1) Katie Singer’s sharing what she’s learned about solar power, which we’ve been told is a way to help the environment. But is this true? This makes the Wind Trees that generate electricity with the slightest breeze worth investigating more closely.
Fresh questions about solar power
“For decades, I believed that “green” technologies could make our society sustainable. Then, I began reading about their energy and water use and toxic waste. I realized that 1) I don’t know how to live without electricity or computers for more than a few days. 2)I want to reduce my ecological impacts, and I don’t know how.
I read economist Herman Daly’s principles: Don’t take from the Earth faster than it can replenish; and don’t waste faster than the Earth can absorb. My mind spun: How can I help reduce environmental impacts internationally—or even locally? How can I reduce dependence on international supply chains? Do I want an energy resilient country—or just lower electric bills? In this society, how/could I live by Daly’s principles?
I challenged myself to investigate my assumptions about “green” technologies. In this article, I’ll introduce what I’ve learned about solar photovoltaics (PVs).”
https://www.ourweb.tech/letter-43/
2) The next generation of SpaceX satellites are being developed to communicate with cell phones as well as the internet. More radiation, more carbon in the atmosphere from more rockets, and more space junk.
Forget 5G wireless, SpaceX and T-Mobile want to offer Zero-G coverage
“SpaceX and T-Mobile announced an ambitious plan on Thursday evening to provide ubiquitous connectivity from space to anyone with a cell phone.
The project would pair SpaceX’s Starlink satellite technology with the second-largest wireless carrier in the United States, T-Mobile US, and its mid-band spectrum, mobile network, and large customer base.
Delivering space-to-ground Internet to mobile phones will require SpaceX to finalize development of its second generation of Starlink satellites. These will be significantly larger than the current ones, which have a mass of about 295 kg. SpaceX founder and chief engineer Elon Musk said the project could enter “beta service” before the end of 2023.”
3) Health Canada claims to “continuously monitor” studies and reports but really, all it does and has always done is follow ICNIRP’s lead, and here is a clear admission of this fact. Why do we have Health Canada, especially the department headed by Dr. James McNamee that is responsible for Safety Code 6? They do no research, no critical review of studies, nothing original at all. What a waste of money.
(click on photos to enlarge)
&
https://rsc-src.ca/en/review-safety-code-6-2013-health-canadas-safety-limits-for-exposure-to-radiofrequency-fields
&
https://rsc-src.ca/sites/default/files/SC6_Report_Formatted_1.pdf
June 2021
Analysis of recommended localized human exposure limits for radiofrequency fields in the frequency range from 6 GHz to 300 GHz
“Two international organizations, the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) have recently published guidelines with new localized exposure limits in the 6 to 300 GHz frequency range (ICNIRP, 2020; IEEE, 2019). Health Canada has evaluated these new safety limits as part of its process to develop an official Health Canada recommendation for localized exposures in this frequency range.
In this report, the scientific basis supporting the ICNIRP (2020) guidelines for localized exposure limits in the 6 to 300 GHz frequency range has been summarized to provide context.”
Letters:
I sent this on the form they have on their website: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/feedback
How can a magazine supposedly dedicated to helping people with emotional problems, to educating and enabling communication about such important issues allow an article that mocks and ridicules science?
For decades scientists have researched and reported on the biological effects of wireless radiation, yet Dr. Pierre is totally unaware of the 1000s of studies. Effects range from tinnitus and brain fog, cardiac irregularities to neurological problems and cancers.
And, yes, even electromagnetic sensitivity. How can a medical doctor purport to have expertise sufficient to write an article for such a prestigious journal and be so ignorant about the subject? How can Psychology Today publish it without having confirmed both his qualifications and the accuracy of the information about which he writes with such authority?
May I suggest that a redaction occur and in its place an article by a true expert on the topic such as Dr. Devra Davis (www.ehtrust.org) or Dr. Dominique Belpomme.
See his recent report “Why electrohypersensitivity and related symptoms are caused by non-ionizing man-made electromagnetic fields: An overview and medical assessment”
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935122007010?via%3Dihub
For your edification, here is a spreadsheet with hundreds of studies published and peer-reviewed since 2015 https://preventcancernow.ca/hundreds-of-recent-scientific-reports-show-harms-from-radiofrequency-radiation/
An immediate retraction of this blog would demonstrate a good faith effort to amend this seriously flawed article.
Sincerely,
Sharon Noble
Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
_________________________________________________________________________
From: Monica Nikopoulos (name given with permission)
To: spectrumauctions-encheresduspectre@ised-isde.gc.ca <spectrumauctions-encheresduspectre@ised-isde.gc.ca>
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2022 at 06:50:26 a.m. EDT
Subject: Public Consultation for Spectrum in the 26, 28 and 38 GHz Bands
RE:
Canada Gazette, Part I, Volume 156, Number 25, June 18, 2022, Notice No. SPB-001-22:
Consultation on a Policy and Licensing Framework for Spectrum in the 26, 28 and 38 GHz Bands (Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, Radiocommunication Act)
I am in opposition to any auctioning of the above cited notice, as well as further installations/erections of cell towers and small cell installations in/around/near/on/under our residential and rural homes until Safety Code 6 has been updated and in line with Russia’s current much lower public RF guidelines.
Safety Code 6 is scientifically proven to be antiquated and cannot be used as any reliable parameter regarding environmental health (plant, animal, insect) and human health.
Current RF’s being emitted from cell towers and various small cells using RF meters far exceed Safety Code 6 limits and is an assault on bodily autonomy and the environment.
Monica Nikopoulos, ROHP, RNCP, CHCP, PSW
Holistic Health and Cancer Practitioner
Sharon Noble, Director, Coalition to Stop Smart Meters/Citizens for Safer Tech
“I think the environmental problem will be the number one item on the agenda of the 21st century… This is a problem that cannot be postponed.” Mikhail Gorbachev