Recently we found out the news via Ann Marie Carey that Mark Steele had been contacted by Bemri, Bio Electromagnetic experts with 60 + years of experience in EMF research. Their kind offer to come to Gateshead for free, and measure RFs coming from the street lights, to test for any possible anomalies that could be 5G was rejected by Mark. Im sure I was not the only one shocked by this news.
Having been previously involved in getting Mark some interviews with a couple of well respected alternative media news sites Windows on the World Mark Alexander Scott and BCfm Politics Show with Tony Gosling, I was gutted to hear that Mark had not only declined their offer to meet up, but had accused them of not knowing anything about 5G.
Living about 10 mins from Gateshead myself, I offered to meet one of the guys from Bemri, and take him to the places where Mark got his EMF readings in the 700Mhz range. Bemri used specialist sensitive equipment, including a log par directional meter and many other measuring devices. The RF readings were similar to Marks, but it was noted that there were huge mobile masts in each of the locations, which would have affected the readings. Also did Mark film his videos of EMF readings with a smart phone? Again this would interfere with the readings. He refuses to answer that question when I asked but he did call me ‘desperate’ for assuming so. Bemri obtained many readings, some with a smart phone switched on close to the meter. And yes, with the smart phone on, readings were in the 700Mhz range, similar to Marks.

During the visit to Gateshead, there were no anomalies picked up by the EMF equipment and a conclusion was made that no 5G signals were picked up, only 4G. The lamp posts were acknowledged to be emitting these RFs.
Annie and myself were very grateful to Bemri for taking the time to test the lights in Gateshead, and Stockport was found to have similar results from their antenna’d LED lamp posts too.
I have spoken to Mark Steele after Bemri’s visit and listened to his response. He still believes these people do not know what 5G is, and questions their expertise.
I, on the other hand question Marks choices he has made, in the fight to stop 5G. At no point during his interviews, did Mark choose to mention Annie’s FB group or her campaign resources. She had asked him to and he said he would, but he didn’t. Why would you do that to a fellow campaigner? It makes no sense. I would have thought that was a golden opportunity to let audiences of the shows know how they could get active on the street, handing out leaflets, making people aware of the 5G issue etc. Instead Mark used the platform to ask people to join his political party. A party that has 3 years to try getting to parliament to stop 5G, when 5G has a proposed roll out date of 2020. I joined this party a while back, but received no email newsletters.
I’ve stated facts here about the Gateshead 5G lamps visit by Bemri, and I’ve given only a small fraction of my opinion on Mark Steele. People will make up their own minds on him.

http://www.bemri.org/

Revealed: Network Rail’s new £800m scheme to remove all ‘leaf fall’ trees

Exclusive: five-year ‘enhanced clearance’ programme targets trees along 20,000 miles of track to avoid delays, according to an internal document

Engineers cut down trees beside the West Coast Main Line, Northamptonshire.
 Engineers cut down trees beside the West Coast Main Line, Northamptonshire. Photograph: Colin Underhill/Alamy Stock Photo

Network Rail is to target all “leaf fall” trees for removal alongside its tracks in a new £800m five-year programme of “enhanced clearance”, according to an internal document seen by the Guardian.

The policy document for 2019-24 emerged as the environment secretary, Michael Gove, summoned the chief executive of Network Rail for talks over their approach to environmental management following revelations about tree felling across the country by the Guardian.

After discussions with Network Rail, Jo Johnson, the rail minister, set up a review into vegetation management . He called for all tree felling to be suspended during the current nesting season – March to August.

Johnson said: “This review will look at all aspects of this issue, including, for instance, whether Network Rail has the capacity and capability to control vegetation in a way that minimises harm to wildlife, and whether staff need more training to help with tree identification and identifying approaches that would be better than felling.”

The leaked document seen by the Guardian sets out a new programme which appears to go further than any current environmental management. It involves an “enhanced level of clearance” of trees and vegetation from the railway banks along 20,000 miles of lines in the UK, in an attempt to deal with costly delays to services.

The document says Network Rail has to manage the risk from 13 million trees within falling distance of its tracks. If they removed 2% of the trees a year over the five-year period, more than 1 million trees could be felled.

“Network Rail is responsible for any damage that they may cause unless it can be robustly demonstrated that it has taken reasonable steps to reduce the risk of that damage occurring,” the document states.

Network Rail said in a statement that it was constantly balancing the needs of the environment against passenger health and safety.

Key species of tree to be targeted for removal are those which the company says are high risk due to the amount and size of leaves they produce. They include sycamore, poplar, horse and sweet chestnut, ash and lime.

Network Rail bosses say in the document they need to reduce the risk of leaves and trees falling on to the lines, improve performance and safety and cut the hundreds of millions of pounds it pays in compensation – called schedule 8 payments – for delays.

Entitled Lineside Asset Management Control Period 6 (CP6), the policy involves the “removal of all leaf fall species” within falling distance of the track, “intensive intervention” on vegetation in close proximity to the railway and the removal of emergent lower level growth at the earliest stage.

The boundary for management of scrub, grasses, trees and shrubs will also increase from five metres either side of the railway – which has been the policy for the last five years – to a minimum of 6.5m.

The document concludes that the initial level of investment – £41,000 per mile of track for the enhanced clearance – will result in “a far better performing, safer railway”.

Grasses and scrubland alongside Britain’s railway lines are made up of more than 1,600 species of plants, including 900 varieties known of as “railway species” that are exclusive to the trackside.

Senior politicians have been in discussions with the publicly owned company over the scale of its vegetation clearance after the Guardian revealed last week millions of trees are at risk.

Gove invited Mark Carne, chief executive of Network Rail, for talks at his office on Wednesday.

Details of the new planned trackside clearances come as a petition calling on Network Rail to “stop chopping down millions of trees” attracted more than 60,000 signatures.

The scale of felling taking place in the five years to the end of 2018 is not known. Network Rail has not responded to requests to provide the Guardian with an aerial map highlighting “problem” trees earmarked for felling, or reveal how many have been removed in the last year.

A freedom of information response revealed that 30,000 trees were felled by Network Rail or their contractors on the west coast mainline between Euston and Carlisle in the 12 months between February 2016 and February 2017.

Network Rail said there were no plans to replace any of the trees in its FOI response.

Network Rail says in the document it will adhere to environmental legislation which requires it to restrict practices at certain locations or certain times of the year. It says the risks to poor performance and safety from trees includes obstruction of the line, causing delays and putting staff and passengers at risk.

Between March 2016 and March 2017 there were 720 incidents with trees, according to the document. Of these 233 trees were struck by trains. “The likelihood of a tree failure causing an accident is high,” the document states.

The company says the impact from falling leaves in the autumn of 2015 involved four signals passed at danger, 91 wrong side failures and 61 station overruns due to poor rail adhesion attributed to leaf fall contamination.

These incidents, it says, cost Network Rail between £100m and £150m.

Network Rail says in the document that trees and vegetation can have a positive benefit in terms of lineside ecology where desirable flora and fauna has been identified and sustainable management plans have been put into place. It also states the company will “manage the vegetation to comply with legal requirements to protect the environment.”

A spokesperson for Network Rail said it was constantly balancing the needs of the environment with passenger safety and welcomed Johnson’s review.

“Last year we recorded over 400 incidents of trains colliding with fallen trees and another 1,000 where they caused delays to services, costing the industry over £100m. As a result, we have well thought-out standards and policies in place that have been developed over many years with the help of experts that we believe strike the right balance and maintains a safe and biodiverse line side.

“Most of the time when putting those standards and policies into action we get it right, but sometimes we don’t.”

Sara Lom, chief executive of the Tree Council, which works closely with Network Rail, has not seen the new policy document. She said: “We are Network Rail’s critical friend. When things go wrong, as they sometimes do, we tell them.”

She said the charity was carrying out trials with the company this autumn to look at different ways to manage vegetation apart from tree felling. “Alternatives to removal could be coppicing or pollarding or hedging,” she said. “That is better for wildlife, and better for people in the local community.”

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/09/revealed-network-rails-new-800m-scheme-to-remove-all-leaf-fall-trees?CMP=share_btn_fb 

1
BCM SSITA
London. WC1 3XX
Tel: 0121 704 9988
Dear Head Teachers, Governors and Local Authorities,below you will find responses from  SSITA (Safe Schools Technology Alliance)to the statements made by Public Health England, about the safety of Wi-Fi technology for use in schools. As employers, you are responsible for providing a safe school environment; the responses below can be considered alongside the advice given to you by Public Health England (PHE). We also realise that all schools have a legal duty to safeguard children by preventing any impairment to their health and development. We believe that the information below will usefully assist you when fulfilling these legal requirements.
SSITA Comments on the Key points from PHE:
(these are in red underlined text below)
There is no consistent evidence to date that exposure to RF signals from Wi-Fi and WLANs adversely affect the health of the general population.
For science to find evidence “consistent”, or not,the studies being compared need to be investigating exactly the same conditions, species/strain/sex, prior exposures and methodologies. The statement above is misleading because it implies that the reader can dismiss concerns of harm because identical studies have failed to give the same results. In reality, many studies have found damage or adverse effects in humans/human cells or other animals from Wi-Fi/2.4G
Hz wireless signals.
Ten studies listed in the link here: http://wifiinschools.org.uk/30.html  have found increased oxidative stress in animal or human cells from Wi-Fi/2.4GHz signals.
Increased oxidative stress is known to lead to damage of proteins, lipid membranes and nucleic acids and increases the risk of cancer. Five studies in the link above found adverse effects of Wi-Fi/2.4GHz on fertility or reproductive success.

Two studies found changes in human electrical brain activity as a result of exposure to Wi-Fi/2.4GHz signals and two found abnormal human heart rates in some people. These studies, backed up by many more carried out on mobile phones and other radiofrequency (RF) signals, are enough to raise serious concerns about the safety of Wi-Fi for use in schools.

However, even if a scientifically accurate definition of the word “consistent” is used, SSITA believes that we neither need nor should wait for totally “consistent” evidence. We are never likely to get such “consistent” evidence as people, the technologies and our use of them are so varied.
Complete consistency is not required for action to be taken:
European Commission Communication on the Precautionary Principle 2nd February 2000
“The precautionary principle applies where scientific evidence is insufficient, inconclusive or uncertain and
preliminary scientific evaluation indicates that there are reasonable grounds for concern that the potentially dangerous effects on the environment, human, animal or plant health may be inconsistent with the high level of protection chosen.”
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.
The‘Safe Schools 2012’ (Medical and Scientific Experts Call for Safe Technologies in schools;http://wifiinschools.org.uk/resources/safeschools2012.pdf  published by www.wifiinschools.org.uk gives a useful over-view of the assessments of many relevant organisations and experts from around the world.
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.
The World Health Organisation’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified RF radiation as a Group 2B “possible human carcinogen” in 2011.
Public Health England (PHE) has commented: “Among all of these [IARC] classifications are many widespread and familiar substances/situations, including coffee and pickled vegetables (Group 2B), shift working that involves circadian disruption (Group 2A) and alcohol (Group 1).”
This is a disingenuous comment from PHE.
The only other 2B agent that our exposure to is regularly ignored in most countries are elevated levels of mains electricity (ELF) magnetic fields(EMFs) that were classified as 2B by IARC in 2002.
“Coffee is also classed as 2B”. Yes it is, but that is with regard to drinking lots of strong coffee per day and most children don’t drink coffee before their late teenage years. Nor do we force children to drink coffee at school or eat pickled vegetables throughout every school day (and against the expressed wishes of their parents).
Our exposure to most other 2B agents is already restricted as they are known to be toxic in other ways than as a
carcinogen.
It should be remembered that ionising radiation and human papillomavirus (HPV) a re examples of Group 1 (proven human carcinogens) that are effectively undetectable by us in our everyday lives and produce no immediate effects in most people – yet are accepted as known causes of cancer.
the extent of scientific uncertainty.
It is important to remember that the Precautionary Principle (PP) specifically and only applies when the data and evaluation are NOT certain. If they become “consistent” then other due processes take over to usually require prevention by law. The PP is applied at an earlier stage to prevent unnecessary harm.
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; SSITA believes that Information Technology is important in modern schooling, especially at secondary level and also in the higher classes in primary schools. For most applications SSITA supports the use of fixed desktop, hardwired PC computers with a good quality ergonomic keyboard and mouse, with a flat-screen display and a hard-wired (Ethernet or fibre optic) network
connection. These are ‘Earthed’ and do not use wireless and expose the user to minimal (but not non-existent) electromagnetic fields.
There is a place for occasional use of non-wireless laptops but the EMF exposures (from touchpad,etc) are higher and the keyboard is much less ergonomic and more likely to lead to repetitive strain injury (RSI) problems in later years (small light finger and wrist movements).
Tablets and Smart Phones should not be used as both result in much higher electromagnetic field (EMF) and RF exposure to the children.
SSITA  believes that this approach would be both proportionate and protective at very little difference in cost.
•  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; Although a hard-wired installation is slightly more
expensive to install, ongoing maintenance and replacements would be significantly cheaper.
SSITA  believes that lack of precautionary action will lead to long-term harm to the physical and mental wellbeing of the children exposed on a daily basis to Wi-Fi, Tablet computers and the like.
• review of the measures in the light of scientific developments
The burden of proof
In most cases, European consumers and the associations which represent them must demonstrate the danger associated with a procedure or a product placed on the market, except for medicines, pesticides and food additives.
However, in the case of an action being taken under the precautionary principle, the producer,manufacturer or importer may be required to prove the absence of danger.
K. Dane Snowden, Vice President, External & State affairs of the Cellular Telecommunications Industry
Association (CTIA) formally stated in 2012 at a Californian hearing:
Let me be very clear. The Industry has NOT said once, ONCE, that cell phones are safe”.
The signals from Wi-Fi are very low power, typically 0.1 watt (100 milliwatts), in both the computerand the mast (or router) and resulting exposures should be well within internationally-accepted guidelines.
The signals are within ICNIRP Guidelines – but SSITA and many others dispute the relevance of guidance primarily based on heating effects (Specific Absorption Rate or SAR) over 6 minutes when there are many good, peer-reviewed, scientific studies showing evidence of harm, especially to well-being,thousands of times lower than the ICNIRP Guidance values.
Moreover, it does not matter if the signals are low power, if they are enough to cause biological damage and adverse effects, as they have been found to do (http://wifiinschools.org.uk/30.html).
• The frequencies used are broadly the same as those from other RF applications.
This is true, but most humans were not generally exposed to significant levels of signals at these frequencies before the last 30 years. Levels in this part of the radio-frequency spectrum have increased  by at least 1,000,000,000,000,000-fold in the last 100 years and by about 1,000,000-fold in the last 30 years alone.
Many studies have been carried out on insects, birds, other animals and plants that are showing adverse effects. These are not psychosomatic.
Based on current knowledge, RF exposures from Wi-Fi are likely to be lower than those from mobile phones.
This is a ridiculously ignorant statement by PHE who have not even formally assessed and published exposure from iPads and other wireless tablet computers. For their assessment of exposures Peyman,et al, only measured laptop PCs and Wi-Fi/wLAN Access Points – and showed that the typical levels in the classroom were significantly higher than those found 100 metres away from a mobile phone mast while standing in the main beam. They measured the
levels at 0.5 and 1 metre away from the laptop PCs.
Most children use a laptop closer than 0.5 metres (about 0.3 m or 30 cm is more common).
Tablets are often held in the hand (or on a lap) with the hands actually touching the device close to its internal antennas. Even when on a table the child is usually very close to the screen – more like 20cm.
As power increases approximately with the square of the distance to the source, this would represent an approximate 4-fold increase in the levels measured by Peyman, et al, at 50 cm from laptop PCs.
Although SSITA  believes that SAR is not the best metric (signal strength in volts per metre is better for pulsing signals like Wi-Fi), let us examine the published SAR values of mobile phones and iPads:
Taking all 432 mobile phones listed on www.sarvalues.com we find a range of maximum SAR values of 0.12 to 1.59 W/kg, with an average of 0.8 W/kg (in10 g of tissue).
Taking 11 modern smart phones on www.sardatabase.com we get a range (in 10g of tissue) of 0.35 to 0.8 W/kg, with an average maximum SAR of 0.42 W/kg.
The Apple/FCC official SAR for an iPad3 on Wi-Fi is 0.39-0.51 W/kg in 10 g of tissue (and unlike mobile phones this more than doubles to 1.19 W/kg in 1g of tissue due to the way the iPad is used).
So, the max Wi-Fi SARs from iPads are very similar to those from modern mobile phones.
The UK Chief Medical Officers and Department of Health currently advise all children and young people under the age of 16 to use mobile phones for essential purposes only. The SAR values above suggest that this advice should also apply to wireless tablet computers.
But that is only a small part of the issue. All modern phones employ Adaptive Power Control (APC).
This lowers their power when they have a good connection to a base station.
GSM handsets have a 1000:1 range of control and typically operate betwe en 10 and 100 times lower than their maximum.
Modern 3G/UMTS handsets have a 50,000,000:1 range o f power control and typically work at around one-thousandth of their maximum power. So their average SAR exposure is a tiny fraction of their maximum SAR value.
HOWEVER, iPads, other tablets and most laptops do not have any implementation of APC on Wi-Fi –so they work at their full power all the time when on Wi-Fi.
There are gaps between data bursts, especially when not downloading lots of data, but the microwave data-bursts are always at full power.
There is a proximity sensor on the back of iPads that Apple claims senses when it is used on a lap and decreases the transmit power to avoid breaking the SAR regulations. However, this does not work when the iPad is used on a table and a child’s face is close to the screen.
SSITA believes that it is this constant hammering effect of RF radiation bursts that is particularly interfering with the user’s wellbeing. There are wLAN Access Points available from some upmarket suppliers (like CISCO) that can implement APC for Wi-Fi, but even if these are installed they cannot use APC with most tablets (including iPads) and laptop PCs currently in use in schools. That would require a substantial new investment and no use of iPads.
On the basis of current scientific information, exposures from Wi-Fi equipment satisfy international guidelines.
There is no consistent evidence of health effects from RF exposures below guideline levels and no reason why schools and others should not use Wi-Fi equipment.
SSITA strongly refutes the views expressed in this statement.There are good reasons why schools should not use W
i-Fi equipment. Schools should not use Wi-Fi because they have a legal duty to safeguard children by preventing the impairment of children’s health and development. Scientific studies have found that Wi-Fi/2.4GHz wireless signals can increase oxidative stress (which damages cells), damage DNA (which may lead to mutations, cell death or
cancers), increase the proliferation of human leukaemia cells, alter human brain activity (and thus likely to affect brain development) and damage male and female fertility.
An obvious response to the evidence of damage from RF signals published in the scientific literature,would be to investigate further with biological tests the extent to which Wi-Fi signals are causing biological damage and under what conditions these effects occur.
Even though PHE/HPA advise schools throughout the UK with confidence that there is no reason why Wi-Fi should not be used in schools, they have yet to publish any of their own biological or health studies into the possible effects
of Wi-Fi. We also note that the Government funding of the Peyman et al study specifically excluded any investigations into possible adverse health effects (including on well-being).
Surely schools should be questioning why PHE/HPA have carried out no biological or health studies into the effects of Wi-Fi since they announced in 2007 that they would be thoroughly investigating the safety of Wi-Fi for use in schools.
All the investigation did was to measure signal levels and to state that these were below ICNIRP Guidance values.
This response has been prepared for SSITA by SSITA members:
Alasdair Philips (www.powerwatch.org.uk)
Dr Sarah Starkey, Neuroscientist
Diana Hanson (National Co-ordinator:SSITA,www.ssita.org.uk)

The Law Society’s Inaugural Lecture on the Future of Law
Tuesday 8th May 2018
Sir Geoffrey Vos, Chancellor of the High Court

Excerpt from the lecture ; https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/chc-speech-future-of-law-lecture-may-2018-1.pdf  

We have recently seen the impact that digital disclosure of mobile phone records has had on rape prosecutions.One change in behaviour is already having a big impact on the eradication of contested criminal cases. Most people carry their smartphones on their person at all times with their GPS location switched on. They do this voluntarily, but if the legislators were, for example, to require citizens to carry phones at all time, it would be even more difficult to avoid detection.With or without such a rule, as the location of all persons is continuously uploaded to the cloud, there will anyway be far fewer identity issues in criminal cases.
The same judge just months before upheld  an earlier ruling on a case brought by MP Tom Watson, represented by Liberty, who claimed that the Government was breaking the law by collecting individuals’ internet activity and phone records and letting public bodies grant themselves access to these personal details, where there was no suspicion of serious crime and no independent signoff.

Mark Steele is the Chief Technology Officer at a company called Reevu, he is a weapons sights system and signal processing systems expert.

When I first began campaigning against 5G, I was interviewed by Richie Allen. I had seen Marks videos and asked Richie to interview him, I told Mark that I had done so.

Mark went on to have many more interviews but for some reason wanted nothing to do with the 5G campaign, he was only interested in getting people to join his political party, SUN.

Never the less I had already changed the 5G leaflets to include his political party, expecting his approval meant that he would help the campaign too, even if it just meant mentioning it on FB let alone in interviews.

He never did.

I contacted a EMF research group to ask about Gateshead and the 5G connection.

I was informed that they had offered to go to Gateshead after talking to Mark, that they had offered to test the lamp posts and the people who had been affected, all free of charge.

This was offered several times and was refused by Mark.

They informed him that the equipment that he was using was not sufficient.

Some people offered to help Mark with his campaign against 5G and he declined.

Others mentioned that it would be a good idea to keep a log and test intermittently, he declined.

I then put the research group into contact with a  a local from Gateshead, this woman had also supported Mark and even got him several interviews and they were able to pinpoint the  same areas that Mark tested. There was no 5G coming from the lamp posts.

This leads me to the conclusion that Mark and his brother, Graham,  who has been on my FB friend list under a false name of Ben Travis for some time, are not to be trusted.

Others are entitled to draw their own conclusions.

Phone Zombies Swarm UK Cities In Scenes Reminiscent Of Flying Ant Day

I kept seeing the same social media posts all week. They went like this; “Only three more sleeps til I get new phone.” “New phone on Friday whoop whoop!” Did you notice them too? They were everywhere. My personal favourite was a Facebook post from a Waterford girl (I’d reproduce it but I’d probably get sued) that went “Jesus girl if Friday doesn’t come quick I’ll wet myself lol!!” I hope she’s not a listener! OK, if you haven’t guessed already, there is a new smart phone out today. It’s the Samsung S9 and the Samsung S9+. The phone is being delivered to the homes of hundreds of thousands of UK customers via special delivery today, with up to a million more people expected to shell out in excess of £800 to buy theirs online or on the high street over the weekend. It’s quite something to witness the frenzy generated by these mobile phone release days. Tech journalists review the devices on YouTube videos that get hundreds of millions of views. Read that line again. If you’re driving in town today, be careful. I’m not kidding. Zombies will be unpacking the bastard things, firing them up and walking around while marvelling at the new features.

Mobile phones have replaced television as the methadone metronome, not quite pumping out 150 channels 24 hours a day as Michael Franti memorably sang in 1992, but controlling the user in ways that early telly pioneers could only have dreamed of. No invention has had a more negative impact on humanity than the smart phone. I’ve written previously that 66% of the population has some form of Nomophobia. Nomophobia being the fear of not being able to use your cell phone or other smart device. Last year, researchers at Korea University in Seoul published a very important paper which claimed that smart phone usage impedes brain function. Peer reviewed studies show that 80% of the worlds population has a smart phone within arms reach all of the time. There are endless academic papers (just google key words like cell phones brain activity) that show how smart phones are having a profoundly negative effect on our ability to concentrate, to think, to study, to work and most importantly to interact with one another face to face. Studies on children who possess smart devices (most do) reveal that the kiddies pick up their phones to check them several hundred times a day. Parents haven’t a clue. The media is absent while children are being biologically re-engineered.

Today’s new Samsung S9 comes equipped with retina scanner, fingerprint scanner (standard sadly) and a brand new feature, a blood pressure monitor. I kid you not. Business Wire ran a story on this development yesterday afternoon;

Researchers from the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) and Sage Bionetworks announce the launch of “My BP Lab” a research study that uses surveys and sensor data collected from participants’ phones to quantify and understand their daily stress. The study leverages an optical sensor embedded in the newly-released Samsung Galaxy S9 and S9+ smartphone to derive estimates of heart rate and blood pressure. With My BP Lab, participants can track variation in their blood pressure relative to daily experiences over the course of the three week study. 

“This study potentially will provide the largest dataset ever obtained on stress levels, health behaviors, and physiological responses during the course of one’s daily life,” said Wendy Berry Mendes, UCSF Professor and Principal Investigator of the My BP Lab study. “By collecting subjective experiences, behaviors like sleep and exercise, and blood pressure levels across a three week period, we can identify the most important triggers of stress physiology.” 

Nothing sinister about that then eh? Using the pretence of looking out for your health, they’ll actually be gathering data to help them tighten their grip on you and your grip on your device. So what are we going to do about it? I don’t know. It seems that these devices are more addictive than smack and as you know a smackhead will murder his granny to get to a fix. Don’t forget the 5G rollout either. See Annie Logical Uncensored website www.vigiliae.org/  Barrie Trower and Max Igan on Youtube for more info on the horror of 5G. Share this info with your friends, especially those with children. It can’t be too late. Like I said, google the key words, the studies are there to help you assure them that you are not some tinfoil hat wearing nutter.

 

 

Click HERE to discuss or comment on this post in our forums.

Richie is the host of The Richie Allen Show and has enjoyed a long, and varied, broadcasting career.

You can fool most of the people most of the time. With “5G”, you can fool almost everyone except those in on the joke.

Why should you care? This is just the latest in a long list of scandals by AT&T and Verizon to use the promise of a new technology to get rid of regulations, kill off competition and to raise rates. And this scheme relies on the FCC, not to mention their friendly state and federal politicians, to push it through.

The FCC is very gung-ho about 5G and is backing this plan, but after recently getting rid of Net Neutrality and dumping your basic privacy protections, the FCC’s endorsement of 5G should trigger your distrust — to put it mildly.

C/Net’s headline features current Chairman of the FCC, Ajit Pai (and former Verizon attorney), March 6th, 2018:

Ajit Pai tweets praise for House passage of 5G support bill

“The Ray Baum Act reauthorizes the FCC and encourages deployment of next-generation wireless services in the US.”

Meanwhile, Fierce Wireless quotes Commissioner Brendan Carr, (former lawyer for CTIA, the wireless association, and Verizon):

“A key obstacle [to 5G] is our country’s outdated infrastructure regulations, which were written for previous generations of wireless technology,”… He has proposed a plan to streamline the federal historic and environmental review procedures that apply to wireless infrastructure deployments in hopes of reducing regulatory financial burdens on wireless providers deploying 5G.”

This has been going on for years, but has intensified with the FCC’s attacks on the public interest.

You might first want to read: “Verizon Wireless’s 5G Deployment is a 1 Gig Fairy Tale”. Written in January 2016, it details how 4G has also been a stream of hype.

In fact, America is not even close to Number 1. OpenSignal’s new report, “The State of LTE”, published February 2018, details that America is 62nd in the world in 4G speeds.

And if you think this 5G plan is going to fix this, the history of fiber optic broadband in America should have every person calling for investigations of these ‘new networks’.

Let me be clear: 5G wireless technology is going to be part of the future, sooner or later. But this plan is much more about the subplot.

Here’s part of the subplot that most are missing.

  • 5G Wireless requires a fiber optic wire to be attached to the small cell site every block or two. No company is going to roll out fiber to lots of new areas.
  • 5G doesn’t really exist yet and history shows that almost all “trials” are rigged to be ‘successful’ or you never hear about them. (See the 5G Gig Fairy Tale.)
  • And, as Gizmodo pointed out about AT&T’s fake 5G announcements, 5G is just a marketing term. So there is now, “5G-really-really”, “4G evolution LTE-soon-to-be-5G” — blah, blah, blah — and anything else you can make up.
  • CC rarely, if ever, mentions that “5G” requires a fiber optic wire. Commissioner Carr’s 5G statement never mentions the words “fiber” or ‘state utility’.
  • Meanwhile, there are proposed state-based “5G” bills that have been promulgated by AT&T-Verizon funded politicians based on “model legislation” that AT&T and Verizon created with a group called ALEC, the American Legislative Exchange Council, and others.
  • Cross-Subsidy Heaven: Right now, AT&T and Verizon get to dump a large part of the costs of their wireless build outs into the state-based wireline utilities and charged to local customers.

In short, this is a regulatory play to a) remove all regulations b) allow the companies to take over the state utility wired networks, c) i.e.; have customer-funded networks handed over for private use for whatever they want and d) the FCC’s proposed rules will block any city or state actions.

Fact: 5G Requires a Lot of Fiber to be Deployed.

Government Technology’s headline details the flaw in the 5G deployment, quoting a study by Deloitte. (Ironically, this is the same consulting firm that did the original 1990’s state-based fiber optic plans, including Opportunity New Jersey.)

For further reading on article : https://medium.com/@kushnickbruce/5g-wireless-is-the-new-fiber-optic-bait-and-switch-scandal-646246b8f34d

Go to the profile of bruce kushnick

bruce kushnick

New Networks Institute,Executive Director, & Founding Member, IRREGULATORS; Telecom analyst for 36 years, and I have been playing the piano for 61 years.

This, you understand, is just me expressing my opinion. The message from “Which?” is below this:
OK, I know you guys all have brains and either already know enough about RFID to understand what a terrible idea it is for the general populace, but there are still a staggering number of people who are monumentally naive, and with each passing day, the media, the wifi constantly knocking neurons out of their heads [to say nothing of 5G, which fry an elephant extra crispy in the blink of an eye; the monsanto completely un harmful round up –  – the terminal lack of minerals and nutrition are constantly eroding what intellect people still have and the schools are systematically dumbing down the upcoming adults {see you tube John Taylor Gatto}

SO: let us say that you are one of those people who believe that our systems is benign and the banks are benign – they only want to help SO, first they take the cashiers out of the supermarkets and put in machines. Then they make it so that you need only hold your card over the card payment slot instead of all that hard, tiresome work actually putting your card in a slot and keying four numbers into it – after all, four numbers!! So much effort to remember! So much easier to just wave your card, and then [just to keep you safe] and to make your burden lighter, so you don’t even have to carry that oh so heavy plastic card, and kindly implant you with a chip [for your safety, security and ease of living, so you can pay with a wave of your hand.

Now, you are a young couple about to have a baby, when some evil sod grabs hold of you, nails your feet to the floor, glues your eyes open and makes you watch Vaxxed, the documentary.

Suddenly, you’re not so happy about standing by while your child is lobotomized.

Unfortunately, “for your health and your safety”, the chip, which monitors your well being as well as your location, your identity and your bank account, does exactly what the US is already talking about: they block your child from schools, then they push a button, close your chip accessed to banking. There is no cash anymore, so you cant earn a living; you cant pay for anything even if you have millions. No medical help, no access to transport, fuel, food and so on.

Think of all those people who live on the borders – every market, every boot sale, every window cleaner and anyone else who might have a life based even partially on cash, is out of luck. Really think about the implications of that.. we are utterly dependant on the state and of course they NEVER make mistakes.

Anyone ever buy something you might not be too happy about everyone on the planet knowing about? Too late!

What happens if there is a glitch? A piece of information mis – typed; a hard drive with just one or two bad sectors? Everywhere governments and businesses – including the banks, are reducing human staff because we cost money. How, specifically, do explain to a computer that is believed to be infallible – so much more efficient – so more “reliable” than a mere human? A computer knows its right.

It cant think, it cant reason; it cant recognize the possibility or the error. The data is there digital and now you do not exist.

There are so many reasons why this is a very bad idea!

One of the most commonly used strategies in business, in sales, in politics and government is a technique that can be called “the thin end of the wedge”.

Look around you! There is a clear and visible time line, leading form money in your pocket to cards and money , to cards, to chips. Slowly and easily, so you don’t really notice and become comfortable – used to – every small change that makes the big one and no one stops to question.

Perhaps you have faith in this demonic technological terror in which we live?

No matter where you go, no matter how reliable machines may be, shit happens and if it happens to you when we are forced to have completely electrical money, you will be totally and utterly SCREWED.

ThInk about it: more and more high street banks are closing – the banks are centralising. Before long, the only place you will be able to talk to a human – or provide proof of your ID, will be somewhere like London – IF you can get there without paying for it digitally. Taking away the cash machines is a really dumb idea. Taking away the coinage of the realm is utterly beyond moronic!
IF you can rely on one thing in this universe, it is the inevitable, unavoidable fact that SHIT HAPPENS, and sooner or later, it will happen to you.

https://whichcouk.bsd.net/page/m/7bcc8f83/7e979332/75afb451/41591522/3011097716/VEsH/

Jolie Diane 
#silentweapons 4 #quietwars If you were the enemy, you might try to destroy the infrastructure and the environment from within, without people noticing, over the course of decades.

https://www.youtube.com/watch…
Dangerous RF Radiation Cell Tower in Residential Area
How did dangerous technology like GE and 5G slip past all public and environmental safety regulations?

http://fpif.org/global_warming_the_quick_fix_is_in/
2007 BUSH GE /
Aggressively lobbied for GE research
“At the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the U.S. government is lobbying for “geoengineering” activities such as deliberately polluting the stratosphere to deflect sunlight and lower temperatures.”
https://zerogeoengineering.com/20…/global-warming-quick-fix/

Telecommunications Act of 1996 CLINTON / 5G
https://www.fcc.gov/general/telecommunications-act-1996
This bill made it nearly impossible to stop towers from going up everywhere.

FY2018 FEDERAL WEATHER ENTERPRISE TRUMP 2017
https://zerogeoengineering.com/…/federal-weather-enterpris…/

https://www.politico.com/…/how-china-infiltrated-us-classro…
How China Infiltrated U.S. Classrooms
January 16, 2018

Our national and international Anti-GE legislative initiative is targeting not just GE aerosol emissions, but also wireless emissions from GE/WM technology. Contact us to get started in your state. Thanks.
https://zerogeoengineering.com/…/take-action-call-email-me…/

Contact us if you would like to get your rain tested.
https://zerogeoengineering.com/lab-tests/

ZG Rain testing GoFundMe – https://www.gofundme.com/u9yszun3

https://zero5g.com Zero 5G

Image may contain: sky and outdoor
Image may contain: sky, cloud and outdoor
Image may contain: sky, cloud and nature
Image may contain: tree, sky, plant, grass, outdoor and nature