5G Up in the Air: Do manmade wireless radiation transmissions threaten the earth’s atmosphere?

In this guest post, Diane Craig explores whether the satellites and other infrastructure needed to facilitate 5G wireless radiation transmissions threaten the earth’s atmosphere and our health, and she shares 6 ways you can be proactive and protect yourself:

The campsite, located within a bowl surrounded by mountains, was perfect. Our friends’ tents and RVs were nearby. There were no clouds; there would be no rain. The moon had not yet risen. Before bedding down, I walked to join two of our number who were stargazing.

One of them asked, “Did you see the satellites?”

I hadn’t. “Tell me.”

They interrupted each other in their excitement: “They were…. You know how the space station moves, so smoooothly?” “I lost count – I think there were about thirty.” “They looked like a string of pearls, being pulled across the sky.”

I asked a few questions. The satellites had shone, like bright, unblinking stars. They’d emerged suddenly from behind one mountain’s silhouette. They had proceeded, single-file and evenly spaced, as they crossed the heavens until they disappeared past the opposite horizon.

I shivered, but not from cold.

SpaceX had recently launched a rocket, one that could release several satellites at once. What my friends saw might have been Space X Starlink satellites, beginning their programmed journeys to spread themselves across the planet.

SpaceX is one of the five companies identified by the 5G Space Appeal as “proposing to provide 5G from space from a combined 20,000 satellites in low- and medium-Earth orbit that will blanket the Earth….” [1]

The 5G Space Appeal itself was set in motion only a few years ago, but its information already is outdated. According to a June 22, 2021 Business Insider report, Starlink’s “goal is to launch about 42,000 Starlink satellites into low-Earth orbit by mid-2027.” [2] And: “In April [2021] the Federal Communications Commission approved SpaceX’s request to fly Starlink satellites at a lower orbit.” [2]

Is this healthy for the earth? The 5G Space Appeal has warned,

“[T]he satellites will be located in the Earth’s magnetosphere, which exerts a significant influence over the electrical properties of the atmosphere. The alteration of the Earth’s electromagnetic environment may be an even greater threat to life than the radiation from ground-based antennas.” [1]

We know earth’s atmosphere is composed of several layers and interactions. Some definitions:

• The troposphere is where we live and where weather happens. [3]

• The stratosphere, just above the troposphere, is where the ozone layer is. You may know how the ozone layer has been threatened by chlorofluorocarbons and other chemicals. The United States passed the Clean Air Act in 1970, but it wasn’t until after 1987’s international agreement, the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, that real progress was made. Now, “Because of measures taken under the Montreal Protocol, emissions of ODS [Ozone Depleting Substances] are falling and the ozone layer is expected to be fully healed near the middle of the 21st century.” [4]

• The mesosphere is where “meteors burn up”, the thermosphere is where satellites reside, and the exosphere extends well beyond the thermosphere.[3]

• The ionosphere is an area, mostly in the mesosphere and thermosphere but also in the exosphere, that’s filled with “electrons and ionized atoms and molecules” – ions – that interact with energy that comes from the sun. [3]

• There’s also a “magnetosphere,” because the molten iron inside the earth’s outer core acts as a giant magnet. This creates a system of magnetic fields that also reaches far beyond earth. “The magnetosphere shields our home planet from harmful solar and cosmic particle radiation, but it can change shape in response to incoming space weather from the Sun.” [5]

In other words, it’s pretty complicated up there.

Before seeking more information about these satellite and how their wireless transmissions might threaten the earth’s atmosphere, let’s take some deep breaths and revisit our first three proactive steps:

#1 Practice Self-Care: Avoiding Wireless Radiation Pollution.

Hub and I go camping to retreat from wireless radiation exposures already in our daily lives, There, we sleep well. We have more energy. We delight in natural sounds, of birdsong and creek water flow.

We used to have a version of this in town, a place where we walked and watched bees and butterflies feed from wildflowers and flowering native plants. Now we see damage, like the right-hand portion of this sage plant (Salvia apiana), shriveled by something weird. The stalks on the weakened non-injured side also fell.

This plant is an example of how our environment has become increasingly affected, by sprays that keep plants from edging into the paths, by air-borne particulates from fires, and by radiation from wireless security systems and devices people carry, even as they seek to digitally detox in nature. Earth’s surface also is pretty complicated.

Recently, I decided to keep a wireless radiation meter with me. Will people understand if they hear it beeping? Or will they reject what the meter can tell them about what science tells me? I don’t know the answers. All I can do is my best, to…

#2 Educate: How Computer Simulations Predict Future Results From The Past.

If you’ve noticed more extreme temperatures, drier regions having more droughts and wetter regions having more flooding, you are observing changes that computer climate change models predicted.

It’s taken quite some time for industries, governments and people to acknowledge and accept that computer models can forecast our climate’s future.

Perhaps some remained reluctant because we remember past weather reports that sometimes were inaccurate. Scientists were the first to change their focus, to recognize manmade variables as well as physical properties of nature. Computer technologies advanced. Scientific collaborative organizations such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change came into being. All contributed to reliable computer modeling, of both current weather conditions and the long-term weather patterns we call climate.

Perhaps another reason people doubted was linguistic. Scientific computer models begin with a process called simulation, and people assign different meanings to the S-word “simulate.”
One dictionary’s top meaning is “to make a presence of; feign” [6] or pretend, as in “to simulate anxiety.” [6] Another common meaning is to “imitate” [6]. Most people consider imitations — flowers, for instance — to be inferior to real ones.

For scientists, however, “simulate” means “to reproduce the conditions of” [6], by conducting experiments, or, as with climate change computer modeling, by creating mathematical equations that consider both principles of physics and the interactions of variables.

Climate change models also provide us with some good news: “The model results project that global temperature will continue to increase, but show that human decisions and behavior we choose today will determine how dramatically climate will change in the future.” [7]

#3 Develop Perspective: Simulations Predated Computers

Computer history began in 1937 [8], so computers weren’t very far along in 1942, when J Robert Oppenheimer was appointed to lead the Manhattan Project. [9] This group’s job was develop an atomic bomb. Atomic bombs later were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. World War II ended. Oppenheimer resigned from the atomic bomb project to chair the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC)’s General Advisory Committee. In 1949, the Committee recommended against developing an even stronger bomb. [10]

Three years earlier, the United States had decided to conduct two atomic bomb tests at Bikini Atoll When Oppenheimer then advised that the above-ground and underwater tests “could be simulated in a laboratory, … he was overruled.” [11, page 97]

Simulation would have been a really good idea. In his excellent and comprehensive book, Operation Crossroads: Lest We Forget!, William McGee describes what happened instead.

McGee was on a new navy ship, a few miles from the tests’ target location. He details how, in the second test, pigs, rats, people, vessels and underwater life died. One vessel even disappeared, “presumed to have been vaporized.” [11, page 70] McGee’s ship and others had to be decommissioned because of radiation. Fifty years later, more than half of those present at Operation Crossroads had died. [11]

And what happened to Oppenheimer, who had recommended a simulation alternative? At the McCarthy hearings in 1953, Oppenheimer lost his security clearances and his AEC job. He turned to teaching scientists and writing essays so non-scientists could understand science. [9] He died in 1967.

Oppenheimer’s legacy remained controversial until transcripts from the McCarthy hearings were released in 2014. According to the Encyclopedia Brittanica, these transcripts “bolstered Oppenheimer’s assertions of loyalty” [10] to the United States.

Regarding The Current Global Experiment Called 5G…

We have another man-made climate change variable now: the 5G Radio Frequency Radiation Network.

Compared with 2G, 3G and 4G wireless technologies, 5G includes more-biologically-active higher intensities, lower and much higher frequencies, and increased pulsations designed to penetrate walls and other impediments.

2G, 3G and 4G information continues be transmitted both wirelessly and also by “wired” solutions such as DSL [12]. Fiber optic cables can transmit broadband information many times faster than both DSL and satellite transmissions. [12] But the telecommunications industry has been moving full-speed ahead to deploy 5G technology only wirelessly.

The plan is that wireless 5G will operate 24/7, everywhere worldwide, both short-range (from streetlights, fence posts., etc.) and long-range (from those way-more-than-20,000 new satellites transmitting from the ionosphere). “The rollout of 5G at extremely high (millimetre wave) frequencies [wa]s planned to [and did] begin at the end of 2018.” [1]

Here’s some shocking news: “Despite the industry message that 5G will be faster, in reality wireless “5G is turning out to be slower.” According to an article in Computerworld about 5G wireless devices, “‘At this point, 5G is a bad joke’…. Unless you live or work right next to an mmWave transceiver, you’re simply not going to see those promised speeds or anything close to them.’” [13] 

So who wants wireless 5G, and why?

• The Russians have shown their interest in using microwave technologies for espionage.

• Starting in Wuhan, the Chinese have shown us that 5G can be used for surveillance and to monitor and control populations.

• Political leaders in other countries want their constituencies to win the “race” to be considered first and best, so when telecommunications companies want to cut corners to deploy 5G wirelessly and quickly, governments may be tempted to go along. [14]

• Multinational corporations are interested in profits. The telecommunications industry learned, from tobacco, oil, food and other industries, how to create demand for its wireless services. Manufacturers feed their profits by making new consumer products that connect wirelessly. Advertisers teach consumers to “want” wireless devices.

Read more articles on the dangers of 5G radiation: what-is-5g-technology  and is-5g-dangerous

Problems with “Small Cells”

To me, there are three big problem with wireless 5G. The first is how another S-word — “small” — is being attached to a meaning very different from our common understanding. “Small” is a key word in the telecommunications industry’s phrase, “small cells.” “Small cells”, in turn, is telecommunications-industry-shorthand that stands for “small cell antennas.” [13]

A Question: How do transmissions from “small cell antennas” affect the three trillion or so living “small cells” that reside in my and every human’s body?

On earth, 5G “small cell antennas” create something more accurately described as shorter cell towers, “close to homes and schools.” [10] Shorter? Cell towers? Close? Not Small.

The Environmental Health Trust lists several additional “Not Small” 5G Facts:

• “Millions of small cells are to be built.” [13]

• “5G will add an extra layer — not replace — our current wireless technology.” [13]

• “The radiation from these small cell antennas is not small.” [13]

• The “[s]mall cell installations” that surround “small cell “antennas “are not the size of pizza
boxes.” [13]

• “Each installation can have over a thousand antennas that are transmitting simultaneously“.
[13]

• There are other major Not Small uncertainties, regarding radiation measurement, the potential
use of 5G’s higher frequencies as weapons, and longer-term effects from higher USA radiation limits. [13]

• Insuring against damages is Not Small because 5G is “High Risk.” “Crown Castle (a company building small cell infrastructure throughout the USA)” admits it has “not maintain[ed] any significant insurance…” against claims. [13]

• But human health risks also are Not Small. For several examples, see reference [16].

• Three Not Small quotes:
“Damage goes well beyond the human race, as there [already] is abundant evidence of harm to diverse plant and wildlife and laboratory animals,” for example: “ants…birds… forests…frogs…fruit flies…honey bees…insects…mammals…mice…plants…rats…
trees.” [1] And,
“Negative microbiological effects have…been recorded” regarding how “pathogenic bacteria” respond to antibiotics in the presence of radio frequency radiation.” [1] Also,
“Findings suggest that mobile tower radiations can significantly alter the vital systems in [soil] microbes and turn them multi-drug resistant.” [17]

• The clincher for me? A 2014 Wall Street Journal investigation found that “[M]any [existing] cell towers are in violation of the radiation limits.” [13] Many violations? Not Small.

Problems with Control

My second problem with the global wireless 5G experiment consists of two unanswered questions.

First, since the nuclear arms race already has left us with

1. Radiation incidents (e.g., Three Mile Island) and accidents (e.g., Chernobyl, Fukushima),
2. Nuclear stockpiles “in the thousands of metric tons” [18] that remain dangerous, and
3. “Have not” countries that still yearn to become “haves”,

How will wireless 5G deployment on earth and in space be expected to proceed differently?

Secondly, since wireless radiation affects everyone, shouldn’t global wireless 5G radiation issues be discussed internationally now, rather than later?

Problems with ignoring Simulations for Variables That Affect Climate Change

My third problem with the 5G experiment is how scientists’ simulations are being ignored.

“Skyrocketing Energy Consumption” is predicted. “Engineers say 5G is ‘an energy hog.’ … Environmental experts warn that the IOT is an unsustainable technology and will contribute to climate change…” [13].

Two agencies that practice simulations, NOAA and NASA, state that 5G will reduce their ability to predict weather. Lack of accurate weather information will “result… in increased risk in Safety of Flight and Safety of Navigation….” [13]

The Department of Defense cites “potential for widespread disruption to GPS services.” [13]

An aviation group “warns that 5G technologies could pose a “major risk…of harmful interference” to radar on business jets and other civilian aircraft.” [13]

And one thing engineers have not yet worked out is how to cool 5G base stations on earth. “The circuitry used to generate RF signals uses a lot of power and gets very hot. Base stations [will] need a lot of cooling equipment….” This may even include a “need for gallium arsenide (GaAs) … which would bring a toxic material into the equipment.” [13]

How could such problems affect the earth’s atmosphere?

One 2010 global atmosphere “model predicts that emissions from a fleet of 1000 launches per year of suborbital rockets would create a persistent layer of black carbon particles in the northern stratosphere that could cause potentially significant changes in the global atmospheric circulation and distributions of ozone and temperature.” [19] 11 years later, is anyone following up?

Another notes that “[b]lack carbon and alumna particulates have the most significant positive” predicted “[r]adiative forcing caused by rocket engine emissions.” [20]

According to the 5G Space Appeal, “The Earth, the ionosphere and the lower atmosphere form the global electric circuit in which we live…. [T]he well-being of all organisms depends on the stability of this environment, including the electrical properties of the atmosphere…. These elements of our electromagnetic environment have already been altered by radiation from power lines….” [1]

Earth has a “natural electromagnetic environment” called the Schumann Resonance. Since the Schumann Resonance is part of a “global electric circuit”, its stability sounds like an important matter to study.

The earth’s fundamental Schumann Resonance is 7.83 hertz; its 8 additional intervals range from 14.3 hertz to 60 hertz.

4th generation wireless transmissions include frequencies to about 6 GHz. That’s 6 billion cycles per second — 6,000,000,000 hertz.

Wireless 5G microwave frequencies, whether originating on earth or in the atmosphere, can be many times higher.

My questions: Have simulation studies been done regarding 5G interactions with the Schumann Resonance? If so, what were the results?

How do regulatory decisions contribute to problems?

In the United States, the Environmental Protection Agency is in charge of the Clean Air Act, but the US agency in charge of wireless rules is the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

Does the FCC act ethically when it “regulates” the wireless industry? A Harvard University e- book, Captured Agency: How the Federal Communications Commission Is Dominated by the Industries It Presumably Regulates, describes in 59 pages and 10 chapters the many ways the opposite is true. [21]

Here’s a more recent example: The FCC just updated its “OTARD Rule.” [22] OTARD stands for “Over the Air Reception Devices.” Before now, the OTARD Rule applied to only receiving devices, like satellite dishes. The FCC amended the OTARD rule to include wireless 5G “small cell antennas.” But “small cell antennas” can both receive AND transmit. If my neighbor were to replace his satellite dish with a “small cell antenna,” it seems he could do so, without notifying me or even my local government.

Satellite dish receivers may be noticed by neighbors; “small cell antenna” installations may not be. But neighbors may unknowingly be affected, by invisible wireless radiation that’s transmitted by such “small cell antennas”.

How do telecommunications industry actions contribute to problems?

Further, the telecommunications industry has and continues to push for laws that override local controls over other 5g wireless radiation installations. As I write, four such bills are being considered by California’s state legislature [14].

At the same time, the industry lobbies for “5G small cell wireless streaming bills … [that] potentially impose reimbursable, state-mandated costs on cities and counties.” [13]

What has the wireless industry done to show proof of 5G safety?

As for wireless 5G’s proof of safety, the direct quotes that follow are from a February 6, 2019 Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee Hearing on the future of 5G Wireless Technology [23]:

{Senator Blumenthal: “I believe that Americans deserve to know what the health effects are, …and they also deserve a commitment to do the research on outstanding questions. So my question for you, particularly [telecommunication industry representatives] Mr. Gillen and Mr. Berry: How much money has the industry committed to supporting additional independent —I stress independent—research?”

Mr. Gillen: “There are no industry backed studies….”

Mr. Blumenthal: “So, essentially, the answer to my question how much money, zero.”

Mr. Gillen: “I can totally follow-up with you, Senator. To my knowledge, there are no active studies being backed by industry today.”} [23]

Perhaps there are no current industry-backed studies because, not long before the hearing, an industry-backed study had brought to light serious issues that didn’t support the industry. An investigative report by The Nation [24] then brought to light subsequent shocking industry tactics to discredit science and scientists. In my opinion, The Nation’s exposé is, like the Harvard ebook [21] and the Wall Street Journal article referenced at [13], well worth reading.

How can we measure current wireless radiation exposures?

I have more unanswered questions:

• Do some wireless radiation meters recognize transmissions that include all the 2G through 4G frequencies plus all the newly-allowed and un-researched 5G frequencies that currently are or soon will be “up in the air”?

• If so, and because new or increased health and/or other problems might show up later, is anyone monitoring such transmissions now?

• And, if and when there are any such meters, can I afford one? Returning to our proactive steps:

#4 Advocate for Proof of Safety and Common Sense:

Who will be left to pay for 5G problems? One of many Not Small issues for local governments: “Microwave antennas in front yards present several worker and public safety issues.” [13] As a result, “US cities and entire countries are voting to halt 5G.” [13]

We as individuals can help ourselves and our cities, when we

(1) Are aware of industry-backed legislative efforts and industry-influenced regulatory agencies’ rulings. One resource is https://www.americansforresponsibletech.org. Another is at https://scientists4wiredtech.com/action/.

(2) Check out investigative reports (for example, read the articles referenced at [21] and [24] and the WSJ investigation article link referenced at [13].

(3) Share our knowledge and our opinions by communicating with our lawmakers. To get science into public records, we can include downloaded-webpage-pdf’s. We can present these pdfs in person or send them digitally. Here’s one pdf-option-webpage on health: https://ehtrust.org/scientific-research-on-5g-and-health/.

(4) The 5G Space Appeal remains relevant, and we can still sign it online (at https://www.5gspaceappeal.org). The appeal can be signed both by individuals and by organizations.

Qualified scientists who wish to sign the International Appeal: Scientists call for Protection from Non-ionizing Electromagnetic Field Exposure can request that their name be added, “by contacting Elizabeth Kelley, M.A., Director, EMFscientist.org, at info@EMFscientist.org.” [25]

(5) Support non-profits whose scientific studies and scientific education support us.

(6) Demand that independent proof of safety studies be funded by industry immediately AND that the industry agrees in advance (1) to acknowledge and accept results and (2) to place a moratorium on initiating new measures and applications in the meantime.

(7) Ask legislators, on behalf of First Responders (like the California firefighters who successfully won exemptions from wireless radiation towers being installed near fire stations [26]), essential workers, those are disabled and all others who are reluctant to participate in a global experiment to which they did not consent, to provide for exemptions that would allow such persons to live free from wireless 5G installations transmissions that breach the walls of their homes.

(8) Claim protection under the Nuremberg Code provisions regarding human experimentation. According to the 5G Space Appeal, wireless 5G violates the Code and at least 13 other International agreements and treaties, on human rights and on environmental and space effects. [1]

And…

#5 Support Solutions

(9) Take a big proactive step to support Fiber to the Premises.

As the federal government debates broadband infrastructure funding, we can Insist that the value of strong Fiber To The Premises infrastructures be recognized, and we can advocate for FTTP solutions.

Remember FTTP’s many advantages. [26] Fiber To The Premises:

• Greatly reduces wireless radiation,
• Provides for more reliable communication than wireless,
• Provides communication at the speed of light, faster than wireless,
• Keeps communication networks more secure (protects privacy and minimizes hacking),
• Doesn’t cause fires, [26] and
• Protects living cells from the oxidative stresses associated with wireless radiation
transmissions. [27]

What about FTTP costs?

FTTP’s advantages create long-term environmental and other security benefits. These benefits will greatly outweigh any short-term increased marginal costs of installing fiber optic cable rather than placing and maintaining wireless small cell antenna installations everywhere.

FTTP could be utilized by both current and future technologies. Homeowners and businesses who wished could even choose to carry FTTP throughout their premises, to reduce indoor wireless radiation exposures there.

#6 Create change – Reach for the sky

These two sage plants were photographed on the same day. Which flowering stalks do you prefer to contemplate? The ones lying on the ground? Or the ones reaching for the sky?

Many forces stress and threaten the lives and life forces we value. To create change, we must speak up to protect them.

Many thanks to Diane Craig for this guest post.

For more than 30 years, Diane Craig has advocated for persons diagnosed with celiac disease. From 2013 to 2018, among other activities as a board member for the California non-profit Celiac Support Group, she helped draft a petition to the FDA to label gluten in drugs and wrote blog posts to help publicize research regarding the then-new concept of Non-Celiac Gluten Sensitivity.

Sources and Bibliography

[1] 301,113 signatories from 214 nations and territories who are scientists, doctors, environmental organizations and citizens. INTERNATIONAL APPEAL Stop 5G on Earth and in Space. As of June 16, 2021. At https://www.5gspaceappeal.org/the-appeal. Includes research links. Accessed June 19, 2021.

[2] K Duffy. Elon Musk’s SpaceX could offer global Starlink satellite internet coverage by September, its president says. Business Insider. Jun 22, 2021. At https://www.businessinsider.com/spacex-starlink-satellite-internet-global-coverage-gwynne-shotwell-elon-musk-2021-6?op=1. Accessed June 25, 2021.

[3] National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Earth’s Atmospheric Layers. January 21, 2013, Last Updated August 7, 2017. At https://www.nasa.gov/content/earths-atmospheric-layers. Accessed June 20, 2021.

[4] United States Environmental Protection Agency. International Treaties and Cooperation about the Protection of the Stratospheric Ozone Layer. Last Updated Oct 23, 2020. At https://www.epa.gov/ozone-layer-protection/international-treaties-and-cooperation-about-protection-stratospheric-ozone. Accessed June 20, 2021.

[5] National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Earth’s Magnetosphere. March 21, 2011. Last Updated August 7, 2017. At https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sunearth/multimedia/magnetosphere.html. Accessed June 20, 2021.

[6] simulate. (n.d.) Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014. (1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2014). Retrieved June 14 2021 from https://www.thefreedictionary.com/simulate. Accessed June 14, 2021.

[7] NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). Climate Models. No date. At https://www.climate.gov/maps-data/primer/climate-models. Accessed June 18, 2021.

[8] Computer History Museum. Timeline of Computer History. No date. At https://www.computerhistory.org/timeline/computers/. Accessed June 18, 2021.

[9] Institute for Advanced Study. J. Robert Oppenheimer: Life, Work and Legacy. No date. At https://www.ias.edu/oppenheimer-legacy. Accessed June 18, 2021.

[10] M Rouzé (2021, April 18). J. Robert Oppenheimer. Encyclopedia Britannica. Last Updated: Apr 18, 2021. At https://www.britannica.com/biography/J-Robert-Oppenheimer. Accessed June 18, 2021.

[11] W L McGee with S V McGee. Operation Crossroads, Lest We Forget!. BMC Publications ©2016. Accessed through June 18, 2021.

[12] DSL means “Digital Subscriber Line.” The following article explains how DSL works and compares its costs and speeds with satellite, cable internet, and fiber optic services:
L Pensworth. What is DSL Internet? How Does DSL work and How Fast is it Really?. Last updated March 7, 2020. At https://dailywireless.org/internet/dsl-internet-work/. Accessed June 22, 2021.

[13] Environmental Health Trust. What You Need to Know about 5G. No date. At https://ehtrust.org/key-issues/cell-phoneswireless/5g-internet-everything/20-quick-facts-what-you-need-to-know-about-5g-wireless-and-small-cells/. Accessed June 20, 2021.

[14] At June 23, 2021, four bills were before the California State Legislature. As I understand them, SB-556 and AB-955 shorten already-short time spans for local governments to consider telecommunications company applications. SB-556 is opposed by the California League of Cities because it does not recognize “local authority to manage the public right-of-way preserved in federal law.” SB-556 equates “broadband” only with “wireless broadband” (the most expensive and least reliable for consumers) rather than also recognizing fiber optic alternatives. SB-378 allows for fiber “microtrenching”, the cheapest way to lay the fiber required for wireless broadband. AB-357 introduces a concept of “deemed approval” if local governments can’t review an industry application in time; it also denies local governments the right to deny applications for known and even not-yet-discovered technologies. For California current bill status, see https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billSearchClient.xhtml?session_year=20192020&house=Both&author=All&lawCode=All. Accessed June 23, 2021.

[15] F M Clegg, M Sears, M Friesen, T Scarato, R Metzinger, C Russell, A Stadtner, A B Miller. Building science and radiofrequency radiation: What makes smart and healthy buildings. Building and Environment, Volume 176, 2020,106324,ISSN 0360-1323. At https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.buildenv.2019.106324 (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360132319305347). Accessed June 23, 2021.

[16] Regarding Health Risks from wireless 5G’s “extra layers” that do “not replace” 2G through 4G technologies:

The Environmental Health Trust points to three:
• “Cumulative daily radiation exposure to wireless radiation is associated with serious health
effects. 5G and 4G cell towers near our homes means constant exposure day and night.
You cannot turn a cell tower off.” [13]
• “[T]wo published studies” show “5G’s higher frequencies are absorbed into the skin.” [13]
• A 2017 study found “Cell tower radiation is linked to damage in human blood.” [13]

The European Scientific Committee on Health, Environmental, and Emerging Risks (SCHEER) also warns about “the possibility of unintended biological consequences.” [13]

The 5G Space Appeal elaborates that 10,000+ peer-reviewed scientific studies demonstrate harmful effects from existing wireless radio frequency radiation. These include altered heart rhythm, altered gene expression, altered metabolism, altered stem cell development, cancers, cardiovascular disease, cognitive impairment, DNA damage, impacts on general well-being, increased free radical, learning and memory deficits, impaired sperm function and quality, miscarriage, neurological damage, obesity and diabetes, and oxidative stress. [1]

Studies note effects in children for “autism, attention, deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and asthma.” [1]

“Brain cancer is now the leading cause of [cancer] death for adolescents”; “The American Cancer Society, The California Medical Association, The American Academy of Pediatrics, hundreds of scientists and medical professionals internationally have issued warnings against using radiation emitting devices in schools.” [28]

Remember, cancers including brain cancer take time to develop. Today’s adolescents were born about the same time as cell phones and other wireless technologies came into being.

An earlier review study than the 2019 information immediately above concluded: “The nine Bradford Hill viewpoints on association or causation regarding RF radiation and glioma risk seem to be fulfilled in this review. Based on that we conclude that glioma is caused by RF radiation. Revision of current guidelines for exposure to RF radiation is needed.” [29]

[17] A B Sharma, O Lamba, L Sharma and A Sharma. Effect of Mobile Tower Radiation on Microbial Diversity in Soil and Antibiotic Resistance. 2018 International Conference on Power Energy, Environment and Intelligent Control (PEEIC). 2018, pp. 311-314, doi: 10.1109/ PEEIC.2018.8665432. At https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8665432. Accessed June 22, 2021.

[18] My source was Reference [11] (above), page xii, which reprinted this article: J Lederman, Seeing slow progress, leaders face disparate nuclear threats. Associated Press. April 1, 2016. The article notes: “The global stockpile of fissile material… that could be used in nuclear bombs remains in the thousands of metric tons….” Not an April Fool’s joke. Accessed June 18, 2021.

[19] M Ross, M Mills and D Toohey. (2010), Potential climate impact of black carbon emitted by rockets, Geophys. Res. Lett., 37, L24810, doi:10.1029/2010GL044548. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2010GL044548. Accessed June 23, 2021.

[20] M N Ross and P M Sheaffer (2014). Radiative forcing caused by rocket engine emissions. Earth’s Future, 2,177–196, doi:10.1002/2013EF000160. Published online April 28, 2014. At https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/2013EF000160. Accessed June 23, 2021.

[21] N Alster. Captured Agency: How the Federal Communications Commission Is Dominated by the Industries It Presumably Regulates. Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics, Harvard University. No date (but includes 2015 information). Copyright: This ebook is available under the Creative Commons 4.0 license. At https://ethics.harvard.edu/files/center-for-ethics/files/capturedagency_alster.pdf. Accessed June 22, 2021.

[22] Federal Register/Vol. 86, No. 36/Thursday, February 25, 2021/Rules and Regulations. Federal Communications Commission. 47 CFR Part 1 [WT Docket No. 19–71; FCC 21–10; FRS 17395]. FCC Modernizes Siting Rule for Small Hub and Relay Wireless Antennas.
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.ACTION: Final rule. At https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2021-02-25/pdf/2021-01304.pdf. Accessed June 25, 2021.

[23] Environmental Health Trust. “Flying Blind” on the Health Effects of 5G Wireless Technology Confirmed at US Senate Hearing After Senator Blumenthal Questions Industry. February 8, 2019. At https://ehtrust.org/health-effects-of-5g-wireless-technology-confirmed-at-us-senate-hearing-after-senator-blumenthal-questions-industry/. Accessed June 22, 2021.

[24] M Hertsgaard and M Dowie. How Big Wireless Made Us Think that Cell Phones Are Safe: A Special Investigation (The disinformation campaign—and massive radiation increase—behind the 5G rollout). The Nation. March 29, 2018. At http://www.thenation.com/article/how-big-wireless-made-us-think-that-cell-phones-are-safe-a-special-investigation/. Accessed June 22, 2021.

[25] Signatories from 44 countries. International Appeal: Scientists call for Protection from Non- ionizing Electromagnetic Field Exposure. Initial release date: May 11, 2015. Date of this version: November 29, 2020. At https://www.emfscientist.org/index.php/emf-scientist-appeal. Accessed June 25, 2021.

[26] I’ve touched on California firefighters at: D Craig. What do you hear? Are hearing aid wireless radiation transmissions and disease rates related?. June 7, 2021. At https://www.electricsense.com/hearing-aid-wireless-radiation/. Accessed June 7, 2021. I’ve touched on California firefighters, California fires, and Fiber To The Premises at: D Craig. Sacred Cows and Living Room Elephants: Are wireless transmissions and brain cancers related?. May 20, 2021. At https://www.electricsense.com/wireless-and-brain-cancers/. Accessed May 20, 2021.

[27] I Yakymenko, O Tsybulin, E Sidorik, D Henshel, O Kyrylenko & S Kyrylenko. (2016) Oxidative mechanisms of biological activity of low-intensity radiofrequency radiation, Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, 35:2, 186-202, DOI: 10.3109/15368378.2015.1043557. At https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3109/15368378.2015.1043557. Accessed June 22, 2021.

[28] D Morrison. Oregon First State in the Nation to Pass Legislation Requiring State Health Authority Review of Scientific Studies Showing Risk of Harm From Radiation Emitting Wireless. Press Release, Portland Oregon. August 9, 2019. Accessed August 9, 2019.

[29] M Carlberg and L Hardell. Evaluation of Mobile Phone and Cordless Phone Use and Glioma Risk Using the Bradford Hill Viewpoints from 1965 on Association or Causation. Biomed Res Int. 2017;2017:9218486. doi:10.1155/2017/9218486. March 16, 2017. At https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5376454. Accessed June 25, 2021.