Syndication

Visualizzazione post con etichetta USA. Mostra tutti i post
Visualizzazione post con etichetta USA. Mostra tutti i post

venerdì 5 giugno 2020

Timothy Schoechle, Ph.D a FCC: i limiti di esposizione sono sbagliati per gli effetti non-termici

Innanzitutto chi è questo Schoechle ?               

Dr. Schoechle è un consulente internazionale in ingegneria informatica e delle comunicazioni e in
sviluppo di standard tecnici. Attualmente ricopre il ruolo di segretario del gruppo di lavoro ISO / IEC SC25 1, il comitato internazionale per gli standard per il sistema elettronico domestico ed è co-editore tecnico di numerosi nuovi standard internazionali relativi alla smart grid, incluso un nuovo progetto sulla sicurezza informatica gateway, privacy e requisiti per l'elettronica di consumo e le applicazioni Internet-of-Things (IoT). 
Ha inoltre ha ricoperto il ruolo di segreteria di gestione e interscambio dati SC32 ISO / IEC, 2006-2015, e attualmente partecipa a una serie di organismi di normalizzazione nazionali e internazionali relativi alla smart grid e alla smart città tecnologia e questioni politiche.
...
Il Dr. Schoechle era un co-fondatore di BI Incorporated, attualmente una società da $ 1 miliardo a Boulder, in Colorado, uno sviluppatore pioniere della tecnologia RFID. Ha conseguito un M.S. in ingegneria delle telecomunicazioni (1995) e un dottorato in politica della comunicazione (2004) dell'Università del Colorado, Boulder.


Questo grande esperto di comunicazione dati, di smart-grid (che include anche gli ... smart meter), di RFID, IoT, etc etc ...  scrive al FCC

1. I limiti esistenti  [vedi quelli dell'ICNIRP ]  sono inadeguati perché non considerano in campo debole (non termici) effetti su sistemi e processi biologici. 
L'intera inchiesta FCC presenta un problema già ALLA PARTENZA:   si basa su un'ipotesi fallace e obsoleta che gli effetti termici siano l'unico rischio.

vedete il testo

2. Well below the threshold of thermal RFR effects, the inquiry needs to consider weak
field (non-thermal) effects, including the difference between long term and short term
exposures, and that because of the adaptive characteristics of biological systems, one can
switch from gain to loss by changing the modulation, the frequency, or the time delay
between pulses as well as the presence of reactive oxygen—all of which have not been
adequately taken into consideration by the FCC.

3. If existing limits are not adequate for weak field (non-thermal) effects, it makes little
sense to simply extend these limits to frequency ranges above 6 GHz.

4. It makes little sense to further weaken thermal limits by relying on effective power alone.
Dropping SAR-based limits excludes consideration of absorption into the body that
should be accounted for by SAR with the additional consideration of duration of
exposure as well as more sophisticated measures of impact on bodies and cells.

5. Averaging power over time is inadequate and deceptive because it does not deal with
peak power, is still based on the assumption that the only mode of potential harm is
heating (e.g., SAR or MPE), does not consider weak field (non-thermal) effects on
biological systems and processes, and does not deal with effects over time, or with long
term exposure effects.

6. The 19-126 inquiry and the FCC exposure guidelines are largely based on assumptions
and theoretical models rather than on experimental evidence or testing. Exposure limits
should be based on empirical science (i.e., verifiable by observation or experience rather
than theory or pure logic). “Increased emphasis on long‐term exposures may require
refining the concept of dose to more flexibly combine exposure time and field intensity or
energy absorbed.” (Barnes and Greenebaum, 2020, p. 4). “What is missing in the current
guidelines or regulations are guidelines for long-term exposure to weak EMF” (p. 5).

7. The Commission should request the FDA and/or other agencies with appropriate health
science competence to pursue or undertake establishment of actual safety standards based
on actual animal or human safety testing, recommendations, or guidelines for both short
term and long term RFR exposures and emissions as proposed by Barnes & Greenebaum,
2020, p. 4-5). The FCC should recuse themselves from the process of setting human
RFR exposure guidelines due lack of expertise.

8. “Limits on the time for operations of base stations and exposures in adjacent living
spaces are not controlled by the user and must be set by competent authorities, based on
scientific evidence. It is likely to be difficult to specify times when exposures to RF
signals are zero or below some limit. What will be needed is being able to say with some
certainty that exposure below a given level has not been shown to cause changes in body
chemistry above some level” (p. 5).

9. “A starting point might be current levels from TV and radio stations that are large enough
to give signal‐to‐noise ratios around 20 dB (100‐fold) with typical receiving systems.
Currently, mean values for the population's exposure to these systems are estimated to be
around 0.1 V/m and peak exposures range up to 2 V/m, which exceed current exposure
limits for a small fraction of the population” (p. 5).

10. Consumers are entitled to informed consent to risk. The public should be educated about
the real risks involved in using cellphones and being near cell antennas big or small as
well as the risks of being exposed to RF radiation in general. It is the responsibility of the
FCC to inform the public openly and accurately. The FCC has not done so in this
proposed rulemaking.

sabato 23 maggio 2020

Il Ministro della Giustizia USA sulla 'corsa al 5G'

... ovviamente non si pone minimamente il problema sanitario ... ma solo quello della sicurezza degli USA!

Mie considerazioni:
- per fortuna c'è questo gap e profonda rivalità tra Cina e USA ... altrimenti saremmo già asfaltati dalle milioni di antenne 5G!
- noi dovremmo scegliere da chi ci dobbiam far spiare: dagli americani (nulla di nuovo) o dai Cinesi (nuovo) !!!

Parlando a una tavola rotonda CTO globale su reti integrate e aperte 5G Barr, Ministro della Giustizia, ha dichiarato: "Gli Stati Uniti e i nostri partner sono in una corsa contro la Repubblica popolare cinese (RPC) per sviluppare e costruire infrastrutture 5G in tutto il mondo. La nostra sicurezza nazionale e il fiorire dei nostri valori democratici liberali qui e nel mondo dipendono dalla nostra vittoria.

“Le future reti 5G saranno un pezzo critico di infrastruttura globale, il sistema nervoso centrale dell'economia globale. Sfortunatamente, la RPC è sulla buona strada per cogliere un decisivo vantaggio del 5G. Se la RPC vince la gara del 5G, le conseguenze geopolitiche, economiche e di sicurezza nazionale saranno sconcertanti. La RPC lo sa, il che spiega perché sta usando ogni leva del potere per espandere la sua quota di mercato del 5G in tutto il mondo. La comunità di nazioni libere e democratiche deve fare lo stesso.



giovedì 21 maggio 2020

La Citta di EASTON (Connecticut, USA) ha deciso per una moratoria per il 5G


dice semplicemente che il Comune dice stop alla implementazioni di antenne 5G fino a che non ci saranno prove certe della sicurezza per la popolazione e l'ambiente attraverso sperimentazione indipendente.

la risoluzione è stata approvata all'unanimità dal comune il 7 maggio. L'American Academy of Pediatrics e centinaia di esperti medici e scientifici hanno consigliato la commissione federale di comunicazione di testare la sicurezza a lungo termine della tecnologia 5G. 
Easton è la prima città del Connecticut a vietare il 5G. "



USA: 15 Stati si sono attivati per proteggere i cittadini dal wireless


venerdì 15 maggio 2020

Jersey City blocca il piano di installazione del 5G



Il Consiglio comunale di Jersey ha presentato all'unanimità una mozione di blocco di una richiesta di aggiornamento e l'installazione di 72  antenne che includerà la tecnologia 5G dopo che i membri del pubblico hanno parlato contro l'ordinanza.

I critici hanno citato una mancanza di trasparenza, mancanza di preavviso e mancanza di informazioni, nonché dati che esprimono preoccupazioni sulle possibili conseguenze sulla salute che la tecnologia potrebbe avere sui residenti nonostante la sentenza della Federal Communications Commission che la tecnologia sia sicura.



giovedì 7 maggio 2020

Sintomi della elettrosensibilità


Nel novembre 2013, le città di Boston e Filadelfia hanno presentato una richiesta alla Federal Communications Commission (FCC) (Dockets # 13-84 e # 03-137) che hanno accusato la FCC e le agenzie sanitarie federali di negligenza per non aver indagato se le persone elettrosensibili sono danneggiati dalle radiazioni wireless

FCC ha chiesto commenti e documentazione scientifica.

Questa è stata racolta e disponibile. Ben 1304 interventi.   Ci sono reviews e raccolta organizzate sui vari aspetti della tematica e patologia. 

martedì 28 aprile 2020

FDA 2020: analisi del report con giudizio finale!




Victor Leach of ORSAA: Critical review of the FDA 2020 Report

Below is the next in a series of Guest Blogs on BRHP. The opinions expressed in this Guest Blog are of Victor Leach himself. Publication of these opinions in BRHP does not imply that BRHP automatically agrees with or endorses these opinions. Publication of this, and other guest blogs, facilitates an open debate and free exchange of opinions on wireless technology and health.
***********************

READ ALSO BRHP OWN POST ON FDA 2020 REPORT:

US FDA 2020 REPORT ON CARCINOGENICITY OF RF-EMF CONTRADICTS SAFETY CLAIMS OF ICNIRP


***********************
Comment on the FDA 2020 Report
Review of Published Literature between 2008 and 2018 of Relevance to Radiofrequency Radiation and Cancer’
by Victor Leach
The FDA is responsible for protecting and promoting public health through the control and supervision of many consumer products, drugs, vaccines, medical devices, electromagnetic radiation etc. They have a responsibility to protect consumers from biotoxins, and hence this FDA review of wireless radiation.
As outlined below I believe this report is inadequate and biased in favour of industry. The following revelations that emerged from my analysis of this report in detail will explain why I have come to this conclusion.
Epidemiological Studies
Several criticisms can be leveled at this FDA 2020 Report. I will focus on the very poor quality of the assessment of causation within the epidemiological studies.
While epidemiological studies are very difficult to perform, and there are many flaws visible in studies, the FDA selection can only be described as biased. The word “bias” (plural or past tense) was the most commonly used word in the FDA statement of limitations. When a direct cause and effect relationship has not been established, there is an accepted tool for moving from a position of association to causation. This tool is the Bradford-Hill assessment, used by epidemiologists around the world. This tool appears to have been overlooked by the FDA assessors in this very limited selection of papers.
The FDA only reviewed cancer research, and within that, selected 69 papers with only 67 being experimental papers excluding the 2 commentary papers; see Table 1 below. There are a further 7 other review studies. Some of these selected references can only be described as “obscure” and some are not exclusively wireless studies, such as Balekouzou et al 2017Neupane et al 2017. If these studies are removed, there are 58 studies remaining, which can be categorised as shown in Table 1 below.
While the FDA focus was on cancer, there are many epidemiological studies that look at the totality of health related problems associated with wireless technology, which have been ignored in the FDA report. As is the case with other cancers, there are a number of underlining chronic health conditions that are associated with RF-EMF exposure that affect well-being. Table 1 shows that in the ORSAA database in addition to the 55 “cancer only” studies there are 66 epidemiological papers pertaining to other health issues associated with chronic exposure to RF-EMF. These papers fall into health categories such as:
  • Circadian Rhythm Changes;
  • Cardiovascular Effects;
  • Haematological Effects.
These studies are important for health and well-being and should not be dismissed when making an assessment of long-term health effects. To use an analogy, it’s important not only to look at the major cancers associated with tobacco smoking, namely lung cancer, but to also consider the long list of chronic effects that are side effects of consuming this biotoxin.
Table 1 compares the available papers selected by ARPANSA (TR-164) and the ORSSA database collection for the period between 01/01/2008 and 31/12/2018 for mobile phones. TRS-164 is another example of a flawed assessment.
Table 1. Comparison of available Epidemiological studies on wireless technology.
The conclusion is very clear. The selection of papers in the FDA report is inadequate and unrepresentative of the available literature.
This recent review by Pareja-Peña F et,al  2020, of the 400 MHz – 3 GHz radiofrequency electromagnetic field influence on brain tumor induction is a much more balanced review.
In-vivo Animal Studies (Genotoxicity/Carcinogenicity and Tumorigenesis)
I have reviewed the in-vivo animal studies cited in the FDA report and compared these with the ORSAA database records, as follows:
The FDA report reviewed 37 studies and the comparison with the ORSAA database is in Table 2. The period used to select studies was from 2008 to 2018 (01/01/2008 to 31/12/2018) as stated in the FDA report.
Table 2: In-vivo animal studies in FDA report versus ORSAA database.
It is clear that the FDA report reviewed only about half of the available scientific papers.
Even with their poor quality review of 37 papers, the trend is clear: the in-vivo experimental animal studies show overwhelming genotoxicity resulting from RF exposures.
Once again, the non-cancer bioeffects are omitted in the FDA review. The bioeffects that need to be considered are listed below in their respective categories. Effects found in any of these categories have the potential for long-term chronic health implications. The glaring question is ’Why has the FDA ignored these subject areas?’:
  • Altered Electrophysiology
  • Altered Enzyme Activity
  • Altered Protein Levels
  • Audiological Effects
  • Autonomic Nervous System Effect
  • Cardiovascular Effects
  • Cell Membrane Effects
  • Cellular Signaling Effect
  • Central Nervous System Effects
  • Circulatory System Effects
  • Dermal Effects
  • Gene Expression Changes
  • Growth/Development Effects
  • Learning Effects
  • Mitochondrial Effects
  • Neurodegeneration
  • Neurological System Effects
  • Neurotransmitter Effect
  • Ocular Effects
  • Pregnancy Effects
  • Renal Effects
  • Salivary Gland Effects
  • Skeletal Effects
  • Sleep Effects
  • Thyroid Effects
CONCLUSION
While the FDA report purports to be a scientific assessment, it falls short in many respects. I conclude that this is just another political report trying to justify the rollout of further wireless technology. We are rolling out wireless 5G technologies without pre-market health testing and this is an unethical experiment on large population groups and the environment. This is not how a reputable risk management approach works. For example, when considering the health risks of ionising radiation at low doses (below 100 mSv), there are biological effects, but no proven health effects. In this case, the International Commission on Radiological Protection ICRP, apply risk management principles such As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA). This principle means that we do the following:
  • design equipment to minimise exposure to users;
  • administratively advise users on the safe use of devices;
  • use alternative methods of service delivery to limit exposure.
In Health and Safety management, the “Hierarchy of Controls” for dealing with risks are:
  1. elimination
  2. substitution
  3. engineering controls
  4. administrative controls
  5. personal protective equipment.
These philosophies of protection are completely absent from the rollout of wireless technology. This is even more important because man-made EMF, unlike low dose ionising radiation, is not found in our environment. Life on earth has not biologically evolved with this man-made pulsed EMF. ICNIRP statements that a short-term (6 minute) thermal guideline protects everyone are reckless and negligent.
The current research on existing wireless technologies tells us clearly that we should be taking a precautionary approach.

lunedì 27 aprile 2020

Wifi 6 in USA


La Federal Communications Commission ha adottato oggi delle norme che rendono disponibili 1.200 megahertz di spettro nella banda 6 GHz (5.925–7.125 GHz) per l'uso senza licenza.




Queste nuove regole introdurranno il Wi-Fi 6, la prossima generazione di Wi-Fi, e avranno un ruolo importante nella crescita dell'Internet of Things. Il Wi-Fi 6 sarà due volte e mezzo più veloce rispetto allo standard attuale e offrirà prestazioni migliori per i consumatori americani. L'apertura della banda a 6 GHz per un utilizzo senza licenza aumenterà anche la quantità di spettro disponibile per il Wi-Fi di quasi un fattore cinque e contribuirà a migliorare la connettività rurale. "




"WASHINGTON, April 23, 2020—The Federal Communications Commission today adopted rules that make 1,200 megahertz of spectrum in the 6 GHz band (5.925–7.125 GHz) available for unlicensed use. These new rules will usher in Wi-Fi 6, the next generation of Wi-Fi, and play a major role in the growth of the Internet of Things. Wi-Fi 6 will be over two-and-a-half times faster than the current standard and will offer better performance for American consumers. Opening the 6 GHz band for unlicensed use will also increase the amount of spectrum available for Wi-Fi by nearly a factor of five and help improve rural connectivity."

domenica 26 aprile 2020

L'agenzia federale US Access Board riconosce la elettrosensibilità

L'agenzia federale US Access Board riconosce la elettrosensibilità

INel 2002, il Comitato per la conformità delle barriere architettoniche e dei trasporti, noto anche come Consiglio di accesso degli Stati Uniti, ha pubblicato nuove linee guida sull'accessibilità per le strutture ricreative coperte dall'American with Disabilities Act (ADA).

Individui con MCS  e elettrosensibilità hanno presentato un numero considerevole di commenti scritti e hanno partecipato alle riunioni di informazione del pubblico sul progetto di norma finale. Hanno riferito che i prodotti chimici utilizzati nelle strutture ricreative, come il cloro usato nelle piscine e nelle spa, e i pesticidi e i fertilizzanti sintetici utilizzati nei campi da golf, sono barriere che impediscono loro di accedere a tali strutture. Hanno chiesto al consiglio di amministrazione di includere disposizioni nella norma finale per rendere accessibili loro le strutture ricreative.

Il Board riconosce che MCS e sensibilità elettromagnetiche possono essere considerate disabilità ai sensi dell'ADA se compromettono così gravemente le funzioni neurologiche, respiratorie o di altro tipo di un individuo da limitare sostanzialmente una o più delle principali attività di vita dell'individuo. Il consiglio di amministrazione intende esaminare attentamente le esigenze di questa popolazione e intraprendere attività che affrontano le questioni dell'accessibilità per queste persone.




U.S. Access Board recognized electromagnetic sensitivity as real and a potential disability in 2002

Advancing full access and inclusion for all”
In 2002, the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, also known as the United States Access Board, issued new accessibility guidelines for recreation facilities covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
The Access Board is an independent federal agency that promotes equality for people with disabilities through leadership in accessible design and the development of accessibility guidelines and standards. Founded in 1973…”
During the process of developing these guidelines, the Board held public hearings, and it received “substantial” comment from those who are electromagnetically sensitive. In its final rule, the Access Board stated:
  • The Board recognizes electromagnetic sensitivities may be considered a disability under the ADA if they so severely impair neurological, respiratory or other functions of an individual that it substantially limits one or more of the individual’s major life activities.
  • The Board planned to develop technical assistance materials on best practices to accommodate the electromagnetically sensitive.
  • The Board planned to sponsor a project on indoor environmental quality which would develop an action plan for reducing electromagnetic fields in the built environment.
Here is the statement from the Final Rule, published in the Federal Register, September 3, 2002:

General Issues

Multiple Chemical Sensitivities and Electromagnetic Sensitivities

Individuals with multiple chemical sensitivities and electromagnetic sensitivities submitted a substantial number of written comments and attended the public information meetings on the draft final rule. They reported that chemicals used in recreation facilities, such as chlorine used in swimming pools and spas, and pesticides and synthetic fertilizers used on golf courses, are barriers that deny them access to those facilities. They requested the Board to include provisions in the final rule to make recreation facilities accessible for them.
The Board recognizes that multiple chemical sensitivities and electromagnetic sensitivities may be considered disabilities under the ADA if they so severely impair the neurological, respiratory or other functions of an individual that it substantially limits one or more of the individual’s major life activities. The Board plans to closely examine the needs of this population, and undertake activities that address accessibility issues for these individuals.
The Board plans to develop technical assistance materials on best practices for accommodating individuals with multiple chemical sensitivities and electromagnetic sensitivities. The Board also plans to sponsor a project on indoor environmental quality. In this project, the Board will bring together building owners, architects, building product manufacturers, model code and standard-setting organizations, individuals with multiple chemical sensitivities and electromagnetic sensitivities, and other individuals. This group will examine building design and construction issues that affect the indoor environment, and develop an action plan that can be used to reduce the level of chemicals and electromagnetic fields in the built environment.
Federal Register /Vol. 67, No. 170 /Tuesday, September 3, 2002 /Rules and Regulations
Here is the PDF of the final rule
The original link (no longer available) was http://www.access-board.gov/recreation/final.htm

giovedì 23 aprile 2020

USA: esiste una relazione tra COVID-19 ed implementazione del 5G ?

vi rimando ad uno studio condotto da Magda Havas che ha fatto una analisi statistica tra
https://magdahavas.com/is-there-an-association-between-covid-19-cases-deaths-and-5g-in-the-united-states/


I eventually found which U.S. cities had 5G coverage as of April 21, 2020 and compared those locations to covid-19 statistics for April 22, 2020.



Commenti da MAGDA HAVAS 

Researchers in life sciences tend to use a probability (p) of 0.05 as a cut-off point (and sometimes 0.01).  If the value for the test is below  0.05 it means that the data are significantly different with a confidence of 95%.  The lower the p value the more confidence we have in the data.  For values above p >0.05 we state they are not statistically significant.

Consequently … 

1.  for the number of tests conducted for Covid-19 the p value was 0.4 which means that the data were NOT signficicantly different.  There was no difference in the average number of tests done per million population.  This is good news.  Had there been a difference here we would not be able to compare the data sets.

2.  For the Cases/million we had a p value of 0.02, which means the data are significantly different, i.e. more cases/million of Covid-19 in states with 5G.

3.  For the Deaths/million we had a p value of 0.05, which is also significantly different, i.e. more deaths/million for states with 5G compared to states without 5G.

So the result show that people in states with 5G have a greater risk of getting Covid-19 and dying from it.

This needs to be verified and other places need to be examined.  If this is indeed the case … we are in deep doodoo (not a scientific term)!


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

altra indagine di ANGELA TSIANG (USA)

(Data sources: 
Air Quality Index:  http://www.usa.com/rank/us--air-quality-index--state-rank.htm )



LINK  al database di posta 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

8/5/2020


Update: I've been thinking about how to check if mmWave exposure is significantly correlated to the case and death rates and how to separate that from population density.  So I came up with a "mmWave exposure factor,"  calculated by adding up the populations of the cities with mmWaves in each state and dividing by the total population for that state.  Then I also checked for interaction of population density with this mmWave exposure factor, and it turns out this interaction is strongly correlated to the cases and death rates; i.e. population density acts synergistically with mmWave exposure in determining the cases and deaths rates.   Correlation of cases/million to this interaction is 0.703, and correlation of deaths/million to this interaction is 0.785.  See table below.



Population density is not only a measure of person to person contact, but also the amount of RF radiation a person is exposed to; for example, in higher population density areas, one is also exposed to higher levels of RF from their neighbor's routers, hot spots, and wireless devices.  Because RF exposure is inherent in population density, I sought a way to determine a mmWave exposure factor independent of population density.

Regression Models
Then I found regression models for cases and deaths rates.
When I ran regressions to model for cases/mil, deaths/mil, %cases/test, and %deaths/test by  including just population density as the one variable, they were not very good (R sq. very low).  When I ran regressions with just mmWave exposure, they were not very good either.  The regressions were best when they had population density as one variable, and either one of mmWave exposure or interaction between mmWave exposure and population density as the other variable.  The result was 4 decent regression models, with statistically significant p-values for all 3 variables (pop density, mmWave exposure, mmWave*population density) between 0.000 to 0.003.  The R sq. adj. was between 49% to 73%, and the R sq. predicted was between 22% to 47%

These models that incorporate mmwave exposure and the interaction between mmWave and population density were better than the ones calculated  based on population density and public transportation commute ratios.  In New York a consistent positive correlation between cases per capita and density  was calculated to be R-squared = 0.17, p < .01,  and cases per capita and public transportation commute ratios  was calculated to be R-squared = 0.25, p < .01).    https://medium.com/@cadre/does-density-determine-covid-19-destiny-lets-look-at-the-data-a43b60eac787  

In conclusion, I would say that the strong correlation factors and the regression modelling shows statistically significant evidence that mmWave exposure and the synergistic reaction between mmWave exposure and population density contribute to the increased cases/ million, deaths/million, %cases/test, and %deaths/test seen in mmWave states relative to the non-mmWave states.

Do we have any statisticians in the group?  If so, I would love to talk to you.

Angela Tsiang
USA