COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS
5G for Europe: An Action Plan
Thousands of published studies show biological and health effects from
electromagnetic fields. We now know the mechanism that can explain these effects.
The mechanism is a function of the electromagnetics of each cell—not solely about
heating effects from the radiation (on which present FCC guidelines are based).
Forced into a mental health facility for talking about 5G with her family doctor
Pam Barker | Director of TLB Europe Reloaded Project
An utterly remarkable and disturbing situation has transpired in the UK just in the last 3-4 days. Susanne Small (her Facebook name; see her posted FB video) was detained under the UK’s Mental Health Act on Monday because, during a recent visit to her GP, the doctor had determined she was a risk either to herself or others. On Tuesday, she appeared in a special segment of the Richie Allen show, which is linked to below (30 minutes). It’s well worth listening to.
Activists are familiar with Susanne’s concerns over the health effects of 5G technology and its quiet rollout. We’re also familiar with other topics she raises such as Agenda 21/2030, the work of Debra Tavares, etc. This is clearly someone who has done relevant research and, as we are fond of saying, ‘gone down the rabbit hole’.
As you’ll hear in the interview with Allen, done via her smartphone from the actual hospital, she had compiled research on 5G and gone down to her doctor’s office with it, without an appointment at 8am, presumably when the office had just opened. She believed that certain symptoms she had been getting, such as headaches, might be connected to cell towers, and had noticed a new large one had been installed in the neighborhood, although she was well aware that it wouldn’t have been operational at the time. The reaction from the doctor and staff was to basically send her on her way but leave the information behind, which she refused to do. During the subsequent consultation with her doctor, Susanne had the feeling that it was wise to leave, that the doctor had absolutely no interest in the research and viewed her as someone who was under a lot of stress.
A day later she experienced phone calls with withheld caller ID and had someone call on her at home. She refused to answer the door, and it was a day later – probably two days after the visit to the doctor – that police and mental health professionals arrived to detain her at a mental health facility.
This is what the UK government’s site, on the page titled Mental Health Act, says about being forcibly ‘sectioned’ or detained under it: People detained under the Mental Health Act need urgent treatment for a mental health disorder and are at risk of harm to themselves or others. Further down, it says:
Who decides that someone should be detained?
An emergency is when someone seems to be at serious risk of harming themselves or others. This can occur:
in private premises – police have powers to enter your home, if need be by force, under a Section 135 warrant. You may then be taken to a place of safety for an assessment by an approved mental health professional and a doctor. You can be kept there until the assessment is completed, up to a maximum of 72 hours.
in a public place – if the police find you in a public place and you appear to have a mental disorder and are in need of immediate care or control, they can take you to a place of safety (usually a hospital or sometimes the police station) and detain you there under Section 136. You will then be assessed by an approved mental health professional and a doctor. You can be kept there until the assessment is completed, up to a maximum of 72 hours
Notice how your home may be forcibly entered. Susanne had wrongly believed she was safe in her own home. The page also says that a person will be assessed and confined for up to 72 hours, but she may also be detained for up to 28 days under Section 2:
The length of time you could be detained depends on the type of mental health condition you have and your personal circumstances at the time. You could be detained for:
up to 28 days under Section 2 of the Mental Health Act
up to six months under Section 3 of the Mental Health Act, with further renewals
She is, however, hoping to be out by tomorrow (Friday), as she reports in the interview posted below.
It seems she had bombarded her doctor with information, probably too much as she readily admits. The mental health team had asked her about Donald Trump, whom she must have mentioned to her GP. Laughingly, she jokes to Richie, “thank God I didn’t mention MK Ultra!”. Probably it was also unwise to rush down to the office without an appointment. But as she correctly observes, even if an activist is using – unknowingly – what amounts to fake news or false information, that is still no indicator of questionable mental health.
Small is clearly informed, lucid and has a strong character. A UK doctor friend observed to me after listening to the interview below that while the GP had probably been overloaded with information, Small doesn’t sound like any sort of risk. Of an activist mindset, Small isn’t someone who is likely to back down. She’s been professionally employed for many years as she notes, and correctly observes that if it can happen to her, it can happen to anybody.
Treatment Research And NeuroSCience Evaluation of NeuroDevelopmental Disorders 9 September 2016 District Office 200 Douglas Street Petaluma, California 94952
ALERT – Just in 7/9/18
Open letter to Elon Musk
Planet Earth: Full-coverage 5G mobile radio radiation from orbit?
Dear Mr. Musk,
In Europe, too, we have received the news that you want to shoot thousands of satellites into space, so that 5G mobile radio can be present everywhere in the world (https://www.golem.de/news/spacex-elon-musk -will-11-943-satellite-for-the-internet-1703-126545.html; https://www.engadget.com/2017/06/21/esa-satellite-for-5g-partnership/).
From a purely technological point of view, this is a very good project. But have you also thought about what that means ecologically? Do you know that mobile radio can possibly cause cancer? And that many people suffer from electrosensitivity? Yes that there is evidence that mobile radio even catches animals and plants (https://ehtrust.org/worlds-largest-animal-study-on-cell-tower-radiation-confirms-cancer-link/)?
Please take the time to read up to date: National Toxicology Program. NTP technical report on the toxicology and carcinogenesis studies in B6C3F1 / N mice exposed to whole-body radio frequency radiation at a frequency (1,900 MHz) and modulations (GSM and CDMA) used by cell phones (scheduled peer review, March 26, 2018) : https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/about_ntp/trpanel/2018/march/tr596peerdraft.pdf
As early as 2014, American mobile communications expert Martin Blank stated in his book “Overpowered”: The conventional classification into ionizing, possibly carcinogenic radiation and non-ionizing (mobile communications) is arbitrary. Also worth reading is Riadh W. Y. Habash: Bioeffects and Therapeutic Applications of Electromagnetic Energy, London / New York 2007 (149ff: Bioeffects and Health Implications of Radiofrequency Radiation). Based on the overall study situation, it was noted in a scientific article in 2014 that even weak radiation is harmful to health (M. Naziroglu / H. Akman: Effects of Cellular Phone and WiFi-Induced Electromagnetic Radiation on Oxidative Stress and Molecular Pathways in Brain, in: I Laher [Hg.]: Systems Biology of Free Radicals and Antioxidants, Berlin / Heidelberg 2014, 2431-2449). Also, the international BioInitiative Working Group has reported increasing evidence of a health risk associated with wireless technology. And read on http://microwavenews.com/news-center/gbms-rising-uk.
Your satellite project is already advanced. But even if a lot of money has been invested, it should be remembered: It should only be a matter of time until the fact of the health damage potential of mobile communications and especially of 5G mobile will not pass. We recommend all the more to let go of the satellite project. And in Europe, we ask you very much to inform other companies that have plans to do so.
It is enormously important to take a serious look at the possible health consequences – and then to reverse them if possible. Mr Musk, you have recently proven in other projects that you are flexible enough to rethink. That’s why we have the courage to write to you. Thank you for your understanding!
Dr. med. dent. Claus Scheingraber Roland Wolff
(Chairman) (Medical Physicist Board)
Prof. em. Prof. Dr. med. habil. Karl Hecht (Berlin)
Prof. Dr. Helmuth Kern (Esslingen)
Prof. Dr. Heinz Albert Friehe (Salzgitter)
Prof. Dr. Hans Schwarz (Regensburg)
Prof. Dr. Ingrid Gerhard (Heidelberg)
Dr. med. Joachim Mutter (Freiburg)
Dr. med. Christine Aschermann (Leutkirchen)
Dr. med. Cornelia Waldmann-Selsam (Fuldatal)
Dr. med. Markus Kern (Kempten)
Musk fails to reply
Dear friends, colleagues, members and colleagues!
As you’ve probably heard, many people and institutions are warning against building the future 5G Mobiulfunk network. Elon Musk plans to deploy over 10 000 near-Earth satellites to build a globally operating 5G mobile network. More at: https://www.golem.de/news/spacex-elon-musk-will-11-943-satelliten-fuer-das-internet-1703-126545.html. The transmission frequencies will operate in the biologically highly active region between 37.5 and 52.4 GHz.
The AEB therefore sent an “open letter” to Elon Musk on 18 June 2018 to warn of the health consequences. Unfortunately, no answer has been received until today. Below you will find here and as attachment the “Open Letter” to Elon Musk. Other co-signers are welcome!
Mr. Elon Musk
3500 Deer Creek Road
Palo Alto, CA 94304
Love for a healthy life Interested!
Thousands of satellites are to be shot into space for the global network, from where they are to irradiate the earth day and night with pulsed microwave radiation. In addition to the fact that the radiation exposure for all of us, for man and nature will increase sharply and lead us into a health policy and possibly even wanted disaster, I would like to draw attention to the impact on the living things in the seas. Has anyone ever thought of it, such as will the whales and dolphins go when the technically generated signals from the “All” electromagnetically pollute the waters of the oceans, and probably to an enormous extent? Water is an amplifier system for EMF, so to speak. Will they “go crazy” because they can not stand it like the bees? But who cares in our society? After all, it’s only interested in being online all the time and having a good reception … The Blue Planet and everything that lives on it is sacrificed on the altar of the Microwave Mania if the human species does not stop, itself and its own By the way, this characterizes humans as the stupidest species on this planet! Exceptions prove the rule…
The journalist and filmmaker (“Thank you for calling”) Klaus Scheidsteger has summarized in a recent article again what it is about 5G: https://www.raum-und-zeit.com/rz-online/artikel -archiv / raum-zeit-hefte-archiv / allen-jahrgaenge / 2018 / edition-211 / the-new-mobile-standard-5g.html (was published in February 2018, the article can be purchased under the link).
An online article in the very latest Swiss Timesletter is also dedicated to 5G madness:
as well as the Internet of Things, without which we shall not be allowed to live in the future, because ia. the EU requires it:
The appeal of the more than 180 scientists and physicians from 36 countries to the EU is still largely unknown: https://www.diagnose-funk.org/publikationen/artikel/detail&newsid=1220 because the Tagesschau has actually forgotten about it to report … I guess the Allgäuer Zeitung did not do it as well as the other daily newspapers … Presumably, the “mirror” has not reported and the other system media probably also not … Of course, they are all so busy on the evil Russians and write the poison gas attacks, because something “unimportant” falls down through …
There is an open letter to a mobile operator, who wants to launch about 10,000 mobile satellites into space. This can be read below. Too bad that he has so few signers … There are still some sought. Please contact the AEB.
Here is the forwarded e-mail message from the working group for electrobiology Munich:
The Federal Communications Commission is refusing to reverse a decision that will take a broadband subsidy away from many American Indians.
Under Chairman Ajit Pai’s leadership, the FCC voted 3-2 in November 2017 to make it much harder for Tribal residents to obtain a $25-per-month Lifeline subsidy that reduces the cost of Internet or phone service. The changes could take effect as early as October 2018, depending on when they are approved by the US Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
Small wireless carriers and Tribal organizations sued the FCC in the United States Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. They also filed a petition asking the FCC to stay its decision pending the outcome of the appeal.
But the FCC denied the stay petition in a decision released yesterday.
“Petitioners have not shown that they are likely to succeed on the merits of their claims,” the FCC said. “The 2017 Lifeline Order contains a comprehensive explanation of the basis for the Commission’s decision to limit enhanced Tribal support to rural Tribal areas, and to target such support to facilities-based providers.”
$25 subsidy eliminated in urban areas
Lifeline has more than 12 million subscribers, and an annual budget of $2.25 billion, indexed to inflation. Americans with incomes at or near federal poverty guidelines are eligible for Lifeline subsidies, but Pai has led several votes to limit the program’s ability to help poor people buy broadband or phone service. Lifeline is paid for by Americans through fees imposed on phone bills.
The FCC’s November vote eliminated the $25 subsidy entirely for Tribal residents who live in urban areas, claiming that the subsidy isn’t required to make service affordable in urban settings. (All Tribal residents are still eligible for a $9.25 monthly subsidy through Lifeline.)
In rural areas, the FCC vote barred Tribal residents from using the $25 subsidy to buy telecom service from resellers. Most wireless phone users who get Lifeline subsidies buy their plans from resellers rather than from “facilities-based” telecoms that operate their own networks. The FCC vote would thus dramatically limit rural Tribal residents’ options for purchasing subsidized service.
The petition filed by tribes and small carriers explained that large, facilities-based providers have been phasing out Lifeline support, leaving resellers as the best option for consumers.
“[A]pproximately two-thirds of eligible low-income consumers on Tribal lands have chosen non-facilities-based ETCs [eligible telecommunications carriers] as their Lifeline provider, demonstrating the overwhelming success of the model,” the petition to the FCC said. “At the same time, facilities-based wireless carriers have retreated from the Lifeline program across the country, including in many states home to American Indian tribes like [petitioner] Crow Creek [in South Dakota]. In more than a dozen states, AT&T and Verizon relinquished their status as ETCs. AT&T and Verizon continue to apply for and receive permission to relinquish their ETC status in additional states, and stopped applying for ETC status in new states long ago.”
As for the other two major nationwide carriers, T-Mobile has “largely phased out Lifeline service, explaining that Lifeline was not a ‘valuable or sustainable product for [its] base’ of subscribers,” the petition said. “Sprint is the only one that still participates meaningfully as a retail provider in the Lifeline program, but Sprint does not provide Lifeline service on Tribal lands.”
Separately, the FCC is considering a move that would kick resellers out of the Lifeline program nationwide, not just in tribal areas.
FCC made changes illegally, petition says
The petition to stop the Tribal changes was filed by Assist Wireless, Boomerang Wireless, Easy Telephone Services Company, the National Lifeline Association, the Crow Creek Sioux Tribe, and the Oceti Sakowin Tribal Utility Authority.
The petitioners argued that the FCC “failed to comply with its Tribal consultation requirements as required by law.” The FCC’s decision to impose the changes without opening another proceeding violated federal notice-and-comment requirements and law requiring federal agencies to deal fairly with American Indian tribes, the petitioners argued.
Besides that, petitioners argued that the new restrictions are illegal in part because the FCC’s “claimed benefits are entirely speculative, contradict the record in this proceeding,” and fail to account for “the relative efficiency of resellers that specialize in serving these difficult markets.”
Pai’s decision also “reflect[s] an unreasonable departure from over a decade of Commission policy finding that requiring [telecoms] to have facilities would undermine the goals of the Lifeline program,” the petitioners wrote.
The FCC denied that it violated the process requirements or that it failed to properly justify its decision. “The Commission clearly articulated its belief that limiting the enhanced Tribal benefit to facilities-based providers would better incentivize those providers to expand their networks in underserved areas,” the commission wrote in its denial of the petition.
Pai hasn’t found much public support in his quest to remove resellers from the Lifeline program. As we’ve previously reported, even broadband industry lobbyists and conservative think tanks have spoken out against restrictions on resellers, saying that it would deprive poor people of broadband choices without achieving Pai’s stated goal of expanding network construction.
The petitioners’ court case against the FCC is ongoing, with final briefs from both sides due by August 27.