LED lights are making us blind and wreaking havoc on our endocrine systems, peer-reviewed studies show… Leading photobiologist recommends switching back to sunlight, candles and incandescent bulbs.

One of the world’s top photobiologists has been trying to warn the public for years about the dangers of the government-mandated phasing out of incandescent lighting.

While LEDs (light-emitting diodes) are up to 95 percent more energy efficient than incandescent bulbs, we are paying for that savings with our health.

A physician and lecturer at Wismar University in Germany, Alexander Wunsch is an international consultant to governments, medical facilities and the lighting industry.

His message, though often ignored, is clear: blue light, isolated from all the other colors on the light spectrum, is damaging our retinas and disrupting our endocrine systems, resulting in all sorts of physical and mental illness.

It’s not a message the LED industry, governments looking to cut carbon emissions, or consumers saving money on electricity want to hear. But, as this Harvard Medical School report says, it is “backed up by study after study.”

Natural light vs. LED light

Natural light gives off all the colors (wavelengths) of the rainbow in a somewhat continuous manner, Wunsch explains in an interview with Dr. Mercola.



When San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo resigned from a FCC advisory committee last week, it was a move that should alert communities around the country that they are facing the imminent prospect of new federal regulations (and possibly more rounds of state legislation). These new regulations would likely remove local authority to control the placement of wireless facilities, and to charge for — and control access by — wireless providers to community-owned properties, including street lights, parks and buildings.

Last year, the new FCC Chairman created a Broadband Deployment Advisory Committee with the goal of providing advice and recommendations for the Commission on how to accelerate the deployment of high-speed Internet to underserved residents and communities. The BDAC’s specific objectives included identifying barriers to deployment, developing a model state legislation to encourage deployment and developing model local codes that could encourage deployment. The make-up of the Committee was cause for concern from the outset. Municipal and tribal authorities had few representatives on the Committee – its composition was heavily weighted toward industry.

At about the same time the BDAC was formed, the FCC commenced a new proceeding on wireline and wireless infrastructure deployment. Under the new proceeding the agency proposed to severely limit the ability of localities and states to charge for access to public property. Additionally, it was proposed to severely circumscribe local authority to control access to rights of way and private property by wireline and wireless infrastructure and service providers. There was concern that BDAC would provide a vehicle for endorsing and supporting the FCC’s proposed limits.

Nonetheless, Mayor Liccardo and others sought to work within the BDAC to see if solutions that respected legitimate state and local interests, as well as worker rights, could be developed. Last week, as the BDAC began to finalize its reports, Liccardo resigned. His resignation letter – which deserves a full read – explains that BDAC had turned into a vehicle for promoting an industry wish list, without any real regard for promoting broadband deployment:

“…[T]he industry heavy makeup of BDAC will simply relegate the body to being a vehicle for advancing the interests of the telecommunications industry over those of the public. The apparent goal is to create a set of rules that will provide industry with easy access to publicly funded infrastructure at taxpayer subsidised rates, without any obligation to provide broadband access to underserved residents.”

Liccardo went on, “…after nine months of deliberation, negotiation, and discussion, we’ve made no progress toward a single proposal that will actually further the goal of equitable broadband deployment.”

The Mayor’s position reflected the position of many communities throughout the U.S., including the 60 that submitted a joint letter to BDAC. The letter, in part, states: “…we oppose the inherent stance of the Broadband Deployment Advisory Committee’s work that assumes that state and local governments present the primary barrier to broadband deployment, while broadband industry provider practices and market structure are a secondary concern…We ask that in your final recommendations, you protect long-held local authority to manage the public rights of way, honour our Constitutionally guaranteed protection of fair compensation on the use of public assets, and maintain our Congressionally recognised right to govern the siting of cell towers and small cells in our communities.”

In a minority report, authored by Liccardo and others including Kevin Pagan, city attorney of the City of McAllen, Tex. and Miguel Gamino, Jr., CIO of New York City, warned that the Committee “failed to live up to its mission” and went on to question the basis for — and the legality of — many of the BDAC’S recommendations.
Within the next few months, we fully expect the FCC to adopt a series of orders, and perhaps commence a series of new rulemakings, that will be designed to restrict state and local wireline and wireless authority, including authority to charge fees for use of the rights of way or other public property.

We also expect that the BDAC “models” will be taken to state legislatures to encourage them to adopt new restrictions on local authority.

It will be critical for localities to be aware of the threat, and to form coalitions that can support meaningful efforts to protect state and local interests. Localities may wish to support  Liccardo, the joint letter or the minority report by filing a supporting letter in GN Docket No. 17-83, and contacting Congressional and state representatives to alert them to the community’s position, as well as the problems with the BDAC report.Communities interested in working with a coalition on federal wireless issues, in developing responses to state legislative efforts, or filing comments in support of local or municipal rights should contact the authors of this Legal Alert to the right in the firm’s Telecommunications and Government Relations practice groups, or your BB&K attorney.

Please feel free to share this Legal Alert or subscribe by clicking here. Follow us on Facebook @BestBestKrieger or on Twitter @BBKlaw.

Disclaimer: BB&K Legislative Alerts are not intended as legal advice. Additional facts or future developments may affect subjects contained herein. Seek the advice of an attorney before acting or relying upon any information in this communiqué.




Internet of Things (IoT) is an evolution from Machine-to-Machine (M2M), with the latter being a rudimentary form of connecting machines for simple tasks such as starting a vehicle remotely.

IoT consists of a wide range of use cases, some of which can be fairly complicated. It is widely believed that IoT will be a key business driver for telecommunication service providers and enterprises in the coming years. More recently, the industry has created the term Massive IoT (MIoT), referring to the connection for a large number of devices and machines (potentially on the order of tens of billions) on a regular basis.

Alternatively, other IoT applications which require high availability, coverage, and low latency can be categorised under Critical IoT and could be enabled by LTE or 5G.

Yet a third group might be defined as ‘enterprise applications’ which need moderate bitrate, mobility support and use devices smarter than basic connected sensors. With the evolution of M2M to IoT, different types of connectivity are involved. In addition to connecting more devices or machines, new value is being created by the data generated, for example through big data analytics.

According to a study by McKinsey, IoT has a total potential economic impact of up to $11 trillion by 2025.1 It covers numerous business opportunities, which can be classified in multiple ways. Some consider five key verticals of adoption: Connected Wearables, Connected Cars, Connected Homes, Connected Cities, and the Industrial IoT.

For enterprises, their interest in IoT is driven by multiple forces: • Cost Savings • Process Optimization • Revenue Generation • Customer Experience On the other hand, operators have different reasons to consider IoT: • Generation of new revenue (for example, connected cars) • Protect existing revenue (for example, smart home solutions as a complement of existing broadband businesses) • Providing platforms for vertical markets, especially where connectivity revenue might be low In addition, communications service providers can now offer solutions and services to enterprises and help them benefit from mobility, cloud and IoT applications.

Forecasts show that IoT market will grow by several orders of magnitude. With a disruptive estimate, the total number of IoT devices will reach 48 billion, of which 4.6 billion will be cellular IoT devices, by the year 2020.2 These represent multipliers of 41x and 28x respectively when compared to the numbers in 2014.3 These connected IoT devices include connected cars, machines, sensors, point-of-sales terminals, consumer electronics and wearables.


Read More

June 11, 2013 Ronald M. Powell, Ph.D.1 Biological Effects from RF Radiation at Low5Intensity Exposure, based on the BioInitiative 2012 Report, and the Implications for Smart Meters and Smart Appliances Introduction and Conclusions.

Read More

Smart Meters: Countdown to a National Crisis of Illness and Death

by John P. Thomas
Health Impact News

Electric utility companies are in the process of installing smart meters at all of their customer locations, which are making thousands of their customers sick. These meters emit microwave radiation in the 900+ megahertz frequency band, which is known to cause weakness, fatigue, sleep disturbances, heart palpitations, ringing in the ears, pain, and immune system disruption. These smart meters broadcast intense bursts of microwave radiation through the air many times per minute, 24-hours a day. [1, 2, 3, 4]

Smart meters also add high frequency electromagnetic radiation in the kilohertz frequency band to the electrical wiring of every building where they are attached. This electromagnetic radiation is also harmful. It turns the electric wiring in buildings into giant antennas that fill the interior spaces with radiation frequencies that are known to alter human biological functioning. These same frequencies are used in medical research to block the activity of nerves. [5]

The nationwide installation of smart meters is like a time bomb ticking, because the harmful effects are cumulative — it can take 5 or 10 years of exposure to evoke a life-threatening illness.

At some point, it will not be thousands who suffer from electromagnetic radiation sickness, but there will be an explosion of illness. There will be millions of people who are experiencing chronic disability and fatal illness from exposure that spanned many decades. [6]

Full Article : http://healthimpactnews.com/2017/smart-meters-countdown-to-a-national-crisis-of-illness-and-death/


Anyone who’s used an app or online service is probably familiar with the concept of consent. It’s a legal requirement that companies or public organizations that want your electronic personal information should not only ask first, but explain in detail what they want to collect, what they plan to do with it, who they might share it with and why.

But in a smart city, consent “goes out the window straight away,” says Murakami Wood. It’s already hard enough to get people to read the terms of service for the apps they use, and experts are skeptical we could expect any better of someone crossing into the boundary of a smart city neighborhood.

Smart cities, after all, take data collection and analysis to a new, previously unimagined extreme. And with so many different sensors and so much data being collected and analysed, how could anyone be expected to understand, much less consent to it all?

Full Article