EMF/RF/5G/Internet of Underwater Things: Devastation to Whales Is Warning Us
Whales Warned Us About Radar–Years Ago
In 2014, the NRDC published, “U.S. Navy Implicated in New Mass Stranding of Whales.”
Yesterday afternoon, while the U.S. and other navies played war games somewhere offshore, Cuvier’s beaked whales began stranding along the southern coast of Crete. Those on the scene knew right away what they were dealing with, for yesterday’s strandings were only the most recent []of similar calamities in the region, going back two decades. [ ] All signs point to the navy.
Cuvier’s beaked whales are a remarkable species. They have the deepest recorded dives of all marine mammals, some descending an astonishing 3000 meters below the water’s surface before coming up for air. Favoring deep water, they don’t strand nearly as often as coastal species, and they don’t strand in number, and they don’t strand alive. Yet that is exactly what happened.[] three Cuvier’s beaked whales came ashore in one spot [ ], two others beached some 17 kilometers further west, and two more turned up nearby. All were alive when they stranded.
For Greece, none of this is new. In 1996 and again in 1997, dozens of beaked whales of the same species turned up [] In each case, navies were training with high-powered sonar in the area.[ ] according to the Smithsonian Institution and International Whaling Commission, every beaked whale mass stranding on record everywhere in the world has occurred with naval activities, usually sonar, taking place in the vicinity. [ ]
U.S., Greek, and Israeli navies had been running a joint military exercise [ ] including anti-submarine warfare training, which requires the use of high-powered military sonar. [ ] Military sonar and marine mammals don’t mix. – NRDC, 2014
For EMF/RF Policy-Making, Wheels Are Off The Bus
Although the story has received little coverage in the mainstream, the Court recently ruled that the FCC’s decision not to review its radio frequency exposure limits was arbitrary, capricious, and not evidence-based. Also, a detailed examination of environmental effects of non-ionizing radiation has been published recently in Reviews on Environmental Health.
The “safety” of wireless tech and infrastructure is in limbo, for both humans and the environment.
Yet the industry and its economic partners are manifesting a full-court press to dominate the skies, earth, and oceans. Unjustified guises include remote surgery, farm connectivity, the “digital divide,” and a race against China which is morphing into the threat of a war with China.
E-Course: Herbal Energetics (Ad)
The industry is demanding the adoption of wireless, including 5G. The move to wireless actually created, and does not address, the digital divide. Wireless provides surveillance under the guise of sustainability and connectivity, while ignoring safer, more secure, wired alternatives.
Is it time for the environmental movement to recognize that claims that wireless and 5G will help humanity address climate change are dangerous, misleading pipe dreams? Yes, it is time.
The Smart Meter Precedent
The wireless industry, in partnership with utilities and regulators, engages in misleading safely claims, using reasoning that goes something like this (remember low tar and nicotine tobacco?):
- Determine arbitrary theoretical “safety” guideline (ex. smart meters)
- Subject everyone to exposure
- In response to reports of harm, take an arbitrary measurement and average exposures over time. Portray hysteria and mental illness. Claim that changes in physiology do not necessarily imply adverse health effects, and demand proof of disease
- Deny biology, for example, re- classifying the ears as an “appendage”
Treating the Ear as an “Appendage” is not Evidence-Based, and “Time Averaging” is a Fallacy Weaponized Against Injury and Harm
See: In the Matter of Reassessment of Federal Communications Commission Radiofrequency Exposure Limits and Policies ET Docket No. 13-84 Cindy Sage, MA and David O. Carpenter, Co-Editors, Bio-Initiative Reports 2007 https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/7520957942.pdf (in reference to the testing of cell phones):
What does time averaging mean? You have a boxer who gets pummeled in the ring…. So you measure the moments when he is being hit and all the time when he is not getting hit, and take the average. It makes it look like boxing is much safer than it really is, and that he’s only being hit a small percentage of the time, even if the boxer experiences extensive brain damage.
We do not use these equations to develop safe football helmets or car safety, or the occupational effect of a jackhammer, so we shouldn’t use them to determine safety for wireless exposures. The peak transmissions, not averages, are the appropriate measurement.
Ignoring Harm on Land to Conquer, Exploit, and Control the Oceans
Humans have done a deplorable job of protecting one another from damaging exposures from noise pollution, electromagnetic radiation, power quality issues, and microwave radio frequencies (smart grid, wireless utility meters, celltowers, wind turbines, other proximal nuisance infrastructure).
Humans have also done a deplorable job in protecting other species, from harm, for example, with cows whose milk production was affected by issues with power quality and ground current from the utility grid (which also bankrupts farmers.) Dave Stetzer presented evidence in support of the Michigan Attorney General’s case against Consumers Energy Company.
“I [ ] have taken measurements on farms [ ] and recorded the reactions of more than 6000 cows and some horses simultaneous with the electrical activity. The reactions are clearly correlated.”
The industry argues that changes in behavior and physiology do not necessarily correlate with the development of illness and disease, in cows, and humans. This has resulted in humans being tortured as they are induced by microwave radio frequencies. When a complaint is made in association with wireless exposures, the industry takes an engineering measurement, and nullifies the suffering and harm.
The “guidelines” are inadequate.
https://www.counterpunch.org/2011/03/18/the-problems-with-smart-grids/
How would time-tested EMF/RF/5G “science” exhibited with smart meters, drawn from tobacco, translate into the ocean environment?
A. Develop a theory about how much radar and underwater noise the ocean and its occupants can bear, measured in decibels, including whales.
Let’s stop right here.
Microwave Hearing is Not Tinnitus, and Pulsed Radiation Does Not Interact with Biology in the Same Way as Other Noise Pollution Sources
- Noise is a stressor and an environmental pollutant.
- Microwave radio frequencies that cause “ringing in the ears” are a harmful environmental pollutant, and not in the same category as audible sound.
In 1960, Alan Frey discovered that ‘microwave radiation from radar (and other sources) could be ‘heard’ by human beings.
The “hearing,” didn’t happen via normal sound waves perceived through the ear. It apparently occurred somewhere in the brain itself, as microwaves interacted with the brain’s cells, which generate tiny electrical fields. Frey proved [ ]that [] animals could “hear” microwave radiation. In 1975, Frey reported that microwaves could induce “leakage” in the barrier between the circulatory system and the brain. Breaching the blood-brain barrier [ ] means that bacteria, viruses and toxins from the blood can enter the brain. [ ] the brain’s environment, which needs to be extremely stable for nerve cells to function properly, can be perturbed in other dangerous ways. Dr. Leif Salford, [ ] is currently the most active researcher continuing Frey’s pioneering work on the blood-brain barrier. – Cellular Phone Task Force
“Microwave hearing” exists outside the range of “audible” sound. Microwaves interact differently with physiology and cannot be assessed only using simplistic decibel-level measurements.
The claim that humans cannot hear microwaves because the sound is outside their auditory range is dead wrong, resulting in torturous conditions in countless human lives. It will also be dead wrong for whales.
On the other side of the equation is low-frequency noise.
- The idea of a “species threshold” for noise is incomplete, and violates the rights of nature.
There is tolerance variability between species.
There are individual animals and fish within a species with a sensory system at the high end, or above the theoretical safety limit for “sound” reactivity. Destroying the lives of those organisms is currently irrelevant, including humans who are unable to sleep, decimating immunity. Harm to humans, bees, and other living organisms due to RF is widely disregarded.
- Not considering cumulative, chronic, and juxtaposed exposures makes safety standards irrelevant.
Sound in the Ocean is Much More Complex Than Sound in the Air
NOAA explains:
Water temperature and pressure determine how far sound travels in the ocean.
While sound moves at a much faster speed in the water than in air, the distance that sound waves travel is primarily dependent upon ocean temperature and pressure. While pressure continues to increase as ocean depth increases, the temperature of the ocean only decreases up to a certain point, after which it remains relatively stable. These factors have a curious effect on how (and how far) sound waves travel.
In addition to the complexity of underwater sound, including channeling, the beaching of beaked whales twenty-one years ago demonstrated the issue of resonance. Until we can responsibly safeguard the earth and skies, we have no right to assault the ocean. (to be continued)
We cannot extend these cognitive errors to the seas.
