reports of adverse effects from 5G come just days after major university study
By: Riva Mendoza |@NeonNettle on 13th July 2018
Firefighters in Sacramento, CA have reported brain damage including severe memory problems and confusion following the installation of new 5G cell towers outside the city fire station.The reports of adverse effects from 5G come just days after major university study into 5G wireless technology was a “massive health experiment” that hasn’t been properly tested by the government.
According to CBS report on the 5G small cell towers references complaints by the San Francisco firefighters: Firefighters in San Francisco have reported memory problems and confusion after the 5G equipment was installed outside of fire stations. The firefighters claim the symptoms stopped when they relocated to stations without equipment nearby. Firefighters are willing to run and leap and climb and jump into burning buildings and forests but they aren’t willing to suffer neurological damage after being subjected to prolonged periods of radiation exposure from 5G cell towers and antennas. If firefighters aren’t willing to put up with the damaging effects of the 5G rollout, should we be more concerned about the health effects associated with the new wireless technology?
According to Activist Post: All sources of cell phone and wireless WiFi radiation are not magic. They have never been. Decades of research from government, independent, industry, and military scientists have already proven harm. In 2011, The World Health Organization classified all sources of cell phone and wireless WiFi radiation as a possible carcinogen in the same category as chloroform, engine exhaust, and led. Many experts believe it should be reclassified as a Carcinogen.This isn’t just about cancer. Exposure can lead to symptoms and illnesses referred to as “Microwave Sickness” or “Electrosensitivity.” This is actually more common than we have been led to believe.Research has confirmed that exposure can… Worsen pre-existing conditions even when it didn’t cause them Disrupt the blood-brain barrier which can cause it to leak Cause a cumulative toxic effect when combined with other toxins Harm pets, nature, and wildlife It’s not just The Telecom Industry aka “Big Wireless” that doesn’t seem to care about any of this. Many of our elected officials, as well as current and former government employees, don’t seem to care either.
20+-year-old legislation as well as outdated safety standards and testing– not science – has made it possible to avoid using “The Precautionary Principle” in regard to all digital and wireless devices, products, and infrastructure.
Concerns about cell towers – 5G and otherwise – and other sources of WiFi radiation has been reported quite a bit already – especially over the last few months. In 2017, 180 scientists requested a moratorium on 5G small cell towers because of biological and environmental health risks.
Environmental organizations like the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) are also asking for assistance in opposing it. 5G was recently installed in New York City and Dr. Naomi Wolf and many of her fans have been posting about this on social media. It doesn’t sound like a good time is being had by all.
Those who want 5G can still have it without cell towers being installed all over their communities. Samsung will very soon be selling indoor 5G routers to anyone who doesn’t mind profuse sweating and other unpleasant side effects from exposure. Concerns about other sources of WiFi exposure have been reported for kids and everyone else and by a variety of media outlets and experts.In fact, cell phone manufacturers are warning their shareholders that they may eventually be held liable for the harm they have caused.If firefighters don’t want cell towers near their stations, why should anyone else want more of them near our homes and everywhere else?
ConsumerWatch: 5G Cellphone Towers Signal Renewed Concerns Over Impacts on Health
by Julie Watts and Abigail Sterling January 25, 2018 at 11:24 pm Filed Under: 5G, cellphone radiation, Cellphones, ConsumerWatch, Julie Watts, NewsMom Julie Watts, RF, Verizon, Wireless
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61h_vuBujw0
OAKLAND (KPIX) — Is a cell tower going up in your neighborhood? If it’s not now, it may soon.
Wireless carriers are installing millions of them across the country to enable the new, faster 5G cellphone technology. While many are looking forward to faster cell service, many are also asking: Are there legitimate health concerns?
That question is keeping John Hiestand up at night. Outside his bedroom window he can see a new pole where Verizon will soon install a next-generation cell tower.
“This would be a big tower generating lots of RF outside of our bedroom window 24 hours a day, 7 days a week for many years,” he said.
It’s called a “small cell” or “distributed antenna system.” The industry says they’re safe. Many in Piedmont aren’t convinced – including the Hiestands.
“Our daughter is a cancer survivor,” John Hiestand explained.
Thirteen-year-old Sophia Hiestand has been one of many petitioning the city council to deny this cell tower.
“I mostly talked about my cancer and how it affected me, even though you’re not supposed to talk about health issues, I still did,” Hiestand said.
However, according to federal law the city simply can’t consider health concerns. It’s outlined in a small section of the Telecommunications Act, based on science from 1996, back when we were still talking on cellphones that looked like bricks.
“I find it really unfair,” said Hiestand.
If cities do consider health, cell companies can sue them.
So, with few legal arguments to deny a tower, they’re popping up outside bedroom windows and school campuses, despite objections from across the country.
“5G can be a tremendous boom to California but only if it can be put up quickly and easily,” said Hayward Assembly member Bill Quirk. Quirk co-authored legislation that would make it even harder for cities like Piedmont to object to a tower.
“You wouldn’t have to go through the planning commission, through the city council,” Quirk explained.
Quirk, a former NASA scientist, says he may resurrect the bill that was recently vetoed by governor Brown.
“I know scientifically that putting up these cell phone towers is safe,” he said.
But the International Association of Frefighters disagrees. It began opposing cell towers on fire stations, after firefighters complained of health problems.
“These firefighters developed symptoms,” says Dr. Gunnar Heuser who conducted a pilot study on firefighters at a station with cell towers.
“The symptoms included problems with memory, problems with intermittent confusion, problems with weakness,” Heuser said.
Heuser says their brain scans suggest even low-level RF can cause cell damage and he worries about more vulnerable groups like kids.
“We found abnormal brain function in all of the firefighters we examined,” Heuser said.
So, following lobbying by firefighters, assemblyman Quirk and his co-author exempted fire stations from their bill, making them one place cell companies couldn’t put a tower.
“This is the first piece of legislation that anyone is aware of where somebody got an exemption because they were concerned about health. Did they tell you at all about the study?” we asked the assemblyman.
Quirk’s response: “All I know is that when the firefighters ask, I do what they ask me to do.”
“Because they are strong lobbyists?” we asked him. His response: “Yes.”
“So if school teachers and parents had a strong lobby and they ask you to pass something that would prevent these from going up near schools, would you do that?” we asked Quirk.
His response: “If I couldn’t get the votes any other way!”
We next spoke to Tony Stefani, founder of the San Francisco Firefighters Cancer Prevention Foundation.
“It’s not only the firefighters, it’s the people that live within the vicinity of these towers,” Stefani said.
Anthony Stefani started with the San Francisco Fire Department in 1974. The 28-year veteran retired as the captain of Rescue 1 in 2003.
Stefani notes that current regulations don’t take into account continuous low-level exposure from these small cells 24-hours a day. He also says some fellow firefighters reported that their symptoms disappeared when they move to a station without a tower.
“More of these studies have to be done,” he says.
Many international scientists agree. More than 230 scientists from 41 nations — who have published over 2,000 peer-reviewed papers on electromagnetic fields and biology and health — have signed the International EMF Scientist Appeal.
They cite “serious concerns” about “increasing exposure to EMF” based on “numerous recent scientific publications” linking low levels of wireless radiation to health effects.
They’re calling for stronger regulations, disclosure about wireless industry ties to regulatory agencies, and they want publicly funded studies on the health effects of EMF emitting devices/base stations (i.e. cell towers).
“I do not believe that there is any health impact on firefighters or anyone else, from cells, period!” Assemblyman Quirk asserted. However he added, “I think doing more studies is always a good thing.”
Considering the the circumstances, we asked Quirk: “Do you think that maybe you should consider putting a pause on legislation that speeds up these towers until there is definitive evidence that there is no harm?”
His’s response: “We can do a lot of studies and there are people right now believe it or not who are sure the world is flat.”
In a statement the CTIA says it defers to the experts when it comes to the safety of cellular telephones and antennas:
“According to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the Federal Communications Commission, the World Health Organization, the American Cancer Society and numerous other international and U.S. organizations and health experts, the scientific evidence shows no known health risk due to the RF energy emitted by cellphones.
Likewise, the FCC monitors scientific research on a regular basis and its standards for RF exposure are based on recommended guidelines adopted by U.S. and international standard-setting bodies. That’s why the FCC has determined that all wireless phones legally sold in the United States are “safe.” This scientific consensus has stayed the same even after the NTP’s release in 2016 of its partial findings in a study involving cellphones and lab animals.
The FCC also sets exposure limits for cell site antennas that transmit signals to phones. Those limits, like the limits for cell phones, are even more conservative than standards adopted by leading international standards bodies such as the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) and the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP).
The FCC states that typical ground exposures to base station antennas are “hundreds to thousands of times less than the FCC’s limits for safe exposure” and “there is no reason to believe that such [antennas] could constitute a potential health hazard” to nearby residents.”
The World Heath Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer has classified RF radiation as possibly carcinogenic to humans. Though the cell phone industry stresses there are “no known health risks.”
What about the unknown? Well, back in Piedmont the Hiestands don’t want to wait around to find out.
“We are going to get some meters. We’re going to measure the micro-radiation today and then when the cell towers go up, we can measure it and see how dangerous it really is,” said John Hiestand. He says if he has to they’ll move.
“For my daughter’s health, definitely,” he said.
Piedmont was able to temporarily block permits for some small cell towers but now the company installing them for Verizon, Crown Castle, is suing the city.
Meanwhile new research set to be published next month could radically alter the debate. For the first time it establishes a scientific link between RF radiation and cancer in lab rats:
In response, the Chief Medical Director of the American Cancer Society said this first-of-its-kind government study “marks a paradigm shift in our understanding of radiation and cancer risk.”
#1 by Lucan C on March 15, 2019 - 8:31 pm
we only presently stopped freedom mobile from installing a 45ft cell tower on a hydro lamp post only 12 ft from a strata containing two residences and 6 wellness businesses in crescent beach. other nearby businesses and residences would also be affected adversely 24/7 while they work and sleep. many residents rallied in our support against the installation. freedom listened to the opposition and stopped the installation. however, they are still looking for a different location in the wildlife-sensitive areas at crescent beach.
there was none-to-poor notification of this proposal to local residents. only providence saved us. there was no transparent public disclosure of the type of antennae, strength of it’s field, broadcast radius, or details of it’s nature. merely by accident were we ourselves notified as local business owners, and we alerted the crescent beach homeowners association who happened to be holding a timely quarterly meeting, at which we were able to present the problem and gather comments of opposition from local individuals to present to freedom and their land use agent. apparently enough of a voice was raised to get them to back down. we have no idea what freedom’s next strategy may be.
i myself, and others i know, are EHS electromagnetically hypersensitive. i know someone who died from EMF health related complications. i know others who are made ill by electronic and microwave radiation. there are many who are moving away from living spaces because of the health issues from compounding electro-pollution as were we ourselves.
the city of surrey has not entertained by-laws demanding safe use of this technology. neither the willfully ignorant mayor doug mccallum, nor his evasive office clerk have responded to my letters and calls over the past two years, nor most recently in light of this proposed cell tower. they pass my concerns of this technology on to city planning, so they say. planning has never contacted me. they seem to ignore the concerns. the planning department hides behind land use allowances instrumented by the industry in the 1988 telecommunications act and half-a-century-outdated safety code 6 from the 1950s RF radar technology, as you already know.
there needs to be change. we need safe use regulations assigned as planning by-laws in this city. this insanity and willful negligence needs to end. or it will end badly. we as responsible consumers have to root out the willful blindness that is using us as human shields for their profit. i am livid. i am also EHS hypersensitive to EMF and electrosmog. today i found out about the class action lawsuit for 6 school children in california who contracted cancer from 5G
i found your site thru google through this article about “firefighters being disabled by 5G”.
someone should point the 404 error from old robust citizens for safe tech site to your page to facilitate continuity.
when you finally decide to march, where do i sign up? i will need EHS protective gear to counter 5G. also electronic radiation measurement tri-,meter, wifi analyzer, a good cable bolt-cutter to disable electrical feed and a bottle of 12 year old scotch for courage or stupidity, whichever is required to stop this monstrosity.
we won a battle, not the war.. yet.
regards
luc