy.

--IN RUSSIA

Russia, 28 March: The Russian Ministry of Defence refuses to transfer frequencies for 5G, which effectively delays any 5G rollout there for several years.

--IN BELGIUM

Belgium, 31 March: The Belgian Environment Minister announces that Brussels is halting its 5G rollout plans, saying, “The people of Brussels are not guinea pigs whose health I can sell at a profit.

--IN GERMANY

Germany, 4 April: Germans sign a petition en masse to force the German Bundestag to debate 5G.

--IN THE NETHERLANDS

Netherlands, 4 April: Members of Parliament in the Netherlands insist that radiation research must be carried out before any approval of the 5G network.


--IN SWITZERLAND

Switzerland, 9 April: The Canton of Vaud adopts a resolution calling for a moratorium on 5G antennas until the publication this summer of a report on 5G by the Swiss Federal Office for the Environment.

Switzerland, 10 April: Geneva adopts a motion for a moratorium on 5G, calling on the Council of State to request WHO to monitor independent scientific studies to determine the harmful effects of 5G.


HERE'S WHAT YOU ARE NOT BEING TOLD BY MAINSTREAM MEDIA, MY FELLOW AMERICANS, AND IT IS URGENT THAT YOU COMPREHEND THESE FACTS:
FROM AN ADVOCATE STRONGLY FOR 5G:

"The Many Frequencies of 5G"

"In the U.S., the FCC has made three millimeter-wave licensed bands (28, 37, and 39 GHz) available for high-speed transmission, plus added capacity in the 60-GHz band (traditionally used for WiGig). However, 5G NR will also be able to use the sub-millimeter-wave frequencies, notably the 3.5-GHz band. In fact, AT&T is starting its initial trials on the 15-GHz band before switching to 28 GHz, and T-Mobile in the U.S. is even talking about using the 600-MHz band.

“The industry has had to tap into a wide range of radio spectrum frequencies from sub-1-GHz to 100 GHz, including licensed, unlicensed, and shared spectrum to address the potential of 5G.

According to new findings from ABI Research, while the use of mmWave is one of the most distinguishing features of 5G, in the near term, the C-Band is emerging with the most global consensus for the timely launch of commercial 5G network in 2019. Many of the lab and field 5G trials conducted by industry participants have focused on higher frequencies.

With 150 MHz of bandwidth, the C-Band will bring about significantly lower speeds (versus 60 GHz’s 14 GHz of bandwidth, 28 GHz’s 0.85, and 37 GHz’s 1.4). "

PLEASE, PAY STRONG ATTENTION TO THE 'ANNOYING' BOLD TYPE AND HIGHLIGHTED PHRASES, THEN READ THIS, FROM THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ON ITS "ACTIVE DENIAL SYSTEM" FOR CROWD CONTROL, AND AGAIN, I WILL HIGHLIGHT AND BOLD-TYPE WHAT I BELIEVE WE ALL NEED TO CONSIDER MOST:

"Active Denial Technology uses radio frequency millimeter waves at a frequency of 95 gigahertz.
Traveling at the speed of light, the millimeter wave directed energy engages the subject, penetrating the skin to a depth of only about 1/64th of an inch, or the equivalent of three sheets of paper.

The beam produces an intolerable heating sensation, compelling the targeted individual to instinctively move. The sensation immediately ceases when the individual moves out of the beam or when the operator turns off the beam. There is minimal risk of injury due to the shallow energy penetration into the skin at this short wavelength and normal human instinctive reactions.

Active Denial Technology can be used for both force application and force protection missions. Applications include crowd control, patrol and convoy protection, perimeter security and other defensive and offensive operations from both fixed-site or mobile platforms.

Non-lethal directed energy weapons using Active Denial Technology have the potential to provide a non-lethal effects at distances up to and beyond small arms range, providing U.S. military forces with additional time and space to assess the intent of potential adversaries."

[HOW LONG HAS THIS 'ACTIVE DENIAL SYSTEM' BEEN USED BY THE MILITARY AND LAW ENFORCEMENT?
FOR AT LEAST 17 YEARS.
SOME OF YOU MAY RECALL MY BLOG ABOUT IT BEING USED ON THE 'OCCUPY WALL STREET' DEMONSTRATORS. IT WAS ALSO USED AGAINST SOME KEYSTONE PIPELINE PROTESTERS.]


"From 2002 to 2007, the Active Denial System Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration integrated and packaged Active Denial Technology into two system configurations. System 1, the technology prototype, integrated the technology into a High Mobility Multi-Purpose Wheeled Vehicle. System 2 was built as an armored, containerized system transportable by tactical vehicles. Both systems successfully completed a series of land and maritime-based military utility assessments. In 2014-2015 System1 was refurbished into a more robust and mobile system transported by a Marine Corps MTVR truck.

Both prototypes are long range, large spot sizes systems and are available for Service or Combatant Command exercises and are suitable for operational employment.
Human Effects

Human effects testing on the large-scale version of Active Denial Technology has included more than 13,000 exposures on volunteer subjects both in static demonstrations and in realistic operational assessments. Both laboratory research and full-scale test results demonstrated that there is only a 1/10th of 1% chance of injury from a System 1 or System 2 exposure. Research on the safety and effectiveness of 95 gigahertz millimeter wave directed energy has been peer reviewed in numerous professional journals and independently reviewed by the Human Effects Advisory Panel. A copy of the Panel's report is available here."       


[PLEASE NOTE: "The Human Effects Advisory Panel" (HEAP) IS USED ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY BY  THE U.S. GOVERNMENT AND OUR MILITARY TO ASSUAGE THE CONCERNS OF AMERICAN CITIZENS. IT WAS FORMED AT THE EXPLICIT REQUEST OF THE "Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Directorate" (JNLWD) OF OUR U.S. DEFENSE DEPARTMENT. 

"Penn State established its Institute for Non-Lethal Defense Technologies (INLDT) in 1998 to provide academic/ technical research support to the Department of Defense Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Program. Established within Penn State's Applied Research Laboratory (ARL), INLDT is the leading national academic performer for the Department of Defense's Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Program."

THEY ARE "AN INDEPENDENT AGENCY" ONLY IN THAT THEY ARE NOT LISTED AS FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WORKERS. IT'S RATHER LIKE THE FOX ON TRIAL FOR ROBBING THE HEN HOUSE CALLING ANOTHER FOX AS A CHARACTER WITNESS.]



ANOTHER 5G PROPONENT REVEALS FACTS WE LIKELY WON'T SEE IN HEADLINES HERE IN THE U.S.:

FROM THE U.K. : All mobile data has to travel on a frequency band and those bands have different properties, with some carrying data further than others and some being better at passing through walls and other obstacles.

What is mmWave?


mmWave spectrum sits between microwave and infrared waves. It’s been around for a while but hasn’t really been used for much. It’s only recently that its use for high-speed wireless communications has come to the fore as a key enabler of 5G services. mmWave spectrum technically encompasses frequencies in the 30-300GHz range (extremely high frequency, EHF) The lower frequency spectrum will underpin the early stages of 5G, but it is the higher frequencies that will be the true future of 5G. There are technical challenges that need to be overcome to unleash the full potential of mmWave frequencies, but equipment manufacturers and operators are on the case.

5G needs to be able to access enough spectrum to keep up with the super high demands that are expected of it. But the spectrum also needs to be versatile enough for all different usage scenarios, which will likely mean using multiple different frequency bands.

It’s likely that the UK’s mobile operators will repurpose some of their existing spectrum for 5G use, as we’ve seen in the past with 4G. But given the speed and capacity requirements of 5G, they’ll all need more spectrum than they currently have if they want to deliver the full promise of 5G.
The first auction of 5G spectrum concluded in April 2018 when Ofcom sold 150MHz of 3.4GHz spectrum previously used by the Ministry of Defence (MoD).
[NOTE: The Office of Communications, commonly known as Ofcom in the UK.]       

Ofcom intends to auction the 700MHz spectrum in early 2020, with auction applications expected to begin in December 2019 and with the process set to be complete by Spring 2020.

80MHz of this band will be auctioned, likely alongside 120MHz in the 3.6-3.8GHz band, for 200MHz of spectrum in total." 
SOUNDS GREAT, THAT PART ABOUT THE 'MINISTRY OF DEFENCE' AUCTIONING OFF PART OF ITS 5G SPECTRUM, RIGHT?
SURE, SPREAD IT AROUND, GET IT READY TO ROLL OUT!

CONNECT THE DOTS, USE THE FACTS, WISE UP, PEOPLE! 


WHY ARE SO MANY SO EXCITED TO GET A 5G NETWORK? 
 
Claire Edwards explains:

"The challenge of informing people is twofold. The name “5G” is deceptive, implying a simple upgrade from the current 4G or fourth generation wireless. [And many WiFi routers now display “5G” as a mode option, but it means “5GHz” in that context, not actual “5G” — an industry ploy to normalize the term’s acceptance through intentional obfuscation. -Ed.]

This ruse cleverly disguises the reality that 5G means densification, with each individual, visible antenna being replaced by thousands of tiny antennas menacing people, animals and nature from every nook and cranny on Earth and from 20,000 or more satellites with lethal, laser-like beams hitting their unwitting targets millions of times a day like silent bullets.

The second difficulty is the tight control of the media. Hardly a whisper of negativity about 5G penetrates the public sphere, while its claimed benefits are constantly touted in puff pieces in newspapers and in numerous promotional videos.

Yet in the space of only a year since we first heard about the impending catastrophe that is 5G, the message has spread virally through the alternative and social media.

5G deserves the bad rap

Since U.S. Senator Blumenthal dealt a major blow to the telecommunications industry by definitively establishing that no safety studies have been done, the bad news on 5G just keeps on coming. At least 21 U.S. cities have passed ordinances restricting “small cell” installation, and many are charging “recertification fees” to make it unprofitable for the wireless industry.

And the UK-based microwave weapons expert Barrie Trower reports that 17 mystery countries are taking steps to avoid getting 5G.

While the EU eagerly promotes the rollout of 5G, a new EU report admits that 5G is a massive experiment, lamenting that:

“[T]he problem is that currently it is not possible to accurately simulate or measure 5G emissions in the real world … concern is emerging over the possible impact on health and safety arising from potentially much higher exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation arising from 5G.”

The EU report goes on to set out the dangers:

“Increased exposure may result not only from the use of much higher frequencies in 5G but also from the potential for the aggregation of different signals, their dynamic nature, and the complex interference effects that may result, especially in dense urban areas.”

Meanwhile, a court in France has recognized electrohypersensitivity (EHS) as an occupational disease that can be developed also from exposure to levels of radiation that are considered to be safe by the government.

No one wants 5G but the telcos

5G is beginning to look like an unwanted orphan. Everyone who hears the truth about it shuns it like the plague. Even most of its proponents clearly have no love for it.

In his Palm Beach neighborhood, President Trump and his fellow billionaires are not having any of it. None of the EU institutions in Brussels are having it (European Commission, Council of the European Union, European Council and the European Parliament). And its very enablers, the UN and its WHO and ITU are not going to be having it in Geneva, either.

Watch for moratoria being declared in Washington, D.C., home to the FCC; and Munich, nearby home to ICNIRP. Either would be an obvious indicator that the game is rigged.

I HOPE YOU WILL READ AT LEAST SOME OF THE FOLLOWING AND CONSIDER WHAT IS STATED ON EACH WEBSITE: 

EDN Network: 5G: The twelve trillion dollar technology. 3 May 2017. 


Brussels Times: Radiation concerns halt Brussels 5G development, for now. 1 April 2019. 


Telecom Paper: Germans petition Parliament to stop 5G auction on health grounds. 8 April 2019. 


FOR MY READERS IN GERMANY, IN YOUR OWN LANGUAGE: 

Algemeen Dagblad: Kamer wil eerst stralingsonderzoek, dan pas 5G-netwerk. 4 April 2019. 
Zero5G: San Francisco Chronicle: California Supreme Court Sides with Cities in Small Cell Faceoff. 5 April 2019. 


SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE OF 5G HARM: 


--Hinrikus (2018) explains “The cumulative impact of coherent MW field in a medium has been convincingly confirmed by the measurable dielectric permittivity of the medium. The described mechanism of MW field-induced effect confirms that the nature of the effect differs from the thermal effect and that the exposure by MW radiation can create the specific consequences in biology and materials not characteristic for conventional heating.”

--Nielson (2019) states, “Weak radiofrequency (RF) magnetic fields in the MHz-range was shown to influence the concentrations of reactive oxygen species (ROS) in living cells [1–4]. Remarkably, the energy that could possibly be deposited by such radiation is orders of magnitude smaller than the energy of molecular thermal motion. A plausible explanation to the observed effect relies on the interaction of RF magnetic fields with transient radicals within the cells, affecting the ROS formation rates through the radical pair mechanism [5–9].”

-- Towards predicting intracellular radiofrequency radiation effects. (2019) Nielson C et al. PLOS One. March 14, 2019. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0213286


--International Perspective on Health Effects of Low Intensity Non-Ionizing Radiation. Thermal and non-thermal health effects of low intensity non-ionizing radiation: An international perspective. (2018) Belpomme D et al. Environ Pollut. 2018 Jul 6; 242(Pt A):643-658. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30025338


--Understanding physical mechanism of low-level microwave radiation effect. (2018) Hinrikus H. Int J Radiat Biol. 2018 Oct;94(10):877-882. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29775391https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29775391


--EHTrust: Scientific Research on 5G, Small Cells and Health

-- Dr. Martin Pall’s free e-book: “5G: Compelling Evidence for Eight Distinct Types of Great Harm Caused by Electromagnetic Field (EMF) Exposures and the Mechanism that Causes Them” (PDF, 90 pages)

--Dr. Joel Moskowitz: “5G Wireless Technology: Cutting Through the Hype“


--Electric Sense: “5G Radiation Dangers – 11 Reasons To Be Concerned“


--Health resources summary from WhatIs5G.info


--Health resources summary from TelecomPowerGrab.com



--EMF interview by Luke Storey: Dr. Jack Kruse


--SaferEMR: Summary 400 new EMF scientific studies, Aug. 2016 to present (EMF in general)


--Research from Magda Havas


Industry and government claims that 5G technology is safe are completely disingenuous. In fact, the health effects of MMWs are already quite familiar to the U.S. military and defense agencies around the world.

The U.S. has at its disposal non-lethal crowd control weapon systems (euphemistically named Active Denial Systems) that use millimeter waves to penetrate the skin of targeted individuals, “instantly producing an intolerable heating sensation that causes them to flee.” In research commissioned by the U.S. Army “to find out why people ran away when the beam touched them,” they discovered that targets “feel like [their] body is on fire.”

Researchers also have warned that “the same parts of the human skin that allow us to sweat also respond to 5G radiation much like an antenna that can receive signals.”


DOES THAT SOUND 'HARMLESS'?
DOES ANY OF THE ABOVE SOUND HARMLESS? 



AT THE BOTTOM OF EACH OF MY PAGES IS A LINK TO A WEBSITE THAT IS SO RICH IN PEER-REVIEWED HEALTH INFORMATION THAT IT BOGGLES THE MIND.

"GREEN MED INFO" WAS BEGUN BY A MAN I HAVE THE HIGHEST RESPECT FOR, SAYER JI.
HIS ARTICLES AND RESEARCH HAVE HELPED ME THROUGH THREE SUCCESSFUL BATTLES AGAINST THE MONSTER WE CALL CANCER.
I AM NOW ENGAGED IN BATTLES #4 AND #5.

I RELY ON HIS IMPECCABLE RESEARCH AND DOCUMENTATION AND TRUST THE INFORMATION ONE CAN GLEAN, FREE OF CHARGE, ON HIS WEBSITE.
WHILE I MAY NOT AGREE WITH ALL THAT I FIND THERE, ALL THE TIME, I CANNOT ARGUE THAT HIS RESEARCH IS ANYTHING BUT ALMOST PERFECT.

SAYER, THROUGH HIS WEBSITE, IS CURRENTLY OFFERING FREE OF ANY CHARGE, A "SUMMIT" ON THE 5G NETWORK.
IT CONSISTS OF MANY VIDEOS BY LEADING NAMES IN 5G RESEARCH AND CONCERNED HEALTH PROFESSIONALS AS WELL.

DOES HE "SELL PRODUCT"?
OF COURSE HE DOES.
DOES ANYONE WHO WISHES TO VIEW THESE AMAZING VIDEOS HAVE TO BUY ANYTHING AT ALL?
ABSOLUTELY NOT!

DO I STAND TO GAIN ANYTHING FROM SHARING THIS LINK WITH MY READERS?
ABSOLUTELY NOT.
AN OFFER IS IN PLACE FOR A REDUCED FEE FOR THE ENTIRE VIDEO COLLECTION, BUT I HAVE NO INTENTION OF MAKING USE OF THAT.

I'VE DONE MY OWN RESEARCH ON CELL PHONE TECHNOLOGY FOR OVER 12 YEARS NOW, BUT FOR THOSE WHO DON'T HAVE THE TIME TO DO SUCH IN-DEPTH READING, THESE VIDEOS ARE PRICELESS.

ANYONE WISHING TO VIEW THEM AND ALSO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF ABSOLUTELY FREE "EXTRAS" NEED ONLY REGISTER FOR THE SUMMIT, WHICH JUST WOUND UP ITS SECOND DAY.
THE ENTIRE SERIES WILL BE OFFERED AGAIN AT A LATER DATE SO ONE CAN CATCH UP ON ANY THAT WERE MISSED.

FOR ANY WHO, LIKE ME, HAVE SERIOUS HEARING IMPAIRMENT, ONLY THE PRESENTATION BY ROBERT F. KENNEDY, JR. HAS CLOSED CAPTIONING OR A TRANSCRIPT AT THIS TIME.

WHETHER YOU VIEW THE VIDEOS OR READ AT ANY OF THE LINKS PROVIDED HERE, PLEASE, PLEASE, SHARE WITH OTHERS ANY CONCERN YOU MAY HAVE ABOUT THIS TECHNOLOGY.

OUR CHILDREN ARE OUR FUTURE AND IF WE DON'T DO ALL WE CAN TO PROTECT THEM, I FEAR THAT, IN WHATEVER FUTURE WE MAY HAVE, ANY CHILD SUFFERING ANY HARM BY THIS MAY CURSE US.

 HERE IS THE LINK TO THE SUMMIT:


http://5g19.acemlna.com/lt.php?s=7edf164d0814335621ec50fd63b4838a&i=94A2451A1A1592


THIS WAS/IS THE SCHEDULE OF VIDEOS, MOST OF WHICH CAN STILL BE VIWED AS OF TODAY, AUG. 28, 2019. :

https://the5gsummit.com/schedule/



WE LEARN, MY FRIENDS, SO THAT WE DO NOT PERISH. 






______________________________________



** References for the text quoted by the Physicians for Safe Technology.
Their research seems quite impeccable, yes? :


1) CDC. https://www.cdc.gov/chronicdisease/overview/

2) CDC. https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2014/p0501-preventable-deaths.html

3) National Center for Chronic Disease prevention and Health promotion. CDC. 2015. https://www.cdc.gov/chronicdisease/resources/publications/aag/pdf/2015/nccdphp-aag.pdf

4) Environmental Determinants of Chronic Disease and Medical Approaches: Recognition, Avoidance, Supportive Therapy, and Detoxification . Sears,M. Journal of Environmental And public Health. Volume 2012 (2012). https://www.hindawi.com/journals/jeph/2012/356798/

5) Reducing Environmental Cancer Risk. What we can do now. 2008-2009 President’s Cancer Panel. https://deainfo.nci.nih.gov/Advisory/pcp/annualReports/pcp08-09rpt/PCP_Report_08-09_508.pdf

6) Diverse Toxic Chemicals Disrupt Cell Function through a Common Path. Liza Gross. PLoS Biol 5(2): e4. Feb 6, 2007. http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.0050041

7) Heavy Metals Toxicity and the Environment. Paul B Tchounwou. EXS. 2012; 101: 133–164.. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4144270/

8) Screen time is associated with adiposity and insulin resistance in children. Nightingale CM. BMJ. Archives of Disease in Childhood Published Online First: 13 March 2017. doi: 10.1136/archdischild-2016-312016http://adc.bmj.com/content/early/2017/02/06/archdischild-2016-312016. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28288985

9) Why Social Media is not smart for middle school kids. March 26, 2017.https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/mental-wealth/201703/why-social-media-is-not-smart-middle-school-kids

10) Reset Your Child’s Brain: A 4 Week Plan to End Meltdowns, Raise Grades, and Boost Social Skills by Reversing the Effects of Electronic Screen time. Victoria Dunckley, MD.

11) BioInitiative Working Group, Cindy Sage and David O. Carpenter, Editors. BioInitiative Report: A Rationale for a Biologically-based Public Exposure Standard for Electromagnetic Radiation at www.bioinitiative.org, December 31, 2012 at www.bioinitiative.org

12) The Big Disconnect: Protecting Childhood and Family Relationships in the Digital Age. Catherine Steiner-Adair. 2014.

13) American Academy of Pediatrics Announces New Recommendations for Children’s media Use. 10/21/16. https://www.aap.org/en-us/about-the-aap/aap-press-room/pages/american-academy-of-pediatrics-announces-new-recommendations-for-childrens-media-use.aspx

14) Biological effects from exposure to electromagnetic radiation emitted by cell tower base stations and other antenna arrays. Page 374- Biological Effects at Low intensity) B. Blake Levitt, Henry Lai. Environmental Reviews, 2010, 18(NA): 369-395. http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/full/10.1139/A10-018#.WYUlOHeZNo4

15) American Academy of Pediatrics Letter to FCC regarding “Reassessment of Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields Limits and Policies” . August 29, 2013. https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/7520941318.pdf

16) Microwave Effects on DNA and Proteins. Chapter 4. Modified Health Effects of Non-ionizing Electromagnetic Radiation Combined with Other Agents Reported in the Biomedical Literature. 2017. Ronald N. Kostoff and Clifford G.Y. Lau. http://stip.gatech.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/371048_1_En_4_Chapter_OnlinePDF.pdf and http://www.springer.com/us/book/9783319502885?wt_mc=PPC.BING.3.EPR632.BINGShopping_Product_US&utm_source=bing&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=Shopping%20%7C%20US&utm_term=1101200786988&utm_content=All%20eBooks

17) Reliable disease biomarkers characterizing and identifying electrohypersensitivity and multiple chemical sensitivity as two etiopathogenic aspects of a unique pathological disorder. Belpomme, D. Rev Environ Health. 2015;30(4):251-71. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26613326

18) The implications of non-linear biological oscillations on human electrophysiology for electrohypersensitivity (EHS) and multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS). Sage C. Rev Environ Health. 2015;30(4):293-303. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26368042

19) Electromagnetic field induced biological effects in humans. Kaszuba-Zwoińska J. Przegl Lek. 2015;72(11):636-41. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27012122

20) The Precautionary Principle Website. http://www.precautionaryprinciple.eu

21) Evaluating FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic fields. FCC OET Bulletin No.65 (August 1997) https://www.fcc.gov/general/oet-bulletins-line

22) Mobile and Portable Device – RF Exposure Procedures and Equipment Authorization Policies. https://apps.fcc.gov/eas/comments/GetPublishedDocument.html?id=38&tn=277585

23) NASA Report – Electromagnetic Field Interactions with the Human Body: Observed Effects and Theories. April 1981. Jeremy Raines, PhD.https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19810017132.pdf

24) Efforts By The Environmental Protection Agency To Protect The Public From Environmental Nonionizing Radiation Exposures. United States General Accounting Office. CED-78-79, 1978. http://www.gao.gov/products/CED-78-79

25) US EPA Office of Air and Radiation and Office of Research and Development: Summary of Results of the April 26-27,1993 Radiofrequency Radiation conference. March 1995. https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyNET.exe/9100O6Z4.txt?ZyActionD=ZyDocument&Client=EPA&Index=1995%20Thru%201999&Docs=&Query=&Time=&EndTime=&SearchMethod=1&TocRestrict=n&Toc=&TocEntry=&QField=&QFieldYear=&QFieldMonth=&QFieldDay=&UseQField=&IntQFieldOp=0&ExtQFieldOp=0&XmlQuery=&File=D%3A%5CZYFILES%5CINDEX%20DATA%5C95THRU99%5CTXT%5C00000028%5C9100O6Z4.txt&User=ANONYMOUS&Password=anonymous&SortMethod=h%7C-&MaximumDocuments=1&FuzzyDegree=0&ImageQuality=r75g8/r75g8/x150y150g16/i425&Display=hpfr&DefSeekPage=x&SearchBack=ZyActionL&Back=ZyActionS&BackDesc=Results%20page&MaximumPages=1&ZyEntry=11

26) Cumulated index to the Bibliography of reported biological phenomena (“effects”) and clinical manifestations attributed to microwave and radio-frequency radiation: report, supplements (no. 1-9), BEMS newsletter (B-1 through B-464), 1971-1981. ) Glaser Z Indexed by Julie Moore. Riverside, CA: Julie Moore & Associates, 1984.

27) The effects of traffic radar guns on law enforcement officers : hearing before the Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Consumer and Environmental Issues of the Committee on Governmental Affairs, United States Senate, One Hundred Second Congress, second session, August 10, 1992. https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/009937719

28) Radar Guns May Beam Danger to Officers : Law enforcement: Cancer in police personnel has prompted lawsuits, changes in training and cautionary note from FDA. http://articles.latimes.com/1992-01-13/local/me-229_1_traffic-radar-guns

29) Do extremely low frequency magnetic fields enhance the effects of environmental carcinogens? A meta-analysis of experimental studies. Juutilainen J Kumlin T Naarala J. 2006 Ing J Radiat Biol 82: 1-12. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16546898

30) International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). IARC Classifies Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields as Possibly Carcinogenic to Humans. May 2011. http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2011/pdfs/pr208_E.pdf

31) The Telecommunications Act of 1996. https://www.congress.gov/bill/104th-congress/senate-bill/652

32) Wireless Devices and Health Concerns. https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/wireless-devices-and-health-concerns

33) THE EFFECTS OF ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS FROM POWER LINES ON AVIAN REPRODUCTIVE BIOLOGY AND PHYSIOLOGY: A REVIEW. Kim J. Fernie Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health. 8:127-140, 2005. https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/documents/R2ES/LitCited/LPC_2012/Fernie_and_Reynolds_2005.pdf

34) Combined Toxic Exposures and Human Health: Biomarkers of Exposure and Effect. Sillons,I. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2011 Mar; 8(3): 629–647 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3083662/

35) Cellular neoplastic transformation induced by 916 MHz microwave radiation. Yang L1. Cell Mol Neurobiol. 2012 Aug;32(6):1039-46. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22395787

36) Tumor promotion by exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields below exposure limits for humans. Lerchl A. Biochem Biophys Res Commun.2015 Apr 17;459(4):585-90. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25749340

37) Indication of co-carcinogenic potential of chronic UMTS-modulated radiofrequency exposure in an ethylnitrosourea mouse model. Tillmann T. Int J Radiat Biol. 2010 Jul;86(7):529-41. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20545575

38) Electromagnetic Fields, Pulsed Radiofrequency Radiation, and Epigenetics: How Wireless Technologies May Affect Childhood Development. Sage C. Child Dev. 2017 May 15https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28504324

39) National Toxicology Program Carcinogenesis Studies of Cell Phone Radiofrequency Radiation in Hsd: Sprague Dawley SD Rats (Whole Body Exposure) http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/055699.

40) Radiofrequency radiation injures trees around mobile phone base stations. Waldmann-Selsam C. Sci Total Environ. 2016 Dec 1;572:554-569 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27552133.

41) Redox- and non-redox-metal-induced formation of free radicals and their role in human disease. Valko M. Arch Toxicol. 2015 Sep 7. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26343967

42) Metals, oxidative stress and neurodegenerative disorders. Jomova K. Mol Cell Biochem. 2010 Dec;345(1-2):91-104. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20730621

43) Mobile phone radiation induces reactive oxygen species production and DNA damage in human spermatozoa in vitro. De Luliis. PLoS One. 2009 Jul 31;4(7). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19649291

44) The Main Approaches of Studying the Mechanisms of Action of Artificial Electromagnetic Fields on Cell. Yuriy Shckorbatov. Journal of Electronics and Electronic Systems. March 7, 2014. https://www.omicsgroup.org/journals/the-main-approaches-of-studying-the-mechanisms-of-action-of-artificial-electromagnetic-fields-on-cell-2332-0796-3-123.php?aid=24328

45) Americans with Disability. https://www.access-board.gov/research/completed-research/indoor-environmental-quality/introduction

46) The potential dangers of electromagnetic fields and their effect on the environment. European Parliament. http://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/Xref-XML2HTML-en.asp?fileid=17994

47) France: Law on Public Exposure to Electromagnetic Waves Adopted. Feb 5, 2015. http://www.loc.gov/law/foreign-news/article/france-law-on-public-exposure-to-electromagnetic-waves-adopted/

48) Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Radiation and the Health of Canadians.Report of the Standing Committee on Health. June 2015. http://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/41-2/HESA/report-13 http://www.c4st.org/images/hesa-2015/412_HESA_Rpt13-e.pdf

49) 1996 Telecommunications Act. https://www.fcc.gov/general/telecommunications-act-1996

50) Section 704 of 1996 Telecommunications Act. FCC NEW NATIONAL WIRELESS TOWER SITING POLICIES. http://wireless.fcc.gov/fact1.pdf

51) Defense Intelligence Agency: Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Radiation (Radiowaves and Microwaves) in Eurasian Communist Countries. October 10, 1975. Prepared by Army Medical Intelligence and the office of the Surgeon General. http://www.cqlpe.ca/pdf/BIOLOGICAL_EFFECTS_OF_ELECTROMAGNETIC_RADIATION.pdf

52) Increase of oxidation and inflammation in nervous and immune systems with aging and anxiety. Vida C. Curr Pharm Des. 2014;20(29):4656-78. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24588831

53) Circulating Advanced Oxidation Protein Products as Oxidative Stress Biomarkers and Progression Mediators in Pathological Conditions Related to Inflammation and Immune Dysregulation. Cristani M. Curr Med Chem. 2016;23(34):3862-3882. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27593960

54) Report on possible impacts of communication towers on wildlife including birds and bees. Ministry of Environment and Forests. 2011. http://www.indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/content/341385/report-on-possible-impacts-of-communication-towers-on-wildlife-including-birds-and-bees/

55) Impacts of radio-frequency electromagnetic field (RF-EMF) from cell phone towers and wireless devices on biosystem and ecosystem—A review.Sivani Saravanamuttu. January 9. 2013. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258521207_Impacts_of_radio-frequency_electromagnetic_field_RF-EMF_from_cell_phone_towers_and_wireless_devices_on_biosystem_and_ecosystem-A_review

56) THE EFFECTS OF MICROWAVES ON THE TREES AND OTHER PLANTS. http://www.hese-project.org/de/emf/WissenschaftForschung/Balmori_Dr._Alfonso/showDoc.php?lang=de&header=Dr.%20Balmori&file=THE%20EFFECTS%20OF%20MICROWAVES%20ON%20THE%20TREES%20AND%20OTHER%20PLANTS.html&back=../showAuthor.php?target=Balmori_Dr._Alfonso

57) THE EFFECTS OF MICROWAVE RADIATION ON THE WILDLIFE. PRELIMINARY RESULTS. Alfonso Balmori Martínez. Feb 2003. http://www.whale.to/b/martinez.pdf

58) Weak Broadband Electromagnetic Fields are More Disruptive to Magnetic Compass Orientation in a Night-Migratory Songbird (Erithacus rubecula) than Strong Narrow-Band Fields. 2016. Front Behav Neuroscience. March 2016. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=PMID%3A+27047356 “Our results indicated that the magnetic compass orientation of European robins could not be disrupted by any of the relatively strong narrow-band electromagnetic fields employed here, but that the weak broadband field very efficiently disrupted their orientation”

59) Anthropogenic electromagnetic noise disrupts magnetic compass orientation in a migratory bird. Engels, S. Nature. Jan 2014. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v509/n7500/abs/nature13290.html

60) Electromagnetic Radiation of Mobile Communication Antennas Affects the Abundance and composition of Wild Pollinators. Lazaro,A. Journal of Insect Conservation react-text: 61 20(2):1-10 /react-text react-text: 64 · /react-text react-text: 65 April 2016. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/301647025_Electromagnetic_radiation_of_mobile_telecommunication_antennas_affects_the_abundance_and_composition_of_wild_pollinators

61) Effect of Electromagnetic (cell phone) radiations on Apis mellifera. Dalio, J. Journal of Research in Agriculture and Animal Science Volume 2 ~ Issue 12 (2015) pp:06-10. Feb. 2015. http://questjournals.org/jraas/papers/vol3-issue1/B310610.pdf

62) Effect of high-frequency radiations on survival of the honeybee (Apis mellifera L.). Darney,K. Apidologie react-text: 55 47(5) /react-text react-text: 58 · /react-text react-text: 59 December 2015. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/287972544_Effect_of_high-frequency_radiations_on_survival_of_the_honeybee_Apis_mellifera_L

63) Is Electromagnetism one of the causes of the CCD? A work plan for testing this hypothesis. Marie-Claire Cammaerts. Journal of Behavior. 2 (1): 1006. March 28, 2017. https://www.jscimedcentral.com/Behavior/behavior-2-1006.php

64) Electromagnetic hypersensitivity – an increasing challenge to the medical profession. Hedendahl L. 2015 Rev Environ Health. 2015 Dec 1;30(4):209-15. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26372109

65) Computer vision syndrome: A review. Gowrisankaran S. Work. 2015;52(2):303-14. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26519133

66) Computer Use and Habitual Spinal Posture in Australian Adolescents. Leon M. Straker, Public Health Rep. 2007 Sep-Oct; 122(5): 634–643. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1936962/

67) Australia and Other Nations are Failing to Meet Sedentary Behaviour Guidelines for Children: Implications and a Way Forward. Leon Straker. Journal of Physical Activity & Health. June 2, 2015. http://journals.humankinetics.com/doi/10.1123/jpah.2015-0026 https://espace.library.uq.edu.au/data/UQ_377902/UQ377902_OA.pdf?Expires=1497816578&Signature=J34vLu2LAVwV1knS~lekLuBSllUVWPENjdRXk0xLjUi2cBwTWXXBOXqB2D6IrfYgtgKHR~AjJS34ivWWwXkhiXTtV8iNxlg5j0jq8Y-i3y8tt~CFOVGCtaIiv~5gWlEgvd5-jGtAqsY2VdRWBu8qbClBsngpN1sQaEg5sEKUsqpiIDxY1KJosbnHLluvji8cpo0nutfketDQEs2mVefbKfAGaPsKBYnbe74ftYedu6KjTyKBrzN8I2wX-esxjNxVjSA4By2uUKQFu5D0oqF3W-jUa7jViXq3HwuuWytTpHlhsAGT8tkgr9gr8S6Hx0opL3U7mfxqYgE70x3ED6e38A__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJKNBJ4MJBJNC6NLQhttp://journals.humankinetics.com/doi/10.1123/jpah.2015-0026

68) Evidence-based guidelines for the wise use of computers by children: Physical development guidelines. Leon Straker. Ergonomics react-text: 15 53(4):458-77. 19 April 2010. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/42390717_Evidence-based_guidelines_for_the_wise_use_of_computers_by_children_Physical_development_guidelines

69) Assessment of Stresses in the Cervical Spine Caused by Posture and Position of the Head. SURGICAL TECHNOLOGY INTERNATIONAL XXV. 277-279. Kenneth Hansraj, MD. 2014. https://www.phschiropractic.com/webres/File/iTrac%20Surgical%20Technology%20Doc.pdf

70) Circulating Advanced Oxidation Protein Products as Oxidative Stress Biomarkers and Progression Mediators in Pathological Conditions Related to Inflammation and Immune Dysregulation. Cristani M, Curr Med Chem. 2016;23(34):3862-3882.. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27593960

71) [The advanced oxidation protein products as potential diagnostic and prognostic factor in diseases of the indicated participation of oxidative stress]. Piwowar A. Postepy Hig Med Dosw (Online). 2014 May 8;68:446-58. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24864097

72) International Association of Firefighters: Division of Occupational Health, Safety and Medicine. Position on the Health Effects from Radio Frequency/Microwave (RF/MW) Radiation in Fire Department Facilities. 2011. http://www.iaff.org/hs/Facts/CellTowerFinal.asp

73) Electromagnetic fields and DNA damage. Jerry L. Phillips, Narendra Pal Singh. Henry Lai. Pathophysiology react-text: 15 16(2-3):79-88, 19 April 2009. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/24180314_Electromagnetic_fields_and_DNA_damage

74) Pesticides and oxidative stress: a review. Mohammad Abdollahi. Med Sci Monit, 2004; 10(6): RA141-147. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Shahin_Shadnia/publication/8532508_Pesticides_and_oxidative_stress_A_review/links/00b4953ad9c423406e000000.pdf

75) European Parliamentary Assembly. Resolution 1815. The potential dangers of electromagnetic fields and their effect on the environment. (2011). http://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/Xref-XML2HTML-en.asp?fileid=17994

76) EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2016 for the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of EMF-related health problems and illnesses. https://www.degruyter.com/view/j/reveh.ahead-of-print/reveh-2016-0011/reveh-2016-0011.xml?format=INT

77) France: Law on Public Exposure to Electromagnetic Waves Adopted. Feb 5, 2015. http://www.loc.gov/law/foreign-news/article/france-law-on-public-exposure-to-electromagnetic-waves-adopted/

78) Environmental Health Trust Database of Worldwide Policy on Wireless Technology. https://ehtrust.org/policy/international-policy-actions-on-wireless/

79) Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Radiation and the Health of Canadians. Report of the Standing Committee on Health. June 2015. http://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/41-2/HESA/report-13 http://www.c4st.org/images/hesa-2015/412_HESA_Rpt13-e.pdf

80) Impacts of radio-frequency electromagnetic field (RF-EMF) from cell phone towers and wireless devices on biosystem and ecosystem—A review.Sivani Saravanamuttu react-text: 9 , January 2013. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258521207_Impacts_of_radio-frequency_electromagnetic_field_RF-EMF_from_cell_phone_towers_and_wireless_devices_on_biosystem_and_ecosystem-A_review

81) Mechanism of Microwave Radiation- Electromagnetic fields act via activation of voltage-gated calcium channels to produce beneficial or adverse effects. Pall, M. Journal of Cellular Molecular Medicine. Aug 2013. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3780531

82) Scientific evidence contradicts findings and assumptions of Canadian Safety Panel 6: microwaves act through voltage-gated calcium channel activation to induce biological impacts at non-thermal levels, supporting a paradigm shift for microwave/lower frequency electromagnetic field action. Pall, M. Rev Environ Health. 2015;30(2):99-116. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25879308

83) Electromagnetic fields instantaneously modulate nitric oxide signaling in challenged biological systems. Pilla, A. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2012 Sep 28;426(3):330-3. Epub 2012 Aug 24. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22940137

84) Electromagnetic Fields: Principles,…Biophysical Effects. ELECTROMAGNETIC INTERACTION BETWEEN ENVIRONMENTAL FIELDS AND LIVING SYSTEMS DETERMINES HEALTH AND WELL-BEING. Dimitris J. Panagopoulos.. ©2013 Nova Science Publishers, Inc. http://www.stralingsarmvlaanderen.org/resources/Panagopoulos-Nova-2013-EMFs-chapter.pdf

85) THE BODY ELECTRIC: Electromagnetism and the Foundation of Life. Robert O. Becker, MD and Gary Selden. Marrow publishing 1985.

86) In SYNC: the ins and outs of circadian oscillations in calcium. Imaizumi T. Sci STKE. 2007 Jun 12;2007(390). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Imaizumi+circadian+oscillations+incalcium

87) Minireview: The circadian clockwork of the suprachiasmatic nuclei–analysis of a cellular oscillator that drives endocrine rhythms. Maywood ES . Endocrinology. 2007 Dec;148(12):5624-34. Maywood ES. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17901233

88) 900-MHz microwave radiation promotes oxidation in rat brain. Kesari KK1, Kumar S, Behari J.Electromagn Biol Med. 2011 Dec;30(4):219-34. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22047460

88) Cell type specific redox status is responsible for diverse electromagnetic field effects. Simkó M. Curr Med Chem. 2007;14:1141–52. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17456027

89) Electromagnetic fields, oxidative stress, and neurodegeneration. Consales C, Merla C, Marino C, et al. Int J Cell Biol. 2012;2012:683897. https://www.hindawi.com/journals/ijcb/2012/683897/

90) 900 MHz pulse-modulated radiofrequency radiation induces oxidative stress on heart, lung, testis and liver tissues. Esmekaya MA, Ozer C, Seyhan N. Gen Physiol Biophys. 2011;30:84–9. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21460416

91) Effects of a 900-MHz electromagnetic field on oxidative stress parameters in rat lymphoid organs, polymorphonuclear leukocytes and plasma. Aydin B, Akar A. Arch Med Res. 2011;42:261–7. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21820603

92) 900 MHz radiofrequency-induced histopathologic changes and oxidative stress in rat endometrium: protection by vitamins E and C. Guney M, Ozguner F, Oral B, et al. Toxicol Ind Health. 2007;23:411–20. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18536493

93) Calcium Channel Dysfunction Causes a Multisystem Disorder Including Arrhythmia and Autism. Cell. Vol.119, Issue 1, p19–31, 1 October 2004. Igor Splawsk, et.al. http://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(04)008426?_returnURL=http%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS0092867404008426%3Fshowall%3Dtrue

94) Understanding How Calcium Channels Open and Close. Northwestern Medicine.Feb 21, 2017. http://news.feinberg.northwestern.edu/2017/02/understanding-how-calcium-channels-open-and-close/

95) Voltage-Gated Calcium Channels in Epilepsy. Jasper’s Basic Mechanisms of the Epilepsies [Internet]. 4th edition. Cain, S. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK98147/

96) Molecular nature of voltage-gated calcium channels: structure and species comparison. Tyson, J. Advanced Review. Volume 2, September/October 2013 © 2013 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1002/wmts.91/asset/wmts91.pdf;jsessionid=B349750FFE7DBBBD0A8CB852590F47A9.f01t02?v=1&t=j5q2om7b&s=c3011e899e57378d8a306ee342ec6d546cb0962e

97) Nonthermal effects of radiofrequency-field exposure on calcium dynamics in stem cell-derived neuronal cells: elucidation of calcium pathways. Rao VS, Titushkin IA, Moros EG, et al. Radiat Res. 2008;169:319–29. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18302487

98) Evaluation of the Effect of Radiofrequency Radiation Emitted From Wi-Fi Router and Mobile Phone Simulator on the Antibacterial Susceptibility of Pathogenic Bacteria Listeria monocytogenes and Escherichia coli. Taheri M. Dose Response. 2017 Jan 23;15(1). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5298474/

99) A Review of Recent Studies on Malondialdehyde as Toxic Molecule and Biological Marker of Oxidative Stress. Daniele Del Rio, Amanda Stewart, Nicoletta Pellegrini. Nutrition, Metabolism & Cardiovascular Diseases (2005) 15, 316e328. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Nicoletta_Pellegrini/publication/7690471_Del_Rio_D_Stewart_AJ_Pellegrini_N_A_review_of_recent_studies_on_malondialdehyde_as_toxic_molecule_and_biological_marker_of_oxidative_stress_Nutr_Metab_Cardiovasc_Dis_15_316-328/links/554c86b00cf29752ee7ef15b.pdf

100) Toxic Metals and Oxidative Stress Part I: Mechanisms Involved in Me-tal induced Oxidative Damage. Nuran Ercal, Hande Gurer-Orhan and Nukhet Aykin-Burns. Current Topics in Medicinal Chemistry. 2001. 1, 529-539. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/11468643_Toxic_Metals_and_Oxidative_Stress_Part_I_Mechanisms_Involved_in_Me-tal_induced_Oxidative_Damage

101) DNA electrophoretic migration patterns change after exposure of Jurkat cells to a single intense nanosecond electric pulse. Romeo S, Zeni L, Sarti M, et al. . PLoS ONE. 2011;6:e28419. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22164287

102) Long-lasting plasma membrane permeabilization in mammalian cells by nanosecond pulsed electric field (nsPEF). .. Pakhomov AG. , Kolb JF, White JA, Joshi RP, Xiao S, Schoenbach KH. Bioelectromagnetics. 2007 Dec;28(8):655-63. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17654532

103) How big are radio waves? NASA. https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/heo/scan/communications/outreach/funfacts/txt_radio_spectrum.html

104) Electromagnetic Spectrum. https://www.pa.msu.edu/courses/2000fall/PHY232/lectures/emwaves/spectrum.html

105) Bees Can Sense the Electric Fields of Flowers. National Geographic. Dr Clarke and Dr. Whitney. U of Bristol. Feb 2013. http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2013/02/21/bees-can-sense-the-electric-fields-of-flowers/

106) Biogenic Magnetite as a Basis for Magnetic Field Detection in Animals. Biosystems. 1981. Vol 13. 181-201. Kirschvink,J., Gould, J. http://web.gps.caltech.edu/~jkirschvink/pdfs/Biosystems1981.pdf

107) Is Electromagnetism one of the causes of the CCD? A work plan for testing this hypothesis. Marie-Claire Cammaerts. Journal of Behavior. 2 (1): 1006. March 28, 2017. https://www.jscimedcentral.com/Behavior/behavior-2-1006.php

108) EMF Scientists Appeal to the United Nations and the WHO for more protective EMF guidelines. https://www.emfscientist.org

109) Why children absorb more microwave radiation than adults: The consequences. Morgan, L., Kesari,S., Davis, D. Journal of Microscopy and Ultrastructure. Volume 2, Issue 4 react-text: 71 , /react-text react-text: 72 December 2014 /react-text react-text: 73 , Pages 197-204http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213879X14000583

110) What are the biological effects of ionizing radiation? http://www.hko.gov.hk/education/dbcp/rad_health/eng/r4.htm

111) Shoe Store Fluoroscope. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVlEXd9w7vk

112) VINTAGE SHOE-FITTING X-RAY MACHINES WILL ZAP YOUR FEET. https://www.wired.com/2010/11/vintage-shoe-fitting-x-ray-machines-will-zap-your-feet/

113) THERMAL DOSE REQUIREMENT FOR TISSUE EFFECT: EXPERIMENTAL AND CLINICAL FINDINGS. Dewhirst et al. Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng. 2003 Jun 2; 4954: 37. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4188373/

114) Reactive oxygen species in cell signaling. Thannickal VJ1, Fanburg BL. Am J Physiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol. 2000 Dec;279(6):L1005-28. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11076791

115) Free radicals, metals and antioxidants in oxidative stress-induced cancer. Valko M1, Rhodes CJ, Moncol J, Izakovic M, Mazur M. Chem Biol Interact. 2006 Mar 10;160(1):1-40. Epub 2006 Jan 23. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16430879

116) A Quantitative Method to Monitor Reactive Oxygen Species Production by Electron Paramagnetic Resonance in Physiological and Pathological Conditions. Simona Mrakic-Sposta et al. Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity. Volume 2014 (2014). https://www.hindawi.com/journals/omcl/2014/306179/

117) On reactive oxygen species measurement in living systems. LA Pavelescu. J Med Lifev.8(Spec Issue); 2015. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4564046/

118) Fluorescence probes used for detection of reactive oxygen species. Gomes et al. J. Biochem. Biophys. Methods 65 (2005) 45–80. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165022X05001454

119) Database of Worldwide Policies On Cell Phones, Wireless and Health. https://ehtrust.org/policy/international-policy-actions-on-wireless/

120) “Doubt is Their Product: How Industry’s Assault on Science Threatens Your Health”. David Michaels. 2008.

121) Radiation exposure from CT scans in childhood and subsequent risk of leukaemia and brain tumours: a retrospective cohort study. Mark SPearcePhD et al. Lancet. Volume 380, Issue 9840 react-text: 66 , /react-text react-text: 67 4–10 August 2012 /react-text react-text: 68 , Pages 499-50. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673612608150

122) Electromagnetic fields act via activation of voltage-gated calcium channels to produce beneficial or adverse effects. Martin Pall. J. Cell. Mol. Med. Vol 17, No 8, 2013 pp. 958-965. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/242331926_Electromagnetic_fields_act_via_activation_of_voltage-gated_calcium_channels_to_produce_beneficial_or_adverse_effects

123) Low-Dose Ionizing Radiation Exposure, Oxidative Stress and Epigenetic Programing of Health and Disease. Sujeenthar Tharmalingam et al. April 21, 2017. Radiation Research. http://www.rrjournal.org/doi/abs/10.1667/RR14587.1?code=rrs-site&journalCode=rare

124) Genome-wide methylation analysis of a large population sample shows neurological pathways involvement in chronic widespread musculoskeletal pain. Gregory Livshits et al. Pain. 2017 Jun; 158(6): 1053–1062. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5427989/

125) Integrative DNA methylome analysis of pan-cancer biomarkers in cancer discordant monozygotic twin-pairs. Roos L et al. Clin Epigenetics. 2016 Jan 20;8:7. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26798410

126) Novel epigenetic changes unveiled by monozygotic twins discordant for smoking habits. Allione A et al. PLoS One. 2015 Jun 4;10(6)

127) Epigenetics and environmental chemicals. A Baccarelli* and V. Bollati. Curr Opin Pediatr. 2009 Apr; 21(2): 243–251. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3035853/

128) Environmental toxicants–induced epigenetic alterations and their reversers. Kim M1, Bae M, Na H, Yang M. J Environ Sci Health C Environ Carcinog Ecotoxicol Rev. 2012;30(4):323-67. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23167630

129) Ionizing radiation and children’s health: Conclusions. ( 2006) Acta Pediatrica.2006;95.Suppl 453:81-85. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1080/08035320600886547/abstract

130) Molecular and Cellular Responses to Ionizing Radiation. 2006.National Academies Press. https://www.nap.edu/read/11340/chapter/4

131) Effect of Exposure to 900 MHz GSM Mobile Phone Radiofrequency Radiation on Estrogen Receptor Methylation Status in Colon Cells of Male Sprague Dawley Rats. Mokarram et al. J Biomed Phys Eng. 2017 Mar 1;7(1):79-86. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28451581.

132) Electromagnetic Fields, Pulsed Radiofrequency Radiation, and Epigenetics: How Wireless Technologies May Affect Childhood Development. Cindy Sage and Ernesto Burgio. May 15, 2017.Child Development. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cdev.12824/abstract

133) Epigenetic Changes Induced by Reactive Oxygen Species in Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Methylation of the E-cadherin Promoter. Seung-Oe Lim et al. Gastroenterology. December 2008Volume 135, Issue 6, Pages 2128–2140. http://www.gastrojournal.org/article/S0016-5085(08)01371-1/fulltext

134) Ionizing radiation-induced oxidative stress, epigenetic changes and genomic instability: the pivotal role of mitochondria. Szumiel I. Int J Radiat Biol.2015 Jan;91(1):1-12. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24937368

135) DNA methylation: a form of epigenetic control of gene expression. Derek Kim and Eamonn Maher. The Obstetrician and Gynecologist. 2010. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1576/toag.12.1.037.27556/full

136) Acute low-intensity microwave exposure increases DNA single-strand breaks in rat brain cells. Lai H1, Singh NP. Bioelectromagnetics. 1995;16(3):207-10. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7677797

137) Single- and double-strand DNA breaks in rat brain cells after acute exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation. Lai H1, Singh NP. Int J Radiat Biol. 1996 Apr;69(4):513-21. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8627134

138) Melatonin and a spin-trap compound block radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation-induced DNA strand breaks in rat brain cells. Lai H1, Singh NP. Bioelectromagnetics. 1997;18(6):446-54. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9261542

139) Electromagnetic fields and DNA damage. Phillips JL1, Singh NP, Lai H. Pathophysiology. 2009 Aug;16(2-3):79-88. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19264461

140) The Comet Assay: a method to measure DNA damage in individual cells. Nature Protocols 1, 23 – 29 (2006) Peggy L Olive& Judit P Banáth. http://www.nature.com/nprot/journal/v1/n1/full/nprot.2006.5.html?foxtrotcallback=true

141) A simple technique for quantitation of low levels of DNA damage in individual cells. Singh, N.P., McCoy, M.T., Tice, R.R. & Schneider, E.L. Exp. Cell Res.175, 184–191 (1988). http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0014482788902650?via%3Dihub

142) Single strand DNA breaks in rat brain cells exposed to microwave radiation. Paulraj R1, Behari J. (2006) Mutat Res. 2006 Apr 11;596(1-2):76-80. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16458332

143) Genetic damage in mobile phone users: Some preliminary findings. (2005) Gandhi, G. Ind J Hum Genet. 2005. 11(2): 99-104.

144) Genetic damage in subjects exposed to radiofrequency radiation. Verschaeve L. (2009) Mutat Res. 2009 Mar-Jun;681(2-3):259-70. Mutat Res. 2009 Mar-Jun;681(2-3):259-70. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19073278

145) The Reflex Project. Risk Evaluation of Potential Environmental Hazards from Low Energy Electromagnetic 
Field Exposure Using Sensitive in vitro Methods. http://www.verum-foundation.com/projects/reflex.html

146) How Susceptible are Genes to Mobile Phone Radiation? Effects of Wireless Communications Technologies. March 2009. Dr. Hecht, Dr. Kern, Dr. Richter, Dr. Scheiner. https://www.icems.eu/docs/howsusceptiblearegenes.pdf

147) Effects of 2.4 GHz radiofrequency radiation emitted from Wi-Fi equipment on microRNA expression in brain tissue. (2015) Dasdag et al. International Journal of Radiation Biology, 2015 Jul;91(7):555. 61. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25775055

148) Long term and excessive use of 900 MHz radiofrequency radiation alter microRNA expression in brain. (2015) Dasdag et al. International Journal of Radiation Biology. Volume 91, 2015. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.3109/09553002.2015.997896?src=recsys

149) MicroRNA: Biogenesis, Function and Role in Cancer. (2010) Leigh-Ann MacFarlane and Paul R. Murphy. Curr Genomics. 2010 Nov; 11(7): 537–561. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3048316/

150) Essai sur E’lectricite des Corps. Paris: Guerin. ” Observations sur quelles nouveaux phénomènes s’electricite.” Jean Antoine Nollet. Mémoires de l’Académie Royale des Sciences 1746: 1-23.

151) The Invisible Rainbow: A History of Electricity and Life. Arthur Firstenberg. (2017). AGB Press, Santa Fe, New Mexico.

152) California Department of Public Health. CDPH Issues Guidelines on How to Reduce Exposure to Radio Frequency Energy from Cell Phones. Dec 13, 2017. https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/OPA/Pages/NR17-086.aspx

153) Late Lessons from Early Warnings: Towards realism and precaution with EMF? (2009) David Gee. Pathophysiology. August 2009. Volume 16, Issues 2-3, Pages 217–231. https://www.pathophysiologyjournal.com/article/S0928-4680(09)00008-X/fulltext


The content of the MDSafeTech .org website is provided for informational purposes only. Each writer is expressing his or her own opinions and they are not necessarily the opinions of the group at large or of any employer of individuals of the group. While every effort has been made to ensure that the information on this website is accurate, no guarantees can be made. The information here is for general education and not intended to be medical advice to treat or advise patients. MDSafeTech.org is therefore not liable for damages resulting from the use of information obtained from this site or from sites linked to it. The responsibility for the interpretation and use of the information on this site lies with the reader.








//WW