VOLUME 2, ISSUE 12PE512-E514, DECEMBER 01, 2018

As the Planetary Health Alliance moves forward after a productive second annual meeting, a discussion on the rapid global proliferation of artificial electromagnetic fields would now be apt. The most notable is the blanket of radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation, largely microwave radiation generated for wireless communication and surveillance technologies, as mounting scientific evidence suggests that prolonged exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation has serious biological and health effects. However, public exposure regulations in most countries continue to be based on the guidelines of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection and Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, which were established in the 1990s on the belief that only acute thermal effects are hazardous. Prevention of tissue heating by radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation is now proven to be ineffective in preventing biochemical and physiological interference. For example, acute non-thermal exposure has been shown to alter human brain metabolism by NIH scientists, electrical activity in the brain, and systemic immune responses. Chronic exposure has been associated with increased oxidative stress and DNA damage  and cancer risk.

Full Article : https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(18)30221-3/fulltext?fbclid=IwAR1ci3LkaHj-xQCUTTFbj9mpE5wGqFqKZ_7g8ShmgJbmmuC671YWTu3IQaM

 

Further to your communication in which your purpose is to encourage Smart meter acceptance, I would like to decline on the following grounds.

There are numerous studies that show us that wireless signals emitted from ‘smart’ meters are a possible human carcinogen and that similar radiofrequency signals have been reported to have adverse health effects in a large number of scientific studies, including damage to fertility, foetal development, brain development and increased cell death.  Possible adverse health effects ought to be mentioned in all ‘smart’ meter adverts.

https://www.vigiliae.org/peer-reviewed-scientific-studies-on-emf-related-subjects/

An expert in smart meter microwave transmission power has published new research showing that, contrary to the official government narrative, the radiation emitted from smart meters directly interferes with normal heart function.

Cordless phones, Wi-fi and Smart meters operate on the 2.4GHz frequency which is the frequency that water molecules vibrate on their axis and of course our bodies are 70% water.

According to studies, 3% of the population are severely sensitive to EMF, 35% are moderately sensitive and 80% are suffering health problems which has been magnified greatly with the introduction of Smart meters.

Smart meters produce 140 to 800 times more radiation than a mobile phone and they are on constantly.

We are electromagnetic beings, and we are affected by electricity in our environment.  The increasing saturation of wireless radiation (cell towers, cell and cordless phones, wi-fi and smart meters) pollutes our air and living environments. http://emfsafetynetwork.org/safety-precautions/electrical-sensitivity/

So I refuse on health grounds.

There are also concerns about smart meter safety, as there have been reports of the devices suddenly exploding and catching on fire.

This is why groups like the American Academy of Environmental Medicine are calling on a total recall of all smart meters until their true effects have been properly studied. The public needs to know the risks before smart meters become so ubiquitous that turning back is no longer and option.

The EMF Safety Network  this year reported fires, explosions and burned-out appliances due to ‘Smart’ Meter installations in Australia, Canada and the US.

But with the fact that the UK’s 53mn electricity and gas meters are usually located indoors rather than on exterior walls, the risks with fires here are far more serious.

So I refuse on safety grounds

Another study out of the Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences has identified some other serious problems with smart meters – mainly that many of them overcharge customers.

More than half of the smart meters tested as part of an experiment were found to be riddled with computational and energy use errors. In some cases, false readings clocked in as high as 582 percent beyond actual usage. Right behind this were meters that had false readings of 581, 566, and 475 percent higher than the amount of energy that was actually used.

In theory, such figures could lead to some customers being charged as much as six times more than they should be for electricity usage – meaning massive profits for the utility companies pushing these things.

So I refuse on extortion grounds

Estimated cost of rolling out smart meters has gone from £11bn to nearer £20bn

This would wipe out all the savings households were promised they would make

If the £9bn cost is passed on in full, it would add £300 on to every bill by 2030http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/bills/article-5442371/The-9bn-extra-cost-smart-meters.html 

So I refuse on extra financial cost grounds

 As for Smart meters being  the  first time put consumers in control of their energy use, helping them to adopt energy efficiency measures that can help save money.

There are already Energy Monitoring devices that can be purchased, some for as little as £25 which can be attached to wiring to monitor your energy use.

In fact they will have the opposite effect

According to researchers,the communications industry could use 20% of all the world’s electricity by 2025, hampering attempts to meet climate change targets and straining grids as demand by power-hungry server farms storing digital data from billions of smartphones, tablets and internet-connected devices grows exponentially.https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320225452_Total_Consumer_Power_Consumption_Forecast

So I refuse on energy saving grounds.

Has `Public Health England’ conducted `any’ trials re the safety of the smart system when we already know about the health effects of smart meters from International `Health Experts’, disregarded by PHE? Given PHE’s stance on Wi-Fi in school there is little hope that PHE is in any position to conduct proper safety trials.

 

  • I trust this explains my full reasons for refusing your ‘Not so Smart’ meter 

 

The international biomedical research community has made it quite clear that radio-frequency radiation, and specifically cellular radio-frequency radiation, can harm people in an enormous number of ways.
Just recently the National Institutes of Health linked cellular radiation to brain cancer (glioma) which is usually fatal, and to a nerve cancer (schwannoma) that can be fatal.
This report of a study by the NIH was released 1st November 2018. https://www.niehs.nih.gov/news/newsroom/releases/2018/november1/index.cfm
In the study, they clearly claim that “ These studies did not investigate the types of RFR used for Wi-Fi or 5G networks.
“5G is an emerging technology that hasn’t really been defined yet. From what we currently understand, it likely differs dramatically from what we studied,” said Wyde.
That is, the scientific evidence suggests that we must treat radio-frequency radiation, and in particular cellular radiation, not only as dangerous to health generally, but also as a CARCINOGEN that is dangerous to life itself.
Here is a link to thousands of independent studies on the dangers. https://www.vigiliae.org/peer-reviewed-scientific-studies-on-emf-related-subjects/ 
We therefor wish to invoke the “Precautionary Principle ” approach to 5G technology and Infrastructure.
Which holds that society does NOT need absolute proof of hazard to place limits on a given technology, if the evidence is sufficiently solid and the risks sufficiently great, the precautionary principle calls for the delaying of deployment of that technology until further research clarifies its impact.
The precautionary principle is detailed in Article 191 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It aims at ensuring a higher level of environmental protection through preventative decision-taking in the case of risk to human, animal and plant health.
According to the Commission the precautionary principle may be invoked when a phenomenon, product or process may have a dangerous effect, identified by a scientific and objective evaluation, specifically if this evaluation does not allow the risk to be determined with sufficient certainty.
The precautionary principle may only be invoked when the three preliminary conditions are met:
identification of potentially adverse effects;
These have been well identified and recorded in the literature. There are many thousands of peer- reviewed studies in the scientific literature demonstrating both biological effects, adverse health effects and adverse effects on concentration, memory and behaviour due to RF exposure.
There are more positive studies showing effects than negative ones showing no effects – and, anyway,one negative one does not cancel a positive one – the different results just show the variability in the data and suggest issues with methodology.
evaluation of the scientific data available;
The two BioInitiative Reports give a great deal of useful detail. Many scientific and medical organisations are expressing concerns in writing about biological and adverse effects on well-being from modern wireless devices.

It is a report by 29 independent scientists and health experts from around the world about possible risks from wireless technologies and electromagnetic fields.

The new report by the BioInitiative Working Group 2012 says that evidence for risks to health has substantially increased since 2007 from electromagnetic fields and wireless technologies (radiofrequency radiation). The Report reviews over 1800 new scientific studies.  http://www.bioinitiative.org/

The World Health Organisation’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified RF radiation as a Group 2B “possible human carcinogen” in 2011.
the extent of scientific uncertainty.
It is clear that the inconsistent evidence of the data and evaluation are creating an uncertainty of the dangers.
The precautionary principle shall be informed by three specific principles:
• the fullest possible scientific evaluation, the determination, as far as possible, of the degree of scientific uncertainty;
• a risk evaluation and an evaluation of the potential consequences of inaction;
• the participation of all interested parties in the study of precautionary measures, once the results of the scientific evaluation and/or the risk evaluation are available.
In addition, the general principles of risk management remain applicable when the precautionary principle is invoked.
These are the following five principles :
• proportionality between the measures taken and the chosen level of protection
• non-discrimination in application of the measures;
• consistency of the measures with similar measures already taken in similar situations or using similar approaches;
• examination of the benefits and costs of action or lack of action;
• review of the measures in the light of scientific developments
(This is basically the bones of the letter that we need to write)

In order to get people to accept 5G and Smart technology, Bristol City Council is giving away free machines to residents!

BRIBERY!

Bristol City Council is offering energy-saving washing machines, dishwashers and tumble-dryers to householders in the Ashley, Easton and Lawrence Hill areas of the city. These high-tech devices can be controlled remotely by you and will go a long way towards reducing your energy bills. We’re offering them for FREE for households who take part in a new research project. We’ll even install them and show you how they work. As this is a grant-funded pilot scheme, we have a limited supply, so this will be a ‘first come first served’ offer for eligible residents.

https://www.connectingbristol.org/smart-homes/smart-connected-homes/?fbclid=IwAR2tTVEorGWMzd1UEOzNL357DA-zHmQNahMIoPDPEBXkvIiFCOyWwkC7W2o

 

On November 1, 2018 the National Institutes of Environmental Health Sciences National Toxicology Program released their final reports on their $25 M study on cell phone radiation.

Read the NIH  Press release 11/1/2018: High Exposure to Radio Frequency Radiation Associated With Cancer in Male Rats. 

The National Toxicology Program (NTP) concluded there is clear evidence that male rats exposed to high levels of radio frequency radiation (RFR) like that used in 2G and 3G cell phones developed cancerous heart tumors, according to final reports released today. There was also some evidence of tumors in the brain and adrenal gland of exposed male rats. For female rats, and male and female mice, the evidence was equivocal as to whether cancers observed were associated with exposure to RFR. The final reports represent the consensus of NTP and a panel of external scientific experts who reviewed the studies in March after draft reports were issued in February.

“The exposures used in the studies cannot be compared directly to the exposure that humans experience when using a cell phone,” said John Bucher, Ph.D., NTP senior scientist. “In our studies, rats and mice received radio frequency radiation across their whole bodies. By contrast, people are mostly exposed in specific local tissues close to where they hold the phone. In addition, the exposure levels and durations in our studies were greater than what people experience.”

The lowest exposure level used in the studies was equal to the maximum local tissue exposure currently allowed for cell phone users. This power level rarely occurs with typical cell phone use. The highest exposure level in the studies was four times higher than the maximum power level permitted.

“We believe that the link between radio frequency radiation and tumors in male rats is real, and the external experts agreed,” said Bucher.

The $30 million NTP studies took more than 10 years to complete and are the most comprehensive assessment, to date, of health effects in animals exposed to RFR with modulations used in 2G and 3G cell phones. 2G and 3G networks were standard when the studies were designed and are still used for phone calls and texting.

“A major strength of our studies is that we were able to control exactly how much radio frequency radiation the animals received — something that’s not possible when studying human cell phone use, which has often relied on questionnaires,” said Michael Wyde, Ph.D., lead toxicologist on the studies.

He also noted the unexpected finding of longer lifespans among the exposed male rats. “This may be explained by an observed decrease in chronic kidney problems that are often the cause of death in older rats,” Wyde said.

The animals were housed in chambers specifically designed and built for these studies. Exposure to RFR began in the womb for rats and at 5 to 6 weeks old for mice, and continued for up to two years, or most of their natural lifetime. The RFR exposure was intermittent, 10 minutes on and 10 minutes off, totaling about nine hours each day. RFR levels ranged from 1.5-6 watts per kilogram in rats, and 2.5-10 watts per kilogram in mice.

These studies did not investigate the types of RFR used for Wi-Fi or 5G networks.

5G is an emerging technology that hasn’t really been defined yet. From what we currently understand, it likely differs dramatically from what we studied,” said Wyde.

For future studies, NTP is building smaller RFR exposure chambers that will make it easier to evaluate newer telecommunications technologies in weeks or months, rather than years. These studies will focus on developing measurable physical indicators, or biomarkers, of potential effects from RFR. These may include changes in metrics like DNA damage in exposed tissues, which can be detected much sooner than cancer.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration nominated cell phone RFR for study by NTP because of widespread public use of cell phones and limited knowledge about potential health effects from long-term exposure. NTP will provide the results of these studies to FDA and the Federal Communications Commission, who will review the information as they continue to monitor new research on the potential effects of RFR.

NTP uses four categories to summarize the evidence that a substance may cause cancer:

  • Clear evidence (highest)
  • Some evidence
  • Equivocal evidence
  • No evidence (lowest)
cellphone


Then the FDA issued a statement stating they did not accept the findings.https://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm624809.htm
Given that 5G Technology has had NO long term studies undertaken before it is rolled out, I think it is up to the public to make these govt agencies and others, cease this roll out before it affects us and independent studies are studied in the long term.

Danny Casolaro called it “the Octopus”. A vast, interlocking network of criminal conspiracy that reaches into every branch and agency of the U.S. government, many other national governments, and every sector of our societies.

An investigative reporter seeking the truth, Danny told his friends he was meeting an informant to “bring back the head of the Octopus” when his body was found in a hotel in Martinsburg, West Virginia, on August 10, 1991. Much of the evidence he had gathered was missing. The death was ruled a “suicide”, but the evidence supports murder. He never had the chance to write the book he was working on.

When 9.11 happened, a few incidences stuck in my mind, one was a fireman who stated that a whole stairwell had disappeared and the other was the sight of a man standing at a window taking off his clothes, I may have the answer to both those incidences and how they relate to each other, at last.

9.11 was the trigger for the awakening  of my inquisitive nature  and has led me on a journey in which I have questioned and researched many topics ever since.

I have to come to realise that it is indeed, an octopus with far reaching tentacles that threaten to strangle our very existence with technology and that technology is very much a part of 9.11 and every false flag event that has occurred since.

When a false flag event happens, it is never just for one reason, there are multiple factors and I hope to share some of that research with you.

9.11 was not only the catalyst for the phoney war on terror, which I call the “war on terra” because it is a war on Terra Firma! It was also a test run for new technology and a cover up of stolen funds, the ability to get rid of evidence that had  thousands of companies in the spotlight for fraud and the means to invade another country and plunder its wealth.

New technology

Between January 2000 and October 2001, papers from various experts were put together by the Aerospace and Electronic systems community.

A document lists papers on many subjects, ISAR,monopulse DOA, digital beam forming,multi target tracking devices,plans for observation of low observable incoming ballistic missiles using ESA which is electronic scanning array, acoustic hit indicator, which estimates the hit coordinate of a supersonic projectile, using time of arrival of the shock wave on several acoustic transducers based in the vicinity of a target.

Meanwhile Maxwell technologies had perfected the use of ultra-capacitors  which can release and absorb energy, this was a Govt contract business that were working with their Chinese counterparts.

 One witness claimed that the 81st floor was full of batteries. That floor was supposedly rented by Bank of America.

Batteries produce and store energy by means of a chemical reaction. Ultra-capacitors store energy in an electric field. For the most part, ultra-capacitors and batteries are complementary technologies, and it is more common for them to be paired to create a more effective solution. 

The ANSI Z136.1 to 6 was instilled, a test run laser which was being demonstrated outdoors using high powered lasers.

Many of the companies that were reportedly tenants of the twin towers also had extensive links to laser technology and  thermodynamics.

For instance, Thermo Electron who supposedly rented the 85th floor, had appointed a new chairman named Richard F Syron who was chairman of the American stock exchange. The founder of the company, Hatsopoulos was the first person to suggest that the Middle east could use oil as a weapon.

On May 14, 2006, Thermo and Fisher Scientific announced that they would merge in a tax-free, stock-for-stock exchange. The merged company became Thermo Fisher Scientific.

Thermo Fisher studies on telomerase.https://www.thermofisher.com/us/en/home/references/ambion-tech-support/microrna-studies/tech-notes/functional-screen-to-identify-genes-involved-in-htert-induction.html

The 2009 Nobel Prize for Medicine and Physiology was awarded for breakthrough research in Telomere Science.  Telomeres are the protective end caps on the four limbs of our DNA filled chromosomes that  keep the DNA from unraveling or fusing with other chromosomes each time the cell nucleus divides to facilitate healing or renew tissue. With each division your telomeres shorten.  As our telomeres shorten we lose our health edge.  Telomere length has become a marker for biological ageing.

The Nobel prize was about discovering an enzyme, telomerase, that slows, stops or even reverses the process of telomere shortening.  To restored telomere length is to restore youth. It was discovered that each cell has a telomerase gene or factory but that we are born with that gene switched off in all cells except our reproductive cells.

So now we have a company heavily involved in 9.11 who are also involved in 5G technology and an ability to reverse the ageing process. Whilst 5G technology has the ability to do the exact opposite.

 

 

The Lehman Brothers reportedly occupied floor 40 of the twin towers,the managing director was Bush,s second cousin. The former chairman, Pete Peterson, a Wall Street billionaire was the chairman of the Council of Foreign Relations who wrote the book, Gray Dawn which talks of a population explosion, he also founded a Bi-partisan budget appeal along with five former secretaries of treasury which was made up of 500 former public officials and business CEO,s  to balance the budget and  claimed that he had rarely had so many multilateral bodies such as world bank agreed on the problem of population explosions.

In his book, page 22 talks of america circles and the “Pearl harbour syndrome”.

 

Many board room changes were apparent in the months prior to 9.11 in  an unusually large number of the companies involved. Many of those who were claiming to have been renting space were also being investigated for fraud and price fixing, the rather odd collapsing of the building 7 which held the Securities and Exchange Commission, meant that all pending files were lost, including  a major inquiry into the manner in which investment banks divided up hot shares of public offerings.

Many of the companies claiming to be tenants were suspect, why would a company such as AT&T rent an office when they had a 40 floor building down the road?

68 companies who were directly affected by 9.11 also put stock options on the companies that were affected.

In 1999, floor 23 of the building 7 was taken over and given a $13 Million upgrade as an emergency crisis centre, with reinforced glass to withstand the blast that was to later occur from the twin towers, a well equipped watch tower for the spectacle about to be witnessed.

WTC7 was an 81 vertically columned 47 storied steel framed high rise that dropped into its own footprint in 6.5seconds+or-, 2.25seconds of that in total gravitational freefall. Forensic study found temperatures up to 4,735F[Molybdenum spherules-USGS].FEMA reported Steel vaporised and evaporated with holes in it ‘like Swiss cheese’.

At a press conference in Nov 2008 Shyam Sunder, Lead Investigator for NIST stated (correctly) that it was impossible for Building 7 to have collapsed at free fall acceleration due to resistance from the steel structure below. The problem was that its easy to measure the acceleration of the collapse so the when the NIST final report was released a month later they were forced to admit in it that the building fell in free fall for 2.25 seconds. They have since completely refused to explain how. This is one of hundreds of problems with the official investigations.

It is by no coincidence that this was the same floor that reportedly had a fire in which the building just mysteriously collapsed that evening, taking with it all the evidence of 3000 companies who were being investigated by the Exchange and Securities, who were also  tenants of building 7. And that a couple of TRILLION dollars was announced to have gone missing the day before, all forgotten in the aftermath.The BBC also reported  WTC7 as having fallen 20 MINUTES before it really did.

It is not rocket science to figure out what really occurred.

The floor which is reportedly the one in which the plane hit was Marsh, which specialises in crisis consulting in terror related incidences, the man who started the company Paul Bremer was appointed by President Bush as Presidential Envoy to Iraq on May 9, 2003.

The North Tower held details of illegal deals between Mobil oil and James Giffen, between Iran and Kazahstan and gold fixing charges against Alan Greenspan, Morgan and Goldman Sachs.

Bank of America supposedly had floors 81 and 11, yet an employee claimed the floor was full of batteries.

Also on WTC was Cantor Fitzgerald which was an investment bank which handled a quarter of the multi trillion dollar US treasuries market. (Bureau of public debt).

Many of the banks and firms listed do not even have offices, the 80th floor lists Toho bank, which closed its NY offices in 1990. Floor 78 was reportedly rented by Thai farmers bank yet they have no branches in NY listed but one in LA.

Floor 50 was reportedly the Japanese bank but none were known to have existed in NY.

Floor 46 reported to have been rented by Sumitomo bank yet it had merged in April 2001 and did not exist in September 2001.

In 2001, Paul H Woodruff was given an environmental ward, he was a trustee of the NCSE, who were given the task of reporting on the collapse of the towers. The National Council of Structural Engineers reported only on the relief effort only, he is also the director of Potomac.

He joined Potomac six months before 9.11 which has links to the DARPA Mice program, Potomac was the inventor and manufacturer of the Waveguide  Excimer.

A waveguide is an electromagnetic feed line that is used for high frequency signals. Waveguides conduct microwave energy at lower loss than coaxial cables and are used in microwave communications, radars and other high frequency applications.

Geometrically speaking there are three types of waveguides – Rectangular Waveguides, Double Rigid Waveguides and Circular Waveguides. The tables below will give you details on the various waveguide sizes and their properties.

Rectangular Waveguide Sizes

Waveguide name Recommended frequency Cutoff frequency
lowest order mode
Cutoff frequency
next mode
Inner dimensions of waveguide opening
EIA RCSC * IEC A inch[mm] B inch[mm]
WR2300 WG0.0 R3 0.32 to 0.45 GHz 0.257 GHz 0.513 GHz 23 [584.2] 11.5 [292.1]
WR2100 WG0 R4 0.35 to 0.50 GHz 0.281 GHz 0.562 GHz 21 [533.4] 10.5 [266.7]
WR1800 WG1 R5 0.45 to 0.63 GHz 0.328 GHz 0.656 GHz 18 [457.2] 9 [228.6]
WR1500 WG2 R6 0.50 to 0.75 GHz 0.393 GHz 0.787 GHz 15 [381] 7.5 [190.5]
WR1150 WG3 R8 0.63 to 0.97 GHz 0.513 GHz 1.026 GHz 11.5 [292.1] 5.75 [146.05]
WR975 WG4 R9 0.75 to 1.15 GHz 0.605 GHz 1.211 GHz 9.75 [247.65] 4.875 [123.825]
WR770 WG5 R12 0.97 to 1.45 GHz 0.766 GHz 1.533 GHz 7.7 [195.58] 3.85 [97.79]
WR650 WG6 R14 1.15 to 1.72 GHz 0.908 GHz 1.816 GHz 6.5 [165.1] 3.25 [82.55]
WR510 WG7 R18 1.45 to 2.20 GHz 1.157 GHz 2.314 GHz 5.1 [129.54] 2.55 [64.77]
WR430 WG8 R22 1.72 to 2.60 GHz 1.372 GHz 2.745 GHz 4.3 [109.22] 2.15 [54.61]
WG9 2.20 to 3.30 GHz 1.686 GHz 3.372 GHz 3.5 [88.9] 1.75 [44.45]
WR340 WG9A R26 2.20 to 3.30 GHz 1.736 GHz 3.471 GHz 3.4 [86.36] 1.7 [43.18]
WR284 WG10 R32 2.60 to 3.95 GHz 2.078 GHz 4.156 GHz 2.84 [72.136] 1.34 [34.036]
WG11 3.30 to 4.90 GHz 2.488 GHz 4.976 GHz 2.372 [60.2488] 1.122 [28.4988]
WR229 WG11A R40 3.30 to 4.90 GHz 2.577 GHz 5.154 GHz 2.29 [58.166] 1.145 [29.083]
WR187 WG12 R48 3.95 to 5.85 GHz 3.153 GHz 6.305 GHz 1.872 [47.5488] 0.872 [22.1488]
WR159 WG13 R58 4.90 to 7.05 GHz 3.712 GHz 7.423 GHz 1.59 [40.386] 0.795 [20.193]
WR137 WG14 R70 5.85 to 8.20 GHz 4.301 GHz 8.603 GHz 1.372 [34.8488] 0.622 [15.7988
WR112 WG15 R84 7.05 to 10 GHz 5.26 GHz 10.52 GHz 1.122 [28.4988] 0.497 [12.6238]
WR102 7.00 to 11 GHz 5.786 GHz 11.571 GHz 1.02 [25.908] 0.51 [12.954]
WR90 WG16 R100 8.20 to 12.40 GHz 6.557 GHz 13.114 GHz 0.9 [22.86] 0.4 [10.16]
WR75 WG17 R120 10.00 to 15 GHz 7.869 GHz 15.737 GHz 0.75 [19.05] 0.375 [9.525]
WR62 WG18 R140 12.40 to 18 GHz 9.488 GHz 18.976 GHz 0.622 [15.7988] 0.311 [7.8994]
WR51 WG19 R180 15.00 to 22 GHz 11.572 GHz 23.143 GHz 0.51 [12.954] 0.255 [6.477]
WR42 WG20 R220 18.00 to 26.50 GHz 14.051 GHz 28.102 GHz 0.42 [10.668] 0.17 [4.318]
WR34 WG21 R260 22.00 to 33 GHz 17.357 GHz 34.715 GHz 0.34 [8.636] 0.17 [4.318]
WR28 WG22 R320 26.50 to 40 GHz 21.077 GHz 42.154 GHz 0.28 [7.112] 0.14 [3.556]
WR22 WG23 R400 33.00 to 50 GHz 26.346 GHz 52.692 GHz 0.224 [5.6896] 0.112 [2.8448]
WR19 WG24 R500 40.00 to 60 GHz 31.391 GHz 62.782 GHz 0.188 [4.7752] 0.094 [2.3876]
WR15 WG25 R620 50.00 to 75 GHz 39.875 GHz 79.75 GHz 0.148 [3.7592] 0.074 [1.8796]
WR12 WG26 R740 60 to 90 GHz 48.373 GHz 96.746 GHz 0.122 [3.0988] 0.061 [1.5494]
WR10 WG27 R900 75 to 110 GHz 59.015 GHz 118.03 GHz 0.1 [2.54] 0.05 [1.27]
WR8 WG28 R1200 90 to 140 GHz 73.768 GHz 147.536 GHz 0.08 [2.032] 0.04 [1.016]
WR6 WG29 R1400 110 to 170 GHz 90.791 GHz 181.583 GHz 0.065 [1.651] 0.0325 [0.8255]
WR7 WG29 R1400 110 to 170 GHz 90.791 GHz 181.583 GHz 0.065 [1.651] 0.0325 [0.8255]
WR5 WG30 R1800 140 to 220 GHz 115.714 GHz 231.429 GHz 0.051 [1.2954] 0.0255 [0.6477]
WR4 WG31 R2200 172 to 260 GHz 137.243 GHz 274.485 GHz 0.043 [1.0922] 0.0215 [0.5461]
WR3 WG32 R2600 220 to 330 GHz 173.571 GHz 347.143 GHz 0.034 [0.8636] 0.017 [0.4318]

Note:

  • The “WR” designation stands for Rectangular Waveguides
  • The Number that follows “WR” is the width of the waveguide opening in mils, divided by 10. For Example WR-650 means a waveguide whose cross section width is 6500 mils.
  • The waveguide width determines the lower cutoff frequency and is equal (ideally) to ½ wavelength of the lower cutoff frequency.

We can see how the technology used during 9.11 now coincides with 5G technology.

Waveguides transfer RF energy with greater efficiency than any medium, as their dielectric is air.

Over the years, waveguide has been used in a broad array of applications, from delivering the power from radar, electronic warfare, and other defense systems, to satellite terminals, broadcast transmitters, microwave ovens, medical systems and  linear accelerators.

The wireless industry, in which waveguide has been used for macro base stations, over  the coming years will soon involve  5G systems which will eventually use millimeter-wave frequencies at 28, 60, and 72 GHz.

Fifth generation of cellular technology, which will have large numbers of very small, highly-integrated devices.

 

It appears that a directed energy weapon was responsible for the disintegration of the twin towers, but what happened before that was applied?

In the beginning of this article, I pointed out two things, the missing stairwell and the man who was tearing off his clothes at the window.

Right after 9.11 happened, I was going through all the pictures, many of which have now vanished into internet obscurity, but something stood out, there were pictures of pristine, white Cintas vans  that stood out in all the greyness of the day.

Just minutes afterwards.

Why were they there and what was the purpose?

It transpires that Cintas cleaned  the carpets and provided clean uniforms to those who worked at the twin towers.

A replica of a carpet designed to look like the island of Manhattan that once adorned the Windows of the World restaurant in the World Trade Center’s north tower has been donated to the memorial museum.

This interesting observation came from a report at that time.”Because the structure is steel and concrete, the main fire load is in the furniture and the carpets.” And local carpet stores was given a piece of the world trade centre.https://www.nbc11news.com/home/headlines/Local-carpet-store-receives-a-piece-of-the-World-Trade-Center-329002281.html

Paula Anderson, owner of Sterling Carpet One Floor & Home, accepted a shadow box containing Sept. 11 steel from Ground Zero 

And yet another carpet store given steel from ground zero. Dove Interiors http://www.observernews.net/2015/06/17/dove-interiors-carpet-one-awarded-piece-of-world-trade-center/

And yet another! https://www.opprairie.com/carpet-store-owner-receives-piece-wtc

In fact there is a list of this company being given the same awards in many areas, of USA, because Carpet One Floor & Home, and its manufacturing partner Mohawk, have committed to providing flooring materials and installation for 46 of the “smart homes” for veterans, but why a piece of steel from ground zero?

Hardly explains why whole staircases just vanished!

Unless what really happened was vaporisation using chemicals. This would explain why a person would be taking off a uniform at such a rapid rate and under those conditions.

And Dow Chemical, the company responsible for the Bhopal disaster and Hiroshima  have taken to adding  chemicals to carpets. http://msdssearch.dow.com/PublishedLiteratureDOWCOM/dh_004d/0901b8038004d294.pdf?filepath=carpet/pdfs/noreg/109-00622.pdf&fromPage=GetDoc

Maybe what we actually saw was vaporisation from chemicals pouring from the windows and not smoke.

It is clear that 9.11 brought together the most unscrupulous of individuals with a shared goal, evil people who probably took great delight in hiding behind their reinforced structure on building 7 whilst people died from their handy work.

And now those same companies, using the technology that was brought together in test runs on that fateful day, plan to do to us what they did to the victims of 9.11.

Each and everyone of us must stand up and demand that 5G technology is stopped before it has that chance.

 

 

Telstra claims first live 5G data call in Australia

 22 NOV 2018

Telstra announced what it said was Australia’s first live 5G connection using a commercial chipset on its mobile network on the Gold Coast.

The operator, the largest in the country with a 50 per cent market share, said the 5G 3GPP Release 15 data call was made using its 3.5GHz spectrum, Ericsson’s latest 5G network software and Qualcomm’s commercial 5G chipset in a form factor device.

Channa Seneviratne, a network engineering executive at Telstra, said field testing with a commercial chipset and its live network moves verification from “the lab into the street”. He added that the announcement is a significant milestone as it signals commercial 5G devices are getting closer.

The operator also said it turned on two 5G-enabled base stations in the state of Tasmania. In August it switched on its first 5G-compatible cell sites in Gold Coast to enable testing of pre-commercial devices, with aims to deploy more than 200 sites across Australia by the year-end.

Telstra plans a commercial 5G launch in 2019 and is engaged in various trials at its 5G Innovation Centre in Gold Coast, which it opened in February.

https://www.mobileworldlive.com/asia/asia-news/telstra-claims-first-live-5g-data-call-in-australia/

Telstra launches its first 5G-enabled sites in Tasmania

Embargoed until 8am 22 November 2018 – Telstra has switched on two 5G-enabled base stations in Launceston, bringing 5G technology to Tasmania for the first time.

Speaking at the TasICT Industry Breakfast in Hobart, Telstra’s Network Engineering Executive, Mr Channa Seneviratne, said the sites, at Invermay and Norwood, marked an important milestone in Telstra’s 5G network strategy.

“This is an exciting first step for our 5G rollout in Tasmania with Launceston now among the first cities in Australia to have sites upgraded with 5G technology,” Mr Seneviratne said. “This investment is part of our planning to bring 5G services to as many of our customers as possible once 5G compatible devices are commercially available next year.

“Telstra is leading the Australian market on 5G with a series of world and Australian firsts in 5G testing and network development and over the coming months we will continue expanding our 5G roadmap with plans to roll out to more capital cities, regional centres and other high demand areas across Australia.”

With the switch-on of the two sites in Launceston, Telstra now has more than 60 5G-enabled base stations across Australia, at locations including Perth, Adelaide, Canberra, the Gold Coast, Brisbane and Toowoomba.

Telstra is on track to deploy 200 5G-enabled mobile base stations by the end of 2018. 5G technology will transform the mobile landscape, delivering ultra-low latency and high-data speeds while supporting massive machine-type communications.

Telstra’s rollout of 5G is underpinned by the around $5 billion in mobile network investment over the three years to 30 June 2019, consistent with previous guidance, to enhance the capacity, capability and reach of Telstra’s network.

Last month Telstra announced Ericsson would be its key 5G partner under an agreement that will see the two companies partner to deliver the next generation of mobile technology for Australia.

In late 2017, Telstra and Ericsson completed a world first 5G trial data call over mmWave spectrum using Telstra’s production core network.

In February Telstra launched its 5G Innovation Centre on the Gold Coast supported by Ericsson. That Centre has since been home to several world and Australian firsts including the world’s first precinct of 5G-enabled WiFi hotspots, Australia’s first 5G Connected Car and the world’s first end-to-end 5G nonstandalone data call on a commercial mobile network.

In August, Telstra announced it had started switching on 5G technology, making Australia’s largest and fastest* mobile network the first in the country to be 5G ready.

As for how many additional base stations will likely be eventually needed for full 5G in Launceston. The following from an industry report is interesting:

These short range stations will likely be constructed from densely packed antenna arrays, which is incidentally exactly what’s needed for increased capacity. Furthermore, larger antenna arrays have already been shown to boost the range of even very high frequency implementations. A 2016 NTT DOCOMO study presented at the Brooklyn 5G Summit suggests that a 77 X 77 antenna array of 6,000 elements can exceed a kilometer in distance at 3.5 GHz and can even cover over 800 meters at 30 GHz. Even so, this would require potentially 40 to 50 base stations to provide the same area coverage as 8 to 10 4G stations, although speeds will be much higher.

https://www.androidauthority.com/5g-mobile-tech-explained-798540/

Does that mean 5 times the current number of base stations will be needed for full 5G in Launceston? Will the public have any say in where these are put and has Telstra told the Launcestion Council how many additional base stations will eventually be required?

Are you aware that in  April 2017, the Digital Economy Bill received Royal Assent from both Houses of Parliament, and became the Digital Economy Act?

 Amongst other things, the Digital Economy Act reformed the ‘electronic communications code’ by introducing a range of measures to make it easier for network operators to rollout infrastructure (such as phone masts, exchanges and cabinets) on public and private land. 

The reforms to the electronic communications code in the Digital Economy Act are wide ranging and are of particular significance for network operators, landowners and occupiers. 

 Statement on the reformed Electronic Communications Code.

The Code regulates the legal relationship between landowners/occupiers and Code Operators, conferring rights on certain providers of electronic communications networks and systems of conduits (designated by Ofcom as ‘Code Operators’) to install and maintain electronic communications apparatus (including masts, exchanges, cabinets and cables) on public land. The Code also enables operators to apply for a court order to install and maintain apparatus on private land, if they have been unable to reach agreement with the landowner/occupier. 

A bit of background 

At the start of 2015, the Coalition Government tabled amendments to the Infrastructure Bill which, had they been enacted, would have included substantive reforms to the Code10 based on the Law Commission recommendations. These amendments were subsequently withdrawn in the face of stakeholder concerns, to allow further consultation and research to take place. DCMS subsequently published its own Consultation Document in February 2015. 

 The formal consultation period ran for 9 weeks ending on 30 April 2015.

 Following this, DCMS undertook further consultation with all stakeholders, and commissioned independent economic research into the impact of a range of reform options in the market. 

 In May 2016, the Government announced that the Code would be reformed in the forthcoming Digital Economy Bill, “offering major reforms to the rights that communications providers have to access land.”

Ofcom worked with a wide spectrum of stakeholders in developing its initial draft of the Code of Practice. This included representatives from the fixed and mobile operator community, communications infrastructure providers and representatives from the National Farmers Union (NFU), the Country Land & Business Association (CLA), the British Property Federation (BPF) and the Central Association of Agricultural Valuers (CAAV).

 On 28 July 2016 Ofcom held an initial scoping meeting with stakeholders setting out its approach to the Code of Practice drafting process, and invited different stakeholder communities to nominate representatives to serve on a Code of Practice Drafting Group. The membership of this group was subsequently confirmed in September 2016. It was composed of eight specialist practitioners, representing landowners, communications network operators and infrastructure providers.

Was anyone consulted about this process? 

Did any members of the lay public  have a say in this process?

So the British Property Federation spoke on behalf of the public without so much as a consultation? 

This process involved some of the companies  who have been instrumental in pushing this Smart city/5G agenda such as Ariqiva who had control of what was stated in the final documents, such as :Arqiva further stated that drawings should only be provided by exception, where the particular site circumstances necessitate greater control, otherwise there was a risk of undermining the Government’s objective to facilitate future rollout.

Arqiva have even had influence on the wording to protect themselves by coercing Ofcom to change “must” to “should” and “shall” to “ought”.  In other words, giving them an option rather than an obligation.

https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0027/108792/ECC-Statement.pdf

Ofcom Statement

Under the ECC, Ofcom can grant powers to certain companies to allow them to roll out communications infrastructure, such as phone masts, more easily. Companies with these powers are able to construct and maintain electronic communications equipment on public land, and apply to a court for permission to carry out work on private land if agreement cannot be reached with the landowner.

The code itself remains non-binding (i.e. there is no statutory obligation on operators or landowners to comply with its provisions)

 

Statement issued by MobileUK, the Country Land and Business Association, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and DCMS

placeholder

Industry, the landowner community, representative bodies and Government have come together to reaffirm commitments to the ECC and the Ofcom Code of Practice.

MobileUK, the Country Land and Business Association, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport have issued a joint statement:

The reformed Electronic Communications Code (ECC) came into force in December 2017 with the aim of boosting coverage and connectivity across the UK, through a package of measures which Government expects to deliver significant cost reductions to the sector, while ensuring that landowners receive a fair payment for allowing their land to be used.

Since the new legislation was introduced, there have been problems with negotiations progressing. While some initial uncertainty is to be expected, Government, regulators, the telecoms sector, independent infrastructure providers and the landowner community, recognise the importance of all parties working collaboratively together, both during this transition period and moving forwards.

We are therefore coming together to reaffirm the commitments made to each other in Ofcom’s Code of Practice, and to reiterate our support for the Government’s ambition to be a leading global economy underpinned by world class full fibre network and 5G infrastructure. It is essential that parties engage professionally in open and constructive communications. The future needs of customers and the economy are too important for it to be otherwise.

Minister for Digital Margot James said:

It’s great to see industry and landowners committing to the Electronic Communications Code and backing our ambitions to improve connectivity and ensure Britain is fit for the future. From improving our existing networks to using the next generation of technology, collaboration is vital when it comes to building our digital infrastructure.

The Electronic Communications Code was replaced on 28 December 2017 with a brand new Code, designed to support the rollout of a  telecommunications network throughout the UK,the government has reformed the existing Code and introduced the new Digital Economy Act 2017.

  1. The new Code expands on the rights already granted to telecom operators.
  2. The new automatic rights for operators to upgrade, assign and share the use of apparatus.
  3. Any attempt to prevent or limit this right (for instance by imposing additional payments to the landowners in return for another operator sharing the site) will be void – so landowners cannot even benefit financially from multiple operators sharing their site.Aside from the lack of financial benefit, landowners will also face various practical challenges if operators choose to exercise these rights.  This could include problems with roof overloading if extensive additional kit is installed, security issues with maintenance personnel trying to access parts of their properties and, generally, a feeling of a lack of control over who is occupying their property.

    Valuation

    This links into a wider point about the financial benefit (or lack thereof) for landowners in providing sites to telecom operators.  Compensation and consideration payable by telecoms operators to landowners will now be calculated by reference to the open market value of the land from the perspective of the landowner only.  The value of the land to the operator, which could be quite substantial if it is a strategically important site, is wholly disregarded.

    In practice, this is likely to reduce the rental stream from telecoms agreements, as many of the sites that are the subject of telecoms agreements (typically roof space) will have little intrinsic value to landowners.

    Under the existing Code, landowners are required to give operators just 28 days’ notice if they want to terminate a Code agreement.  The new Code requires a much longer notice period – operators must be given 18 months’ notice just to terminate a Code agreement.

    In addition, in the new Code termination is not the same as removal, and landowners must serve a further notice specifying a “reasonable” period for removal of the apparatus from the site in question.

Barrier Busting

http://Barrier Busting The Government will ensure that it takes a broad view of deployment related matters in order to identify and address the barriers that could stand in the way of the government’s 5G aims. That is why we have set up a new cross-Whitehall task force, led by DCMS, to drive changes to make it easier for digital infrastructure to be rolled out. In respect of the planning system, the Government has been working with industry to assess whether further changes are needed in order to meet the challenges of 5G deployment. 

For the purposes of this code a “code right”, in relation to an operator and any land, is a right for the statutory purposes—

(a)to install electronic communications apparatus on, under or over the land,

(b)to keep installed electronic communications apparatus which is on, under or over the land,

(c)to inspect, maintain, adjust, alter, repair, upgrade or operate electronic communications apparatus which is on, under or over the land,

(d)to carry out any works on the land for or in connection with the installation of electronic communications apparatus on, under or over the land or elsewhere,

(e)to carry out any works on the land for or in connection with the maintenance, adjustment, alteration, repair, upgrading or operation of electronic communications apparatus which is on, under or over the land or elsewhere,

(f)to enter the land to inspect, maintain, adjust, alter, repair, upgrade or operate any electronic communications apparatus which is on, under or over the land or elsewhere,

(g)to connect to a power supply,

(h)to interfere with or obstruct a means of access to or from the land (whether or not any electronic communications apparatus is on, under or over the land), or

(i)to lop or cut back, or require another person to lop or cut back, any tree or other vegetation that interferes or will or may interfere with electronic communications apparatus.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2017/30/schedule/1

The operator may apply to the court for an order under this paragraph if—

(a)the relevant person does not, before the end of 28 days beginning with the day on which the notice is given, agree to confer or be otherwise bound by the code right, or

(b)at any time after the notice is given, the relevant person gives notice in writing to the operator that the person does not agree to confer or be otherwise bound by the code right.

(4)An order under this paragraph is one which imposes on the operator and the relevant person an agreement between them which—

(a)confers the code right on the operator, or

(b)provides for the code right to bind the relevant person.

21(1)Subject to sub-paragraph (5), the court may make an order under paragraph 20 if (and only if) the court thinks that both of the following conditions are met.

(2)The first condition is that the prejudice caused to the relevant person by the order is capable of being adequately compensated by money.

(3)The second condition is that the public benefit likely to result from the making of the order outweighs the prejudice to the relevant person.

(4)In deciding whether the second condition is met, the court must have regard to the public interest in access to a choice of high quality electronic communications services.

(5)The court may not make an order under paragraph 20 if it thinks that the relevant person intends to redevelop all or part of the land to which the code right would relate, or any neighbouring land, and could not reasonably do so if the order were made.

Hi, I am a resident of Hastings and I am conducting research on the effects of phone masts on the health of children, I notice that there is a T Mobile phone mast in very close proximity to the school and wonder if you would answer some questions for me please?

Many people living near masts are experiencing increasing health problems at levels as low as 0.05 volts per metre, especially sleep disruption, headaches, tiredness, behaviour changes in children, epilepsy, nosebleeds, skin complaints.

There is a long-running, ongoing, dispute between the UK Information Commissioner, Ofcom and T-Mobile about whether the full Sitefinder database should be downloadable.

T-Mobile still is not supplying updated information and have joined Ofcom in court as a representative of the rest of the mobile industry.
In the meantime, Ofcom has been holding discussions with operators, which have now resulted in a resumption of voluntary provision of this data. 3, O2, Orange, Vodafone, Airwave and Network Rail all supply data to Ofcom at approximately three month intervals (T-Mobile has refused to do so since 2005).

Members of the public who have written to the Department of Health in England in relation to RF exposure have reported a variety of distressing symptoms including dizziness, fatigue, chronic headache, irregular heart beat, nausea and vertigo, and loss of memory and concentration.
These and the other symptoms are reported to result from exposure to a range of EMFs, including RF fields, encountered in everyday life.
Similar symptoms were reported to IEGMP at open meetings. Many people also consider that there are serious long-term risks associated with such exposures. In Sweden electromagnetic hypersensitivity has been addressed nationally, accepted as a physical impairment, and a scheme in a place to improve home and working conditions for people who consider themselves to be sufferers.

Can you please tell me how many, if any, have children been diagnosed with cancers? I would like to compare it to other schools with no phone masts near by.

Thankyou
Mrs Carey