WHY ARE WE ALLOWING IT? Part I
The FCC is yet another agency that is captured by the very industry it is meant to regulate.
Ask anyone you know if they’re concerned about the electromagnetic field (EMF) that is emanating from their cell phone or the wireless router that is streaming 24/7 in their home or at the office, the coffee shop and basically everywhere these days? I’d bet the farm that the vast majority of people you know, perhaps even yourself, are unaware of the real harm that is being done to everyone who keeps their cell phone on their person and/or who talks regularly on their cell phone by placing it against their head, instead of using the speaker phone. (I’m sorry to say it doesn’t help if you’re using earbuds). Most consider this a conspiracy theory of sorts while dismissing it out of hand. I urge you to take a moment to educate yourself about the science behind this technology.
On October 17, 2019, Scientific American wrote an article titled “We Have No Reason To Believe 5G Is Safe.”
The telecommunications industry and their experts have accused many scientists who have researched the effects of cell phone radiation of "fear mongering" over the advent of wireless technology's 5G. Since much of our research is publicly-funded, we believe it is our ethical responsibility to inform the public about what the peer-reviewed scientific literature tells us about the health risks from wireless radiation.
The chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) recently announced through a press release that the commission will soon reaffirm the radio frequency radiation (RFR) exposure limits that the FCC adopted in the late 1990s. These limits are based upon a behavioral change in rats exposed to microwave radiation and were designed to protect us from short-term heating risks due to RFR exposure.
Yet, since the FCC adopted these limits based largely on research from the 1980s, the preponderance of peer-reviewed research, more than 500 studies, have found harmful biologic or health effects from exposure to RFR at intensities too low to cause significant heating.
I hate to be the bearer of horrible news my friends, but this inconvenient truth is real. According to Devra L. Davis, epidemiologist, toxicologist, and Fellow at the American College of Epidemiology, “the debate is no longer about whether there is enough proof of human harm—there is—the question now is getting manufacturers to act.”
“The Environmental Health Trust joins with the international commission on the biological effects of electromagnetic fields, and hundreds of other scientists calling for hardware and software changes to reduce wireless radiation to the lowest levels achievable. Today, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled in the historic case EHT et al. v. the FCC that the December 2019 decision by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to retain its 1996 safety limits for human exposure to wireless radiation was “arbitrary and capricious.”
The court held that the FCC failed to respond to “record evidence that exposure to RF radiation at levels below the Commission’s current limits may cause negative health effects unrelated to cancer.” Further, the agency demonstrated “a complete failure to respond to comments concerning environmental harm caused by RF radiation.” The court found the FCC ignored numerous organizations, scientists and medical doctors who called on them to update limits and the court found the FCC failed to address these issues:
impacts of long term wireless exposure
impacts to children,
the testimony of people injured by wireless radiation,
impacts to wildlife and the environment
impacts to the developing brain and reproduction.”
“I am very pleased to see that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has ruled that the FCC ignored decades of studies about the potential health harms of cell phone radiation and must adequately review this material before making a decision about new regulations of cell phones,” said Dr. Jerome Paulson, former American Academy of Pediatrics Environmental Health Council Chair and now Professor Emeritus of Pediatrics and Environmental and Occupational Health at George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences and Milken Institute School of Public Health. “It is very important that the court ruled that the FCC must address the impacts of radiofrequency radiation on the health of children amassed since 1996.” The American Academy of Pediatrics’ submission to the FCC called for a review of safety limits to protect children and pregnant women.
“We are delighted that the court upheld the rule of law and found that the FCC must provide a reasoned record of review for the thousands of pages of scientific evidence submitted by Environmental Health Trust and many other expert authorities in this precedent setting case. No agency is above the law. The American people are well served,” said Dr. Devra Davis, president of Environmental Health Trust.
I’m happy to say that I got an email on November 16th from the Environmental Health Trust sharing some very positive results from Connecticut.
Last week, in a huge win for wireless safety in Connecticut, the Stamford Board of Representatives rejected a proposal that would have proliferated 5G/4G "small" cell antennas into neighborhoods.
Here is the story.
An industry-friendly proposal was poised to allow wireless antennas in front of homes and schools. EHT experts, along with colleagues with expertise in law, policy, and health, were invited to present to the Board of Representatives Land Use Committee. On October 18th, the expert panel shared critical information on the health and environmental impacts of wireless proliferation.
We also presented on the need for federal accountability and protective policy.
That evening, after hours of deliberation, the committee voted against the proposal that would proliferate 5G and "small" cell antennas.
A few weeks later, the full Board joined the Committee and voted "no" on the proposal.
Children’s Health Defense (CHD) is providing a short animated film on electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS), focusing on those who are extremely sensitive to EMFs. The film is being recognized at film festivals around the world and recently won the Best Health Film award at Cannes World Film Festival.
According to CHD- Although estimates vary, a 2019 analysis suggested that 1.5% of the population experience severe EHS/EMS symptoms, 5% have moderate symptoms and 30% have mild symptoms. That means roughly 2.16 million to 99.7 million Americans are likely affected by EHS/EMS.
Yes, some in the scientific community have certainly raised the alarm and it sounds very encouraging that The Environmental Health Trust and CHD have stepped up by taking real action. Unfortunately, the federal ruling took place on August 16th, 2021 which was over 2 years ago and the FCC has failed to take any action. Should we be surprised by that? Unfortunately, that’s the norm. That’s how it works. Even when legal action is taken, the federal agencies fail to do their job. Can we consider this anything less than blatant corruption? We cannot. Let me make myself very clear. We MUST not.
If you’re wondering who else has failed us, then look no further than the FCC and mainstream media (MSM). The roll out of 5G hasn’t been investigated by mainstream media’s investigative journalists in any substantive way. Instead they remain essentially silent as dangerous cell towers are being put up next to schools and in residential areas. Robert F. Kennedy’s CHD took charge and took action. They were instrumental in preventing such a cell tower from going up next to a school. To learn more about what CHD is doing to educate the public about the hazards of 5G, you can click on this link.
I believe it is critical for you to educate yourself about this frightening situation.
The Environmental Trust (ET) has also taken substantial action around the country to prevent these towers from being installed.
At the Federal level, regulations have moved forward to strip the rights of state and local governments to regulate the 5G build out. The FCC voted to fastrack 5G and 4G small cell infrastructure with new rules put forward in 2018 and 2019. Communities who want to restrict the buildout of cell tower networks with protective setbacks are limited by these federal rules. At the state level about 30 US states have laws in the books that also fasttrack installations and strip the authority of counties, cities and towns. This state small cell legislation streamlines the application process to access public rights of way, puts caps on costs and fees and tightens timelines for consideration and processing of cell siting applications. At the local level, cities are putting forward ordinances that remove setbacks that were in place for large cell towers and put in new setbacks such as 10 to 30 feet, allowing cell towers right near homes.
Summary of Action in the USA
The New Hampshire Commission to Study the Environmental and Health Effects of Evolving 5G Technology released its final report with 15 recommendations to reduce public exposure, increase transparency and strengthen federal regulations. The 5G Report recommends US federal agencies coordinate “to protect people, wildlife, and the environment from harmful levels of radiation” and states “until there is Federal action, New Hampshire should take the initiative to protect its environment.” The Commission recommendations include a public education campaign on reducing exposure, replacing Wi-Fi with wired (not wireless) networks in schools and independently funded health studies.
Oregon’s SB 283 requires the Oregon Health Authority to review the peer-reviewed, independently funded scientific studies of the health effects of exposure to microwave radiation, particularly children’s exposure from wireless in schools. EHT will be releasing more information on this report in February 2021. Other passed state Bills to create investigations into 5G include Louisiana Bill HR 145.
You can see where more action has taken place around the country by clicking on the link above from the ET. Unfortunately, the regulation in Oregon is being placed in the corrupt hands of the Oregon Health Authority (OHA). Shouldn’t the OHA already be investigating the potential health issues associated with EMF technology? One needs to understand the actions taken by the OHA during the pandemic to see why I believe we may have a problem here. They were guilty of blindly following the rules established by our public health agencies. I personally sent scientific information to my local health authority and hand delivered a packet to the OHA and a certified mailing to the governor. I never received a reply. They bought the propaganda without ever questioning the science. They had to know that a non-sterilizing vaccine could not prevent transmission or infection. They allowed the unvaccinated to be discriminated against. They encouraged Oregonians to “do the right thing to protect grandma” by getting vaccinated. They prevented the unvaccinated from going to restaurants. They prevented the unvaccinated from going to the gym. They prevented the unvaccinated from attending local events, even those outside, by failing to make a statement to allay the exaggerated concerns of local communities. They helped create an environment where people were afraid of the unvaccinated. Robert Malone has a shocking compilation of MSM attacks against the unvaccinated that is extremely disturbing to watch. I urge you to watch it for the full 11 minutes. You’ll find it in his substack where the video No one is safe until everyone is safe is prominently displayed.
If you’ve taken the time to watch the video, you’re now aware of the hatred that was hurled upon the unvaccinated. They even joked about it being ok or reasonable for them to die. You can’t make this stuff up. It is truly unbelievable how an otherwise normal society, for the most part, can digress to such a lowered standard of human behavior, a behavior that during normal times would be shocking. As you saw on the video, this became acceptable talk during the early, scary time of the pandemic and continued for 2 years. The public was whipped into a frenzy of fear and the unvaccinated were made the scapegoat. For the first time, this is actually helping me, as a psychologist, to understand how it was possible for the German people to allow Jews to be treated inhumanely. No, the unvaccinated were not gassed, starved, experimented upon (that was done to the vaccinated I’m afraid) or put in concentration camps. They were merely identified as the reason for everyone’s suffering. As President Biden said on MSM, “This is a pandemic of the unvaccinated”. Given this horrible reality, why should we believe that the Oregon Health Authority isn’t also captured by the FCC?
I must get one thing off my chest. Yes, I brought up the holocaust. No, I do not care that most in the Jewish community find it anathema to compare anything to the horrors of the holocaust and for anyone who dares to do so is judged to be anti-semitic. I am a Jew. My maternal grandmother lost her 5 sisters during the holocaust. I am NOT anti-semitic. I believe we must listen to the voices of many remaining holocaust survivors who state that the treatment of the unvaccinated is far too familiar to them. The analogy stands. First identify a group that one can blame the existing problems on. Define them as a separate class. Isolate them. Label them as unclean. That is the essence of what happened to the unvaccinated for over 2 years. My oldest friend, whom I met in Girl Scout camp when I was 11 years old said “You have blood on your hands” because I created this substack where I shared my views during the pandemic. A friend whom I had known for 10 years, an attorney actually said “I hope all the unvaccinated die”, knowing I was unvaccinated. I was not invited to local social events once people were allowed to spend time with friends. I wasn’t invited to a wedding of their children by friends I’ve known for 50 years. I was essentially persona non grata. Until you have lived the consequences of our governments actions, you can’t begin to understand the harm that was done to those who chose not to be vaccinated. I believe watching the above video will help you see why people hated us, why they feared us, and that it was actually socially acceptable to treat us in disparaging ways.
Please excuse my digression but yes, I still have unresolved feelings about the pandemic. Getting back on track with EMF issues, however, the real question we must ask ourselves is - did we the people need faster internet? That is the reported reason for the upgrade to 5G. I don’t believe we do. Governments do, however. Take a gander at what governments around the world are doing with facial recognition tools. Apparently “smart cities”, which are growing exponentially around the globe are in reality “surveilled cities”. Cities around the world are getting smarter. A growing number even designated themselves “smart cities.” There are, of course, as many definitions of smart cities as there are cities professing to be smart. Very generally, smart cities deploy a host of information communication technologies—including high-speed communication networks, sensors, and mobile phone apps—to boost mobility and connectivity, supercharge the digital economy, increase energy efficiency, improve the delivery of services, and generally raise the level of their residents’ welfare. Becoming “smart” typically involves harnessing troves of data to optimize city functions—from more efficient use of utilities and other services to reducing traffic congestion and pollution—all with a view to empowering public authorities and residents.
However one defines them, data-enabled cities are booming. By one estimate, there are over a thousand smart city projects underway around the world. Rankings and indices are also proliferating, with such cities as Singapore, Helsinki, Seoul, and Zurich routinely topping the list. Notwithstanding global enthusiasm for hyperconnected cities, this futuristic wired urban world has a dark side. What’s more, the pitfalls may soon outweigh the supposed benefits.
That’s because “smart” is increasingly a euphemism for surveillance. Cities in at least 56 countries worldwide have deployed surveillance technologies powered by automatic data mining, facial recognition, and other forms of artificial intelligence. Urban surveillance is a multibillion-dollar industry, with Chinese and U.S.-based companies such as Axis, Dahua, Hikvision, Huawei, and ZTE leading the charge. Whether they are in China or elsewhere, smart cities are usually described in benign terms with the soothing promise of greener energy solutions, lower-friction mobility, and safer streets. Yet in a growing number of places from New York to Hong Kong, there are growing concerns about the ways in which supercharged surveillance is encroaching on free speech, privacy, and data protection. But the truth is that facial recognition and related technologies are far from the most worrisome feature of smart cities.
Part of what supposedly makes cities smarter is the deployment and integration of surveillance technologies such as sensors and biometric data collection systems. Electronic, infrared, thermal, and lidar sensors form the basis of the smart grid, and they do everything from operating streetlights to optimizing parking and traffic flow to detecting crime. Some cities are adopting these platforms more quickly than others. China, for example, is home to 18 of the top 20 most surveilled cities in the world. Shanghai, which achieved full 5G coverage in its downtown area and 99 percent fiber-optic coverage across the city, is covered by a veritable thicket of video surveillance. Identity collection devices are commonplace, having exploded across public and private spaces. Shanghai recently installed Alibaba’s City Brain public surveillance system, which oversees over 1,100 biometric facial recognition cameras. A combination of satellites, drones, and fixed cameras grab over 20 million images a day. The bus, metro, and credit cards of local residents are also traced in real time. And these tools are spreading. Chinese firms are busily exporting surveillance tech to Latin America, other parts of Asia, and Africa, helping enable what some critics call digital authoritarianism.
Let’s take a look at the WHO and see what they’ve determined about EMF exposure. According to the CHD, In 2011, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) as “possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B).” And in January, the IARC announced it will “coordinate production of a risk assessment on 5G exposures” scheduled to be released in 2025.”
Unfortunately, given that the 5G rollout is happening in 2023, the investigation due out in 2025 is far too late for most countries around the globe…..so it’s too little, too late I’m afraid. So what in the world are we going to do about all of this? I believe that until we have a president who understands the reality of the capture of our federal agencies by the very industries they were meant to regulate, nothing will change. This includes the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) of course. We have a climate crisis that is killing our planet, our wildlife, our rivers streams and oceans and our citizens. Planet earth, our home, is dying and governments around the world can’t seem to agree on a necessary plan of action.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr, who is running for the Presidency in 2024, has litigated and won hundreds of corruption cases involving the pollution of our waterways as well as taking legal action against 5G, which is actually considered one of his “conspiracy theories”. If you’ve read the above information on 5G, do you still think it’s a conspiracy theory? Shouldn’t the FCC have taken action to protect us? Should the EPA have protected us? Aren’t they tasked with regulating corporate polluters of our environment? The unfortunate reality is that our EPA did not regulate the corporate polluters so Kennedy took charge and brought the EPA to court….and won! Kennedy’s CHD is doing the same thing with 5G. No other presidential candidate has the ethics apparently, nor lack of conflicts of interest nor suitable expertise to make the critical changes within our federal agencies. We’ve had Democratic Presidents who failed to take action. As I recall, Al Gore warned us of an “Inconvenient Truth” back in 2006. We’ve had Republican presidents who also failed to take action. Isn’t it time for a change? Isn’t it time to elect someone who has a proven track record in winning over 500 lawsuits against corrupt corporations who have polluted our precious environment and endangered our health, as well as having successfully sued federal agencies who failed to hold those corporations accountable?
I hope you will join me by sharing this critically important information with everyone in your family and your network. Until the citizens of the world are aware of the harm that is happening right now, we won’t be able to stop this massive roll out of 5G which threatens not only the independence and freedom of each of us, but causes real harm to our health and the health of our children and grandchildren. I believe we can make a difference. I believe that we can take back control of our lives and our health… but it will require that everyone, and that means you as well, must take action. Sometimes taking action is really hard because it demands that you go out into the street and march, holding signs and raising your voice in protest. I’m asking you to simply share this valuable information with your people. I don’t believe that’s asking too much……do you?
Thank you Michelle. I look forward to your essays and will share far and wide. The convenience and addiction to faster and faster technology has overtaken the sensibilities of many.
Just as many people didn’t question or want to doubt the experts and authorities regarding the mandated injections (gamely rolling up their sleeves to go to work/school/dinner/social events) and got sucked into the fear campaign, they are also unwilling or unable to take a broader look at the issue of corporate capture of our regulatory agencies. It’s like it’s just too hard to believe the government isn’t protecting us.
As we have become attached to our phones, and our kids/young adults don’t know life without the constant connection, it’s easier not to associate the negative effects and symptoms of too much unhealthy EMF exposure. People don’t want to pull back the curtain.
For those of us who didn’t comply, for whatever reasons, during the crusade to get a needle in every arm, and were cast out of not-so-polite society, it’s easier to see the malfeasance of our government agencies.
I’m glad today’s essay was a Part 1. I’ll be looking forward to future parts and in the meantime, spreading awareness out into the world. I’m also spreading awareness of the only candidate for president who is independent and is focusing on OUR nation’s health and prosperity.
✨✨KENNEDY24. ✨✨
Thank you Michelle for bringing up this very important subject. I have been aware of, and concerned about, the effects of EMFs for a very long time. When I was looking at buying a new home 20 years ago, I remember thinking to myself "what were people thinking" when I saw homes that were sitting relatively close to high intensity power lines. Now, 20 years later, when it's almost impossible to avoid EMFs that we are all surrounded by everywhere, I do what I can to minimize my exposure. I am a cancer survivor, so it is that much more important for me to keep my exposure as low as is humanly possible. Over the years, I have minimized my use of my cell phone, and when I do use it, I use it on speaker. I have shutoff all WiFi in my home and had all computers hardwired. Now that they are rolling out 5G, I'm hard-pressed to find a solution that will prevent my constant exposure to that. Short of building a Faraday cage around my home, or myself while being out and about, I don't know how, or if, I can do that. I hope more people, like you, continue to ring the alarm bells on this matter. Thank you.