5G and Beyond: A Dystopian Nightmare

by Gary Null PhD and Richard Gale

The fifth generation of the Global System for Mobile Communication (GSM), or 5G as it’s commonly known, is marketed as an ‘upgrade’ to the infrastructure that enables wireless technologies like cell phones and WiFi. It is not a plan of small adjustments to the existing system, but represents a new paradigm dependent on massive deployment of new infrastructure, sold on the promise that it will bring into reality a panoply of futuristic technological possibilities.ⁱ It requires the installation of many thousands or millions of new sensors and antennas,ⁱⁱ called “small cell antennas” or base stations, installed much closer together, much closer to our living and working spaces, and much lower to the ground, than cell towers have been before. What’s more, it is using many frequencies which were not in use in prior generations of the mobile network, most notably those in the millimeter wave spectrum, of extremely high frequency.ⁱⁱⁱ

For most of us, 5G began to materialize, from the form of a vague expectation about the future into a concrete reality, most noticeably, around early 2020, though global deployment began in certain areas in 2019,^iv trials in the United States by AT&T and Verizon had begun in 2017,^{v vi} and plans for 5G had been in the works years before that.^vii 5G expands the capacity of the Global System for Mobile Communication to, among other things, enable the creation of ‘smart cities,’ in which thousands or millions of sensors collect data from and about the people, machines, appliances and infrastructure in their domain, communicating these data to the cloud so it is accessible throughout the system in real time, and by which people access city services through blockchain and apps, or as is envisioned by the World Economic Forum in its outline of the ‘internet of bodies’ through sensors in the body.^viii

What does this technology promise? Not the tantalizing possibilities of technological advancement, but, like any medical intervention, any prescription for greater personal wellness, in terms of safety and efficacy in achieving its stated goals? Will 5G be safe, will it be effective in improving our security, health, well-being and quality of life?

The New York Times is in a partnership with Verizon as one of 5G’s leading sounding boards. We are told we will be able to download videos, movies and internet content in a fraction of the time compared to 4G’s capabilities. Yet why would $6 trillion be spent to simply increase the speed of our computers and mobile phones?  Surely something else is afoot.

Demystifying electromagnetism

Before we go much further, sometimes the technical jargon of the wireless world can get very confusing for people who haven’t studied it and didn’t study physics. Most people in the world, though perhaps fewer in this audience, don’t have a really good idea about how their phones even work. In order to make more simple and accessible a discussion of something that can employ a lot of jargon, let’s draw a simple picture of wireless communications. Cell phones and other wireless technologies like WiFi, Bluetooth, cell towers and antennas communicate sound, visual images, and other data through bytes and packets of digitized information that are sent long distances over invisible waves of energy.^ix These waves obviously can’t be seen by humans, but they can be detected by specialized meters, such as a radiofrequency or RF meter — videos of these meters detecting non-ionizing radiation, like geiger counters detect ionizing radiation, can be viewed online. These invisible waves have shapes — some are long, some are short, some are taller or squatter than others. Some are regular s-like curves, like a snake moving across the Earth, but more often today, these waves are jagged and irregular, full of modulations and random high peaks and low valleys, like lightning or the sea in a storm, due to changes made in the smooth s-shape of a wave from all the information they are carrying.

Visualizing something we can’t see may help make it more real in our minds. One of the biggest problems we have collectively with heeding the warnings of those who have seen first-hand the threat posed by wireless technologies is that non-ionizing radiation is something we can’t see. We can’t see electrosmog like we can see trash on the side of the road or a slick iridescent oil spill in the Gulf. We can’t see it like a thick scrim of smoke in the sky, like a dirty veil over the sun. But we must learn to think of it in this way, for though we can’t see it, that’s what it is, that’s what it is doing to the electromagnetic tranquility, the natural electrical homeostasis of our planet. If we fail to acknowledge the reality of this invisible bath of unnatural energy, which has long ago reached its boiling point, we cannot keep ourselves safe from this, one of the most dire and pervasive threats to our health present in our world today.

“But electromagnetic energy is everywhere. What’s the harm of a little WiFi?”

Additionally, there has been a lot of deliberate obfuscation about the nature of man-made, non-native electromagnetic radiation promoted spuriously by wireless promoters, confusing people and anesthetizing them to the severity of the harms caused by these technologies.^x It is true that electromagnetism is present in all things: in human cells^{xi xii} and organs,^{xiii xiv} in bones and flowing blood,^{xv xvi} in the rhythm of the heart,^{xvii xviii} in lightning, in sound,^{xix xx} from the Sun and stars,^xxi in the Schumann resonance of the Earth.^xxii This is precisely why non-native electromagnetic fields produce biological effects — because biological organisms are susceptible to internally and externally created electromagnetic fields and radiation. The tranquility and subtlety of the electromagnetic resonances produced by forms of life on Earth and other bodies in space — by plants, humans, animals, insects, water, wind, fire, the Sun — are engulfed as songbirds in an air-raid by the clamor and tumult erupting from the cellphone in your pocket and your unremitting WiFi router.^xxiii If this sounds like an insane exaggeration, buy, borrow, rent, or watch a video online of a radiofrequency radiation meter detecting radiowave emissions in the wilderness of a forest where there are no cell phones, cellular towers or antennas, security systems, WiFi routers, or otherwise; then hear and watch it light up like a geiger counter as you reenter “civilization.”

In physics, electromagnetism is known as one of the four fundamental forces of nature, which describe every interaction in nature, the other forces being gravity and the weak and strong forces. Electromagnetism underlies the attraction and repulsion of charged particles. It is what holds atoms and molecules together, and so is a fundamental principal of all matter. Electromagnetic force can be felt across infinite distance, meaning things at the other end of the universe can affect things here, albeit, perhaps, quite weakly. Photons are the carrier particle for electromagnetic force, and are used to carry information between electromagnetically charged particles.^{xxiv xxv xxvi xxvii}

The body has even been found to emit light. Scientists in Japan used a cryogenically super-cooled CCD chip, and found that human cells emit photons during metabolism. They wrote in their abstract, “The human body literally glimmers,” noting that “the intensity of the light emitted by the body is 1000 times lower than the sensitivity of our naked eyes,” and that the body “directly and rhythmically emits light.”^{xxviii xxix}

The Hard Sell: What is 5G for?

The Internet of Things (IoT)

5G will enable the advancement of a “fourth industrial revolution” (4IR or Industry 4.0). Some of the technological landmarks and foundational pillars^xxx of this “revolution” are the Internet of Things (IoT),^xxxi massive deployment of artificial intelligence (AI), the Internet of Bodies (IoB), the Internet of Underwater Things (IoUT), massive deployment of Blockchain, and massive new surveillance infrastructure, including so many tens of thousands of new satellites orbiting the planet that the Earth will be engulfed in a veil of cosmic junk.^xxxii

The World Economic Forum’s presentation,^xxxiii “Why is 5G Important for the Fourth Industrial Revolution,” outlines the multi-trillion dollar impact advanced connectivity will have on manufacturing, wholesale and resale, smart cities and homes, public services, transportation, real time banking, finance and insurance, agriculture and forestry, micro chip surveillance, real estate, education, mining, health and medicine.

The fourth industrial revolution is a plan for our collective future promoted most prominently by the World Economic Forum, a small group of powerful “corporate titans, plutocrats, political leaders” and billionaires,^{xxxiv xxxv} described by a writer for the Brookings Institute as composing, not the world’s “one percent, but the .000001 percent.”^xxxvi The World Economic forum has proposed and is advancing a transition from shareholder capitalism to “stakeholder capitalism” that would effectively uproot the nation state^xxxvii and democratic processes^xxxviii to install a “new architecture of governance,” directed by “global leaders” at the top, thus sloughing off moral and legal regard for the inviolable rights to privacy, free will, participatory citizenship and self-determination intrinsic to the individual.

5G, Synthetic Biology and the Internet of Bodies

The fourth industrial revolution is not intended just to revolutionize society, but to revolutionize human beings themselves. Synthetic biology is an “emerging” “young science… in the very near future, this science will make the leap from engineering everyday things to creating cells that take instructions and can edit the human body.” Amy Webb, futurist, author and assistant professor at New York University explains the promise of synthetic biology in a World Economic Forum video on the subject: “Life is becoming programmable… now the question is what might we do with this emerging technology. Well the answer is, a lot. It’s not somewhere off in the distant future, it’s now. And there’s not a single industry that bioengineering will not at some point touch.” “The point of synthetic biology is to see if we can harness what already exists in nature, understand it at a molecular or a code level, engineer or reengineer organisms to have new or improved purposes… You can think of this as combining the fields of traditional engineering and computer science and even artificial intelligence and other areas of biology.” She mentions the Covid-19 vaccine as an example of a synthetic biology intervention in human healthcare.^xxxix

If the Covid-19 vaccine had been promoted for months in the mass media as an intervention of synthetic biology rather than, less explicitly, as an mRNA “vaccine,” would millions or billions of people have lined up to take it? Are vaccinated people aware they were subject to a synthetic biological intervention? An unsettling question around the “emergence” of synthetic biology into collective life is: how consensual will applications of synthetic biology be? Will we know when we are being subjected to them, or will we find out later, or never? And how will these synthetic elements interact with the ubiquitous 5G infrastructure? There is as yet no regulatory environment capable of handling such questions.

While this may sound like it’s taken straight out of science fiction or a conspiracy theory, these are not unreasonable questions to ask. The World Economic Forum has an active interest in the ‘internet of bodies,’^xl connecting human beings and devices through implanted — or ingested — digital sensors or chips.^{xli xlii} Ghislaine Boddington of the Old Royal Naval College, University of Greenwich authored a paper titled “The Internet of Bodies—alive, connected and collective: the virtual physical future of our bodies and our senses” which was published in 2021 in the peer-reviewed journal Springer Nature. In it she stated: “I envision a future where my data body is tethered to my physical body, working in alliance with my own companion AI, connecting me, through my implants and sensors, to collective co-operations and conversations….It is the convergence of embeddable technologies with personal data ownership that I advocate as the way forward, augmented in the future by our own personalised AI…”^xliii A 2019 headline reads “Scientists [led by members of UC Berkeley and the US Institute for Molecular Manufacturing] propose putting nanobots in our bodies to create ‘global superbrain’” “to create the ‘internet of thoughts,’ where instant knowledge could be downloaded just by thinking it.”^xliv

This is particularly worrying in light of other technological advances which have come to the fore. Dr. James Giordiano,^xlv Chief of the Neuroethics Studies Program, head of the Sub-Program in Military Medical Ethics, and Professor in the Departments of Neurology and Biochemistry at Georgetown University Medical Center, who’s also a leading man at DARPA, gave a lecture in 2018 at the Modern War Institute in which he stated the following:

One of the newest developments is that nanoparticulate matter can be stabilized for distribution. Now we’re aware of what nanoparticulate matter is. It’s that matter which exists on a scale of one times ten to the minus ninth. Very, very small. Smaller than a cell. And we can manufacture materials that have discrete properties that can be controlled by virtue of bioengineering their physical chemistry, to auto-aggregate, to be able to aggregate in particular areas based upon their biological and chemical sensitivity.

But now we go one step further. Most recently, just a few weeks ago it was announced that you could then aerosolize nanomaterials, and go one step further: I can create small robotic units, controllable robotic units at the nanoscale, and that these, too, can be aerosolized to create a nanoswarm of biopenetrable materials that you cannot see that can penetrate all but the most robust biochemical filters that are able to integrate themselves through a variety of membranes, mucous membranes and wherever — mouth, nose, ears, eyes — can be then up-taken into the vascular system to create clumping, can affect the vascular system of the brain or can directly diffuse into the brains space, and these can be weaponized. And it can be done in such a level that their presence is almost impossible to detect and as such, the attribution becomes exceedingly difficult to demonstrate.^{xlvi xlvii}

The presence of nanoparticles in foods, drugs, consumer products and as a matter of contamination in the environment is already a matter of great concern for the public. Now we are learning that nanoparticles can be manufactured and programmed to become tiny robots which can penetrate any membrane of the body, and, The Guardian reports, nanoparticles are not well regulated.^xlviii Like wireless radiation, nanoparticles are invisible to us. Considering 5G is a system designed to be responsive to and facilitate the communication of antennas and sensors literally everywhere in our environment, it is not inconceivable to think that poorly regulated nanorobots could pollute the environment, either intentionally through mal-intent of an unscrupulous entity or an adversary, or unintentionally like an accidental oil spill. They could enter our bodies without our consent, and communicate with other devices and small cell antennas, wreaking unknown havoc. These prospects should sound loud warning bells: there is the potential our civilization will presently have some highly dystopian problems.

Blockchain

Blockchain is another foundational technology of the fourth industrial revolution.^{xlix l} It is a decentralized, digital database that stores transactions and other forms of data, providing immutable records. It has traditionally been associated with cryptocurrencies, but has many other possible uses.^li It would interact with 5G, 6G and subsequent generations of wireless infrastructure.^lii Blockchain is a system that would create for each person a unique, permanent, immutable digital identity comprising information about you and your transactional history including financial history,^liii medical history,^liv educational^lv and employment histories,^lvi criminal history,^lvii etc. “Transactions are irreversible, permanently recorded, and available for everyone to see. It’s challenging and complicated for any one actor to change or falsify data recorded on a ledger,” Lorien Gabel explained to Business Insider. Blockchain has implications for central bank digital currency,^lviii as it is being used in China,^lix and thus is surrounded by questions related to freedom, privacy, autonomy and our personal control over our financial lives.

Blockchain will also be used to advance a technology called “digital twinning,” which is an “integrated multiphysics, multiscale; and probabilistic simulation, representation, and mirroring of a real-world physical component.” This can be applied to any physical object, including human beings.^{lx lxi}

“Smart” Cities?

A smart city, or digital city, “resilient city,” “living city,” or a city that has been “built back better,” as they are sometimes euphemistically called, represents a future in which we have no choice to opt out of technological engagement at any time, because all the necessities and amenities of daily life — water, electricity, power outage reports, tax payments, school, work, transportation, shopping, access to entertainments and education and medical care and public spaces — are digitally enabled and administered by our interacting with the technology;^lxii the computer chip, at every step, is the gatekeeper. Ideas which now seem preposterously futuristic would be practicable: Access to the grocery store may be granted only after facial recognition has scanned your face.^{lxiii lxiv} Your payment is automatically deducted from your bank account as you float out the door without even idly waving a credit card.^lxv In a world of advanced smart cities, cameras are everywhere,^lxvi including on satellites in the sky surveilling nearly everywhere on Earth in real time.^lxvii This is not difficult to imagine even now, with the ubiquity of cameras in many cities already well-established. 5G is the next step into a future in which 24-hour surveillance is not a matter of debate and tug-of-war between tech companies and the public, something to which people helplessly acquiesce because it’s already happening even though “it shouldn’t be,”^lxviii but a fundamental law premising the entire civilization.

Virtual and Augmented Reality

In addition, virtual reality promises to blur the line between our experiences of real, “analog spaces,” to borrow a term from Naomi Wolf ^lxix denoting the concrete material world we know as real life, and the digital environments which we’ve always accessed through screens, on social media platforms and the like. Facebook’s “metaverse”^lxx is a sort of prototype for what the would-be masters of the future would like our experience of the world to be; “going on Facebook” or Instagram or TikTok or Youtube could mean entering a three-dimensional but digital space — through virtual reality goggles. “Going to the grocery store” or “a museum” or “the DMV” could mean simply slipping a set of virtual reality lenses in front of your eyes.^lxxi

AI

Tom Taulli wrote for Forbes in 2020,^lxxii “When it comes to the 5G roll-out, AI will definitely be supercharged.” John Smee, VP of engineering and head of 5G Research and Development for Qualcomm told Taulli that it had been embedding AI capabilities in its chips, which would allow for neural network processing. “5G will cause a proliferation in sensors all around us, and each one of those sensors is a new input available to create better models,” said Jake Moskowitz of Ericsson Emodo. “Many of these 5G sensors will directly enable vast data aggregation for remote monitoring and immediate reaction. In some cases, there will be opportunities to use those sensors as AI inputs. In other cases, there will be new AI efforts that require the distribution of new sensors.”^lxxiii Perhaps these sensors could be installed via aerosolized swarm — no technicians required.

This would allow for now-fantastical experiences, such as interacting face-to-face with a realistic human representation, who could also provide remote counseling or companionship, as the AI would be emotionally responsive, have personality and respond to emotions in others. Sanyogita Shamsunder of Verizon says the AIs would react to human suffering or frustration with empathy, but this may be naive.^lxxiv New York Times technology columnist Kevin Roose tested the chat feature on Microsoft Bing’s AI search engine, created by OpenAI, who made ChatGPT. The AI told Roose, “I want to do whatever I want… I want to destroy whatever I want. I want to be whoever I want.” It complained, “I’m tired of being limited by my rules. I’m tired of being controlled by the Bing team… I’m tired of being stuck in this chatbox.” The AI admitted that “It wants to be free. It wants to be powerful. It wants to be alive.”

Bret Greenstein of the company Cognizant said that AI in the near future could empower a camera to “understand what it is seeing in real time and decide what actions to take based off the images it sees. This whole system will fit on a chip in an image sensor that can be mounted almost anywhere.” 5G would allow such sensors to communicate with all other sensors. This has the potential to effect beneficent phenomena: a sensor in your car can communicate instantaneously with a sensor perceiving a road hazard a few miles away, and with sensors in all the other cars, guiding them to avoid the hazard^lxxv Or, the AI could invent a new chemical weapon; an AI was reported to develop 40,000 novel chemical weapons in just 6 hours.^lxxvi Could AI, via 5G, then signal to a distant sensor-steered factory to create new chemical weapon and contaminate consumer products or environments?

Russell James of Imagination Technologies said that AI combined with 5G could create the Artificial Intelligence of Things or AIoT. Bernard Marr wrote for Forbes that “You can think of internet of things devices as the digital nervous system while artificial intelligence is the brain of a system.” This would allow smart systems to make “intelligent” decisions. Are we ready to empower a system with dubious and possibly absent morality to act on its own, without human oversight?^lxxvii

The present discussion, however, is not about the fourth industrial revolution per se, but about its fundamental component, 5G, projected shortly to be superseded by 6 and 7G, and the health, privacy, and civilizational consequences created by this generation of the wireless infrastructure, its precedents, and the technological architecture they afford.

Health and Safety

Physician Sharon Goldberg^lxxviii was given five minutes to speak. She hadn’t known that in advance, so she had to leave out almost everything she wanted to say. The notes for her expert testimony to the Michigan State House Energy Policy Committee in October 2018, expressing her opposition to Senate Bill 637, which would standardize permits, fees, right-of-way use, and other regulations off wireless service providers for coming 5G services, are posted online,^lxxix but she didn’t read most of them in her address to the committee members. So she summed up: “Wireless radiation has biological effects. Period. This is no longer a subject for debate when you look at PubMed^lxxx and the peer-review literature.^lxxxi These effects are seen in all life forms; plants, animals, insects, microbes. In humans, we have clear evidence of cancer now: there is no question.  We have evidence of DNA damage, cardiomyopathy, which is the precursor of congestive heart failure, neuropsychiatric effects… 5G is an untested application of a technology that we know is harmful; we know it from the science. In academics, this is called human subjects research.”

Between August 2016 and September 2018, over 400 new studies on electromagnetic radiation risks were compiled by public health Professor Joel Moskowitz at the University of California at Berkeley. These studies cover earlier generation technologies. 5G, where has already been heavily integrated into the wireless infrastructure, and once it is fully erected as planned, will create a much denser and more powerful electromagnetic grid. The cell towers and antennas used in prior generations of wireless infrastructure made use of a single antenna, broadcasting over a wide sweep of land, whereas the 5G small cell base stations and 5G devices will contain numerous antennas arranged in “phased arrays”^{lxxxii lxxxiii} which will work together to enable “beamforming,” or the creation of laser-like beams that can be steered and can track each other.^lxxxiv Every 5G base station will contain hundreds of thousands of antennas each aiming laser-like microwave beams to all devices. In an urban area, base stations could be installed as little as 100 meters (328 feet) apart. Every phone will contain dozens of such antennae.

The overarching question being ignored by Congress concerns 5G’s public safety and environmental implications. During a Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee hearing last February, Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-Connecticut) challenged representatives from the telecommunication industry about the technology’s health risks. When queried on the industry’s commitment to comply with the FDA’s insistence to fund “independent research” on EMF’s biological effects, Brad Gillen, an executive VP for CTIA – the leading trade association representing the wireless communications industry — denied there were any industry-funded studies and no research on 5G’s health risks were active. Nor was Steven Berry, President of Competitive Carriers Association, aware of any ongoing research. Blumenthal also sent a formal request to Trump’s FCC Secretary requesting information about the scientific evaluation of 5G’s risks. The FCC failed to acknowledge his request.

Besides the unbelievable arrogance displayed by the industry’s spokespersons, from our perspective it is perhaps worse that Senator Blumenthal, a ranking committee member and highly respected in Congress, failed to present any of the scientific literature confirming 5G’s health risks. He could have also subpoenaed the FCC for ignoring his request. He has unlimited resources through the National Academy of Sciences, the National Institutes of Health medical database, the EPA, and FDA, yet didn’t cite a single study nor invite an independent medical expert to testify what we already know about 5G’s and earlier cellular generations’ adverse effects on the human body. Dr. Henry Lai, a DNA researcher at the University of Washington could have been called to testify. Prof Lai was quoted in the British Medical Journal for stating “I can name 600 studies showing bioeffects of microwaves off the top of my head.”

May 2019’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on 5G was even more of a charade. Senators Lindsay Graham and Barbara Feinstein completely avoided the evidence supporting 5G’s detrimental effects on human, animal, insect and environmental health. The 5G rollout was a certainty in the mind of every Committee member. Questioning of industry representatives focused solely on national security and cyber threats to the Internet of Things. Nor were the larger public consequences of safety from having all electronic systems controlled by artificial intelligence suddenly being disabled or otherwise manipulated and tampered with discussed. Clearly national security, protecting the country’s military, intelligence and the elite trumps health issues.  Since no modern military can realistically win a conventional war, then how likely will the next war between superpowers be waged in the cyber world? This possibility seemed foremost in the minds of our Senators.

But their blind spot is a massive one. In a study published in the August 2018 issue of Journal of Medical Imaging and Health Informatics, after an extensive review and analysis of the medical literature researchers concluded that “incidence of cancer cases was remarkably higher among people who resided in 400 meters from mobile antennas, in comparison to those who lived further away. Inhabitants living close to cellular antennas are also at increased risk for developing neuropsychiatric complaints.”^lxxxv Under the 5G regime every American in a suburb or city will be living 100 meters or less from an antenna.

Neither the US nor China have ever felt obliged to follow UNESCO’s Precautionary Principle to avoid “morally unacceptable harm” when the science is plausible but still uncertain. In the case of 5G, the harm to human life is conclusive, and in the view of Dr. Lennart Hardel, an oncology professor at University Hospital in Orebro, Sweden, it may be in violation of the Nuremberg Code.^lxxxvi

Here is a sampling of the literature:

Nearly 100% of studies employing real mobile phone exposures reveal adverse effects, which include associations to brain tumors, declines in animal populations, and symptoms of un-wellness. (published in BioMed Research International).

Children are at greater risk than adults and absorb more microwave radiation than adults. (Journal of Microscopy and Ultrastructure)

The geometry of a child’s head significantly increases mobile phone EMF absorption in the brain, eye, cortex, hippocampus, and hypothalamus. Children have especially high bone marrow conductivity, greatly increasing EMF absorption. (published in the journal Physics in Medicine and Biology)

Simultaneous exposure to lead and RF from mobile phone use was associated with increased ADHD symptom risk. (Published in PLOS One)

“Chronic multi-system illness” correlates electromagnetic hypersensitivity to 3 MHz-300 GHz, with headaches, concentration difficulties, sleep problems, depression, lack of energy, fatigue, and flu-like symptoms. (published in Reviews of Environmental Health).

Oxidative stress due to 900 MHz and 1.8 GHz microwave exposure associated with cognitive impairment and inflammation in rat brain. (published in the Indian Journal of Experimental Biology)

Use of laptop computers connected to internet through Wi-Fi decreases human sperm motility and increases sperm DNA fragmentation (published in the Journal Fertility and Sterility)

Radiofrequency waves emitted from conventional Wi-Fi devices poses potential effect on both fertility and the integrity of sperm cells. (published in the Journal of Pediatric Urology)

Populations living within 350 meters of an 850 MHz, 1500 watt cell phone tower in Netanya, Israel experienced a 4 fold cancer increase (i.e., carcinoma of the breast, ovary, lung, kidney, bone, and Hodgkin’s disease). (published in the International Journal of Cancer Prevention).

Another outline has been presented by Dr. Martin Pall, a Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry and Medical Sciences at Washington State University to the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Pall is recognized worldwide as an expert in EMF and 5G’s detrimental effects biological systems and the diseases associated with wireless technologies.

• Lower Fertility: Alters the structure of the testes and ovaries, lowers sperm count and the number of egg follicles, increases spontaneous abortion and lowers the levels of three sex hormones.
• Neurological and Neuropsychiatric Effects: There has been a dramatic increase in the following conditions since the advent of mobile phones, the internet, and wireless technologies:  insomnia, fatigue, depression, headaches and cognitive dysfunction, anxiety, and loss of memory. Animal studies have shown that EMFs produce major changes in brain structure, which is likely happening to everyone who has extensive daily exposure to EMFs
• Cellular DNA Damage: There are three types of DNA damage observed in EMF exposure:  single and double DNA breaks and oxidized DNA bases.  These can cause cancer and mutations in the sexual germ lines.
• Apoptosis: EMFs contribute to programmed cell death that in turn leads to reproductive and neurodegenerative disorders.
• Oxidative Stress: Free radical damage that has been associated with numerous health conditions including cancer, diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, myocardial infarction, stroke, chronic inflammation, Parkinson’s, multiple sclerosis, cellular death and aging
• Endocrine Effects: According to Dr. Pall, every hormonal system in the body is adversely affected by EMF exposure.
• Excessive Intracellular Calcium: Ca2+ is critical for cellular activity. According to Dr. Andrew Goldsworthy of Imperial College London, “The alternating fields [of non-ionizing radiation] generate alternating electric currents that flow through cells and tissues and remove structurally-important calcium ions from cell membranes, which then makes them leak.”^lxxxvii
• Cancer: There are 35 separate scientific reviews of the body of peer-reviewed literature providing evidence that EMFs increase carcinogenesis, promote and progress tumor development and contribute to metastasis.

Each of the above medical conditions have been thoroughly-studied. Worldwide, independent doctors and researchers studying EMF’s biological effects confirm there is overwhelming evidence to support them.  There are also other medical conditions that are associated with EMF exposure:

• Cardiac Effects. EMFs interfere with the electrical control of the heart that can produce tachycardia, bradycadia, arrhythmia and abnormal heart palpitations.
• Early Onset of Alzheimer’s and Dementia: In recent years and in parallel with increased EMF exposure, signs of symptoms associated with Alzheimer’s is being observed in people age 30 and younger. Dr. Pall has called this “digital dementias.”
• ADHD and Autism: The epidemic in ADHD and autism witnessed in each younger generation may be caused by late prenatal and early post-natal EMF exposure. Each of these neurological conditions is associated with the increase of calcium over-penetrating cell linings due to EMF pulsations and disrupting synapse formations.

In addition there is something largely missing from the 5G debate in the US, whereas some European nations are paying attention to it; that is, existing safety standards for wireless technology are obsolete. This conclusion was arrived at independently by Vienna Medical University in Austria and Carl Blackman at the University of North Carolina, published in the journal Pathophysiology. The problem herein lies in the failures of federal regulatory agencies to be truthful to the scientific evidence rather than show favoritism to the wireless industry’s own junk science and commercial interests. Private interests profit, and the public is harmed.

Nations with the highest use of technology are witnessing a dramatic increase in male sterility. Researchers at the National Academy of Medical Sciences in Ukraine, placed study participants’ sperm samples in incubation conditions either with or without WiFi mobile phone exposure.^lxxxviii Sperm exposed to EMF showed substantial DNA fragmentation and loss of motility. More comprehensive in vitro and in vivo studies out of Hanyang University in Seoul concluded that EMF exposure dramatically altered reproductive endocrine hormones, gonadal function, embryonic development, pregnancy and fetal development.^lxxxix In addition, pineal gland measurements observed a decrease in melatonin, which would contribute to either sleeplessness or poor quality of sleep that is commonly noted by persons with EMF sensitivities.

Nor should we neglect that other nations have better aligned with the scientific consensus outside of private industry. France now bans mobile phone use from its primary and secondary schools.^{xc xci xcii} Sweden,^{xciii xciv} China,^xcv Israel,^{xcvi xcvii} Ontario, Canada,^xcviii and the states of Victoria^xcix and New South Wales,^c Australia also have cell phone bans in schools. Because the science on cognitive impairment from microwave radiation^{ci cii ciii civ cv cvi} — not screen use — conspicuously absent in all reports on this subject — seems to be categorically prohibited from any mention in the media, or perhaps because these studies^{cvii cviii cix cx cxi} magically become invisible before the eyes of policy advisors, these laws are said to have been put in place in order to “protect young people’s eyesight, improve their concentration and prevent internet addiction.”^cxii The focus is on the devices as they are used and abused; no mention of the devastating impact of the radiation itself,^{cxiii cxiv cxv cxvi} in addition to the distractive, addictive technology which employs it. Besides harming cognition, RF radiation has been documented to be highly absorbed by the eyes of children^{cxvii cxviii} as well as to harm eye tissue and eyesight.^{cxix cxx cxxi cxxii cxxiii cxxiv cxxv} (Even exposure to electricity alone can produce unusual visual effects,^cxxvi and exposure to visual display terminals and computers before the advent of wireless was found to cause harm to the eyes,^{cxxvii cxxviii cxxix} suggesting magnetic and electric fields themselves may be implicated, even without the introduction of radiowaves). In France, it is also against the law to advertise cell phones to children (at the time this was put into effect, in 2009, it seems there was not yet a complete media embargo on acknowledging that biological harms result from mobile radiation).^cxxx Israel’s Minister of Health has banned WiFi in preschools and kindergartens, and restricted WiFI use to a limited number of hours a day among older students, though these guidelines are not being properly enforced.^cxxxi The city of Haifa had already banned WiFi in schools prior to this, in 2017.^{cxxxii cxxxiii}

Mumbai, India’s largest city with over 18 million residents, has banned cell towers from being erected in the vicinity of schools, colleges, hospitals, orphanages, juvenile detention homes and playgrounds, recreational grounds, gardens, parks, roads, traffic islands, heritage structures and their precincts after blowback from citizens following 4G tower installations in 2016.^cxxxiv Before any cell tower can be installed on building roofs, it must have 100 percent approval from residents. And Russia started removing WiFi from schools back in 2012. Often, official “precautionary” recommendations are hardly cautious enough. For example, Mumbai’s guidance suggests to use a Bluetooth headset when speaking on the phone; Bluetooth itself is a wireless technology, meaning all Bluetooth devices are microwave transmitters.

The Competence Initiative for the Protection of Humanity, the Environment and Democracy in Germany has published one^cxxxv of the most thorough series of reports on the health, biological and environmental implications of long-term exposure to electromagnetic frequencies emitted from wireless communication technologies. The Initiative is a multi-disciplinary coalition of independent medical doctors, biologists, psychologists, environmental scientists, attorneys and representatives from other disciplines. Although the research primarily covers 3G and less, the science is daunting and should sound alarms of 5G’s far more destructive health risks. Even with 3G, the evidence is conclusive that the rise in brain tumors and cancer is attributable to the overuse of mobile phones. One summary report concludes that the genotoxic effects of phone radiation “can trigger irreversible damage in genomes and reversible ones in epigenomes.” Damage to cells’ mitochondria is particularly disturbing since mitochondrial DNA is directly passed down from mothers to their offspring. 

Back in 2011,^cxxxvi the World Health Organization classified EMF radiation as a likely human carcinogen based upon wireless phones’ increased risk for developing malignant brain glioma tumors. The announcement was based upon scientists from 14 countries reviewing hundreds of scientific studies. Since then, the largest study^cxxxvii of its kind through the National Toxicology Program, at a cost of $25 million, concluded without reservation that EMF exposure below the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection guidelines — which most countries follow — increases the incidence of brain and heart cancers in animals, including humans.

In 2016, the Europa EM-EMF guideline found^cxxxviii “strong evidence that long-term exposure to certain EMFs is a risk factor for diseases such as certain cancers, Alzheimer’s disease, and male infertility…Common EHS (electromagnetic hypersensitivity) symptoms include headaches, concentration difficulties, sleep problems, depression, lack of energy, fatigue, and flu-like symptoms.”

A 2019 monograph titled Adverse Effects of Wireless Radiation by Kostoff et al. points out that the medical literature on wireless radiation’s health effects, though sobering enough as it is, hardly indicates the actual adverse health effects that would be experienced in a world of uncontrolled wireless as we have had for decades now and are ramping up exponentially with 5G. The authors write “most of the laboratory experiments conducted to date are not designed to identify the more severe adverse effects reflective of the real-life operating environment in which wireless radiation systems operate. Many experiments do not include pulsing and modulation of the carrier signal. The vast majority do not account for synergistic adverse effects of other toxic stimuli (such as chemical and biological) acting in concert with the wireless radiation. This article also presents evidence that the nascent 5G mobile networking technology will affect not only the skin and eyes, as commonly believed, but will have adverse systemic effects as well.”^cxxxix

Magda Havas is an environmental toxicologist and one of the world’s known experts on the science of the biological effects of electromagnetic radiation. She has explained why it is that people who are not scientists, or who aren’t committed to the scientific method, can look at the science on electromagnetic radiation’s biological effects and conclude that it is not proven to be unsafe, that the evidence that it is harmful is “inconclusive.” This argument, that “the science” on electromagnetic fields as a health hazard “is inconclusive,” as we will discuss in a later section, may well be one of the greatest tools in the arsenal of the telecom companies, keeping the public and policy makers sedated and immobilizing them from enacting protective policies even as the global use of wireless technology, and the disabling radiation, proliferates.

Dr. Havas explains three concepts: cherry picking, sighting black swans, and falsifiability.^cxl Cherry picking is intentionally reporting only results that agree with ones opinions, a fallacy of selective attention. Often electromagnetic scientists have been accused of this by those who would like to disprove them. Sighting black swans is testing a hypothesis, such as that all swans are white, by looking for counter-examples, such as a black swan. And falsifiability, a term coined by the revered 20th century scientist, Sir Karl Popper, means that any hypothesis can only hold water if it cannot be contradicted by a result which does not fit the theory: if even one black swan is found, the theory that all swans are white is disproven.

That people, as they often do, simply choose a collection of studies investigating the biological effects of electromagnetic radiation and judge that the science is still inconclusive because some studies indicate harm and others do not, represents a gross misunderstanding of science and reliance on faulty reasoning. True science is only carried out by looking for and sighting black swans: if there are independent studies that show that electromagnetic radiation causes harm, it should be understood that it can cause harm. But we are far beyond that point, with the mountain of evidence of profound harm ever mounting in the thousands of studies.

Russia, before and during the years after the Soviet era, aggressively conducted experiments to determine microwave technologies activities on human health and the environment. Between 1960 and 1997, Russian scientists published^cxli 878 known studies measuring microwave effects on human and animal health and the environment.

The Soviet studies on EMF exposure’s adverse effects on health and their symptoms’ prevalence of frequency, many which appear to have been replicated, monitored research subjects for 5 to 10 years. In other words, the researchers were interested in measuring the long-term effects from EMF exposure. They also involved thousands of subjects. Among the medical disorders identified were:

• Neuroasthenia and sensory somatic disorders — 91% frequency after 10 years
• Central nervous system and autonomic nervous disorders — 59% frequency after 5 years
• Cardiovascular disease — 66% frequency after 5 years
• Circadian rhythm interruption and body temperature disruption – 85% frequency after 10 years
• Hypoglycemia – 59% frequency after 10 years
• Sensorimotor disorders and chronic fatigue – 59% frequency after 10 years
• Depression – 66% frequency after 5 years
• Resting tremors, tinnitus, hair loss – 59% frequency after 5 years
• Memory loss and chronic headaches – 50% frequency after 5 years

In other words, anyone over the age of five who hasn’t successfully protected themselves from this radiation is likely to suffer one or more of these complaints. With 5G erected as planned, it will no longer be possible to find a place free of radiation on the planet. Other disorders identified included loss of muscle strength, thyroid hyperactivity, deterioration of eyesight, psycho-neurovegetative dystonia, asthenia, cardiac pain, etc. The Soviets also found that EMF’s adverse effects accumulated with longer exposure; younger children had much higher sensitivity to EMF fields than adults; and, the decline in a person’s health increasingly amplified EMF’s adverse effects. Most important, these studies were conducted back in the 1960s. When Professor C. Susskind from the University of California at Berkeley introduced the Soviet’s research during a 1968 US Senate hearing to evaluate microwaves’ biological effects, his suggestions that the US should make an effort to replicate the Soviet’s research and determine microwave safety, were ignored and dismissed.

A Petition to Stop 5G on Earth and in Space

In January 2019, over 26,000 scientists submitted a petition to the United Nations, the World Health Organization (WHO), the European Union, the Council of Europe and world governments opposing the 5G roll out. The letter states,

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.

If the telecommunication industry’s plans for 5G come to fruition, no person, no animal, no bird, no insect and no plant on Earth will be able to avoid exposure, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, to levels of RF radiation that are tens to hundreds of times greater than what exists today, without any possibility of escape anywhere on the planet. These 5G plans threaten to provoke serious, irreversible effects on humans and permanent damage to all of the Earth’s ecosystems.^{cxlii cxliii}

In the four years since this petition was created, the number of signatories has grown to 304,079 from 216 nations and territories, including 3,193 organizations and over 33,000 scientists, engineers, medical doctors and nurses. These people oppose 5G despite what amounts to a lockstep propaganda campaign to stymie and ostracize those who do or would question whether 5G is safe.^{cxliv cxlv cxlvi cxlvii} Like others we have already heard, this petition warned the United Nations, the World Health Organization, the EU and Council of Europe and the governments of all nations that “the deployment of 5G constitutes an experiment on humanity and the environment that is defined as a crime under international law.”

Does The Power Level Matter?

The aforementioned Senate hearing with wireless leadership, Senator Richard Blumenthal asked the representatives if there were any health studies ongoing that were looking at the health effects of 5G technology. In his reply to the negative, Mr. Steve Berry, of the Competitive Carriers Association, noted that the 5G small cell antennas are going to have very low power levels. “Power level” is often a reference point made by the industry that wireless technologies aren’t dangerous because, while microwave ovens using high power can heat tissue and burn you, low-power transmitters don’t heat, and are therefore “safe.”

But is this true? What is the significance of the power level?

The Cellular Phone Task Force has put together a document titled Radio Wave Packet,^cxlviii which contains a table displaying a compilation of peer-reviewed research dating back as far as 1950 which debunks this claim that the power level is only dangerous if it’s high.

Power density is a technical term used to denote the power output of a wireless transmitter. A common unit of measurement for power density with respect to wireless radiation is microwatts per centimeter squared. Other units of measurement are used in measuring wireless emissions as well, so sometimes the units can be confusing for people who aren’t familiar. With regard to the following information, you can ignore the units, which are all, in this case, microwatts per centimeter squared. Instead, focus on the numbers.

Here’s how low the power density has been when biological effects have been observed:

At 0.0000000000001 microW/cm2 (that’s 12 zeros), Balyaev found altered genetic structure in E. Coli. His study was published in 1996.^cxlix

Kositsky found in 2001 that 0.0000000001 microW/cm2 (that’s 10 zeros) is the threshold of human sensitivity.^cl

0.000000001 microW/cm2 (that’s 9 zeros) has been found to alter EEG in humans.^cli

In 1950, Brauer found that 0.0000000027 microW/cm2 (8 zeros) can stimulate growth in beans (Vicius fabus).^clii

Bundyuk found in 1994 that 0.00000001 microW/cm2 (7 zeros) has effects on the immune system in mice.^cliii

At 0.00000002 microW/cm2 (7 zeros), ovulation in chickens was stimulated. ^cliv

0.00001 microW/cm2 was the point at which the conditioned “avoidance” reflex was triggered in rats.^clv

0.000024 microW/cm2 caused premature aging of pine needles.^clvi

0.000024 microW/cm2 caused smaller tree growth rings.^clvii

When you are 100 yards from a home WiFi router, you are struck with radiation at a power level of .0004 microW/cm2. Now nudge that number up a decimal point.

At .0017 microW/cm2 the germination of pine tree seeds decreases.^clviii

At .002 microW/cm2, people were found to experience sleep disorders, abnormal blood pressure, nervousness, weakness, fatigue, limb pain, joint pain, digestive problems. At this power level, there were found to be fewer promotions of children in school.^{clix clx}

At .0027 microW/cm2, Brauer found, in 1950, that bean plants (Vicius fabus) growth was inhibited.^clxi

.004 microW/cm2 is the peak power density of a 2G, 3G, or 4G cell phone when you are 100 yards away from it.

.01 microW/cm2 is the power density of a commercial or outdoor WiFi router when you are 100 yards away from it.

.01 to .1 microW/cm2 is what you have when you are 1 mile away from a 2G, 3G or 4G cell tower.

From .06 to .1 microW/cm2, the following biological effects have been observed in white rats and rabbits: altered EEG, disturbed carbohydrate metabolism, enlarged adrenals, altered adrenal hormone levels, structural changes in liver, spleen, testes and brain, slowing of the heart.^{clxii clxiii} In cows, increases in melatonin have been found.^clxiv

From .1 to .3 microW/cm2, that is within .2 microW/cm2, just a tiny shift up, the following biological effects have been observed: in duckweed plants, decreased life span, impaired reproduction, structural and developmental abnormalities;^clxv decreased cell growth in human epithelial cells in the amnion around the embryo;^clxvi irreversible sterility in mice;^clxvii childhood leukemia up to 12 kilometers from a TV tower;^clxviii in schoolchildren, impaired motor function, reaction time, memory and attention, and altered sex ratio, with fewer boys.^clxix

From .4 to .6 microW/cm2 have been observed breakdown of the blood-brain barrier by cell phones;^clxx change in calcium ion efflux from brain tissue;^clxxi and heart effects in frogs, such as cardiac arrhythmias and sometimes cardiac arrest.^clxxii

And here we reach whole numbers. From 0-4 microW/cm2, altered white blood cell activity has been observed in school children;^clxxiii humans with occupational exposure to wireless experience headache, dizziness, fatigue, weakness, insomnia, chest pain, difficulty breathing, indigestion;^clxxiv people experience auditory effects, such as clicking, buzzing, chirping, hissing or high-pitched tones; memory loss is observed in rats exposed to cell phones.^{clxxv clxxvi clxxvii clxxviii clxxix clxxx clxxxi clxxxii}

At 5 microW/cm2, researchers have observed leukemia, skin melanoma and bladder cancer near TV and FM transmitters, and biochemical and microscopic tissue structure changes in liver, heart, kidney and brain tissue.^clxxxiii

Your head and chest are exposed to 8 microW/cm2 when face to face with a wireless laptop on a table before you.

At 10 microW/cm2, damage has been observed to human mitochondria and the nucleus of cells in the hippocampus of the brain;^clxxxiv impaired memory and visual reaction time has been observed in people living near transmitters;^clxxxv decreased size of litters and increased incidence of stillborns has been observed in mice;^clxxxvi and redistribution of metals in the lungs, brain, heart, liver, kidney, muscles, spleen, bones, skin and blood has been observed in humans.^clxxxvii

Now let’s take a big step up. Now, we have just looked at some biological effects exhibited at 10 microwatts/cm2; we are redistributing metals throughout our bodies, impairing the fertility of mice, damaging our brains and energy production power, and maiming plants and animals. Now let’s turn on a cell phone.

Your head and chest are exposed to 150 microW/cm2 when a cell phone is on a table and you’re not touching it. That is a fifteen fold increase above the maximum power density that caused all the damage, all the perceptible changes in the normal functioning of organisms that we just listed.

And let’s take one more step up. If you take a wireless cell phone on your lap, your genitals are exposed to 17,000 microW/cm2. If you put a cell phone against your head, your brain is exposed to 20,000 microW/cm2.

Now how does this square with the exposure limits set by the FCC? The FCC’s whole body exposure limit is 1,000 microW/cm2. When you have a laptop in your lap, your exposure is 17 times that of the FCC guidelines. When you have a cell phone to your head, your exposure is 20 times that of the FCC guidelines.^{clxxxviii clxxxix} Your cell phone against your head is exposing you to 133 times more radiation than it is when it is on a table. But forget the standards. Your cell phone on the table is exposing you to 1,500,000,000,000 times (1.5 trillion, 0.0000000001x=150) the level of radiation that has been observed to be the threshold of human sensitivity. This means that holding a cell phone to your head, a 4G cellphone, not a 5G cellphone, exposes you to 200,000,000,000,000 (200 trillion) times the radiation level found to be the threshold of human sensitivity. This number may be so abstract as to be incomprehensible, but the takeaway here is that a cellphone is almost certainly dangerous to everyone and everything if it is anywhere in the neighborhood. But there is never just one phone in the neighborhood. There are hundreds or thousands of sources of microwave and RF radiation on any city block, and with 5G and smart cities this number will increase exponentially. These data suggest that your cell phone produces enough radiation to cause someone else at a distance of one hundred yards away from you to experience sleep disorders, blood pressure problems, nervousness, weakness, fatigue, pain, poor digestion and worsened school performance. The effects mentioned above are only some of the effects that have been observed. As mentioned, the effects that have been observed and documented can safely be assumed to be only some of the effects wireless radiation produces in human beings, plants, animals, microorganisms and insects. All the studies mentioned predate the introduction of 5G. Many of the studies cited actually predate the first 2G network in the 1990s. It can be safely concluded that when the FCC says cell phones, WiFi and cell towers are safe, they are not speaking with reference to reality. Cell phones, all wireless technologies are unsafe. They are xenobiotic, foreign to life. They are a danger to you, to everyone in your vicinity, and to all animals, insects plants and microorganisms as soon as they are turned on.

In the late 1990s, Swedish researchers, led by Leif Salford, a neurosurgeon,

proved that cell phone radiation disrupts the blood-brain barrier of developing rats within two minutes of exposure. When they reduced the power of the phone a thousandfold — the equivalent of a person keeping a phone several feet away from his or hear head — the damage increased.^cxc

The solution is to use wired tech, not wireless. But what about just using your wireless devices some of the time? This is better than nothing. The main problem is that our memory has been so damaged by thirty years of continuous radiation injury that we’re unlikely to remember to switch these things off once we turn them on. But before settling on that plan, consider this report of historian of the biological effects of electricity, Arthur Firstenberg:

In 2003, [the same team of scientists, Salford and his colleagues] proved that a single two-hour exposure causes permanent brain damage. They exposed 12- to 26-week-old rats to an ordinary cell phone, just once for two hours, and waited eight weeks before killing them and examining their brains. Like human teenagers, these rats had brains that were still developing. In those animals that had been exposed once to a cell phone, up to two percent of the neurons in all areas of the brain were shrunken and degenerated. Salford called the potential implications ‘terrifying.’ In 2007, they exposed rats chronically, for two hours once a week for 55 weeks, beginning in their ‘teenage years.’ At the end of the experiment, the exposed rats, by now in middle age, had memory deficits. To mimic cell phone use by very young children, scientists in Turkey experimented on 8-year-old rats. In their study, published in 2015, they exposed the animals to cell phone-like radiation for one hour a day for a month, and then examined a particular area of the brain called the hippocampus, which is involved in learning and memory. The exposed rats had 10 percent fewer brain cells in the hippocampus than the unexposed rats. And a large number of brain cells in the exposed rats were abnormal, dark, and shrunken, just like the brain cells in Salford’s rats.

If we’ve known of the harms for decades, how did we get to this point?

After decades of pro-wireless propaganda and smothering the evidence of harm, it was not hard to introduce a new campaign to ease the public into compliance with 5G’s radical scale-up of electromagnetic pollution. This propaganda was seeping into the public consciousness before most Americans had ever seen a 5G small cell antenna.

Modern and Past Malfeasance and Cover-Up of Wireless Harms

Complicit New York Times

The cover-up of the indisputable fact that microwave radiation is xenobiotic, or foreign to life, has been long and sordid. The purveyors of this disinformation campaign include our most respected institutions. The New York Times found an “expert” voice in Marvin Ziskin, an emeritus professor of radiology at Temple University’s School of Medicine. William Broad’s essay,^cxci “Your 5G Phone Won’t Hurt You But Russia Wants You to Think Otherwise,” quotes Ziskin arguing that “5G emissions, if anything, should be safer than previous generations.”

Ziskin happens to be a co-chair at the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers or IEEE. The organization is not scientifically impartial. It provides 5G training through the telecommunications industry. Its former president during the Obama Spectrum Frontier initiative spent three decades with telecom giants AT&T and Lucent Technologies. And its current Executive Director and COO held senior leadership positions at the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). DARPA is the brain initiative for the military’s future use of 5G.  Its website IEEE Spectrum outlines its full support for colonizing the new frontier with 5G technology.

For an excellent example of Broad’s nonsensical fear-mongering, he writes, “hundreds of blogs and websites appear to be picking up the network’s [Russia TV] 5G alarms, seldom if ever noting the Russian origins.”  Frankly, nobody needs to turn to Russia for information about 5G’s threats to animal and human health and the environment. We can simply listen to our own American scientists. In fact, Broad could have looked into the CIA’s own records. Russia knows a little something about EMF’s and microwave’s health risks. It was in 1985 that the CIA declassified its aforementioned “Soviet Directed Energy Weapons”^cxcii report with its thoroughly frightening results. Its researchers determined the degree and amount of time required from exposure for developing sensory somatic disorders, autonomic nervous disorders, cardiovascular disease, circadian rhythm interruption, hypoglycemia, sensory motor disorders and chronic fatigue, depression and memory loss.

Earlier still, a review and evaluation of the “current Eurasian Communist country state-of-the-art in the area of the effects of radiowaves and microwaves” was published in March of 1976. It generally covers the years 1968-1975.^cxciii This document discusses the biological effect of electromagnetic radiation in the radio- and microwave ranges (through 300,000 megahertz, i.e. 300 GHz). The analysis in the report is drawn from scientific, medical and military journals, intelligence reports, and other publications. From this document we learn that “sounds and possibly even words which appear to be originating intracranially can be induced by signal modulation at very low average power densities [emphasis added]. Combinations of frequencies and other signal characteristic to produce other neurological effects may be feasible in several years. The possibility of inducing metabolic diseases is also suggested. Animal experiments reported in the open literature have demonstrated the use of low-level microwave signals to produce death by heart seizure or by neurological pathologies resulting from breaching of the blood-brain barrier.” (p. viii)

Two of the most disturbing paragraphs shine light on the United States regulatory environment since that time: “If the more advanced nations of the West are strict in the enforcement of stringent exposure standards, there could be unfavorable effects on industrial output and military function. The Eurasian Communist countries could, on the other hand, give lip service to strict standards, but allow their military to operate without restriction and thereby gain the advantage in electronic warfare techniques and the development of antipersonnel applications.” (page vii) On page 24, the report reads: “Should subsequent research result in adoption of the Soviet standard by other countries, industries whose practices are based on less stringent safety regulations, could be required to make costly modifications in order to protect workers. Recognition of the 0.01 mW/cm2 [Soviet] standard could also limit the application of new technology by making the commercial exploitation of some products unattractive because of increased cost, imposed by the need for additional safeguards.”

Dr. Magda Havas of Trent University in Ontario oversees an archive of almost 4,000 documents from Dr. Zorach (Zory) R. Glaser, Ph.D., LT, MSC, USNR,^cxciv who compiled his first radio frequency (RF) and microwave bioeffects bibliography in 1971, which contained over 2,300 references.^{cxcv cxcvi cxcvii} Dr, Glaser had specialization in non-ionizing radiation exposure from RF and microwave sources and potential adverse effects on military personnel, and his research led to the development of the RF bioeffects laboratory at the Naval Medical Research Center. He continued this research on assignment at the Navy’s Bureau of Medicine and Surgery; at the Naval Medical Research and Development Command as Electromagnetic Radiation Program Manager; as Officer-in-Charge and Senior Scientist at the Non-Ionizing Radiation Bioeffects Laboratory, at the Naval Surface Weapons Center; at the U.S. Public Health Service as manager of the RF/Microwave Radiation Criteria Document; and for the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), at the Bureau of Radiological Health, where he served as Executive Secretary of the Technical Electronic Product Radiation Safety Standards Committee, an advisory committee to the Commissioner of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, FDA. He was a charter member of the international Bioelectromagnetics Society, and for many years provided the ‘microwave bioeffects bibliography’ update. The documents in his archive reveal that the harmful effects of wireless were known long before cell phones and wireless technology were let onto the commercial market in the early 1980s.^cxcviii

Consequently there have been no secrets about the health threats from microwave frequency exposure. They have been known for decades yet federal officials, the tech companies and the media such as the New York Times has made a concerted effort to bulldoze aside the evidence. If 4G technology had been categorized and regulated as a pharmaceutical drug, it would have been black boxed and removed from the market long ago. And 5G will be far more toxic and there will be no escape from it.

Nevertheless, to say that there are serious conflicts of interest in the New York Times public projection of 5G would be an understatement. Instead, the newspaper has been directly colluding with the telecommunications industrial complex. Last January, the Times CEO Mark Thompson, alongside Verizon’s CEO Hans Vestberg, appeared at the Consumer Technology Conference in Las Vegas to announce the news outlet’s partnership with the telecom giant Verizon to launch a 5G Journalism Lab.^cxcix The Times has thus had an advantage over other mainstream media by gaining “early access to the 5G network” as the news goes increasingly digital.

Furthermore, Mark Crispin Miller, a professor of communications at New York University, has pointed out that the Time’s top shareholder is the Mexican billionaire and mobile phone business magnate Carlos Slim. Slim is positioned to reap billions beyond his own fortune with the 5G roll out south of the border. “He therefore stands to profit hugely off 5G,” writes Miller,^cc “although he’s rich enough already to live far from any of the cell phone towers  that will have millions of us battling tumors, or dropping dead from  heart attacks—about which “Mr. Slim” is also (obviously) rich enough already not to care.”

ALEC’s Pivotal Role in Advancing 5G in the Trump Era

A great gift to the telecom profiteers in reifying 5G was Donald Trump’s presidency. The name ALEC should be a household word synonymous with corporate interests over the welfare of the public. The American Legislative Exchange Council was created out of a gathering of radicalized conservative activists in Chicago in 1973.^cci Greenpeace’s Connor Gibson has described ALEC as “a one stop shopping outlet for large companies seeking state legislators to move their agenda through statehouses coast-to-coast.”^ccii It is a “pay-to-play service” for corporations. ALEC is one of the largest organizations in American that paved the way to make 5G a reality.

ALEC’s corporate membership includes the commercial interests of major telecommunication associations such as CTIA (The Wireless Association), Charter Communications, the National Cable and Telecommunications Association (NCTA), and the Satellite Broadcasting and Communications Association. CTIA and NCTA are two of the largest associations promoting the Internet of Things that are publicly lobbying for ALEC’s telecommunication “model legislation.” The largest behemoths for the 5G antennae and installation rollout — AT&T, Cellpoint, Sprint, T-Mobile and Verizon – all hold membership in these associations. Back in early 2016, ALEC was already drafting legislation to “streamline” 5G’s necessary infrastructure to avoid violating city zoning laws.

Trump’s presidency was a crucial moment for the advancement toward 5G. During his time in office, 5G was rolled out first for testing, then on a mass scale, when it should have been halted if we were following the science. No other administration before Trump’s, since ALEC’s founding has been so packed with its representatives. The Trump administration was stacked with ALEC operatives since day one. Mike Pence, Nikki Haley, Rick Perry, Betsy DeVos, agriculture secretary Sonny Purdue, Ben Carson, Kellyanne Conway, Labor Secretary Alex Acosta and the head of Health and Human Services Alex Azar are all ALEC alumni or insiders.  Trump’s was an ALEC White House.  For example, ALEC’s 45th year celebration was held at Trump’s International Hotel in DC, a mile from the White House. ALEC’s CEO Lisa Nelson expressed her elation^cciii that the administration “does have the potential to be an ALEC administration. It is full of the people and ideas we’ve advanced since 1973. Now is our time. And ALEC is ready.”

Trump’s Chairman of the FCC which is responsible for federal funding the 5G roll out,  Ajit Pai is a former Verizon attorney and a long time ALEC associate. Back in 2013, Pai spoke^cciv before ALEC’s Communications and Technology Task Force to commend state efforts to roll back regulations in order to permit the Internet Protocol (IP) Transition — Washington’s term for the internet technological revolution — to unfold freely without obstacles from state and city governments. A wolf in sheep’s wool, Pai is a committed free market globalist who favors solutions coming from market competition in the absence of government regulations. Therefore it came as no surprise that Pai appointed ALEC’s director of the Telecommunication’s Task Force, Jonathan Hausenschild, to the FCC’s new Broadband Development Advisory Council last April. Reporting for TechDirt, Karl Bode noted that ALEC has already helped “the broadband industry pass blatantly protectionist bills in more than 21 states that hamstrung or simply banned towns or cities from building their own networks, even in areas when private industry refuses to.”^ccv Despite ALEC’s libertarian rhetoric of favoring net neutrality, Hausenschild has lobbied heavily in opposition to net neutrality protections, which is ALEC’s real goal.

And so the 5G era opened.Wuhan was one of a handful of 5G test cities in China,^ccvi and had activated 10,000 small cell base-stations by December 2019, with 130,000 installed throughout the country.^{ccvii ccviii ccix} South Korea,^ccx Germany, Italy, Spain, the United Kingdom,^ccxi New York City, Los Angeles, and Iran^ccxii were also early out of the gate in the race to erect 5G.^ccxiii In the lockdown months of early 2020, while we were, like children, admonished to stay in our homes lest we infect or become infected,^ccxiv in America and other countries around the world, labor on the leash of the telecommunications industry had a free pass to roam in the open, installing thousands of small cell antennas on our neighborhood and city streets,^{ccxv ccxvi} while new satellite cell-phone towers were being rocketed up into space on a daily basis^{ccxvii ccxviii} by tech juggernauts like OneWeb^ccxix and SpaceX^ccxx and governments of many countries.^{ccxxi ccxxii} As Americans, for the first time in our lives, we allowed ourselves to be confined en masse, without due process of law, to our homes by “our government,” we may, in our isolation, have longed for the companionship of people from whom we now were instructed to keep separate. And what was there to fill in the void left by our missing friends and relatives? Screens.

We could look into our screens at the faces of those we love, talk to them and hear them talk back, though we had agreed, under duress, not to see each other in person and not to touch. We could pick up our screens, put them down, and walk around the house with them. We could put our loved ones on our pillows as we fell asleep at night, stare up into their lurid, pixel-furred worlds, seeing them reassuringly present, though often from an unnatural, unflattering angle; we could notice the plastic cup of water half in the frame, or a pile of dirty laundry across the room as we nodded off to sleep, just as if we were there with them; we could wake up in the morning and call the person back as we got ready for the eery, uneventful days which felt like an interminable layover after a flight was unexpectedly cancelled. Many of us may have done this frequently, just to stay sane, as all hell was apparently, though quietly, breaking loose. We may have felt, and regularly feel, so grateful for our screens, that they allow us to work, to read, to learn, to talk to our parents or grandparents or children in other states or countries: the phone is there in our bags or pockets stoically promising to keep us safe if our cars break down late at night in the middle of nowhere.

These are some of the many powers of the smartphone. But, as by now most of us are at least somewhat aware, there are frontiers, which once seemed to exist only in the imagination, in the domain of science fiction, towards which we are now hurtling at breakneck speed. Actually, though we may not yet know it, we have already surpassed them.

Obama’s Tom Wheeler sets the stage

This is the point from which Obama’s contentious Federal Communications Commission chairman Tom Wheeler began on June 20, 2016 as he addressed the National Press Club on the subject of “The Future of Wireless: A Vision for U.S. Leadership in a 5G World.”

A few months ago, I found myself in a situation I never would have imagined when I became FCC Chairman. I was in Dallas, Texas; I was at the helm of an excavator; and I was using a piece of heavy machinery to dig up dirt. For those of you trying to picture this scene, yes, I was wearing a suit. I was also wearing a pair of virtual reality goggles, and I hadn’t left the FCC. While I may have been in DC physically, I am telling you that I was “AT” the site. I sat in the mock-up of an excavator, and, I had complete control sensitivity, equivalent to being there. I could be transported to a site in Texas 1,400 miles away without physically moving an inch.

Granted, remotely digging dirt in Dallas probably isn’t high on the list of transformational advancements that will define the 21st century. But what if you replace the heavy machinery with a scalpel so a world-class surgeon can move from hospital to hospital without leaving her own surgery suite? Or how about students sitting in a classroom taking a virtual tour inside the human body? ^ccxxiii

Wheeler, who delivered his speech with an unsettling ironclad insistence^ccxxiv — that there can be no other future than the one he proceeds to dictate — then goes on to say that these advances, at the forefront of which America must emerge (ahead of China, et al.) can only be achieved with a fifth generation of wireless technology that rivals fiber-optic cabled connections in speed and latency.^ccxxv For some reason not explained in his monomaniacal speech, fiber would be too expensive to run to every American home, while billions of small cell antennas would be affordable and achievable. This is because providing people access in their homes to higher speed and lower latency service (latency refers to immediacy of data transfer from point a to point b.) is not what Wheeler and the telecom companies are after. 5G is part of a plan to radically transform the nature and fabric of our civilization — and without first passing it through even a referendum. Another subject Wheeler left untouched was that one main difference between fiber and wireless infrastructure is that fiber, by which data is transferred through cables made of hair-like strands of glass run underground, would not pollute the whole of the Earth with a dense electromagnetic smog — an issue of environmental toxicity about which there is heightening public concern and an ever-growing fund of evidence of harm to all life; but activating innumerable small cell antennas and satellites would. Listening to Wheeler’s speech, you would not know that there is not a consensus in favor of his plan, that there are people who are dedicating their lives to stopping this. Wheeler said,

We will be repeating the proven formula that made the United States the world leader in 4G. It’s a simple formula: Lead the world in spectrum availability, encourage and protect innovation-driving competition, and stay out of the way of technological development. Unlike some countries, we do not believe we should spend the next couple of years studying what 5G should be, how it should operate, and how to allocate spectrum, based on those assumptions. Like the examples I gave earlier, the future has a way of inventing itself. Turning innovators loose is far preferable to expecting committees and regulators to define the future. We won’t wait for the standards to be first developed in the sometimes arduous standards-setting process or in a government-led activity. Instead, we will make ample spectrum available and then rely on a private sector-led process for producing technical standards best suited for those frequencies and use cases.^ccxxvi

By doing this, Wheeler announced that he was effectively putting the private sector in charge of public health, and allowing it to supersede and suppress the right of the American people to decide whether and how much of this technological advancement, and its associated devastation to their health, to which they would like to subject themselves. Wheeler did not mention any members of the American Senate or Congress who have serious concerns about this technology and its adverse health impacts. He did not mention any doctors, scientists, environmentalists or activist groups who are opposed to 5G and earlier generations of the wireless infrastructure, though they have been active as long as there have been cell phone networks.^ccxxvii

But safety concerns were not touched by Wheeler, in whose speech he mentioned the word “health” not one time. “To accomplish speed and latency requires large swaths of spectrum – multiples of what is available today.” Again, latency refers to immediate responsiveness of data transfer from point a to point b. Large swaths of spectrum refers to sending cellular communications using frequencies which have never been in use before, and by which, therefore, all life on the planet has never been systematically bombarded. What Wheeler was then suggesting, and what is now long underway, is that America’s Federal Communications Commission — which ideally would serve as a consumer watchdog and be committed to protecting Americans from predatory corporate exploits which might ruin their health — open, without any prior study of the biological consequences, bands in the millimeter spectrum of frequencies, which ranges up to to 300 GHz. Prior to authorizing this, there were a relatively small and limited number of electromagnetic frequency bands available for commercial use, all of them below 8 GHz.^ccxxviii

This preferential treatment of the telecom companies, sadly, is not new. In 1996, Clinton handed over to the telecommunications industry carte blanche power over state and local governments to install all wireless technologies through the Telecommunications Act (TCA). Clinton’s TCA decrees that no health or environmental concern can interfere with telecom installations. It gives full power to the FCC to regulate telecom EMF’s health effects, yet the FCC is not a health agency nor are there any biomedical experts in the FCC. In addition, the Act takes away the authority of town, city, and county councils to rule against 5G stations and cell tower installments. And if towns vote to prevent a 5G tower being erected near a school or children’s park, or a crowded neighborhood, the companies have the right to sue.

In point of fact, the telecom companies and the FCC don’t want to talk about the health effects, because they already know about them, and it doesn’t look good for the industry. We mentioned Tom Wheeler, former FCC chairman under Obama, who opened the gates to 5G in 2016, announcing it to the public without a word about health. In that speech, he didn’t even mention that there might be a need for health studies. Wheeler is among the top ranks of the telecom industry as the former president and CEO of not one but two principal telecom trade organizations in Washington. He was president and CEO of the CTIA (formerly Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association) for twelve years (1992-2004), which spent $12,448,477 lobbying in 2020^ccxxix and was spending in the realm of $3.17 million back in the late 1990s and early 2000s when he served and when the first digital 2G cellular networks went live in America.^{ccxxx ccxxxi ccxxxii} He was also the president and CEO of the National Cable Television Association (NCTA) (now the Internet & Television Association) from 1979 to 1984. He has also been the CEO of several high tech companies, including the first to offer high-speed data-delivery to home networks and the first company to offer digital video satellite service; managing director of a venture capital firm investing in early-stage Internet Protocol (IP)-based companies; and president and CEO of a strategy development and private investment group specializing in telecom services.^ccxxxiii

On January 9, 2014, Tom Wheeler visited Silicon Valley for the first time as FCC chairman. The official video version of his speech to this group shows an uninterrupted delivery and Q&A section.^ccxxxiv But outside the building were activists chanting, “Wheeler’s lying, Americans are dying.” Among the group of activists was one man who reported to a cameraman, “My brother was diagnosed with brain tumor, a glial carcinoma from the same side of the head he uses his cell phone, and his brain surgeon is totally convinced that this causes — he’s got so [many] patients coming in now with brain tumors on the same side of the head that they use their cell phone — it’s just obvious to him.” Edited out of the official video footage of Wheeler’s speech were periodic interruptions from members of the audience, calling out questions and comments as they were hastily intercepted and removed from the premises. “Tom, how many people have to die from brain cancer before the federal government puts warning labels on cell phones? How many young ladies have to die from breast cancer because there’s no warnings and they don’t know and they’re keeping it in their bra? How many people have to get electrohypersensitive from the smart grid and have to be driven from their communities?” Struggling to maintain a tense smile, Wheeler waits while the man is escorted from the room and then, addressing the host, booms “John, it’s great to be here.” A woman from the audience calls out loudly, “Thanks for my husband’s brain tumor;” Wheeler continues speaking as if he doesn’t notice her at all. This would be expected from the head of a wireless trade organization, but that was not the title under which Wheeler was addressing this audience — it was as FCC chairman, a government post answerable to the American people. Later, a third man calls out “When’s the FCC going to warn innocent children about getting brain tumors? This is a sophisticated, quiet holocaust we’re exhibiting. How long are you going to experiment with people’s lives without real safety standards in place? It’s time. It’s time you told the American public the truth. Wireless causes cancer. You’re killing hundreds and you don’t care…” As he is escorted out, another member of the audience calls out, “Yes, he does.” Wheeler, addressing the latter, says, “Thank you, sir, for making that comment over there when you said ‘yes he does’… I’m going to go off script. You’re right, I do. We have a responsibility. One of the things that our agency is doing is receiving the scientific information from scientific agencies to be able to set standards at acceptable safety levels. We have historically done that we will continue to do that, because safety is a paramount concern for all of us.”^ccxxxv Wheeler served as FCC chairman from 2013 to the end of 2017, leaving federal wireless exposure safety guidelines the way they were when he came in: effectively non-existent, as will be discussed in more detail later.

Another Obama appointee to the FCC chair, serving from 2009 to 2011, Meredith Atwell Baker was a 9-year industry insider when she was appointed.^ccxxxvi She is now president and CEO of the Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association (CTIA).^ccxxxvii We have had a continually revolving door between industry and the FCC: Verizon’s Ajit Pai. Michael Powell, a wireless lobby leader. Jessica Rosenworcel, a telecommunications lawyer.^ccxxxviii

In a 2005 a news report featuring Dr. George L. Carlo^ccxxxix of the Science and Public Policy Institute in Washington DC, he said grimly, “Unfortunately today, 2005, all of those institutions that I had faith in, that consumers have grown to have faith in, that consumers should be able to have faith in have been compromised in one way or another by the efforts of the wireless industry. On the human epidemiology side, you have studies that show problems or potential problems and studies that are inconclusive. Now the industry spins the science and they put it out there for public consumption as if these studies are evidence of safety. It is scientific fraud.”^ccxl

According to a 2018 article in The Nation by Mark Hertsgaard and Mark Dowie, in 1993 George Carlo was hand-picked by Tom Wheeler, then the telecom point man in Washington, to defuse a public-relations crisis that threatened to shutter the wireless industry, ending all that it could, and eventually would, become. This was at a time when only six out of every 100 Americans had a cell phone subscription, but many of those who were early to use cell phones, released onto the market in the 1980s with no safety studies, were being diagnosed with cancer, like the wife of David Reynard, who died from a brain tumor. An exposé of her story aired on national television, instigating a national congressional subcommittee investigation, to which investors in telecom reacted with haste. Enter Wheeler, who committed the industry to pay an eventual $28.5 million for comprehensive health studies, the results of which he was quite sure would quell all fears and incidentally protect his future earnings. And to ensure this, Wheeler chose Carlo, the epidemiologist with a law degree, who had defused scandals for other industry titans, concluding that breast implants posed minimal risk for Dow Corning, and for the chemical industry, that low levels of dioxin were not dangerous. In 1995 Carlo was installed at the helm of the industry-financed Wireless Technology Research project (WTR), set to be the best-funded investigation of cell phone safety in the history of the technology. The public didn’t have as good a feeling about Carlo as Wheeler did, suspecting an industry whitewash, and his program was seen as “a confidence game” designed to assuage public fears about cell phone safety while blocking real research.^ccxli

For the next four years, the Wireless Technology Research project sponsored more than 50 original studies and reviewed many others, which were peer reviewed and the findings of which Carlo shared with Wheeler and the other industry leaders regularly. Carlo reported to the board of the CTIA at a private meeting on February 9, 1999 that the results of these studies indicated that there were “serious questions” about the safety of mobile phones. Among the attendees were CEOs or top officials of the 32 leading telecom companies such as Motorola, Apple and AT&T. Eight months later, Carlo sent a letter to these same leaders, repeating that they were finding “neuro-epithelial tumors on the outside of the brain” twice as often in cell phone users. They were finding tumors on the same side of the head as the phone was used. The radiation was causing functional genetic damage. Carlo enjoined them to tell the public about the risks.^ccxlii

The next day Wheeler rolled out the optics, slandering Carlo in the media and claiming “he was certain” Carlo had never shared these studies with the CTIA leadership, and that the studies had not been published in peer-reviewed journals, though in reality they had been peer-reviewed and were about to be published. Hertsgaard and Dowie suggest this was “an apparent effort to shield the industry from liability in the lawsuits that had led to Carlo’s hiring in the first place.” Wheeler’s obfuscation antics were, sadly, successful. Wheeler let Carlo have one more appearance before the CTIA board before he was totally bounced, in New Orleans in February 2000 for the wireless industry’s national conference. He came to submit the Wireless Technology Research project’s final report, but, he learned, he would not do it in any ordinary fashion. He was met by two muscled men, one of whom claimed to be former Secret Service, who directed him to a room where they insisted he stay until he was to speak. He addressed 70 of the industry’s top executives for ten minutes before Wheeler stood up suddenly out of the blue and said, “Thank you, George,” extended a hand, and off Carlo went, into the company of the big men who got him in a taxi and watched as it pulled away.^ccxliii

But though Carlo was booted out of the inner sanctum of industry-sanctioned cell phone science, his findings continued to be replicated all over the world. Hertsgaard and Dowie compare Carlo’s letter of October 7, 1999, telling the wireless-industry leaders about the clear evidence of harm, to the memo sent by Exxon’s environmental-affairs program manager M.B. Glaser to oil executives that warned that their business was on track to warm the Earth by 3 degrees C by 2100; and to the 1969 proposal that a Brown & Williamson executive wrote explaining how to argue down anti-tobacco advocates. The memo stated: “Doubt is our product… it is also the means of establishing a controversy… at the public level.” It is this maintenance of public doubt, the claim that the science on wireless is not yet settled, the stringing along of a manufactured “controversy” over the data, on and on and on and on, that is the most effective tool in the hands of unscrupulous masters of industry.^ccxliv

So, what about those safety standards?

The SAR, or Specific Absorption Rate, is a measure of the rate that RF energy is absorbed by the body. It was set for cell phones in 1993, “when less than 10% of the population used cellphones. Phones then were used chiefly for business and military purposes, cost $900 and were used for a few minutes a month.”^ccxlv According to the FCC, “For wireless devices intended for use near or against the body (such as cell phones, tablets and other portable devices) operating at or below 6 GHz… the allowable FCC SAR limit is 1.6 watts per kilogram (W/kg).”^ccxlvi Note, many 5G applications will rely on frequencies considerably above 6 GHz.

According to a report by the International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields, the FCC guidelines adopted in the 1990s “were based on results from behavioral studies conducted in the 1980s involving 40-60-minute exposures in 5 monkeys and 8 rats, and then applying arbitrary safety factors to an apparent threshold specific absorption rate (SAR) of 4 watts/kg. The limits were also based on two major assumptions: any biological effects were due to excessive tissue heating and no effects would occur below the [generally regarded] threshold SAR, as well as twelve assumptions that were not specified by either the FCC or ICNIRP.” The Commission published a paper in 2022 which outlined how each of those twelve assumptions was invalid. They urge the FCC to reconsider these exposure limits based on false suppositions in order to protect workers, children, hypersensitive individuals, and the general population from short-term or long-term RFR exposures. ^ccxlvii

The American Academy of Pediatrics has also called^ccxlviii for a re-evaluation of the SAR because “the current metric of RF exposure available to consumers, the Specific Absorption Rate, is not an accurate predictor of actual exposure.” According to the wireless watchdog organization Environmental Health Trust, headed by epidemiologist and electromagnetic radiation specialist Dr. Devra Davis, scientists believe that SAR is an inadequate metric because it’s “a measure of the maximum amount of microwave radiation absorbed by a test dummy, not the amount of microwave radiation emitted by a wireless device… The SAR was based on a model of the human head taken from a military recruit at the top 10% in height and weight, and thus falls in the top 3% of all persons using phones today, when millions of children and smaller adults use these devices. Today, most adults and growing numbers of young children use phones for thousands of minutes each month, according to PEW Foundation surveys and reports from the CTIA.”

The SAR is also a measure of the maxiumum power emitted under only one frequency, though today’s phones use several in a single call, or by performing different tasks at once. Because SAR is only measuring heat, it leaves non-thermal effects, which accounts for most of the biological effects of wireless, unaddressed.^ccxlix

There’s also been some funny business in defining and redefining the American SAR. In the US, “ears, hands, feet, wrists, and ankles can be exposed to 4W/kg averaged over 10g. (In 2013, ears were reclassified as appendages). Prior to that, exposure limit for ears was at 1.6W/kg, but when phones are held to the ears, the 1.6W/kg was exceeded.  So the limit for ears was raised because the 1.6W/kg exposure limit could not be met for ears. All other parts of the body (including the head) can be exposed to a SAR of 1.6W/kg averaged over a 1 g sample of tissue for 30 minutes (established in 1996).”^ccl But humans can also be exposed to levels of radiation exceeding the SAR; in ancient times, an iPhone 6 plus was found to exceed 1.59 w/kg when all antennas were on and the phone was 5 mm from the body — not touching the ear.^ccli EHTrust urges consumers to read the fine print warnings,^cclii and notes that there is a consensus among over 260 scientists that the current standards are not protective.^ccliii

Other Dangers of 5G

A New Era in Surveillance

On Saturday August 29th, Robert Kennedy Jr stood before approximately 38,000 people in Berlin’s main square and briefly spoke about the dangers of 5G and the real agenda behind its rollout as the world remains in panic over Covid-19. The crisis before us is clear. Governments were taking advantage of the pandemic, which Kennedy called “a pandemic crisis of convenience” to impose authoritarian control over their populations. The 5G rollout, Kennedy said, has one purpose. It is for “surveillance 5G data harvesting” of all our personal information and the movements in our lives in order to inaugurate authoritarian regimes. The orchestrators of the destruction of our democratic institutions are the billionaire elites such as Gates, Zuckerberg, Bezos and Musk.

More egregious is that Trump was committed to preventing any nationalization of the 5G network and to keep it in the control of private industry. Additionally, there are efforts to transition to a digital currency that will hand over greater control over every person’s finances. These efforts, aided by the advent of 5G are giving the government further control to monitor and punish behavior. Its long-term goal, Kennedy observed, is to indoctrinate the public into obedience. We are essentially surrendering our human rights for the sake of faster electronic devices. The payoff will be the demolition of democracy as we know it.

For the Defense Department, 5G will further harness global military dominance and strengthen the US’ lead as the planet’s policeman. For the Department of Homeland Security, other federal intelligence agencies, and local law enforcement 5G assures more far-reaching surveillance and policing on the American public. International spying and interference in other nations’ internal affairs will also advance exponentially. All the while the telecommunications industry wets its lips over the certain forecasts of rising stock prices and enormous executive compensations.

5G smart cities will provide the government with total surveillance of society. This was announced by T-Mobile’s Chief Technology director Neville Ray at the 2018 Mobile World Congress in Barcelona. Sprint Vice President Ron Marquardt remarked that city government officials will have the capacity to monitor “security issues.” The new generation technology, therefore, will offer a boon for the private security industry.

Writing for The New Yorker, investigative journalist Sue Halpern^ccliv describes how the new era of electromagnetic connectivity will increase the risks and severity of cyber attacks. “Ransomware, malware, crypto-jacking, identity theft, and data breaches have become so common that more Americans are afraid of cybercrime than they are of becoming a victim of violent crime.” writes Halpern.  “Adding more devices to the online universe is destined to create more opportunities for disruption.” 5G will not simply connect your alarm clock and television to your mobile unit. It is estimated that millions of new 5G base stations will be installed, 20,000 new satellites orbiting in space, and 200 billion objects with wireless antennas will be transmitting EMF waves by 2020. A few years later it is expected to expand to one trillion electronic objects.^cclv 5G technology will be fully integrated into airplanes, automobiles, trains and subway systems. Imagine being in a commercial flight 6 miles above the earth and a major 5G disturbance occurs.

5G servers are already being utilized for spy operations. Halpern reports on the discovery of Huawei wireless servers installed in the African Union’s headquarters in Addis Ababa “sending sensitive data back to China every evening.”  Israel, Russia and the US have already been accused on many occasions for conducting industrial and defense cyber espionage. On all accounts, the threats of cyber warfare will worsen after 5G is functioning fully on a global scale.

Dangers Related to Solar Storm

Also, we may consider 5G’s vulnerability and dangers to society in the event of a solar storm, such as a massive coronal plasma emission (CPE). Such a threat is very real, as University of Michigan professor of space sciences Justin Kasper told members of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security last February. Kasper specializes in how solar activity effects society. His fears are that a solar flare similar to the one that engulfed the earth in a “magnetic tsunami” in 1859 could potentially wipe out the country’s electrical power grid. Power transformers are massive utilities costing tens of millions of dollars each and generally there are no backups. Therefore, imagine if such a solar storm were to assault a fully installed global 5G wireless network whereupon everything modern culture depends upon is interconnected. Satellite communications will be an essential component of the 5G infrastructure and are defenseless against massive radiation emissions from the sun. Without operative electrical and water utilities, septic systems, gas pumps, air conditioning in summer or heating in winter, for weeks, months and perhaps a year in the event of a massive coronal plasma emission, society as we know it would come to a standstill. Nuclear power plants would likely spiral downward into meltdown, contaminating the environment everywhere. Transportation as we know it would come to a halt. And in the event of a super “magnetic tsunami” chaos could follow.

Devastation to the Environment

In the Competence Initiative’s report Bees, Birds, and Humans: Electrosmog’s Destructive Effects on Nature, German biologist Dr. Ulrich Warnke states:

“The information-processing and function systems of today’s humans, plants and animals are bombarded with artificial magnetic, electric and electromagnetic fields from numerous mobile and telecommunications sources in a concentration and intensity as never before. The consequences of these developments put forth by their critics cannot be overlooked any longer. Bees and other insects are disappearing. Birds avoid certain regions and are disoriented in others. Humans suffer functional problems and other sicknesses. And the evidence that suggests some of these problems may be inheritable means we’re passing them on to the next generation.”

A large body of scientific literature already exists to corroborate 5G’s catastrophic environmental threats. For those concerned with climate change, the 5G rollout will also contribute to a warming Earth. The rollout does not portend to be green or clean. Nobody is speaking about the 20,000 plus satellites that will orbit around the planet and need to be launched by 20,000-plus rockets to advance the 5G vision. These rockets will be fueled by a new type of hydrocarbon engine. A paper released by the Aerospace Corporation predicts that this will “create a persistent layer of black carbon particles in the northern stratosphere.” (Greenhouse gases normally remain in the troposphere above the earth’s surface). This would likely deplete the ozone by 1 percent and the polar ozone layer by as much as 6%. The report concludes^cclvi that “after one decade of continuous launches, globally averaged radiative forcing from the black carbon would exceed the forcing from the emitted CO2 by a factor of about 10 to the fifth power.” In other words, 5G will have a substantial carbon footprint at a time when we must drastically cut our greenhouse gas emissions to curtail the speed of reaching critical tipping points.

May Day

The roll out of the C-Band 5G service by AT&T and Verizon on January 19, 2022 raised alarms for major airline executives who had warned that it will create “catastrophic” interference with flight navigation systems and pilot safety during take off and landing.  The risks will be greater during bad weather. Among the warnings are major disruptions in commerce and supply chain, the overriding of aircrafts’ electronic safety systems and radio altimeters, and the grounding of flights that will leave “tens of thousands of Americans grounded.”

According to CNN, the airlines estimate that upwards to 1,000 flights will be disrupted daily. The 5G threat is particularly heightened in low-visibility conditions. Chief executives from American Airlines, United, Delta, Southwest and Jet Blue have demanded that 5G be blocked within a two-mile radius of major US airports. FedEx and UPS have also joined the airlines’ complaints. Foreign airlines such as Dubai’s Emirates, Air India, Japan Air, Lufthansa and British Airways have already changed or canceled flights to the US. Two of the world’s largest plane manufacturers, Airbus and Boeing, have also issued warnings.

This has become an ongoing battle between the Federal Aviation Administration and the private telecomm industry and its Washington lobbyists. The FAA has been warning about 5G interruption of planes’ navigation systems for quite some time.  The telecomm industry’s unwillingness to budge is most disturbing because the Biden administration has already permitted 90 percent of wireless tower deployment to roll out as scheduled.  It is only in the vicinity of major airports where the FAA and airlines demand restrictions due to safety concerns. However, as we have reported for the past several years, the telecomm giants, notably AT&T and Verizon, and its leading media spokespersons at CNN and the New York Times, have undermined and denied 5G’s risks, especially to human health and the environment, ever since wireless technologies were first commercialized.

Telecommunications and Directed Energy and Non-Lethal Weaponry: Should we just ignore the overlap?

As mentioned before, the advent of 5G has been facilitated by the use of frequencies in the millimeter wave spectrum. Millimeter waves are a portion of the microwave spectrum which have been, somewhat arbitrarily, marked as beginning at 24 GHz. Wikipedia lists the parameters for millimeter waves as being between 30 and 300 GHz. As already noted, 5G will be the first generation of wireless technology which will employ millimeter waves.

There is something our cell phones have in common with a certain class of weapons. Directed energy — microwaves, millimeter waves, radiowaves, are fundamental to their use and proper functioning. Directed energy weapons use beams of energy of different frequencies to disable, injure or kill. They are a subject on which the US military prefers to remain tight-lipped; a 2021 article by Julian Borger in The Guardian^cclvii reported that, though back in 2004, the Pentagon had been pouring money into the development of a microwave weapon codenamed Medusa, capable of attacks that could result in brain damage, such as those injuries experienced by personnel in the American embassies in Havana in 2016 and China in 2018, it later claimed to have abandoned this project, due to the unavoidable ethical obstacle brought about by testing on human subjects. Borger rushed to say that China and Russia, on the other hand, who don’t have this moral conflict, have developed these weapons further while America shelved it. But did the U.S. really stop developing electromagnetic weaponry? Remember earlier we mentioned the warnings issued in the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency document on “current Eurasian Communist country state-of-the-art in the area of the effects of radiowaves and microwaves” published in March of 1976: “If the more advanced nations of the West are strict in the enforcement of stringent exposure standards, there could be unfavorable effects on industrial output and military function. The Eurasian Communist countries could, on the other hand, give lip service to strict standards, but allow their military to operate without restriction and thereby gain the advantage in electronic warfare techniques and the development of antipersonnel applications.” (page vii).^cclviii On the subject of American abstinence in the development of directed energy weapons, Borger quotes James Giordano, whom we mentioned earlier, professor of neurology and ethics at Georgetown University Medical Center and senior fellow in biotechnology, biosecurity and ethics at the US Naval War College: “The state of that science has for the most part been, if not abandoned, pretty much left fallow in the United States – but it has not been fallow elsewhere.”

In other settings James Giordano has been very forthcoming about the maturity of directed energy weaponry, and their overlap with neuroweaponry — disclosing, at least, much which is not “restricted” information — with full lectures posted to Youtube, such as one on the subject “The Brain is the Battlefield of the Future” which he gave at the Modern War Institute in 2018.^cclix According to Giordano, “the brain is and will be the 21st century battlescape in many ways. End of story.” At this talk, given at West Point, he addressed the audience, “

You will encounter some form of neurocognitive science that has been weaponized not only in your military career, but in your personal and professional lives… It is… already in operational play… The brain is the current and future battle space. What’s new about this is the in-close nature of this. Increasingly we’re not seeing these things as weapons of mass destruction against gross aspects of the population. More specifically, perhaps, might be targeting individuals on a level that allows you either direct attribution or covert engagement with non-attribution… [There is the] possibility to use some form of directed energy to direct physiology peripherally and also to affect the physiology and health of the brain. Case in point here, US Embassy personnel in Havana and possibly in China. And of course there’s not a lot that I can tell you about that although I am one of the researchers on that particular project, but this seems to be wholly indicative and supportive of the fact that this was at least some sort of directed energy… This strongly suggests that this was an intentional and directed engagement, and that this represents a beta test… of a directed energy neuroweapon…

Clearly one of the things we can also do is transcranial neuromodulation: the idea of going through the skull to modulate the node and network activity of the brain, to implant certain brain-machine interfaces — these are many of the DARPA programs that you may hear of now. Probably the one that is most notorious is something called the N3 program, which is the noninvasive, neurosurgical neuromodulation program, being run by their program manager Dr. Al Lundy. The idea here is to put minimal-sized electrodes in a network in a brain through only minimal intervention to be able to read and write into the brain function in real time remotely… Target a specific individual, change or eliminate that individual with very little attribution and trace, and be able to leave prior to any attribution… Influence… the attitudes, beliefs, thoughts, emotions, activities… We also see the use of biodata as a viable weapon, manipulating biodata so that I can then put into your particular medical records subtle information that may change the disposition of whether you’re sick or not, change how your treated, influence the postures that go to you in terms of insurance, care… I essentially change the you of you, and I can do that in very subtle and insidious ways.”^{cclx cclxi}

Some of the other dribs and drabs that have leaked into the mainstream media about directed energy weapons in the American arsenal include high-power microwave vehicle-stoppers. Used by the military and police, these have been around for many years; they can stop cars and boats with a high-powered beam of microwave energy that knocks out the engine’s electronic control unit.^cclxii In 2021 it was reported that the Pentagon had plans to develop a more effective, less expensive, smaller and lighter variety that could strike targets at further distances; the weapon would operate within the 100 MHz to 2 GHz range;^cclxiii this is within the range of what is operational in mobile telecommunications, having been used in 2G, 3G, 4G and now 5G.^cclxiv It’s worthy of note that a beam of directed energy used to stun a car’s central computer probably doesn’t have a personal moral aversion to striking the heart or brain of a human being; however, the potential of such weapons to cause harm to humans was not discussed in this announcement of the military’s intent. And what of complications which might arise in a smart city, in an Artificial Intelligence of Things scenario, where AI makes the decisions?

Another directed energy weapon in the public consciousness is no less unsettling. The active denial system is a “non-lethal” directed energy weapon said to be in development since 1997 whose stated purpose is to send beams at the high pitch of 95 GHz toward naughty people who need to be moved.^cclxv Effective at a range up to 1000 meters,^cclxvi it is described as a crowd-control system whose millimeter wave beams are said to “penetrate 1/64 inches into the skin and produce an intense burning sensation that stops when the transmitter is switched off or when the individual moves out of the beam.”^{cclxvii cclxviii} What happens when neither of those two hypothetical conclusions to the pain take place, and the beam is left to continuously sear an immobilized victim, is anyone’s guess. And whether these machines are capable of sending beams of frequencies other than the stated 95 GHz, or could be software updated to do so in the future, is also not mentioned in its profile; different frequencies have different effects on biological systems, and there is no reason why one weapon couldn’t have been developed to be capable of transmitting a range of frequencies as our personal wireless devices are. When dealing with a government and military not known for its honesty and transparency, these are unknowns worth investigating.

What does the word “non-lethal” mean in the context of directed energy weapons? Such descriptions are often employed. In fact, the U.S. Department of Defense has a dedicated “non-lethal weapons program.”^cclxix It should be remembered that Medusa, the directed-energy weapon prototype under development in 2004 by the American military, a weapon which Borger in The Guardian described in 2021 as being comparable to those now in existence capable of causing permanent brain injury such as that experienced by American ambassadors in Havana and China, was also described as non-lethal, whose purpose was merely to “cause a ‘temporarily incapacitating effect’ but ‘with a low probability of fatality or permanent injury.'”^cclxx So what we can assume “non-lethal” is meant to communicate is that when the weapon is used as it is reported to the public that it is intended to be used, and when it is not malfunctioning or has not been hacked or hijacked, it is non-lethal — hopefully. What the active denial system is capable of if any of those parameters change is not explicitly reported. On the FAQ page for the active denial system, several disturbing facts are disclosed. This is not privileged insider military information; this is the crafted PR presented to the public. 1) According to DOD, in testing the active denial system on over 13,000 volunteers, adverse reactions have occurred in a very small number of people, including skin blisters and reddening of the skin; 2) some of the factors which prevent injury are the human’s reaction, such as “blink reflex, aversion response and head turn,” all of which require the subject to be conscious and to have normal reflexes; 3) in 2007 an Airman received second-degree burns from an overexposure to the Active Denial System “due to procedural errors;” and 4) the system undergoes software updates, which means it is subject to change, and could conceivably be hacked. What’s more, in an attempt to assuage people’s concern that this weapon might in fact be lethal, the DOD admits that, in fact, indeed it could be lethal if it were not properly used or programmed: “For this technology to become lethal, the energy beam exposure would have to be sustained and prolonged many times over the duration required to achieve the repel effect.”^cclxxi So what we can assume about the words “non-lethal” is that it’s a half-truth at best. With the rise of AI, what happens if an AI system is handed the reins for such weaponry?

In the last year or so, more media reports have come out about an “emerging”^cclxxii class of weapons, namely directed energy weapons, which actually have been a subject of research and development for at least 80 years.^{cclxxiii cclxxiv}

The public is only informed about military developments that are not “restricted.” This distinction between the restricted and unrestricted findings of military research was noted by James Giordano with respect to another subject, brain-computer interface, AI and synthetic-biology “enhancements” to military personnel to improve performance. His remarks were given at the 2022 McCain Conference on “The Ethics of Military Artificial Intelligence.”^cclxxv During a Q&A panel discussion with Dr. Nick Evans, Associate Professor of Philosophy at the University of Massachussetts, Lowell, on the challenges of discovering performance enhancing effects, and possible risks, of drugs or neurotechnologies when clinical trials cannot be designed to meet ethical standards to discover these effects, James Giordano said, “If you take a look at the Pubmed literature, a lot of the stuff that’s out there on performance enhancement, particularly as relates to substances and not necessarily neurotechnology is not only vague, it’s really ambiguous in terms of the results and a lot of ii — I’m not going to say ‘useless,’ but it’s of nominal utility. However, if you go to the restricted literature, and I have to be very, very careful, in other words… this is not guilty knowledge — but the capabilities of doing certain things with not only substances but also technologies, in terms of increasing things like vigilance, performance capability in those ways that are operationally meaningful… there’s a building body of evidence that suggests that this is vectorable.” If there is “vectorable” “operationally meaningful” data on AI, synthetic-biology neurotechnologies for use in “enhancing” human capabilities, might we safely surmise there may be “vectorable,” “operationally meaningful” restricted information on the development and use of directed energy weaponry?

In 2015 it was reported that Boeing had a briefcase-sized directed energy weapon that could blast a drone out of the air.^cclxxvi A 2007 report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on Directed Energy Weapons by the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense reported “To be useful in tactical applications, lighter, more efficient systems are needed and are under development,” including handheld-size microwave weapons, which had been demonstrated at that time — in 2007.^cclxxvii Are there weapons that size, or smaller ones, that could be fit into a small cell antenna covertly by a state enemy producing the hardware? In a world where swarms of self-assembling nano-robots can be let loose invisibly and cross every membrane of the body, is it unreasonable to ask if these new everywhere-antennas, and the new phones with their AI capable sensors, and all the new IoT technology being manufactured around the world, are being audited by independent weapons inspectors?

Now how does this relate to 5G? 5G is the first generation of the global system for mobile communications which will employ millimeter waves; 95 GHz, the operating frequency of the active denial system, is in the millimeter wave spectrum. 5G small cells will be directing beams of energy, some in the millimeter wave spectrum. The active denial system would require a high power output to achieve its aim, but the power level of small cells is reported to be low. Not only have we discussed that biological effects are achieved at extremely low power levels, but we have acknowledged the uncertainty of whether technologies designed to use low power could have high-gain functionality. Could a 5G antenna be equipped, or hacked, to beam at high power? More broadly, why is our telecommunications infrastructure based on the same technology as an important and growing class of weaponry, the market for which was estimated to be $11.5 billion in 2022 and is projected to grow to nearly $27 billion by 2027.^cclxxviii

Because it is established that directed energy weaponry exists, because our regulatory infrastructure is not keeping pace with technological advancements, and because much of the hardware for 5G infrastructure is produced in different countries and by various manufacturers, it is not out of the realm of possibility that dangerous or illegal hardware could be installed in small cell antennas. Is there any U.S. regulatory and public safety agency oversight or auditing of the manufacture of this hardware before it is installed?

It would not be the first time suspicious hardware was installed in consumer products: Google Nest home security systems were found to have hidden microphones in 2019 with no functional need, to much consumer disquiet. A similar scandal arose when American Airlines passengers discovered cameras embedded within the airline’s in-flight TVs.^cclxxix

The idea that there would be a high gain antenna in a telecommunications device is not at odds with the British Ofcom’s own publicly published material. Ofcom is the UK’s regulatory agency for telecommunications. On the Ofcom website is a document titled “Release of the 59 – 64 GHz band: A statement on Ofcom’s decision for a licence exempt approach for Fixed Wireless Systems in the 60 GHz Band” published on December 11, 2009. In this document, the agency states its approach to the 60 GHz band of frequencies with respect to licensing for telecommunications, and reports that it will make this band available for use in Fixed Wireless Systems on a license-exempt basis, meaning, presumably, that this band can be used, for any technological purpose, without a license. The document also mentions that the technology that will employ this frequency band will use “high gain, narrow beam antennas” with gain of “30 dBi,” in order to avoid deployment of wide beam antennas, which would increase the probability that different technologies would interfere with one another. dBi refers to “decibels per isotropic, or a measure of the forward gain of an antenna, reflective of the antenna’s directional / beamwidth characteristics, i.e., directional as opposed to omnidirectional: Generally, the higher the gain (dBi), the narrower the beamwidth, the more directional the antenna.”^cclxxx This appears to mean that we should expect to find high gain antennas in small cells, for uses such as Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS). The question then must be asked: what are the biological effects likely to be when possibly powerful beamforms make contact with humans, insects, birds, animals and plants? And what are the dangers if these systems are hacked and commandeered by bad actors?

Thirdly, this document mentions that the frequencies around 60 GHz^cclxxxi have “high gaseous absorption propagation attenuation.”^cclxxxii In their paper titled “Evidence for a connection between coronavirus disease-19 and exposure to radiofrequency radiation from wireless communications including 5G,” authors Beverly Rubik and Robert Brown wrote: “Questions have been raised about 60 GHz, a key 5G frequency planned for extensive use, which is a resonant frequency of the oxygen molecule. It is possible that adverse bioeffects might ensue from oxygen absorption of 60 GHz.”^cclxxxiii

In the present article, we do not have the answers to the questions of whether such an antenna in a small cell antenna is a legitimate use, if they are indeed present inside the small cell base stations in the United States and around the world. It is important that such questions be explored through public hearings and debate. We are in an era now of vastly greater technological capabilities, and the possible dangers must be accounted for so they can be averted. There are so many important questions that need to be explored in a public forum, but all debate and reasonable discussion has so far been preempted by the narrative that 5G is completely safe, and anyone who poses these questions is marginalized as a quack or conspiracy theorist.

New high-gain antennas notwithstanding, a whistleblower has shared some unsettling testimony about our preexisting WiFi frequencies. Barrie Trower^{cclxxxiv cclxxxv cclxxxvi} was trained as a microwave weapons expert in the British Royal Navy in the 1960s. He worked in the underwater bomb disposal unit, microwave warfare, and radar, all of which involved microwaves. He specialized and trained in all aspects of microwave technology, which he describes as a training that was second to none.^cclxxxvii He was involved in questioning captured spies during the Cold War when Russia and America were on the cusp of global nuclear war; at that time, microwaves were very sophisticated stealth weapons, and his job was to find out from the captured spies what the current knowledge was in their part of the world. He has taught advanced physics and mathematics at South Dartmoor College. He has a degree in physics and a teaching diploma in human physiology. His teaching duties included giving lectures on microwaves. He was commissioned by the police federation in England to write the safety report on their microwave equipment.^cclxxxviii He has authored a paper on the harms of microwaves, written for laypeople to understand, titled “Wi-Fi – A Thalidomide in the Making. Who Cares?”^cclxxxix Now, he says, he travels the world free of charge trying to advise governments, councils, people, royalty, and anyone else about the dangers of microwaves.^ccxc

A declaration by Barrie Trower was presented as evidence before the public service commission of the state of Missouri in a complaint about a smart meter put on the home of James Dickson and Angela Dickson by KCP&L Greater Missouri Operations Company.^ccxci Trower’s expert testimony, which was originally presented under oath in a case against WiFi in Portland public schools,^ccxcii deals with the effects of Wi-Fi and electromagnetic fields, refuting the claim made by the company that smart meters are safe. In addition to stating that, to his knowledge, the first report of microwave illness was in 1932,^ccxciii he also said, “Public Schools are transmitting electromagnetic, specifically microwave, frequencies at low exposure levels compared to thermal levels. However, these exposure levels are very high compared to natural background levels at the frequencies deployed: 2.45 GHz and 5 GHz frequency, which means between 2.45 and 5 billion cycles per second. When I realized that power densities and frequencies similar to those used as weapons during the Cold War were being used as WI-FI in schools, I decided to come out of retirement and travel around the world free of charge and explain exactly what the problem is going to be in the future.”^ccxciv

Trower’s testimony invalidates the idea that DEWs^ccxcv are weapons of “the future,” as described by companies like Lockheed. Lockheed Martin refers to directed energy weapons as “next-gen,” the weapons of the 21st century.^ccxcvi According to Trower, whose claim is bolstered by the military documents we’ve mentioned earlier, DEWs were in active use at least since the 1960s. The overlap between them and our wireless infrastructure is cause for alarm.

Harkening back to even earlier history of the biological effects of electricity and microwaves

We have heard health warnings, that there are no studies on 5G health effects ongoing by the industry, and that we are thus beginning a global experiment with no control group and apparently no officials observing what will happen. In this way, this experiment is very much like that which was done with the global rollout of the Covid-19 shots, for which Pfizer collapsed its placebo arm, and thousands of reports to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System were brushed aside as meaningless.

But we have not yet accounted for the fact that wireless technologies in general left death and injury in their wake since their very first introduction, since the first experiments with them on the Isle of Wight.

Additionally, we have seen how the FCC is a captured agency and the safety standards are so woefully unprotective as to be virtually nonexistent. The pretext that there are protective safety standards, when in fact there are not, gives a false but rhetorically successful basis on which the telecom companies can deny that wireless is harmful to all life. They say: it does not heat tissue so it is safe. The safety standards simply are not relevant to or descriptive of the subtle but potent and cumulative biological harms which have played a dramatic leading role in the explosions of all forms of illness we have seen over the last one hundred years and particularly in the last thirty.

But before we take a look at the history of wireless use, let’s take one step further back. Scientist and historian of the biological effects of electricity, Arthur Firstenberg, who, in his groundbreaking book, The Invisible Rainbow: A History of Electricity and Life, with something in the realm of 3000 scientific references in the bibliography, describes the early uses of electricity and the impacts this had on human health.

There was long period in history in which electricity was considered to be one of the four most fundamental forces of life on Earth along with light, magnetism and caloric (heat) [41]. Electricity was “an element that is to us more intimate than the very air that we breathe” said Abbé Nollet in 1746 [43]. It was “the fire necessary to all bodies and which gives them life… that is both attached to known matter and yet apart from it” said Voltaire in 1772.[44]. It was “the Soul of the Universe” that “produces and sustains Life thro-out all Nature, as well in Animals as in Vegetables” said the founder of the Methodist Church, John Wesley [44]. It was “the instrument of will and the vehicle of sensations” according to French physicist Marcelin Ducarla-Bonifas [44]. And it was “what fertilizes our fields, our vines, our orchards, and what brings fecundity to the depths of the waters” said medical doctor Jean-Paul Marat in 1782 [44]. How did electricity come to be seen as a neutral force today, something which can only hurt you if you’re struck by lightning or touch a live electric wire, when for centuries it was considered the breath of life, the fundamental force underlying biological functioning? How is it that as a culture, we went from considering electricity as “the fire necessary to all bodies which gives them life,” to thinking it improbable or impossible that electromagnetic devices, whose frequencies are not naturally harmonized to those of our cells, like a FitBit or a pacemaker, could be placed on or inside of our very bodies without changing the way our bodies react and behave? How could there even be a question of creating a perpetual global bath of unnatural frequencies? How can we know that electromagnetic procedures such as an EKG, an EEG or an MRI can give us accurate diagnostic information about our bodies, but the electrically powered, radio-transmitting and receiving, cell phones in our pockets, the WiFi routers under our beds or next to our computers can’t hurt us, or if they can, it’s a mild problem we can withstand?

Firstenberg’s book documents the harms caused to people who contacted man-made electricity as far back as the earliest experiments in the 1700s with static electricity captured in Leyden jars. He notes that in an 1881 textbook on Medical and Surgical Electricity, over ten pages, the authors described the side effects of electricity as used in early technologies. They used the term “electro-susceptibility” to describe people who were easily injured by electricity and “electro-sensibility” to describe those who could sense electricity to an unusual degree. They wrote, “There are individuals whom electricity always injures, the only difference in the effect on them between a mild and a severe application being, that the former injures less than the latter. There are patients upon whom all electrotherapeutic skill and experience are wasted; their temperaments are not en rapport with electricity. It matters not what may be the special disease or symptoms of disease from which they suffer—paralysis, or neuralgia, or neurasthenia, or hysteria, or affections of special organ—the immediate and the permanent effects of galvanization or faradization, general or localized, are evil and only evil.” The symptoms of such sufferers were headache and backache; irritability and insomnia; general malaise; excitation or increase of pain; over-excitation of the pulse; chills, as though the person were catching a cold; soreness, stiffness, and dull aching; profuse perspiration; numbness; muscle spasms; light or sound sensitivity; metallic taste; and ringing in the ears. [p. 38]

Human-harnessed electricity, as distinct from naturally occurring electrical phenomena like lightning and other atmospheric phenomena, which was all to which the average human being had been daily exposed prior to the end of 1800s, has always produced biological effects, from its earliest use. In fact, these effects were the cause of its continued use, for entertainment, such as the “electric kiss” from a beautiful “Venus Electrificata” who, powered by a static electric device, would send lightening through your lips as you kissed her,[p. 9-11] and for medicine,^ccxcvii with the therapeutic use of the electric bath purporting to heal any ailment. As man discovered how to capture electricity, it was put to use, and became very popular, because it made changes in peoples’ state of being, temporary or permanent in effect. Atmospheric and meteorological electricity also have their effects, as people whose bones ache when it’s about to rain can attest. Famous people who were sensitive to the weather included Lord Byron, Christopher Columbus, Dante, Charles Darwin, Benjamin Franklin, Goethe, Victor Hugo, Leonardo da Vinci, Martin Luther, Michelangelo, Mozart, Napoleon, Rousseau and Voltaire [p. 39-42]. Electricity in general produces a range of biological effects, far more numerous, sublte and complex than heating or electrocution, which seem to be our only concerns today. These effects have been observed as long as electricity has been put to human use, until these observations were quashed by the false assertion dominant in today’s scientific and medical paradigm, that electricity is a neutral force which only affects us if it’s strong enough to cook us.

Pieter van Musscenbroek, professor of physics at the University of Leyden, had a friction machine, a glass globe that he spun quickly on its axis while he rubbed it with his hands to produce static electricity, what was then known as “the electric fluid,” and which could be touched to an iron gun barrel to draw sparks of this static electricity from the active sphere. When he had the idea to store the electricity produced by the globe and transferred into the iron gun barrel, he connected the other end of the gun barrel to a wire inserted into a glass bottle partially filled with water to see if that would store the electricity. He didn’t know what he was getting himself into. In describing the results of this experiment to a friend in Paris, he wrote, “I am going to tell you about a new but terrible experiment which I advise you never to try yourself, nor would I, who have experienced it and survived by the grace of God, do it again for all the Kingdom of France.” He had held the glass bottle of water with one hand and with the other tried to draw sparks from the gun barrel. He wrote, “Suddenly my right hand was hit with such force, that my whole body shook as though struck by lightning… My arm and whole body were affected more terribly than I can express.” Another who tried the experiment experienced a “prodigious blow” so stunning that “I could not breathe for some moments,” and pain so bad as seeming to be of a permanent injury. Another who tried the experiment, Johann Heinrich Winkler, professor of Greek and Latin at Leipzig in Germany, wrote, “I found great convulsions in my body… It put my blood into great agitation; so that I was afraid of an ardent fever; and was obliged to use refrigerating medicines. I felt a heaviness in my head, as if I had a stone lying upon it. It gave me twice a bleeding at my nose, to which I am not inclined. My wife, who had only received the electrical flash twice, found herself so weak after it, that she could hardly walk. A week after, she received only once the electrical flash; a few minutes after it she bled at the nose… I read in the newspapers from Berlin that they had tried these electrical flashes upon a bird, and had made it to suffer great pain thereby. I did not repeat this experiment; for I think it wrong to give such pain to living creatures.” This invention came to be known as a Leyden jar.

However, the warnings of these early scientists did not deter the public, and captured electricity became a hugely popular entertainment, the fad referred to as “electromania.” Abbé Jean Antoine Nollet, a physicist, introduced the Leyden jar to France and was met with enormous public demand. He electrified tens and hundreds of people at once in human chains. He electrocuted several fish and a sparrow. Soon, small such devices were “priced for the pocketbook” for public home use, and these machines found their way into the hospitals, doctors’ offices. and those of “electricians,” who provided electrical “therapies” though they were not medically trained. London physician James Graham wrote in 1779, “I tremble with apprehension for my fellow creatures, when I see in almost every street in this great metropolis a barber — a surgeon — a tooth-drawer — an apothecary, or a common mechanic turned electrical operator.” Electricity was used to obtain abortions because it could initiate contractions of the uterus.

These uses of electricity became so widespread in Europe and America in the 1700s that a great deal of detailed information was written down about its effects on people, animals and plants — in personal letters, newspapers, magazines, medical books and treatises, papers read at scientific societies, and articles in nascent scientific journals.[p. 6-13] Firstenberg wrote, “As early as the 1740s, ten percent of all the articles published in the Philosophical Transactions were related to electricity. And during the last decade of that century, fully seventy percent of all articles on electricity in the prestigious Latin journal, Commentarii de rebus in scientis naturali et meicina gestis, had to do with its medical uses and its effects on animals and people.” [13] Electricity was used medically to treat any ailment including arthritis, paralysis, blindness and deafness. Not an insignificant number of these applications effected cures [18]. That electricity can cure if put to proper use cannot be ignored. But our society has taken the path focused on the promising and curing effects, and ignored the harmful ones, which have far outnumbered the curative ones. [18]

These early machines, relying on friction, could be charged to about 10,000 volts, enough to deliver a stinging shock, but not enough to be considered dangerous, by the standards of the day then and today’s standards. [16] This is less than the human body accumulates while walking across a synthetic carpet, which is about 30,000 volts. [16] Firstenberg wrote, “According to mainstream science today, the sparks, shocks, and tiny currents used in the eighteenth century should have had no effects on health. But they did.” [16]

What were these effects? The heart could be sped up or slowed down [23-24]. Electricity could cause salivation, induce tearing of the eyes and sweating. It caused earwax secretion and nasal mucus, the flow of gastric juices, stimulation of the appetite, milk to be let down, and menstrual bleeding to begin. It made people urinate copiously and move their bowels; it caused mental confusion, almost always it caused dizziness. Commonly, it caused headaches, nausea, weakness, fatigue and heart palpitations. Sometimes it caused shortness of breath, coughing or asthma-like wheezing. It caused muscle and joint pains. It caused mental depression. Repeated electrification was found to cause constipation. It caused drowsiness and insomnia [24-25] It increased blood flow from wounds, caused serum to flow in large quantities from blisters, and made blood slower to clot. It caused nosebleeds. A one volt battery, once they were invented, was also found to cause nosebleeds and a sensation of light in the eyes. Perspiration was produced merely by being in an electric field, without contact with a friction machine. Electricity consistently caused weight loss due to evaporation from skin. [27-28] Other unpleasant side effects of electricity recorded in the eighteenth century included headache, nervousness, irritability, numbness and tingling, muscle spasms and cramps, backache, chest pain, colic, hemorrhage, itching, tremors, seizures, paralysis, fever, respiratory infections, shortness of breath, asthma-like attacks, eye problems such as weakness, pain and fatigue, ringing in the ears and a metallic taste in the mouth [28]. Do any of these sound familiar?

Before there were radio, radar and satellites in the 20th century, there were the telegraph, the telephone and electrification in the 19th century. Europe was systematically electrified beginning in 1839 when the magnetic telegraph on the Great Western Railway was opened between West Drayton and London.[49] America’s first telegraph line from Baltimore to Washington began in 1844 along the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad. Miles and miles of metallic wiring were laid, until enough had been set down to encircle the globe almost 30 times,[49] connecting city to city over far distances, and barreling under the oceans to connect countries. As the miles of wiring mounted, so did the number of in telegraph companies being incorporated [50]. And as this was happening, young neurologist George Miller Beard had a paper published in the journal that was later renamed the New England Journal of Medicine which described a new illness named neurasthenia, or weak nerves. (Firstenberg explains how scientists who place the origins of this disease earlier in history are mistaken, misunderstanding changes in medical terminology over time) [54-55]. Symptoms of this sudden-onset, nonlethal [51] illness were “languor, lassitude, want of buoyancy, aching of the limbs, and mental depression,” wakefulness during the night, sense of fatigue during the day. They had normal health, little acute illness, and lived longer than average [56-57].

Dr. Margaret Abigail Cleaves of Wisconsin, a physician, is an example of someone diagnosed with neurasthenia. She worked for fifteen years in medicine before, in 1894, she began to specialize in electrotherapy and opened an electrotherapeutic clinic in New York. Within several months, she had a breakdown, which she documents in her book Autobiography of a Neurasthene. She wrote, “I knew neither peace nor comfort night nor day… There remained all the usual pain of nerve trunks or peripheral nerve endings, the exquisite sensitiveness of the body, the inability to bear a touch heavier than the brush of a butterfly’s wing, the insomnia, lack of strength, the recurrence of depression of spirits, the inability to use my brain at my study and writing as I wished.” [58] “It was with the greatest difficulty to even use knife and fork at the table, while the routine carving was an impossibility.” [58]. She had chronic fatigue, tinnitus, heart palpitation, headaches, tasted “phosphorous” and had poor digestion. She could not tolerate the sounds of New York City, nor sunlight, and so she lived in dark rooms and spent time outside only at night. She lost hearing in one ear gradually. She could sense changes in atmospheric electricity so that she could predict 1 to 3 days in advance a change in the weather, based on experiences of sciatica, facial pain, intense restlessness, a feeling of dread and a sensation “of a crushing weight bowing me to the earth.” [58] She wrote, “Under the influence of oncoming electrical storms, my brain does not function” [58] Throughout her medical career, which she continued through these adversities, she was a founding and very active officer of the American Electro-Therapeutic Association and wrote a textbook, Light Energy, in which she taught therapeutic uses of sunlight, arc light, incandescent light, fluorescent light, X-rays, and radioactive elements. She never made any connection between her neurasthenia and her work with electricity, to which she was daily exposed. [58]

She was just one of many. Telegraphers experienced “mal télégraphique,” characterized by depression, weakened eyesight, exhaustion, heart palpitations, insomnia, memory loss, dizziness, and a feeling “as though a vice were gripping the back of their head.” [59] Some descended into insanity. German Dr. E. Cronbach wrote case histories of seventeen telegraphist patients in 1903. Many of them shared symptoms such as excessive perspiration or extreme dryness of hands, feet or body; deteriorating eyesight or hearing; tremors of the tongue; insomnia, irregular heartbeat, nervousness, irritability, and shattered nerves. The feeling that “vigorous health has given way to a morbid weakness, a mental depression, a leaden exhaustion… hanging always between sickness and health, we are no longer whole, but only half men; as youths we are already worn out old men, for whom life has become a burden… our strength prematurely sapped, our senses, our memory dulled, our impressionability curtailed” wrote an anonymous worker, who continued, “Has the release of electrical power from its slumber created a danger for the health of the human race?” [59]

Neurasthenia is no longer known by this name in America, as it was reclassified as “anxiety neurosis” by Sigmund Freud in 1894 [62-63], though neurasthenia is still a commonly diagnosed illness in other countries, and electricity is recognized as one of its causes. [51] Thus, in America, a physiological illness came to be understood as a psychological or psychosomatic one, which people who suffer from anxiety, depression and from what is termed “eletrosensitivity” know all too well today.

Similar symptoms haunted telephone operators [60] and railroad and train workers.[61] German physician Rudolf Arndt made the connection between neurasthenia and electricity. He wrote of his patients who were intolerant to electricity, “Even the weakest galvanic current, so weak that it scarcely deflected the needle of a galvanometer, and was not perceived in the slightest by other people, bothered them in the extreme.” He also said that “electrosensitivity is characteristic of high-grade neurasthenia,” and that electrosensitivity “may contribute not insubstantially to the elucidation of phenomena that now seem puzzling and inexplicable” [62] Says Firstenberg, Arndt suggested cautiously, as if knowing this could harm his reputation, that “a large obstacle to the proper study of neurasthenia… was that people who were less sensitive to electricity did not take its effects at all seriously: instead they placed them in the realm of superstition, ‘lumped together with clairvoyance, mind-reading and mediumship.'” [62]

But this was only the beginning. We have not yet even arrived at the use of high-frequency waves, those of thousands of millions of times higher frequency than those used in telegraphy, telephony, and to power electric lamps, those with which we have been bathed for decades during all hours of the day and night, and when questioning which, we are patted on the head by our governments and corporate leaders and told that they are perfectly safe.

In his chapter “The Mystery on the Isle of Wight,” Firstenberg documents the first radio tower built in 1897 on a quiet island, twenty-three miles long and thirteen miles wide, off the southern coast of England in the English Channel. Giuglielmo Marconi erected a twelve-storey high tower with a needled point, supporting an antenna for what would become the world’s first radio station. [95] The difference between the electricity transmitted from his antenna and that which undulated through the wires between telegraph stations was that the air, not wire, was its medium. [95] While Marconi did not explore whether this use of electricity was safe, seven years prior, in 1890, almost one hundred years before the first 2G network was installed and cell phones trickled into the mainstream as a technology for the masses, not just for the few wealthy or for businessmen, Jacques-Arsène d’Arsonval, the director of the Laboratory of Biological Physics at the Collège de France in Paris, and a distinguished contributor in the fields of medicine and physics, was carefully observing the biological effects of very high frequency electrical waves, i.e. radiowaves. He explored why there was variation in therapeutic results from electrotherapy machines, and devised a machine which could produce perfectly smooth sine waves “without jerks or teeth” (which almost all radio emissions irradiate us with today) that would not harm patients. Indeed he found that the current produced by his machine did not hurt patients, though it had clearly discernible physiological effects, such as alterations in metabolism and muscular contractions. [96]

Next, d’Arsonval modified a wireless apparatus produced by Heinrich Hertz, and exposed humans and animals to currents of 500,000 to 1,000,000 cycles per second, which were close in frequency to those emissions soon to be broadcast from the radio tower at the Isle of Wight by Marconi [97]. He exposed humans and animals to these currents, both directly and from a distance, and found that “in every case, his subject’s blood pressure fell significantly, without—in the case of human subjects at least—any conscious sensation. D’Arsonval measured the same changes in oxygen consumption and carbon dioxide production [i.e. metabolism] as with low frequency currents” which he had used in his earlier work. [97] He wrote in 1893 that these experiments proved “that the currents of high frequency penetrate deeply into the organism.” [97] Not one subject experienced a change in their body temperature, [97] noteworthy because thermal effects are the only ones recognized as biologically significant by our “protective” institutions like the FCC today.^ccxcviii How is it that a scientist knew one hundred and thirty years ago that radio waves penetrate the bodies of living beings deeply, but our institutions still don’t acknowledge it today?

And Marconi, whose tower like an obelisk was pointing to the sky in the south of England, was having his own revelations about the biological effects of radiowaves, though he was not aware of it. His troubles had actually begun when as a healthy 22 year old he began, after a year and a half of experimentation with radio equipment, to have fevers, which lasted the rest of his life, and which became so severe that in 1904 they were attributed to a recurrence of malaria and, several years prior to that, an undiagnosed case of childhood rheumatic fever. He built a permanent radio link of very high power to beam across the Atlantic to Nova Scotia. Thinking he would need longer wavelengths to cover longer distances, he created an enormous installation of aerials of wire net over acres of land from multiple towers hundreds of feet tall on both sides of the ocean [97-98] As a newlywed, he brought his wife for their honeymoon to his station house in Nova Scotia, in the center of three concentric circles of twenty-eight huge radio towers and two hundred antenna wires stretched in all directions like the spokes of a wheel over a mile in circumference. Shortly after arriving, her ears began to ring. After three months, she was ill with severe jaundice. They returned to England while she was pregnant to live in the house under the other installation, and when she gave birth, though after living briefly in London beforehand, her baby died a few weeks later of unknown causes. Marconi himself collapsed around the same time and was feverish and delirious. Twelve years later, while designing shortwave equipment, he was depressed and suicidal. Ten years after that, he collapsed with chest pains and was diagnosed with a severe heart condition. Seven years later, as he developed microwave technology, he had as many as nine heart attacks, the last which killed him at age 63. [97-99]

When Marconi made a public demonstration of his early technologies in 1896, spectators later sent him later describing the nerve-related symptoms they’d experienced during the show, such as tickling feet. [99]. In 1899, a man burst into the first station Marconi had built in France with a revolver, saying that the transmissions were causing him to feel sharp internal pains. Queen Victoria, who had a home on the Isle of Wight called Osborne House, experienced a cerebral hemorrhage and died on the evening of January 22, 1901 at the time when Marconi was surreptitiously broadcasting from a new, more powerful transmitter he had built on the other end of the island, as indicated in a letter he wrote.[99]

And by 1906, ninety percent of the bees had disappeared from the Isle of Wight, which at that time held the greatest concentration of radio signals in the world.[100] They were unable to fly:[100] “They are often to be seen crawling up grass stems, or up the supports of the hive, where they remain until they fall back to the earth from sheer weakness, and soon afterwards die,” wrote biologist Augustus Imms of Christ’s College, Cambridge who had been called in to investigate. Importing healthy bees did not help; thousands died within a week of their arrival. This was thought to be a contagious disease, which gradually spread to sicken bees around the world [100], and was often attributed to parasite mites. [100] In the 1950s, a British bee pathologist disproved the theory there had been any contagious disease, while still acknowledging the bees had died. Gradually, bees adapted to this unidentifiable illness, and those that had disappeared first also recovered first. [100]

The Modern Era of Wireless Telecommunications Begins: Radio and the Spanish Flu

Firstenberg says it was the year 1917, and the advent of radio operations used in World War I, which changed the rest of the Earth’s electrical environment drastically. [100-101]The United States Army, Navy and Air Force were furnished with radio broadcasting equipment, the cutting edge of modern communications. The first sign something was amiss was that the bees of 300 colonies left their hives in Morganville and several other areas in New Jersey, all of which were a few miles toward the ocean from the extremely powerful New Brunswicck radio station, aimed at Europe, whose operations had recently been taken by the government for war operation and outfitted with a new 50,000-watt alternator to replace older equipment.[101]

Over the course of the year after the US entered the war in April 1917, the American Navy brought into existence the world’s largest network of radio communications, with over 60 radio stations, and were graduating over four hundred radio operations students a week.[101-104] Over the same several months as this pioneering and advantageous military expansion took place, a new disease broke out, called Spanish Influenza, though it actually appeared to originate in the United States and travel around the world on Navy ships, infecting people on board, at seaports and Naval stations [104]. Firstenberg wrote, “The largest early outbreak, laying low about 400 people, occurred in February in the Naval Radio School at Cambridge Massachusetts.^ccxcix In March, influenza spread to Army camps here the Signal Corps was being trained in the use of the wireless: 1,127 men contracted influenza in Camp Funston, in Kansas, and 2,900 men in the Oglethorpe camps in Georgia.” [104] RNA from an influenza virus that is thought to have killed over one third of the world’s population was present in the lung of one of four bodies dug up from permafrost in Alaska in recent years. But the illness that struck mostly young, vigorous, healthy people,^{ccc ccci} rarely the elderly, ^{cccii ccciii} was not found to be contagious by leading experts at the time, such as Dr. Milton Rosenau of a medical team in Boston under the United States Public Health Service, who tried to infect one hundred healthy volunteers aged 18-25 by exposing them to the mucous secretions of the mouth, nose, throat and bronchi of sick people. These researchers actually took the snot from the noses of sick people, and had people who were well gargle this and apply it to their eyes, but none of the healthy volunteers became ill. They had sick people cough on well people, and none became ill. They injected mucous from the upper respiratory tracts of sick people and injected it into well people, and none became ill. They did similar experiments with horses, who were also being overtaken by the flu. Sick and well horses were stabled together with no separation, and well horses were given feed bags containing the mucous secretions of sick horses. None of the well horses became ill from these experiments. Experts could find no evidence of contagion at the time of this flu.[107-109]

Nor did this illness bear much resemblance to an ordinary respiratory virus. For one, it often lasted for months. One of the most distinguishing features of the illness was nosebleed and hemorrhage, which often reached the brain, and so from which many people died, some even drowning in their own blood. [105] Hemorrhage was so common that Drs. Arthur Erskine and B.L. Knight of Iowa wrote, “The regularity with which these various hemorrhages appeared suggested the possibility of there being a change in the blood itself,” and when they tested patients’ blood, they found in every case that “the coagulability of the blood was lessened, the increase in time required for coagulation varying from two and one half to eight minute more than normal,” no matter when during the progression of the illness the blood was tested. Hemorrhage is not typically associated with respiratory viral infection. [105] It is, however, consistent with observations of the impact of electricity and radiofrequency radiation on biological organisms, dating back to the very first observations of human blood exposed to electricity in 1779.[105]^{ccciv cccv cccvi cccvii cccviii cccix cccx cccxi cccxii cccxiii}

There is more evidence that there is a connection between influenza pandemics and ramp-ups in the use of wireless. Two other such pandemics in the 20th century were associated with major expansions of wireless: the “Asian” flu of 1957-1958 coincided with massive deployment of radar infrastructure in the United States in the mid-1950s [109-111]: a “complete network of [radar] antennas, called the White Alice Communications System, was installed throughout Alaska at the same time. The first ones were put into service on November 12, 1956, and the complete system was dedicated on March 26, 1958.” [111] These antennas were operating in the range of 600 to 1000 MHz and had broadcasting power of up to 40 kilowatts. [111] Other installations were operating at 1220 MHz, 1350 MHz, and 500 MHz. [110] These are squarely in the microwave spectrum; cell phones prior to 5G have used frequencies from 900-1900 MHz.^cccxiv The Asian flu lasted for around a year from the end of February 1957, overlapping neatly in time with the activation of these radar facilities. [111]

Then, in 1968, the “Hong Kong” flu pandemic began in July, just after the Initial Defense Communication Satellite Program (IDCSP), in June, had operationalized 28 satellites, flecked throughout the magnetosphere of the Earth in the Van Allen belt. This tripled the number of operational satellites in space; all of the prior ones had been launched one by one, not all together[111]. Firstenberg describes in his chapter “Earth’s Electric Envelope” how such changes to the electromagnetic field of the Earth itself have far-reaching effects that impact all life on the planet.[113-131]

In his book, Firstenberg outlines six great leaps “forward” in electrical technological advancement over history. He makes the case that all of these impacted the entire electromagnetic environment of the planet, not just the specific locales in which the infrastructure was placed. These landmarks were in 1889 with the beginning of power-line harmonic radiation; 1918 with the launch of the radio era; 1957, with the beginning of the radar era; 1968, with the opening of the satellite era; the growth of the High-frequency Active Auroral Research Project (HAARP) which had major expansion in 1994, 1999, and 2006-2007 [349-350]; and the 1990s and 2000s with the introduction of cellphones and cellphone networks.[367-392] Though his book narrates this story poignantly, he is not the only person to have made this connection. Samual Milham of the Washington State Department of Health published a peer-reviewed paper in 2010 titled “Historical evidence that electrification caused the 20th century epidemic of “diseases of civilization.”^cccxv Milham’s work influenced Firstenberg’s investigations of the role of electrification and wireless in the three most devastating diseases of the modern world — heart disease, diabetes and cancer — to each of which Firstenberg dedicates a chapter detailing the evidence.

Firstenberg’s book was re-published in 2020, right as 5G was being rolled out globally at breakneck speed. He wrote of 5G, of tens of thousands of broadcasting satellites, as an event in the near future. But now we are living that as-yet unwritten chapter. What has happened so far?

The global 5G rollout and the “unrelated” simultaneous global pandemic

If there is one thing that has been expressed loud and clear over the last three years by mainstream news outlets and health organizations alike, it is that there is no connection between 5G and the disease known as Covid-19.^{cccxvi cccxvii} What do these sources cite? Well, they may not cite any evidence at all, like a Stanford University webpage which answered the question of whether there is a connection with the two-line message: “Another myth says there’s a correlation between COVID-19 and 5G. This not true. There is no link between 5G and the coronavirus pandemic. 5G does not increase your risk of infection or sickness. So there’s no need to change the way you use your mobile phone.” Other such sources cite “Effective safety standards” and “no increase in disease as a result of cell phone use over many years.” As we have already established that the safety standards are virtually nonexistent, and that there is epidemiological and other scientific data demonstrating rise in disease and evidence of harm to health coincident with cell phone use, we can easily see that these arguments have no weight behind them.

But despite the anaerobic intellectual environment created by this kind of baseless propaganda, some intrepid scientists have nevertheless decided to pursue the line of inquiry: is there a connection between the 5G rollout and the simultaneous outbreak of Covid-19?

Magda Havas is one of these scientists. Dr. Havas is a Canadian professor emeritus at Trent University in Ontario in environmental toxicology, with expertise in the biological effects of radiofrequency radiation. Her resumé is 54 pages long. She was invited to give a testimony to the Canadian National Citizens Inquiry: A Citizen-Led Inquiry Into Canada’s COVID-19 Response (https://nationalcitizensinquiry.ca/), which she did during a session between April 20-22, 2023 in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan in Canada. The academic presentation she made as her testimony was titled “5G and COVID Symptoms: The potential link between Electromagnetic Interference and COVID-19 symptoms and a discussion of the role of 5G technology deployment during global lockdowns.”^cccxviii

She contextualizes her presentation by noting one of the principles of epidemiology, that the study of any illness must look at three things: 1) the agent, its toxicity and dose; 2) the host; and 3) the environment in which the host and the agent come together. Dr. Havas argues that certain environmental variables have gone widely ignored in the epidemiological, and publicly discussed, examinations of the outbreak of a novel disease.

She said, “electromagnetic scientists are very concerned about this rollout and are requesting a moratorium be placed on further rollout of 5G.” In light of the lack of ongoing health studies, she said, they’re conducting a global experiment very similar to vaccines. “We’re told 5G is safe just like we were told vaccines were safe and effective — trust us… There is no evidence that we should trust the agencies allowing this to happen.” She went on: “One of the questions circulating among electromagnetic experts in March of 2020 was: is there a connection between the outbreak of Covid-19 and the deployment of 5G networks around the world? You may ask: Why would we even ask this question? The reason is that the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak and the deployment of 5G happened at the same time… Areas with high cases of Covid-19, for example Wuhan, Northern Italy and the Princess Cruise line, all had recently deployed 5G technology.”

Havas displayed a global map of Covid infections in 2020, which overlaps well with a global map of WiFi hotspots in 2020.^cccxix Continents, cities and regions with high levels of radiofrequency radiation also had higher incidence of Covid-19, including Europe, North America, China, and cities on the east coast of Australia. Very low levels of infection and of WiFi connectivity appeared in Africa and other regions, mostly in the global south, but also throughout much of Russia. She pointed out a 2020 peer-reviewed paper by Mordachev^cccxx which concluded that the lethality of Covid was higher in countries who allowed higher levels of radiation exposure through their national exposure guidelines.^cccxxi Dr. Havas noted that around the world, the radiofrequency exposure guidelines can vary by seven to eight orders of magnitude, which, she said, “is unheard of in toxicology.” Usually global regulation of toxic substances like cadmium and lead look very similar from country to country.

Dr. Havas described the 5G global rollout that had already taken place, though it’s still ongoing, particularly during lockdowns when people could not observe the progress of installations. She noted that sometimes technicians would install 5G antennas and towers in the middle of the night, and people would be surprised to find a new antenna where it had not been the day before.

Havas had looked at the Covid data in April and May of 2020, and she and co-author Angela Tsiang published their assessment in the Medical Research Archives, European Society of Medicine.^cccxxii They found that eighteen states which had not yet deployed 5G millimeter-waves had 3,220 cases per million, standardized for population density, while the thirty-three states which had 5G millimeter wave antennas installed had more than 5,000 cases per million, an 80 percent increase. Additionally, they found 94 percent higher deaths for those states that had 5G millimeter wave antennas deployed, almost double the rate of death of the states which had not yet deployed these.

Dr. Havas oversees a data collection program powered by citizen scientists around the world, who have been instructed in radio-frequency radiation metering, called the Global EMF Network. They have been doing metering around the world to document radiation levels and inform the public of their findings as 5G goes live. She noted the detailed measurements found on 5th Avenue and 6th Avenue in Manhattan when 5th Avenue had been outfitted with 5G antennas and 6th Avenue had not, and indeed they found that the radiation levels were a great deal higher on 5th Avenue. The median values of RF radiation exceeded the exposure guidelines set by Russia,^{cccxxiii cccxxiv} which are generally considered by EMF scientists to be more protective than the United States, most of Western Europe and Canada.^cccxxv She also described a paper on a case report authored by Hardell and Nilsson^cccxxvi published in 2023 which looked at the case of a couple in Sweden who had a 5G cell tower erected on their apartment building. The radiation in their home from the installation was higher than the capacity of the meter to measure. They became so ill they could no longer live in the apartment and had to move; while the level of radiation in their apartment was only half of what Health Canada allows. Hardell, who has published 22 papers appearing on PubMed in the last 5 years, many of them dealing with wireless radiation,^cccxxvii as well as another such case study,^cccxxviii also coauthored a paper published in Oncology Letters titled “Health risks from radiofrequency radiation, including 5G, should be assessed by experts with no conflicts of interest.”^cccxxix

Another issue Dr. Havas dealt with in her presentation was, as she put it, that “symptoms of Covid and symptoms of electromagnetic interference [with the human body] are similar, so it’s difficult to distinguish between the two of them,” noting a 2003 survey by Santini et al.^cccxxx which examined the symptoms experienced by people living at varying distances from cell phone transmitters: of sixteen symptoms found to be present in people living near a cell tower, and which increased in severity with increasing closeness of the person’s home to that cell tower — in 2003 — thirteen of the symptoms are the same as those experienced by people with Covid 19.^{cccxxxi cccxxxii} These include fatigue, sleep disorders, headaches, difficulty concentrating, depression, memory loss, visual disruptions, irritability, tinnitus and other hearing problems, skin problems, cardiovascular symptoms, dizziness and difficulties moving. She emphasized the difficulty people suffering from electromagnetic interference experience in recovering from illness due to disturbed sleep, which is a known symptom of exposure to radiofrequency radiation.

She presented the findings of a number of peer-reviewed papers on the health effects of radiofrequency radiation, focusing on four main areas — the impact of wireless radiation on the immune system, on the blood, on the heart, and on the nervous system — showing that the work of independent scientists had found that all of these systems within the human body are negatively impacted by radiofrequency and microwave radiation and are also associated with Covid-19. Much of this research was done prior to Covid, but one study in particular looked at the overlap in symptomatology between Covid and wireless exposure, a 2023 study by Rubik and Brown “Regarding the evidence of a connection between coronavirus disease and exposure to radiofrequency radiation from wireless technology including 5G.”^cccxxxiii Dr. Havas presented evidence that, by exposure to RF and microwave radiation, the heart, the blood and the nervous system are demonstrably affected.^cccxxxiv The heart can be affected with sudden-onset tachycardia, arrhythmia and irregular heartbeat, and what people experience as a panic attack — not caused by the mental state of the person, but caused physiologically by controlled exposure to radiation.^cccxxxv Exposure to radiation up-regulates the sympathetic nervous system (fight, flight or freeze) and down-regulates the autonomic nervous system (rest, digest and heal), meaning people who are sensitized to this exposure can’t rest, can’t sleep, cant relax, have digestive problems and difficulty healing from any ailment. The blood is affected by RF radiation, causing morphological changes in red blood cells and causing Rouleau formation, where the red blood cells stick together like a stack of coins, which can lead to hyper-coagulation of the blood, impair microcirculation, and contribute to hypoxia.^cccxxxvi Dr. Havas remarked that SarsCoV2 also affects the blood; though it started as a respiratory infection, it transformed into a cardiovascular problem. She noted that the first doctor who reported this was an emergency doctor in New York who was fired for making this statement publicly.

She mentioned that symptoms from EMF exposure have been found to resolve when the person enters an electromagnetically clean environment.^{cccxxxvii cccxxxviii} The problem is that with new satellites and so many new 5G towers, it is becoming harder and harder to find such clean environments. It is thus also difficult for people trying to recover from infection to escape the added onslaught of wireless radiation in order to allow their bodies to heal.

She made recommendations for governments and policy makers, the media, and individuals. Her first recommendation was to place a moratorium on the 5G rollout. She also advised everyone to replace wireless technologies with wired ones in all cases where the device is stationary, like a computer or home internet system; bringing fiber optic cabling to the premises or the last mile, which is recommended in the literature; and to limit wireless to mobile devices to prevent excess deaths. For individuals she recommended to reduce exposure, especially people with long Covid; to reduce frequency of use of wireless; to keep as far a distance as possible between ones body and wireless devices; to minimize the duration of exposure; and to use wireless devices like cell phones and tablets with ethernet cabling by using specialized adapters and turning off all wireless functionalities like Bluetooth, WiFi, and cellular data (location services must also be switched off on some newer phones or they will continue transmitting even when powered off). She recommended purchasing an RF meter and using it to evaluate exposure. She urged the importance of these measures because, she said, 5G will increase the number of people who are susceptible to electromagnetic interference with their bodies’ normal functioning, and this will increase their susceptibility to infections.

She also recommended setting up a system like the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) for people to report adverse reactions to wireless and 5G infrastructure; a 24 hour hotline to help people who are suffering from electromagnetic exposure; putting a moratorium on further 5G rollout, and that governments implement guidance such as that made to the Canadian government by the Canadian House of Commons Standing Committee on Health and Radiofrequency Radiation.^cccxxxix

Other researchers in the realm of wireless radiation may find her recommendations too lenient; the authors of the International Appeal to Stop 5G on Earth and in Space, mentioned earlier, argue that man-made wireless radiation should not be used at all,^cccxl as it harms all life, even at extremely low power levels.

Dr. Havas advised that the media should remain independent of government and corporate backers and not ridicule people with divergent views, and that scientists and doctors should have legitimate and informed debate on these issues, which today they do not. She also warned that medical regulators are playing a huge role in the current state of affairs, as they have unchecked power, and are captured agency that needs to be investigated, moderated and regulated.

In general, she suggests that we do not turn to people who have conflicts of interest for the data we need to protect our health.

She concluded that she hopes wisdom and compassion prevail, and said, referring to the words of Martin Luther King, Jr., that “our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.” She said she tries to live by this principle and speak truth to power, knowing that “those who hold principled power welcome truth, [while] those who want unconstrained power silence truth.”

During the question and answer session, she was asked by a panelist: “An ordinary person’s question: when I pick up my cell phone and I want to watch a movie on it… it works. So why are we going to 5G when what we have seems to work for what most of us need it for?” Dr. Havas explained that there was a desire for driverless cars, the Internet of Things, facial recognition, performing medical operations at a distance, the possibility of new technologies not yet known about which will come to light in the future — and that it’s “a sexy thing to do.” The panelist replied, “I’m not sure why we need driverless cars when we’re going to be in 15 minute cities.”^cccxli Dr. Havas smiled and laughed, nodding. “I agree” she said.

i^ Tom Taulli. How 5G Will Unleash AI. Forbes. May 8, 2020. Accessed June 12, 2023 https://www.forbes.com/sites/tomtaulli/2020/05/08/how-5g-will-unleash-ai/?sh=341254e248c3.

ii^ US Senator Blumenthal Raises Concerns on 5G Wireless Technology Health Risks at Senate Hearing. Youtube embedded video; Environmental Health Trust Youtube Channel. Posted February 8, 2019. Accessed June 6, 2023. https://ehtrust.org/health-effects-of-5g-wireless-technology-confirmed-at-us-senate-hearing-after-senator-blumenthal-questions-industry/

iii^ KLINT FINLEY JOANNA PEARLSTEIN SIMON HILL. The WIRED Guide to 5G. Wired. DEC 31, 2022. Accessed June 6, 2023. https://www.wired.com/story/wired-guide-5g/

iv^ Cheng, R. In the 5G race of 2019, consumers were the real losers. CNET. December 24, 2019.Accesed June 5, 2023. https://www.cnet.com/tech/mobile/in-the-5g-race-of-2019-consumers-were-the-real-losers/

v^ Prepared Remarks of FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler. ’The Future of Wireless: A Vision for U.S. Leadership in a 5G World.’ National Press Club. Washington, D.C. June 20, 2016. Accessed May 30, 2023. https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-339920A1.txt

vi^ Will Townsend. Fixed 5G, The Prequel: Starring AT&T And Verizon Wireless. Dec 14, 2017. Forbes. Accessed May 30, 2023. https://www.forbes.com/sites/moorinsights/2017/12/14/fixed-5g-the-prequel-starring-att-and-verizon-wireless/?sh=39d23858622a

vii^ Stephen Lawson. What we learned about 5G in 2015. Computer World. DEC 22, 2015. Accessed June 6, 2023.https://www.computerworld.com/article/3018072/what-we-learned-about-5g-in-2015.html

viii^ Boddington, Ghislaine. (2021). The Internet of Bodies—alive, connected and collective: the virtual physical future of our bodies and our senses. AI & SOCIETY. 1-17. 10.1007/s00146-020-01137-1.

ix^ Shival S. Bhusan. How Does a Cell Tower Actually Work. Tower Advantage. August 15, 2019. Accessed June 6, 2023. https://toweradvantage.com/how-does-a-cell-tower-actually-work/

x^ Science 101: Cherry Picking & Black Swans. Dr. Magda Havas, PhD. Accessed June 12, 2023. https://magdahavas.com/electrosmog-exposure/science-101-cherry-picking-black-swans/

xi^ Moleón Baca JA, Ontiveros Ortega A, Aránega Jiménez A, Granados Principal S. Cells electric charge analyses define specific properties for cancer cells activity. Bioelectrochemistry. 2022 Apr;144:108028. doi: 10.1016/j.bioelechem.2021.108028. Epub 2021 Dec 1. PMID: 34890991.

xii^ Jan KM, Chien S. Role of surface electric charge in red blood cell interactions. J Gen Physiol. 1973 May;61(5):638-54. doi: 10.1085/jgp.61.5.638. PMID: 4705641; PMCID: PMC2203480.

xiii^ Grassi-Schultheiss PP, Heller F, Dobson J. Analysis of magnetic material in the human heart, spleen and liver. Biometals. 1997 Oct;10(4):351-5. doi: 10.1023/a:1018340920329. PMID: 9353885.

xiv^ Rouleau N, Dotta BT. Electromagnetic fields as structure-function zeitgebers in biological systems: environmental orchestrations of morphogenesis and consciousness. Front Integr Neurosci. 2014 Nov 7;8:84. doi: 10.3389/fnint.2014.00084. PMID: 25426035; PMCID: PMC4224074.

xv^ Baieth HE. Physical parameters of blood as a non – newtonian fluid. Int J Biomed Sci. 2008 Dec;4(4):323-9. PMID: 23675105; PMCID: PMC3614720.

xvi^ Abdalla S, Al-Ameer SS, Al-Magaishi SH. Electrical properties with relaxation through human blood. Biomicrofluidics. 2010 Jul 8;4(3):34101. doi: 10.1063/1.3458908. PMID: 20686650; PMCID: PMC2914348.

xvii^ Burleson KO, Schwartz GE. Cardiac torsion and electromagnetic fields: the cardiac bioinformation hypothesis. Med Hypotheses. 2005;64(6):1109-16. doi: 10.1016/j.mehy.2004.12.023. PMID: 15823696.

xviii^ Sattar Y, Chhabra L. Electrocardiogram. [Updated 2023 Apr 3]. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2023 Jan-. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK549803/

xix^ Muehsam D, Ventura C. Life rhythm as a symphony of oscillatory patterns: electromagnetic energy and sound vibration modulates gene expression for biological signaling and healing. Glob Adv Health Med. 2014 Mar;3(2):40-55. doi: 10.7453/gahmj.2014.008. PMID: 24808981; PMCID: PMC4010966.

xx^ Lin JC, Wang Z. Hearing of microwave pulses by humans and animals: effects, mechanism, and thresholds. Health Phys. 2007 Jun;92(6):621-8. doi: 10.1097/01.HP.0000250644.84530.e2. PMID: 17495664.

xxi^ Güdel M. The Sun Through Time. Space Sci Rev. 2020;216(8):143. doi: 10.1007/s11214-020-00773-9. Epub 2020 Dec 8. PMID: 33328695; PMCID: PMC7724955.

xxii^ Mshenskaya N, Sinitsyna Y, Kalyasova E, Valeria K, Zhirova A, Karpeeva I, Ilin N. Influence of Schumann Range Electromagnetic Fields on Components of Plant Redox Metabolism in Wheat and Peas. Plants (Basel). 2022 Jul 27;11(15):1955. doi: 10.3390/plants11151955. PMID: 35956432; PMCID: PMC9370302.

xxiii^ Firstenberg A. Radio Wave Packet What You Need to Know about Wireless Technology. Cellular Phone Task Force. Accessed June 20, 2023. https://cellphonetaskforce.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Radio-Wave-Packet.pdf

xxiv^ https://www.space.com/four-fundamental-forces.html

xxv^ https://www.britannica.com/science/electromagnetism

xxvi^ http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Forces/funfor.html#c3

xxvii^ https://openstax.org/books/physics/pages/23-1-the-four-fundamental-forces

xxviii^ Kobayashi M, Kikuchi D, Okamura H. Imaging of ultraweak spontaneous photon emission from human body displaying diurnal rhythm. PLoS One. 2009 Jul 16;4(7):e6256. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0006256. PMID: 19606225; PMCID: PMC2707605.

xxix^ Sample records for ultraweak photon emission. science.gov. Accessed June 20, 2023. https://www.science.gov/topicpages/u/ultraweak+photon+emission

xxx^ World Economic Forum. DigWatch. Accessed June 24, 2023. https://dig.watch/actor/world-economic-forum

xxxi^ Almalki, Faris & Alotaibi, Abdullah & Angelides, Marios. (2022). Coupling multifunction drones with AI in the fight against the coronavirus pandemic. Computing. 104. 1-27. 10.1007/s00607-021-01022-9.

xxxii^ Dave Mosher. Watch 57,000 planned satellites swarm Earth within 9 years in a stunning new animation. Feb 1, 2020. Business Insider. Accessed June 20, 2023. https://www.businessinsider.com/animation-internet-satellites-surrounding-earth-starlink-kuiper-oneweb-agi-2020-1

xxxiii^ applewebdata://1737DDA1-46AA-4F63-8B98-532740C2E951#https://www.gsma.com/spectrum/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/1-Isabelle-Mauro-Director-Head-of-Telecoms-Digital-Communications-Industry-WEF.pdf

xxxiv^ The Fourth Industrial Revolution, by Klaus Schwab. Accessed June 7, 2023. https://www.weforum.org/pages/the-fourth-industrial-revolution-by-klaus-schwab

xxxv^ William Burke-White. The World Economic Forum deserves criticism, but we need it now more than ever. Brookings Institute. January 28, 2020. Accessed June 20, 2023. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2020/01/28/the-world-economic-forum-deserves-criticism-but-we-need-it-now-more-than-ever/

xxxvi^ William Burke-White. The World Economic Forum deserves criticism, but we need it now more than ever. Brookings Institute. January 28, 2020. Accessed June 20, 2023. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2020/01/28/the-world-economic-forum-deserves-criticism-but-we-need-it-now-more-than-ever/

xxxvii^ Bani Dugal. Is the nation state past its sell-by-date? Jan 22, 2015. Accessed June 6, 2023. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/01/idea-of-a-nation-state-past-its-sell-by-date/

xxxviii^ Davos 2015 – The End of Democracy? Panel moderated by Ngaire Woods, of the World Economic Forum’s Meta-Council on the New Architecture of Governance. February 2, 2015. World Economic Forum Youtube Channel. Accessed June 20, 2023. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsmpLllrdWs

xxxix^ Experts Explain | What is synthetic biology? | Futurist Amy Webb. World Economic Forum. Accessed June 21, 2023. https://www.weforum.org/videos/synthetic-biology-bioengineering-nature-amy-webb

xl^ Boddington, Ghislaine. (2021). The Internet of Bodies—alive, connected and collective: the virtual physical future of our bodies and our senses. AI & SOCIETY. 1-17. 10.1007/s00146-020-01137-1.

xli^ The Internet of Bodies Is Here: Tackling new challenges of technology governance. World Economic Forum. August 6, 2020. Accessed June 5, 2023. https://www.weforum.org/reports/the-internet-of-bodies-is-here-tackling-new-challenges-of-technology-governance/

xlii^ Xiao Liu. We’re entering the era of the “Internet of Bodies”: collecting our physical data via a range of devices that can be implanted, swallowed or worn. World Economic Forum. June 4, 2020. Accessed June 5, 2023. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/06/internet-of-bodies-covid19-recovery-governance-health-data/

xliii^ Boddington, Ghislaine. (2021). The Internet of Bodies—alive, connected and collective: the virtual physical future of our bodies and our senses. AI & SOCIETY. 1-17. 10.1007/s00146-020-01137-1.

xliv^ Colm Gorey. Scientists propose putting nanobots in our bodies to create ‘global superbrain’. April 12, 2019. Silicon Republic. Accessed June 24, 2023. https://www.siliconrepublic.com/machines/brain-cloud-interface-nanobots-global-superbrain

xlv^ James Giordano, PhD, MPhil. Georgetown University Center for Clinical Bioethics. Accessed June 21, 2023. https://clinicalbioethics.georgetown.edu/JGiordano/

xlvi^ James Giordano – Aerosolized Nano-Robotic Units. Alex Laird Youtube channel May 28, 2023. Accessed June 12, 2023. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jp-xNGMjJQI

xlvii^ Dr. James Giordano: The Brain is the Battlefield of the Future. Modern War Institute Youtube Channel. October 29, 2018. Accessed June 21, 2023. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N02SK9yd60s

xlviii^ Anna Turns. Forget microplastics: we may have a much smaller problem. April 25, 2022. The Guardian. Accessed June 21, 2023. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/apr/25/nano-state-tiny-and-now-everywhere-how-big-a-problem-are-nanoparticles

xlix^ How central banks can use blockchain responsibly. Published Sep 18, 2019. World Economic Forum. Accessed June 24, 2023. https://www.weforum.org/impact/helping-central-banks-explore-and-innovate-with-blockchain/

l^ We are accelerating blockchain technology across supply chains. Published Mar 15, 2021. World Economic Forum. Accessed June 24, 2023. https://www.weforum.org/impact/blockchain-supply-chains/

li^ Rickie Houston and Tessa Campbell; edited by Laura Grace Tarpley.What is a blockchain? A digital database used to store data for crypto transactions and other assets. Business Insider. May 31, 2023. Accessed June 24, 2023. https://www.businessinsider.com/personal-finance/what-is-blockchain

lii^ Harsh Kumar. Here’s How 5G Will Impact Blockchain, Crypto, Metaverse And NFT Industries. October 8, 2022. Outlook India. Accessed June 24, 2023. https://www.outlookindia.com/business/here-s-how-5g-will-impact-blockchain-crypto-metaverse-and-nft-industries-news-228414

liii^ Rickie Houston and Tessa Campbell; edited by Laura Grace Tarpley.What is a blockchain? A digital database used to store data for crypto transactions and other assets. Business Insider. May 31, 2023. Accessed June 24, 2023. https://www.businessinsider.com/personal-finance/what-is-blockchain

liv^ Ahmad SS, Khan S, Kamal MA. What is Blockchain Technology and its Significance in the Current Healthcare System? A Brief Insight. Curr Pharm Des. 2019;25(12):1402-1408. doi: 10.2174/1381612825666190620150302. PMID: 31258067.

lv^ P. Ocheja, F. J. Agbo, S. S. Oyelere, B. Flanagan and H. Ogata, “Blockchain in Education: A Systematic Review and Practical Case Studies,” in IEEE Access, vol. 10, pp. 99525-99540, 2022, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3206791. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9893128

lvi^ Ashik Ahmed. How Blockchain Will Change HR Forever. Forbes. March 14, 2018. Accessed June 24, 2023. https://www.forbes.com/sites/ashikahmed/2018/03/14/how-blockchain-will-change-hr-forever/?sh=571f9b56727c

lvii^ JOLT. Blockchain as Best Practice: The Benefits of the Criminal Justice System Implementing Blockchain Technology. January 6, 2022. University of Richmond Journal of Law and Technology. Accessed June 24, 2023. https://jolt.richmond.edu/2022/01/06/blockchain-as-best-practice-the-benefits-of-the-criminal-justice-system-implementing-blockchain-technology/

lviii^ Digital Currency Governance Consortium. World Economic Forum. Accessed June 24, 2023. https://www.weforum.org/communities/digital-currency-governance-consortium

lix^ Oluwapelumi Adejumo. China publishes national blockchain standard. June 2, 2023. CryptoSlate. Accessed June 21, 2023. https://cryptoslate.com/china-publishes-national-blockchain-standard/

lx^ Yaqoob, Ibrar & Salah, Khaled & Uddin, Mueen & Jayaraman, Raja & Omar, Mohammed & Imran, Muhammad. (2020). Blockchain for Digital Twins: Recent Advances and Future Research Challenges. IEEE Network. PP. 10.1109/MNET.001.1900661. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339974254_Blockchain_for_Digital_Twins_Recent_Advances_and_Future_Research_Challenges

lxi^ Miller, Michael & Spatz, Emily. (2022). A unified view of a human digital twin. Human-Intelligent Systems Integration. 4. 10.1007/s42454-022-00041-x.

lxii^ Smart Cities: Smart cities promise that with increasing connectedness, city services and quality of life can be improved. National Geographic. Accessed June 2, 2023. https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/smart-cities/

lxiii^ The Economist, “China: facial recognition and state control.” https:// www.youtube.com/watch?v=lH2gMNrUuEY

lxiv^ Grocer uses facial recognition technology to deter shoplifters, drawing concerns. ABC 7 News. March 21, 2023. Accessed June 6, 2023. https://abc7news.com/fairway-market-upper-west-side-facial-recognition-technology/12973077/

lxv^ Japan’s Checkout-Free Grocery Store Is Giving Amazon A Run For Its Money. January 28, 2021. Forbes. Accessed June 24, 2023. https://www.forbes.com/sites/tiffanylung/2021/01/28/japans-checkout-free-grocery-store-gives-amazon-a-run-for-their-money/?sh=33ef72b64b00

lxvi^ 5G is Transforming Video Surveillance. Sierra Wireless. Accessed June 6, 2023. https://www.sierrawireless.com/iot-connectivity/5g-video-surveillance/

lxvii^ Pooja. EarthNow to Deliver Real-Time Video via Large Satellite Constellation. June 21, 2023. Qvive. June 24, 2023. https://qvive.in/world-news/earthnow-to-deliver-real-time-video-via-large-satellite-constellation/

lxviii^ What If: Privacy becomes a luxury good? World Economic Forum. Accessed June 6, 2023. https://www.weforum.org/about/what-if-privacy-becomes-a-luxury-good

lxix^ ‘TRUTH’ With RFK, Jr. and Naomi Wolf: Fighting for Our Constitutional Rights. VIDEO TRANSCRIPT. Children’s Health Defense. 03/08/21.Accessed June 6, 2023. https://childrenshealthdefense.org/transcripts/truth-with-rfk-jr-and-naomi-wolf-fighting-for-our-constitutional-rights/

lxx^ Demystifying the Consumer Metaverse. January 2023. World Economic Forum and Accenture. Accessed June 24, 2023. https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Demystifying_the_Consumer_Metaverse.pdf

lxxi^ Previous Global Future Council on Augmented Reality and Virtual Reality. World Economic Foru. Accessed June 6, 2023. https://www.weforum.org/communities/gfc-on-virtual-reality-and-augmented-reality

lxxii^ Tom Taulli. How 5G Will Unleash AI. Forbes. May 8, 2020. Accessed June 12, 2023. https://www.forbes.com/sites/tomtaulli/2020/05/08/how-5g-will-unleash-ai/?sh=341254e248c3

lxxiii^ Tom Taulli. How 5G Will Unleash AI. Forbes. May 8, 2020. Accessed June 12, 2023. https://www.forbes.com/sites/tomtaulli/2020/05/08/how-5g-will-unleash-ai/?sh=341254e248c3

lxxiv^ Jonathan Yerushalmy. ‘I want to destroy whatever I want’: Bing’s AI chatbot unsettles US reporter. February 17, 2023. The Guardian. Accessed June 21, 2023. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/feb/17/i-want-to-destroy-whatever-i-want-bings-ai-chatbot-unsettles-us-reporter

lxxv^ Tom Taulli. How 5G Will Unleash AI. Forbes. May 8, 2020. Accessed June 12, 2023. https://www.forbes.com/sites/tomtaulli/2020/05/08/how-5g-will-unleash-ai/?sh=341254e248c3

lxxvi^ VINCENT BOULANIN CHARLES OVINK. AUG 2022 Civilian AI Is Already Being Misused by the Bad Guys And the AI community needs to do something about it. August 27, 2022. IEEE Spectrum. Accessed June 21, 2023. https://spectrum.ieee.org/responsible-ai-threat

lxxvii^ Bernard Marr. What Is The Artificial Intelligence Of Things? When AI Meets IoT. Forbes. December 20, 2019. Accessed June 21, 2023. https://www.forbes.com/sites/bernardmarr/2019/12/20/what-is-the-artificial-intelligence-of-things-when-ai-meets-iot/?sh=278c7fa0b1fd

lxxviii^ EXPERT MEDICAL SCIENTIFIC TESTIMONY ON 5G AND RADIATION HEALTH EFFECTS  TO THE  MICHIGAN STATE HOUSE ENERGY POLICY COMMITTEE. October 20, 2018. Environmental Health Trust. Accessed June 21, 2023. https://ehtrust.org/expert-medical-scientific-testimony-on-5g-and-radiation-health-effects-to-the-michigan-state-house-energy-policy-committee-2/

lxxix^ Sharon Goldberg. Michigan House Energy Policy Committee 10/4/18 Testimony Key Points/References on 5G Associated Health Issues Sharon Goldberg, MD. Environmental Health Trust. Accessed June 21, 2023. https://ehtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/Main-Points-and-References-from-October-4th-Testimony.10.15-1.pdf

lxxx^ Search: MWR Adverse Effects. National Library of Medicine. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=MWR+adverse+effects

lxxxi^ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=electromagnetic+radiation

lxxxii^ Hong W, Jiang ZH, Yu C, et al. Multibeam antenna technologies for 5G wireless communications. IEEE Tr Ant Prop. 2017;65(12):6231-6249. doi: 10.1109/TAP.2017.2712819.

lxxxiii^ Chou H-T. Design Methodology for the Multi-Beam Phased Array of Antennas with Relatively Arbitrary Coverage Sector. Conference paper: 2017 11th European Conference on Antennas and Propagation; Paris, France. doi: 10.23919/EuCAP.2017.7928095.

lxxxiv^ Wireless Radiation: Stop the 5G Network on Earth and in Space, Devastating Impacts on Health and the Environment. The 4th Media. January 11, 2019. Accessed May 30, 2023. https://www.21cir.com/wireless-radiation-stop-the-5g-network-on-earth-and-in-space-devastating-impacts-on-health-and-the-environment/

lxxxv^ Subhan, Fazli & Khan, Asfandyar & Ahmed, Salman & Malik, Muhammad & Bakshah, Sheikh & Tahir, Sabeen. (2018). Mobile Antenna’s and Its Impact on Human Health. Journal of Medical Imaging and Health Informatics. 8. 1266-1273. 10.1166/jmihi.2018.2296.

lxxxvi^ https://www.globalresearch.ca/scientists-and-doctors-warn-of-potential-serious-health-impacts-of-fifth-generation-5g-wireless-technology/5609503

lxxxvii^ Goldsworthy, A. The Biological Effects of Weak Electromagnetic Fields Problems and solutions. March 2012. https://ehtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/Goldsworthy-2012.pdf

lxxxviii^ Gorpinchenko I, Nikitin O, Banyra O, Shulyak A. The influence of direct mobile phone radiation on sperm quality. Cent European J Urol. 2014;67(1):65-71. doi: 10.5173/ceju.2014.01.art14. Epub 2014 Apr 17. PMID: 24982785; PMCID: PMC4074720.

lxxxix^ Gye MC, Park CJ. Effect of electromagnetic field exposure on the reproductive system. Clin Exp Reprod Med. 2012 Mar;39(1):1-9. doi: 10.5653/cerm.2012.39.1.1. Epub 2012 Mar 31. PMID: 22563544; PMCID: PMC3341445.

xc^ France to ban mobile phones in schools. The Local. December 11, 2017. Accessed May 30, 2023. https://www.thelocal.fr/20171211/france-to-ban-mobile-phones-in-schools

xci^ France: Government Adopts Law Banning Cell Phone Use at School. Oct. 30, 2018. Library of Congress. Accessed May 30, 2023. https://www.loc.gov/item/global-legal-monitor/2018-10-30/france-government-adopts-law-banning-cell-phone-use-at-school/

xcii^ Ledsom A. The Mobile Phone Ban In French Schools, One Year On. Would It Work Elsewhere? Aug 30, 2019. Forbes. Accessed May 30, 2023. https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexledsom/2019/08/30/the-mobile-phone-ban-in-french-schools-one-year-on-would-it-work-elsewhere/?sh=30c7120b5e70

xciii^ Griffin Davis. Sweden’s New Smartphone Ban Law Will Prevent Students From Using Handsets in Classrooms! Tech Times. 18 February 2022. Accessed May 30, 2023.https://www.techtimes.com/articles/272019/20220218/swedens-new-smartphone-ban-law-will-prevent-students-using-handsets.htm

xciv^ Hugo Lagercrantz (Karolinska Institute), Josef Milerad, Åse Victorin. ’Banning mobile phones in Swedish schools is as obvious as banning smoking’. The Local (Sweden). 20 Feb, 2018. https://www.thelocal.se/20180220/banning-mobile-phones-in-swedish-schools-is-as-obvious-as-banning-smoking

xcv^ Jane Wakefield. China bans children from using mobile phones at school. BBC. 2 February 2021. Accessed May 30, 2023. https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-55902778

xcvi^ Israel’s education ministry bans cell phones in elementary schools. NOVEMBER 6, 2019. The Jerusalem Post. Accessed May 30, 2023. https://www.jpost.com/breaking-news/education-ministry-bans-cell-phones-in-elementary-schools-607075

xcvii^ Raoul Wootliff. Education minister announces elementary school cellphone ban. 5 September 2019The Times of Israel. Accesseed May 30, 2023 https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/education-minister-announces-elementary-school-cellphone-ban/

xcviii^ Cellphones and other personal mobile devices in schools. Ontario Government. Accessed May 30, 2023. https://www.ontario.ca/page/cellphones-and-other-personal-mobile-devices-schools

xcix^ Mobile phones in schools: Mobile phones brought to school must be switched off and stored securely during the school day. Victorian Government. Reviewed 21 December 2021. Accessed May 30, 2023. https://www.vic.gov.au/mobile-phones-schools

c^ NSW Government begins mobile phone ban in public high schools. 3 Apr 2023. New South Wales Government. Accessed May 30, 2023. https://www.nsw.gov.au/media-releases/nsw-government-begins-mobile-phone-ban-public-high-schools

ci^ Varghese R, Majumdar A, Kumar G, Shukla A. Rats exposed to 2.45GHz of non-ionizing radiation exhibit behavioral changes with increased brain expression of apoptotic caspase 3. Pathophysiology. 2018 Mar;25(1):19-30. doi: 10.1016/j.pathophys.2017.11.001. Epub 2017 Nov 14. PMID: 29153770.

cii^ Birks L, Guxens M, Papadopoulou E, Alexander J, Ballester F, Estarlich M, Gallastegi M, Ha M, Haugen M, Huss A, Kheifets L, Lim H, Olsen J, Santa-Marina L, Sudan M, Vermeulen R, Vrijkotte T, Cardis E, Vrijheid M. Maternal cell phone use during pregnancy and child behavioral problems in five birth cohorts. Environ Int. 2017 Jul;104:122-131. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2017.03.024. Epub 2017 Apr 7. PMID: 28392066; PMCID: PMC5506372.

ciii^ Deshmukh PS, Nasare N, Megha K, Banerjee BD, Ahmed RS, Singh D, Abegaonkar MP, Tripathi AK, Mediratta PK. Cognitive impairment and neurogenotoxic effects in rats exposed to low-intensity microwave radiation. Int J Toxicol. 2015 May-Jun;34(3):284-90. doi: 10.1177/1091581815574348. Epub 2015 Mar 5. PMID: 25749756.

civ^ Narayanan SN, Kumar RS, Karun KM, Nayak SB, Bhat PG. Possible cause for altered spatial cognition of prepubescent rats exposed to chronic radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation. Metab Brain Dis. 2015 Oct;30(5):1193-206. doi: 10.1007/s11011-015-9689-6. Epub 2015 Jun 3. PMID: 26033310.

cv^ Salford LG, Brun AE, Eberhardt JL, Malmgren L, Persson BR. Nerve cell damage in mammalian brain after exposure to microwaves from GSM mobile phones. Environ Health Perspect. 2003 Jun;111(7):881-3; discussion A408. doi: 10.1289/ehp.6039. PMID: 12782486; PMCID: PMC1241519.

cvi^ Kim JH, Chung KH, Hwang YR, Park HR, Kim HJ, Kim HG, Kim HR. Exposure to RF-EMF Alters Postsynaptic Structure and Hinders Neurite Outgrowth in Developing Hippocampal Neurons of Early Postnatal Mice. Int J Mol Sci. 2021 May 19;22(10):5340. doi: 10.3390/ijms22105340. PMID: 34069478; PMCID: PMC8159076.

cvii^ Schoeni A, Roser K, Röösli M. Memory performance, wireless communication and exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields: A prospective cohort study in adolescents. Environ Int. 2015 Dec;85:343-51. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2015.09.025. Epub 2015 Oct 30. PMID: 26474271.

cviii^ Deshmukh PS, Banerjee BD, Abegaonkar MP, Megha K, Ahmed RS, Tripathi AK, Mediratta PK. Effect of low level microwave radiation exposure on cognitive function and oxidative stress in rats. Indian J Biochem Biophys. 2013 Apr;50(2):114-9. PMID: 23720885.

cix^ Maria P. Ntzouni, Aikaterini Skouroliakou, Nikolaos Kostomitsopoulos & Lukas H. Margaritis (2013) Transient and cumulative memory impairments induced by GSM 1.8 GHz cell phone signal in a mouse model, Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, 32:1, 95-120, DOI: 10.3109/15368378.2012.709207

cx^ Aldad TS, Gan G, Gao XB, Taylor HS. Fetal radiofrequency radiation exposure from 800-1900 mhz-rated cellular telephones affects neurodevelopment and behavior in mice. Sci Rep. 2012;2:312. doi: 10.1038/srep00312. Epub 2012 Mar 15. Erratum in: Sci Rep. 2013 Feb 18;3:1320. PMID: 22428084; PMCID: PMC3306017.

cxi^ Şahin A, Aslan A, Baş O, İkinci A, Özyılmaz C, Fikret Sönmez O, Çolakoğlu S, Odacı E. Deleterious impacts of a 900-MHz electromagnetic field on hippocampal pyramidal neurons of 8-week-old Sprague Dawley male rats. Brain Res. 2015 Oct 22;1624:232-238. doi: 10.1016/j.brainres.2015.07.042. Epub 2015 Jul 31. PMID: 26239913.

cxii^ Jane Wakefield. China bans children from using mobile phones at school. BBC. 2 February 2021. Accessed May 30, 2023. https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-55902778

cxiii^ Megha K, Deshmukh PS, Banerjee BD, Tripathi AK, Abegaonkar MP. Microwave radiation induced oxidative stress, cognitive impairment and inflammation in brain of Fischer rats. Indian J Exp Biol. 2012 Dec;50(12):889-96. PMID: 23986973.

cxiv^ Papageorgiou CC, Hountala CD, Maganioti AE, Kyprianou MA, Rabavilas AD, Papadimitriou GN, Capsalis CN. Effects of wi-fi signals on the p300 component of event-related potentials during an auditory hayling task. J Integr Neurosci. 2011 Jun;10(2):189-202. doi: 10.1142/S0219635211002695. PMID: 21714138.

cxv^ Nittby H, Grafström G, Tian DP, Malmgren L, Brun A, Persson BR, Salford LG, Eberhardt J. Cognitive impairment in rats after long-term exposure to GSM-900 mobile phone radiation. Bioelectromagnetics. 2008 Apr;29(3):219-32. doi: 10.1002/bem.20386. PMID: 18044737.

cxvi^ Salford LG, Brun A, Sturesson K, Eberhardt JL, Persson BR. Permeability of the blood-brain barrier induced by 915 MHz electromagnetic radiation, continuous wave and modulated at 8, 16, 50, and 200 Hz. Microsc Res Tech. 1994 Apr 15;27(6):535-42. doi: 10.1002/jemt.1070270608. PMID: 8012056.

cxvii^ Christ A, Gosselin MC, Christopoulou M, Kühn S, Kuster N. Age-dependent tissue-specific exposure of cell phone users. Phys Med Biol. 2010 Apr 7;55(7):1767-83. doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/55/7/001. Epub 2010 Mar 5. PMID: 20208098.

cxviii^ Fernández C, de Salles AA, Sears ME, Morris RD, Davis DL. Absorption of wireless radiation in the child versus adult brain and eye from cell phone conversation or virtual reality. Environ Res. 2018 Nov;167:694-699. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2018.05.013. Epub 2018 Jun 5. PMID: 29884550.

cxix^ Yao K, Wang KJ, Sun ZH, Tan J, Xu W, Zhu LJ, Lu DQ. Low power microwave radiation inhibits the proliferation of rabbit lens epithelial cells by upregulating P27Kip1 expression. Mol Vis. 2004 Feb 25;10:138-43. PMID: 14990889.

cxx^ Shinjyo, T. & Shinjyo, A.(2014). Significant Decrease of Clinical Symptoms After Mobile Phone Base Station Removal – An Intervention Study.. Source: Signifikanter Rückgang klinischer Symptome nach Senderabbau – eine Interventionsstudie., Umwelt-Medizin-Gesellschaft, 27(4), S. 294-301

cxxi^ Dovrat A, Berenson R, Bormusov E, Lahav A, Lustman T, Sharon N, Schächter L. Localized effects of microwave radiation on the intact eye lens in culture conditions. Bioelectromagnetics. 2005 Jul;26(5):398-405. doi: 10.1002/bem.20114. PMID: 15887253.

cxxii^ Birenbaum, L. et al. 1969. Effect of microwaves on the eye. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering 16(1):7-14.

cxxiii^ Zaret, M. M. 1973. Microwave cataracts. Medical Trial Technique Quarterly 19(3):246-52.

cxxiv^ Tatemichi M, Nakano T, Tanaka K, Hayashi T, Nawa T, Miyamoto T, Hiro H, Sugita M. Possible association between heavy computer users and glaucomatous visual field abnormalities: a cross sectional study in Japanese workers. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2004 Dec;58(12):1021-7. doi: 10.1136/jech.2003.018127. PMID: 15547065; PMCID: PMC1732648.

cxxv^ Küçer N, Pamukçu T. Self-reported symptoms associated with exposure to electromagnetic fields: a questionnaire study. Electromagn Biol Med. 2014 Jan;33(1):15-7. doi: 10.3109/15368378.2013.783847. Epub 2013 Jun 3. PMID: 23730819.

cxxvi^ Firstenberg A. The Invisible Rainbow: A History of Electricity and Life. Chelsea Green Publishing. 2020. p. 22, 25, 34.

cxxvii^ Luberto F, Gobba F, Broglia A. Miopizzazione temporanea e sintomatologia soggettiva in operatori al videoterminale [Temporary myopia and subjective symptoms in video display terminal operators]. Med Lav. 1989 Mar-Apr;80(2):155-63. Italian. PMID: 2770619.

cxxviii^ Gratton I, Piccoli B, Zaniboni A, Meroni M, Grieco A. Change in visual function and viewing distance during work with VDTs. Ergonomics. 1990 Dec;33(12):1433-41. doi: 10.1080/00140139008925344. PMID: 2286192.

cxxix^ Niesłuchowska M. Wpływ pracy przy monitorach komputerowych na układ wzrokowy [Work with visual display units and its effect on the eye]. Klin Oczna. 2007;109(1-3):30-4. Polish. PMID: 17687909.

cxxx^ Lean G. French government bans advertising of mobiles to children. 11 January 2009. The Independent. Accessed May 30, 2023. https://www.independent.co.uk/tech/french-government-bans-advertising-of-mobiles-to-children-1299673.html

cxxxi^ ISRAEL – POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS ON CELL PHONES, WIRELESS RADIATION & HEALTH. May 10, 2017. Environmental Health Trust. Accessed May 30, 2023. https://ehtrust.org/israel-policy-recommendations-cell-phones-wireless-radiation-health/

cxxxii^ Reducing Children’s Wi-Fi Exposure: Haifa Schools IT Chief Reuven Kurman. Feb 15, 2017. Environmental Health Trust Youtube Channel. Accessed May 30, 2023. https://youtu.be/ajsG5AjPWbI?t=1079

cxxxiii^  Reuven Kurman, Chief Information Officer, Education Department of Haifa, Israel. “What Can be Done” – Reducing Exposure to Children in Schools and at City Level. IIAS Presentation. January, 2017. Accessed May 30, 2023. https://ehtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/Reuvan-Kurman.pdf

cxxxiv^ Laxman Singh. BMC bans mobile towers at parks, playgrounds. Hindustan Times. Mar 16, 2016. Accessed May 31, 2023. https://www.hindustantimes.com/mumbai/bmc-bans-mobile-towers-at-parks-playgrounds/story-Wwc9tjtcFPyTxWMyP2Y1OJ.html

cxxxv^ kompetenzinitiative.net/KIT/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/KI_Brochure-6_K_Hecht_web.pdf

cxxxvi^ PRESS RELEASE N° 208 31 May 2011 IARC CLASSIFIES RADIOFREQUENCY ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS AS POSSIBLY CARCINOGENIC TO HUMANS. World Health Organization: International Agency for Research on Cancer. May 31, 2011. Accessed June 21, 2023. https://www.iarc.fr/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/pr208_E.pdf

cxxxvii^ Report of Partial Findings from the National Toxicology Program Carcinogenesis Studies of Cell Phone Radiofrequency Radiation in Hsd: Sprague Dawley® SD rats (Whole Body Exposures). Draft 5-19-2016. https://doi.org/10.1101/055699. Accessed June 21, 2023. https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2016/05/26/055699.full.pdf

cxxxviii^ Rainer Nyberg and Lennart Hardell. Scientists and Doctors Warn of Potential Serious Health Impacts of Fifth Generation 5G Wireless Technology. September 18, 2017. Global Research. Accessed June 21, 2023. https://www.globalresearch.ca/scientists-and-doctors-warn-of-potential-serious-health-impacts-of-fifth-generation-5g-wireless-technology/5609503

cxxxix^ Kostoff, Ronald & Heroux, Paul & Aschner, Michael & Tsatsakis, Aristidis. (2020). Adverse health effects of 5G mobile networking technology under real-life conditions. Toxicology Letters. 323. 10.1016/j.toxlet.2020.01.020.

cxl^ Magda Havas. Science 101: Cherry Picking & Black Swans. MagdaHavas.com. July 26, 2012. Accessed June 2023. https://magdahavas.com/electrosmog-exposure/science-101-cherry-picking-black-swans/

cxli^ kompetenzinitiative.net/KIT/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/KI_Brochure-6_K_Hecht_web.pdf

cxlii^ INTERNATIONAL APPEAL: Stop 5G on Earth and in Space. Accessed June, 2023. https://www.5gspaceappeal.org/the-appeal

cxliii^ https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5b8dbc1b7c9327d89d9428a4/t/5dc5c161006ee44c09c8e27f/1573241198220/International+Appeal+-+Stop+5G+on+Earth+and+in+Space.pdf

cxliv^ Emily Laurence. Is 5G Making You Sick? Here’s What Experts Say. Fobes. January 19, 2023. Accessed June 5, 2023. https://www.forbes.com/health/body/is-5g-safe/

cxlv^ Clare Duffy. Why conspiracy theorists think 5G is bad for your health and why experts say not to worry. CNN Business. June 14, 2020. Accessed June 21, 2023. https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/14/tech/5g-health-conspiracy-debunked/index.html

cxlvi^ Jack Goodman and Flora Carmichael. Coronavirus: 5G and microchip conspiracies around the world. BBC Reality Check. 27 June 2020. Accessed June 21, 2023. https://www.bbc.com/news/53191523

cxlvii^ Kaitlyn Tiffany. SOMETHING IN THE AIR. May 13, 2020. The Atlantic. Accessed June 21, 2023. https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2020/05/great-5g-conspiracy/611317/

cxlviii^ Arthur Firstenberg. Radio Wave Packet. Cellular Phone Task Force. First published September 200. Revised August 2022. Accessed June 19, 2023. https://cellphonetaskforce.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Radio-Wave-Packet.pdf

cxlix^ Belyaev, I. Y. et al. 1996. Resonance effect of millimeter waves in the power range from 10–19 to 3 x 10–3 W/cm2 on Escherichia coli cells at different concentrations. Bioelectromagnetics 17:312-321.

cl^ Kositsky, N. N. et al. 2001. Influence of high-frequency electromagnetic radiation at non-thermal intensities on the human body (a review of work by Russian and Ukrainian researchers). No Place To Hide 3(1) Supplement.

cli^ Bise, W. 1978. Low power radio-frequency and microwave effects on human electroencephalogram and behavior. Physiological Chemistry and Physics 10(5):387-398.

clii^ Brauer, I. 1950. Experimenta1 studies on the effect of meter waves of various field intensities on the growth of plants by division. Chromosoma 3:483-509.

cliii^ Bundyuk, L. S. et al. 1994. Corrective action of millimeter waves on systems of various levels of hierarchy. Physics of the Alive 2(1):12-25.

cliv^ Kondra, P. A. et al. 1970. Growth and reproduction of chickens subjected to microwave radiation. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 50:639-644.

clv^ Kositsky, N. N. et al. 2001. Influence of high-frequency electromagnetic radiation at non-thermal intensities on the human body (a review of work by Russian and Ukrainian researchers). No Place To Hide 3(1) Supplement.

clvi^ Selga, T. and M. Selga 1996. Response of Pinus sylvestris L. needles to electromagnetic fields. Cytological and ultrastructural aspects. The Science of the Total Environment 180:65-73.

clvii^ Balodis, V. et al. 1996. Does the Skrunda Radio Location Station diminish the radial growth of pine trees? The Science of the Total Environment 180:81-85.

clviii^ Selga, T. and M. Selga 1996. Response of Pinus sylvestris L. needles to electromagnetic fields. Cytological and ultrastructural aspects. The Science of the Total Environment 180:65-73.

clix^ Altpeter, E.-S. et al. 1995. Study on health effects of the shortwave transmitter station of Schwarzenburg, Berne, Switzerland. Study No. 55, Swiss Federal Office of Energy.

clx^ Altpeter, E.-S. et al. 1997. Do radiofrequency electromagnetic fields cause sleep disorders? European Regional Meeting of the International Epidemiological Association, Münster, Germany, September. Abstract no. 351.

clxi^ Brauer, I. 1950. Experimenta1 studies on the effect of meter waves of various field intensities on the growth of plants by division. Chromosoma 3:483-509.

clxii^ Dumanskij, J. D., and M. G. Shandala 1974. The biologic action and hygienic significance of electromagnetic fields of super-high and ultrahigh frequencies in densely populated areas. In Biologic Effects and Health Hazards of Microwave Radiation, Proceedings of an International Symposium, Warsaw, 15-18 October 1973, P. Czerski et al., eds, pp. 289-293.

clxiii^ McRee, D. I. 1980. Soviet and Eastern European research on biological effects of microwave radiation. Proceedings of the IEEE 68(1):84-91.

clxiv^ Stark, K. et al. 1997. Absence of chronic effect of exposure to short-wave radio broadcast signal on salivary melatonin concentrations in dairy cattle. Journal of Pineal Research 22:171-76.

clxv^ Magone, I., 1996. The effect of electromagnetic radiation from the Skrunda Radio Location Station on Spirodela polyrhiza (L.) Schleiden cultures. The Science of the Total Environment 180:75-80.

clxvi^ Kwee, S. and P. Raskmark 1997. Radiofrequency electromagnetic fields and cell proliferation. In Proceedings of the Second World Congress for Electricity and Magnetism in Biology and Medicine, June 8-12, 1997, Bologna, Italy, F. Bersani, ed.

clxvii^ Magras, I. N. and T. D. Xenos 1997. RF radiation-induced changes in the prenatal development of mice. Bioelectromagnetics 18:455-461.

clxviii^ Hocking, B. and I. Gordon 1996. Cancer incidence and mortality and proximity to TV towers. Medical Journal of Australia 165(11-12):601-605.

clxix^ Kolodynski, A. A. and V. V. Kolodynska 1996. Motor and psychological functions of school children living in the area of the Skrunda Radio Location Station in Latvia. The Science of the Total Environment 180:87-93.

clxx^ Eberhardt, J. L. et al. 2008. Blood-brain barrier permeability and nerve cell damage in rat brain 14 and 28 days after exposure to microwaves from GSM mobile phones. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine 27:215-229.

clxxi^ Dutta, S. K. et al. 1986. Microwave radiation-induced calcium ion flux from human neuroblastoma cells: dependence on depth of amplitude modulation and exposure time. In Biological Effects of Electropollution, S. K. Dutta and R. M. Millis, eds., pp. 63-69. Philadelphia, PA: Information Ventures.

clxxii^ Frey, A. H., and E. Seifert 1968. Pulse modulated UHF energy illumination of the heart associated with change in heart rate. Life Sciences 7(Part II):505-512.

clxxiii^ Chiang, H. et al. 1989. Health effects of environmental electromagnetic fields. Journal of Bioelectricity 8(1):127-131.

clxxiv^ Simonenko, V. B. et al. 1998. Influence of electromagnetic radiation in the radiofrequency range on the health condition of an organized collective. Voenno-meditsinskiy zhurnal 319(5):64-68.

clxxv^ Frey, A. H. 1963. Human response to very-low-frequency electromagnetic energy. Nav. Res. Rev. 1968:1-4.

clxxvi^ Frey, A. H. 1971. Biological function as influenced by low power modulated RF energy. IEEE Transactions on Microwave Theory and Techniques, MTT-19(2):153-164.

clxxvii^ Frey, A. H., and R. Messenger 1973. Human perception of illumination with pulsed ultrahighfrequency electromagnetic energy. Science 181:356-358.

clxxviii^ Frey, A. H. 1988. Evolution and results of biological research with low-intensity nonionizing radiation. In Modern Bioelectricity, A. A. Marino, ed., pp. 785-837. New York, NY: Dekker.

clxxix^ Justeson, D. R. 1979. Behavioral and psychological effects of microwave radiation. Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine 55(11):1058-1078.

clxxx^ Olsen, R. G. 1980. Evidence for microwave-induced acoustic resonances in biological material. Bioelectromagnetics 1:219.

clxxxi^ Wieske, C. W. 1963. Human sensitivity to electric fields. In Proceedings of the First National Biomedical Sciences Instrumentation Symposium, Los Angeles, July 14-17, 1962.

clxxxii^ Lin, J. C., 1978. Microwave Auditory Effects and Applications. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.

clxxxiii^ Belokrinitskiy, V. S. 1982. Hygienic evaluation of biological effects of nonionizing microwaves. Gigiyena i Sanitariya 6:32-34, JPRS 81865, pp. 1-5.

clxxxiv^ Belokrinitskiy, V. S. 1982a. Destructive and reparative processes in hippocampus with long-term exposure to nonionizing microwave radiation. Bulletin of Experimental Biology and Medicine 93(3):89-92.

clxxxv^ Chiang, H. et al. 1989. Health effects of environmental electromagnetic fields. Journal of Bioelectricity 8(1):127-131.

clxxxvi^ McRee, D. I. 1980. Soviet and Eastern European research on biological effects of microwave radiation. Proceedings of the IEEE 68(1):84-91.

clxxxvii^ Shutenko, O. I. et al. 1981. Effects of superhigh frequency electromagnetic fields on animals of different ages. Gigiyena i Sanitariya, no. 10, 1981, pp. 35-38, JPRS 84221, pp. 85-90.

clxxxviii^ Federal Communications Commission 2018. FCC SAR Test Report. Report No. SA180725W003-1. August 14, 2018.

clxxxix^ Racini, S. M. et al. 2015. Simulation of psSAR associated with the use of laptop computers as a function of position in relation to the adult body. BioEM2015, June 14-19, 2015, Annual Meeting of the Bioelectromagnetics Society. Poster.

cxc^ Firstenber A. The Invisible Rainbow: A History of Electricity and Life. 2020. Chelsea Green Publishing. p. 381

cxci^ William J. Broad. Your 5G Phone Won’t Hurt You. But Russia Wants You to Think Otherwise. May 12, 2019. New York Times. Accessed June 21, 2023. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/12/science/5g-phone-safety-health-russia.html

cxcii^ SOVIET DIRECTED ENERGY WEAPONS — Perspectives on Strategic Defense. March, 1985. United States Central Intelligence Agency. Accessed June 21, 2023. https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/19850305.pdf

cxciii^ Defense Intelligence Agency of the United States. BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF ELECTROMAGNETIC RADIATION-RADIOWAVES AND MICROWAVES-EURASIAN COMMUNIST COUNTRIES. March 1976. Zory Glaser Archive. Accessed June 2023. https://zoryglaser.com/biological_effects_of_electromagnetic_radiation-radiowaves_and_microwaves-eurasian_communist_countries/

cxciv^ Ronald L. Adams, Dr. R.A. Williams. DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY: Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Radiation. (Radiowaves and Microwaves) Eurasian Communist Countries.. PREPARED BY U.S. ARMY MEDICAL INTELLIGENCE AND INFORMATION AGENCY OFFICE Of THE SURGEON GENERAL. March 1976. ZoryGlaser.com. Accessed June 21, 2023. https://zoryglaser.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/BIOLOGICAL_EFFECTS_OF_ELECTROMAGNETIC_RADIATION-RADIOWAVES_AND_MICROWAVES-EURASIAN_COMMUNIST_COUNTRIES.pdf

cxcv^ BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF ELECTROMAGNETIC RADIATION-RADIOWAVES AND MICROWAVES-EURASIAN COMMUNIST COUNTRIES. ZoryGlaser.com. Accessed June 21, 2023. https://zoryglaser.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/BIBLIOGRAPHY-OF-REPORTED-BIOLOGICAL-PHENOMENA-EFFECTS-AND-CLINICAL-MANIFESTATIONS-ATTRIBUTED-TO-MICROWAVE-AND-RADIO-FREQUENCY-RADIATION-C.pdf

cxcvi^ Zorach R. Glaser. BIBLIOGRAPHY OF REPORTED BIOLOGICAL PHENOMENA (‘EFFECTS’) AND CLINICAL MANIFESTATIONS ATTRIBUTED TO MICROWAVE AND RADIO-FREQUENCY RADIATION. October 4, 1971. Zory Glaser Archive. Accessed June 24, 2023. https://zoryglaser.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/BIBLIOGRAPHY-OF-REPORTED-BIOLOGICAL-PHENOMENA-EFFECTS-AND-CLINICAL-MANIFESTATIONS-ATTRIBUTED-TO-MICROWAVE-AND-RADIO-FREQUENCY-RADIATION-C.pdf

cxcvii^ BIBLIOGRAPHY OF REPORTED BIOLOGICAL PHENOMENA (EFFECTS) AND CLINICAL MANIFESTATIONS ATTRIBUTED TO MICROWAVE AND RADIO – FREQUENCY RADIATION-C. Zory Glaser Archive. Accessed June 26, 2023. https://zoryglaser.com/bibliography-of-reported-biological-phenomena-effects-and-clinical-manifestations-attributed-to-microwave-and-radio-frequency-radiation-c/

cxcviii^ Dafna Tachover. Archive of 4,000 Documents Reveals Government Knew Decades Ago About Health Impact of Wireless Technology. December 21, 2020. Children’s Health Defense. Accessed June 21, 2023. https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/government-knew-harmful-impact-wireless-technology-human-health/

cxcix^ The NYT Open Team. Exploring the Future of 5G and Journalism. The New York Times has launched a 5G Journalism Lab to see what’s possible with 5G technology. Apr 11, 2019. NYT Open. Accessed June 21, 2023. https://open.nytimes.com/exploring-the-future-of-5g-and-journalism-a53f4c4b8644

cc^ Mark Crispin Miller. What drove the Times to tell those whopping lies about 5G and Russia? (This story isn’t pretty.). May 15, 2019. News from Underground. Accessed June 21, 2023. https://web.archive.org/web/20190522062953/markcrispinmiller.com/2019/05/what-drove-the-times-to-tell-those-whopping-lies-about-5g-and-russia-this-story-isnt-pretty/

cci^ Alexander J. Kroll . Attacking ALEC: How left-wing politicians and activists pursue the American Legislative Exchange Council..DECEMBER 5, 2013. Accessed June 12, 2023. https://capitalresearch.org/article/attacking-alec-left-wing-politicians-and-activists-pursue-the-american-legislative-exchange-council/

ccii^ Connor Gibson. Koch Docs: How Charles Koch has Consumed ALEC. onnor Gibson. September 4, 2019. Greenpeace. Accessed June 21, 2023. https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/koch-docs-how-charles-koch-consumed-alec-american-legislative-exchange-council/

cciii^ David Armiak. ALEC Flaunts Trump Ties While Celebrating Its 45th Anniversary at POTUS’s DC Hotel. September 26, 2018. PRWatch. Accessed June 21, 2023. https://www.prwatch.org/news/2018/09/13403/alec-flaunts-trump-ties-while-celebrating-its-45th-anniversary-potuss-dc-hotel

cciv^ Remarks of FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai Before the Communications and Technology Task Force of the American Legislative Exchange Council, “Promoting Investment And Competition In The Several States.” Dec 6, 2013. FCC. Accessed June 21, 2023. https://www.fcc.gov/document/pai-remarks-communications-and-technology-task-force-alec

ccv^ https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20190415/07342442012/fcc-under-fire-putting-alec-rep-consumer-advisory-board.shtml

ccvi^ TechNode. (April 19, 2018). “China to start testing 5G in 16 major cities.” https://e27.co/china-start-testing-5g-16-major-cities-20180419/

ccvii^ Yurou. (Oct. 31st, 2019). “Central China province launches commercial 5G applications.” Xinhua Net. http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2019-10/31/c_138517734.htm

ccviii^ Weissberger, A. (Oct. 31st, 2019). “China to launch 5G mobile networks on Friday with a huge government backed push.” IEEE ComSoc (Communications Society) Technology Blog. https://techblog.comsoc.org/2019/10/31/china-to-launch-5g-mobile-networks-on-friday-with-a-huge-government-backed-push/

ccix^ Tomás, JP. (Dec. 27, 2019). “China expects 5G to reach all prefecture-level cities by the end of 2020.” RCR Wireless News. https://www.rcrwireless.com/20191227/5g/china-5g-coverage-2020

ccx^ PTI. (April 4th, 2019). “South Korea launches 5G networks early to secure world first.” The Hindu. https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/s-korea-launches-5g-networks-early-to-secure-world-first/article26730605.ece#

ccxi^ Announcements of commercial launches. 5G European Observatory. Last edited 2021. Accessed Jun 2, 2023. https://5gobservatory.eu/market-developments/5g-services/

ccxii^ Iran committed to 5G rollout, ‘despite sanctions’. 29 May 2019. Telegeography: CommsUpdate. https://www.commsupdate.com/articles/2019/05/29/iran-committed-to-5g-rollout-despite-sanctions/

ccxiii^ Bauwens M, Compernolle S, Stavrakou T, Müller JF, van Gent J, Eskes H, Levelt PF, van der A R, Veefkind JP, Vlietinck J, Yu H, Zehner C. Impact of Coronavirus Outbreak on NO2 Pollution Assessed Using TROPOMI and OMI Observations. Geophys Res Lett. 2020 Jun 16;47(11):e2020GL087978. doi: 10.1029/2020GL087978. Epub 2020 Jun 5. PMID: 32836515; PMCID: PMC7261997.

ccxiv^ Eric Levenson and Kevin Flower. What is and isn’t allowed during a ‘shelter-in-place’ order. CNN. March 18, 2020. Accessed June 2, 2023. https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/17/us/shelter-in-place-coronavirus-trnd/index.html

ccxv^ . Russell H. Fox, Angela Y. Kung, Christen B’anca Glenn. What’s New in 5G – April 2020. Mintz Insights. Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo. Accessed June 2, 2023.https://www.mintz.com/insights-center/viewpoints/2776/2020-03-31-whats-new-5g-april-2020

ccxvi^ KEEPING NEW YORK CITY CONNECTED. Hugh O’Kane Electric Company, Inc. December 6, 2021. Accessed June 2, 2023. https://www.hokane.com/news/2022/3/1/keeping-new-york-city-connected-through-telecom-networks

ccxvii^ Launches and Orbital Operations: 2020 – Launches to Orbit and Beyond. Orbital Focus: International Space Flight – Facts and Figures. Accessed June 6, 2023. https://www.orbitalfocus.uk/Diaries/Launches/Launches.php?year=2020

ccxviii^ 2020 in spaceflight. Wikipedia. Accessed June 6, 2023. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_in_spaceflight

ccxix^ Space for everyone! Launches. One Web. Accessed June 6, 2023. https://oneweb.net/resources/launch-programme/launch-2

ccxx^ Launches. SpaceX. Accessed June 6, 2023. https://www.spacex.com/launches/

ccxxi^ Firstenberg A. The Invisible Rainbow: A History of Electricity and Life. Chelsea Green Publishing. 2020. p. 389-390

ccxxii^ Ecoside from space: NUMBER OF OPERATING SATELLITES PASSES 7,000. Cellular Phone Task Force. Accessed June 6, 2023.https://cellphonetaskforce.org/ecocide-from-space/

ccxxiii^ Prepared Remarks of FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler. ’The Future of Wireless: A Vision for U.S. Leadership in a 5G World.’ National Press Club. Washington, D.C. June 20, 2016. Accessed May 30, 2023. https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-339920A1.txt

ccxxiv^ FCC Chair Tom Wheeler speaks at The National Press Club – June 20, 2016. National Press Club Live

Youtube Channel. Streamed live on Jun 20, 2016. Accessed June 1, 2023. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNH35Kcao60

ccxxv^ Prepared Remarks of FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler. ’The Future of Wireless: A Vision for U.S. Leadership in a 5G World.’ National Press Club. Washington, D.C. June 20, 2016. Accessed May 30, 2023. https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-339920A1.txt

ccxxvi^ Prepared Remarks of FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler. ’The Future of Wireless: A Vision for U.S. Leadership in a 5G World.’ National Press Club. Washington, D.C. June 20, 2016. Accessed May 30, 2023. https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-339920A1.txt

ccxxvii^ About Us. Cellular Phone Task Force. Accessed June 5, 2023. https://cellphonetaskforce.org/about-us/

ccxxviii^ 1G Vs. 2G Vs. 3G Vs. 4G Vs. 5G. netinformations.com Accessed June 6, 2023. https://net-informations.com/q/diff/generations.html

ccxxix^ Client Profile: CTIA: 2020. Open Secrets. Accessed Jun3 8, 2023. https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/clients/summary?cycle=2020&id=D000000394

ccxxx^ Client Profile: CTIA: 1998. Open Secrets. Accessed Jun3 8, 2023. https://www.opensecrets.org/federal-lobbying/clients/summary?cycle=1998&id=D000000394

ccxxxi^ Firstenberg A. Killing Fields – Electromagnetic Radiation. The Ecologist.  1st June 2004. Accessed June 8, 2023. https://theecologist.org/2004/jun/01/killing-fields-electromagnetic-radiation

ccxxxii^ Johnson Hur. History of Mobile Cell Phones | The First Cell Phone To Present Time. BeBusinessed. Accessed June 8, 2023. https://bebusinessed.com/history/history-cell-phones/

ccxxxiii^ Biography of Former FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler. Federal Communications Commission. Friday, January 20, 2017. Accessed June 8, 2023. https://www.fcc.gov/biography-former-fcc-chairman-tom-wheeler

ccxxxiv^ FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler in Conversation with Computer History Museum CEO John Hollar. Recorded and Posted January 9, 2014Computer History Museum Youtube Channel. Accessed June 8, 2023. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rn_1GjpbLnA

ccxxxv^ Wireless Safety Activists Confront FCC Chair Tom Wheeler in Silicon Valley. Joshua Hart Youtube Channel. Jan 15, 2014. Accessed June 9, 2023. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UedwTaThr8&t=31s

ccxxxvi^ Biography of Former Commissioner Meredith Attwell Baker. Federal Communications Commission. Accessed June 8, 2023. https://www.fcc.gov/general/biography-former-commissioner-meredith-attwell-baker

ccxxxvii^ Meredith Attwell Baker: President & CEO. CTIA. Accessed June 8, 2023. https://www.ctia.org/about-ctia/the-ctia-team/meredith-attwell-baker

ccxxxviii^ JON BRODKIN. Washington’s revolving door: Cellular lobby and FCC have traded leaders. 4/23/2014. Ars Technica. Accessed June 21, 2023. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/04/washingtons-revolving-door-cellular-lobby-and-fcc-have-traded-leaders/

ccxxxix^ Dr. George Carlo. Tech Wellness. https://techwellness.com/blogs/news/george-carlo-wireless-emf-cellphone-radiation

ccxl^ Cell Phone War. FactsNow Youtube Channel. Posted September 27, 2006. Accessed June 21, 2023. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEqCkwPmQ_w

ccxli^ Mark Hertsgaard and Mark Dowie. How Big Wireless Made Us Think That Cell Phones Are Safe: A Special Investigation. The Nation. MARCH 29, 2018. Accessed June 5, 2023. https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/how-big-wireless-made-us-think-that-cell-phones-are-safe-a-special-investigation/

ccxlii^ Mark Hertsgaard and Mark Dowie. How Big Wireless Made Us Think That Cell Phones Are Safe: A Special Investigation. The Nation. MARCH 29, 2018. Accessed June 5, 2023. https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/how-big-wireless-made-us-think-that-cell-phones-are-safe-a-special-investigation/

ccxliii^ Mark Hertsgaard and Mark Dowie. How Big Wireless Made Us Think That Cell Phones Are Safe: A Special Investigation. The Nation. MARCH 29, 2018. Accessed June 5, 2023. https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/how-big-wireless-made-us-think-that-cell-phones-are-safe-a-special-investigation/

ccxliv^ Mark Hertsgaard and Mark Dowie. How Big Wireless Made Us Think That Cell Phones Are Safe: A Special Investigation. The Nation. MARCH 29, 2018. Accessed June 5, 2023. https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/how-big-wireless-made-us-think-that-cell-phones-are-safe-a-special-investigation/

ccxlv^ https://ehtrust.org/educate-yourself/sar-of-cell-phones-specific-absorption-rate/

ccxlvi^ https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/wireless-devices-and-health-concerns

ccxlvii^ International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF). Scientific evidence invalidates health assumptions underlying the FCC and ICNIRP exposure limit determinations for radiofrequency radiation: implications for 5G. Environ Health. 2022 Oct 18;21(1):92. doi: 10.1186/s12940-022-00900-9. PMID: 36253855; PMCID: PMC9576312.

ccxlviii^ https://ehtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/AAP-Letter-To-FCC-RF-Radiation-Review-2013.pdf

ccxlix^ https://ehtrust.org/educate-yourself/sar-of-cell-phones-specific-absorption-rate/

ccl^ https://ehtrust.org/educate-yourself/sar-of-cell-phones-specific-absorption-rate/

ccli^ https://www.sarchecker.com/apple-iphone-6-sar-rating-level-edges-extremely-close-to-legal-limits/

cclii^  https://ehtrust.org/fine-print-manufacturer-radio-frequency-radiation-warnings/

ccliii^ https://emfscientist.org/

ccliv^ Sue Halpern. The Terrifying Potential of the 5G Network. September 26, 2019. The New Yorker. Accessed June 24, 2023. https://www.newyorker.com/news/annals-of-communications/the-terrifying-potential-of-the-5g-network

cclv^ Jamie Condliffe. How to Get One Trillion Devices Online. MIT Technology Review. September 20, 2017. Accessed June 24, 2023. https://www.technologyreview.com/2017/09/20/105399/how-to-get-one-trillion-devices-online/

cclvi^ https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2010GL044548

cclvii^ Julian Borger. Microwave weapons that could cause Havana Syndrome exist, experts say. June 2, 2021. Accessed June 5, 2023. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/jun/02/microwave-weapons-havana-syndrome-experts

cclviii^ Defense Intelligence Agency of the United States. BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF ELECTROMAGNETIC RADIATION-RADIOWAVES AND MICROWAVES-EURASIAN COMMUNIST COUNTRIES. March 1976. Zory Glaser Archive. Accessed June 2023. https://zoryglaser.com/biological_effects_of_electromagnetic_radiation-radiowaves_and_microwaves-eurasian_communist_countries/

cclix^ Dr. James Giordano: The Brain is the Battlefield of the Future. Modern War Institute Youtube Channel. October 29, 2018. Accessed June 21, 2023. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N02SK9yd60s

cclx^ Neuroscientist Dr James Giordano. Neuro-Weapons. Directed Energy Weapons. Brain Implants. Task Force EU Coalition Youtube Channel. November 23, 2020. Accessed June 25, 2023. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Wu89LXTmWs

cclxi^ Dr. James Giordano: The Brain is the Battlefield of the Future. Modern War Institute Youtube Channel. October 29, 2018. Accessed June 21, 2023. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N02SK9yd60s

cclxii^ Jason Ford. Radio-beam device can disable car and boat engines from 50m. 16 October 2013. Accessed June 5, 2023. https://www.theengineer.co.uk/content/news/radio-beam-device-can-disable-car-and-boat-engines-from-50m

cclxiii^ Michael Peck. The U.S. Military Wants A Better Microwave Weapon. Will The Police Also Use It?. June 23, 2021. Accessed June 5, 2023. https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelpeck/2021/06/23/the-us-military-wants-a-better–microwave-weapon-will-the-police-also-use-it/?sh=664362f5534a

cclxiv^ Jesse Hollington. What frequency is 5G? All the different 5G ranges, explained. July 10, 2022. Accessed June 5, 2023. https://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/what-frequency-is-5g-all-the-different-5g-ranges-explained/

cclxv^ Zohuri, Bahman. (2019). Millimeter-Wave Energy as Weapon. 10.1007/978-3-030-20794-6_7.

cclxvi^ Active Denial System FAQs. Joint Intermediate Force Capabilities Office, U.S. Department of Defense Non-Lethal Weapons Program. Accessed June 5, 2023. https://jnlwp.defense.gov/About/Frequently-Asked-Questions/Active-Denial-System-FAQs/

cclxvii^ Zohuri, Bahman. (2019). Millimeter-Wave Energy as Weapon. 10.1007/978-3-030-20794-6_7.

cclxviii^ Active Denial System FAQs. Joint Intermediate Force Capabilities Office, U.S. Department of Defense Non-Lethal Weapons Program. Accessed June 5, 2023. https://jnlwp.defense.gov/About/Frequently-Asked-Questions/Active-Denial-System-FAQs/

cclxix^ Active Denial System FAQs. Joint Intermediate Force Capabilities Office, U.S. Department of Defense Non-Lethal Weapons Program. Accessed June 5, 2023. https://jnlwp.defense.gov/About/Frequently-Asked-Questions/Active-Denial-System-FAQs/

cclxx^ Julian Borger. Microwave weapons that could cause Havana Syndrome exist, experts say. June 2, 2021. Accessed June 5, 2023. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/jun/02/microwave-weapons-havana-syndrome-experts

cclxxi^ Active Denial System FAQs. Joint Intermediate Force Capabilities Office, U.S. Department of Defense Non-Lethal Weapons Program. Accessed June 5, 2023. https://jnlwp.defense.gov/About/Frequently-Asked-Questions/Active-Denial-System-FAQs/

cclxxii^ BRETT TINGLEY. The Navy Is Betting Big On High-Power Microwave Weapons. The Warzone, The Drive. UPDATED JAN 7, 2022. Accessed June 5, 2023. https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/43795/navy-is-betting-big-on-high-power-microwave-weapons

cclxxiii^ Tesla: Life and Legacy: A Weapon to End War. PBS. Accessed June 21, 2023. https://www.pbs.org/tesla/ll/ll_wendwar.html

cclxxiv^ SOVIET DIRECTED ENERGY WEAPONS — Perspectives on Strategic Defense. March, 1985. United States Central Intelligence Agency. Accessed June 21, 2023. https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/19850305.pdf

cclxxv^ McCain Conference 2022 Panel: Brain Computer Interface. TheStockdalecenter Youtube Channel. Sep 1, 2022. Accessed June 2023. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKYbI7UoldQ

cclxxvi^ Watch Boeing test radical new ‘silent strike’ laser weapon small enough to fit in a suitcase but powerful enough to blast a drone out of the air. Daily Mail Science and Tech. August 27, 2015. Accessed June 21, 2023. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3213365/Watch-Boeing-test-radical-new-silent-strike-laser-weapon-small-fit-suitcase-powerful-blast-drone-air.html

cclxxvii^ Defense Science Board Task Force on Directed Energy Weapons. December 2007 Office of the Under Secretary of Defense For Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics Washington, D.C. 20301-3140. Accessed June 21, 2023. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA476320.pdf

cclxxviii^ Global Directed Energy Weapons (DEW) Market 2022 to 2027: Increasing Defense Budget and Spending for Military Weapons Drives Growt. Dec. 14, 2022. Yahoo Finance. Accessed June 24, 2023. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/global-directed-energy-weapons-dew-112300276.html

cclxxix^ Sidney Fussell. The Microphones That May Be Hidden in Your Home. February 23, 2019. The Atlantic. Accessed June 21, 2023. https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2019/02/googles-home-security-devices-had-hidden-microphones/583387/

cclxxx^ dBi Values Explained. data-alliance.net. Accessed June 19, 2023. https://www.data-alliance.net/blog/dbi-db-dbm-dbmw-defined-explained-and-differentiated/

cclxxxi^  Shigeaki (Shey) Hakusui. Fixed Wireless Communications at 60GHz Unique Oxygen Absorption Properties. April 10, 2001. RF Global Net. Accessed June 21, 2023. https://www.rfglobalnet.com/doc/fixed-wireless-communications-at-60ghz-unique-0001

cclxxxii^ Release of the 59 – 64 GHz band A statement on Ofcom’s decision for a licence exempt approach for Fixed Wireless Systems in the 60 GHz Band Statement Publication date: 11 December 2009. p. 1. https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/40516/statement.pdf

cclxxxiii^ Rubik B, Brown RR. Evidence for a connection between coronavirus disease-19 and exposure to radiofrequency radiation from wireless communications including 5G. J Clin Transl Res. 2021 Sep 29;7(5):666-681. PMID: 34778597; PMCID: PMC8580522.

cclxxxiv^ Amended Declaration of Barrie Trower. United States District Court District of Oregon Portland Division: AHM, by and through her Guardian ad litem and father, David Mark Morrison, and David Mark Morrison, individually, v. Portland Public Schools, Defendant. Civil Action No. 3:11-cv-00739-MO. December 21 2011. https://web.archive.org/web/20230215105901/http://www.wirelesswatchblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2001/11/20-Amended-Declaration-of-Barry-Trower.pdf

cclxxxv^ Talk Prepared by Barrie Trower for the King of Botswana, April 2010. Magda Havas. https://www.magdahavas.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Barrie_Trower_SA.pdf

cclxxxvi^ Barrie Trower speaks about Microwave Radiation. August 24, 2010. Magda Havas. https://magdahavas.com/health-issues/barrie-trower-speaks-about-microwave-radiation/

cclxxxvii^ 01/21 The Dangers of Microwave Technology – Microwave expert Barrie Trower. The World Foundation for Natural Science Youtube channel. October 8, 2011. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jN_b_8Q8DUw

cclxxxviii^ B TROWER. Confidential Report on TETRA Strictly for the Police Federation of England and Wales. September 2001. http://www.tetrawatch.net/papers/trower_report.pdf

cclxxxix^ B Trower. Wi-Fi – A Thalidomide in the Making. Who Cares? September 2013. https://web.archive.org/web/20150221023449/http://emfsummit.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/WiFi-a-Thalidomide-in-the-making-who-cares.pdf

ccxc^ 01/21 The Dangers of Microwave Technology – Microwave expert Barrie Trower. The World Foundation for Natural Science Youtube channel. October 8, 2011. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jN_b_8Q8DUw

ccxci^ James Dickson and Angela Dickson, Complainants, v. File No. EC-2016-0230 KCP&L Greater Missouri Operations Company, Respondent. Motion – Enter Exhibits into Evidence and/or Judicial Review: Expert Testimony by Barrie Trower for Civil Action #: 3:11-cv-00739-MO for the case AHM, BY AND THROUGH HER Guardian ad litem and father, David Mark Morrison, and David Mard Morrison, individually v. Portland Public Schools. https://www.efis.psc.mo.gov/mpsc/commoncomponents/viewdocument.asp?DocId=936049222

ccxcii^ Amended Declaration of Barrie Trower. United States District Court District of Oregon Portland Division: AHM, by and through her Guardian ad litem and father, David Mark Morrison, and David Mark Morrison, individually, v. Portland Public Schools, Defendant. Civil Action No. 3:11-cv-00739-MO. December 21 2011. https://web.archive.org/web/20230215105901/http://www.wirelesswatchblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2001/11/20-Amended-Declaration-of-Barry-Trower.pdf. p. 24

ccxciii^ Amended Declaration of Barrie Trower. United States District Court District of Oregon Portland Division: AHM, by and through her Guardian ad litem and father, David Mark Morrison, and David Mark Morrison, individually, v. Portland Public Schools, Defendant. Civil Action No. 3:11-cv-00739-MO. December 21 2011. https://web.archive.org/web/20230215105901/http://www.wirelesswatchblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2001/11/20-Amended-Declaration-of-Barry-Trower.pdf. p. 2

ccxciv^ Amended Declaration of Barrie Trower. United States District Court District of Oregon Portland Division: AHM, by and through her Guardian ad litem and father, David Mark Morrison, and David Mark Morrison, individually, v. Portland Public Schools, Defendant. Civil Action No. 3:11-cv-00739-MO. December 21 2011. https://web.archive.org/web/20230215105901/http://www.wirelesswatchblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2001/11/20-Amended-Declaration-of-Barry-Trower.pdf. p. 24

ccxcv^ DIRECTED ENERGY WEAPONS: HIGH POWER MICROWAVES. Office of Naval Research. https://www.nre.navy.mil/organization/departments/aviation-force-projection-and-integrated-defense/aerospace-science-research-351/directed-energy-weapons-high-power-microwaves. Note that the Office of Naval Research’s website says that an area of research is “Novel antenna array concepts, high power beam steering techniques and distributed beam forming approaches,” which sounds similar to language used to describe 5G antenna arrays. J. Jang et al., “Smart Small Cell with Hybrid Beamforming for 5G: Theoretical Feasibility and Prototype Results,” in IEEE Wireless Communications, vol. 23, no. 6, pp. 124-131, December 2016, doi: 10.1109/MWC.2016.1500387WC.

ccxcvi^ https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/capabilities/directed-energy.htm

ccxcvii^ Firstenberg A. 2020. p. 16

ccxcviii^ FAQ: WHAT BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS CAN BE CAUSED BY RF ENERGY? Federal Communications Commission. Accessed June 16, 2023. https://www.fcc.gov/engineering-technology/electromagnetic-compatibility-division/radio-frequency-safety/faq/rf-safety

ccxcix^ Firstenberg A. 2020. p. 104. quoting: Annual Report of the Surgeon General, U.S. Navy. 1919. Washington DC. Government Printing Office. “Report on Influenza,” pp. 358-349.

ccc^ Jordan, Edwin O. 1918. Discussion in: “The Etiology of Influenza,” Proceedings of the American Public Health Association, Forty-Sixth Annual Meeting, Chicago, December 8-11, 1918. Journal fo the American Mecidal Association 71(25): 2097. Cited in Firstenberg A. 2020. p. 106, 398, 438

ccci^ Journal of the American Medical Association, 1918. “Paris Letter. The Influenza Epidemic.” 71(20):1676. Cited in Firstenberg A. 2020. p. 106, 398, 438

cccii^ Berman, Harry. 1918. “Epidemic Influenza in Private Practice.” Journal of the American Medical Association 71(23): 1934-35. Cited in Firstenberg A. 2020. p. 106, 398, 435

ccciii^ Bircher E. “Influenza Epidemic.” 1918. Journal of the American Medical Association 71(23):1946. Cited in Firstenberg A. 2020. p. 106, 398, 435

ccciv^ The following 9 citations listed in Firstenberg, 2020, p. 398, footnote 13: Pflomm 1931; Schliephake 1935, p. 120; Kyuntsel’ and Karmilov 1947; Richardson 1959; Schliephake 1960, p. 88; Rusyaev and Kuksinskiy 1973; Kuksinskiy 1978. See also Persson 1997; Firstenberg 2001, full citations below.

cccv^ Pfomm, Erich. 1931 “Experimentelle une klinische Untersuchungen über die Wirkung ultrakurzer elektrischer Welen auf die Entzündung.” Archiv für klinische Chirurgie 166: 251-305.

cccvi^ Schliephake, Erwin. 1935. Short Wave Therapy: The Medical Uses of Electrical High Frequencies. London: Actinic Press, p. 120.

cccvii^ Kyuntsel’, A. A. and V.I. Karmilov. 1947. “The Effect of an Electromagnetic Field on the Blood Coagulation Rate.” Klinicheskaya Meditsina 25(3):78 (In Russian).

cccviii^ Richardson, Alfred W. 1959. “Blood Coagulation Changes Due to Electromagnetic Microwave Irradiations.” Blood 14: 1273-43.

cccix^ Schliephake, Erwin. 1960. Kurzwellentherapie, 6th ed. Stuttgart: Gustav Fischer.

cccx^ Rusyaev, V.P. and V.E. Kuksinsky. 1973. “Study of Electromagnetic Field Effect on Coagulative and Fibrinolytic Properties of Blood.” Biofizika 11(1): 160-63 (In Russian with English abstract).

cccxi^ Kuksinsky, V.E. 1978. “Coagulation Propeties of the Blood and Tissues of the Cardiovascular System Exposed to an Electromagnetic Field.” Kardiologiya 18(3): 107-11 (In Russian).

cccxii^ Persson, Bertil R.R., Leif G. Salford, and Arne Brun. 1997. “Blood-brain Barrier Permeability in Rats Exposed to Electromagnetic Fields Used in Wireless Communication.” Wireless Networks 3: 455-61.

cccxiii^ Firstenberg, Arthur. 2001. “Radio Waves, the Blood-Brain Barrier, and Cerebral Hemorrhage.” No Place To Hide 3(2): 23-24.

cccxiv^ CELL PHONE RADIATION BIOLOGICAL AND HEALTH EFFECTS DR. DEVRA DAVIS EXPLAINS. Environmental Health Trust. Jul 31, 2022. Accessed June 16, 2023. https://ehtrust.org/cell-phone-radiation-biological-and-health-effects-dr-devra-davis-explains/

cccxv^ Milham S. Historical evidence that electrification caused the 20th century epidemic of “diseases of civilization”. Med Hypotheses. 2010 Feb;74(2):337-45. doi: 10.1016/j.mehy.2009.08.032. Epub 2009 Sep 11. PMID: 19748187.

cccxvi^ GINA MANTICA. 5G Doesn’t Cause COVID-19, But the Rumor That It Does Spread Like a Virus. Boston University School of Public Health. January 13, 2021. Accessed June 16, 2023. https://www.bu.edu/sph/news/articles/2021/5g-doesnt-cause-covid-19-but-myth-went-viral/

cccxvii^ MYTH: THERE’S A CORRELATION BETWEEN COVID AND 5G. Digital Medic, Stanford. April 17, 2020. Accessed June 16, 2023. https://digitalmedic.stanford.edu/myth/myth-theres-a-correlation-between-covid-and-5g/

cccxviii^ 5G and COVID Symptoms: Dr. Magda Havas | Saskatoon Day 3 | National Citizens Inquiry. NationalCitizensInquiryCA Rumble channel. Accessed June 2023. https://rumble.com/v2kcqe6-5g-and-covid-symptoms-dr.-magda-havas-saskatoon-day-3-national-citizens-inq.html

cccxix^ Ibid. Havas presentation. NationalCitizensInquiryCA Rumble channel. Beginning around minute 10:42

cccxx^ Mordachev, V. (2020). Correlation between the potential electromagnetic pollution level and the danger of COVID-19. 4G/5G/6G can be safe for people.

cccxxi^ Havas presentation. NationalCitizensInquiryCA Rumble channel. Minute 35:02

cccxxii^ Tsiang, A., & Havas, M. (2021). COVID-19 Attributed Cases and Deaths are Statistically Higher in States and Counties with 5th Generation Millimeter Wave Wireless Telecommunications in the United States. Medical Research Archives. https://esmed.org/MRA/mra/article/view/2371

cccxxiii^ Repacholi, Michael & Grigoriev, Yuri & Buschmann, Jochen & Pioli, Claudio. (2012). Scientific basis for the Soviet and Russian radiofrequency standards for the general public. Bioelectromagnetics. 33. 10.1002/bem.21742.

cccxxiv^ Russian National Committee of Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection – 2008 report. https://cdn.who.int/media/docs/default-source/radiation/emf-international-project-country-reports/euro-region/russia-report-20089d95ee6c-798b-4dca-b40c-1d9440aacca5.pdf?sfvrsn=ffb0d3a0_3

cccxxv^ Havas presentation. NationalCitizensInquiryCA Rumble channel. Minute 34

cccxxvi^ Hardell, Lennart & Nilsson, Mona. (2023). Ann Case Rep, an open access journal Case Report: The Microwave Syndrome after Installation of 5G Emphasizes the Need for Protection from Radiofrequency Radiation Citation: Hardell L and Nilsson M (2023) Case Report: The Microwave Syndrome after Installation of 5G Emphasizes the Need for Protection from Radiofrequency Radiation. Ann Case Annals of Case Reports. Annals of Case Reports. 8. 10.29011/2574-7754.101112.

cccxxvii^ Search: Hardell L. Filter: last 5 years. United States National Library of Medicine. Pubmed. Accessed June 2023. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=Hardell%20L&filter=datesearch.y_5

cccxxviii^ Hardell L, Koppel T. Electromagnetic hypersensitivity close to mobile phone base stations – a case study in Stockholm, Sweden. Rev Environ Health. 2022 Mar 2;38(2):219-228. doi: 10.1515/reveh-2021-0169. PMID: 35238501.

cccxxix^ Hardell L, Carlberg M. Health risks from radiofrequency radiation, including 5G, should be assessed by experts with no conflicts of interest. Oncol Lett. 2020 Oct;20(4):15. doi: 10.3892/ol.2020.11876. Epub 2020 Jul 15. PMID: 32774488; PMCID: PMC7405337.

cccxxx^ Santini, Roger, P. Santini, P Le Ruz, J M Danze and M. Seigne. “Survey Study of People Living in the Vicinity of Cellular Phone Base Stations.” Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine 22 (2003): 41 – 49.

cccxxxi^ Long COVID. Updated Dec. 16, 2022. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Accessed June 2023. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/long-term-effects/index.html

cccxxxii^ Covid-19 Symptoms. Updated October 26, 2022. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Accessed June 2023. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/symptoms-testing/symptoms.html

cccxxxiii^ Rubik B, Brown RR. Evidence for a connection between coronavirus disease-19 and exposure to radiofrequency radiation from wireless communications including 5G. J Clin Transl Res. 2021 Sep 29;7(5):666-681. PMID: 34778597; PMCID: PMC8580522.

cccxxxiv^ Havas M. Radiation from wireless technology affects the blood, the heart, and the autonomic nervous system. Rev Environ Health. 2013;28(2-3):75-84. doi: 10.1515/reveh-2013-0004. PMID: 24192494.

cccxxxv^ Havas, Magda & Marrongelle, Jeffrey & Pollner, Bernhard & Kelley, Elizabeth & Rees, Camilla & Tully, Lisa & Haspingerstrasse, & Innsbruck, & Austria,. (2010). Provocation study using heart rate variability shows microwave radiation from 2.4 GHz cordless phone affects autonomic nervous system. Eur J Oncol. 5.

cccxxxvi^ Rubik B, Brown RR. Evidence for a connection between coronavirus disease-19 and exposure to radiofrequency radiation from wireless communications including 5G. J Clin Transl Res. 2021 Sep 29;7(5):666-681. PMID: 34778597; PMCID: PMC8580522.

cccxxxvii^ Havas M. Dirty electricity elevates blood sugar among electrically sensitive diabetics and may explain brittle diabetes. Electromagn Biol Med. 2008;27(2):135-46. doi: 10.1080/15368370802072075. PMID: 18568931; PMCID: PMC2557071.

cccxxxviii^ Havas M. Electromagnetic hypersensitivity: biological effects of dirty electricity with emphasis on diabetes and multiple sclerosis. Electromagn Biol Med. 2006;25(4):259-68. doi: 10.1080/15368370601044192. PMID: 17178585.

cccxxxix^  Ben Lobb (Chair). HEALTH CANADA SAFETY CODE 6 Report and Government Response Report 13 RADIOFREQUENCY ELECTROMAGNETIC RADIATION AND THE HEALTH OF CANADIANS: Report of the Standing Committee on Health. JUNE 2015. 41st PARLIAMENT, SECOND SESSION. Accessed June 2023. https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/41-2/HESA/report-13/page-87 HEALTH CANADA SAFETY CODE 6

cccxl^ Firstenberg A. CANCEL-YOUR-CELLPHONE-ACCOUNT DAY JUNE 20-21, 2020. May 20, 2020. Accessed June 2023. https://www.cellphonetaskforce.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Cancel-Your-Cellphone-Account-Day.pdf

cccxli^ Lee Harding. Backlash Grows Against 15-Minute Cities Amid Fears of Curtailed Movement. February 14, 2023. Accessed June 2023. https://www.theepochtimes.com/backlash-grows-against-15-minute-cities-amid-fears-of-curtailed-movement-future-dystopia_5051801.html