1) In New York City (and probably in other large cities), the poles that support 5G need to be taller and larger, certainly not attractive additions to the landscape. Perhaps their appearance will disturb people since the idea of being irradiating does not seem to.
New 5G Towers Could be 32 Feet High
“Currently, most cell service in the city is 4G (fourth generation), but the 5G standard is spreading throughout the country and world. “The growth from 4G to 5G will require the installation of larger pole-mounted equipment and will support making faster, higher quality service equitably available in every neighborhood in the city,” the design commission says. The commission says the height of the poles is similar to street poles already on many city streets. And it says the transmitter must be at least 19.5 feet high.”
2) As we know, there are many problems with microcells and the 5G grid. One that has been warned about is the very high demand for power, and the estimated cost of that power could be as high as $300 billion with the increased densification that is projected, according to this industry article. Those people concerned about climate change need to know this and help us fight 5G. Do please share with your interested friends and family.
Another problem is reliability of the electrical system — which, as pointed out, is not as reliable as the current copper-based phone system.
CommScope director of engineering: ‘When densification [of small cells]increases […] so does the amount of power’
“For Tom Craft, director of engineering, MetroCell Solutions at CommScope, this scale creates a problem: “Everything is focused on densification and getting services out to users, but when that densification increases by a factor of 10, so does the amount of power,” he said…
A typical three-sector small cell can require 200–1,000 watts of power, according to CommScope, and small cell networks must be incredibly dense to provide adequate coverage, meaning there will need to be a lot of individual installations, and each one will require power…
Worse, though, is the fact that the traditional model of powering a cell site — in which the site is powered by the AC power grid, with a backup power source available as a fallback— cannot be applied to small cells, as these sites do not currently come with power backup, and therefore, would go down during a power outage.
“The AC grid is known to have outages every year,” commented Craft, adding that once in place, people will begin to rely on these small cell systems for critical communication, making such outages potentially disastrous…
The traditional telecom network reliability is around five nines today or 99.999% reliable, while the AC network can only claim around three nines, or 99.9% reliability.
“So, about .1% of the time the AC system is down and when the system is not available, that equates to a tremendous amount in cost, but also the loss of critical functions during things like storms when a phone is needed,” said Craft….
We see that the cost is going to double in the next five years and then double again in another five years,” he claimed, citing market research.
He went on to explain that when you combine this information with the prediction that in 2025, the Information and communications technology (ICT) network will use about four thousand terawatt hours, you’re looking at an energy bill of roughly three hundred billion dollars for that year to run the network.
3) This is Arthur Firstenberg’s most recent newsletter in which he traces some of the historical research that, decades ago, proved microwave radiation is dangerous and how the industry put a stop, via the FCC, to allowing restrictive guidelines to be put in place. The industry is indemnified from liability in the US by the Telecommunications Act. In Canada, the telecoms are not liable, according to ISED, for any injuries so long as their devices satisfy Safety Code 6 limits. But even when devices don’t, for example cell phones which have been shown to exceed SC 6 drastically, ISED says it’s OK because Health Canada doesn’t use SC 6’s limits. ISED insists that the SC 6 limit can be exceeded by more than 50 times before heating occurs — which is the only harmful effect Health Canada recognizes.
THE MOST DANGEROUS TECHNOLOGY EVER INVENTED Part 1
“The Personal Communications Industry Association (CTIA), another industry group, also lobbied Congress, which was drafting a bill called the Telecommunications Act, and a provision was added to the Act prohibiting states and local governments from regulating “personal wireless service facilities” on the basis of their “environmental effects.” That provision shielded the telecommunications industry from any and all liability for injury from both cell towers and cell phones and permitted that industry to sell the most dangerous technology ever invented to the American public….
The telecommunications industry has done such a good job selling this technology that today the average American household contains 25 different devices that emit microwave radiation and the average American spends five hours per day on their cell phone, has it in their pocket next to their body the rest of the day, and sleeps with it all night in or next to their bed. Today almost every man, woman and child holds a microwave radiation device in their hand or against their brain or body all day every day, completely unaware of what they are doing to themselves, their family, their pets, their friends, their neighbors, the birds in their yard, their ecosystem, and their planet. Those who are even aware there is a problem at all view only the towers as a threat, but their phone as a friend.”
4) Below in Letters is a notice for a webinar, hosted by Environmental Health Trust, featuring discussion about industry’s refusal to acknowledge science for the sake of profit. This will be available for “patrons” who are those who donate even a small amount each month to help fund EHT’s work.
(click on photos to enlarge)
From a member who has registered as an Interested Party and sent comments to the BCUC re. FortisBC’s application. Please consider registering — nothing more is required. You can do so at: https://www.bcuc.com/forms/InterestedParty . Remember, if BCUC doesn’t think that people care about having another wireless smeter on their homes, the battle that we are attempting to wage to prevent it becomes far harder. Please help.
“When the smart meters were being rolled out stealthily, I began researching EMF, as a result of knowing two people who were EHS. After much daily research I decided that I wanted to avoid the proliferation of EMF through smart meters, remote phones, microwave ovens, Wi-Fi, and cell towers . . .and decided to leave my home town for a more remote (and cleaner) location. My decision was accelerated by the imposition of ‘smart’ water meters on our homes. .. for a regular tariff I was able to have a hard-wired meter. Now I hear that ‘smart’ gas meters are proposed. Someone in the top line of decision-making needs to do some thorough research into the many independent studies that show the harm of RF to health.”
P. Gregson (name given with permission)
Perpetuating the Myth: How the Telecom Industry Ignores the Science on 5G
A Discussion With New Hampshire 5G Commissioner Dr. Kent Chamberlin
DATE: Tuesday, November 9, 2021
TIME: 12:00 p.m. ET
PLACE: Zoom link (you must register to attend)
What does Kent Chamberlin mean when he says that 5G is not a scientific issue, it is a political issue?
The science is increasingly clear: A large and growing body of evidence demonstrates that exposure to wireless radiation emitted by cell phones is harmful to humans and the environment. The pulsed signals coupled with the sheer number of transmitters in today’s world makes this type of radiofrequency radiation (RFR) particularly harmful, more so than earlier technologies such as radio and TV signals.
This was reaffirmed by the New Hampshire 5G Commission in 2020 with a landmark Final Report. The commission was convened in 2019 to evaluate how the state should respond to potential health impacts associated with the rollout of 5G communications. Chamberlin served as an appointee on the commission, on behalf of the University System of New Hampshire’s chancellor.
Meeting over a one-year period, the commission heard from nine experts. All but one of the experts were unpaid. The one paid expert was compensated by the telecom industry. That expert was the only one who said that there were no risks associated with radiation from wireless devices.
Chamberlin and his colleagues on the commission with no financial interest in telecom concluded that wireless radiation poses a significant risk to health and the environment. The commission members who did have financial interests disagreed, concluding that there were no risks associated with radiation from wireless devices.
A huge financial benefit awaits the telecom industry by following Big Tobacco’s playbook. Big Telecom doesn’t have to win the scientific argument about safety; it only has to keep the safety argument going.
It does this by turning the FCC into a “captured agency,” as described in the Harvard report. The industry maintains a revolving door of telecom executives working at the highest levels within the FCC. It also keeps a stranglehold on FCC operations through campaign spending for congressional representatives with oversight of FCC activities. The wireless industry made $26 million in campaign contributions in 2016 to congressional oversight committee members, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. It spent $87 million on lobbying in 2017.
Chamberlin joins EHT’s Theodora Scarato to discuss the science and the politics of perpetuating the myth of wireless radiation safety.
In advance of the interview, we encourage you to review The New Hampshire 5G Commission Report.
About Kent Chamberlin
Kent Chamberlin received his Ph.D. from Ohio University, specializing in computational electromagnetics. His research has been devoted to modeling radiowave propagation, including interfering radiation from computing devices and wave phenomena in the human body.
Dr. Chamberlin is chair and a professor in the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering. In his more than 35 years in academia, he has performed research for more than 20 sponsors, including the National Science Foundation. He has received two Fulbright awards, including the prestigious Fulbright Distinguished Chair, which he served in Aveiro, Portugal. He has also served as an associate editor for the Institute for Electrical and Electronics Engineers, and he continues to be active in performing and publishing in a range of research areas.
Dr. Chamberlin has been passionate about his teaching during his career and has received numerous teaching awards. He has experience with international higher education which has included one-semester of teaching in India. He directed and developed UNH’s first internet-based online learning program in 1998 and he has been active in online learning ever since. He was appointed by the Governor to the State’s Distance Learning Commission and he currently serves on the Boards of the Virtual Learning Academy Charter School and the Great Bay e-Charter School. As department Chair, he is working to make more of their graduate courses available online.
See Chamberlin’s extensive curriculum vitae https://unh.app.box.com/s/57gzgmajz4xwqpd3wdkmiwsqzzx2tlzq
Sharon Noble, Director, Coalition to Stop Smart Meters
“The Earth does not belong to us: we belong to the Earth.” Chief Seattle