Er vi villige til å ofre vår helse?

Denne blogg tar opp stråling, wifi og 5G master som popper opp i våre næromgivelser.

Jeg deler her tre mailer (informasjonsbrev) fra Arthur Firstenberg, som har studert dette tema lenge, og som skrev boken den usynlige regnbuen. I disse tre mailene tar han for seg hva som skjer i våre omgivelser knyttet til stråling. I boken setter han mer fokus på alle helseproblemer som er knyttet til stråling. I disse mailene nevnes noen av dem, men har du en kronisk sykdom som du ikke finner ut av anbefales du å lese boken.

Før jeg deler mailene, vil jeg minne om at den forskning som publiseres i det rådende paradigme, naturvirtenskap, biomedisin, skolemedisin, har lite fokus på farene med stråling. De motsier ikke teleselskapene når de sier at dette ikke er farlig. Har du sett reklamen på TV om alle fordelene for deg med raskere hastighet (??ZQZX??). Og ikke et ord om verken hva som skjer med ditt DNA eller i naturen. At tele selskaper har fått samme avtale (ansvarsfritak for skader) som vaksineprodusenter har hatt siden 1986, var ny informasjon for meg.

Og igjen, vi er selv puddingen, vår kropp er beviset på hva som er sant og usant. Vi selv, vår familie, venner og kolleger, og de vi kjenner. Selv om ikke alle blir syke, selv om kanskje ikke jeg blir syk, viser tusenvis av forskningsrapporter at vårt dna svekkes av stråling.

På Vea, hvor jeg bor, har er det montert slike master like ved skolen. Hvor er foreldre som sender barna på denne skolen? Eller andre skoler hvor det samme skjer? Selv om det kanskje kun er 2 eller 5 elever, eller 50 eller 100, som blir strålesyke (influensasymptomer og allergier, slitenhet, uro) er dette feilå utsette elever for.

Vi som er voksne har et ansvar for å skape en jord som er god for de som kommer etter oss. Det vi fokuserer på vokser. Men før vi kan handle, er vi nødt for å sette oss inn i saker og ting. Ellers er det lett å ha feil fokus, og da mister man den løsning som er mulig. Er du villig til å ofre 10-15 timer i måneden på å sette deg inn i nye og viktig informasjon, for å bidra til å skape en bedre verden? Dette er et spørsmål man ikke trenger svare på i tankene, ens handlinger viser svaret.

Her er mailene:
Mail 1. Arthur Firstenberg

THE MOST DANGEROUS TECHNOLOGY EVER INVENTED Part One

In 1995, the telecommunications industry was preparing to introduce a dangerous new product to the United States: the digital cell phone. Existing cell phones were analog and expensive, owned mostly by the wealthy, used for only a few minutes at a time. Many were car phones whose antennas were outside the car, not held in one’s hand and not next to one’s brain. Cell phones worked only in or near large cities. The few cell towers that existed were mostly on hilltops, mountaintops, or skyscrapers, not close to where people lived.

The problem for the telecommunications industry in 1995 was liability. Microwave radiation was harmful. Cell phones were going to damage everyone’s brain, make people obese, and give millions of people cancer, heart disease and diabetes. And cell towers were going to damage forests, wipe out insects, and torture and kill birds and wildlife.

This was all known. Extensive research had already been done in the United States, Canada, the Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, and elsewhere. Biologist Allan Frey, under contract with the U.S. Navy, was so alarmed by the results of his animal studies that he refused to experiment on humans. “I have seen too much,” he told colleagues at a symposium in 1969. “I very carefully avoid exposure myself, and I have for quite some time now. I do not feel that I can take people into these fields and expose them and in all honesty indicate to them that they are going into something safe.”

Frey discovered that microwave radiation damages the blood-brain barrier — the protective barrier that keeps bacteria, viruses and toxic chemicals out of your brain and keeps the inside of your head at a constant pressure, preventing you from having a stroke. He discovered that both people and animals can hear microwaves. He discovered that he could stop a frog’s heart by timing microwave pulses at a precise point in the heart’s rhythm. The power level he used for that experiment was only 0.6 microwatts per square centimeter, thousands of times lower than the radiation from today’s cell phones.

Ophthalmologist Milton Zaret, who had contracts with the U.S. Army, Navy and Air Force, as well as with the Central Intelligence Agency, discovered in the 1960s that low-level microwave radiation causes cataracts. In 1973, he testified before the Commerce Committee of the United States Senate. “There is a clear, present and ever-increasing danger,” he told the senators, “to the entire population of our country from exposure to the entire non-ionizing portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. The dangers cannot be overstated…” Zaret told the committee about patients who not only had cataracts caused by exposure to microwaves, but also malignant tumors, cardiovascular disease, hormonal imbalance, arthritis and mental illness, as well as neurological problems in children born to them. These patients ranged from military personnel exposed to radar to housewives exposed to their microwave ovens.

“The microwave oven leakage standard set by the Bureau of Radiological Health,” he told the committee, “is approximately 1 billion times higher than the total entire microwave spectrum given off by the Sun. It is appalling for these ovens to be permitted to leak at all, let alone for the oven advertisements to encourage our children to have fun learning to cook with them!” The microwave oven leakage standard, today in 2021, is the same as it was in 1973: 5 milliwatts per square centimeter at a distance of 5 centimeters. And the microwave exposure levels to the brain from every cell phone in use today are higher than that.

The Navy, at that time, was exposing soldiers to low-level microwave radiation in research being conducted in Pensacola, Florida. Echoing Frey, Zaret said these experiments were unethical. “I don’t believe it is possible,” he told the Senate committee, “to get informed, untainted consent from any young adult who agrees to be exposed to irradiation where you are not sure of what the end result is going to be… Also, that any children that he has at some future time may suffer from this irradiation.” He reemphasized the ethical problems with this research: “I think if it

2

was explained fully to them and they still volunteered, for this project, one would question their mental capacity right off the start.”

Scientists experimenting on birds were just as alarmed by their results, and issued warnings about the environmental effects of the radiation our society was unleashing on the world that were just as dire as the warnings delivered to Congress by Milton Zaret, and the warnings delivered to the Navy by Allan Frey.

In the late 1960s and continuing through the 1970s, John Tanner and his colleagues at Canada’s National Research Council exposed chickens, pigeons and seagulls to microwave radiation, and found frightening effects at every level of exposure. Chickens exposed to between 0.19 and 360 microwatts per square centimeter for nine months developed tumors of the central nervous system, and avian leukosis – also a type of tumor — of ovaries, intestines and other organs which in some birds reached “massive proportions,” on “a scale never seen before by veterinarians experienced with avian diseases.” Mortality was high in the irradiated birds. All the exposed birds, at every power level, had deteriorated plumage, with feathers lost, broken or with twisted and brittle shafts.

In other experiments, in which these researchers irradiated birds at higher power, the birds collapsed in pain within seconds. This occurred not only when the whole bird was irradiated but also when only its tail feathers were irradiated and the rest of the bird was carefully shielded. In further experiments, they proved that bird feathers make fine receiving aerials for microwaves, and speculated that migratory birds may use their feathers to obtain directional information. These scientists warned that increasing levels of ambient microwaves would cause wild birds distress and might interfere with their navigation.

Maria Sadchikova, working in Moscow; Václav Bartoniček and Eliska Klimková- Deutshová, working in Czechoslovakia; and Valentina Nikitina, who examined officers of the Russian Navy, found, as early as 1960, that the majority of people exposed to microwave radiation on the job — even people who had ceased such employment five to ten years previously — had elevated blood sugar or had sugar in their urine.

Animal experiments showed that the radiation directly interferes with metabolism, and that it does so rapidly. In 1962, V.A. Syngayevskaya, in Leningrad, exposed rabbits to low level radio waves and found that the animals’ blood sugar rose by one- third in less than an hour. In 1982, Vasily Belokrinitskiy, in Kiev, reported that the amount of sugar in the urine was in direct proportion to the dose of radiation and

3

the number of times the animal was exposed. Mikhail Navakitikian and Lyudmila Tomashevskaya reported in 1994 that insulin levels decreased by 15 percent in rats exposed for just half an hour, and by 50 percent in rats exposed for twelve hours, to pulsed radiation at a power level of 100 microwatts per square centimeter. This level is comparable to the radiation a person receives today sitting directly in front of a wireless computer, and considerably less than what a person’s brain receives from a cell phone.

These were just a few of the thousands of studies that were being performed all over the world that found profound effects of microwave radiation on every human organ, and on the functioning and reproduction of every plant and animal. Lieutenant Zory Glaser, commissioned by the U.S. Navy in 1971 to catalogue the world’s literature on the health effects of microwave and radio-frequency radiation, collected 5,083 studies, textbooks and conference proceedings by 1981. He managed to find about half of the literature existing at that time. So about 10,000 studies had proven microwave and RF radiation to be dangerous to all life, already before 1981.

Cooking Your DNA and Roasting Your Nerves

In the early 1980s Mays Swicord, working at the National Center for Devices and Radiological Health at the Food and Drug Administration, decided to test his conjecture that DNA resonantly absorbs microwave radiation, and that even a very low level of radiation, although producing no measurable heat in the human body as a whole, may nevertheless heat your DNA. He exposed a solution containing a small amount of DNA to microwave radiation, and found that the DNA itself was absorbing 400 times as much radiation as the solution that it was in, and that different lengths of DNA strands resonantly absorb different frequencies of microwave radiation. So even though the overall temperature of your cells may not be raised to any detectable degree by the radiation, the DNA inside your cells may be heated tremendously. Swicord’s later research confirmed that this damages DNA, causing both single- and double-strand DNA breakage.

Professor Charles Polk of the University of Rhode Island reported essentially the same thing at the twenty-second annual meeting of the Bioelectromagnetics Society in June 2000 in Munich, Germany. Direct measurements had recently shown that DNA is much more electrically conductive than anyone had suspected: it has a conductivity of at least 105 siemens per meter, which is about 1/10 as conductive as mercury! A cell phone held to your head may irradiate your brain at a specific

4

absorption rate (SAR) of about 1 watt per kilogram, which produces little overall heating. Polk calculated, however, that this level of radiation would raise the temperature in the interior of your DNA by 60 degrees Celsius per second! He said that the tissues cannot dissipate heat that rapidly, and that such heating would rupture the bonds between complementary strands of DNA, and would explain the DNA breakage reported in various studies.

And in 2006, Markus Antonietti, at Germany’s Max Planck Institute, wondered whether a similar type of resonant absorption occurs in the synapses of our nerves. Cell phones are designed so the radiation they emit will not heat your brain more than one degree Celsius. But what happens in the tiny environment of a synapse, where electrically charged ions are involved in transmitting nerve impulses from one neuron to another? Antonietti and his colleagues simulated the conditions in nerve synapses with tiny fat droplets in salt water and exposed the emulsions to microwave radiation at frequencies between 10 MHz and 4 GHz. The resonant absorption frequencies, as expected, depended on the size of the droplets and other properties of the solution. But it was the size of the absorption peaks that shocked Antonietti.

“And now comes the tragedy,” said Antonietti. “Exactly where we are closest to the conditions in the brain, we see the strongest heating. There is a hundred times as much energy absorbed as previously thought. This is a horror.”

Efforts by the EPA to Protect Americans

Faced with a barrage of alarming scientific results, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established its own microwave radiation research laboratory which operated from 1971 until 1985 with up to 30 full-time staff exposing dogs, monkeys, rats and other animals to microwaves. The EPA was so disturbed by the results of its experiments that it proposed, already in 1978, to develop guidelines for human exposure to microwave radiation for adoption and enforcement by other federal agencies whose activities were contributing to a rapidly thickening fog of electromagnetic pollution throughout our nation. But there was pushback by those agencies.

The Food and Drug Administration did not want the proposed exposure limits to apply to microwave ovens or computer screens. The Federal Aviation Administration did not want to have to protect the public from air traffic control and weather

5

radars. The Department of Defense did not want the limits to apply to military radars. The CIA, NASA, Department of Energy, Coast Guard, and Voice of America did not want to have to limit public exposure to their own sources of radiation.

Finally, in June 1995, with the telecommunications industry planning to put microwave radiation devices into the hands and next to the brains of every man, woman and child, and to erect millions of cell towers and antennas in cities, towns, villages, forests, wildlife preserves and national parks throughout the country in order to make those devices work, the EPA announced that it was going to issue Phase I of its exposure guidelines in early 1996. The Federal Communications Commission would have been required to enforce those guidelines, cell phones and cell towers would have been illegal, and even if they were not illegal, telecommunications companies would have been exposed to unlimited liability for all the suffering, disease and mortality they were about to cause.

But it was not to be. The Electromagnetic Energy Association, an industry lobbying group, succeeded in preventing the EPA’s exposure guidelines from being published. On September 13, 1995, the Senate Committee on Appropriations stripped the $350,000 that had been budgeted for EPA’s work on its exposure guidelines and wrote in its report, “The Committee believes EPA should not engage in EMF activities.”

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. People were no longer allowed to tell their elected officials about their injuries at public hearings. Scientists were no longer allowed to testify in court about the dangers of this technology. Every means for the public to find out that wireless technology was killing them was suddenly prohibited.

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

6

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.

(to be continued)
Mail 2. Arthur Firtenberg

THE MOST DANGEROUS TECHNOLOGY EVER INVENTED Part Two

There is No Dose Response for Microwave Radiation

The selling of cell phones is, and always has been, based on lies and deception. The biggest lie is that they are “low power” devices and that this makes them safe. That is a double lie. It is a lie because they are not low power. If you put a cell phone — any cell phone — in your hand or next to your body, you are being blasted by more microwave radiation from your phone than you are getting from any cell tower, and by ten billion times as much microwave radiation as you are getting from the sun, the Milky Way, or any other natural sources. The exposure guidelines established by the Federal Communications Commission reflect this reality: cell towers are permitted to expose your body at a specific absorption rate of 0.08 watts per kilogram, while cell phones are allowed to expose your brain at a specific absorption rate of 1.6 watts per kilogram, which is twenty times higher.

And it is a lie because low power devices are not any safer than high power devices. The reason for this is that electromagnetic fields are not toxins in the ordinary sense, and the rule in toxicology that a lower dose is a safer dose does not apply to microwave radiation. As Allan Frey wrote in 1990:

“Electromagnetic fields are not a foreign substance to living beings like lead or cyanide. With foreign substances, the greater the dose, the greater the effect — a dose-response relationship. Rather, living beings are electrochemical systems that use low frequency EMFs in everything from protein folding through cellular

communication to nervous system function. To model how EMFs affect living beings, one might compare them to the radio we use to listen to music… If you impose on the radio an appropriately tuned EMF or harmonic, even if it is very weak, it will interfere with the music. Similarly, if we impose a very weak EMF signal on a living being, it has the possibility of interfering with normal function if it is properly tuned. That is the model that much biological data and theory tell us to use, not a toxicological model.”

The most thorough investigation of the blood-brain barrier effect, which Frey discovered in 1975, was done at Lund University in Sweden beginning in the late 1980s with various sources of microwave radiation and later, in the 1990s and 2000s, with actual cell phones. They found not only that there is not a dose response, but that there is an inverse dose response for this type of injury. They exposed laboratory rats to what is now called 2G cell phone radiation, and then they reduced the power level of the radiation ten-fold, a hundred-fold, a thousand-fold, and ten thousand-fold. And they found, to their surprise, that the greatest damage to the blood-brain barrier occurred not in the rats that were exposed at full power, but in the rats that were exposed to phones whose radiation was reduced by a factor of ten thousand! This was the equivalent of holding a cell phone more than one meter away from your body. The leader of the research team, neurosurgeon Leif Salford, warned that non-users of cell phones were being damaged by their neighbors’ cell phones, and that this technology was “the world’s largest biological experiment ever.”

And in a further set of experiments, published in 2003, Salford’s team exposed young rats to what is now called a 2G cell phone, just once for two hours, either at full power, or at two different levels of reduced power, and sacrificed them 50 days later to examine their brains. They found that a single exposure to an ordinary cell phone operating at normal power had permanently destroyed up to 2% of the brain cells of almost all the rats. Damaged neurons dominated the picture in some areas of their brains. When the power of the phone was reduced ten-fold it caused brain damage in every rat. When the power of the phone was reduced one hundred-fold, this type of permanent brain damage was observed in half of the exposed animals.

And in still further experiments, published in 2008, they exposed rats to a cell phone for two hours once a week for a year, still using what is now called a 2G cell phone. The exposed rats suffered from impaired memory, regardless of whether they were exposed at an SAR level of 60 milliwatts per kilogram or 0.6 milliwatts per kilogram.

2

In other words, reducing the power level by a factor of one hundred did not make the cell phone less dangerous.

The lack of a dose response has been reported over and over. Physicist Carl Blackman spent much of his career at the Environmental Protection Agency figuring out why not only particular frequencies but also particular power levels of RF radiation cause calcium to flow out of brain cells. Ross Adey at UCLA, Jean-Louis Schwartz at the National Research Council of Canada, and Jitendra Behari at Jawaharlal Nehru University in India reported the same thing. Geneticist Sisir Dutta, studying the same phenomenon at Howard University in 1986, found peaks of calcium flow at SAR levels of 2 W/kg and 1 W/kg, and also at .05, .0028, .001, .0007, and .0005 W/kg, with some effect all the way down to .0001 W/kg. The effect at 0.0007 W/kg SAR was quadruple the effect at 2.0 W/kg, in other words a 3,000-fold reduction in power level resulted in a 4-fold increase in calcium disturbance. The frequency was 915 MHz, the same frequency that was later to be used for cell phones.

Maria Sadchikova and her Soviet colleagues, in the 1960s and 1970s, examined hundreds of workers exposed to microwave radiation on the job, and consistently found that the sickest workers were the ones who were exposed to the lowest, not the highest power levels.

Igor Belyaev, at Stockholm University, found that genetic effects occurred at specific frequencies and that the magnitude of the effect did not change with power level over 16 orders of magnitude, all the way down to 10-18 watts per square centimeter, a level that is one quadrillion times lower than what a cell phone delivers to one’s brain.

Dimitris Panagopoulos, at the University of Athens, found that fruit flies exposed to a cell phone for just one minute a day for five days produced 36 percent fewer offspring than flies that were not exposed at all. When he exposed them to the phone for six minutes a day for five days, it reduced the number of their offspring by 50 to 60 percent. And the maximum effect occurred when the cell phone was about one foot away from the flies, not when it was touching the vial that the flies were in. In further research, he showed that the effect is due to DNA damage and consequent cell death caused by the radiation.

In another experiment, Panagopoulos’s colleague, Lukas Margaritis, exposed fruit flies to various frequencies of RF radiation at exposure levels ranging from 0.0001

3

watts per kilogram to 0.04 watts per kilogram, and found that even a single exposure to any of these frequencies at any of these power levels for just 6 minutes caused a significant amount of ovarian cell death.

And in further research, Margaritis’s team exposed fruit flies to a cell phone either once for 6 minutes, once for 12 minutes, 6 minutes a day for 3 days, or 12 minutes a day for 3 days. Under each condition the phone tripled to sextupled the amount of ovarian cell death. And then this team tried other sources of microwave radiation for between 10 and 30 minutes per day for up to 9 days and found that each of them reduced the number of offspring by between 11 and 32 percent. The cell phone and the cordless phone had the greatest effect, but the WiFi, the baby monitor, the Bluetooth, and the microwave oven also substantially reduced the fecundity of the flies.

The effects on insects are so obvious that even a high school student can easily demonstrate them. In 2004, Alexander Chan, a sophomore at Benjamin Cardozo High School in Queens, New York, exposed fruit fly larvae daily to a loudspeaker, a computer monitor, and a cell phone for a science fair project and observed their development. The flies that were exposed to the cell phone failed to develop wings.

What Are We Doing to Nature?

We are distressing and disorienting not only birds, but also, as is being discovered, insects. It appears that all little creatures that have antennae use them to send and receive communications electronically — communications that are being interfered with and drowned out by the much more powerful communications of our wireless devices.

When honey bees perform their waggle dance to inform one another of the location of food sources, it is not only a visual dance but an electromagnetic one. During the dance they generate electromagnetic signals with a modulation frequency between 180 and 250 Hz. And they send another kind of signal, which has been called the “stop” signal, up to 100 milliseconds long, at a frequency of 320 Hz. The stop signal is used when the colony already has too much food, and it causes the dancers to stop dancing and leave the dance floor. Uwe Greggers, at Freie Universität Berlin, discovered that bees will start walking and actively moving their antennae in response to artificially generated electromagnetic fields that imitate these natural

4

signals, even in the absence of any visual or auditory cues. Bees whose antennae he had removed or coated with wax did not respond to these signals.

Pollination is also dependent on electromagnetic communication — between bees and flowers. Bees carry positive charge on their bodies from flying in the global atmospheric electric field, while flowers, being connected to the earth, carry a negative charge. Dominic Clarke, at the University of Bristol, has proved that not only does this facilitate pollen transfer from flowers to bees, but that bees sense and are attracted not only to the colors of flowers but also to the distinct patterns of their electric fields. The electric field of a flower diminishes immediately after being visited by a bee, and other bees “see” this and only visit flowers whose electric field is robust. While honey bees see the fields with their antennae, bumble bees see the fields more with the hairs that cover their bodies, which not only make them such distinctive creatures but also function as a kind of antenna.

In 2007, German biologist Ulrich Warnke published an important booklet in both English and German titled Bees, Birds and Mankind: Destroying Nature by “Elektrosmog” (Bienen, Vögel und Menschen: Die Zerstörung der Natur durch ‚Elektrosmog’). In it, he reminded us that there are only two long-range forces — gravity and electromagnetism — that shape everything in the universe including our bodies, and that we ignore that fact at our peril. Electricity is the foundation of life, he warned, and “this destruction of the foundation of life has already wiped out many species forever.” We cannot immerse our world, he said, in a sea of electromagnetic radiation that is up to 10,000,000,000 times as strong as the natural radiation that we evolved with without destroying all of life. He summarized the research that he and others had done with honey bees. It is no wonder, wrote Warnke, that bees are disappearing all over the world.

They began disappearing at the dawn of the radio age. On the small island lying off England’s southern coast where Guglielmo Marconi sent the world’s first long- distance radio transmission in 1901, the honey bees began to vanish. By 1906, the island, then host to the greatest density of radio transmissions in the world, was almost empty of bees. Thousands, unable to fly, were found crawling and dying on the ground outside their hives. Healthy bees imported from the mainland began dying within a week of arrival. In the following decades, Isle of Wight disease spread along with radio broadcasting to the rest of Great Britain, and to Italy, France, Switzerland, Germany, Brazil, Australia, Canada, South Africa, and the United States. In the 1960s and 1970s its name changed to “disappearing disease.” It became urgent in the late 1990s with the wireless revolution, and became a worldwide

5

emergency by 2006, when it was renamed “colony collapse disorder.” Today not only domestic bees, but all wild bees, are in danger of extinction.

Amphibians are not only disappearing, but large numbers of amphibian species have already gone extinct, even in the most remote, pristine areas of the world — pristine, that is, except for communication towers and radar stations emitting microwave radiation. Amphibians are the most vulnerable of all classes of animals on the planet to electromagnetic radiation, and they have been dwindling and going extinct since the 1980s. When I looked into this in 1996, every species of frog and toad in Yosemite National Park was disappearing. In the Monteverde Cloud Forest Preserve of Costa Rica, the famous and highly protected golden toad had gone extinct. Eight of thirteen frog species in a Brazilian rainforest preserve had gone extinct. The famous gastric-brooding frog of Australia was extinct. Seventy-five species of the colorful harlequin frogs that once graced streams in the tropics of the Western Hemisphere were extinct. Today, more than half of all known kinds of frogs, salamanders and caecilians (snake-like amphibians), amounting to 4,300 species, are either extinct or in danger of extinction.

In 1996, when cell towers marched into remote areas of the United States, mutant frogs began turning up by the thousands in lakes, streams and forests all across the American Midwest. Their deformed legs, extra legs, missing eyes, misplaced eyes, and other genetic mistakes were frightening school children out on field trips.

In 2009, wildlife biologist Alfonso Balmori did a simple, obvious experiment on the balcony of an apartment in Valladolid, Spain not far from a cell tower, an experiment that proved what was happening: he raised tadpoles in two identical tanks, except over one of them he draped a thin layer of fabric that was woven with metallic fibers, which admitted air and light but kept out radio waves. The results shocked even Balmori: in a period of two months, 90 percent of the tadpoles in the tank without the shielding had died, versus only 4 percent in the shielded tank.

Similar shielding experiments have confirmed, in spades, what is happening to birds, and what is happening to our forests.

Scientists at the University of Oldenburg in Germany were shocked to find, beginning in 2004, that the migratory songbirds they had been studying were no longer able to orient themselves toward the north in spring and toward the southwest in autumn. Suspecting that electromagnetic pollution might be responsible, they did for their birds what Balmori did for his tadpoles a few years later: they shielded the aviary

6

from radio waves during the winter with aluminum sheeting. “The effect on the birds’ orientation capabilities was profound,” wrote the scientists. The birds all oriented toward the north the following spring.

And in 2007, in a backyard laboratory in the foothills of Colorado’s Rocky Mountains, Katie Haggerty decided to do the same experiment with aspen seedlings. She wanted to find out if radio waves were responsible for the decline of aspen trees all over Colorado that had begun in 2004. She grew 27 aspen trees — nine without any screening, nine with aluminum window screening around their pots which kept out radio waves, and nine with fiberglass screening which kept out just as much light but let in all the radio waves. After two months, the new shoots of the radio-shielded aspens were 74 percent longer, and their leaves 60 percent larger, than those of either the mock-shielded or the unshielded aspens. And in the fall, the shielded trees had large, healthy leaves in brilliant fall colors that aspens are famous for: bright orange, yellow, green, dark red, and black. The mock-shielded and unshielded trees had small leaves in drab yellow and green, covered with gray and brown areas of decay. The only thing that had changed in Colorado’s Rocky Mountains in 2004 was the installation of a new emergency communication system called the Digital Trunked Radio System composed of 203 radio towers whose transmissions covered every square inch of the state.

(to be continued)


Mail 3. Arthur Firstenberg

THE MOST DANGEROUS TECHNOLOGY EVER INVENTED Part Three

Cell Phones Are Not Here to Stay

On the day digital cell phone service began in New York City, I was away from home at a three-day law conference. The day I returned home I became dizzy. Within a few days I was also nauseous and I had uncontrollable tremors. I had the first asthma attack of my life. My eyeballs felt like they were bulging out, my lips felt dry, fat and puffy, I felt pressure in my chest, and the bottoms of my feet hurt. I became so weak I couldn’t lift a book. My skin became so sensitive I couldn’t bear to be touched and I could hardly stand to wear my clothes. My head was roaring like a freight train. After the fourth day I could not sleep or eat. During the sixth night my larynx went into spasm three times. Each time that happened I couldn’t draw a breath in or out and I thought I was going to die. I left home the next morning, never to return.

This did not happen only to me, or only to a few people. Beginning November 14, 1996, the day Omnipoint Communications turned on all those cell towers, hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers became suddenly ill. Many thought they were having a heart attack, a stroke or a nervous breakdown. The Health Department called it an influenza epidemic, and it lasted until the following May. They did not stop to wonder why it hit only New York and not any nearby cities at that time. Weekly mortality statistics from the Centers for Disease Control revealed a 17 percent rise in mortality in the city beginning the week of November 17, lasting 11 weeks, that killed 2,300 people.

The epidemic did not hit Boston until the following year, when Sprint began service there on November 12, 1997. Mortality spiked by 15.5% for 16 weeks. It hit San Diego when Pacific Bell began service there on November 1, 1996, lasted for 17 weeks, and raised mortality by 14.5%. It did not hit nearby Los Angeles until the following summer, when Pacific Bell began service there on July 3, 1997, and mortality rose by 30% for the next 15 weeks. It hit Philadelphia in the spring, when Sprint began service there on April 3, 1997, and Detroit in the fall, when Sprint began service there on October 15, 1997. It hit Jacksonville, Florida the previous fall, when Powertel began service there on October 15, 1996. It hit Chicago, Milwaukee, Austin, San Antonio, Fort Worth, Houston, Atlanta, Fresno, Spokane, Portland, Sacramento, Charlotte, and Tulsa, beginning in each city on the day digital cell phone service became available in that city.

I learned, in 1996, that power levels do not matter. After microwave radiation had nearly killed me in Brooklyn after only six days of exposure, I was sure the radiation levels must be sky high, and I hired a professional engineer, Stuart Maurer, to go to my house with his spectrum analyzer to measure the radiation. I came down for the day from my motel room in upstate New York to watch him. To my astonishment, the highest level he measured, anywhere in my house, was 0.0001 microwatts per square centimeter. Clearly I still had a lot to learn about microwave radiation, and many things I thought I knew were wrong.

The same thing is happening now with 5G, only this time instead of blaming an influenza virus, society is blaming a coronavirus. And this time, it is happening everywhere at once instead of one city at a time. On October 13, 2020, Verizon issued a press release announcing the availability of its 5G network throughout the United States, and on the same day Apple issued a press release announcing the launch of its 5G phone, the iPhone 12. The iPhone 12 and 12 Pro were available in stores October 23, and the iPhone Mini and Max were available in early November. And in every state except two, mortality began to suddenly rise the week of October 24 or soon after, and not later than the week of November 21. The two exceptions were Wisconsin, where the mortality spike began the week of October 17, and Hawaii, which did not have a significant rise in deaths last winter. Nationally, mortality rose an average of 25% for 20 weeks, and 300,000 people died.

It is happening everywhere at once also to birds, insects, wildlife, and plant life. A correspondent in Knoxville, Tennessee wrote to me last week:

2

“These past couple of months I’ve noticed 5 bumblebees now on our flowers that have appeared paralyzed to me. We unfortunately have Verizon’s 5G Ultra Wideband very close to our home, which is only available outside, and I think they are being impacted by that. We brought 4 of them into our house, each at different times, and 3 of the 4 revived within about 5 minutes, so I then released them back outside. The 4th one took a little over an hour to revive before it was able to fly off.”

Another observer, in East Dover, Vermont, wrote, a couple of days ago:

“We grow 3 acres of blackcurrants, 200 blueberry bushes (11 varieties) and a smattering of other novelty berry plants. Our small farm is certified organic with 8 open acres certified (only 3 planted) and the remainder of the 31 acres is wooded. The blackcurrants are early bloomers and our 4 varieties all bloom within a few days of each other. There are so many different pollinating insects that come to the fields including a certain type of bumblebee with a red middle. It is wondrous to see and hear all the different shaped insects noisily working away.

“This spring, as I walked down the rows and admired all the blossoms in the front field, I suddenly stopped because it was almost completely quiet. There were two bumblebees among the 2,225 blackcurrant bushes and their buzzing was so noticeable because everything was so silent. When I mentioned this to a fifth generation apple farmer, he said that not only were there no pollinators this year, the timing of everything was off. For example, his asparagus was two weeks early (ours was, too). Compared with 2020, our blackcurrant blooming times were 2 weeks early this year. It was a cold spring but I would think that would delay blooming. So that is another reason the insects weren’t around yet. Two weeks is a huge amount of time! The blueberries were also generally early and the usual succession of blooms through the varieties was altered.

“The next day, I raced over to Forever Wild, a honeybee farmer, and secured a pallet of four hives. It was too cold for them to fly so they stayed in their hives in the middle of a gorgeous bloom of blackcurrants. Apparently, bumblebees will fly when it is in low 50s but honeybees need it to be at least 59 degrees. The honeybee farmer said they pollinate one quarter of the whole state (Vermont) and that all the guys up north (mostly apples) were talking about the same thing — no pollinators and specifically no bumblebees.

“Another curiosity this year was the fact that we had very few Japanese beetles. This could be because it was an extremely wet year but it is interesting to note that the

3

beetles and bumblebees both winter underground. Also, when I visited my parents in September in Concord, MA, my mother pointed out how all the oaks had dark spots on them. All our tree leaves have the same spots here in southern Vermont and especially on the beech and quaking aspens. I planted our first berry plants in 2014 so I don’t have a vast wealth of personal experience owning and running a farm but I hope to continue my observations and plan on recreating that experiment with aluminum screening that Katie Haggerty did except with blackcurrants.”

A naturalist in Greece, Diana Kordas, wrote a detailed report in October from the island of Samos in the eastern Mediterranean:

“I live in the country a few kilometers from the capital town of Samos, Vathi, which sits at the end of a large bay, and opposite the tourist village of Kokkari. In July of this summer, 2021, a pilot 5G cell tower was turned on above Kokkari. This cell tower is across the bay from us, one of its two panels points directly at us, and it is at the same height above sea level as our property. It is approximately 6 kilometers away.

“Where we live we are surrounded by cell towers and boosters (14 total) operating at 2G, 3G, and 4G frequencies. There has been a gradual diminution of insect and bird life in the last few years, especially since 2014, when 4G came here. Many species are affected; we lost the last of the fireflies (we used to have many) two summers ago. It has been years since we had a bug splattered on the windshield of the car as we drove along. But since that 5G cell tower across the bay went live, we have lost nearly all the pollinators and a great deal more besides.

“In the early part of the summer we had a great many pollinators: bumblebees, honeybees, many sorts of wild bees, carpenter bees, wasps of all kinds, and hoverflies. We tend to notice them as we grow all our own fruit and vegetables. Our early summer crops were pollinated without any problem, but melons, tomatoes and courgettes (zucchini) which we planted in early July have produced very little fruit as they did not get many pollinators though there were many blossoms. Not a single courgette has been pollinated and the tomatoes produced only 3 fruits; the melons (not as many as we would have expected) seem to have been pollinated by tiny night-flying moths.

4

“We own three and a half acres of land, which a big property for the island. It has many large trees (pines, cypresses, carobs, wild pistachio, olives, almonds and a grove of extremely rare gum mastic trees) and some fruit trees (apricots, plums and pears) as well as fields of grasses and wild plants. I should note here that we do not use pesticides of any sort, and we do not have any adjoining neighbours who use any pesticides; also, most of the land surrounding us is wild both up the mountain and down to the sea. Our own land has never had any pesticides and I would say the same is most likely true for most of the land around us. This is NOT a pesticide problem.

“We also keep our land as wild as possible, and except for the plots we cultivate the wild plants are allowed to grow freely: grasses, flowers (many orchids), and a lot of wild fennel. There are many bushes and hedges (I don’t know the English names for these plants). Many of the trees are over 100 years old, and some of the cypresses are over 300 years old.

“When planting we tend to intercrop and also plant flowering basils and zinnias, which attract pollinators, among the other plants. We also put out saucers of water for them to drink from — bees get thirsty. We usually get lots of bees, butterflies, hoverflies, wasps, etc., of many species, and we had many pollinators until recently. The decline began in July when the tower went live.

“The bees and other pollinators, and indeed most of the insects, are now almost all gone. We know this for several reasons: one is what we see (or don’t see) on the vegetable beds, one is what we are seeing generally (or not seeing, which is hardly anything) and the most important is what we are not seeing on the carob trees. Every year at this time, the male carobs flower abundantly and draw in hundreds of pollinators: bees of all sorts, wasps, hornets and hoverflies. You can’t go anywhere near these trees without being aware of a loud buzzing, and the insects are busy on them all day. These trees bloom for about a month, they are in full flower, and to date there has been virtually nothing on them: one bumblebee, one honeybee, a few hornets, a few flies of different species, a couple of tiny wild bees. We check many times a day, every day.

“This is NOT due to the weather, either. Since the carob trees went into flower we have had a variety of weather patterns, from strong northerly winds to fairly strong southerlies, interspersed with a good many still days. It has rained once.

5

The temperatures are about average for the time of year. Wind or no wind, warm or cool, there are virtually no pollinators on the carobs.

“One day we also checked for bees on every male carob we could find between here and Kokkari, and we couldn’t find any insects on any other flowering carob— or any insects at all, except a few flies.

“The flowering carobs are a good indicator of pollinators because they attract so many. Certain plants are good for this, like traveller’s joy/cat’s claw, a thorny climbing vine which has very sweet-smelling flowers and blooms in this season (we haven’t seen any pollinators on them either) and onion flowers, which will attract every type of wasp and hornet there is (but not bees). We do not have onion flowers at this time, but on past occasions when we have had, we got large numbers of wasps and hornets, including many species we did not recognize.

“On our land, as I write this, we have lost not only bees but all sorts of other insects: beetles of all sorts including cockchafers and ladybirds, web-spinning spiders, mantises, moths and butterflies (we always get great clouds of graylings on the pines in July-August, but hardly any this year), dragonflies of all sorts, grasshoppers and crickets. October is the season for dragonflies, and we presently have the warm, still weather when they arrive in the thousands. This year we have maybe 1/100th of the usual number. We have a few hornets (not nearly as many as usual), horseflies (fewer than usual) and flies (which seem of all the insects to be the least affected).

“We still have mosquitoes, but I believe the reason for this is that they breed in our cistern, which has stone walls two feet thick and a cement roof — it is protected from electromagnetic fields. The mosquitoes get in through the overflow pipe and tiny gaps in the stones that cover the drain holes. Our neighbour, who has an open-topped cistern, had thousands of mosquito larvae in the water (and a big mosquito problem) earlier in the summer, now has no mosquitoes. I checked, and there are no larvae in the water of his cistern any more.

“I can only think that the 5G cell tower has caused these things to happen, because nothing else accounts for the sudden, severe drop in the number of insects here. The tower went live in July and the losses we are seeing have

6

happened since July. I also think that we are seeing a drop in the number of small rodents: rats, mice and voles. We are not losing fruit and vegetables to mice or rats, which we always do. Also, on a wild bit of land like this, one tends to find traces of them, or to catch tails whisking away in the beam of a torch at night, or to hear them (tree rats can be quite noisy), and it seems they too are gone or going. My neighbour keeps finding dead rats, yet he never poisons them so they didn’t die from that.

“We are also seeing changes in animal behaviour. We feed a number of golden jackals which are having problems hunting due to a lack of wildlife in the area. The bay of Samos is/we are already surrounded by many cell towers and boosters in addition to the new 5G cell tower and wildlife including insects and birds has been declining for years. However, over the past few weeks the number of jackals coming to us has tripled and they are exhibiting symptoms of extreme anxiety, following us around in the evenings and now starting to appear in the daytime as well (they are primarily nocturnal). These are wild animals that we do not treat as pets, but some of them are becoming positively clingy, approaching to within several feet and sitting for periods of time just a few feet away. Some of them, which were not aggressive before, have started to become very aggressive with other jackals and fights are always breaking out.

“The area is also experiencing problems with wild boar, which are also looking for food. We have had several too-close encounters with these large and dangerous animals (which are also appearing at times when they shouldn’t, before sunset) and digging up large portions of our land at night. I was charged by one and so was my husband. Many people are seeing them in daytime, and they have dug up gardens, groves and the sides of the road. This has never happened before.

“Bird numbers are diminishing. We have still got fairly large numbers of great tits and sardinian warblers, which tend to stick to the deep cover of thick hedges and large trees, but we have lost all the chiffchaffs and chaffinches. We have a few blackbirds but it is a long time since we have seen a songthrush, or a wren. The robins have not arrived from further north, though they should have by now. We have a pair of tawny owls but little owls have disappeared. We get jays and crows, a few ring-neck doves (diminishing) and wood-pigeons, which have become few in number lately. Gull numbers (yellow-legged gulls) are falling and the shags which were always on the beach below our land have disappeared entirely. We are

7

getting fewer raptors — we usually have sparrowhawks, Eleanora’s falcons, goshawks, buzzards and short-toed eagles, but they are avoiding this area now though we see them elsewhere, as well as ravens.

“We have seen virtually no migrating birds in this area this fall: a few flycatchers, a couple of red-backed shrikes, and a flock of Little Gulls flying out to sea is all. We heard but didn’t see a flock of bee-eaters, which didn’t stop here as they usually do.

“In conclusion, cell towers in general have diminished the number of insects and pollinators in this area, along with bird numbers and wildlife generally. The new 5G cell tower has had a devastating effect in a very short time, but it is impossible to know the full consequences until next spring at the earliest.”

                           _____________

Those of you who remember car windshields splattered with insects, gardens ablaze with butterflies and abuzz with bees, loud choruses of crickets on land, and of frogs in ponds, and thick flocks of songbirds singing their joy at life, will understand what I am about to say. Cell phones are not here to stay. Whether people will willingly give them up is another question.

If people will willingly give up cell phones, the sudden and dramatic improvement in everyone’s health and sense of well-being, and the return of all our lost and disappearing cousin species who are still trying to share the Earth with us, will restore hope to the human species and catalyze other changes that will suddenly become possible, most importantly the ending of the mining and use of fossil fuels, which are converting the oxygen in our air to carbon dioxide, acidifying our oceans, polluting our rivers, lakes, streams and groundwater, and filling oceans, land, atmosphere, and ourselves with particles of plastic.

If people do not willing give up cell phones, then our planet does not have long to live, and cell phones will die with the Earth. In either case, they are not here to stay. Please join me in working toward the restoration of our home. If you have not yet signed it, sign the International Appeal to Stop 5G on Earth and in Space. If your organization has consultation status at the United Nations and has the ability to formally submit this Appeal to the U.N., get in touch with me. If your organization opposes 5G and you have not yet done so, contact me at info@cellphonetaskforce.org about signing the amicus brief supporting our case in the Supreme Court. Please download, save, and distribute Part I, Part II and Part III of this series. If you still own

8

or use a cell phone, please throw it away, now, and if you do not have a landline, get one.

REFERENCES

Anderson, John. “‘Isle of Wight Disease’ in Bees. I.” Bee World 11(4): 37-42 (1930).

Balmori, Alfonso. “Mobile Phone Mast Effects on Common Frog (Rana temporaria) Tadpole: The City Turned into a Laboratory.” Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine 29: 31-35 (2010).

Bartoniček, Václav and Eliska Klimková-Deutschová. “Effect of Centimeter Waves on Human Biochemistry.” Casopis Lekařů Ceskych 103(1): 26-30 (in Czech). English Translation in G. L. Khazan, ed., Biological Effects of Microwaves, ATD Report P-65- 68, September 17, 1965 (Washington, DC: Dept. of Commerce), pp. 13-14 (1964).

Bawin, S.M. and W. Ross Adey. “Sensitivity of Calcium Binding in Cerebral Tissue to Weak Environmental Electric Fields Oscillating at Low Frequency.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 73(6): 1999-2003 (1976).

Belokrinitskiy, Vasily S. “Hygienic Evaluation of Biological Effects of Nonionizing Microwaves.” Gigiyena i Sanitariya 1982(6): 32-34. JPRS 81865, pp. 1-5 (1982).

Bigu del Blanco, Jaime. Interaction of Electromagnetic Fields and Living Systems with Special Reference to Birds. Laboratory Technical Report LTR-CS-113, Control Systems Laboratory, Division of Mechanical Engineering, National Research Council Canada (1973).

Bigu del Blanco, Jaime and César Romero-Sierra. Bird Feathers as Dielectric Receptors of Microwave Radiation. Laboratory Technical Report LTR-CS-89, Control Systems Laboratory, Division of Mechanical Engineering, National Research Council Canada (1973).

Blackman, Carl F., S.G. Benane, J.A. Elder, D.E. House, J.A. Lampe, and J.M. Faulk. “Induction of calcium-ion efflux from brain tissue by radiofrequency radiation.” Bioelectromagnetics 1:35-43 (1980).

9

Blackman, Carl F. “Radiobiological approaches to electropollution.” In Biological Effects of Electropollution, S. Dutta and R. Millis, eds., Information Ventures, Phila., 1986, pp. 39-46.

Brodeur, Paul. The Zapping of America. New York: W.W. Norton (1977).
Clarke, Dominic, Heather Whitney, Gregory Sutton, and Daniel Robert. “Detection

and Learning of Floral Electric Fields by Bumblebees.” Science 340: 66-69 (2013).

Clarke, Dominic, Erica Morley, and Daniel Robert. “The bee, the flower, and the electric field: electric ecology and aerial electroreception.” Journal of Comparative Physiology A 203: 737-748 (2017).

Dutta, S. et al. :Microwave radiation-induced calcium ion flux from human neuroblastoma cells: dependence on depth of amplitude modulation and exposure time.” In Biological Effects of Electropollution, S. Dutta and R. Millis, eds. Information Ventures, Phila., 1986, pp. 63-69.

Edwards, G. S., C. C. Davis, J. D. Saffer, and M. L. Swicord. “Microwave Field-Driven Acoustic Modes in DNA.” Biophysical Journal 47: 799-807 (1985).

Engels, Svenja, Nils-Lasse Schneider, Nele Lefeldt, Christine Maira Hein, Manuela Zapka, Andreas Michalik, Dana Elbers, Achim Kittel, P. J. Hore, and Henrik Mouritsen. “Anthropogenic Electromagnetic Noise Disrupts Magnetic Compass Orientation in a Migratory Bird.” Nature 509: 353-56 (2014).

Fink, Hans-Werner and Christian Schönenberger. “Electrical Conduction through DNA Molecules.” Nature 398: 407-410 (1999).

Frey, Allan H. “Auditory System Response to Radio Frequency Energy.” Aerospace Medicine 32: 1140-42 (1961).

Frey, Allan H. “Human Auditory System Response to Modulated Electromagnetic Energy.” Journal of Applied Physiology 17(4): 689-92 (1962).

Frey, Allan H. and Elwood Seifert. “Pulse Modulated UHF Energy Illumination of the Heart Associated with Change in Heart Rate.” Life Sciences 7 (part 2): 505-12 (1968).

10

Frey, Allan H. and Rodman Messenger, Jr. “Human Perception of Illumination with Pulsed Ultrahigh-Frequency Electromagnetic Energy.” Science 181: 356-58 (1973).

Frey, Allan H., Sondra Feld, and Barbara Frey. “Neural Function and Behavior: Defining the Relationship.” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 247: 433-39 (1975).

Frey, Allan H. “Is a Toxicology Model Appropriate as a Guide for Biological Research with Electromagnetic Fields?” Journal of Bioelectricity 9(2): 233-234 (1990).

Gel’fon, I.A. and Sadchikova, M.N. “Protein fractions and histamine of the blood under the influence of UHF and HF.” In The Biological Action of Ultrahigh Frequencies, A.A. Letavet and Z.V. Gordon, eds., Academy of Medical Sciences, Moscow. JPRS 12471, pp. 42-46 (1960).

Glaser, Zorach R. Bibliography of Reported Biological Phenomena (“Effects”) and Clinical Manifestations Attributed to Microwave and Radio-Frequency Radiation. Bethesda, MD: Naval Medical Research Institute. NTIS reports nos. AD 734391, AD 750271, AD 770621, AD 784007, AD A015622, AD A025354, and AD A029430 (1971- 1976).

Glaser, Zorach R. Bibliography of Reported Biological Phenomena (“Effects”) and Clinical Manifestations Attributed to Microwave and Radio-Frequency Radiation: Ninth Supplement to Bibliography of Microwave and RF Biologic Effects. Cincinnati, OH: National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. NTIS report no. PB83176537 (1977).

Greggers, Uwe, Gesche Koch, Viola Schmidt, et al. “Reception and Learning of Electric Fields in Bees.” Proceedings of the Royal Society B 280: 20130528 (2013).

Haggerty, Katie. “Adverse Influence of Radio Frequency Background on Trembling Aspen Seedlings: Preliminary Observations.” International Journal of Forestry Research, article ID 836278 (2010).

Hallowell, C. “Trouble in the Lily Pads.” Time, Oct. 28, 1996, p. 87. Hawk, Kathy. Case Study in the Heartland. Butler, PA, 1996.

11

Holtze, Christian, R. Sivaramakrishnan, Markus Antonietti, J. Tsuwi, Friedrich Kremer, and Klaus D. Kramer. “The microwave absorption of emulsions containing aqueous micro- and nanodroplets: A means to optimize microwave heating.” Colloid and Interface Science 302: 651-657 (2006).

Imms, Augustus D. “Report on a Disease of Bees in the Isle of Wight.” Journal of the Board of Agriculture 14(3): 129-40 (1907).

Koh, K.H., C Montgomery, D Clarke, EL Morley and D Robert. “Bumble Bee Hair Motion in Electric Fields.” Journal of Physics: Conference Series 1322: 012001 (2019).

Kordas, Diana. Comment to US Fish and Wildlife Service Concerning the Effects of a 5G Cell Tower on the Island of Samos. October 13, 2021.

Kordas, Diana. “Birds and Trees of Northern Greece: Population Declines since the Advent of 4G Wireless An Observational Study.” Oct. 5, 2017, 26 pages.

Kunjilwar, K.K. and Jitendra Behari. “Effect of amplitude-modulated RF radiation on cholinergic system of developing rats.” Brain Research 601:321-324 (1993).

Margaritis, Lukas H., Areti K. Manta, Konstantinos D. Kokkaliaris, et al. “Drosophila Oogenesis as a Bio-marker Responding to EMF Sources.” Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine 33(3): 165-189 (2014).

Microwave News. “Industry Pressures FCC to Adopt ANSI RF/MW Exposure Standard.” March/April 1996, pp. 1, 11-12.

Microwave News. “Highlights.” May/June 1995, p. 12.

Moore, Julie L., indexer. Cumulated Index to the Bibliography of Reported Biological Phenomena (“Effects”) and Clinical Manifestations Attributed to Microwave and Radio-Frequency Radiation, compiled by Zorach R. Glaser. Riverside, CA: Julie Moore & Associates (1984).

Navakatikian, Mikhail A. and Lyudmila A. Tomashevskaya. “Phasic Behavioral and Endocrine Effects of Microwaves of Nonthermal Intensity.” In: David O. Carpenter and Sinerik Ayrapetyan, eds., Biological Effects of Electric and Magnetic Fields (New York: Academic), vol. 1, pp. 333-42 (1994).

12

Nieh, James C. “The Stop Signal of Honey Bees: Reconsidering Its Message.” Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 33(1): 51-56 (1993).

Nikitina, Valentina N. 2001. “Hygienic, Clinical and Epidemiological Analysis of Disturbances Induced by Radio Frequency EMF Exposure in Human Body.” In Kjell Hansson Mild, Monica Sandstrom, and Eugene Lyskov, eds., Clinical and Physiological Investigations of People Highly Exposed to Electromagnetic Fields (Umeå, Sweden: National Institute for Working life), Arbetslivsrapport 3, pp. 32-38 (2001).

Nittby, Henrietta, Gustav Grafström, Dong Ping Tian, Lars Malmgren, Arne Brun, Bertil R.R. Persson, Leif G. Salford, and Jacob Eberhardt. “Cognitive Impairment in Rats after Long-Term Exposure to GSM-900 Mobile Phone Radiation.” Bioelectromagnetics 29: 219-232 (2008).

Paffhausen, Benjamin H., Julian Petrasch, Uwe Greggers, et al. “The Electronic Bee Spy: Eavesdropping on Honeybee Communication via Electrostatic Field Recordings.” Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience 15: 647224 (2021).

Panagopoulos, Dimitris J. “Effect of Microwave Exposure on the Ovarian Development of Drosophila melanogaster.” Cell Biochemistry and Biophysics 63: 121- 132 (2012).

Panagopoulos, Dimitris J. “Analyzing the Health Impacts of Modern Telecommunications Microwaves.” In Advances in Medicine and Biology, Leon V. Berhardt, ed., Nova Science Publishers, NY, Vol. 17, pp. 1-55 (2011).

Panagopoulos, Dimitris J., Evangelia D. Chavdoula, and Lukas H. Margaritis. “Bioeffects of Mobile Telephony Radiation in Relation to Its Intensity or Distance from the Antenna.” International Journal of Radiation Biology 86(5): 345-357 (2010).

Panagopoulos, Dimitris J. and Lukas H. Margaritis. “Mobile Telephony Radiation Effects on Living Organisms.” In Mobile Telephones, Networks, Applications, and Performance, A.C. Harper and R.V. Buress, eds., Nova Science Publishers, NY, pp. 107-149 (2008).

Panagopoulos, Dimitris J., Andreas Karabarbounis, and Lukas H. Margaritis. “Effect of GSM 900-MHz Mobile Phone Radiation on the Reproductive Capacity of Drosophila melanogaster.” Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine 23(1): 29-43 (2004).

13

Persson, Bertil R. R., Leif G. Salford, and Arne Brun. “Blood-brain Barrier Permeability in Rats Exposed to Electromagnetic Fields Used in Wireless Communication.” Wireless Networks 3: 455-61 (1997).

Phillips, Ernest F. “The Status of Isle of Wight Disease in Various Countries.” Journal of Economic Entomology 18: 391-95 (1925).

Polk, Charles. “Implications of Measured Electric Conductivity of DNA for Bio-effects of E.M. Fields.” In Bioelectromagnetics Society Annual Meeting, June 9-16, 2000, München, Germany, Abstracts book, pp. 22-23.

Raumer, Max. “Heisse Gespräche.” ZEIT Wissen, May 2006, https://www.zeit.de/zeit- wissen/2006/05/Handy-Strahlung.xml/komplettansicht.

Romero-Sierra, César, Arthur O. Quanbury, and J. Alan Tanner. Feathers as Microwave and Infra-Red Filters and Detectors Preliminary Experiments. Laboratory Technical Report LTR-CS-40, Control Systems Laboratory, Division of Mechanical Engineering, National Research Council Canada (1970).

Sadchikova, Maria N. “Clinical manifestations of reactions to microwave irradiation in various occupational groups.” In Biologic Effects and Health Hazards of Microwave Radiation: Proceedings of an International Symposium, Warsaw, 15-18 Oct., 1973, P. Czerski et al., eds., pp. 261-267 (1974).

Saglioglou, Niki E., Areti K. Manta, Ioannis K. Giannarakis, Aikaterini S. Skouroliakou, and Lukas H. Margaritis. “Apopoptic Cell Death during Drosophila Oogenesis Is Differentially Increased by Electromagnetic Radiation Depending on Modulation, Intensity and Duration of Exposure.” Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine 35(1): 40-53 (2014).

Sagripanti, Jose-Luis and Mays L. Swicord. “DNA Structural Changes Caused by Microwave Radiation.” International Journal of Radiation Biology and Related Studies in Physics, Chemistry and Medicine 50(1): 47-50 (1986).

Sagripanti, Jose-Luis, Mays L. Swicord, and C. C. Davis. “Microwave Effects on Plasmid DNA.” Radiation Research 110(2): 219-231 (1987).

Salford, Leif G., Arne E. Brun, Jacob L. Eberhardt, Lars Malmgren, and Bertil R.R. Persson. “Nerve Cell Damage in Mammalian Brain after Exposure to Microwaves

14

from GSM Mobile Phones.” Environmental Health Perspectives 111(7): 881-83 (2003).

Salford, Leif G., Bertil Persson, Jacob Eberhardt, Gustav Grafström, and Lars Malmgren. “Non-thermal Effects of EMF upon the Mammalian Brain.” Abstract for a presentation made at an international conference titled The Precautionary EMF Approach: Rationale, Legislation and Implementation, Benevento, Italy, February 2006.

Schwartz, Jean-Louis, Dennis E. House, and Geoffrey A.R. Mealing. “Exposure of Frog Hearts to CW or Amplitude-Modulated VHF Fields: Selective Efflux of Calcium Ions at 16 Hz.” Bioelectromagnetics 11: 349-358 (1990).

Serant, Claire. “A Human Science Experiment.” New York Newsday, May 10, 2004. Sikorski, M. and J. Bielski. “Disturbances of glucose tolerance in workers exposed to

electromagnetic radiation.” Medycyna Pracy 47(3) 227-231 (1996) (in Polish). Souder, William. “An Amphibian Horror Story.” New York Newsday, Oct. 15, 1996,

pp. B19, B21.

Souder, William. “Deformed Frogs Show Rift Among Scientists.” Houston Chonicle, Nov. 5, 1997, p. 4A.

Stern, John. “Space Aliens Stealing Our Frogs.” Weekly World News, Apri 17, 1990, p. 21.

Sutton, Gregory P., Dominic Clarke, Erica L. Morley, and Daniel Robert. “Mechanosensory hairs in bumblebees (Bombus terrestris) detect weak electric fields.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113(26): 7261–7265 (2016).

Swicord, Mays L. “Chain-Length-Dependent Microwave Absorption of DNA.” Biopolymers 22: 2513-2516 (1983).

Syngayevskaya, V. A. 1970. “Metabolic Changes.” In I. R. Petrov, ed., Influence of Microwave Radiation on the Organism of Man and Animals (Leningrad: “Meditsina”), in English translation, 1972 (Washington, DC: NASA), report no. TTF-708, pp. 48-60 (1970).

15

Tanner, J. Allan. “Effects of Microwave Radiation on Birds.” Nature 210: 636 (1966).

Tanner, J. Alan and César Romero-Sierra. “Bird Feathers as Sensory Detectors of Microwave Fields.” In: Stephen F. Cleary, ed., Biological Effects and Health Implications of Microwave Radiation. Symposium Proceedings (Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare), Publication BRH/DBE 70-2, pp. 185- 87 (1970).

Tanner, J. Alan, Jamie Bigue del Blanco, and César Romero-Sierra. Bird Feathers as Dielectric Receptors of Microwave Radiation. Laboratory Technical Report LTR-CS-89, Control Systems Laboratory, Division of Mechanical Engineering, National Research Council Canada (1973).

Tanner, J. Alan and César Romero-Sierra. “The Effects of Chronic Exposure to Very Low Intensity Microwave Radiation on Domestic Fowl.” Journal of Bioelectricity 1(2): 195-205 (1982).

Trovato, E. Ramona, Director, Division of Radiation and Indoor Air, Environmental Protection Agency. Letter to Federal Communications Commission (June 19, 1995).

Underwood, Robyn M. and Dennis vanEngelsdorp. “Colony Collapse Disorder: Have We Seen This Before?” Bee Culture 35(7): 13-18 (2007).

United States General Accounting Office. Efforts By The Environmental Protection Agency To Protect The Public From Environmental Nonionizing Radiation Exposures. CED-78-79, B-166506 (March 29, 1978).

United States Senate, Committee on Appropriations, 104th Congress. Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Bill, Report No. 104-140 (September 5, 1995).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “Federal Radiation Protection Guidance; Proposed Alternatives for Controlling Public Exposure to Radiofrequency Radiation.” Notice of Proposed Recommendations, Federal Register, Vol. 51, No. 146, pp. 27318- 27339 (July 30, 1986).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “Federal Radiation Protection Guidance for Public Exposure to Radiofrequency Radiation,” ARP-FRL-2245-6. Advanced Notice of

16

Proposed Recommendation, Federal Register, Vol. 47, pp. 57338-57440 (Dec. 23, 1982).

vanEngelsdorp, Dennis, Jay D. Evans, Claude Saegerman, Chris Mullin, Eric Haubruge, Bach Kim Nguyen, Maryann Frazier, Jim Frazier, Diana Cox-Foster, Yanping Chen, Robyn Underwood, David R. Tarpy, and Jeffery S. Pettis. “Colony Collapse Disorder: A Descriptive Study.” PLoS ONE 4(8): e6481 (2009).

Vogt, Amanda. “Mutant Frogs Spark a Mega Mystery.” Chicago Tribune, August 4, 1998, sec. 7, p. 3.

Warnke, Ulrich. Bees, Birds and Mankind: Destroying Nature by “Elektrosmog” (Bienen, Vögel und Menschen: Die Zerstörung der Natur durch ‚Elektrosmog’). Kompetenzinitiative, Stuttgart, Germany (German edition 2007; English edition 2009).

Watson, Traci. “Frogs Falling Silent across USA.” USA Today, August 12, 1998, p. 3A.

Wilson, William T. and Diana M. Menapace. “Disappearing Disease of Honey Bees: A Survey of the United States.” American Bee Journal, February, pp. 118-19; March, pp. 184-86, 217 (1979).

Zaret, Milton M. Investigation of Personnel Hazard Associated with Radio-Frequency Fields Encountered in Naval Operations. Office of Naval Research, Contract No. N00014-69-C-0358, ONR Identification No. NR 101-765. Dept. of the Navy, Arlington, Virginia (1971).

Zaret, Milton M. Hearings before the Committee on Commerce, United States Senate, Ninety-Third Congress, First Session on Public Law 90-602, Radiation Control for Health and Safety Act of 1968, Serial No. 93-24, pp. 100-113. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office (1973).

Zaret, Milton M. “Cataracts Following Use of Microwave Ovens.” New York State Journal of Medicine 74(11): 2032-2048 (1974).

Zaret, Milton M. “Selected cases of microwave cataract in man associated with concomitant annotated pathologies.” In Biologic Effects and Health Hazards of Microwave Radiation: Proceedings of an International Symposium, Warsaw, 15-18 Oct., 1973, P. Czerski et al., eds., pp. 294-301 (1974).

17

Zaret, Milton M. “Blindness, Deafness and Vestibular Dysfunction in a Microwave Worker.” The Eye, Ear, Nose and Throat Monthly 54: 291 (1975).

Arthur Firstenberg
Author, The Invisible Rainbow: A History of Electricity and Life Administrator, International Appeal to Stop 5G on Earth and in Space

Caretaker of ECHOEarth.org (End Cellphones Here on Earth) P.O. Box 6216
Santa Fe, NM 87502
USA
phone: +1 505-471-0129 arthur@cellphonetaskforce.org November 4, 2021

The last 30 newsletters, including this one, are available for downloading and sharing on the Newsletters page of the Cellular Phone Task Force. Some of the newsletters are also available there in German, Spanish, Italian, French, Norwegian and Dutch.

To subscribe, go to https://www.cellphonetaskforce/subscribe or click on this link:

Veavågen den 12. nov 2021. Hildur Vea, PhD

tlf 45 66 21 18, hildur.vea@balan-zen.no