As you aware, YT has now resorted to getting rid of any channels that share Alternative news and research. This was the reason that this website was built. So, please bookmark it and visit often, join the forum etc.

It is apparent that there is a drive to stop anyone from speaking out about tyranny, so keep it real and visit local websites etc

 

Pilot Study Shows Dramatic Difference In Brain Activity With EHS (Electrohypersensitive) Cases As Compared To Controls (Non EHS).

PRESS TELE-CONFERENCE, THURS., Dec. 7th, 12 NOON PST.

This is the first known published study to show pictures of EHS on an fMRI.

LOS ANGELES, Dec. 5, 2017 /PRNewswire/ — The Peoples Initiative Foundation has announced the conclusion of a pilot study they organised, headed up by Dr. Gunnar Heuser, showing EHS on an fMRI. This study was originally published by Degruyter in July of 2017, but was absent pictures of the controls.  The company waited until the pictures were placed in the study to issue this press release, as the visual difference between the cases and controls is quite dramatic.

Exposure to wireless devices and infrastructure is believed to have been the cause of the EHS in the cases.

The large white area on the left side of the left picture shows hyperconnectivity in the brain of a case (EHS person). The same small white area in the picture to the right shows normal brain activity in a control (non EHS person).

EHS or “electrohypersensitivity” in civilian terms, “microwave radiation poisoning” in military terms, is an RF (radio frequency) or microwave radiation induced illness who’s very existence is hotly debated by government and wireless industry scientists and personnel.  This study provides evidence that abnormalities exist in the EHS brain that are not present in the non EHS brain and could put an end to the debate on the existence of EHS.  It also defies the widely held governmental and wireless industry stance that wireless devices and infrastructure have no consequences to human health and could impact the prevailing opinion of wireless radiation being deemed safe. 

The Peoples Initiative Foundation will be holding a tele-press conference to take questions from the media Thurs. Dec. 7th @ 12 noon PST.  The study’s principle author, Dr. Gunnar Heuser will be on the call to take questions about the study, as well as Liz Barris, study organizer and one of the EHS cases in the study to take questions about EHS.

Journalists on deadline who RSVP by emailing: contact@thepeoplesinitiative.org with the # they will be calling in from will be given first priority in the tele-press conference queue.

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/pilot-study-shows-dramatic-difference-in-brain-activity-with-ehs-electrohypersensitive-cases-as-compared-to-controls-non-ehs-300566854.html

5G lkeaflet            

THE LINK ABOVE IS A 5G LEAFLET THAT CAN BE DOWNLOADED, PRINTED AND SHARED IN YOUR NEIGHBOURHOOD.

The Dangers of 5G and What We Are Not Being Told!

Governments throughout the world are pushing for the rollout of 5G (Fifth Generation) technology as if it is just an upgrade from 3G and 4G.

THIS IS FALSE

Mobile and Wireless experts such as Nick Hunn and William Webb state that this technology does NOT guarantee better connectivity, faster speeds or reliability and that the huge amounts of tax payers’ money being used to fund this would have been better spent upgrading the 4G network AND been far cheaper.

4G is between 1GHZ and 4GHZ whilst 5G Technology is 4GHZ to 100’s. xBandwidths of 26-90 GHZ are to be utilised. This is the equivalent of 90 billion electromagnetic waves hitting the body per second – tens of Billions MORE electromagnetic waves than what we have been used to.

The difference will also be in wave lengths, millimetre wave lengths that are shorter and pulsed and can penetrate the skin easier.

There are already over 10,000 studies showing the radiation that we are exposed to using EM radio frequency levels from 3+4G.

220 doctors and scientists in 39 countries have petitioned to stop this technology from being used and many citizens worldwide are against this being used in this way.

There are NO research studies on the long term effects of this onslaught of millimetre wave radiation but government agencies are going to go ahead regardless.

This type of radiation is called non-thermal or non-ionizing and government agencies have tried to deny that there is any danger despite the studies of medical and Independent researchers.

The technology is also government surveillance technology.

Millimetre waves in the ultra-high bands can affect our cells and cause higher levels of cancers, strokes, heart problems – all the life threatening diseases that we already suffer from.

Also, the biggest insurers, Lloyds, have refused to insure against EMF injuries from using phones, etc.

According to the Infrastructure Commission in the UK, small cell towers will need to be placed between 100 and 300 meters apart EVERYWHERE.

The so-called ”Internet of Things” means even household appliances will use this technology and smart cars will also contain heavy radars systems that will spew out EMR (electromagnetic radiation) from all angles – magnify this by millions of cars!

Government Agencies and University funded research is being paid for by the telecommunications Industry who stand to profit. Government can no longer be trusted to put our health before profits.

If this technology is supposedly safe, why do the American military use millimetre wave technology weapons that disperse crowds, causing burns to the skin?

We demand Independent, long term, medical and safety research BEFORE this technology is rolled out in our streets and homes. Those who force this technology on us without proper safety assessments will be served Notices of Liability and will be personally liable for any harm that this technology causes.

Further Info at: inpowermovement.com Annie Logical Uncensored: www.vigiliae.org Real Change is a group started in Leeds by Jason Nota and we have many local Facebook groups that help homeless and street kitchens, etc. To get in touch, contact Annie at her site above.

FRACKING in the UK

The Truth Behind the ‘Dash for Gas’

A Documentary by Marco Jackson

In December 2012 David Cameron lifted the moratorium (temporary ban) on the process known as Hydraulic Fracturing. A moratorium which had been in place since June 2011, when it was acknowledged that two minor earthquakes in the Blackpool area, had been triggered by Hydraulic Fracturing in the vicinity.

The process of High Volume High Pressure Hydraulic Fracturing is an integral part of the extraction process for Unconventional Gas & Oil, found in Shale deposits and Coal Seams. The UK reportedly has sufficient Unconventional Gas resources to provide the Country with Energy Security for many decades into the future.

You can purchase this DVD for just £5.00 from here a trailer for this video can be found below.

Spreadsheet of Fracking Chemicals below. Downloadable Version here

Ian R Crane at http://www.frackingnightmare.com along with many other dedicated protestors could use some help and support at Kirby Misperton Yorkshire. For more information on their progress and current status at stopping Barclays Bank from proceeding with the drilling you can visit the website here Facebook Page here support for the campaign is growing daily but more is needed. Please take some time to support them.

Lloyd’s of London excludes liability coverage for RF/EMF claims + woensdag, 25 maart 2015 – Dossier: Juridische informatie

Bron 1: smartmeterharm.org/2015/03/18/lloyds-of-london-excludes-liability-coverage-for-rfemf-claims/ . 18 maart 2015 Credit to Sharon Noble, Director, Coalition to Stop Smart Meters in British Columbia, for bringing this information to the public.

Lloyd’s of London excludes any liability coverage for claims, “Directly or indirectly arising out of, resulting from or contributed to by electromagnetic fields, electromagnetic radiation, electromagnetism, radio waves or noise.” (Exclusion 32) This information is from CFC Underwriting Limited, which is a Lloyd’s of London underwriter (page 12-13 of policy document, page 13-14 of pdf), and was posted by Citizens for Safe Technology: This is a recent renewal policy which, as of Feb. 7, 2015, excludes any coverage associated with exposure to non-ionizing radiation.

In response to clarification, this response was received on Feb. 18, 2015 from CFC Underwriting LTD, London, UK agent for Lloyd’s: “‘The Electromagnetic Fields Exclusion (Exclusion 32) is a General Insurance Exclusion and is applied across the market as standard. The purpose of the exclusion is to exclude cover for illnesses caused by continuous long-term non-ionising radiation exposure i.e. through mobile phone usage.” www.citizensforsafetechnology.org/Lloyds-of-London-excludes-coverage-for-RFEMR-claims,2,4168 The policy document is here: emrabc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/InsuranceAEWordingCanadav17Feb2015.pdf or www.citizensforsafetechnology.org/uploads/scribd/Insurance%20AE%20Wording%20Canada%20v1%207%20Feb%202015.pdf From the Lloyd’s of London policy: “Exclusions (starting on Page 6 of policy, Page 7 of pdf): We will not a) make any payment on your behalf for any claim, or

b) incur any costs and expenses, or c) reimburse you for any loss, damage, legal expenses, fees or costs sustained by you, or d) pay any medical expenses: … 32. Electromagnetic fields (General Insurance Exclusions –Page 7 of policy): directly or indirectly arising out of, resulting from or contributed to by electromagnetic fields, electromagnetic radiation, electromagnetism, radio waves or noise.” This would include the microwave radiation and electromagnetic radiation emitted from Smart Meters (AMR, AMI, PLC), from Home Area Network devices and appliances (including AC and thermostats), from Wi-Fi transmitters, from wireless devices in schools, offices, and homes, and from wireless sensors and wireless-connected fire alarms.

“This means that the Province (that is we, the taxpayer) will be held liable for claims from teachers and parents of children suffering biological effects from wifi in schools, from homeowners exposed to RF from mandated smart meters on homes, and from employees forced to use cell phones or exposed to wifi at work. Lawsuits in other countries have resulted in huge payments already, and it is only a matter of time before similar lawsuits are filed and won in Canada. “Potentially those who allow such devices, after having been fully informed about the dangers, could be held liable for negligence, and directors’ insurance may not provide financial protection. Directors’ insurance applies when people are performing their duties “in good faith”. It is hard to argue they are acting “in good faith” after having been warned by true scientific experts and by a well-respected insurer. “Consider yourself notified once again that you could be held legally responsible for the decisions you have made.” Yours truly, Sharon Noble Director, Coalition to Stop Smart Meters in British Columbia Victoria, British Columbia, Canada The full letter with policy document is here: www.citizensforsafetechnology.org/Lloyds-of-London-excludes-coverage-for-RFEMR-claims,2,4168 . Scholen verantwoordelijk voor schade door RF straling Bron 2: thebridgenewsservice.com/2015/02/26/school-boards-left-on-the-hook-for-wi-fi-injuries/ . 26 febr. 2015

CANADA, CORPORATIONS, GOVERNMENT, HEALTH School Boards Left On The Hook For Wi-Fi Injuries. By Janis Hoffman School officials could be personally liable for exposing children and staff to microwave radiation in our schools. School districts, school boards and school medical health officers have been notified that Lloyd’s of London has now excluded any liability coverage for injuries, “directly or indirectly arising out of, resulting from or contributed to by electromagnetic fields, electromagnetic radiation, electromagnetism, radio waves or noise.” This would include the microwave radiation emitting from the commercial wi-fi transmitters and wireless devices in our schools. In response to a request for clarification, this response was received on Feb. 18, 2015 from CFC Underwriting LTD, London, UK agent for Lloyd’s: “The Electromagnetic Fields Exclusion (Exclusion 32) is a General Insurance Exclusion and is applied across the market as standard. The purpose of the exclusion is to exclude cover for illnesses caused by continuous long-term non-ionizing radiation exposure i.e. through mobile phone usage.” Lloyd’s of London, one of the world’s largest insurance companies often leads the way in protection by taking on risks that no one else will. At the end of this article there is a copy of a recent renewal policy which, as of Feb. 7, 2015, excludes any coverage associated with exposure to non-ionizing radiation. In 2011 the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) dropped a bombshell on the wireless industry. They designated exposure to wi-fi radiation to be a possible human carcinogen. As well in the 1990s illnesses resulting from asbestos exposure, covered by Lloyd’s at the time, almost destroyed the insurance company. Due to these issues, it appears Lloyd’s is acting fast to avoid another such financial fiasco by not covering illnesses that result from exposure to wireless radiation. With the Lloyd’s of London announcement, parents and teachers are left with this question: exactly who is liable if their child is harmed by wi-fi in their school? Concomitantly, are the individuals who approved the installation of wireless internet networks in our schools to be held personally liable for negligence? School officials and administrators appear to be in a bind as they have refused to acknowledge the 1000s of peer-reviewed, non-industry funded studies by scientists and medical experts that show that wi-fi radiation is harmful, especially to children. Moreover, their dogged allegiance to Health Canada’s now invalidated safety guidelines have left parents with nowhere else to turn other than the courts. It appears that school boards’ intransigent position on the issue may have left board members themselves vulnerable to being personally sued.

School boards may be covered by directors’ insurance which applies to people who are performing their duties “in good faith.” The question is: are they still protected when it could be shown that they were being “willfully blind?” Definitions: “In good faith:” in contract law, the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is a general presumption that the parties to a contract will deal with each other honestly, fairly, and in good faith, so as to not destroy the right of the other party or parties to receive the benefits of the contract. “Wilful blindness:” (sometimes called ignorance of law, wilful ignorance or contrived ignorance or Nelsonian knowledge) is a term used in law to describe a situation in which an individual seeks to avoid civil or criminal liability for a wrongful act by intentionally putting him or herself in a position where he or she will be unaware of facts that would render him or her liable.

https://thebridgenewsservice.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/image001.jpg Zie ook: www.andrewgeller.me/blog/2015/03/25/lloyds-wont-discuss-emf-clause/ . 25 maart 2015

Lloyd’s Won’t Discuss Their New EMF Exclusion Clause Last week, a couple of blogs noted that a recent commercial liability insurance renewal policy issued through a Lloyd’s of London underwriter contained a liability exclusion clause about electromagnetic fields. The clause excludes any compensation for claims: “directly or indirectly arising out of, resulting from or contributed to by electromagnetic fields, electromagnetic radiation, electromagnetism, radio waves or noise.” It is important that “radio waves” are explicitly included as they, specifically the microwave zone, are what enable wireless communications devices like cell phones, wi-fi, cordless phones etc. After the policy holder made an inquiry seeking clarification about the exclusion language, CFC Underwriting LTD in London, the UK agent for Lloyd’s, sent the following: “The Electromagnetic Fields Exclusion (Exclusion 32) is a General Insurance Exclusion and is applied across the market as standard. The purpose of the exclusion is to exclude cover for illnesses caused by continuous long-term non-ionising radiation exposure i.e. through mobile phone usage.” Sharon Noble, Director of the Coalition to Stop Smart Meter Harm in British Columbia (Canada) brought the clause and CFC’s response to public attention.

My interpretation of this revealing statement is that CFC Underwriting, and perhaps all of “the market” is that the time has come to hedge against a future surge in “illnesses caused by continuous long-term non-ionising radiation exposure i.e. through mobile phone usage.” Why else would they refuse coverage “across the market as standard.”? “Unfortunately, Lloyd’s doesn’t have a spokesperson who can talk about this so we’re going to have to decline.” Lloyd’s of London describes itself as “the world’s specialist insurance market,” and they’ve insured and paid on a variety of unusual risks and catastrophic claims. Unlike many other insurance brands, Lloyd’s is not a company; it’s “a market where our members join together as syndicates to insure risks.” What they insure falls into seven broad categories: casualty, property, marine, energy, motor, aviation and reinsurance. Reinsurance is the key here, as, among other things, it serves “to protect an insurer against very large claims.” Think tobacco, asbestos and climate change. And microwave radiation apparently, even though regulatory and health agencies around the world refuse to accept RF exposure as causing illness. www.andrewgeller.me/blog/2015/03/25/lloyds-wont-discuss-their-emf-exclusion-clause/lloyds-emf-exclusion/ I was seriously intrigued at all of this and emailed an inquiry to the Lloyd’s press center stating that I wanted some more details about the exclusion. I told them that as I primarily produce radio, I’d want to capture the conversation on tape, but would also be happy to talk with someone off tape, but on the record. Two hours later, I received a response from a woman at Prosek Partners, “a communications consultancy that delivers an unexpected level of passion, creativity and marketing savvy,” which apparently handles such issues for Lloyd’s. She wanted to know more about what exactly I was seeking and asked if I would “mind expanding on your request a bit?” so she could best determine how to help me. I obliged, sending back “Basically I’m interested in the 5 Ws, but why especially. I’d also like to how widely the exclusion is being replicated in Lloyd’s policies. Is there any sense internally at Lloyd’s about this being a first step that is likely to be copied industry wide? Was there any conversation pre/post release of the exclusion language with any wireless industry businesses?” This afternoon (she apologized for the 24 hour ‘delay’) she wrote back to tell me “Unfortunately, Lloyd’s doesn’t have a spokesperson who can talk about this so we’re going to have to decline.” Now I’m used to rejection as a reporter, but I couldn’t quite believe this and told her so in my reply, mentioning that their refusal to talk about the policy change would possibly “draw attention away from more important aspects of the story.”

The takeaway here is that the Lloyd’s, the world’s largest insurance market place has “across the market” not only refused to provide coverage for any claims arising from exposure to cell phones, wi-fi or any other source of electromagnetic frequency radiation, but also refused to answer a media inquiry about why, claiming that there is no one “who can.” Hmmm…

 

CLIMATE CHANGE:

A Coordinated Strategy Could Focus Federal Geoengineering Research and Inform Governance Efforts

GAO-10-903: Published: Sep 23, 2010. Publicly Released: Oct 26, 2010.

http://www.gao.gov/assets/320/310105.pdf

Policymakers have raised questions about geoengineering–large-scale deliberate interventions in the earth’s climate system to diminish climate change or its impacts–and its role in a broader strategy of mitigating and adapting to climate change. Most geoengineering proposals fall into two categories: carbon dioxide removal (CDR), which would remove carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere, and solar radiation management (SRM), which would offset temperature increases by reflecting sunlight back into space. GAO was asked to examine (1) the state of geoengineering science, (2) federal involvement in geoengineering, and (3) the views of experts and federal officials about the extent to which federal laws and international agreements apply to geoengineering, and any governance challenges. GAO examined relevant scientific and policy studies, relevant domestic laws and international agreements, analyzed agency data describing relevant research for fiscal years 2009 and 2010, and interviewed federal officials and selected recognized experts in the field.

Few geoengineering experiments or modeling studies have been conducted, and major uncertainties remain on the efficacy and potential consequences of geoengineering approaches. GAO’s review of relevant studies and discussions with selected experts indicated that relatively more laboratory and field research relevant to certain CDR approaches exists, although most of this research was not designed to apply to geoengineering. In contrast, few modeling studies or field experiments have focused on SRM approaches, according to experts and recent studies. Experts identified only one SRM field experiment with published results–a 2009 Russian experiment that injected aerosols into the middle troposphere to measure their reflectivity. Experts, as well as relevant studies, identified several major uncertainties in need of further investigation for CDR and SRM. Federal agencies identified 52 research activities, totalling about $100.9 million, relevant to geoengineering during fiscal years 2009 and 2010. GAO’s analysis found that 43 activities, totalling about $99 million, focused either on mitigation strategies or basic science. Most of the research focused on mitigation efforts, such as geological sequestration of CO2, which were identified as relevant to CDR approaches but not designed to address them directly. GAO found that nine activities, totalling about $1.9 million, directly investigated SRM or less conventional CDR approaches. Officials from interagency bodies coordinating federal responses to climate change indicated that their offices have not developed a coordinated strategy, and believe that, due to limited federal investment, it is premature to coordinate geoengineering activities. However, federal officials also noted that a large share of existing federal climate science research could be relevant to geoengineering.

Agencies requested roughly $2 billion for such activities in fiscal year 2010.

Without a coordinated federal strategy for geoengineering, it is difficult for agencies to determine the extent of relevant research, and policymakers may lack key information to inform subsequent decisions on geoengineering and existing climate science efforts.

According to legal experts and federal officials, the extent to which federal laws and international agreements apply to geoengineering is unclear. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has taken steps to regulate one CDR approach and has determined that it has sufficient authority to regulate two other approaches. EPA officials said EPA has not assessed the applicability of other laws because geoengineering research is in its initial stages. Similarly, legal experts and Department of State officials said that, except for three instances, parties to international agreements have not addressed their agreements’ applicability to geoengineering, largely due to limited geoengineering activity and awareness of the issue. Legal experts’ and officials’ views differed on the best approach for international governance, but generally agreed that the federal government should take a coordinated, interagency approach on domestic regulation. Experts and officials also identified governance challenges, such as the need to address liability. GAO recommends that within the Executive Office of the President, the appropriate entities, such as the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), establish a clear strategy for geoengineering research in the context of the federal response to climate change to ensure a coordinated federal approach. OSTP neither agreed nor disagreed with our recommendation, but provided technical comments.

http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-903