By Peter G. Tocci

[Author’s notes in brackets]
Introduction

The intent of this article is to show that wireless technology is, without remedy other than termination, one of the most devastating environmental and health threats—and threats to personal liberty—ever created.

Included is discussion of the criminal deceit employed by U.S. Government agencies, concealing awareness (beginning at least a decade prior to marketing) and ignoring/dismissing voluminous scientific evidence, of severe health impacts of radiation such as that emitted by wireless infrastructure and devices.

Peer-reviewed studies were published from the 1950’s up to the initial wireless rollout in Orwellian 1984 (with many thousands since). It follows that the industry also practiced deceit at the outset. It suppressed findings from, and attempted to discredit, a 5-year study project it was forced by circumstance to fund and initiate nearly a decade later (3G era).

Specific human-health effects of mobile telecom and WiFi are identified. Emphasized, however, is the far-reaching, quite probably fatal, threat to environment – all species, with the possible exception of some microorganisms.

There is consideration of 4G radiation exposure limits called for by concerned scientists, activists, wireless educators, and Smart Meter opponents, and the futility and danger thereof due to inadequacies in their complaints about the inadequacy of current standards.

The latest wireless iteration, 5G, is also discussed, including a dire warning about the wisdom of 5G per se resistance.

To achieve the article’s intent, a wider context is presented than usually seen. Part of that context is manipulation/control of society and governments by an utterly ruthless coterie of policy-setting power brokers called by various names – the elite, global financial elite, power elite, ruling class and others (incorrectly, the “Deep State”). A future article will detail this.

The ruthless (psychopathic) influence and imposition of power is one ‘explanation’ for the unthinkable level of evil and reach of power—implied and stated—driving the wireless atrocity. There is argument against the mechanical assertion that profit is the primary motive at the top of the power hierarchy.

Also suggested is that runaway advanced technology and its wide public acceptance, including wireless, is symptomatic of a nearly subliminal societal mental illness, or collective psychospiritual imbalance, instigated and/or reinforced by elite manipulation.

Conventional medicine applies the word ‘pathogenic’ to disease-associated microorganisms. Fundamentally, however, the word simply means ‘disease-generating,’ and will be used here in that sense. Or, one might regard wireless telecom and WiFi as a highly complex electromagnetic germ disrupting the larger body of life, the foundation of the physical manifestations of which are the qualities of electromagnetism.

For an all-important reason to be discussed, telecom wireless radiation will herein be called “Information Carrying Microwave Radiation” (ICMR). Microwave is also called radio frequency – RF. Some referenced scientific studies might be challenging for lay persons to decode, but just the Abstracts should convey the essence.

‘IndustryGovernment’ (IG, signifying the virtually conjoined colossus) continues to indulge willful ‘ignore-ance’ as new evidence of severe impacts emerges regularly. Had the deception and remarkable range of effects been exposed in timely fashion, wireless never would have gotten off the ground. The truth, which relatively few are emphasizing, is that society must return it to the ground for survival.
IndustryGovernment (and Other) Malevolence

By all appearance, world governments, world organizations such as the WHO and UN, and international agencies—even the supposedly independent International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), which issued draft guidelines on 7/11/18 for exposure to electromagnetic fields (100 kHz to 300 GHz)—knowingly participate in a dangerous deception based on scientific fraud: The arbitrary presumption and singleminded assertion as an operating principle that the only potential danger from ICMR is tissue heating. Included is the extreme effect, ‘electro-stimulation,’ comprising shocks and burns. As of this writing (December 2018), worldwide telecom exposure limits are based on the stultified parameter of tissue heating/electro-stimulation.

Well known are claims of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that 1) the scientific literature shows no adverse effects from non-thermal radiation, or/and 2) the question remains ‘inconclusive’ (read, ‘unsettled behind self-imposed blinders; meanwhile, the technology is green-lighted’). Claim 1 is blatant error, politely speaking; claim 2, sly obfuscation, because its certainty depends upon where in the scientific literature one looks.

Despite a profusion of research revealing harmful non-thermal effects, rhetoric to the effect that no precise biochemical or biophysical mechanism, or target, had been identified has been exploited to dismiss positive findings and warnings. Science doesn’t know the precise mechanism of gravity, but no one insists that studies showing its effects are inconclusive (more later on a possible ICMR mechanism).

Not to worry, further research is underway, and rest assured, watchdogs at the FCC ‘Ministry of Truth’ are keeping official eyes on it. Unfortunately, of the hamstrung research on which the FCC chooses to focus its tunnel vision, most is under military auspices or funded by Industry. Meanwhile, fraudulently unscientific runaway development and implementation persists. If environment and people are hurt in the process, it seems that’s just the price of doing business—if profit were uppermost in the elite mind (but isn’t).

Please note that thermal safety standards are not based on biochemical/biophysical changes reported by biologists, medical researchers and so on, but are set by technologists at the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). The only biology-associated input to the process of creating standards, reported in committee by biophysicists, life scientists, physicians, etc, was behavioral: Disruption of food-motivated learned behavior in laboratory animals. Such disruption is considered to be a reliable indicator of hazard.

(The author condemns the unmitigated self-importance and heartlessness underlying the experimental use, abuse, de facto torture, and murder of “laboratory” animals—a blatant demonstration of cruelty and disgraceful species prejudice. In most cases, it’s an attempt to address consequences of human folly, such as effects of an untenable way of life, or to sort out parameters of a heinous conspiracy—like wireless technology. “If ever there were a blackest of all black sin committed against God and his fair creation, vivisection is surely it.” – Gandhi)

Attendant to the original wireless rollout, no biochemical or biophysical testing was done, sponsored, or consulted by IndustryGovernment on non-thermal short-term, or especially, long-term, exposure. Of course, no such testing was needed, given foreknowledge of the dire consequences (more later).
Cell Phone Output

Cell phone radiation emission standards were finalized, and devices are now tested, by targeting fluid-filled dummies called “phantoms,” whose electrical characteristics are said to be similar to biological tissue. Several realities make this contrived tactic scientifically quite stupid, pardon the vernacular. First, of course, it’s predicated upon the noted “arbitrary presumption and singleminded assertion,” merely measuring the dummy’s thermal response to RF power levels.

Briefly, the standard for device output is the IEEE Specific Absorption Rate, or ‘SAR,’ an expression of how much radiation a device will cause the body to absorb over time. It’s expressed in watts per kilogram (W/kg) for either whole body exposure or localized (“spatial”) ones, such as the head. While the safety claim might seem plausible within the delimited frame of reference, a 2013 study shows that the SAR is dangerously inadequate for biological systems. Findings are that the IEEE claim of electrical similarity to tissue is specious: Various components of biological tissue respond to ICMR/RF radiation differently from each other and from fluid in phantoms – for example, ionized elements such as sodium (Na+), which are most susceptible, and, less so, macromolecules such as proteins, fats, and nucleic acids.1

Phones are usually compared using whole-body and head measurements. Despite being routinely referenced, however, SAR alone is insufficient for determining the amount of RF exposure during typical conditions of use, and thus also unreliable for comparing various cell phone models. Also, the SAR standard for public exposure to cellphones (1.6 W/kg) makes no allowance for differences in absorptive capacity, e.g., between adults and the young. Moreover, many phones produce, or have produced, SAR measurements of 3 to 10 times ‘safe’ levels.2

The IEEE standards of 1991-1992 were adopted by the FCC in 1996 via the American National Standards Institute—ANSI, a private organization funded and controlled by industry (1996 was also the year of the totalitarian Telecommunications Act). Moreover, some members of the IEEE level-setting committees hail from the military as well as telecom. These posturing institutions thereby allow the military and corporate sectors to influence or dictate public policy.
Exposure Limits for Users

Reception-area exposure limits are expressed in watts over a specified area. A common designation is “microwatts per square centimeter” – μW/cm2. A microwatt is a millionth of a watt; a centimeter, about 4 tenths of an inch. The FCC thermal standard is expressed in milliwatts per square centimeter – mW/cm2 (a milliwatt is a thousandth of a watt) and is .2 mW/cm2, or 200 μW/cm2. This is averaged over 30 minutes, meaning that longer exposure is not covered and that dangerous spikes are ignored.

An organization called the Biolnitiative Working Group assumed the formidable task of selecting, collating and summarizing 3800 studies showing harm from non-thermal microwave radiation—a little over 15 percent of the total number, estimated at around 25,000, well more than twice that of lead. The number of scientific studies on a subject is one criterion for certainty that something is a hazard.

The BioInitiative Report: A Rationale for a Biologically-Based Public Exposure Standard for Electromagnetic Radiation (BR) was published in 2007 and covered 2,000 peer-reviewed studies. The 2012 edition includes 2007 material and covers 1800 subsequent studies.3 The BR is cited here, however, only to demonstrate the existence of independent science that IG says doesn’t exist or is “inconclusive,” because the BR calls for “…a biologically-based public exposure standard…“ which, as discussed later, is futile.

The 2007 BR called for a whole-body limit, for cumulative outdoor exposure, of a tenth of a microwatt per square centimeter – .1 μW/cm2 – far below the FCC standard. In the interim between BRs, more studies showed harmful effects at levels lower than .1 μW/cm2. The non-thermal exposure limit suggested in the 2012 BR is about three orders of magnitude lower and includes a safety margin: 0.0003 μW/cm2 to 0.0006 μW/cm2, meaning that the current heating limit is roughly 333,000 to 670,000 times higher. One can get a feel for the sensitivity of biological systems.

As we’ll see, however, power level is not the total consideration: Between heating, and all non-thermal, limits, it is by itself misleading and potentially dangerous. Also key is that exposure limits are totals including radiation from all surrounding devices and infrastructure. Thus, even if it were true that your phone is safe, in an area with many users and antennas, exposure will be significantly greater.

A revealing ‘fine-print’ warning has drawn some attention: Cell-phone output limits apply only if the device is kept and used a short distance from the body. This crucial information is buried levels deep in phone menus. Nor is it emphasized in printed manuals. Thus, how can one conform to manufacturer safety guidelines while a phone is held and fingered or held against the ear? Same for a laptop on a lap, even on a surface just above.

The BR editors have at least shown open mindedness to the likely need for further limit reduction. Terminology notwithstanding, though (“ biologically-based standard”), recommending what translates as safer limits (not safe, in other words) still amounts to capitulation, as we’ll also see. Please keep in mind that the strictest biologically-based public power-level standards to date are a billion times higher than natural background level in which life has always existed.
Red Flags

Unfortunately, some analysts, even professionals, carelessly state that IEEE/FCC, ICNIRP and other public safety guidelines are “outdated.” “Outdated” implies that something was once useful or valid. Being contrived and scientifically flawed, official guidelines were never any such thing for environment or health.

Also, it’s not unusual to see argument to the effect that, “Some studies show harm, some don’t,” with the implication or assertion that wireless should continue, because the latter ‘cancels out’ the former, or makes the situation ‘inconclusive.’ This conflates scientific principles and ‘legal-speak.’ ‘Weight–of–evidence’ is foreign to science, and such rationalization is used for deception or out of ignorance.

Even given numerous studies concluding safety, only one repeatable study showing serious harm is enough, scientifically speaking, especially given what’s at stake, to invoke the Precautionary Principle (a guideline to follow when human activities could cause harm that is scientifically plausible but uncertain).

One might also encounter environment-killing rationalization such as, ‘it’s very difficult, impossible even, to turn back the clock. We so need our precious mobile devices that wireless is here to stay. But we need to be aware so we can have the choice of taking precautions.’ No response required here.

The BR 2012 does note that the EU Treaty recommends invoking the Precautionary Principle in cases of known or potential environmental threat. No surprise, this is not being done for the wireless threat, and probably not for others. It is ‘responsible-sounding,’ though. For Nature’s sake, may a safe level for humans, or even an acceptably harmful one (almost certain to be proposed), never be found.

Study design can be especially demanding as well, because results can be influenced by a great variability of factors – for example, whether test signals are generated by lab equipment and whether they’re pulsed or not, or if they emanate from a commercial device in normal use (preferred).

A question the author hasn’t attempted to resolve because it’s academic is minimum power output needed from phone and infrastructure antennas for the system to work reliably, that would also translate to an allegedly safe exposure level in μW/cm2 or similar, for ALL life. However, phones can produce up to 2 watts, towers, 10-50. Those who see the need to end wireless might wish that a truly safe exposure limit for all life would be lower than the level required for system operation. Preferred, however, might be that awareness will sooner ‘go viral’ that even trying to establish a safe limit is a waste of time (more later).

Worst of all, perhaps, at least for this writer, is that studies reported in the BR are entirely focused on humans. Most emerging science on bio-effects is heavily focused on humans. Most news reporting and website discussions are as well. This backwards emphasis diminishes or eliminates the absolute priority of what maintains human life—the rest of Nature. To add a nuance of insult to this trend is the inordinate emphasis on cancer, distracting us from even worse ramifications.
Key Testimony in Toronto

From a presentation given at the Toronto Whole Life Expo 2009 by Andrew Michrowski, PhD:

It is not generally appreciated that the advanced nature of wireless gadgets being currently marketed is founded on devices that have been around since the 1940s. … Precise, quality, straightforward medical and scientific research since 1950s details radiofrequency and microwave effects – without influence of stocks, PR and lawyers. By 1970s, electromagnetic, electrochemical, cascade effect equations were well defined for tissues, cells, intracellular & extracellular fluids and macromolecular effects on living systems…

Analysis of 1950-1974 mortality of 40,000 Korean War veterans shows that microwave exposure effect is cumulative [emphasis added] it affects all deaths … doubling to tripling cancers of eye, brain and central nervous system, lymphatic and hematopoietic [blood-cell/platelet-forming] and digestive systems. This means that even ‘weak’ and short exposures from wireless systems accumulate over the years and decades to engender serious diseases [emphasis added].

…[a] flow chart prepared [by] the National Research Council of Canada Control Systems Laboratory in 1973 [indicated] 22 non-thermal effects documented and generally understood by the scientific community more than 30 [40] years ago. Now, scientists daring to describe a part of such phenomena risk their career and income.

Below the presentation’s title is a short introduction that includes a rarely addressed or even mentioned scenario: “Other impacts include [emphasis added] accelerated corrosion of infrastructure (buildings, bridges, pipelines, nuclear power stations), and impacts on agriculture productivity (soil density, livestock issues).”4

Felt or not, effects can occur any time during or post exposure – nominally speaking, since there is normally no escape. They first occur at the level of fine biological detail, for instance on cell-membrane transport channels and, as noted, on ions and molecules. Even if not immediately felt, these will create in the longer term overt and serious illness. The noted phenomenon of ‘cumulative effects’ is therefore paramount. Fetuses and the very young are most susceptible. But the young up to 20 years or so are still more susceptible than physically mature individuals. Exceptions are the elderly and electro-sensitives (see “Electro-Hypersensitivity” below).
Assault: From Weapon to Telecom

Physicist and former Royal Navy microwave expert Barrie Trower, PhD has sacrificed a comfortable retirement to give interviews and talks about wireless, even traveling the globe at his own expense. A good introduction to him is this 35-minute edit of a long 2012 video interview by the International Center Against the Abuse of Covert Technologies.5 Incidentally, Trower notes that microwave can be used to project an audible voice directly into your head (how far can it be from putting thoughts in there too?)

Corroborating Michrowski, Trower asserts that the dangers were fully known by mid-1970’s. A big reason, he says, is that telecom microwave technology was not originally developed for telecom, but, among other things, as a military stealth weapon for inducing illness.

According to Trower, one main difference between weapon radiation and telecom radiation is that weapons utilize much less power.6 Apparently, any defense the body might attempt is preempted by the very low dose. Thus, lower exposure standards could be more dangerous depending on level, unless weapon levels would not operate the system. This probably applies also to products that shield and deflect, because they don’t block 100% but only reduce. These two aspects disregard biological sensitivity and the cumulative effect—not to mention, they do nothing concerning environment except to perpetuate/exacerbate damage by conferring a false sense of security on users.

Trower explains that several countries were involved in the weapon research, including Great Britain, US, and USSR (which for at least 15 Cold-War years, microwaved the US Embassy in Moscow, causing severe illness in the staff.7) Essentially, then, pathogenic energy weapons tower in our midst and are cradled in the hands of hapless, appallingly misled users.
Ultimate Atrocity?

WiFi is the transmission protocol for ‘Smart’ technology, including utility meters, household appliances, games, devices, and of course wireless Internet. Trower emphasizes that the adverse effects of WiFi include irreparable damage to the DNA in ovarian follicles. He says this is reproductively transmitted in the female line forever, and could possibly manifest in the initially affected generation, definitely in the next. It particularly threatens schoolgirls in classrooms using WiFi, female fetuses and infants, but also all females of child-bearing age.8

Trower presents proof that Government knew of the follicle-DNA threat before promoting WiFi in schools. In 20 to 25 years (2038-2033), we could easily have a generation with a high percentage of genetically damaged kids.9

“I ask for any scientist(s) from industry / government to ‘humiliate’ me live ‘on-air’ with their expert knowledge by answering one question: ‘What is the safe level of microwave irradiation for the ovarian follicles during the first 100 days development of the embryo?’” – Barrie Trower, PhD, Wi-Fi – A Thalidomide in the Making. Who Cares? (Page 18). Absent a widespread awakening and consumer backlash in the very near future, people obliviously flocking to WiFi will eventually learn—tragically, the hard way—that ‘Smart’ is ‘Newspeak’ for Monumentally Stupid. It’s now being deployed in a new techno-idiocy called “Smart poles.” Not to mention Smart highways.
Same Old Story…

“Scientists at the end of World War II were hanged for what scientists are doing today and getting away with.” – Barrie Trower, PhD. IG deceit and news-media dereliction are perpetrating a blatant violation of the Nuremberg Code (informed, voluntary consent). It persists, even after official organizations, such as the Environmental Protection Agency10 (miraculously) and the American Academy of Environmental Medicine,11 have expressed concern that current thermal guidelines cannot protect (humans) from non-thermal levels, especially with long-term exposure.

The European Academy for Environmental Medicine (EUROPAEM) published guidelines in 2016 for the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of (human) illness created or worsened by electromagnetic radiation: “New wireless technologies and applications have been introduced without any certainty about their health effects, raising new challenges for medicine and society.”12

IG safety assurances are certainly contradicted by “…without any certainty…” But again, capitulation: “new challenges” instead of calling for threat removal. Yes, that would be a huge challenge as well; but how much damage must the environment incur, and how many people must suffer, sicken, and die, before medicine and society meet the challenges, or finally acknowledge the truth? The challenges are insurmountable.

Though appearing responsible, like most concerned scientists and activists, EUROPAEM is missing or just avoiding the point (see below). Is it fearful deference to, or control by, a very powerful, far-reaching Elite-backed industry?
…With a Twist

IndustryGovernment corruption is popularly attributed to avarice—”Cui bono?”—and no doubt it’s a major factor. Telecom is multiples bigger than Pharma. The US Government realizes huge income leasing and selling bandwidth to Industry. For infrastructure locations, municipalities charge sizable fees for use of property, rights-of-way, and so on. Thus, “absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event,” it’s unlikely governments will take action, because the only genuine solution is to stop all emissions.

It’s suggested, however, that money is master only at mid and lower levels of the stratified power structure or hierarchy. Whereas, the single-minded, utterly ruthless (psychopathic), policy-setting top level—that the author differentiates with a capital ‘E’ – Elite, who operate above the law—have more in mind – a much larger and chillingly sinister ‘Elite Agenda.’

Cognizant Agenda facilitators can be called “Elite operatives.” They infiltrate all key societal venues, such as news, entertainment, governments, business, banking, finance, science, and academia. Of unwitting facilitators, one could say that human character flaws are exploited to elicit choices and behaviors that inherently advance the Agenda. The operational scale, reach of power, and level of ruthlessness driving and exploiting wireless technology might make the truth difficult for many people to accept (more later). “Only the small secrets need to be protected. The big ones are kept secret by public disbelief.” – Marshall McLuhan
The Point: No Safe Dose

Newly proposed and requested power-level exposure limits for humans notwithstanding, there is no known safe dose of non-thermal ICMR, especially, as noted, for fetuses, ovarian DNA and children, or for other species including pets, especially in the long term (see “Data Pulses and Qualities of RF” below). Even with infrequent use, there is no ultimately illness-free use of wireless systems for anyone, period. And even if you don’t use a wireless device, other users’ devices and infrastructure antennas bathe all life in pathogenic energy 24/7.

As Michrowski suggests, probably due to fear of threat to careers, incomes (and status), precious few concerned scientists emphasize no-safe-dose, preferring the ill-advised recommendation of safer—or imagined safe—use via reduced exposure (for humans, of course). Again, deference to a willfully negligent industry.

Many scientists have signed the International EMF (electromagnetic field) Scientist Appeal to the WHO and UN, which begs the Secretary General and UN affiliate bodies to encourage precautionary measures, to limit EMF exposures, and to educate the public about health risks, particularly to children and pregnant women. Some of the better known Appeal signatories are Dr. Joel Moskowitz; Magda Havas, PhD; and Devra Lee Davis, PhD, MPH. Heretofore, none of these professionals suggests, or even mentions the possibility of, ‘no safe dose,’ or the only solution that ensures survival. Nor does the Appeal. Professionals recommending futility?
But Integrity HAS Spoken

A courageous scientist of few, who has signed the International EMF Scientist Appeal to show concern, but who has also long spoken the whole truth, is Olle Johansson, PhD, formerly a professor at the Karolinska Institute (KI, medical college) in Stockholm. Researching the deleterious effects of EMFs since the 1980s, Professor Johansson has said the only safe dose of ICMR is virtual zero, or the cosmic background level. (See also.)13

For telling the unpopular/forbidden truth, Professor Johansson finally lost his research financing in 2017 and was callously forced into early retirement by KI, with appalling disregard for science and a highly distinguished career.14 Johansson has also withstood disrespect, insult and slander from alleged peers. This is a sorry circumstance in a scientific/academic community having become as malleable by power as governments. All his YouTube videos are well worth watching.
Other Warnings

The 2013 edition of Swiss Re SONAR, an annual emerging-risk report to the insurance industry from leading insurance firm Swiss Reinsurance Company Ltd. (Zurich) concluded that “Unforeseen Consequences of Electromagnetic Fields” rank “High,” accompanied only by “Nanotechnology.” These two rank above such “Medium” risks as “Toxic Substances” and “Emerging Infectious Diseases.”15 Given many decades of incriminating EMF research, might “Unforeseen Consequences…” have been: “Unsought, Ignored, Omitted, and Unforeseen Consequences…”?

As early as 1999, however, Lloyd’s of London underwriter group Stirling announced refusal to insure device manufacturers against claims under product liability.16 By 2003, it was most difficult, if not impossible, for manufacturers to acquire insurance against health claims. How did Stirling reach this decision? Might it have looked at research IG says doesn’t exist or is inconclusive? True to form, however, phone manufacturers have been warning shareholders, but not customers, about health risks and potential lawsuits.

Although the obedient World Health Organization has not called for a wireless moratorium or ban, its International Agency for Research on Cancer has managed to classify wireless radiation with many dangerous influences (“possibly carcinogenic”), including DDT, lead, chlordane, and chloroform. This is a category in which IG can feel ‘safe,’ since our tech-battered world constantly exposes us to an abundance of possible carcinogens – as well as probable and known. Of course, like wireless, they raise much more havoc than just cancer. In general, such poisoning seems to be accepted as the price of our highly touted way of life. But would a parent knowingly expose a child to any of those substances, or send a child to a school doing so?

Moreover, as if we haven’t enough trouble with antibiotic-resistant bacteria (considered a global crisis), a 2017 study shows that wireless radiation creates this effect in Listeria and E. coli (corresponding study).17 Where will this end, if ever? “Tobacco Free” now, hospitals have WiFi installed throughout, even putting routers in patient rooms. Frying pan to fire.

‘Of course,’ the jury is still out officially, but warnings appear regularly about the pernicious potentials of social media and (especially mobile) screen times that are leading kids to obsession/addiction, depression, developmental problems, sleep deprivation, and cognitive and social deficit.

The cognitive deficit alone should be waking up educators and officials swooning over wireless tech in schools. It seems, however, that instead of investigating, or perhaps in spite of it, most acquiesce to (and feel indemnified by?) IG assurances and grant money. Foreknowledge of harm at the IG level, however, strongly suggests policy originating at the highest level of power/control, deliberately targeting kids and reproduction and which is obediently condoned and promoted by elements of a maliciously aware IG (many individuals in IG may have no idea, or are cowed by ‘authority’).

It seems that a great many wireless users are victims – dazzled or addicted or obsessed, thus oblivious to the threat. They could easily develop cognitive dissonance or/and abject denial should they hear the truth – even from the FCC. Reprehensible, therefore, are those who understand the full implications, but perversely or obstinately continue use.

“Apathy and indifference are nurtured in the modern age as most peoples’ free time is frittered away with worthless trivia like ball games, computer games, movies and soaps, and fiddling with their mobile phones. These distractions might be fun, but after most of them you’ve learnt nothing of any value, and remain ignorant, malleable and suggestible, which is just how the elites want you.” – technical and market analyst Clive Maund

Even after admission by first Facebook president, Sean Parker that Facebook architects knew they were creating something addictive and harmful (see also, 0:25 – 17:00),18 society continues recklessly to indulge its raging, usually dopamine-driven, obsession with social media, especially on wireless devices. It’s suggested also that fiddling with portable surveillance/control units called cell phones where people happen to congregate provides a convenient ‘escape’ from pressures/insecurities of normal interaction. It’s the perfect out, breaking down direct discourse and reinforcing separateness—one irony in our “connected world.”

Society is usually quick to control and forbid certain harmful addictions, such as opioids, but often fails to examine its own condoned and embraced addictions in the same light. White flour, caffeine, refined sugar, and unbridled high technology, like wireless, come to mind.

Potentially worse than any destructive substance addiction, wireless begs for remediation, as in a ‘Wireless Anonymous.’ A little surprisingly, a somewhat similar development seems to have begun. The Summerland Camp in Mars Hill, N. Carolina weans teens from phones and screens.19 Hopefully, Camp operators will realize the need to emphasize that addiction is only a fraction of wireless effects, that it’s not a prerequisite for pathogenicity – even though it ‘helps’ – and that environment is at mortal risk.

As suggested earlier, personal and home protective devices, even if they work, still fail the ecosystem. But do such devices work? Not entirely, according to Dr. Dietrich Klinghardt, a world class clinician/researcher and one ‘in the trenches’ with many desperate patients having been revolved in the conventional medical ‘merry-go-round.’

Klinghardt notes that research done or contracted by device manufacturers/sellers isn’t going far enough into the depth, complexity, and extraordinary range of potential effects to be sure all bases are covered. He says the devices can create a dangerous, false sense of security in that one might feel better, while radiation exposure and corresponding cumulative harm continue. Worse, if self-involved, or/and addicted psyches feel safe, environmental concern could be even more easily diffused.

Klinghardt’s remarks begin just before the 55-minute mark of this interview by Dr. Joseph Mercola (see also, this riveting talk by Klinghardt).20 By the way, Dr. Klinghardt and other physicians treating Lyme disease say that EMFs, especially ICMR, make the advanced infection virtually impossible to stop.
High-Level Deceit

A horrific irony is that Tom Wheeler was aware of human health effects long before becoming chairman of the FCC in November 2013. As president of the Industry association (CTIA, 1992-2004), after apparently having ignored existing science, he received the results of a 5-year, $25m (ultimately $28.5m) Industry-backed—but later Industry-reviled and sequestered—study project begun in 1993 (the WTR, or Wireless Technology Research). An independent agency, the WTR came about after a major public uproar following a 1993 Larry King Live® devoted to a lawsuit filed against the cell phone industry on behalf of a brain cancer victim.

Facing damage, doom, and attention from Congress and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Industry responded by creating and financing the WTR to fund research by Agency-selected groups, specifically with respect to human health effects, especially cancer. Don’t bother looking for the composite report, or dataset, per se. However, many studies were published independently, scattered into the scientific literature (where it’s customary to note the funding source). There are a limited number of sarticles online, some attempting to discredit the WTR and slander its director, Dr. George Carlo.

As revealed in Carlo’s 2001 book with Martin Schram, Cell Phones: Invisible Hazards in the Wireless Age, the first clear-cut red flag appeared just 18 days after Carlo reported ‘no proof of risk, no proof of safety,’ in his initial report to the CTIA board on 3 Dec. 1998 (second-edition paperback, p. 149). A late-breaking WTR-sponsored study showed genetic changes in human blood cells. Shortly, more red flags: Brain cancer and acoustic neuroma (latter usually rare).

Later in the WTR research period, the critical importance of exposure methods became clear, deficiencies in which apparently explained the initial overall result. Carlo and his team developed a new exposure system, which led to the two aforementioned alarming results and then to more, prior to Carlo’s ‘final’ report to a closed-door meeting of the Board on 2 Feb, 1999. Another meeting took place a week later during the CTIA’s 1999 trade show in New Orleans. There, Carlo was blindsided, being told at the last minute that he would have only 10 minutes for his prepared 30-minute presentation.

An important read, Cell Phones… was written to clear the air, as Wheeler/CTIA were doing everything they could to suppress WTR findings and discredit Carlo. He said to me in an 8/11/18 email, “WTR studies were completed under contract, peer-reviewed through the Harvard School of Public Health Peer Review Board that we established, and the results were used by the WTR to make our recommendations. This was exactly what was laid out in the ‘WTR Research Agenda’ and it was followed precisely.” Such consummate execution apparently made interests aghast who seem to have been expecting or hoping for vindication, perhaps in the form of a whitewash.

Wheeler declined to share the WTR findings with the wider scientific community and public. This allowed the 14-year-old industry to proceed unfettered. In an egregious breach of public trust, he maintained silence at the FCC, beginning 15 years after Carlo’s warning. Did such willingness ensure his appointment?

No telecom company or Industry operative seems to have made an attempt to access the project dataset or review published studies, even after Carlo’s 7 Oct. 1999 letter to 28 Industry CEOs about the very concerning findings urged them to proceed responsibly. All ears had apparently ‘fallen off’ after 12/3/98. The letter begins on p. 204 of the 2002 second-edition paperback, and can be seen here.21

As noted, Congress and the FDA expressed strong interest in the WTR because of the uproar caused by Larry King Live®. Two years post-WTR, however, as 2001 approached, the U.S. Government had not yet exercised its responsibility to inform the public or take any remedial action. Why? And here we are 19 years on. One wonders what it took to ‘manage’ Congress, FDA and FCC?

Please note that although the WTR was ‘Industry backed,’ it was set up so Industry could have no influence on what aspect was studied, by whom, what the findings were, and how they were made public. One exception, Carlo said in the noted email, was a brain cancer study: “…CTIA orchestrated data manipulation prior to publication to eliminate the statistical significance of the cancer finding.”
Data Pulses and Qualities of RF

In a 3/17/15 phone conversation, Dr. Carlo shared with me his understanding about no-safe-dose, which arose from his WTR experience: Information (data) ‘riding’ on the microwave ‘carrier’ frequencies (called modulation) manifests as pulses. These must exist at all power levels to transmit any data. They are sensed by cell membranes. Carlo said that because cells don’t recognize the stimulus, pulses provoke, for one thing, a defensive and pathogenic membrane response: Transport channel shutdown, preventing exchange between cell and extracellular medium. It also interrupts intercellular communication, a very serious consequence.

Truth seekers might see statements from concerned scientists and activists that no existing thermal exposure limit for cell phones or WiFi is safe for fetuses, pregnant women, children, and the elderly, or that these categories are ‘most vulnerable.’ Again, it’s suggested here that no proposed non-thermal “biologically based” standard is safe, especially over time, most probably for every living thing (possibly excepting some microorganisms, noted earlier).

“…pulsed EMFs are, in most cases, much more biologically active than are non-pulsed (often called continuous wave) EMFs.” – Professor Martin Pall, PhD (Page 45, Chapter 6, first par.). Also, download PDF, type “pulse” in search window.

Pulsing is the reason for the term ICMR, even though there are effects related to heating, relative to power level and antenna distance. The very low power level of weapon technology was noted earlier as a main difference between weapon radiation and telecom radiation. Another difference is that telecom radiation is randomly pulsed by data packets, while weapon radiation is pulsed at selected frequencies. For the British government, Barrie Trower questioned captured spies to learn what pulse frequencies their governments used to induce which diseases.

Interesting is that non-thermal, pulsed RF has long been used to treat pain and edema, to accelerate wound healing, and to enhance bone repair—albeit typically at much lower frequencies than utilized in telecom and WiFi, with different pulse rates. Thermal RF has also been used in medical applications. Thus it seems that EMFs can be harmful or support healing.

In 2013, a paper discussing the dual effect and proposing another cell-membrane response to EMF, was published by Professor Pall. Reviewing published studies for evidence leading to identification of a specific RF target, Pall found substantial literature pointing to a possible mechanism of harm. He suggested that a type of transport channel called a “Voltage-Gated Calcium Channel” stays open, resulting in excess intercellular calcium. This condition can then proceed, ultimately through two different pathways, to harm or help the physiology (see corresponding publication).22 Since any cell is susceptible, effects are potentially extensive.

Just a mention here: It should be taught in the earliest possible science and biology classes, and thus become common knowledge, that life forms are not merely conglomerates of chemicals, molecules, cells, tissues, organs and so on. Let’s keep in mind: Why are we so susceptible to EMFs? Because we ARE EMFs. It’s a failure (but no accident) of science and education that this isn’t common knowledge.

Every atomic ‘component,’ every atom, molecule, cell, tissue, organ, and system is an electromagnetic field – an energy system comprised of electricity, magnetism, and frequencies, or rates of vibration. All aspects, in turn, comprise a composite called the organism. Every part of the body field is in communication with every other part. Even ‘separate’ species communicate electromagnetically – flowers communicate to bees with minute electrical signals.

Electricity, magnetism, and frequency/wavelength are also qualities of ICMR. The extremely subtle signaling and dynamics of biological systems make them highly sensitive to outside magnetic and electrical input (the brain’s pineal gland is extremely light sensitive).

With frequency, there is the matter of resonance. This means that a structure or medium not naturally or already vibrating at a given frequency can reproduce (resonate with) a rate of vibration impinging on it, as when a glass is shattered with sound.

Are we taking the horrific risk, not only of resonantly disrupting anatomy and physiology, but, by a ‘masking’ effect, interfering with the ability of life forms to maintain communion with life-supporting fields of Earth? These effects would require no heating. More below.

Overall, known ICMR effects include endocrine disruption (host of illnesses), breakdown of blood-brain barrier, DNA strand breaks, inhibition of DNA repair, sperm damage, reproductive problems, autism, Alzheimer’s – and many more. Though not to be dismissed, cancer, the ‘popular’ concern, is actually a lesser one in the panoply of effects – as in, ecocide and eventual termination of reproduction.

“When we have a technology that is universally present … that we know impacts reproduction, and reproduction has already dropped well below replacement levels, and we may be facing a catastrophic and irreversible decline in reproduction, and there are more and more plans to expose us still further, don’t you think that we should take note of the science?” (p 2, Chapter 1, item 2). Obviously we should, but shouldn’t we also consider the Wisdom of “replacement” to the current level of extreme overpopulation? (“Sustainable” Development/Green Future discussed further on.)
Electro-Hypersensitivity

One dreadful effect of ICMR is a syndrome called electro-hypersensitivity (EHS), comprising a dozen or more unpleasant and disruptive symptoms.23 EHS victims usually cannot escape all radiation. For some, this is agony. Not yet considered a disease, EHS has been declared a functional impairment in Sweden/EU.24 It’s existence has been denied altogether by US authorities (what else?), although in 2002, the United States Access Board recognized EHS as a disability (and) Federal Register, p. 56353.

At the risk of becoming laborious: Many harmful bio-effects of non-thermal ICMR, though not immediately felt, are insidiously cumulative. This gives a false sense of security to a large percentage of the population. With ongoing exposure, however, one who has long felt nothing can suddenly become hypersensitive or develop other illness. Therefore, EHS victims, who feel symptoms early and intensely, comprise society’s “DEW line.” We had better pay attention and respond before the explosion of illness sure to come.
More High-Level Deceit: “National Priority!”

Since Wheeler covered for 3G and 4G health consequences, it’s no stretch to presume that he did for 5G—even more readily, since no 25,000 papers exist on that. Addressing the 2016 National Press Club meeting, FCC Commissioner Wheeler proposed (virtually demanded) that 5G and the Internet of Things (everything), or IoT, become “national priorities.” The utmost urgency. Forego the nonsense of safety testing – it’s deemed a hindrance. Many marvels, benefits and dollars are promised by the onrushing techno-colossus, brazenly called progress. The post-Wheeler FCC regime now led by Commissioner Ajit Pai, has obediently approved 5G.

Wheeler noted that commercial 5G deployments at scale are expected in 2020. Based strictly upon economics (Wheeler: “…this is damn important!…” meaning competition with China), this reckless timeline means that quite insufficient independent study on harmful impacts will have been completed before 2020. His burning vision of US primacy in the global 5G market was the harbinger of sharply increasing environmental and health consequences, with a new wave of pathological habituation and dependency—unless politicians, officials, and especially the public, wake up very soon and reject a rollout considerably more ill-advised than even the suicidal 1984 original. This movement is beginning, but has flaws (see more below).
The Real Reason for the Wireless “Season?”

Facile notions insist that greed/profit is the primary motive behind the world’s major agonies. As noted, this plays a role in controlling the mid and lower levels of the power hierarchy. But might there be a greater, much more malevolent (psychopathic), Elite motive for the single-minded propagation of pathogenic wireless systems? Research strongly suggests there is.

Wheeler: “If something can be connected, it will be connected in a 5G world … hundreds of billions of microchip-enabled products from pill bottles to plant waterers…” Now, raise your hand if you can’t wait to have your plant waterer microchip-enabled. One (rhetorical?) question might be, “Does this mean you, some day, Consumer, even against your will?” 25

Whether aware or not, Wheeler didn’t mention other aspects that readily complement 5G to compose the supreme foundation for a global surveillance/human-control system: Artificial Intelligence (AI – some say, ‘summoning demons’); job-erasing robotics; the cashless-society (EU soon to begin elimination of physical money); Biometric ID (a number of Orwellian nightmares); the incorporation of technology, including microchips and nanotechnology (such as DNA nanobots), into humans (cyborgs); and quite possibly genetic modification, voluntary or not. And it would be a very simple matter to introduce nano’s furtively into the body by way of ingestibles, topicals, and vaccines.

Perhaps having power fantasies about managing their lives with various waves of the hand, tech worshippers are lining up for their microchip, as one might expect. Because of course it’s safe, secure, nothing can go wrong, and ‘BigBro’ would never think of turning off or micromanaging his budding cyborgs.

Microchipping pets has become big business, however. Is it being exploited to condition the public mind for (ultimately mandatory) human chipping? The big ‘sell’ about the pet version paints an exaggeratedly rosy picture, and there are laws in many places forcing it. It’s strongly suggested, therefore, that people get educated on the problems, some severe, arising from pet microchips. Please don’t hesitate to share with other pet owners and all concerned with pets and animals in general – including human ones.

Brain implants are already being used medically, and China is now reading the brains/emotions of workers with special mandatory caps. Tip of the coming control-system iceberg: Caps today, infused brain nanobots operated by 5G and AI via IoT tomorrow? To make matters worse, once one is sufficiently ‘technified,’ hackers could have a field day. A term for such ‘human improvement’ via techno-eugenics is Transhumanism.

Extensive data mining/surveillance is already in place, even with wired systems. Privacy laws are pablum for the faithful. Personal data collection is inherent in system operation, which includes phones, social media, email, Internet and so on. Even if a cell phone is off, the microphone can be activated for remote listening. To avoid monitoring, one must remove the battery. With 5G speed and the aforementioned complements, the Elite will have total surveillance/information awareness, with thought/emotion/behavior monitoring and control at the ‘push of a button’ in real time.

With such formidable technology in play, it could come down to the ‘superior few’ totally controlling and disenfranchising the ‘inferior many.’ Obviously, the superior few will arise from the wealthy/powerful, some of whom have long been in supranational influence/control and wanting more. Could transhumans/cyborgs eventually be made immune to ICMR?

As suggested, potential flaws exist in the growing opposition to 5G, including Senator Blumenthal’s (D-CT) request to the FCC for proof of safety. This request could amount to mere window dressing if the FCC is allowed to get away with the ruse used to declare 1G-to-4G safe.

Secondly, the safety/health backlash probably should not be aimed at 5G, but at wireless tech per se, 5G included. Otherwise, protesting 5G alone could lend an aura of acceptability to 4G, especially if 5G resistance has effect, and especially with the high level of 4G dependencies, addiction and obsession.

Any objection specific to 5G might better be focused on its potential to ramp up loss of liberty and personal autonomy beyond 4G capability (i.e., in real time), fulfilling a fundamental purpose of wireless per se: A major nail in the coffin of freedom. In other words, oppressive global-fascist governance is more likely to be realized in the technosphere than at the political/governmental level as has been thought. Of course, ‘they’ can control that level too. Nor is Sen. Blumenthal likely, putting it mildly, to touch this fundamental issue.

Wheeler: “To make sure we have this connectivity (buzzword) with high-band spectrum will require a lot more small cells, which means a lot more antenna siting decisions … America’s local governments will play an important role in determining how we fulfill this national priority.”26 Up to 50,000 5G antennas are estimated for California alone (resistance is mounting there).