1) As per articles in previous updates, the FCC and industry have delayed the implementation of 5G bands that are likely to interfere with altimeters in aircraft until early January, providing time for some solution to be found. It appears that the solution is that pilots must revert to certain manual operations. Is it just me or does this seem the wrong solution? What if instrumentation is necessary, for example to land in bad weather? Why is preference being given to 5G over long-used and highly dependable aviation systems?
(click on photo to enlarge)
FAA to prohibit many flight operations due to risk of ‘5G’ wireless interference
“The FAA’s order requires aircraft operators to update flight manuals to restrict some operations when “in the presence of 5G C-Band wireless broadband interference”.
Prohibited operations include instrument landing system approaches, “required navigation performance” operations, “automatic landing operations” and some use of enhanced flight vision systems and other flight control systems….
The report warned of potential interference from both transmissions from 5G base stations and from passengers’ handheld phones.”
2) More information from the smeter court hearing a couple of days ago. Good questions by the justices that BC Hydro was asked and never answered, such as: why would a program that is potentially dangerous be employed? People had doctors write letters asking to be allowed to opt out for various health reasons, including EHS, cancer and heart problems. And BC Hydro refused.
Pa. Justices Question If State Mandated ‘Smart’ Power Meters
“The justices of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania questioned Tuesday whether the state legislature had clearly mandated the deployment of “smart” electric meters 13 years ago and whether some consumers’ alleged sensitivities to radio frequency emissions should allow them to opt out…
“What makes you believe the government should impose medical concerns on its citizens?” Justice Kevin M. Dougherty said, citing reports of “Havana syndrome” possibly caused by RF energy being directed at U.S. diplomats and staff abroad. “Do you have to wait for someone’s pacemaker to stop working?” asked Justice Debra Todd.”
3) The FCC cherry-picks the studies and reports that it includes in its reviews, just as Health Canada does. The EHT is asking that the FCC be required to include recent studies and reports in preparing its response to the court.
EXPERTS CALL ON FCC TO PROMPTLY REVIEW THE MOST RECENT SCIENCE ON WIRELESS RADIATION TO ENSURE PROTECTIVE SAFETY LIMITS
“WASHINGTON, Dec. 6, 2021 — Leading environmental health organizations and scientists are calling on the Federal Communications Commission to promptly respond to the order of the U.S Court of Appeals for D.C. Circuit in their recent judgment in Environmental Health Trust et al. v the FCC which mandated the FCC to re-examine the evidence regarding its 25-year-old wireless radiation safety limits. The new filing by Environmental Health Trust on November 30, 2021 requests the FCC re-open its official proceedings to allow the submission of new scientific research studies on the official record.”
Letter signed by dozens of experts asking for the court to include recent evidence that was not considered by FCC during the proceedings.
“… as the FCC does not have expertise in interpreting scientific studies, it relies on input from federal health agencies and knowledgeable expert organizations to evaluate the scientific evidence and the adequacy of FCC limits. However the relevant US health and safety agencies have not reviewed the research on impacts to flora and fauna; long-term exposures from cell towers; children’s unique vulnerability; and health effects such as damage to the brain and reproduction. The court noted that the “silence” of federal agencies such as the National Cancer Institute, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health does not mean these agencies agree with the FCC’s 1996 limits. In fact, none of these agencies has systematically reviewed the totality of science in their respective area of expertise both to develop safety standards and to offer an analysis of the adequacy of FCC’s 1996 wireless exposure limits….
Importantly, we also recommend a full environmental impact review to evaluate 5G and the rapid proliferation of 4G wireless antennas in the USA.”
Click to access Scientists-Letter-Calling-for-FCC-Re-opening-Docket-on-Wireless-Radiation-.pdf
Sharon Noble, Director, Coalition to Stop Smart Meters
“Start with what is right rather than what is acceptable.” Franz Kafka