Scientists For Wired Technology lobbies local, state and federal government to support measures that will protect all from the hazards of exposures to pulsed,data-modulated Radiofrequency Microwave Radiation (RF Microwave radiation) — a known human carcinogen. As duration, not intensity, is the most important factor in RF/MW radiation exposures, the collateral damage of the misguided and ill-advised Wireless revolution will be us.
S4WT Tip of the Day . . .
Note: every budding scientist (and non-scientist) needs to buy and install a Ubiquiti EdgeRouter X Advanced Gigabit Ethernet Router to protect your home Network from brute force attacks. It takes only two-minutes and about 11,000 guesses to guess the WPS password printed on the bottom of any WPS-Enabled Wireless router. Do this today. (Disclosure: I own no stock in Ubiquiti or gain any compensation for this recommendation; I am just a satisfied customer.)
We seek to keep all residential neighborhoods, schools, parks, and wilderness areas as free as possible from RF/MW radiation exposures. This starts by recognizing the the long-con at the root the 1996 Telecommunications Act and the series of FCC regulations passed in the last 20 years that forces down communities’ throats too many unnecessary and redundant wireless networks that deprive many of their constitutional rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness without unreasonable government surveillance, intrusion into our homes and forced exposures to a known toxic agent, RF/MW radiation, that has been proven to cause two forms of cancer, DNA damage and other adverse biological effects.
Scientists For Wired Technology quotes many scientists’ research and recommendations in their respective published papers, web sites and social media posts, and we link to the original sources. These scientists are not on the editorial team at Scientists for Wired Technology and the inclusion of these quotes does not imply their endorsement of the statements made on this web site.
The solution for high-speed, high-bandwidth internet is to install fiber-optic cables to every business, home and school, similar to what the city of San Francisco is planning to do:
Fiber-optic networks, which transmit data via light over glass fibers, are considered “future-proof” because their speed can be upgraded simply by swapping out equipment on each end. Socia said most experts think fiber networks could have decades of use. Copper wiring, which currently predominates, has built-in speed limits because signals degrade as they get faster.
Fiber-optic networks enable data transmissions that are much faster, more reliable, safe for humans and other living organisms, and far more secure from cyber and physical attack when compared to any wireless network which relies on sending data via pulsed microwave radiation (Wi-Fi, 4G/LTE and 5G). In addition, fiber-optic cables use only a fraction of the energy required by wireless networks.
The United States needs One Big Dig — a coordinated private/public infrastructure project to connect every business, school, home and farm with fiber optical cables. This would create an invaluable and defensible national asset, as well provide jobs to many thousands of Americans. Private companies could then share access to this national asset to offer competing services, much in the same way that long distance telecommunications providers shared access to one integrated system of copper telephone wires.
The following Verizon videos prove that Verizon DOES NOT NEED Close Proximity Microwave Radiation Antenna – Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (CPMRA-WTFs) installed in residential areas every 500 to 1,000 feet — the 4G/5G WTFs can be 3,000 feet away on Macro Towers.
CNBC: 6/25/18 — Verizon CEO, Lowell McAdam, on The Future of 5G
Verizon: 5/23/18 — The Power (and Reach) of 28 GHz and 39 GHz Millimeter Waves
Lowell McAdam, CEO of Verizon:
"When [Verizon] went out in these 11 [5G test] markets, we tested for well over a year, so we could see every part of foliage and every storm that went through. We have now busted the myth that [5G frequencies] have to be line-of-sight — they do not. We busted the myth that foliage will shut [5G] down . . . that does not happen. And the 200 feet from a home? We are now designing the network for over 2,000 feet from transmitter to receiver, which has a huge impact on our capital need going forward. Those myths have disappeared."
Jason L., Verizon Field Engineer:
"[Verizon 5G] is really high frequency [28,000 MHz and 39,000 MHz], so everybody thinks it doesn’t go very far, but it’s a really big pipe and so that’s what allows you to gain the super fast speeds . . We’re 3,000 feet away from our radio node. the cool thing about this is that we did not move the radio node. It’s pointing down to serve the customers in that area " . . . here even 3,000 feet away, we’re still getting 1,000 [Megabits per second] speeds . . . So now we’ve driven about 1/3 of a mile away [1,760 feet ] from the radio node. we are still getting very good speeds even though we have foliage in between [800 Megabits per second]."
This is substantial evidence that proves that the LEAST INTRUSIVE MEANS to close a Significant Gap
in Wireless coverage is to install 4G/5G WTFs on macro towers that are 3,000 feet away from residences.
So Why Did Rudy Reyes from Verizon Lie to California Assembly Members in 2017?
Rudy Reyes, Esq., Vice President
Verizon California, Inc., 201 Spear Street, 7th Floor, San Francisco CA 94105
415-228-1465 | email@example.com
Listen to what Rudy Reyes, VP of Verizon said @ 2:36:20 in the video:
A cell tower might give you five to ten miles radius of coverage, but the small cells for 4G/LTE densification goes a few blocks . . . for 5G, the spectrum is going to be millimeter wave spectrum, that spectrum goes much shorter distances, maybe 100 feet and requires a line of sight . . . we are going to need about five to ten times the number of 5G nodes, as we will 4G/LTE nodes . . . so it is really about p times q, price times quantity. So this cost formula needs to pencil out in order to bring 5G to California . . . just for dowtown LA, Verizon alone is going to need 200 to 300 small cells just to densify for 4G/LTE. Then you have to multiply that for five to ten times for when we get to 5G.
- View the video of the 6/28/17 CA Assembly Local Government Committee Hearing
- Go to http://www.calchannel.com/video-on-demand
- Click on VIDEO for Assembly Local Government Committee — Jun 28, 2017
- View from 0:19:28 to 3:05:10; Reyes is at 2:36:20
S4WT Comment: This means 1,000 to 3,000 5G small cells in downtown LA, which according to Dr. Google is 4.75 square miles. This would spread 300 4G Small cells + 3,000 5G Small Cells over 4.75 square miles for Verizon alone. If each major Wireless Carrier does the same (AT&T, Verizon, Sprint and T-Mobile), that’s 3300 x 4 = 13,200 small cells in roughly an area 11,500 feet by 11,500 feet or one small cell for every 10,000 square feet – understanding that an average Safeway is 50,000 square feet
On 3/15/18, Michigan State Senator Scott Colbeck Tells the Truth on the Senate Floor
Michigan State Senator Scott Colbeck:
I have serious concerns regarding evidence of adverse health impacts due to a specific class of technology wonders — wireless transmitters — , especially high-frequency, high-power wireless transmitters. The most ubiquitous examples of wireless technology are** cell phones, Wi-Fi routers, and smart meters**. This technology is found in our homes, our workplaces, hospitals, and in our schools. For techies such as myself, it provides unparalleled convenience by connecting a growing number of devices to the Internet of Things.
However, it is becoming increasingly evident that this convenience comes at a price, and it comes at a price to the health of many of our citizens, most notably children, babies in the womb, and even adults who suffer from [electromagnetic] sensitivity to wireless transmissions. A few weeks ago, I distributed sample data to each of you from scientific studies of the effects of radio frequency emissions compiled by www.bioinitiative.org that highlight the adverse health effects of various profiles of wireless transmissions.
The adverse health effects identified by these studies are very serious. These effects include cancer, neurological problems, immune system disorders, and reproductive harm. It has been demonstrated that radio frequency microwave radiation can have adverse impacts at the cellular level including harmful mutations of human DNA. Most alarming of all is that children are most vulnerable to these adverse impacts, including children in the womb of pregnant mothers.
It is for this reason that Wi-Fi in schools represents a particularly significant health risk, not just for students but also for pregnant teachers. Classrooms can have as many as one transmitter for every 10 students. Countries such as France and Israel have responded to these health concerns by passing laws restricting the use of Wi-Fi in schools. Yesterday, this body passed a suite of bills designed to protect Michigan’s children. Today, we are proposing to do the exact opposite and put our children at increased risk.
We are now discussing the deployment of 5G networks throughout our state. 5G networks operate in the 24-90 GHz spectrum. This is a much higher frequency than the current 2.4 GHz or 5 GHz frequencies found in current Wi-Fi networks. High frequency transmissions don’t travel well through solid objects so 5G will likely require one transmitter for every two to ten homes .
This is a much higher density than current cell tower distribution which has already been associated with significant health risks. This legislation makes matters worse. Under these bills, local units of government are prohibited from enacting ordinances that would provide safe havens for citizens with sensitivity to high-frequency radio frequency [microwave] emissions.
In the wake of the 1996 federal Telecommunications Act, the Federal Communications Commission, not the Centers for Disease Control, is responsible for regulating human exposure standards. The FCC has established maximum [public exposure to RF microwave radiation at] power density thresholds for radio frequency emissions in the 24-90 GHz spectrum of 5G networks as [10,000,000 µW/m2]. This exposure threshold is based upon thermal [effects] analogous to microwave cooking but has yet to be defined on the basis of nonthermal [effects].
[Non-Ionizing] radiation has been proven to disrupt basic cell functions at well below the thermal thresholds promoted by the FCC. As a result, any concerns about radiation exposure are routinely greeted with the words, “emissions are well within FCC guidelines.”
The issue is that these guidelines indicate acceptable radiation levels which are orders of magnitude above what has been demonstrated as safe when non-thermal effects are considered. The FCC guidelines are clearly insufficient. Many of us are rightly concerned about the hazards of cigarettes, lead levels, PFAS levels, and other harmful substances in our environment. I regret to inform you that we need to add electromagnetic radiation from wireless technology to this list.
In light of the policy initiatives before our body and our representatives in D.C. that would put our current wireless infrastructure on steroids, it is critically important that we evaluate the non-thermal health impacts of this technology before we invest billions of dollars on these systems.
Article IV, Section 51 of the Michigan Constitution states, “The public health and general welfare of the people of the state are hereby declared to be matters of primary public concern. The legislature shall pass suitable laws for the protection and promotion of the public health.” Despite the convenience and the enormous economic growth potential associated with the internet of things, our primary concern as legislators is not convenience nor economic growth. As much as I love technology, per our Michigan Constitution, the public health and general welfare of the people of the state are supposed to be our primary concerns.
In this light, we need to proceed with caution before we fully immerse our citizens in the internet of things. I urge my colleagues to vote “no” on Senate Bill Nos. 637 and 894.