{"id":223965,"date":"2020-12-30T08:15:18","date_gmt":"2020-12-30T08:15:18","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/?p=223965"},"modified":"2021-01-02T09:00:58","modified_gmt":"2021-01-02T09:00:58","slug":"giving-life-the-electric-chair-the-plain-physics-biophysics-of-phone-wifi-radiation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/?p=223965","title":{"rendered":"Giving Life the Electric Chair \u2014 The Plain Physics & Biophysics of Phone & WiFi Radiation"},"content":{"rendered":"

Peter Tocci \u2013 Activist Post Dec 29, 2020<\/strong><\/h1>\n

In plain language, technical aspects of a terminal threat to life are discussed, whereby \u201cresponsible,\u201d \u201csafer\u201d, and \u201csafe\u201d technology become oxymorons. Even cursory technical understanding could help people see more clearly through official deceit and even dubious warnings from scientists, writers and activists.<\/p>\n

Summary<\/h3>\n

The Physics. <\/strong>Electricity. Magnetism, They\u2019re closely related. The artificial energy sent through the air to carry information to and from your phone, or for WiFi, is both electric and magnetic. It\u2019s called electro-magnetic radiation (EMR). It comes in waves. It\u2019s also polarized, having \u2018positive\u2019 and \u2018negative\u2019 aspects like a battery or magnet.<\/p>\n

Special properties are added that make telecom\/WiFi possible. For optimal performance, the EMR is digitized, meaning a computer can process it. For content (data) capacity and speed, a type of radiation called microwave is used. Content (voice, pictures, etc.) \u2018surfs\u2019 the carrier wave as it\u2019s modified in two key ways, called modulation and frame repetition.<\/p>\n

Due to polarization, waves from multiple sources can interact as they \u2018meet\u2019 in the air and in objects, including organisms. Sources include waves from all vertical antennas for commercial radio, digital TV, fire, police, and mobile-phone base stations.<\/p>\n

The result is a highly complex, rapidly varying pattern of electric and magnetic forces.<\/p>\n

The Biophysics. A \u2018funny\u2019 thing about life, it\u2019s also electromagnetic. EMR disastrously interferes with the other and that\u2019s the nuts and bolts. There is extreme biological sensitivity to the forces of artificial EMR. It\u2019s not toxic like chemicals, but more like \u2018static\u2019 in your FM radio, and that\u2019s called radiofrequency interference (RFI \u2013 more below).<\/p>\n

Within biological systems, interaction also occurs between the radiation and techno-humanity\u2019s main contribution to the environment: Toxins, especially metals. Last, but not least in the list of threats, is cumulative effect over time.<\/p>\n

An extensive list of resulting medical conditions described in the scientific literature, is provided. Because we\u2019re whole-body irradiated virtually non-stop, and all (charged and polar) biological elements in and out of cells are susceptible, the list is quite impressive.<\/p>\n

Most importantly, the greatest threat is to the ecosystem, a<\/em>nd not \u2018merely\u2019 about radiation. Rapacious, toxic mining; processing; manufacturing; and final disposition take a heavy toll (international intrigue, corporate crime, aggression and social injustice are also involved).<\/p>\n

The sum of all \u2018parts\u2019 \u2014 the basic wave characteristics, added properties, interactions, and cumulative effect (regardless of \u201cG\u201d iteration or power levels below what would \u2018microwave\u2019 you) \u2014 present chaotic influence to an organism\u2019s balanced and proper function.<\/p>\n

Effects, detailed in the text, include the \u201celectric chair,\u201d cumulative effect, the \u2018oscillation\u2019 of electrically charged and polar elements, and mitochondrial dysfunction (could be secondary to oscillation). Even under optimal testing conditions, all variables are not in play. It is thus impossible to establish a safe exposure level.<\/em><\/p>\n

Other Considerations,<\/strong> a \u2018digression.\u2019 Digital wireless telecom\/WiFi is the descendant of military stealth weapon technology and also the foundation of a meticulous data gathering, surveillance, and direct human-control system rapidly gestating in the global technosphere. This was its original main purpose, not telecom\/WiFi (the \u2018hook\u2019): A nightmare of meticulous observation and control of personal and societal life.<\/p>\n

Summary\/Conclusion.<\/strong> Mobile telecom\/WiFi is, without remedy other than termination, one of the most devastating environmental and health threats (and threats to liberty) ever created. The prospect of \u201cresponsible\/safe\u201d wireless technology is about as remote as things get. Mitigations (reducing exposure, etc) are futile. Appeal to regulators is futile, since there is no safe exposure. And they already know the threat, or are controlled by those who do.<\/p>\n

An exceptional book by pioneer researcher Robert O. Becker, MD is entitled The Body Electric: Electromagnetism And The Foundation Of Life<\/a><\/strong><\/em>. With phones and WiFi, are we tampering fatally with the foundation of life?<\/p>\n

The genuine solution for survival and the remains of liberty is for people to break the trance and quit wireless; except, disturbingly, it seems many would rather die. If the reader \u2018gets it\u2019 at this point, there\u2019s no need but curiosity to read further. Please spread the word \u2014 and lose that phone if you haven\u2019t<\/p>\n

Introduction<\/h3>\n

Although the situation has improved somewhat of (too) late, the wireless \u2018cautionary\u2019 community \u2014 scientists, activists, and writers \u2014 has placed disproportionate focus on human concerns rather than the ecosystem. Sources are given here on environmental assault, but much of the text is about humans, because that\u2019s the focus of FCC\/FDA regulation, which is a boondoggle for that reason and as an insult to science.<\/p>\n

Based on the biophysics, no routinely, even briefly, exposed living thing is exempt. A possible exception may be at least some bacteria, two of which are known to become more antibiotic resistant. Because it\u2019s nearly impossible to escape exposure, \u201cbriefly\u201d is relative, virtually impossible. It\u2019s about individual response to RFI and cumulative effect \u2014 in concert with the rest of our technological barrage on health and life (pets too).<\/p>\n

Interestingly, a precursor to wireless telecom\/WiFI was research on military stealth weapons beginning in the 1950s. By the mid-1970s, the harms were well and widely understood.<\/p>\n

Obviously, a context for mobile telecom\/WiFi is technology per se. Regardless of benefit, one thing is certain about most of that, especially advanced technology. Somewhere along the line from the acquisition of resources (extractivism), to processing, manufacture, use, and disposal, it\u2019s chemically\/energetically devastating to planet\/biosphere.<\/em> Wireless encompasses that entire line.<\/p>\n

In \u2018technociety,\u2019 or the developed world, as opposed to low-tech\/indigenous, destructive environmental plunder, politely called \u2018natural resources,\u2019 has long been acceptable behavior for meeting \u2018human needs.\u2019 Or is it mostly \u2018wants.\u2019 Either way, Nature pays the price. Of humans, however, most susceptible to RFI and toxins are fetuses and kids up to 21 years.<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n

\u201c5G\u201d remarks are included below because the physics and biophysics make 2G-4G a quite sufficiently terminal nightmare, making opposition to \u201c5G\u201d per se, instead of all<\/strong> wireless, misguided, unscientific \u2014 and quite dangerous. Please see section Bent Wheel on the \u201c5G\u201d Bandwagon<\/strong> in \u201c5G\u201d Hysteria Times Corona Hysteria Equals Hysteria Squared.<\/strong><\/a><\/em><\/p>\n

Backward priorities slowly reversing of (too) late, appear in today\u2019s surfeit of \u201cStop 5G!\u201d hysteria: 1) Human emphasis, 2) traditionally, inflaming paranoia about ground infrastructure (some of it erroneous) rather than satellites; and 3) scant\/no emphasis on the more imminent cumulative threat from long-term, near-constant exposure to 2G-4G (c. 28 years). This could easily erupt in an intractable cascade of eco-harm and\/or illness (COVID?).<\/p>\n

Opposition to \u201c5G\u201d per se squanders precious time. It implies that we can dance with the 2G-4G \u2018devil\u2019 and come away clean \u2014 but only if we (but not Earth) take (futile) precautions, like \u2018reducing exposure.\u2019 It\u2019s rather foolishly said that \u201c5G\u201d must be proven safe before deployment, when none of the previous G\u2019s have been. All harms cited when \u201c5G\u201d has been turned on are classic 2G-4G symptoms. Ironic is that \u2018half\u2019 of \u201c5G\u201d is 2G-4G frequencies, but complaint focus has been on high-frequency 5G (millimeter wave).<\/p>\n

As clarified in the text, a radiation exposure level causing no effects, forever, for all life <\/em>\u2014 even if it could exist \u2014 would simply not run the system. This was widely known and openly declared at least two decades before 2G (digital, 1G was analog). Treacherous scientific fraud followed, creating a convenient bias<\/strong>: Harm comes only from tissue heating. This unscientific ploy underlies today\u2019s official criminal assurance of safety \u2013 internationally.<\/p>\n

The Physics \u2014 Tech Talk Made Easy<\/h3>\n

This discussion may be \u2018under\u2019 the heads of some readers, but we can\u2019t assume. If so, skip to The Biophysics <\/strong>(the core of the article).<\/p>\n

As noted, electromagnetic waves is energy having electrical and magnetic \u2018components\u2019 or properties. The terms \u2018electromagnetic radiation\u2019 (EMR) and \u2018electromagnetic field\u2019 (EMF) are central to discussion of the threat of phones and WiFi. EMFs can be static, so you could say EMR is EMF in motion. As noted also, EMR used in telecom\/WiFi systems is artificial<\/strong> (where the trouble begins).<\/p>\n

EMR is described by its wavelength and frequency. As shown in the (very simplified) diagram, wavelength is the distance in meters between two crests, or peaks, like we see in ocean waves.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Frequency is how often the waves come. It\u2019s measured in waves, or cycles, per second, called \u201chertz\u201d (Hz). One Hz is a single cycle per second. \u2018X\u2019 number of Hz is used till we get to a thousand, then it\u2019s kilohertz (KHz). Next is a million, megahertz (MHz). Then a billion, gigahertz (GHz). Per second \u2013 a challenge to get the mind around.<\/p>\n

Phones and WiFi employ a type of EMR called \u2018microwave, \u2019micro\u2019 in this case meaning short wavelength. The microwave range exists at the upper end of a very wide range of frequencies and wavelengths collectively called radiofrequency (RF). RF range is from 3 Hz (100,000 kilometers wavelength!) to 300 GHz (1 millimeter wavelength).<\/p>\n

The microwave range is usually said to comprise frequencies from three hundred million cycles (300 MHz\/30 GHz) to three hundred billion cycles (300 GHz), and wavelengths between 1 meter and 1 millimeter respectively. As the chart shows, microwave covers the ranges named Ultra High Frequency (UHF) and Extremely High Frequency (EHF). It is used in telecom\/WiFi to achieve great data capacity and speed (despite how the chart might look, transition between ranges is gradual).<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>

Click to enlarge<\/p><\/div>\n

The frequencies used \u2018traditionally\u2019 in telecom\/WiFi (2G-4G) are sometimes referred to as \u201csub-6 GHz.\u201d They provide sufficient object penetration and range for good two-way transmission. Higher \u2013 GHz \u2013 frequencies, called \u201cmillimeter wave\u201d (MMW) due to their wavelengths, have been added, creating two \u2018entities\u2019 with different specifications, but which together are called \u201c5G\u201d.<\/em> This is usually omitted in opposition rhetoric. Ultimately, \u20185G 4G\u2019 will supplant pre-5G 4G. Get it?<\/p>\n

Thus, \u201c5G\u201d is in quotes, because generally speaking, any \u201c5G\u201d discussion, opposition or warning that doesn\u2019t make the distinction between its two specifications, especially when it comes to harm, safety testing, areas of deployment, and density of antenna location, is highly suspect. It\u2019s a complex scenario that most opposers seem to want to avoid. Much easier just to jump on the bandwagon.<\/p>\n

The term \u201c5G\u201d is tossed carelessly about, causing confusion and misunderstanding. Perhaps there is fear that \u201cStop 5G!\u201d might be weakened if people knew that sub-6 GHz 5G provides at least 30% more speed without MMW. What Do YOU Mean When You Say \u201c5G\u201d?<\/em><\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

Digital Waves<\/strong><\/em><\/h4>\n

It\u2019s correlative only, but no sooner did 2G (digital) arrive in the US than trouble arose. It was first revealed on a 1993 Larry King Live\u2122 <\/em>show devoted entirely to the legal case of a brain cancer in the same shape as the area of concentrated radiation immediately surrounding a phone antenna. For details on this interesting, unsavory story that became a national furor, and for more insight into the politics of wireless, please see section High-Level Deceit<\/strong> in Wireless Technology: Ultra Convenient. Endlessly Entertaining. Criminally Instigated. Terminally Pathological.<\/strong><\/a><\/em><\/p>\n

Polarization<\/strong><\/em><\/h4>\n

Unlike natural electromagnetic fields, artificial EMR is polarized, meaning it exhibits opposing qualities like a battery or magnet. This is a major factor in all harmful effects.<\/p>\n

Exposure Variability<\/strong><\/em><\/h4>\n

Constant, instantaneous change in signal characteristics inflicts impactful chaos on charged and polar biological elements. As explained below, it comes in several forms: Modulation, a process called \u2018frame repetition,\u2019 and wave interactions.<\/p>\n

Transmitted waves are called \u201ccarrier frequencies\u201d \u2014 for example, 1900 MHz, for cordless phones. The station numbers on your FM radio represent carrier frequencies, also in the MHz range, as the chart shows. Carriers carry and deliver the \u2018mail\u2019 (content) \u2014 text, voice, music, images, video and websites (we\u2019ll call it all \u2018data\u2019 for simplicity).<\/p>\n

\u2018FM\u2019<\/strong> stands for frequency modulation.<\/strong> Relatively small frequency variations in the carrier frequency represent\/encode the data. Without modulation there would be nothing to see or hear. Modulating the carrier wave creates signal variability. It\u2019s often referred to as pulsing.<\/p>\n

Frame repetition <\/strong>is another form of variability for data. It\u2019s not necessary to understand the technical details, only to know that this feature is inherent in the transmission, adding to the moment-to-moment chaos. Technically, it\u2019s pulsing.<\/p>\n

Interaction<\/strong> occurs in the field between and among waves from multiple sources (antennas), including base stations (tower antennas) and mobile devices. Interaction\/synergy also occurs in biosystems between radiation and toxins. These features will be detailed later.<\/p>\n

\u2018Physics-speaking,\u2019<\/strong> it comes down to this: For data capacity and speed, digital microwave is needed. Polarization arises as the wave is created, and is unavoidable. For transmitting data, modulation and frame repetition are added. And interactions have just been noted.<\/p>\n

Before continuing, please see section History of Official Awareness<\/strong> in What Do YOU Mean When You Say \u201c5G\u201d?<\/strong><\/em><\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n

The Biophysics \u2014 Effects of Radiation<\/strong><\/h3>\n

A distinction exists between biosystem effects per se, namely, disturbance of charged and polar elements on the one hand, and medical issues \u2014 symptomologies\/pathologies \u2014 that may consequently arise, on the other (RF as medical treatment will be discussed later).<\/p>\n

It should be taught as early as possible in school that life forms have critical electromagnetic elements that are highly sensitive to disruption from artificial EMR (and static fields \u2014 EMF). These elements help regulate and maintain\/repair biosystems. As noted, a possible exception is at least some bacteria. Two have been shown to become more antibiotic resistant \u2014 Listeria and E. Coli.<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n

Ecosystem. <\/strong>Since the early 1990s, 2G-4G has been playing a significant role in collapsing the the ecosystem<\/strong><\/a>.<\/strong> Smaller species such as insects \u2014 already in alarming decline<\/strong><\/a> \u2014 are most susceptible. <\/strong>This should be of paramount urgency. Bees, Birds and Mankind<\/strong><\/a>. <\/strong>A recent review<\/strong><\/a> of the literature strongly reinforces this (the \u201c5G\u201d hysteria on the page, except for the Space Appeal in the list, is suspect). Note the almost universal use of the politically correct \u2018risk\u2019 instead of the more accurate \u2018(dire) threat.\u2019<\/p>\n

Consider just the fact that flowers communicate to bees with minute electrical signals<\/strong><\/a>. To such subtlety, EMR has the effect of very loud noise on quiet conversation. Concerning extractivism, processing, manufacturing and so on, the sibling to this one is Advanced Technology: Does Society\u2019s Obsession Reflect a Form of Collective Mental Illness?<\/strong><\/a><\/em><\/p>\n

\u2018Technociety\u2019 has long been threatening life with artificial EMR. Guglielmo Marconi developed the first \u201cwireless\u201d in the 1890s (it is a myth that Tesla did<\/strong><\/a>), and today\u2019s wireless gadgets have evolved from devices that have been around since the 1940s.<\/p>\n

Following the advent of digital technology in the late 1940s, microwave and weapon research gained considerable momentum in the1950s. By 1962, the severe dangers and stealth-weapon potentials of microwave were well understood<\/strong><\/a> by science, militaries and governments (\u201c5G\u201d in video title reflects a bias). As noted in the History\u2026<\/strong> section linked above, in 1973, an international symposium entitled Biologic Effects and Health Hazards of Microwave Radiation<\/em><\/a><\/strong> was held in Warsaw, detailing the broad issue. It was reviewed in a document published in 1981 by the WHO, entitled Environmental Health Criteria 16: Radiofrequency and Microwaves<\/em><\/a><\/strong>.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

The radiation is not \u2018toxic\u2019 like chemicals. A simplified analogy, further detailed below, is noise\/static in your FM or AM radio caused by an external RF source. This is known as radiofrequency (RF) interference (RFI). It might be from an unshielded or improperly shielded external device, like a motor.<\/p>\n

The FCC is meticulous about regulating RFI with design specifications for electrical and electronic equipment: They\u2019re not allowed to interfere with each other\u2019s circuits. Ironically, biological systems get no respect where the FCC heating bias reigns. No doubt, if humans were robots, we\u2019d be better \u2013 but not sufficiently \u2013 protected.<\/p>\n

Biological Sensitivity<\/strong><\/em><\/h4>\n

From the 1981 WHO document cited and quoted in the History\u2026<\/strong> section, we learned that the (apparently) safe exposure level \u2013 called \u201chighly conservative\u201d \u2013 was \u201cclose to natural background levels\u201d (\u2018cosmic background,\u2019 described in that section). This was declared \u201cnot technically feasible,\u201d however; meaning not enough power to operate systems.<\/p>\n

The corresponding rhetoric was, \u201cA reasonable risk-benefit analysis has to be considered.\u201d Long story short, that apparently became the heating bias, concocted as the baseline for establishing safety. It\u2019s an arbitrary assertion that harm comes only if tissue heating occurs, contradicting the document\u2019s natural-background suggestion. Did the claim arise out of risk-benefit studies\/deliberations that might have taken place, but are nowhere to be found? The term for this convenience is \u2018scientific fraud.\u2019<\/p>\n

With foreknowledge of harm, then, digital EMR technology was adapted to commercial 2G mobile telecom. As noted, no sooner did it arrive than pathology appeared. As in the case of \u201c5Gmmw\u201d hysteria, a number of pathological influences is in play at all times, but critically reduced to varying degrees in all testing conditions.<\/em><\/p>\n

Should the reader have unquestioning faith in the science underlying assurances of safety from official sources, please see this article by Richard Horton, editor-in-chief of the prestigious British medical journal The Lancet<\/em><\/strong><\/a>, about error in medical science. We won\u2019t digress into evidence that it\u2019s a bit more widespread than medicine. Four significant factors in scientific research are funding sources, author \u2018connection\u2019 to special\/conflicting interests, and author \u201cincentivisation.\u201d And the need not to endanger job\/career by challenging authority\u2019s prevailing wisdom, or \u2019what everyone knows.\u2019<\/p>\n

Radiation power impinging on organisms, designated in watts per square area, is called \u2018power density.\u2019 The square area makes it \u2018density,\u2019 like the difference between pouring an ounce or a quart into the same area. No worry, the values shown below are used comparatively, so the reader doesn\u2019t even need to know what a watt is to get the point.<\/p>\n

Because 2G-4G wavelengths pass easily through living systems, the square centimeter becomes a \u2018tube\u2019 going through your body. Since we\u2019re whole-body irradiated, the body becomes a mass of such tubes. Or, one could say, a composite tube.<\/p>\n

It should be noted that FCC does not do testing. It\u2019s done by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), then \u201cfiltered\u201d through ANSI, the American National Standards Institute, a private organization funded and controlled by industry. In 1996, FCC adopted the standard identified as ANSI\/IEEE C95.1-1992<\/strong>. The latest is ANSI\/IEEE C95.1-2019<\/a><\/strong>.<\/p>\n

The FCC tissue heating exposure limit is expressed in milliwatts (mW \u2013 one thousandth of a watt) per square centimeter (cm, about 4 tenths of an inch). As of this writing, it\u2019s one thousandth of a watt per square centimeter \u2013 1 mW\/cm2<\/sup> (for a specific range of frequencies).<\/p>\n

An organization called the BioInitiative Working Group (BWG) assumed the daunting task of reviewing the massive volume of science literature \u2013 many thousands of papers \u2013 discussing biological effects and pathologies from non-heating power densities, then selecting and collating 3800 studies, over two reports.<\/p>\n

Note: <\/strong>The reports of the BWG are cited here only to demonstrate the existence of independent, peer-reviewed science FCC and FDA say doesn\u2019t exist or is not \u201cconsistent or credible.<\/strong><\/a>\u201d Unfortunately, the title of the BioInitiative Report<\/em> (BR) includes A Rationale for Biologically-Based Public Exposure Standards\u2026<\/em> which, as suggested here, can\u2019t exist.<\/p>\n

The BR editors acknowledge that suggested values might need to be lowered (or even raised!), while the \u2018cosmic confession\u2019 and risk-benefit rhetoric in the WHO document cast doubt about safety, and the information below should help answer the question. BWG has been accused of bias and \u2018cherry picking\u2019 for effect, but this is a cheap ploy, as explained in Summary\/Conclusion.<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Group\u2019s first extensive review published in 2007 (2000 studies), suggested a non-heating exposure limit of one tenth of a microwatt (\u03bcW, a millionth of a watt) per square centimeter. One tenth of a millionth of a watt per square centimeter \u2013 .1 \u03bcW\/cm2<\/sup>. Only ten thousand times lower than the FCC limit (no sarcasm).<\/p>\n

By 2012 BR (1800 additional studies), it became 0.003 \u03bcW\/cm2<\/sup> to 0.006 \u03bcW\/cm2<\/sup>. We\u2019re talking three to six thousandths of a millionth of a watt! Last look in the 2014-2020 update, 0.003 \u03bcW\/cm2<\/sup> stands alone \u201cfor lowest observed<\/em> effect level\u201d [emphasis added]. It would seem that \u201clowest observed\u201d implies possible unobserved?<\/p>\n

To 0.003, a ten-fold safety \u201cbuffer\u201d has been added: \u2026for chronic exposure, if needed \u2026 0.3 nanowatts to 0.6 nanowatts per square centimeter as a reasonable, precautionary action level for chronic exposure to pulsed RFR.<\/em> That translates to .0003 to .0006 microwatts, yet still open-endedback BioInitiative 2012 \u2013 Conclusions<\/strong><\/em><\/a> (last two paragraphs). Such figures give a feel for the sensitivity of biological systems.<\/p>\n

In microwatts, the FCC thermal limit is 1000 \u03bcW\/cm2<\/sup>, about 1,670,000 to 1,333,000 times higher than the BR 2020 buffer values. But the strictest \u2018biologically-based\u2019 public power density limit proposed to date is a million billion times higher than the estimated cosmic background<\/a><\/strong> level. Thus, the WHO\u2019s \u201chighly conservative\u201d \/ \u201cclose to natural background levels\u201d statement apparently represents a wide margin indeed. It\u2019s not strictly a sound comparison physics-speaking, but we\u2019re talking about intention here.<\/p>\n

A cell phone on the moon would give more background radiation than the rest of the universe. As we\u2019ll see, however, there is still more to it biologically than mere \u2018brute\u2019 power.<\/p>\n

As noted, the call from those recommending the 0.0003 \u03bcW\/cm2<\/sup> to 0.0006 \u03bcW\/cm2<\/sup> range (not sure if that would run the system) refers to chronic exposure \u201c\u2026if needed.\u201d What else is there? Hopefully, it means for all life forever.<\/em> In any case, it seems equivocal. How do you predict response to constantly varying conditions and responses even a few months ahead, never mind years. There\u2019s no reason not to be very concerned about a sudden cascade of illness beyond remedy. Not to mention, cumulative effect is also in play.<\/p>\n

Thus, the suggestion of constantly adjusting limits as more is learned potentially begs for disaster. Though it\u2019s considered \u201cprecautionary,\u201d that\u2019s what .1 \u03bcW\/cm2<\/sup> was 13 years ago. And what happens in the case of lag time between the implementation of an unwittingly insufficient new standard and realization of that down the line?<\/p>\n

Notably, the FCC Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) is based on a 30 minute exposure<\/strong><\/a>. From the output of a single device. It would seem likely they know the great variability and complexity posed by the sum of all factors creates an impossible situation. So they just keep it simple-y deadly.<\/em><\/p>\n

Also based on 30 minutes is the FCC test to establish safe device output \u2013 Specific Absorption Rate (SAR), established by a procedure similar to that for MPE \u2013 irradiating fluid-filled plastic dummies called \u201cphantoms.\u201d A 2013 study shows that SAR is dangerously inadequate for biological systems. Various biological elements react to RF radiation differently from each other and from fluid in phantoms. For example, ions, such as sodium (Na+), the smallest charged elements, are more susceptible to the chaotic forces than are macromolecules, such as proteins, fats, and nucleic acids.<\/strong><\/a> Emphatically, the latter are not exempt.<\/p>\n

Adding up, all the science presented at Warsaw and reviewed by the WHO; all the science presented in the BR and all the science not netted therein (many thousands of papers); and all the science continuing to pour out of the global scientific community by the day, has been pronounced by the FCC\/FDA unworthy of consideration.<\/p>\n

What an embarrassing situation for the EMF\/R scientific community. It seems many, many scientists must go sit in the corner for creating a situation where many thousands of papers are all wrong at once.<\/p>\n

Biological Effects<\/strong><\/em><\/h4>\n

What follows are effects produced by the various characteristics and behaviors of telecom\/WiFi radiation. Effects can occur any time during or after exposure \u2013 nominally speaking, since there is normally no escape.<\/p>\n

The \u201cChair\u201d<\/strong><\/h4>\n

Our title here begins with Giving Life the Electric Chair.<\/em> It was inspired by the fact that while there is EMF, there\u2019s also emf, or electromotive force.<\/strong> It\u2019s voltage, or electrical action generated in a conductor, like a wire, by a non-electrical source, like a changing magnetic field. It\u2019s called induction<\/em>. With telecom\/WiFi, nerves and blood vessels become conductors in which voltages are induced<\/a><\/strong> by the radiation. See also<\/strong><\/a>. Thus, in addition to direct assault with radiation, we are slowly giving life \u2018the chair.\u2019<\/p>\n

Slow electrocution is particularly interesting when it comes to smart utility meters.<\/em> Smart meter opponents take note: Putting one on a building should<\/em> violate wiring code by exposing occupants to what is essentially an open electrical circuit. No building occupation or insurance should be allowed in an improperly \u2018wirelessed\u2019 building. This might go for WiFI networks within as well.<\/p>\n

Cumulative Effect<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Effects \u2018build up\u2019 over time and can be irreversible. It\u2019s probably the main reason people begin to show symptoms after having been exposed for a long time without them. One aspect of irreversibility is unrelenting exposure, to which the environment and most people are subjected these days, in many cases for decades. Stories are told about overt effects abating when an offending device is removed or distance increased. Some people seem to think this means harm has stopped. This error could underlie the comforting misguidance: \u201cDistance is your friend.\u201d Any antenna to which you are exposed is too close.<\/p>\n

There are some credible articles from researchers reporting that cell tower-level RF exposures (estimated to be between 0.01 and 0.5 \u03bcW\/cm2) produce ill-effects in populations living up to several hundred meters from wireless antenna sites\u2026 <\/em>BR 2012 PDF<\/a><\/strong> p.1482 (see also mast-victims.org<\/em><\/a><\/strong>).<\/p>\n

A concerning example of immediate irreversibility is damage to ovarian follicle DNA. It\u2019s irreversible and passed on to female offspring, thus potentially cumulative generationally as well, while \u2018fresh\u2019 damage is occurring. In the paper linked just below, the concern is a generation of up to 50% genetically damaged babies in the not-too-distant future.<\/p>\n

I ask for any scientist(s) from industry \/ government to \u2018humiliate\u2019 me live \u2018on-air\u2019 with their expert knowledge by answering one question: \u2018What is the safe level of microwave irradiation for the ovarian follicles during the first 100 days development of the embryo?<\/em> \u2013 Barrie Trower, PhD, Wi-Fi \u2013 A Thalidomide in the Making. Who Cares?<\/strong><\/a> (Page 12)<\/p>\n

Seven years, no takers, despite it having been sent several times to several prominent EMF scientists calling for \u201csafer\u201d, \u201csafe\u201d, or \u201cbiologically based\u201d exposure limits. Given that sperm damage has also been shown, it\u2019s reasonable to be concerned that chronic exposure across generations could result in total human reproductive failure \u2014 see again<\/strong><\/a>.<\/p>\n

Yet, you will see it said in science papers that results are conflicting overall. The implication is we\u2019ll take the chance until we find out. Shades of FCC\/FDA. Sanity?<\/p>\n

Mitochondrial Dysfunction<\/strong><\/h3>\n

A critical effect of telecom\/WiFi radiation is disruption of mitochondria,<\/strong><\/a> the millions of tiny energy generators in the cells of all plants, animals and fungi, and having several other key functions. (An interesting aside is that evidence shows they evolved from primitive bacteria.) RFI causes disturbance of \u2018membrane potential\u2019 and \u2018electron transport.\u2019<\/p>\n

One result is a condition called oxidative stress or excess \u201cROS\u201d \u2014 Reactive Oxygen Species. They have important normal function. Too many, however, is trouble because they can damage macromolecules: lipids, proteins, carbohydrates and nucleic acids. One proffered \u2018solution\u2019 is to take anti-oxidant supplements, but one can get too much of that too. Frequent monitoring might be needed. But anything to avoid the logical solution.<\/p>\n

Exposure Variability\/Polarization<\/strong><\/h3>\n

The Abstract, Introduction and Discussion in the quite-technical paper linked below are reasonably accessible to the lay reader. The paper concerns two particular interrelated effects of polarized EMR on electrically charged or polar elements: 1) The oscillation (to and fro motion across the original position) of charged and polar elements \u2014 at the rate of the radiation\u2019s frequency; and 2) effects of the chaos resulting from interaction in the field between and\/or among multiple EMR sources.<\/p>\n

The consequences are serious biological effects underlying numerous pathologies, because, as noted earlier, these elements are critical to normal function. The first is described in the following quote. The second will be discussed below.<\/p>\n

Quote:<\/strong><\/em>
\nAll critical biomolecules are either electrically charged or polar. While natural unpolarized EMF\/EMR at any intensity cannot induce any specific\/coherent oscillation on these molecules, polarized man-made EMFs\/EMR will induce a coherent forced-oscillation on every charged\/polar molecule within biological tissue. This is fundamental to our understanding of the biological phenomena. \u2026 a coherent polarized oscillation of <\/em>even millions of times smaller energy <\/em><\/strong>than average thermal molecular energy can initiate biological effects <\/em>[emphasis added]. Polarization: A Key Difference between Man-made and Natural Electromagnetic Fields, in regard to Biological Activity<\/strong><\/em><\/a><\/p>\n

Source<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Over time the biological effects and potential pathologies caused by mobile phone and WiFi radiation can be irreversible.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":39262,"featured_media":223969,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[106,22],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-223965","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-5g","category-Health"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/223965","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/39262"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=223965"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/223965\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":223971,"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/223965\/revisions\/223971"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/223969"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=223965"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=223965"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=223965"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}