Electromagnetic Sense Ireland

Original Article Courtesy of  WE ARE THE EVIDENCE

By Dafna Tachover Esq.

Eighty safe-tech and environmental organizations joined the amicus brief filed by Children’s Health Defense (CHD) on Wednesday, Sept 15, in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.  The brief was filed in a case challenging the PA Public Utility Commission’s (PaPUC) interpretation of a 2008 law, Act 129, to mandate smart meters and deny disability accommodation to those who are adversely affected by pulsed radio frequency (RF) radiation emitted by wireless devices, including smart meters.

Smart meters

“Smart” wireless utility meters have been deployed in the US for a decade, replacing the analog mechanical meters that have been used reliably and safely for decades, with a monthly visit from the “meter reader.” They were promoted as part of the 2009 stimulus program, as an investment in energy conservation and the smart greed. Smart meters contain transmitting antennas that continuously communicate electric usage to the utility company in real time. They allow companies to “punish” users for using electricity during high demand periods and reward them for using it at less busy times.

A decade later, there is little to no evidence to show that the meters saved any energy. Instead, ample evidence shows that consumers had to carry a rate hike to fund the ever-increasing costs of these meters. False readings given by  the meters have resulted in much higher bills for consumers; they have caused fires and violated privacy rights by selling consumers’ usage data. But by far their worst consequence is they have become a leading cause of sickness in adults and children.

To support the claims of adverse effects from exposure to smart meters, the amici’s brief included a Statement by scientists with expert knowledge of electromagnetic fields (EMF) and radiofrequency (RF) radiation effects. Cumulatively these scientists have published hundreds of studies on RF/EMF effects and reviewed thousands of others. They explain that smart meters have caused widespread sickness because of how they operate.

According to Erik Anderson, the expert engineer whose report was included with the amicus, smart meters contain transmitting antennas that wirelessly transmit the data to the utility companies. They pulse intense levels of RF radiation up to 190,000 times a day, some exceeding even FCC allowed levels. The report explains that the RF emissions from the antennas and the spikes of RF frequencies which are created by the alternating current (AC) to direct current (DC) conversion process handled by the meters’ Switch Mode Power Supply (SMPS) enter the house’s electric wiring, transforming the entire house into an antenna. Amici argued these meters must not be forced on those who are affected from RF exposure; and these people should be provided instead with analog meters.

The Case

The case was filed by four consumers who are suffering adverse reactions from exposure to wireless radiation. They asked to be accommodated and were refused by PECO, the local utility company, and later by the Public Utility Commission. They appealed to PA’s  Commonwealth Court, which had ruled in Oct. 2010 that the law does not mandate smart meters. All parties appealed to the PA Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the appeals.

“The risk posed by this case to everyone is imminent,” says Dafna Tachover Esq., from We Are The Evidence, who has led the effort. “The court’s decision will affect not only PA residents but will have far-reaching implications nationwide. If the consumers’ and safe tech organizations’  position is rejected, there is little doubt that industry will mandate smart meters across the country.” The push by the utility companies to mandate smart meters has been growing, as these meters are part of “Smart Grid” and the “Internet of Things” network.

The Arguments

The nationwide rollout of smart meters is based on the assumption that they are safe because they comply with the FCC guidelines. The amicus brief refers to the recent decision by the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit ruling in the Children’s Health Defense case against the FCC in which the court ruled that the FCC’s decision that its guidelines are safe is capricious, arbitrary and not evidence-based. Amici claims that as a result of this decision, while the guidelines are still in effect they cannot be considered an assurance of safety, and therefore the meters cannot be regarded as safe.

CHD also revealed that the FCC has now admitted to adverse neurological responses from RF frequencies, including frequencies in the range emitted by the smart meter SMPS (2-50 KHz). The symptoms referenced by the FCC are similar to the symptoms reported by people who claim to suffer adverse effects from the smart meters, including tingling, a feeling of electric shocks, sleep and cognitive problems.

The amicus brief also includes a statement signed by 57 physicians who jointly have over 3,000 patients adversely affected by exposure to wireless devices and infrastructure. Most of these patients suffer from electro-sensitivity (also known as radiation/microwave sickness) a condition in which people develop various symptoms, mainly neurological, as a result of exposure to this radiation. The physicians explain the effects of smart meters on their patients.

The leading amici (besides CHD) is the Building Biology Institute (BBI) which certifies experts in mitigating EMFs. They work with doctors and patients to remediate exposures in patients’ homes. BBI President Larry Gust report explained that their experts have witnessed both the widespread sickness created by smart meters and the tremendous health improvements after these meters are removed.

Regarding the interpretation of the 2008 law, CHD argued that the PUC’s interpretation of the law is false, claiming that the statute (which is an opt-in statute) cannot be read to contain a universal mandate, that it clearly envisions customer consent.

The brief states that “regardless of the legislature’s word choice,” the state cannot lawfully force a customer to accept a smart or digital meter when mandatory installation results in disability discrimination, exacerbates existing impairments or forces people to abandon their home” and argues that there must be an effective accommodation.

CHD contends that neither the PUC nor the utility company can or should second-guess a treating physician’s finding of impairment and the need for RF exposure avoidance. That too, they claimed, is prohibited by disability laws. They wrote: “The impaired cannot be required to endure an interminable and expensive proceedings that requires them to meet an irrelevant and almost impossible evidentiary burden when the accommodation itself costs less than $100,” claiming that disability laws prohibit imposing this burden.

The amicus brief effort was led by attorneys Dafna Tachover, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.., Scott McCollough and the PA local counsel is Andrea Shaw.

https://wearetheevidence.org/81-organizations-urge-pa-supreme-court-case-to-reject-smart-meters-mandate/

A new documentary from Finland on mobile phone, wifi and wireless radiation.

SOURCE ARTICLE: https://blogbrhp.medium.com/5g-is-testing-the-limits-of-trust-8180d578e140

In 2020, the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) published updated safety guidelines for exposures to radio-frequency radiation (RF-EMF) emitted by wireless communication devices and networks, such as mobile phones or mobile phone base stations. This publication replaced the ICNIRP 1998 RF-EMF guidelines.

These guidelines, recommended by the World Health Organization, have been adopted by a majority of countries around the world, becoming part of their wireless regulatory framework. US uses IEEE/ICES and FCC guidelines, but seeks to “harmonize” with the ICNIRP guidelines.

Safety according to ICNIRP

The basic principle underlying these safety guidelines is that, according to ICNIRP, the only proven health-related effects induced by this kind of radiation exposure are those that occur when the temperature of human tissue is increased by more than 1 degree Celsius — the so-called thermal effects.

When the temperature of human tissue does not increase by more than 1 degree Celsius, the radiation is considered by ICNIRP to be harmless to human health. In their opinion, the level of radiation emitted by wireless devices meeting ICNIRP safety guidelines is insufficient to cause a health-affecting increase in temperature in human tissue. Furthermore, according to ICNIRP’s review of science, there are no proven effects occurring without such a temperature increase.

Given that ICNIRP considers that only thermal effects of radiation exposure can cause health effects, ICNIRP has designed safety guidelines to protect users from any thermal effects that could affect health. In ICNIRP’s opinion, prevention of thermal effects by the currently used safety limits is sufficient to protect the health of all users.

However, there is a long list of experimentally-observed biological effects in animals or in cells grown in the laboratory, that have been induced by exposures to wireless radiation at levels well below the current exposure limits set by ICNIRP. Scientists are concerned that if such non-thermal effects were to occur in users, they might lead to health effects.

According to ICNIRP’s understanding of science, these non-thermal effects should not be happening. However, unless all scientists observing non-thermal effects are hallucinating, there is something wrong with ICNIRP’s evaluation of the scientific evidence.

ICNIRP’s guidelines, in addition to being set to prevent only thermal effects, are also based only on short-term, acute exposures (from minutes to hours). The guidelines do not provide information on whether they will be protective for continuous and long-term exposures, those lasting from months to decades. Thus, while there is available published research on the acute effects, those that occur during or shortly after exposure, there is very little research on long-term chronic exposures. This suggests that applying ICNIRP guidelines to long-term exposures is based on an assumption of safety and not on the scientific evidence.

The ICNIRP guidelines are also being promoted as protective for all users, no matter their age or health status. ICNIRP claims that whether it be the growing and developing body of a small child, the ailing body of an old person with chronic or potentially lethal diseases, or the robust body of a young and healthy adult — all are equally protected.

Since experimenting on humans is limited, for obvious ethical reasons, we must look to epidemiological studies to examine the long-term effects of exposures in people. These studies on long-term biological effects and health can take many years to complete, and often present real-world limitations, thus there are few such studies completed from which to draw. This means that there is not much scientific evidence assuring that the ICNIRP’s safety guidelines apply to all persons, no matter their age or health status, and no matter how long they have used wireless devices. It suggests, again, that the application of ICNIRP guidelines equally to young and old, healthy and sick, is based solely on the assumption of safety and not on the available scientific evidence.

The workings of ICNIRP

Looking at the membership of ICNIRP, it is easy to notice that all members have very similar opinions on the issue of RF-EMF and health. All ICNIRP members have expressed nearly the same opinion, that RF-EMF is absolutely and completely safe for use by everyone, as long as its levels are within the safety limits advised by ICNIRP.

It is interesting to note that science evaluations by ICNIRP experts are frequently contradicted by researchers not involved in ICNIRP activities. Even more interestingly, ICNIRP members, when placed on various national scientific committees in the company of other, non-ICNIRP, scientists, sometimes arrive at conclusions that contradict ICNIRP opinions.

Recently, these disagreeing opinions were published by:

• BERENIS in Switzerland
• The Health Council of the Netherlands
• US FDA 2020 Report

For the majority of users of wireless technology, ICNIRP is merely an acronym. They hear that ICNIRP claims to be about science only, void of any influences, be it from the industry or from government radiation regulatory bodies. However, not many users are aware of how ICNIRP operates in practice. Consider:

1. ICNIRP is a group of about a dozen scientists who claim not to represent anyone else but themselves.

2. ICNIRP claims to be void of any lobbying influence from the industry and from the national radiation protection organizations.

3. Retiring members of ICNIRP are replaced by new members who are selected by current members.

4. ICNIRP’s selection criteria, and their justifications for selecting particular new members, are not publicly available. Only ICNIRP members know why a person has been selected to join their group.

5. ICNIRP is not responsible to any entity for the scientific decisions they make.

6. No one has controls over how ICNIRP arrives at their recommended safety guidelines.

7. There is no oversight of ICNIRP’s activities by anyone.

8. ICNIRP has no legal responsibility for their scientific opinions.

The legal responsibility

ICNIRP safety guidelines are what they say, just guidelines. No one is legally bound to use them. This means that even if the guidelines were proven to be in error, nobody could legally sue ICNIRP for this error.

The telecom industry and the national radiation protection organizations, however, in choosing to use ICNIRP safety guidelines, becomes legally responsible for any health hazard caused by the radiation-emitting devices they produce, even if they comply with the ICNIRP guidelines. Once the telecom and the national radiation protection organizations accept and use ICNIRP safety guidelines, it is they, and not ICNIRP, that has legal responsibility should the devices ever be shown to cause health harm.

In short, ICNIRP members are responsible only before ‘God and History’ for whatever right or wrong decisions ICNIRP may make.

To understand the significance of this complete lack of oversight or control of ICNIRP activities, it is necessary to remember that the safety guidelines developed by ICNIRP are the sole guidance used by the industry that manufactures and operates wireless communication hardware and infrastructure throughout most of the world.

In essence, ICNIRP safety guidelines justify the workings of the telecom industry, which, in 2019, had an annual worth, globally, of about 1.74 trillion US$ – ICNIRP, the organization that claims total independence from any outside interests, that acts without any external control or oversight, and that is not responsible to anyone for their scientific decisions.

ICNIRP and 5G safety

The currently ongoing deployment of the new 5th generation of wireless communication, 5G, has further stimulated debate on the validity of ICNIRP’s safety guidelines.

What will be new in 5G wireless communications is the use of millimeter-waves, with frequencies from over 20 GHz up to 300 GHz. While millimeter-waves can transfer large amounts of data, they have a problem with how far they can be transmitted, and with the limits of their penetration ability. This will cause a very dense deployment of base stations (cell antennas) throughout neighborhoods (roughly, one small base station on every second lamppost), and will require base stations inside buildings. This means that in a few years, when 5G is fully deployed, city environments will be virtually saturated with the millimeter-wave radiation.

ICNIRP, in its 2020 safety guidelines, assures us that the health of users will be completely protected. However, how does ICNIRP know that?

The research on millimeter-waves and health is extremely limited. Several recently published science reviews have searched various data-bases, and have found only a very limited number of studies dealing with the health effects of millimeter-waves. The vast majority of science published on 5G millimeter-waves deals with radiation measurements and dosimetry, not with the biological and health effects.

• In 2019, Simkó and Mattsson published a review of just 97 experimental studies.
• In 2020, Leszczynski published a review of just 99 experimental studies.
• In 2021, Karipidis et al. published a review of just 107 experimental studies.

Most of this millimeter wave research consists of small, in vitro or animal studies that are of low practical value when developing public health protection guidelines. This lack of research studies causes confusion and problems within communities. When users ask for the scientific evidence of the effects of 5G millimeter-waves on health, they do not get answers because the research has not been done. It is not possible to prove that 5G is safe. However, it would be possible to perform a sufficient number of research studies on 5G and health to show whether the health effects are minimal or even negligible. At this point in time such scientific evidence does not exist.

However, interestingly and worryingly, ICNIRP Chairman Rodney Croft, Professor of Psychology at the University of Wollongong in Australia, has recently stated in an interview with “The Feed” on Australian TV on June 16, 2020:

“There is no harm associated with 5G”

“Look, it’s very true that the amount of studies that specifically look at 5G are very limited, but from a science perspective that just isn’t relevant”

In summary,

· ICNIRP is an organization that functions without any control or oversight, either scientific or legal.

· There is no control over whether or not telecom industry or national radiation protection organizations are actively lobbying ICNIRP.

· ICNIRP trivializes the lack of research on 5G millimeter-waves and health, as expressed by the ICNIRP Chairman.

· The opinions expressed and decisions made by ICNIRP members are considered not sufficiently science-based by national science groups in several countries, as well as a number of prominent scientists.

· While members of ICNIRP do not have any legal responsibility for their scientific opinions, the telecom industry that uses ICNIRP safety guidelines for their products does have legal responsibility should their devices cause health harm.

In this scientifically and legally complex situation, there is an urgent need to perform an independent validation of the results of ICNIRP’s review of science and of the validity of the ICNIRP safety guidelines.

See and Share Article from https://blogbrhp.medium.com/5g-is-testing-the-limits-of-trust-8180d578e140

Also https://www.phonegatealert.org/en/tribune-5g-is-testing-the-limits-of-trust?

On 9th September 2021, the BBC reported, on the news and in print, on the increase in incidents of ‘Havana Syndrome’, ie Microwave Sickness, reported by American diplomats and spies across the world

BBC NEWS WEBSITE

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-58396698

By Gordon Corera
Security correspondent, BBC News

FULL ARTICLE, AND SHARE FROM, HERE https://wsimag.com/science-and-technology/65062-5gs-threats-to-wildlife9L8

More Letters to Greta about Nature & Technology from Miguel Coma and Katie Singer https://www.ourwebofinconvenienttruths.com/letters/ 

Katie Alvord

The Society of Environmental Journalists published an article on wireless radiation by award winning environmental journalist, Katie Alvord entitled “Is Wireless Technology an Environmental Health Risk?” This article highlights research by numerous international experts including Environmental Health Trust, Dr. Joel Moskowitz and the Bioinitiative.

Excerpt:

“Early in 2012, I started having debilitating cognitive lapses, pressure headaches, nausea and worse when around wireless and electronic devices.

That winter and spring, I’d put in long hours, drafting an eco-themed novel, writing for a hyperlocal news blog and starting to update a climate series I’d done for the site five years before.

But my worsening symptoms felt more extreme than simply too-much-screen-time fatigue. By late May, I could not sit down at any keyboard without losing my ability to work within minutes.

“What changed before this began?” one doctor asked me. As we explored the question, technology kept coming up.

Not only had I logged extra computer time in recent months, but a new community-wide wireless internet service had started nearby. My symptoms consistently worsened within what I later learned was the range of that service. The 12-mile trips from my country home into town, where this new provider and others had transmitters, often left me so impaired it took days to recover.

Was it possible higher levels of wireless radiation had crashed my health?

My search for answers led me deep into a topic that has expanding relevance for the environmental beat in the current COVID-19 era.

Recent lockdowns and more time online — plus the push for rapid expansion of 5G infrastructure, now touted for economic recovery (see sidebar) — are increasing our exposures to non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation (EMR, aka electromagnetic fields or EMF). This includes the radiofrequency radiation, or RFR, emitted by wireless devices.

Are these exposures safe? That’s hotly debated, so you’ll find plenty of story potential at the intersection of wireless tech, health and environment.

Plus, Project Censored — which since 1976 has publicized important news stories missed by mainstream media — says the health risks of wireless technologies are underreported. The topic has made the group’s annual list of Top 25 Censored Stories in 2012-13, 2017-18 and 2018-19.

The safety debate

Arguments over these health risks center on whether RFR, which includes microwave frequencies, does much or any harm when below intensities that heat tissue.

Those who say that low-intensity RFR poses little risk include the U.S. Federal Communications Commission, or FCC, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, or FDA, the Institute of Electrical  and Electronics Engineers, the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection and the wireless industry.

Accordingly, safety standards and guidelines in the United States and many other locations are based on avoiding RFR’s tissue-heating effects.

Those concerned about this approach say thousands of studies — such as research cited by the BioInitiative Report, Physicians for Safe Technology, Americans for Responsible Technology, Understanding EMFs, Electromagnetic Radiation Safety and Environmental Health Trust — conclude that RFR can hurt us at levels well below those microwave ovens used for cooking…

READ FULL ARTICLE, AND SHARE FROM, HERE

SEE Also:

Interview With Journalist Katie Alvord on Wireless And the Environment

SOURCE ARTICLE: PhoneGateAlert.org

In May 2021, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced it was launching an investigation into whether smartphones or connected objects in contact with the body, such as Applewatch could pose a health risk to pacemaker or heart stimulator wearers.

This investigation follows an alert launched in February 2021 by U.S. cardiologists in a study published by the Henry Ford Health System Study showing that the Apple iPhone 12 can disable the pacemaker or pacemaker when placed near the heart.

The iPhone 12 and the Apple Watch 6 in the front line but not only …

After conducting its own tests, the FDA in a statement published this August 26, 2021 has just confirmed that the risk of interference with implantable medical devices is real and warns that tested models such as the iPhone 12 or the Apple Watch 6 trigger a potentially dangerous situation for those concerned :

“Today, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is advising the public that some newer consumer electronic devices, such as certain cell phones and smartwatches, have high fields strength magnets capable of placing medical devices in their “magnet mode”, the agency wrote. “These magnets can affect normal operations of the medical device until the magnetic field is moved.”

ANSES alerts public authorities on the subject in 2016

However, in an opinion published as early as June 2016, entitled “Disturbance of medical devices by radio frequencies: practices to be adapted to each situation“, the National Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health Safety was already concerned about the risks associated with cell phone radio frequency waves and thus warned the public authorities:

“The Agency recommends that wearers of active implanted medical devices (cardiac implants, pacemakers, etc.) to ensure that they keep the strongest sources of exposure (cell phones) away from their device. Thus, the recommendations contained in the information booklets or user manuals must be applied, particularly concerning the distances to be respected when using a cell phone (do not put the phone in a pocket near an implant, use the opposite ear, etc.) or passing under security gates (anti-theft, airports).

This position of ANSES was already based on numerous scientific studies:

The risk of electromagnetic disturbance of certain medical devices, generated by cell phones, has long been discussed.

Do not keep your smartphone within 15 cm of the implant

To examine the potential impact of smartphones, U.S. researchers tested all iPhone 12 and Apple Watch 6 models at different distances with a Medtronic implantable cardiac device (ICD). The results showed that the risk of interference was highest when the smartphone was within 15 cm of the heart.

Therefore, people with implantable medical devices are urged to never keep their cell phones or connected objects in a pocket in contact with the implant.

A late and incomplete communication from Apple

We had to wait until July 2021, for the Apple manufacturer to warn its customers with implants … but only on the effects of its products with magnets in their composition:

“If you think your Apple product is interfering with your medical device, stop using your Apple product and consult your doctor and the manufacturer of your medical device.”

For Dr. Marc Arazi, President of Phonegate Alert:

“All smartphones and connected objects are concerned by this alert from the American agency. However, the risk also concerns less recent cell phones, such as those from Apple, which are not included in its list* of products at risk. It is more than an oversight, it is a serious fault of the manufacturer not to also take into account the effects of radio frequency waves! It is time for the public authorities to act and inform with appropriate means the more than 350 000 pacemaker wearers in France”.

* List of Apple products on July 6, 2021

These Apple products contain magnets

Keep these products a safe distance away from your medical device:
AirPods and charging cases

AirPods and Charging Case
AirPods and Wireless Charging Case
AirPods Pro and Wireless Charging Case
AirPods Max and Smart Case

Apple Watch and accessories

Apple Watch
Apple Watch bands with magnets
Apple Watch magnetic charging accessories

HomePod

HomePod
HomePod mini

iPad and accessories

iPad
iPad mini
iPad Air
iPad Pro
iPad Smart Covers and Smart Folios
iPad Smart Keyboard and Smart Keyboard Folio
Magic Keyboard for iPad

iPhone and MagSafe accessories

iPhone 12 models
MagSafe accessories

Mac and accessories

Mac mini
Mac Pro
MacBook Air
MacBook Pro
iMac
Apple Pro Display XDR

Beats

Beats Flex
BeatsX
Powerbeats Pro
UrBeats3

PLEASE SHARE FROM ORIGINAL ARTICLE – https://www.phonegatealert.org/en/press-release-fda-confirms-health-risk-of-interference-between-cell-phones-and-cardiac-implants

More Articles from Paul Ben Ishai HERE