Comment to the FCC by June 25th About Rural 5G Coverage, Because More 5G Is Not Good
The airwaves are filled with advertisements about the new, faster, 5G network now blanketing the country.
Increasingly, the airwaves are also being filled with man-made artificial radio frequencies that have not been tested for safety.
As different carriers promote the coverage and speed of their new networks, many consumers may be unaware that the safety guidelines for exposures to radio frequencies in the U.S. have not been updated for 24 years.
They may also be unaware that in order to support the new 5G network, many additional antennas must be installed across communities, including infrastructure close to residences.
Widget not in any sidebars
2G, 3G, 4G, 5G, Telecom; One of These Things Is Not Like The Others:
Is the new generation of 5G telecommunications infrastructure using frequencies that are the same as earlier generations?
This week, Forbes reported:
“As Dr. Alex Berezow of the American Council on Science and Health states, the assumption that 5G is safe is already backed by the full suite of scientific studies…..”
From a theoretical point of view, there’s absolutely no reason to fear 5G technology, or WiFi radiation in any form.”
Regarding the claim about “a suite of studies” in truth it appears that there are no studies, no studies at all, that have been conducted by industry, demonstrating that 5G is safe, or checking to make sure that it is NOT harmful.
Here is the video of CT Senator Blumenthal questioning the industry about research on 5G health effects.
The American Council on Science and Health, referenced by Forbes as an authority, is one of the groups promoting the concept the 5G is not unlike 4G, WiFi, and other frequencies already in use:
ACSF wrote, “Scientific American Says 5G Is Dangerous, Vegetables Are Junk Food:”
“…. 5G will allow more “smart technologies,” like self-driving cars and an “internet of things.” It’s a basic infrastructure improvement that is required to take the next step in society’s technological advancement.
5G is also safe. It’s not terribly different from the electromagnetic radiation associated with wi-fi and cell phones…..
We know that the radio wave spectrum, in general, is safe. There is a physical reason for it: The photons associated with this part of the electromagnetic spectrum are “non-ionizing,” which means that they do not have enough energy to break chemical bonds. We also use these devices at a low wattage (i.e., a low amount of total energy), which is why you can boil water in a microwave (which operates at 1,000 watts) but not with your wireless router (which operates at 1 watt).
All together, we have no reason to believe that 5G is unsafe.”
Amsterdam investigators exposed the American Council on Science and Health, referenced by Forbes as a 5G health reference, here:
War on 5G: Amsterdam Investigation into Scientists Finds Telecom Influence by Jannes van Roermund and Paul Thacker, De Telegraaf (Amsterdam), Jun 2, 2020 (English translation) on the American Council on Science and Health attacks against Prof. Moskowitz and more.
https://ehtrust.org/war-on-5g-
AND
Is 5G Just a “Basic Infrastructure Improvement?”Â
Here are a few comments from an industry article about “5G testing.”
By testing, the industry is referring to testing signal coverage, not testing for health or environmental impacts.
5G systems operate in mm-wave frequencies up to 47 GHz. Historically, a vast majority of commercial wireless networks have operated at frequencies no higher than 3 GHz. This has been the case since the first generation of wireless technologies were introduced.
“’The Wireless Industry has a limited amount of experience in the areas of real-world performance of mmWave wireless systems and this necessitates over-the-air experiments and trials,’ said Adnani. “Legacy field test equipment only operates up to 3 GHz or 6 GHz. At the very least such equipment needs to be frequency extended to address the iwave (mmWave) bands – 40 GHz being the most necessary. For deeper testing of 5G demodulation, the bandwidth of such equipment needs to be extended to 100 megahertz.’”
“While the low and mid-band spectrum (3 GHz to 7.125 GHz) propagation characteristics for cellular are well known, mmWave is a whole new beast,” adds Adam Hostetter, SAF North America. “For carriers to deliver on, and monetize the promised data rates of 5G, extensive testing of the signal quality of mmWave deployments will be essential.”
What technology developments are needed for testing mmWave 5G?
While massive MIMO does not have to be unique to 5G, the large arrays of antennas combined with formable signal processing, allows better beamforming, spatial reuse of spectrum, and multiple streams—all of which are required to realize the 5G vision.
The result, according to Schweiger, is “higher data rates, more efficient spectrum use, and higher subscriber density. All things 5G is also trying to achieve.”
It’s clear that when it comes to 5G, “business as usual” is not applicable. When it comes to 5G testing, there are still many elements that must be considered, including whether global testing standards will apply the role of crowdsourcing, OTA and MIMO technology, and much more. Ultimately, as the rollout of 5g accelerates, testing, validation and optimization of its infrastructure and devices will be paramount.
SOURCE:
To Deliver on Promised 5G Speeds, Extensive Testing is Essential
https://www.aglmediagroup.com/
The industry doesn’t yet have its testing protocols in place.
As demonstrated by Forbes, the wireless industry has hung the future of the planet, human health, and the environment on 2 arguments:
1. Ionizing radiation is proven harmful, therefore if it is not ionizing, it is safe.
2. Thermal effects of exposure are harmful, therefore if exposure is not causing a thermal effect, it is safe.
Unfortunately, there is no basis for either claim.
As outlined by Physicians for Safe Technology,
“Researchers and physicians are concerned that the new proposed FCC guidelines are flawed in their assumptions of safety for the following reasons:
-New guidelines for higher frequencies will still only consider heat effects, not adverse biological effects demonstrated at non-thermal levels far below current safety guidelines, including reproductive, neurologic, immunologic and carcinogenic effects
-The limits have been raised from 1,000 ÎĽW/cm2 for a 30 minute exposure to 4,000 ÎĽW/cm2Â with unlimited exposure
-There are no special considerations for pregnant women, children, the elderly, those with chronic illness or those who are electrosensitive
-New guidelines do not consider known mechanisms of harm from non-ionizing radiation such as oxidation, calcium channel effects, resonance effects, radical pair mechanism (alteration of the spin sate of free radical)
-There are scientific concerns with regards to injury to the skin and eyes with regards to higher frequencies. There is also evidence that metabolic dysregulation can occur through skin signaling
-There is a recognized absence of independent safety testing in higher Gigahertz and Tetrahertz frequency radiation
Studies are typically performed on one frequency, not the mix of frequencies we will be exposed to, in addition to other toxic stressors
-Averaging radiation makes it appear that levels and exposure are very low, however, peak levels of radiation as well as modulation (pulsation) are known to be more harmful to biological and cellular processes
-Environmental concerns have been dismissed for the same reasons stated above”
Learn more about environmental impacts of 5G here: https://whatis5g.info/
Please submit a comment to the FCC to Oppose 5G Fund for Rural America, before June 25th
Subject: Important Reminder! File Comment by June 25: Oppose 5G Fund for Rural America
courtesy ElectricalPollution.com
Important! Without funding, 5G rollout in Rural Areas will be far slower or non-existent. Please file a comment NOW!
Even a simple statement like the following would be good, if you can add something like this to the comment you filed in the other recent FCC docket (with small modifications), even better:
I oppose providing federal funding for 5G. RF/MW limits proposed by the FCC will allow thermal damage to humans and the environment. Of particular concern are the potentially deadly consequences for insects and flora (www.electricalpollution.com/
Deadline: June 25, 2020
Please take a moment to file a comment in opposition to providing broadband to rural America through 5G. Please add science showing what a health and environmental hazard it is. Your personal experience with harm from RF/MW exposure is also valuable.
You can make this easier by modifying your recent FCC comment(s) on the RF/MW limits unless your comment was very specific to that docket.
FCC PROPOSES THE 5G FUND FOR RURAL AMERICA
WASHINGTON, April 23, 2020—The Federal Communications Commission today adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeking comment on establishing the 5G Fund for Rural America. 5G represents the next leap in mobile wireless technology, bringing significantly increased speeds, reduced latency, and better security than 4G LTE networks, and enabling cutting-edge applications and technologies benefitting consumers, businesses, precision agriculture, education, and healthcare. The Notice proposes to distribute up to $9 billion through the Universal Service Fund across rural America for 5G wireless broadband connectivity.
GN Docket No. 20-32
FCC 20-52
FRS 16709
Press release https://docs.fcc.gov/public/
Federal Register details https://www.federalregister.
File a comment by June 25, letting the FCC know that you oppose a 5G Fund for Rural America and send them science supporting the fact that it will be harmful for humans and the environment alike to provide broadband in rural areas via 5G.
How to File in the FCC Dockets
Online: Go to the Federal Communications Commission’s Website: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/
Under Proceedings put in 20-32. Be sure to get a confirmation number.
People with Disabilities: Contact the Commission to request reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: [email protected] or phone: 202-418-0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432.
Simple Steps to Submit FCC Comments
The following information was provided by the California Brain Tumor Association (Originally, then modified for this docket):
1. Click on this link https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/
2. Click on “Submit a Filing” Navy Blue Tab, at the top of the page.
3. Click on “Standard Filing” Tab if you want to upload attachments (which contain your comments and/or scientific papers) or “Express Comment” Tab if you simply want to make a comment.
4. Fill out all “required” fields and click “Enter” or “Return” before you go to the next field. The field should turn yellow when you click enter.
Required Fields are:
– “Proceeding(s)” – type in 20-32
– “Name(s) or Filer(s)” – Type in your name – click enter
– “Primary contact email” – This is optional, but you may want to include to get an email confirmation of your submission.
– “Type of Filing” – Click “Comment”
– “Address Of” – Click “Filer”
– “Address” – Type in your address
– “City”, “State” and “Zip” – Type in your city, state and zip code. Be sure to click enter after completing each field.
– “Upload Documents” – You can drag and drop up to 5 files as long as they are below 25MB. If you have extra files you can enter multiple submissions.
– You can click on “email confirmation” to get a confirmation of your submission emailed to you. (you have to include an email address above if you want this)
5. Once all fields are filled – click on the blue button “continue to review screen”.
6. Review your submission and click submit.
7. Make sure you write down your confirmation # so that you can check on your submission.
Your submission generally should appear on the FCC website within 1-2 business days.
To view your comment on the FCC website:
1. Click on this link https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/
2. Click on “Filings and Proceeding Search” navy blue tab on top of the page
3. Type in 20-32 in the “Search Full Text” field
4. Scroll down and click blue “Search” button
Patricia Burke works with activists across the country and internationally calling for new biologically-based microwave radio frequency exposure limits. .
Subscribe for natural health news to your inbox. Follow Natural Blaze on YouTube, Twitter and Facebook. Become a Patron for as little as $1 per month.
