It has not escaped my attention that there are a good number of people who, if they actually stopped to use their brains properly for a moment and realised that not everything is a conspiracy theory, would be able to escape the insanity of the belief that 5G is some evil plot to make non-existent nanoparticles absorbed from non-existent chemtrails cause you to experience some form of unpexected death syndrome.
For those who prefer to believe that not all science is an evil plot against mankind, I present here both sides of the argument. Firstly, we have a highly informative, entirely fact & science based missive on the subject of 5G and human health by none other than a biochemist and normal, rational human being.
Secondly, I have also included a rather less charming piece of writing by a clown-conman by the name of Arthur Firstenberg.
If, after comparing the two, you are still unable to discern fact from fiction, you are, as Gordon so memorably put it… “too dumb to live”.
…this is a longer blog, hopefully worth your time to read to the end…
For over 20 years I have been doing hands-on research on the effects of RF-EMF on biological systems and for over 20 years I was arguing that we need better quality research to prove, or to disprove, the possibility of RF-EMF-induced health effects.
There is ample evidence suggesting the possibility, or even probability, of RF-EMF affecting human health but the ultimate proof is still missing. To me it means, and this I was arguing since my first public lecture on the subject in 2001 during the Science Days at the University of Helsinki, that there is a reason to implement precautionary approach when dealing with RF-EMF. Precautionary approach would mean implementation, in some form or shape, of the EU Precautionary Principle and simultaneous push for the targeted health-related research.
Precautionary Principle could/should be used to limit unnecessary exposures whenever and wherever it is feasible and doable and for as long as the scientific evidence is ambiguous.
Targeted research is needed to address specifically questions pertinent to human health, because not all experiments are useful or usable in designing public health policies. In fact, most of to date performed research on RF-EMF is of little use for the health policy.
As long as there is scientific uncertainty, and it is here and now, we should be precautionary and researching.
The debate over how to deal with the issue of RF-EMF and health has been taken over by two small but extremely noisy groups.
One claims RF-EMF is perfectly safe the other claims it will kill all life. Both of these extreme views are interpreting and misinterpreting science to fit their own agendas. They both do their own cherry-picking of the evidence.
In my opinion, neither of these two extreme views and opinions has enough scientific evidence to support the claims of safety or lack of safety of RF-EMF exposures.
PROPONENTS OF THE NO-HEALTH-EFFECTS OPTION, WHEN SAFETY GUIDELINES ARE OBEYED
The two of the no-health-effects option groups are of particular importance as they practically set safety guidelines that are recommended either by the WHO or by the US FCC, and then implemented in practice by the telecommunication industry.
WHO recommends what ICNIRP recommends and US FCC recommends what IEEE-ICES recommends. Both, ICNIRP and IEEE-ICES, claim their recommendations are based solely on the science and not affected by any other issues. However, trusting in these assurances is not easy.
The IEEE-ICES is a slam-dunk case for the conflict-of-interest. I have been member of IEEE-ICES for a couple of years and, after I learned how it works, I resigned in 2009 (for some reason IEEE-ICES was not happy about it because they tried to persuade me to stay).
The majority of the members of the IEEE-ICES are engineers employed by the industry. At the time when I was member, some Chairs within the IEEE-ICES were scientists from Motorola or Siemens.
Safety limits developed by IEEE-ICES are designed by engineers working for the wireless telecommunications industry. Voting in this group on proposed safety limits is just a sham because telecom engineers vote on proposal prepared by the same telecom engineers. The telecom engineers always have the majority within IEEE-ICES. So, how trustworthy are these safety limits?
In summary, IEEE-ICES safety guidelines are prepared by industry engineers and approved by industry engineers who later implement them in their own industries as reliable and solely science-based and industry-independent safety guidelines.
More difficult is to determine trustworthiness and reliability of ICNIRP. They claim complete independence of any influence, especially from the industry. Listening to them one get impression that they are “holier than the holy father”. But ICNIRP is a closed private club and with such establishments, having no oversight whatsoever, one can never be sure what is going on.
Firstly, all members of the “all mighty” Main Commission have the same general opinion that RF-EMF can’t cause any health effects if ICNIRP safety guidelines are followed. Having the same opinion by all members helps (sarcasm!) to reach consensus within ICNIRP. And ICNIRP makes no mistake of inviting any scientist who would dissent, that is certain.
However, is it really so that the ICNIRP safety guidelines provide safety? Not necessarily. Just one example. Four case-control epidemiology studies have indicated that person using cell phone for 10 years for 30 minutes every day has an increased (by 40%, by 100%, another by 100% and by 170%) risk of developing brain cancer – glioma. What is of paramount importance, but not much elaborated publicly, all persons enlisted in this research were using regular cell phones that were purchased in shops. It means that each and every phone was in compliance with the ICNIRP safety guidelines (!). However, use of such safety-guidelines-compliant cell phone led to an increased risk of developing glioma. It means that the ICNIRP safety limits do not protect form the health effects of RF-EMF emitted by the phone compliant with safety guidelines. Also necessary to mention that in its new, 2020 updated, safety guidelines ICNIRP completely dismisses the results of these case-control epidemiology studies. Simply put – these results do not exist for ICNIRP.
In one of my blogs ‘Is ICNIRP reliable enough to dictate meaning of science to the governmental risk regulators?’ I wrote this opinion on ICNIRP:
In my opinion the major problems of ICNIRP are:
- it is a “private club” where members elect new members without need to justify selection
- lack of accountability before anyone
- lack of transparency of their activities
- complete lack of supervision of its activities
- skewed science evaluation because of the close similarity of the opinions of all members of the Main Commission and all of the other scientists selected as advisors to the Main Commission
I have suggested that the similarity of scientific opinions expressed by the Main Commission members will lead to skewed evaluation of science and I wrote: “…Every expert has opinion. With this opinion he/she comes to work in expert committee. This applies to ICNIRP members too. I hope you are not suggesting that only the scientists of the Main Commission of ICNIRP are able to leave their opinions behind and evaluate the science for its merits alone. However, there is difference between the committee where work scientists with diverse opinions and with the committee where work scientists with very similar opinions. Scientists are humans and act as humans, with all ballasting baggage of pre-existing feelings and opinions. It is certain that the absolute “forgetting” of the pre-appointment opinions is not possible. Thus, scientists with no-effect opinion will easier accept no-effect studies and will look more closely for shortcomings in yes-effect studies. And the same will happen with the scientists having yes-effect opinion. They will easier accept studies showing yes-effect and look more closely for shortcomings in no-effect studies. Here is the problem. If all members of the Main Commission are of the same opinion, the scientific debate will be limited and likely skewed…”
What is strange and disturbing, is that the European States meekly follow whatever advice they receive from the ICNIRP, blindly trusting group of self-appointed to ICNIRP experts, without critically evaluating what kind of NGO it is, what are its interests and Conflicts of Interests and what is its accountability.
This is a very strange way of dealing with the risk assessment from the seasoned bureaucrats and politicians of the European Union.
The big question remains: how reliable are safety guidelines prepared by IEEE-ICES and ICNIRP?
I do not know what IEEE-ICES thinks of their own guidelines, but the current Chair of the ICNIRP, Eric van Rongen, gave a very unconvincing answer. When van Rongen was asked whether the users should trust ICNIRP opinion or the opinion of the 220 scientists who wrote 5G Appeal to the UN, disagreeing with ICNIRP opinion, the Chairman of ICNIRP did not defend at all the validity and correctness of the ICNIRP’s evaluation of science. Instead, Eric van Rongen stated that people can choose what opinion on science they prefer, the opinion of ICNIRP or the opinion of the 220 scientists who signed the 5G Appeal to the UN (video available here).
Fun Fact: guess whom telecom industry has chosen to trust…
What is more, some of the ICNIRP members of the Main Commission would like to have it both ways, “agree with ICNIRP and somewhat disagree in order to be OK with their own consciousness”. In recent tweet, the recently elected to the Main Commission Martin Röösli agreed that we should be precautionary because science is never certain, what clearly disagrees with ICNIRP opinion.
PROPONENTS OF THE PROVEN HEALTH EFFECTS, ALSO BELOW SAFETY GUIDELINES
The other side of the debate, the other small but, similarly to ICNIRP and IEEE-ICES, noisy group, are the anti-5G activists. They take any smallest shred of evidence suggesting any remote possibility of health effects as proven health effects that in due time will kill all life on earth. This is a mistake as the scientific evidence is available to anyone and their claims can, and are, easy to be fact checked.
Two of the most frequently used examples of the negative health effects of RF-EMF are:
- Claimed proven damage to the DNA
- Claimed proven damage to the immune response
While there exists evidence indicating a possibility/probability for such effects, the proof that such effects are indeed induced in cell phone users is still missing.
In my numerous lectures, as recently as in my talk in Nelson, New Zealand, I have presented a slide showing that DNA effects are not proven:
The both, DNA damage and impairment of the immune response rely on the evidence suggesting that RF-EMF causes oxidative stress in cells. However, simply observing increased oxidative stress in tissues and increased levels of short-lived free radicals is not sufficient to prove human health effect.
Cells are not just balls uniformly filled with viscous liquid. They are extensively compartmentalized and movement of molecules between various compartments is very strictly regulated. The oxidative stress needs to appear in a cellular compartment that will allow certain kind of effect. For example, in order to damage DNA, the very-short-living and very-short distance-acting free radicals need to be generated inside the cell nucleus and in close proximity to the DNA molecule. This might be not so easy spatially because access to DNA molecule is limited by the coat of proteins. So, before claiming that RF-EMF damages DNA we also need to show that, at least, the free radicals are indeed generated within the nucleus.
The other problem is the level of the RF-EMF-induced oxidative stress. Is the level comparable with oxidative stress induced by other mediators? Is the level of the oxidative stress sufficient to cause changes to normal physiology? As long as we just know that oxidative stress is induced but we do not know enough about where and how much, claiming that RF-EMF surely damages DNA and surely affects immunity is premature. We can suspect such effects and we should be precautionary but no more than that. For more, we need research.
However, some “scientists” make short-cut and using inadequate scientific evidence claim very far reaching effects. Those “scientists” have done unimaginable damage to the legitimate science-based attempts to push for more targeted research and to push for more science-based safety guidelines that would replace the current ICNIRP & IEEE-ICES safety guidelines that are based on misinterpreted and misrepresented science.
Martin L. Pall and Arthur R. Firstenberg, to name just two very prominent “scientists”, have made claims that are not science based, that are based on misrepresentation of science and are nothing less but conspiracy theories.
Martin L. Pall claims (Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry and Basic Medical Sciences,; the Washington State University, Pullman, Washington, USA must be so proud [sarcasm!]):
“5G will produce widespread in most cases universal or near-universal impact:
- A rapid and irreversible crash in human reproduction to close to zero, based mainly but not solely on the impacts on male reproduction.
- A rapid (albeit somewhat slower than in 1) crash in our collective brain function produced by massive impacts on human brain structure and function.
- Very early-onset Alzheimer’s dementia also caused by the human brain impact seen in 2.
- Autism and ADHD caused primarily by perinatal 4G/5G exposures
- Massive deterioration in the human gene pool, caused by the DNA effects in human sperm and possibly also on human eggs.
- Widespread sudden cardiac death in all age ranges caused by the EMF impacts on the pacemaker cells in the sino-atrial node of the heart.
According to Pall, the 5G is already responsible for (when asked he was unable to provide proof of these claims):
- suicides of ambulance staff in UK
- fires in South Korea
- outbreak of coronavirus in Wuhan
- …and many other “effects”
What is more, the schedule of Pall’s ‘doomsday’ was predicted already in 2018, when he stated that the deterioration of human kind will happen within the next 5 – 7 years…”
Arthur R Firstenberg goes even further than the coronavirus-Wuhan 5G connection championed by Martin L. Pall.
Firstenberg, in his recently distributed writing “IS THE SKY REALLY FALLING?”, claims to have proven that not only coronavirus was caused by the 5G in Wuhan but that also the Spanish flu pandemic in 1918 was not caused by virus but by EMF (!).
This kind of pseudo-scientific ideas propagated by Pall and Firstenberg and avidly disseminated by their followers, led some activists to act against the wireless infrastructure most visible to everyone, the masts.
This is wrong development.
WARNINGS THAT WERE IGNORED
For years I was warning activists that their claims should be well science based because if not then the other side of the debate will easily poke holes in their arguments and show their incompetence. My latest warning was in my blog published on March 5, 2020 ‘Sounding alarm for activists: To be seriously considered you need to present real science, not ‘fake science’’.
Sadly, at that time I was already well aware of what Martin L. Pall and Arthur R. Firstenberg claim and I was expecting a storm…
… and the storm has come with the news media full of writings condemning the deranged theories of anti 5G activists claiming that the coronavirus is either caused by 5G or that there is no virus at all and people are sick of 5G alone. This, in turn is being used as an easy way to dismiss once and for all (?) any claims that there might be a legitimate health effects caused by the 5G-emitted radiation.
As one of the legitimate scientists involved in push for precaution and for better research on 5G radiation, Joel Moskowitz wrote recently (regretfully he did not act earlier):
“…Those who promote 5G-coronavirus theories based on weak evidence undermine the credibility of scientists and medical doctors who have expressed concerns about 5G safety based on strong evidence (e.g., the 5G Appeal)[this is another 5G Appeal, not the one authored by Firstenberg].
Moreover, during this public health crisis, the Telecom industry can exploit these actions to convince mainstream news media to publish industry propaganda that 5G is safe…”
And telecom industry really exploits this possibility that was provided for them, freely and without asking, by the pseudo-scientists and their followers.
I responded to Joel M. Moskowitz as follows:
“…Joel, it is time to look in the mirror. Pall did what he did because people like yourself or Davis and many others, did not say a word to stop Pall from fearmongering. He was encouraged. I stood up and I was ignored and threatened and trolled and insulted. But I was right. Sadly, we all pay now a heavy price. By association, we all are portrayed as wackos. Read my blogs and wonder why nobody else dared to stand up to Pall speaking utter nonsense. Dariusz…” [i did not receive any response]
I also tweeted:
Besides these two noisy groups there is a large group of the ‘Silent Majority’. Scientists and people interested in the issue but who prefer to be silent and see what happens. The reasons for this silence might be many, and here is no place to elaborate. However, the involvement of the ‘Silent Majority‘ would certainly help in the debate.
In 2013 while working as Visiting Professor at the Swinburne University of Technology in Hawthorn/Melbourne, Australia, I have proposed a Round-Table Initiative to discuss the differences of opinion between ICNIRP and BioInitiative and to, hopefully, come up with a consensus opinion.
In my opening blog post, on the Round-Table Initiative website, I wrote:
“…It is time to stop squabbling who is better expert in reviewing and interpreting science. It is time to reach consensus what the scientific evidence tells us. It is time to agree on international scale whether and how the Precautionary Principle should be implemented. It is time to stop misleading and confusing the general public…”
Sadly, the initiative failed because BioInitiative refused to talk to ICNIRP and because ICNIRP said it didn’t need any advice from BioInitiative. Mike Repacholi and Henry Lai thought it was a good idea… The industry washed their hands by saying they follow ICNIRP and WHO recommendations… (for detailed e-mails see the few posts available on the website).
In the end, when called, everyone involved defended their own sand-box.
That was in 2013… Now, in 2020 things did not get better. In fact they got far worse. Militant pseudo-scientific opinions dominate the debate.
If the industry imagines that their current avalanche of publications claiming 5G safety will silence activists, then they will be sadly mistaken.
The first and the foremost reason being that neither side of the debate has solid science-based arguments to dismiss the claims of the other side.
We need consensus. We need research. We do not need squabble.
ARE WE GROWN UP ENOUGH TO DO IT IS ANOTHER MATTER
Putting the Earth Inside a High-Speed Computer
Arthur Firstenberg – The Cell Phone Task Force June 3, 2020
ON MAY 26, SPACEX FILED an application with the Federal Communications Commission for 30,000 “next-generation” (“Gen2”) satellites. They will orbit at between 328 km (203 miles) and 614 km (380 miles) in altitude. They will use frequencies from 10.7 GHz to 86 GHz. They will aim focused beams that will cover the Earth in a mosaic of overlapping cells, each cell being about 8 kilometers in diameter.
The databases filed with the FCC by SpaceX indicate that 40,700 1-MHz channels are available to each satellite, and that a minimum of 7.8125 MHz of spectrum is needed for each user, if I am interpreting them correctly. Which means the Gen2 Starlink satellites could be capable of serving up to 150 million Internet users at the same time.
This is not a good thing.
In my last newsletter I requested to hear from people who have been having heart palpitations since April 22. With its launch of 60 more satellites on April 22, SpaceX brought the number of its “first generation” (“Gen1”) satellites up to 420, which is the number it had previously announced it needed for “minor” coverage of the mid-latitudes to about 56 degrees north and south. The responses to my request have come from far and wide, and I find them extremely disturbing. Here are some of them:
“I had a horrible bout of palpitations one evening while upstairs,” wrote Julie from Bulgaria.
“I keep a journal and had recorded it, as I felt as though I was going to pass out or worse! The date? The 23rd of April.”
“I checked my calendar back on April 22,” wrote Crystal from California. “Yes indeed, I was a MESS that day with heart palpitations. I was also extremely dizzy, fatigued, confused, irritable and bloated. I was such a mess.”
“Not only have I been having heart palpitations for three weeks now,” wrote Elena from France on May 20, “I am having breathing difficulties. I am only 33 and in perfect health otherwise, doing a lot of sport and eating well. There have been a couple of nights when I thought I would have a heart attack, I was suffocating, could not breathe and my heart was beating so hard and fast, you could hear it from another room.”
“In April about the 22nd I awakened with double vision,” wrote John from Alabama. “I went to the ER and a CT scan was done and I was referred to a neurologist. He said that I had a stroke.”
“I love earthing – just walking barefoot on the earth,” wrote Suzy from England. “I have noticed these last days that when I put my feet on the earth I feel like there is a jagged vibration instead of the peace that I usually experience.”
“For the last month or so I have been getting the most heavy and intense heart palpitations I have ever experienced,” wrote Ivan from British Columbia, Canada on May 20. “Also in this last month my ability to get a good night’s sleep has deteriorated significantly for no apparent reason.”
“I have been having heart palpitations,” wrote Rebecca from the state of Washington on May 21, “and my nine-year-old daughter has been complaining of feeling heartbeat in her head and even her legs. This began a few weeks ago.”
“I live in the south of Sweden, in the countryside, I’m 25 years old,” wrote Nanna. “I have been experiencing heart palpitations, among other symptoms like aches, pains, itching and lots of tiredness. Not normal for me. We don’t have a tower nearby or a router.”
“My wife and I have been suffering from chronic fatigue for the past few weeks, and it never seems to go away,” wrote John from New Mexico on May 20. For the first time in my life, I can have maybe three cups of coffee and be ready to go back to sleep within just two hours.”
“I have been having nights where I wake up with heart excitement for the last month,” wrote Gerilee from California on May 21. “I have had to do deep breathing techniques to calm my nervous system at night.”
“I began experiencing intense heart palpitations on April 23,” wrote Jennifer from California, “with episodes of them lasting for hours at a time and feeling like my heart would come out of my chest. I’ve never experienced anything like this before in my life.”
“My health has regressed dramatically over the past month,” wrote Rachel from northern Michigan on May 21. “Back around mid-April I started having extreme fatigue, muscle aches and tightness in my chest. If I didn’t know better I would have thought I had the Virus, thing is no fever and the symptoms came and went. I am in my early 40s.”
“I too have been experiencing heart palpitations over the past month,” wrote Dignan from British Columbia on May 21. “They have gotten so bad at times that I can’t fall asleep.”
“I am one of the many who are experiencing detrimental effects following the last SpaceX launch,” wrote Leanna from Indiana. “Chest pain, heart palpitations, hypoxia and excessive thirst. We built a healthy, low EMF home in the middle of a 6-acre woods. The satellites are also impacting my husband, my senior cat, and my chickens.”
“My sister and I both have had abnormal sudden increase of heart palpitations,” wrote Billie from Florida. “We both just admitted that we have been literally coughing almost daily to
get our heart back in rhythm. I am in my 50s and I am very healthy.”
“In the last month I’ve had heart palpitations,” wrote Mustafa from Michigan on May 21. “I am a very healthy 32-year-old who lives a holistic lifestyle.”
“I have experienced heart palpitations for the past few weeks,” wrote Eva from Luxembourg on May 20. “I am also out of breath quicker than before and I have started putting on weight without changing my diet. I am 46 years old.”
“I have 100% been receiving heart palpitations since April 22,” wrote Luke from London. They seem to have calmed but it has been like nothing I have experienced. I’m a personal trainer and therapist who is in touch with his body.”
“I have been experiencing heart palpitations since April 22,” wrote Ellen from Leiden, Netherlands. “They were already present once every so often, but they have increased in intensity.”
“I have sometimes been waking up with heart palpitations during the night in recent weeks,” wrote Deborah from Indiana on May 20. “Not severe, but strange. And a friend of mine mentioned the same thing.”
“I have been to the Emergency Room, April 28th and May 16th and had to be cardio converted twice because of a severely out of rhythm heart,” wrote Michael from the state of Washington. “They gave me medication after the first one that didn’t do a thing for the second attack. Plus I had a blood clot in my leg so severe they are going to have to remove the vein, it is so damaged. All this came out of nowhere.”
“Last few weeks I live and sleep barefoot in the garden and I am constantly grounding,” wrote Evelina from California, “and yet when I go to bed at night there is this charge and restlessness in my body, I feel like I am going to explode.”
“We live in France and we have shortness of breath and palpitations for no reasons at times including my kids,” wrote Veronika. “We live in nature, completely lost in nowhere so to speak, no mast close by, no mobile or WiFi or any other wireless devices. I thought I had the COVID-19, it was scary as I really had a hard time to breathe and constant heart palpitations. The biggest surprise to me was, and I shared that to all I could, that I didn’t feel ill like any other viral illness I ever had. I felt IRRADIATED! That was the only way I could explain what was happening to me to my family and friends.”
“I am experiencing cardiac arrhythmia for the first time in my life,” wrote Humphrey from England. “My breathing is also affected. I don’t seem to be able hold my breath for as long now.”
“I, too, have experience heart palpitations and pain in my sternum since the launch,” wrote Jacquie from British Columbia.
“I have had heart palpitations since the satellites were launched,” wrote Jennifer from England, “also burning eyes, low-level headaches on the top of my head and memory issues.”
“I have been experiencing heart palpitations, racing heart, and erratic heart rhythms over the past 6 weeks, out of the blue,” wrote Megan from Colorado on May 27.
“I woke up at 1:30 a.m. about a month ago and my heart was top speed until 3 a.m.,” wrote Appley from Ireland on May 22. “My partner was very worried, my whole body shook for the whole period of my heart racing.”
“I just read your newsletter from yesterday and found out the satellites went up at the same time as my symptoms,” wrote Ali from Florida. “I crashed and couldn’t stay awake more than 5-6 hours at a time for almost three days.”
“Since the end of April several people I know who normally do not get headaches and migraines have begun to experience them,” wrote Danica from the state of Washington. In particular, my niece who is only 4 years old got two migraine attacks while she was outdoors playing, and she had to be hospitalized because of the vomiting.”
“I also had heart problems at that time without any recognizable reason,” wrote Veronika from Austria. “I have been very sleepy for weeks now without reason and sleeping at night has become an effort.”
“Me and my wife, we both noticed indeed to have very recently heart palpitations,” wrote Stijn from Belgium. “And myself I’m experiencing very little stings all over my body.”
The full extent to which the 420 satellites are being tested is unknown to me. They are communicating with ten earth stations located in the United States. They are being tested by the U.S. Air Force for use by military aircraft. SpaceX intends to keep launching 60 satellites at a time every couple of weeks. The next launch is scheduled for tonight, June 3, at 9:25 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time. SpaceX plans to begin what it calls beta testing with perhaps 10,000 private customers about three months from now when it has about 840 satellites in orbit. Beta testing alone could have devastating consequences. If and when Starlink signs up millions of paying customers, it is possible that nothing will survive — no humans, no animals, and no insects. It is likely that it will be blamed on COVID-19, unless this world wakes up in time.
The Digitalisation of the Ionosphere
The harm from satellites is not due primarily to the radiation levels at the earth’s surface. The satellites are in low orbits, but they are still hundreds of miles above us, and the levels of radiation they expose us to here on the ground are at most about 0.00001 μW/cm2. That is about one-millionth of the levels we are exposed to from cell phones, computers and cell towers.
The threat to life comes instead from the fact that all these satellites are located in the ionosphere. The ionosphere is a source of high voltage that controls the global electric circuit, which in turn provides the energy for life. A brief discussion of the science can be found in my 2018 article, “Planetary Emergency”. Those who wish more detail may wish to consult chapter 9 of my book, The Invisible Rainbow: A History of Electricity and Life, and the bibliography supplied with that chapter. That chapter is titled “Earth’s Electric Envelope.”
Very briefly, all animals and plants are polarized positive to negative from head to feet, or from leaves to roots. An electric current of picowatt per square meter amplitude flows from the positively charged sky to the negatively charged earth in fair weather, courses through the earth beneath our feet, and returns to the sky via lightning bolts during thunderstorms. Every living thing is part of this circuit. The current enters our heads from the sky, circulates through our meridians, and enters the earth through the soles of our feet. This current provides the energy for growth, healing, and life itself. We do not live by bread alone, but by the energy provided to us by the biosphere. Oriental medicine calls it qi or ki, Ayurvedic medicine calls it prana, and atmospheric physicists call it electricity. It provides us energy for life, and information that organizes our bodies. If you pollute this circuit with billions of digital pulsations, you will destroy all life.
It is one thing to sit in front of a computer all day, or hold one in your hand. It is quite another to live inside of one.This must be prevented. There is no more important task on the Earth right now — not climate change, not deforestation, not plastics in the ocean, and not stopping 5G on the ground. None of that will matter if SpaceX is allowed to go forward with Starlink.
Thank you for your continued support of the Cellular Phone Task Force and the educational, legal, advocacy and networking activities that we fund.
His studies in history and background in the media industry have given him a keen insight into the use of mass media as a creator of conflict in the modern world.
His favored areas of study include state-sponsored terrorism, media manufactured reality and the role of intelligence services in manipulation of populations and the perception of events.