Month: February 2019

Killer 5G warning: Expert warns … could cause CANCER in humans

Read below for more info on this subject. But super important FYI’s first!!!!!

Some are still trying to “block” radiation like the new 5G. This is NOT POSSIBLE or practical. We need a better system…and EMF Solutions has it! — www.emfsol.com/shop

Why we CANNOT BLOCK EMF’s:

  • Expensive Paints & Window Tints DO NOT BLOCK 5G.
  • If we could block EMF’s then none of our technology would work anymore, including: Wi-Fi, Cell Phones, Laptops, FM Radio, and so much more.
  • EMF’s have been shown by physicists to NOT DIRECTLY HARM PEOPLE. So we don’t have to block them. EMF’s have been shown to INDIRECTLY HARM PEOPLE. So we do need to address that domino chain of events. (EMF Solutions does that.)

For the Full Article on “KILLER 5G WARNING” and a short less than 2 min video click here or read below…

“KILLER 5G”

SUPERFAST broadband could be a global catastrophe, kill wildlife, give people terminal diseases and cause the Earth’s magnetic field to change, according to shock claims by a technology expert.

Arthur Robert Firstenberg is an American author and activist on electromagnetic radiation and health.

He founded the independent campaign group the Celluar Phone Task Force and since 1996 he has argued in numerous publications that wireless technology is dangerous.

In his 1997 book Microwaving Our Planet: The Environmental Impact of the Wireless Revolution, he claimed: “The telecommunications industry has suppressed damaging evidence about its technology since at least 1927.”

He has recently started an online petition calling on world organisations, such as the UN, World Health Organisation (WHO), and EU to “urgently halt the development of 5G” – which is due to be rolled out this year.

Speaking to the Daily Star Online, he explained: “There is about to be as many as 20,000 satellites in the atmosphere.

“The FCC approved Elon Musk’s project for 12,000 satellites in November 15th and he’s going to launch his in mid-2019.

“I’m getting reports from various parts of the world that 5G antennas are being erected all over and people are already getting sick from what’s there now and the insect population is getting affected.

“This could become a global catastrophe. When the first satellites were launched in the late 1990s for mobile phones, on the day they were launched people sensitive to these things got very sick.

“The mortality rate rose in the US by 5-10% too and there were reports that birds were not flying.

“People who realised this the most were pigeon racers who released their birds who then didn’t return.

“And that was for only 77 satellites, so we are very frightened at the prospect of 20,000.”

According to the Firstenberg, wireless networks are “harmful for humans” and the development of the next generation is “defined as a crime” under international law – he states in the online petition.

The petition adds: “5G will massively increase exposure to radio frequency (RF) radiation on top of the 2G, 3G and 4G networks for telecommunications already in place.

“RF radiation has been proven harmful for humans and the environment. The deployment of 5G constitutes an experiment on humanity and the environment that is defined as a crime under international law.

“Despite widespread denial, the evidence that radio frequency (RF) radiation is harmful to life is already overwhelming. The accumulated clinical evidence of sick and injured human beings, experimental evidence of damage to DNA, cells and organ systems in a wide variety of plants and animals, and epidemiological evidence that the major diseases of modern civilization—cancer, heart disease and diabetes—are in large part caused by electromagnetic pollution, forms a literature base of well over 10,000 peer-reviewed studies.”

But many mainstream scientists dismiss the claims and there is no conclusive proof of cancer-causing radiation from phones.

The WHO said there has been no evidence of detrimental effects caused by mobile phones despite studies conducted over two decades.

Firstenberg received a BA in mathematics from Cornell University in 1971 and then went to medical school from 1978 to 1982.

But he did not complete medical school because of illness, which he claims was due to electromagnetic hypersensitivity cause by getting over 40 diagnostic dental x-rays.

He believes information about and electromagnetic waves has not only been suppressed, but that people don’t pay attention to what’s going on because they don’t want to believe phones are damaging because of “addiction” to electronics.

Firstenberg added: “The whole picture is that everyone on Earth is getting addicted to their mobile phones.

“The more people use their mobiles for different purposes which will require more bandwidth means the previous infrastructure is not sufficient.

“Now they have to build more and more towers and they want to make it so that 5G is accessible anywhere on Earth.

“This is something that very few people are paying attention to, although papers have been written and there was more concern in the past than there is today – the difference being is that people are so addicted to their phones.

“People don’t want to see their phones as harmful anymore, but when they started people gave warnings.”

The most chilling warning he gives is that the development of extremely powerful satellites will result detrimental damage to the structure of the planet.

He claims the satellites could change the electromagnetic field: “We are not independent of our environment.

“Every living organism is an electrical being. We are controlled by energies passing through our bodies.

“Physicists call it the global electrical circuit. There is an electrical current that courses through the ground, through the air, through the ionosphere, back down to the atmosphere to create thunderstorms when the polarity changes.”

“Our environment is what keeps us alive and if you alter that in any way then people and animals will be highly disturbed.”


ConsumerWatch: 5G Cellphone Towers…Concerns Over Impacts on Health

5G CELL TOWERS – CONSUMER WATCH – in San Francisco area.

Full article and 5 Min News Coverage Video can be found here: https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2018/01/25/consumerwatch-5g-cellphone-towers-signal-renewed-concerns-over-impacts-on-health/

by Julie Watts and Abigail Sterling

Wireless carriers are installing millions of them across the country to enable the new, faster 5G cellphone technology. While many are looking forward to faster cell service, many are also asking: Are there legitimate health concerns?

That question is keeping John Hiestand up at night. Outside his bedroom window he can see a new pole where Verizon will soon install a next-generation cell tower.

“This would be a big tower generating lots of RF outside of our bedroom window 24 hours a day, 7 days a week for many years,” he said.

It’s called a “small cell” or “distributed antenna system.” The industry says they’re safe. Many in Piedmont aren’t convinced – including the Hiestands.

“Our daughter is a cancer survivor,” John Hiestand explained.

Thirteen-year-old Sophia Hiestand has been one of many petitioning the city council to deny this cell tower.

“I mostly talked about my cancer and how it affected me, even though you’re not supposed to talk about health issues, I still did,” Hiestand said.

However, according to federal law the city simply can’t consider health concerns. It’s outlined in a small section of the Telecommunications Act, based on science from 1996, back when we were still talking on cellphones that looked like bricks.

“I find it really unfair,” said Hiestand.

If cities do consider health, cell companies can sue them.

So, with few legal arguments to deny a tower, they’re popping up outside bedroom windows and school campuses, despite objections from across the country.

“5G can be a tremendous boom to California but only if it can be put up quickly and easily,” said Hayward Assembly member Bill Quirk. Quirk co-authored legislation that would make it even harder for cities like Piedmont to object to a tower.

“You wouldn’t have to go through the planning commission, through the city council,” Quirk explained.

Quirk, a former NASA scientist, says he may resurrect the bill that was recently vetoed by governor Brown.

“I know scientifically that putting up these cell phone towers is safe,” he said.

But the International Association of Frefighters disagrees. It began opposing cell towers on fire stations, after firefighters complained of health problems.

“These firefighters developed symptoms,” says Dr. Gunnar Heuser who conducted a pilot study on firefighters at a station with cell towers.

“The symptoms included problems with memory, problems with intermittent confusion, problems with weakness,” Heuser said.

Heuser says their brain scans suggest even low-level RF can cause cell damage and he worries about more vulnerable groups like kids.

“We found abnormal brain function in all of the firefighters we examined,” Heuser said.

So, following lobbying by firefighters, assemblyman Quirk and his co-author exempted fire stations from their bill, making them one place cell companies couldn’t put a tower.

“This is the first piece of legislation that anyone is aware of where somebody got an exemption because they were concerned about health. Did they tell you at all about the study?” we asked the assemblyman.

Quirk’s response: “All I know is that when the firefighters ask, I do what they ask me to do.”

“Because they are strong lobbyists?” we asked him. His response: “Yes.”

“So if school teachers and parents had a strong lobby and they ask you to pass something that would prevent these from going up near schools, would you do that?” we asked Quirk.

His response: “If I couldn’t get the votes any other way!”

We next spoke to Tony Stefani, founder of the San Francisco Firefighters Cancer Prevention Foundation.

“It’s not only the firefighters, it’s the people that live within the vicinity of these towers,” Stefani said.

Anthony Stefani started with the San Francisco Fire Department in 1974. The 28-year veteran retired as the captain of Rescue 1 in 2003.

Stefani notes that current regulations don’t take into account continuous low-level exposure from these small cells 24-hours a day. He also says some fellow firefighters reported that their symptoms disappeared when they move to a station without a tower.

“More of these studies have to be done,” he says.

Many international scientists agree. More than 230 scientists from 41 nations — who have published over 2,000 peer-reviewed papers on electromagnetic fields and biology and health — have signed the International EMF Scientist Appeal. 

They cite “serious concerns” about “increasing exposure to EMF” based on “numerous recent scientific publications” linking low levels of wireless radiation to health effects.

They’re calling for stronger regulations, disclosure about wireless industry ties to regulatory agencies, and they want publicly funded studies on the health effects of EMF emitting devices/base stations (i.e. cell towers).

“I do not believe that there is any health impact on firefighters or anyone else, from cells, period!” Assemblyman Quirk asserted. However he added, “I think doing more studies is always a good thing.”

Considering the  the circumstances, we asked Quirk: “Do you think that maybe you should consider putting a pause on legislation that speeds up these towers until there is definitive evidence that there is no harm?”

His’s response: “We can do a lot of studies and there are people right now believe it or not who are sure the world is flat.”

In a statement the CTIA says it defers to the experts when it comes to the safety of cellular telephones and antennas:

“According to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the Federal Communications Commission, the World Health Organization, the American Cancer Society and numerous other international and U.S. organizations and health experts, the scientific evidence shows no known health risk due to the RF energy emitted by cellphones.

Likewise, the FCC monitors scientific research on a regular basis and its standards for RF exposure are based on recommended guidelines adopted by U.S. and international standard-setting bodies. That’s why the FCC has determined that all wireless phones legally sold in the United States are “safe.” This scientific consensus has stayed the same even after the NTP’s release in 2016 of its partial findings in a study involving cellphones and lab animals.

The FCC also sets exposure limits for cell site antennas that transmit signals to phones. Those limits, like the limits for cell phones, are even more conservative than standards adopted by leading international standards bodies such as the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) and the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP).

The FCC states that typical ground exposures to base station antennas are “hundreds to thousands of times less than the FCC’s limits for safe exposure” and “there is no reason to believe that such [antennas] could constitute a potential health hazard” to nearby residents.”

The World Heath Organization’s  International Agency for Research on Cancer has classified RF radiation as possibly carcinogenic to humans. Though the cell phone industry stresses there are “no known health risks.”

What about the unknown? Well, back in Piedmont the Hiestands don’t want to wait around to find out.

“We are going to get some meters. We’re going to measure the micro-radiation today and then when the cell towers go up, we can measure it and see how dangerous it really is,” said John Hiestand. He says if he has to they’ll move.

“For my daughter’s health, definitely,” he said.

Piedmont was able to temporarily block permits for some small cell towers but now the company installing them for Verizon, Crown Castle, is suing the city.

Meanwhile new research set to be published next month could radically alter the debate. For the first time it establishes a scientific link between RF radiation and cancer in lab rats:

National Toxicology Program

In response, the Chief Medical Director of the American Cancer Society said this first-of-its-kind government study “marks a paradigm shift in our understanding of radiation and cancer risk.”