GeoEngineeringWatch.org is the most visited website in the world on the subject of covert climate engineering operations.
Dane Wigington begins this Q&A with his question for the day:
“If the human race remains on the current course of all-out planetary decimation, how much time do we have until the extinction of our species? And will we bring the entire web of life down with us? We’re getting close to that now and few even realize it.”
Dane and his callers cover many topics, including the link between HAARP and other ground-based, radio frequency transmitters, microwave transmission networks and other silent weapons for quiet wars.
A few quotes from Dane:
“So again, they’re using the atmosphere for a physics lab.”
“What’s happening in our skies will very soon determine our collective futures if it’s not stopped. At any point time, if those in power choose to, if they feel they’re losing control, they can put something much more lethal in this mix and put us all on our backs. Overnight. Literally.”
“We have a common thread of the various forms of mental deficiency with those in power — the common thread is this — a near total lack of comprehension as to the consequences of their actions even to themselves. Would they do this to themselves? Yes, they have and they continue to.”
“Those in power don’t care how toxic these elements are. And for those that don’t know what graphene is — look it up… Graphene toxilogical effects — it reads like a horror story. It’s a vascular machete, destroying parts of our bodies’ vascular system and countless other downstream elements. And it can be used for biological carrier, can be used to carry some sort of biological agent from the clouds to the ground.”
Those who follow this site will easily see the link between the toxic ingredients in the so-called covid vaccines and similar toxic nanoparticles that have, for decades, been pumped into our skies, continue to kill off forests and vegetation, and are being breathed in by all humans and all animal life on the planet.
On this Coming Collapse Q and A session, a highly credentialed scientist from a top 10 science testing facility joins us for a shocking front line report.
Recent testing has now confirmed that the highly toxic element graphene is in our precipitation, along with an already long list of toxins including aluminum nanoparticles.
Surfactants have also been confirmed in recent precipitation testing. Climate intervention operations are ubiquitously contaminating the entire planet and every breath we take.
How long do we have if the human race remains on the current course?
Please join us for this front line report on the most dire and immediate threats we collectively face.
[As a service to protect truth from censorship and to share widely, mirrored copies of this video are available at Truth Comes to Light Odysee, BitChute and Brighteon channels. All credit, along with our sincere thanks, goes to the original source of this video. Please follow links provided to support their work.]
Climate engineering researcher Dane Wigington contends the coming food shortage that President Biden recently mentioned is not because of the Ukraine/Russia conflict. Wigington explains, “The bottom line is we have crops collapsing all over the globe. Although the causes are many . . . climate engineering must be considered a core causal factor at this point. The assault against food producing regions has been relentless. . . . We can only consider it an assault against food production at this time.”
Wigington says time is short and predicts, “Based on the current rate of UV (ultraviolet) increase, it appears we may have a functional Ozone layer collapse in as little as 18 months. Nothing grows then. The heat in California is relentless, as well, because climate engineers are keeping a high pressure heat dome over the western U.S. For photosynthesis, as we approach 104 degrees, photosynthesis tapers off, and at 104 degrees, it stops completely. To blame the food shortages coming on the Russia/Ukraine scenario is to simply scapegoat it. . . . Climate engineering is the single biggest factor in the equation for the destruction of food production.”
It’s not just food production that is going to take a hit, but coastal communities and cities could be facing massively rising sea levels in a relatively short amount of time. Wigington says, “As we lose the Cryosphere, there is enough ice in Antarctica to raise sea levels 197 feet. In Greenland, there is enough ice to raise it another 21 to 24 feet. As the ice slides off these land masses, the land begins to rise up out of the ocean. That is called ‘glacial rebound,’ and that can raise the seal levels even further. . . . When the power structure cannot hide the severity of what is unfolding, you just can’t shut off this kind of thermal inertia. When they just can’t hide it and people panic, that’s when the law of the jungle will truly prevail. We are perilously close to that point.”
The planet is in total meltdown right now. It is melting down at a rate of seven Hiroshima bombs per second. It’s not just crops collapsing, but oceans are collapsing. We have ocean ecosystems all over the globe collapsing. . . . If you watch the mainstream media, it is a total distraction, and people are totally missing the point. Who cares about the price of gas if you have nothing to eat, and we are almost there. . . . We simply have to stop geoengineering very soon or we are not going to have anything to salvage. . . . If everyone can work together to reach a critical mass awareness, we can wake up our military brothers and sisters and those participating with private defense contractors. We have a chance of stopping these programs from the inside out. Then, we can allow the planet to respond on its own. We need to convey that blaming Russia on the coming food collapse is not reality. . . . If we can pull back the curtain . . . we may have a chance to salvage at least part of what remains of the planet’s life support system.”
Join Greg Hunter of USAWatchdog.com as he goes One-on-One with climate researcher Dane Wigington, founder of GeoEngineeringWatch.org for 3.29.22. (There is much more in the 41 min. interview.)
US government spokespeople—falling all over themselves to insist America would never ever set up, own, or fund biowar research labs in the Ukraine—
And would never lie about the subject—
Insisting America’s track record is clean—
And its motives pure as the driven snow—
So that’s it, right? Case closed.
Well, how about this for track record:
The US sends bio/chem/nuclear war materials and tech to a foreign nation.
Then threatens to invade that nation because it possesses weapons of mass destruction (WMD).
Inspectors travel to that nation.
The inspectors report they can’t find conclusive evidence of WMD.
The US invades that nation anyway. War.
“Well, we knew they had WMD because we sent WMD to them.”
How’s that for an insane situation and a war crime?
The foreign nation is of course Iraq. And George W Bush launched the war in 2003—with the approval of Congress.
If the federal government of that nation—AMERICA—told you, in 2022, ANYTHING about biowar labs or WMD, would you believe them?
Read on. Here is a strange twisted grotesque story of the US supplying WMD to Saddam Hussein. I wrote and published it in 2016.
Wherever the word “virus” appears or is implied, I now intend it to mean “serum containing many compounds, some of which are moderately toxic, but no proven viruses.”
Nevertheless, there’s plenty of other WMD. And by the way, one of the American suppliers? THE CDC. THE US CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL. You may have heard of them.
Here we go:
In 1975, the US signed on to an international treaty banning the production, use, and stockpiling of biological weapons. Ditto for chemical weapons, in 1993. Another treaty.
Here’s a quote from the Washington Post (9/4/13), “When the US looked the other way on chemical weapons”: “…The administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush authorized the sale to Iraq of numerous items…including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological viruses, such as anthrax and bubonic plague…”
Between 1985 and 1989, a US 501C3 firm, American Type Culture Collection, sent Iraq up to 70 shipments of various biowar agents, including 21 strains of anthrax.
Between 1984 and 1989, the CDC (Centers for Disease Control) sent Iraq at least 80 different biowar agents, including botulinum toxoid, dengue virus, and West Nile antigen and antibody.
This information on the American Type Culture Collection and the CDC comes from a report, “Iraq’s Biological Weapons Program,” prepared by the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies (CNS).
Then we have a comprehensive article by William Blum in the April 1998 Progressive called “Anthrax for Export.” Blum cites a 1994 Senate report confirming that, in this 1985-1989 time period, US shipments of anthrax and other biowar agents to Iraq were licensed by…drum roll, cymbal crash…the US Dept. of Commerce.
Blum quotes from the Senate report: “These biological materials were not attenuated or weakened and were capable of reproduction. It was later learned that these microorganisms exported by the United States were identical to those the United Nations inspectors found and removed from the Iraqi biological warfare program.”
This 1994 Senate report also indicates that the US exported to Iraq the precursors for chemwar agents, actual plans for chemical and biowar production facilities, and chemical-warhead filling equipment. The exports continued until at least November 28, 1989.
Blum lists a few other biowar agents the US shipped to Iraq. Histoplasma Capsulatum, Brucella Melitensis, Clostridium Perfringens, Clostridium tetani—as well as E. coli, various genetic materials, human and bacterial DNA.
Blum also points out that a 1994 Pentagon report dismissed any connection between all these biowar agents and Gulf War Illness. But the researcher who headed up that study, Joshua Lederberg, was actually a director of the US firm that had provided the most biowar material to Iraq in the 1980s: the American Type Culture Collection.
Newsday revealed that the CEO of the American Type Culture Collection was a member of the US Dept. of Commerce’s Technical Advisory Committee. See, the Dept. of Commerce had to license and approve all those exports of biowar agents carried out by the American Type Culture Collection. Get the picture?
Now, as to other US companies which dealt biowar or chemwar agents to Iraq—all such sales having been approved by the US government—the names of these companies are contained in records of the 1992 Senate hearings, “United States Export Policy Toward Iraq Prior to Iraq’s Invasion of Kuwait,” Senate Report 102-996, Senate Committee on Banking Housing and Urban Affairs, 102d Congress, Second Session (October 27, 1992):
Mouse Master (Georgia), Sullaire Corp (Charlotte, North Carolina), Pure Aire (Charlotte, North Carolina), Posi Seal (Conn.), Union Carbide (Conn.), Evapco (Maryland), BDM Corp (Virginia), Spectra Physics (Calif.).
There are about a dozen more.
This also from the Blum article: “A larger number of American firms supplied Iraq with the specialized computers, lasers, testing and analyzing equipment, and other instruments and hardware vital to the manufacture of nuclear weapons, missiles, and delivery systems. Computers, in particular, play a key role in nuclear weapons development. Advanced computers make it feasible to avoid carrying out nuclear test explosions, thus preserving the program’s secrecy. The 1992 Senate hearings implicated [Hewlett Packard, Palo Alto, CA — among others].”
Hewlett Packard said that the recipient of its shipments, Saad 16, was some sort of school in Iraq. But in 1990, the Wall St. Journal stated that Saad 16 was a “heavily fortified, state-of-the-art [Iraqi] complex for aircraft construction, missile design, and, almost certainly, nuclear-weapons research.”
If you review and think about all these WMD shipments from the US to Iraq, you understand there were many US officials and corporate employees who knew about them. Knew about them then, in the 1980s, and knew about them later, during 2 US wars in Iraq, when American soldiers were sent to Iraq, and could have been exposed to the bio/chem weapons.
And these officials and employees said nothing.
Officials at the CDC and the Dept. of Commerce said nothing. People at the American Type Culture Collection said nothing. People at the Pentagon and the CIA and the NSA said nothing. Presidents said nothing. Employees of the corporations who supplied germs and chemicals said nothing.
It’s clear that the US government shipped those bio/chem weapons to Iraq to aid it in its war against Iran. And yes, Iraq did use chemical weapons against Iran—and also against the Iraqi Kurds. Perhaps you remember that, much later, the US government repeated, over and over, “Saddam used chemical weapons against the Kurds, his own people,” as a reason for attacking Iraq.
So is there any limit beyond which the US government wouldn’t go to foment war, to wage war?
That’s a rhetorical question.
—end of my 2016 article—
NOW, in 2022, when spokespeople proclaim the US government is innocent of all charges relating to bio/chem/nuclear WMD, we’re supposed to believe them?
Really?
And we’re supposed to have faith in the CDC concerning COVID—when the CDC was one of Saddam’s suppliers?
Millions of pounds of toxic pesticides sprayed on feed crops for factory farm animals in the U.S. are threatening human health and wildlife and plants by destroying their native habitats, according to a new report by World Animal Protection and the Center for Biological Diversity.
Millions of pounds of toxic pesticides sprayed on feed crops for factory farm animals in the U.S. are threatening human health and wildlife and plants by destroying their native habitats, according to a new report by World Animal Protection and the Center for Biological Diversity.
The report, “Collateral Damage: How Factory Farming Drives Up the Use of Toxic Agricultural Pesticides,” exposes factory farm meat as a “major driver of pesticide use.”
An estimated 99% of animals raised for food in the U.S. come from factory farms, including about 70% of cows, 98% of pigs, 99% of turkeys, 98% of chickens raised for eggs and more than 99.9% of chicken raised for meat.
This expansion of industrial factory farms is not only “perpetuating enormous cruelty and suffering” for the billions of animals confined in them, the report stated, but it’s also pushing key ecosystems to the brink of collapse.
More factory farms mean more land converted to large, industrial corn and soy monocultures, researchers said. The majority of these crops don’t go to feeding humans, but instead are grown to feed animals in confinement, propping up Big Ag’s industrial livestock production model.
Researchers found from 2018 to 2019, an estimated 2.6 million acres of American grasslands were plowed to grow just a handful of crops: corn, soy and wheat.
According to “Collateral Damage”:
“An enormous portion of our agricultural lands, roughly one-third, are used for mass-producing corn and soy, the vast majority of which is not for human consumption. Globally, roughly 67–77% of soy produced is used as feed for livestock, and 36–45% of the corn produced in the U.S. is used as feed.
“Not only are our existing agricultural lands heavily used to produce just these two crops, but worse, wildlands are continuing to be converted to cropland in order to grow more.”
Using data from 2018, the most recent year it was available, researchers found that an “estimated 235,976,274 — ¼ billion — pounds of herbicides and insecticides were applied in the U.S. just to the corn and soybeans grown for farmed animal feed.”
These pesticides include paraquat, glyphosate, atrazine, chlorpyrifos and bifenthrin — all of which are being applied in massive amounts to corn and soy in the U.S., Latin America and Asia.
The result is a “global pesticide market [that] continues to grow in tandem with the industrial factory farming industry,” researchers said.
Dumping massive amounts of toxic pesticides into the environment threatens delicate ecosystems, often killing beneficial insects, aquatic life and other species, many of which are already endangered.
“Foxes and bats, migratory birds, bumblebees, and prairie butterflies, are all imperiled by grassland conversion and industrial agriculture,” the report noted.
No species are spared when toxic pesticides are continually dumped into the environment, researchers said, citing a 2005 study that estimated 72 million birds are killed each year by pesticides.
According to the authors of the new report, agricultural pesticides affect humans, too, as they often pollute surface and groundwater which can lead to contaminated drinking water.
Science shows preserving wildlife and biodiversity is key to the planet’s health, the researchers said, noting that biodiversity promotes clean air, fresh water, healthy soil and crop pollination.
Eating less meat and dairy, and more plants, helps protect biodiversity, the authors said, but it’s also important that when people do eat animal products, they choose products made from animals raised outdoors and on pasture.
In addition to making dietary changes, researchers also called for holding large corporations accountable, particularly those that are perpetuating biodiversity loss by profiting off industrial agricultural systems that harm human health and the planet.
“Protecting biodiversity and wild animal habitats requires reimagining how we are producing and consuming protein, including by ending the factory farming of animals for meat and dairy,” the report concluded.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency approved the world’s largest release of genetically engineered mosquitoes, despite warnings by public health experts.
In defiance of science and public health concerns, Monday the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved the mass release of billions of experimental genetically engineered (GE) mosquitoes into the U.S.’ most populous and agriculturally significant states.
The British biotechnology company Oxitec was granted an experimental use permit for the release of a genetically engineered version of the species Aedes aegypti across Fresno, Tulare, San Bernadino and Stanislaus Counties in California and in Monroe County in Florida.
This will be the biggest release of GE insects in the world.
EPA’s approval came despite growing concerns raised by scientists, public health experts and environmental groups about potential impacts of the experimental releases on public health, the environment and endangered species.
No publicly available data supports Oxitec’s claims that GE mosquitoes will reduce incidence of mosquito-borne diseases.
An independent peer-reviewed study from Yale University scientists revealed that over two years of continual releases of the GE mosquitoes at a test site in Brazil failed to reduce populations of Aedes aegypti.
The Yale study also found that the GE mosquitoes bred with local Aedes aegypti, resulting in hybrid mosquitoes in the wild that may be more aggressive, more difficult to eradicate and may increase the spread of mosquito-borne disease.
“Scientists have found genetic material from GE mosquitoes in wild populations at significant levels, which means GE mosquitoes are not sterile. GE mosquitoes could result in far more health and environmental problems than they would solve,” said Dana Perls, food and technology program manager at Friends of the Earth, and a California resident.
“EPA needs to do a real review of potential risks and stop ignoring widespread opposition in the communities where releases will happen.”
The experimental release will purportedly investigate whether the GE mosquito can reduce the population of Aedes aegypti mosquitoes — one species that can carry yellow fever, dengue, chikungunya and Zika.
However, California does not have any cases of these diseases, as reported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In addition, the Aedes aegypti mosquito is not prevalent in California.
“This experiment is unnecessary and even dangerous, as there are no locally acquired cases of dengue, yellow fever, chikungunya or Zika in California,” said Jaydee Hanson, policy director for the International Center for Technology Assessment and Center for Food Safety.
”Releasing billions of GE mosquitoes makes it likely that female GE mosquitoes will get out and create hybrid mosquitoes that are more virulent and aggressive. Other public health strategies, including the use of Wolbachia infected mosquitoes, could better control the Aedes aegypti in California and Florida.”
The EPA did not publicly release any data from Oxitec field trials in Florida or Brazil and key information about health effects, including allergenicity and toxicity, was redacted from the company’s application for a permit.
EPA did not require key scientific assessments, including an endangered species assessment, public health impact analysis or caged trials ahead of any environmental release. The EPA declined to convene a Scientific Advisory Panel as it does for other new pesticides.
“Once released into the environment, genetically engineered mosquitoes cannot be recalled,” said Dr. Robert Gould, president of San Francisco Bay Physicians for Social Responsibility and California resident. “Rather than forge ahead with an unregulated open-air genetic experiment, we need precautionary action, transparent data and appropriate risk assessments.”
Despite strong public opposition, in April 2021, Oxitec and the Florida Keys Mosquito Control Board began the release of half a billion genetically engineered mosquitoes into Monroe County, Florida.
Neither the mosquito control board nor Oxitec informed community residents about the locations of release until three days beforehand, and there was no informed consent by affected community members prior to release.
Following the EPA’s approval, California’s Department of Pesticide Regulation and local mosquito abatement districts will also decide whether to approve the permit for release.
If approved, billions of GE mosquitoes will be released over a 2-year period in 4 counties in California, beginning in 2022, and the current GE mosquito release in Monroe County, Florida, will be extended for another 2 years.
Center for Food Safety‘s mission is to empower people, support farmers and protect the earth from the harmful impacts of industrial agriculture.
Since it first went on the market in 1974, glyphosate has been used for weed control, as an exfoliant to eradicate unwanted vegetation and illegal crops, and as a crop desiccant—a chemical applied to crops to dry them out more quickly before harvest.
What is glyphosate?
As a non-selective herbicide, it kills most plants. Scientists now link glyphosate to a number of human health problems, from cancer and neurological diseases to endocrine disruption and birth defects. But the full range of glyphosate’s health effects remains unknown.
What is glyphosate used for?
Various formulations of glyphosate-based herbicides, like Monsanto’s Roundup, are used in agriculture and forestry. Since the mid-1990s, global use has risen dramatically, thanks to the introduction of genetically engineered “Roundup Ready” crops like corn, soybeans, cotton, and alfalfa that resist damage from the herbicide. Today, Roundup and other glyphosate-based herbicides are also frequently used on lawns, gardens, parks, and school grounds for weed control.
Where is glyphosate?
Glyphosate not only enters our bodies when we come in direct contact with it, but when we breathe, eat, and drink.(Credit: summerbl4ck/flickr)
The widespread use of glyphosate makes it ubiquitous in the environment. Researchers have found it in our food, soil, air, groundwater, surface waters like lakes and rivers, and even in rainwater. That means glyphosate not only enters our bodies when we come in direct contact with it, but when we breathe, eat, and drink.
As worldwide use of glyphosate has increased during the past 25 years or so, human exposures to glyphosate-based herbicides have also risen significantly. A 2017 study found that human glyphosate exposure increased more than 500% in two decades.
Why is glyphosate a health concern?
Emerging research suggest glyphosate could be associated with shorter pregnancies, which can be detrimental to maternal health and increase the risk of infant mortality and learning problems in children. (Credit: Anna Carolina Vieira Santos/flickr)
Recent health studies are prompting calls for more scrutiny of glyphosate toxicity. Research now links glyphosate to health problems including cancer, reproductive problems, neurological diseases like ALS, endocrine disruption, and birth defects. Researchers are also beginning to explore potential impacts of glyphosate on pregnancy. Emerging findings suggest glyphosate could be associated with shorter pregnancies. Shorter pregnancies can be detrimental to maternal health and increase the risk of infant mortality and learning problems as children develop.
In 2015, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer classified glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen. However, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has long maintained that glyphosate poses no risk for human health when used according to the manufacturer’s instructions—a finding criticized by many scientists.
While most health research on glyphosate to date focuses on cancer, there is much that science doesn’t yet know about its other potential impacts on human health. Much more research is needed to understand the full range of effects, how they may differ in children and adults, and the extent of glyphosate’s environmental impacts. Leading environmental health researchers, including EHN’s chief scientist Pete Myers, have called for more investigation and better monitoring of glyphosate in water, food, and human bodies.
In addition, scientists have raised concerns about the other ingredients in glyphosate-based herbicides. While glyphosate is the active ingredient, companies don’t have to publicly disclose other proprietary chemicals in these herbicide formulations. Consequently, regulators and researchers can’t fully study these “inert” chemicals to determine their health effects—alone and in combination with each other. Some scientists and activists want to reform the regulatory system so that companies can’t keep these chemicals secret.
Why are there so many glyphosate lawsuits right now?
Tens of thousands of lawsuits have been filed by people claiming that Roundup and other glyphosate-based herbicides caused their cancer. (Credit: Mike Mozart/flickr)
The World Health Organization’s 2015 declaration that glyphosate probably causes cancer opened the floodgates to litigation. The German company Bayer A.G. bought Monsanto in 2018, and tens of thousands of lawsuits have been filed against the company by people claiming that Roundup and other glyphosate-based herbicides caused their cancer, especially non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
Most claimants in these lawsuits worked in jobs like agriculture, maintenance, landscaping, and other professions with significant exposure risk, or used the products long-term on their lawns and gardens. They say the companies failed to adequately warn the public about health risks.
In 2021, Bayer announced it would replace glyphosate in all lawn and garden products sold in the United States by 2023. The company said the removal of glyphosate from these products is “exclusively to manage litigation risk and not because of any safety concerns,” and indicated it has no plans to remove glyphosate from professional and agricultural market products in the U.S.
One group that’s been largely excluded from glyphosate lawsuits is migrant farmworkers, who are on the front lines when it comes to glyphosate exposure. EHN found that fear of retaliation, and a lack of legal resources and legal immigration status, has diminished migrant farmworkers’ ability to seek justice and compensation.
Where is glyphosate used most?
Glyphosate is the most used pesticide on agricultural crops in the U.S., according to a 2019 analysis by the Midwest Center for Investigative Reporting. The Midwest, California, and Texas represent about three-quarters of agricultural glyphosate use in the U.S., with the Midwest alone comprising a full two-thirds of total use.
Glyphosate’s popularity comes in part from the fact that it is effective and relatively cheap. Low-cost versions from China and other countries with relatively lax environmental and health regulations flooded the market as glyphosate patents expired in the 1990s, making it even cheaper. This helps explain why its use has increased so dramatically in the past two decades. But some local, state, and national governments are bucking that trend.
Where is glyphosate banned?
Glyphosate has been or will soon be banned in at least 10 countries, including Mexico, Germany, Saudi Arabia, and Vietnam, and at least 15 others have restricted its use, according to Human Rights Watch. Individual cities and counties, including Los Angeles, Seattle, Miami, Baltimore, Austin, and Portland, have taken action to restrict or ban glyphosate, as have some states.
Unfortunately, glyphosate is hard to avoid. We can’t stop breathing, eating, or drinking water.
However, avoiding GMO foods and eating more organic foods when possible can help. Choosing non-toxic methods of weed control for your lawn and garden also limits exposure. Joining with others to ban glyphosate-based products (and other pesticides) in schools, parks, and your community at large are other effective ways to reduce local exposures.
Ways to take action on glyphosate
Farmers from the Ecuador-Colombia border region voice concerns about economic and health impacts of aerial glyphosate spraying. (Credit: Cancillería del Ecuador)
EHN has been reporting on glyphosate since we started 20 years ago. Monitoring our coverage of glyphosate legislation, litigation, and health research is a great way to stay informed on the latest developments. Check out our extensive story archive: You’ll find dozens of glyphosate stories by EHN as well as other leading news organizations. All of EHN’s stories are free to read, share, and republish with attribution.
Link up with other concerned residents in your community to share information and take action.
Here are a few links to organizations keeping track of the latest science on glyphosate and working to hold regulators, politicians, corporations, and employers accountable for protecting human health:
TCTL editor’s note: Below you will find a collection of articles related to biolabs, bioweapons, geoengineering, “viruses” and more. Highlighted is Greg Reese’s recent video on the biolabs in the Ukraine. (A transcript is provided below his video.)
This is offered as a connect-the-dots sample of articles as we continue to look for the truth about the apparent long-term plan for global domination and the enslavement of humanity.
See these articles for more understanding about the fraud embedded in the field of virology, which spawned the fraud of vaccines, and the history of modern medicine.
For years now, Russia has made verifiable claims that the U.S. is running secret biological weapons labs around their borders.
And while western media now claims this to be misinformation, back in 2013 they reported on it.
While the United States and ‘murder incorporated’ have been waging illegal wars all across the world in the name of democracy, Russia has been quietly selling energy and minding their own business.
And according to National Geographic, this was the reason why the Pentagon was building these bioweapons labs in the first place — because Russia was entirely quiet on the subject and the U.S. wanted to get ahead of them.
The initial biolab in Kazakhstan was built by the U.S., for a hundred million dollars, to store high-risk diseases such as plague and anthrax, and was hoping to attract scientists who might otherwise create biological weapons of mass destruction for someone else.
In order to keep the world safe, the U.S. has since built several labs in Kazakhstan. Most recently a biosafety level 4 lab to be completed in early 2022.
As early as 2004, the Pentagon’s defense threat reduction agency DTRA began creating a network of biolabs for infectious diseases in Uzbekistan. And within a few years after operations began, outbreaks of unknown diseases were reported in the same areas as the labs.
In Georgia leaked documents show that the U.S. embassy has been transporting deadly pathogens in human blood as diplomatic cargo in a scheme where private U.S. contractors, working for three different U.S. biolabs, have been given diplomatic immunity to do so.
Shortly after Russia invaded Ukraine, @WarClandestine released a video with maps of U.S. biolabs matching up with maps of the recent attack, suggesting that Russia was securing these top secret biolabs.
Western media claims this is false but fails to debunk it. And once the video goes viral the U.S. embassy in Ukraine is caught deleting evidence of these labs from their website — but not before an independent journalist was able to copy documents showing 11 Ukrainian biolabs funded by the Pentagon.
The Russian embassy to Bosnia has accused the U.S. of filling Ukraine with biolabs, which were very possibly used to study methods for destroying the Russian people at the genetic level.
And we now know that the so-called mRNA vaccines are destroying people at the genetic level. We now officially know that COVID-19 is a manmade bioweapon.
We know that it was funded by elements of the NIH and Peter Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance. We know that it was made in Wuhan China.
And so, what isn’t threatening about the U.S. encircling Russia with top-secret biolabs?
And who on earth thinks it’s a coincidence that everyone involved in the United Nation’s Great Reset are now the Ukraine’s greatest allies of all time?
The mercenaries and war profiteers in America are getting excited about making short term profits off the dead. But the only ones who will benefit from this war are the crooks at the top who have been caught committing the most heinous crime against humanity in all of recorded history.
And the only righteous way out of this is to hold these crooks accountable.
See related articles below for more conversation related to uncovering what is really going on in these biolabs and how this relates to exposing the deception at the core of “virology”, parasites and mycoplasma as bioweapons, possible causes of so-called Covid-19 symptoms, the hidden controllers’ attempts to weaponize life, and more:
The so called “fact checkers” are shutting down legitimate science debate regarding climate intervention operations and countless other critically important issues. Our right to free speech is in the balance, it’s time to hold the fact checkers legally accountable for their actions. The 15 minute video report below outlines the context of the legal action being taken against the sole scientist responsible for Facebook’s censorship of GeoengineeringWatch.org and The Dimming documentary.
The two page press release for the legal action filed against Dr. Douglas MacMartin can be viewed in the PDF below.
Lone Scientist Triggers Facebook Censorship of Climate Science Data
Shasta,CA—Should an individual scientist have the right to censor scientific data from the public? What if that data had disastrous implications for both human health and the longevity of Earth’s ecosystems? What if the conclusions don’t conform to official narratives, but are backed up with scientific testing, recorded testimony from former Federal and State scientists, high ranking military members, physicians, pilots, industry insiders and other experts with key insights into the subject matter at hand?
A recent lawsuit filing in the Superior Court of Shasta County, California by Dane Wigington, lead researcher at Geoengineeringwatch.org, may answer these questions with international implications.
Dane Wigington is seeking damages against Dr. Douglas MacMartin (aka Douglas MacMynowski), professor at Cal-Tech and Cornell University, alleging MacMartin’s actions as an “independent fact checker,” triggered Facebook’s censorship of the Geoengineering Watch 2021 documentary film TheDimmingand subsequently all other forms of affiliated data posted on Facebook. (View the full film of The Dimming)
“Dr. MacMartin’s actions have not only done very real and verifiable damage to many years of research and publication efforts,” stated Wigington on his weekly national radio broadcast GlobalAlert News, “but more importantly, his attempt to stifle legitimate scientific discussion, to suppress results from methodically collected data on an issue of such dire importance, has deprived much of the public access to this critical information. They have a right to know about the ongoing global climate intervention operations.”
As chronicled in Wigington’s film The Dimming, Geoengineering Watch conducted high altitude atmospheric particulate testing in a NOAA (NationalOceanicandAtmosphericAdministration)flying laboratory. Air samples were collected from visible trails being emitted by large jet aircraft and thenanalyzed by scientists using electron microscopy at a world-renowned US laboratory. The scientists were able to identify primary climate engineering elements, as named in climate engineering proposals and weather modification patents, including aluminum and barium nanoparticles.
“The title of the documentary is in reference to the climate science community’s stated objective of geoengineering, or solar radiation management operations, to reflect or ‘dim’ a percentage of the sun’s incoming thermal radiation in a desperate, dangerous and unimaginably destructive attempt to slow the advance of global warming,” Wigington reports.
According to the lawsuit, within weeks of being released in early 2021, The Dimming documentary was flagged as “false information” by Facebook because of MacMartin’s sole claims. The suit notes that MacMartin did not present any data corroborating his accusations or refuting the data presented by Wigington, leaving one asking, should any single scientist be able to censor data from the public that they feel is false without providing counter evidence to back their assertion?
What was once a discipline driven by data and discovery, some areas of science are becoming both politicized and personal. Confrontational communications from MacMartin are detailed in the lawsuit, including a 2018 WBAI radio program featuring an on-air debate between MacMartin and Wigington (listen to the full radio broadcast here). “[MacMartin’s] demeanor toward me was very evident during this exchange. Is it even remotely reasonable to consider Dr. Douglas MacMartin as an unbiased fact checker?” asked Wigington.
“It appears that I am the only individual ever targeted by MacMartin on this subject before or since Facebook’s censorship of The Dimming,” Wigington shared with his listeners, “Perhaps it has something to do with the million dollar grant he’s been awarded to study geoengineering?” As part of his work at Cornell and Cal-Tech, MacMartin’s studies include the geoengineering arena and he recently received a one million dollar grant to study sunshine deflection to reduce the impacts of climate change. (See full grantlistinghere)
MacMartin’s grant is one of many projects in the climate science community purporting to research potential options for offsetting the Earth’s warming climate, but Wigington insists they are not just proposals. “Climate engineering projects have been funded, studied and implemented world-wide for decades. We have documented patents, Federal budgets, high ranking military testimony… so to pretend these programs are in the initial phases of study is simply not backed up by the evidence,” reports Wigington.
When differing conclusions are reached regarding scientific data, shouldn’t the scientific method, and not censorship, be utilized to find clarity and separate fact from fiction? Should one person, regardless of their resume, be able to decide what is credible and worthy of concern for the general public?
With trust in scientists and authorities at an all-time low, and the word “science” being used to silence those whose claims run counter to the prevailing narrative, this lawsuit may have implications and impacts well-beyond its initial judicial sphere.
The full legal complaint has been filed in the Superior court of Shasta County, California. MacMartin and his attorneys have since filed to remove the legal action from Shasta County to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California (in Sacramento), Case No 2:21-cv-02355- KJM-DMC.
A full copy of the initial legal warning sent to Dr. Douglas MacMartin is posted below.
The attached PDF below contains the full 29 page legal proceeding filed against Dr. Douglas MacMartin for triggering Facebook’s censoring of “The Dimming” documentary and all Geoengineering Watch research data.
First known cease and desist for cell tower due to injuries in United States of America will be effective in 7 days
if Verizon does not come to the table.
On February 2, 2022, the Pittsfield, MA Board of Health unanimously voted to issue a cease and desist order to Verizon to shut down its tower located at 877 South Street. Families living in the neighborhood near the tower reported wireless radiation-related health issues soon after the tower became operational in 2020 and since then, have been working tirelessly to turn the transmissions off. This action is the first known cease and desist by a Board of Health in the United States.
The cease and desist order to Verizon would become effective in seven calendar days if Verizon fails to notify the Board that they are willing to come to a discussion and demonstrate significant commitment that they will do something “to resolve the issue to the board’s satisfaction.”
iBerkshires quoted Board Member Steve Smith who stated, “As a member of the Board of Health, I’m here to safeguard the health of residents of the city of Pittsfield…”So on some level for me, win or lose this long battle with a company that’s going to look at this on a global scale, at some point, I’m going to have to sit back 20 years later and say, did I do everything I could to safeguard the residents in Pittsfield when I was in that position or did I not? I guess that’s the way I have to think about it.”
This courageous success story would not have been possible without the sustained efforts of Pittsfield residents who worked tirelessly for months to address the issue.
The community was supported with expertise from Dr. David Carpenter, Dr. Kent Chamberlain, Dr. Sharon Goldberg, Dr. Cindy Russell, Dr. Martha Herbert, Dr. Magda Havas, Cecelia Doucette, Sheena Symington, Robert Berg and numerous other medical practitioners, scientists, and electromagnetic radiation experts. EHT was thankful to have played a role in this potentially precedent-setting moment by presenting some of the peer-reviewed, independent science on wireless radiation health risks and policy issues to the Pittsfield City Council. We express our sincere gratitude to the Board of Health and to the City Council for advocating for the health, safety, and welfare of its residents.
Almost immediately thereafter the cell tower became operational in August of 2020, residents in the adjacent neighborhood began experiencing serious medical conditions, including nausea, vomiting, tinnitus (ringing of the ears), dizziness, insomnia, and more. Residents reported the symptoms to the City authorities and to the Board of Health for over two years requesting relief. Residents presented medical experts, scientists, testimonials of their own illnesses to no avail. Several residents sold their homes and left the community because they found the area virtually uninhabitable. Other residents have been living in their cars or are staying with relatives.
Resident Courtney Gilardi testified to New Hampshire lawmakers on a proposed bill to set a 1640 foot setback from cell towers to homes. In her testimony she shared the story of Pittsfield and the 17 neighbors.
Over the past few months, the Board of Health held two meetings with Verizon Wireless to discuss the possibility of having Verizon relocate the tower away from the neighborhood to an alternative, less intrusive site. In the last meeting, Verizon stated that it would not move the tower and it would not power it down. At the Board of Health meeting last night, the Board reviewed the issue and determined that it has the duty to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the residents of the City of Pittsfield. According to the Board, the tower has caused at least one medically-documented case of electromagnetic sensitivity, with two additional likely cases in the same household.
Throughout the year, Verizon has contended that the tower radiation emissions were “compliant with FCC cell tower radiation limits.” However community advocates and experts repeatedly presented evidence that compliance with FCC limits did not mean safety was assured. In August 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled in the historic case EHT et al. v. the FCC that the FCC had violated the Administrative Procedures Act when the agency decided not to update its 1996 wireless radiation limits. Specifically the Court found the FCC had ignored submitted evidence of people injured by wireless radiation, health effects from long term exposure and children’s unique vulnerability.
Spectrum News “Family Injured by Cell Tower” May 2021 d residents say Pittsfield cell tower causing health concernsNeighborhood residents say Pittsfield cell tower causing health concernsNeighborhood residents say Pittsfield cell tower causing health concerns
Kent Chamberlin, a retired electrical engineering Chair and professor at University of New Hampshire, presented to the nearby town of Lenox . Watch presentation which can be viewed on demand at CTSB Search “Town of Lenox Board of Health Remote Meeting, August 19, 2021, with presentation by Kent Chamberlin, Ph.D., on Cell Tower Research.”
Pittsfield Massachusetts Cell Tower Community Links
In part 2, we will examine the history of modern agribusiness, Bill Gates’ plan to centralize control of the world’s seed supply and the depopulation threat posed by gene drive technology.
Every day we consume food grown in the toxic chemicals produced by the global agriculture conglomerates, who, like their pharmaceutical compatriots, may be described as profit-hungry monstrosities, well versed in the art of killing.
As explained by Dr Vandana Shiva in her book Oneness vs the 1%, the agrichemical industry we know today is nothing more than a continuation of the toxic tools and poisons from the post World World 2 labs of IG Farben.
A century ago, the money and oil of the Robber Barons came together with the finances and toxic technologies from the labs of IG Farben to form the Toxic Cartel that evolved the tools of killing. This is how a century of ecocide and genocide through poisons and toxic chemicals began. Chemicals developed to kill people in Hitler’s concentration camps during WWII became the agrichemicals for industrial agriculture when the war ended. This industrial agriculture was then forced on people everywhere.”[1]
Interessengemeinschaft Farbenindustrie AG, more commonly knows as IG Farben was a German chemical and pharmaceutical giant formed in 1925. IG Farben was formed from a merger of 6 separate chemical companies – BASF, Bayer, Hoechst, Agfa, Chemische Fabrik Griesheim-Elektron, and Chemische Fabrik vorm.
Two years later in 1927, IG Farben partnered with Standard Oil (one of the largest oil refiners in the world, founded by John D. Rockefeller) to exchange patents and dominate economies on both sides of the Atlantic.
Standard Oil sent IG Farben their patents regarding the coal hydrogenation process and IG Farben reciprocated by offering up their own patents on the process of manufacturing synthetic rubber.
Some years after partnering with Standard Oil, IG Farben helped found the Auschwitz concentration camp, where they used Jewish prisoners as slave labour to produce synthetic rubber and liquid fuels.
At the end of the war, the Nuremberg War Criminal Tribunal convicted 24 IG Farben executives for crimes against humanity including mass murder and slavery. However, most of them were released within 2-6 years and immediately began consulting for American agritech companies.
IG Farben and its partner corporations, which included Bayer, were Hitler’s suppliers of Zyklon-B, a cyanide-based pesticide that was used to murder Jews in the extermination camps.
In 1948, IG Farben bigwig and Nazi party member, Fritz ter Meer, was convicted of “mass murder and enslavement” and sentenced to 7 years in prison. After his early release in 1950, he became chairman of the board of directors for Bayer, a position he held until 1964. What is today called the “Bayer Science & Education Foundation”, an initiative that awards scholarships to chemistry students, was originally set up to honour ter Meer.
After merging with Monsanto in a $62 billion dollar deal, Bayer became the largest agrichemical company in the world (The takeover was financed by European taxpayers without them even knowing about it).
Monsanto, an American agrichemical giant and mass-producer of genetically modified crops, was founded in 1901 by John Francis Queeny.
The company’s first product was the artificial sweetener, saccharin, which it sold to Coco-Cola. In 1977, the FDA proposed restricting the use of Saccharin on account of research suggesting its consumption was associated with an increased risk of cancer, primarily of the urinary bladder.
Not only is saccharin associated with an increased risk of cancer, but artificial sweeteners of all kinds have been linked with increased rates of diabetes, obesity, intestinal dysbiosis as well as an acceleration of atherosclerosis and ageing.
During World War 2, Monsanto contributed to research for the Manhattan project, which would eventually lead to the creation of the atomic bombs that were used to murder thousands of innocent people in Japan.
Around the same time, Monsanto became one of the leading manufacturers of polystyrene – a synthetic, non-biodegradable plastic whose production generates massive amounts of hazardous waste.
Moreover, styrene has been linked to adverse health effects in humans, including cancer. The styrene molecule is metabolized to styrene oxide, a highly reactive (and toxic) epoxide that can interact with DNA, causing harmful mutations.
Monsanto was also known for producing DDT, a highly toxic insecticide that played a serious role in the 20th-century polio epidemics.
Despite years of Monsanto propaganda, insisting that DDT was perfectly safe, by 1972 the research indicating its toxicity had mounted to the point that it was banned throughout the US. But this did not dissuade Monsanto from its goal of poisoning the world, for, in the 1960s, they became one of the principal producers of Agent Orange, a herbicide used for chemical warfare during the Vietnam war.
During the 10-year aerial bombardment that saw gallons of Age Orange rain from the Vietnamese skies, millions of innocent people were seriously poisoned, resulting in deaths, disabilities, birth defects, and widespread, irreversible environmental destruction.
Spina bifida, cerebral palsy, missing or deformed limbs and intellectual disabilities were some of the serious birth defects caused by Agent Orange that are still affecting Vietnamese children today. Agent Orange is also responsible for killing an estimated 300,000 US veterans.
These days, most people know Monsanto as the producer of glyphosate (the active ingredient in “Roundup”, a highly toxic herbicide promoted heavily around the world). Glyphosate has been implicated in the rise of food allergies, including “celiac disease”, a severe intolerance to gluten causing skin rashes, gut dysbiosis, nausea, diarrhoea, and depression.
Unsurprisingly, there have been virtually no studies conducted in the US, the largest consumer of GMO frankenfoods (Americans eat their bodyweight in GMOs each year), to assess glyphosate levels in human blood or urine.
However, a large study in Europe found quantifiable levels of glyphosate in the urine of nearly half of the participants, all of which were city dwellers who could only have been exposed to glyphosate through food consumption.
The merger of Bayer and Monsanto came alongside the merger of Dow Chemical and Dupont, as well as Syngenta and ChemChina. These mergers placed the vast majority of the global agriculture industry in the hands of just three corporations.
Through these various mergers and acquisitions, the biotech industry has become a modern-day IG Farben – functioning as a singular global chemical-military-industrial complex, the real owners of which are the investment firms like Vanguard and Blackrock.
The mergers are more like musical chairs, organised by the real owners, investment funds like Vanguard, Blackrock, Capital Group, Fidelity, State Street Global Advisors, Norges Bank Investment Management (NBIM), and others. This game of musical chairs has two objectives—to expand markets and shrink liability.”[1]
Three-fourths of the world’s GMO seeds come from Monsanto labs. Monsanto extracts royalties for its seeds and the high cost of the seed and chemicals push farmers into a debt trap.
As farmers fall deeper into debt, the wealth of Monsanto grows. There have been cases of GMO seeds blowing over onto the land of unsuspecting farmers who are then sued and forced to surrender their produce. Monsanto illegally introduced its Bt cotton in India in 1995, leading to an epidemic of suicide in regions along India’s cotton belt.
ROCKEFELLER AGRICULTURE
The role of the Rockefellers in the rise of chemical farming and GMOs is not to be understated, for they were instrumental in the promotion of new agricultural technologies that resulted in modern “agribusiness”.
This began during the early days of World War 2 when the Rockefeller Foundation funded a secret policy group called the War and Peace Study Group of the New York Council on Foreign Relations. The purpose of this group was to shape the US post-war economy in order for it to replace the British Empire as the new global superpower[2].
It was within this context that John D. Rockefeller III was pursuing his eugenics agenda through the American Eugenics Society as well as his Population Council. At the same time, his brother Nelson was seeking new methods to increase worldwide food production.
One of the post-war goals of the War and Peace Study Group was for the US to dominate global agriculture and food production. This led to the infamous “green revolution” promoted in India and other developing countries in South America and parts of Asia.
One of the results of this increased agricultural efficiency was the mass exodus of peasants from the farmlands to the city slums where they were exploited for cheap labour by various US multinational companies[3].
This elite propensity for experimenting on more “primitive” communities represents the occult contempt for the “lower” orders of society.
Nowhere is this contempt more obvious than in the “philanthropy” of Bill Gates who, in 2019, unleashed genetically modified mosquitos in Burkina Faso under the fallacious pretext of “fighting malaria”. But more on Gates and his gene drive technology later.
Before moving on, it’s important to consider the parallels between eugenics and genetics, which, some researchers have branded the “new eugenics”. In the 1980s, researchers at the Rockefeller Foundation were determined to map the structure of the gene and, according to Philip Regal, the ultimate motivation behind this quest was “to correct social and moral problems including crime, poverty, hunger and political instability”.
As William Engdahl notes, research into genetics was carried forward by generous grants given to up and coming scientists, eager to make a name for themselves in a new and exciting field:
Many of the younger generation of biologists and scientists receiving Rockefeller research grants were blissfully unaware that eugenics and genetics were in any way related. They simply scrambled for scarce research dollars, and the dollars all too often had the name and strings of the Rockefeller Foundation attached.”[3]
Perhaps a fuller understanding of the Rockefeller pursuits in eugenics and genetics is gained by seeing the two as separate but related parts of a materialist agenda mirroring the alchemical pursuit for the transformation of man. Regal describes this alchemical pursuit as follows:
From the perspective of a theory reductionist, it was logical that social problems would reduce to simple biological problems that could be corrected through chemical manipulations of soils, brains, and genes. Thus the Rockefeller Foundation made a major commitment to using its connections and resources to promote a philosophy of eugenics.”[3]
In relation to this Rockefeller initiative, Regal goes on to mention Francis Bacon’s New Atlantis, a highly esoteric work that speaks of a hidden scientific elite with the goal of “enlarging of the bounds of human empire, to the effecting of all things possible”.
In Bacon’s work, “Atlantis” refers to America. Therefore, as noted by Dr Farrell and Dr. De Hart in their book “Transhumanism: A Grimoire of Alchemical Agendas”, according to Bacon, America “was to become the great laboratory for a grand esoteric experiment being run by a hidden and ancient elite.”[2]
Now let us return to the history of Rockefeller involvement in global agriculture…
It was in 1941 when Nelson Rockefeller and then US vice president, Henry Wallace sent a group to Mexico to meet with the Mexican government regarding the possibility of increasing food production. Noteworthy is that Henry Wallace was a high-ranking Freemason who convinced fellow Freemason, President Franklin D. Roosevelt to place the occult symbol of the uncapped pyramid and the eye of Horus on the US one-dollar bill[2].
The Rockefeller take over of global agriculture involved the promotion and spreading of genetically modified crops around the world. But in order for their GMOs to catch on, the Rockefellers needed to manipulate the perceptions of scientists engaged in genetic and environmental research.
They did this by deploying US university professors to select Asian universities to train a new generation of scientists. The best of these graduates were then sent to the US to pursue a doctorate in agricultural sciences, ensuring they were wholly indoctrinated into the Rockefeller outlook on agriculture and food production[2].
In the 1970s, the Rockefeller Foundation, with aid from the World Bank, FAO and UNDP, established a worldwide network of agricultural research centres, called CGIAR (“Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research”). The alleged goal behind the creation of CGIAR was to coordinate global agricultural research in an effort to reduce poverty and improve food security in developing countries.
Thus, the Rockefellers constructed a global network of scientists and institutions ready to play their part as ambassadors of this new agricultural paradigm. This had the result of “socially engineering” a scientific culture that promoted the use of genetically modified crops and new agriculture technologies.
The Rockefellers went on to invest hundreds of millions of dollars into genetic research that would further the development of GMO crops and increase their uptake around the world. Thanks to patent law, this transformed many a humble farmer into a captured slave, indebted to big agribusiness conglomerates.
The CAS is linked to the Open Forum on Agriculture Biotechnology (OFAB) which in turn is an offshoot of the African Agriculture Technology Foundation (AATF), an organization founded by the Rockefellers.
Perhaps the biggest boon for the agribusiness industry came n 1986, when US Vice President Herbert Bush hosted a “special White House strategy meeting”, inviting executives from Monsanto to discuss plans relating to the deregulation of agritechnologies.
This meeting resulted in the adoption of “substantial equivalence” – the erroneous notion that agronomy (traditional methods of animal/plant breeding) was “substantially equivalent” to genetic modification – thereby evading the increasing pressure from scientists calling for more rigorous testing of GMO crops[3].
Thanks to the Rockefellers, the US people are now the largest consumers of GMO foods. In fact, the research literature clearly indicates that large populations around the world have been forced to consume GMO toxins despite a complete lack of any reliable safety data, and overwhelming evidence to suggest that such toxins cause biological harm.
Animal studies have demonstrated that exposure to GMO toxins causes an increase in inflammatory cytokines associated with nearly all human diseases. If these changes also occur in humans then this would go some way towards explaining the massive increase in autoimmunity, autism, and other chronic and allergic diseases[4].
Both the WHO and the American Medical Association (AMA), which, ironically, claims to “promote the art and science of medicine and the betterment of public health” have been utterly complicit in allowing this global experiment to take place[4].
Though this shouldn’t come as a surprise considering the profound early influence that the Rockefeller Foundation had on the AMA and their role in the capture of American medical education.
This began with the publishing of the “Flexner Report” in 1908 which lay the groundwork for a reformation of medical education, encouraging the acceptance of a drug-based curriculum. Universities that failed to conform to the tenets of drug-based medicine and research were deprived of their funding and eventually forced to close down[5].
BILL GATES AND THE AGENDA FOR CONTROL
Since 2003, the Gates Foundation has poured nearly $6 billion into global agriculture. In 2017, Gates became the largest funder of CGIAR, which now holds the largest and most widely used collections of seed crops in the world. Gates’ interest in world agriculture serves two purposes:
To centralize control of the world’s seeds supply and,
To shift global farming towards a reliance on technology and external inputs, sold to farmers by the agritech conglomerates in which he holds stock.
By far the largest funder of the CGIAR, Gates has successfully accelerated the transfer of research and seeds from scientific research institutions to commodity-based corporations, centralizing and facilitating the pirating of intellectual property and seed monopolies through intellectual property laws and seed regulations.”
The impetus for this restructuring came from the organization’s largest funders, notably the Gates Foundation. CGIAR claims the change is necessary because,
“A unified and integrated CGIAR will be much better equipped to tackle threats to food, nutrition and water security posed by climate change.”
The recommendation for this dramatic restructuring came from CGIAR’s System Reference Group (SRG), at the time co-chaired by Tony Cavalieri, Senior Program Officer at the Gates Foundation, and Marco Ferroni, ex-head of the Syngenta Foundation.
In other words, the CGIAR reformation will result in greater centralization of the global agriculture industry, with a greater blurring of lines between the private and public sectors.
In direct contradiction to Gates’ claims of helping smallholder farmers, a detailed analysis of the grants given by the Gates Foundation revealed that the majority went to research institutes and not farmers.
These grants were also directed towards lobbying groups that pressure government to institute policies that favour big agribusiness such as introducing laws allowing the privatization of seeds.
One of Gates’ primary objectives is to open up the African market and institute a corporate takeover of the region. In aid of this goal, he founded AGRA (The Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa) in 2006. Through the promotion of commercial seeds and inorganic fertilizers, AGRA set out to double crop productivity, increase incomes and halve food insecurity by 2020.
In July 2020, Timothy Wise of Tufts University published an analysis of AGRA’s impact in Africa. His research found that not only did AGRA fail in reaching a significant number of smallholder farmers (a finding that is consistent with the analysis on Gates Foundation grants, the majority of which are directed towards scientists, not farmers), but that undernourishment increased by a startling 30% in AGRA countries.
Overall staple crop yields have grown only 18% over 12 years. Meanwhile, undernourishment (as measured by the FAO) has increased 30% in AGRA countries. These poor indicators of performance suggest that AGRA and its funders should change course.”
Many Africans are now beginning to question Gates’ involvement in the region, calling for the end of his industrial agriculture model. In September 2020, SAFCEI (Southern African Faith Communities’ Environment Institute) sent an open letter to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation warning that the Foundation’s current approach to food security will do more harm than good. The letter states that
The Gates Foundation promotes a model of industrial monoculture farming and food processing that is not sustaining our people”.
In June 2021, AFSA (The Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa) wrote to AGRA’s major institutional donors calling for them to shift their support away from big agribusiness and towards sustainable, agroecological approaches to farming.
Together, AFSA’s member network represents millions of African citizens across 50 countries. AFSA stated that they received very few responses to their letter and that none could provide any evidence that AGRA had achieved any of its stated aims.
In the shadow of AGRA’s failure, in 2020, the Gates Foundation launched “Gates Ag One”, a subsidiary of the Gates Foundation. The alleged aim of Gates Ag One is to “Advance innovations that improve agricultural outcomes for smallholder farmers”.
Gates Ag One is headed up by Joe Cornelius, a former executive at Bayer, and Al Gallegos, who has previously held positions at both DuPont and Monsanto.
Thus “Gates Ag One”, though claiming to empower small farmers will actually lead to the further enrichment of corporations. As Navdanya writes:
They are hoping to artificially accelerate the process of introducing “new technologies” to farmers through increased investment and public and private partnerships while having total freedom in their business model as a separate entity to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.”
The rhetoric expounded by Gates and his posse of corporate backers is that smallholder farmers are unproductive and unable to provide for a rapidly evolving world. Gates claims that what they really need is “new digital tools and technologies”.
However, considering the failure of the Green Revolution, the soil crisis and the widespread health effects of chemical inputs, is that really true? Or is Gates Ag One simply the latest attempt to bring world agriculture firmly under the control of Big Agribusiness?
GENE DRIVE ORGANISMS AND SCULPTING EVOLUTION
The Gates Foundation, along with US military group DARPA, has been the driving force behind the development of gene drive technology. Gates’ funding of gene drive technology began in 2005 with an $8.5 million grant given to Austin Burt and Andrea Chrisanti, biologists working at Imperial College, London.
This line of development eventually led to the invention of CRISPR in 2015, a genetic engineering tool that allows scientists to cut, insert and replace genes in a DNA sequence. According to a report by ETC Group (Action Group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration),
Gene drive organisms are created by genetically engineering a living organism with a particular trait, and then modifying the organism’s reproductive system in order to always force the modified gene onto future generations, spreading the trait throughout the entire population.”
As mentioned earlier in this article, one of Gates’ initiatives led to the release of genetically modified mosquitos in Burkina Faso. However, this was but the first phase in a long-term project, the third phase of which is the release of GDO mosquitos (modified via gene drive technology). ETC Group explains the significance of this [emphasis added]:
…A a gene drive is designed to interfere with the fertility of the mosquito: essential genes for fertility would be removed, preventing the mosquitoes from having female offspring or from having offspring altogether. These modified mosquitoes would then pass on their genes to a high percentage of their offspring, spreading auto-extinction genes throughout the population. In time, the entire species would in effect be completely eliminated.”
Following calls in 2016 for a global moratorium on the use of gene drive technology, the Gates Foundation paid $1.6 million to Emerging Ag (a private PR firm) to coordinate the push-back against proponents of the moratorium.
Emerging Ag recruited and coordinated over 65 experts, including a Gates Foundation senior official, a DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Project Agency) official, and government and university scientists, in an attempt to flood the official UN process with their coordinated inputs.”
Another group developing gene drive technology is the Sculpting Evolution group, run out of the Gates-funded MIT Media Lab, the same institution that received donations from Jeffery Epstein, and the same institution that houses Robert Langer, co-founder of the controversial biotech company, and Covid-19 “vaccine” manufacturer, Moderna.
The leader of Sculpting Evolution is Kevin Esvelt, one of the pioneers of CRISPR and (allegedly) the first person to identify the potential for gene drive systems to alter wild populations of organisms.
Esvelt’s lab seeks to apply “robotics and machine learning to evolve new molecular tools and techniques”. Another of their aims is to “Work with the guidance of interested communities to safely and humanely edit wild populations and ecosystems”.
The Sculpting Evolution Group also advises governments on “pressing issues of biodefense”.
Our challenge is to prevent the immense power of biotechnology from being misused. Historical pandemics killed tens of millions of people, and engineered agents could be even more destructive.”
One of the ways Sculpting Evolution proposes thwarting future pandemics or bioweapon attacks is by the construction of a “Global Nucleic Acid Observatory” (NAO) to “monitor humanity and the environment for any and all biological threats”. The group claims that by continual genomic testing at sites around the world, the “NAO could detect any virus or invasive organism undergoing exponential growth”.
In support of this radical proposal, the group references a case study from Israel [emphasis added]:
In 2013, Israel’s poliovirus-specific environmental monitoring program detected a nascent outbreak in wastewater samples from the town of Rahat using plaque assays and swiftly initiated mass oral vaccination, eliminating the virus before even a single child came down with paralytic symptoms”.
The disturbing nature of such a system thus becomes immediately apparent: governments would be able to initiate vaccination programs and institute other pandemic measures without the need for, or proof of, an actual threat, only the claimed “detection” of one. This begs the all-important question: who would decide when a “threat” is detected, and on what basis?
While virologists expound on the dangers of zoonotic coronaviruses and climate scientists rage on about the evils of carbon dioxide, the real environmental crises go largely unnoticed. And perhaps that is the point. We will explore these other crises – crises that threaten our very existence as a species – in part 3.
[1] Shiva, V., Shiva, K. Oneness vs the 1%. 2018.[back][back]
[2] Farrell, P., J., de Hart, D., S. Transhumanism: A Grimoire of Alchemical Agendas. 2011.[back][back][back][back]
[3] Engdahl, W. Seeds of Destruction. 2007.[back][back][back][back]
[4] Vasquez, A. Inflammation Mastery (4th ed). 2016.[back][back]
[5] Griffin, G., E. World Without Cancer, the Story of Vitamin B17. 2001.back
Ryan Matters is a writer and free thinker from South Africa. After a life-changing period of illness, he began to question mainstream medicine, science and the true meaning of what it is to be alive. Some of his writings can be found at newbraveworld.org, you can also follow him on Twitter and Gab.
Is engineered winter weather yet again being waged on US East Coast population centers? Are the same highly toxic chemical ice nucleation surface cool-downs also the core cause of the flash freeze events in numerous other parts of the world?
What is preventing the majority from even seeing the climate engineering elephant in the sky? The power structure programmed mental “gatekeeper” has long since been an extraordinarily effective tool of the controllers.
This form of self enforced blindness has kept the majority of populations completely oblivious to countless blatant power structure atrocities, past and present.
As imminent impact looms large on our collective near term horizon, can the mass hypnosis be broken in time to still make a difference?
The latest installment of Global Alert News is below.
The volume of pesticide use and exposure is occurring on a scale that is without precedent and world-historical in nature. Agrichemicals are now pervasive as they cycle through bodies and environments. The herbicide glyphosate has been a major factor in driving this increase in use.
The authors state that when the WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) declared glyphosate to be a “probable carcinogen” in 2015, the fragile consensus about its safety was upended.
They note that in 2020 the US Environmental Protection Agency affirmed that glyphosate-based herbicides (GBHs) pose no risk to human health, apparently disregarding new evidence about the link between glyphosate and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma as well as its non-cancer impacts on the liver, kidney and gastrointestinal system.
The multi-authored paper notes:
In just under 20 years, much of the Earth has been coated with glyphosate, in many places layering on already chemical-laden human bodies, other organisms and environments.”
However, the authors add that glyphosate is not the only pesticide to achieve broad-scale pervasiveness:
The insecticide imidacloprid, for example, coats the majority of US maize seed, making it the most widely used insecticide in US history. Between just 2003 and 2009, sales of imidacloprid products rose 245% (Simon-Delso et al. 2015). The scale of such use, and its overlapping effects on bodies and environments, have yet to be fully reckoned with, especially outside of countries with relatively strong regulatory and monitoring capacities.”
According to Phillips McDougall’s Annual Agriservice Reports, herbicides made up 43% of the global pesticide market in 2019 by value. Much of the increase in glyphosate use is due to the introduction of glyphosate-tolerant soybean, maize, and cotton seeds in the US, Brazil and Argentina.
The global pesticide industry is valued at over $50 billion (Phillips McDougal 2018).
Eating Poison
In December 2021, a piece appeared in the prominent Danish newspaper Weekendavisen. Written by Niels Bjerre, agricultural affairs manager at Bayer CropScience in Copenhagen, ‘Thank goodness for pesticides’ set out to convince readers that sustainable modern agriculture cannot be done without using pesticides.
Mason lists many pertinent studies. For instance, a French team has found heavy metals in chemical formulants of GBHs in people’s diets. As with other pesticides, 10–20% of GBHs consist of chemical formulants. Families of petroleum-based oxidized molecules and other contaminants have been identified as well as the heavy metals arsenic, chromium, cobalt, lead and nickel, which are known to be toxic and endocrine disruptors.
In 1988, Ridley and Mirly (commissioned by Monsanto) found bioaccumulation of glyphosate in rat tissues. Residues were present in bone, marrow, blood and glands including the thyroid, testes and ovaries, as well as major organs, including the heart, liver, lungs, kidneys, spleen and stomach. Glyphosate was also associated with ophthalmic degenerative lens changes.
A Stout and Rueker (1990) study (also commissioned by Monsanto) provided concerning evidence with regard to cataracts following glyphosate exposure in rats. It is interesting to note that the rate of cataract surgery in England “increased very substantially” between 1989 and 2004: from 173 (1989) to 637 (2004) episodes per 100,000 population.
A 2016 study by the WHO also confirmed that the incidence of cataracts had greatly increased: ‘A global assessment of the burden of disease from environmental risks’ says that cataracts are the leading cause of blindness worldwide. Globally, cataracts are responsible for 51% of blindness. In the US, between 2000 and 2010 the number of cases of cataract rose by 20% from 20.5 million to 24.4 million. It is projected that by 2050, the number of people with cataracts will have doubled to 50 million.
The authors of ‘Assessment of Glyphosate Induced Epigenetic Transgenerational Inheritance of Pathologies and Sperm Epimutations: Generational Toxicology’ (Scientific Reports, 2019) noted that ancestral environmental exposures to a variety of factors and toxicants promoted the epigenetic transgenerational inheritance of adult-onset disease.
They proposed that glyphosate can induce the transgenerational inheritance of disease and germline (for example, sperm) epimutations. Observations suggest the generational toxicology of glyphosate needs to be considered in the disease etiology of future generations.
In a 2017 study, Carlos Javier Baier and colleagues documented behavioural impairments following repeated intranasal glyphosate-based herbicide administration in mice. Intranasal GBH caused behavioural disorders, decreased locomotor activity, induced an anxiogenic behaviour and produced memory deficit.
The paper contains references to many studies from around the world that confirm GBHs are damaging to the development of the foetal brain and that repeated exposure is toxic to the adult human brain and may result in alterations in locomotor activity, feelings of anxiety and memory impairment.
Highlights of a 2018 study on neurotransmitter changes in rat brain regions following glyphosate exposure include neurotoxicity in rats. And in a 2014 study which examined mechanisms underlying the neurotoxicity induced by glyphosate-based herbicide in the immature rat hippocampus, it was found that Monsanto’s glyphosate-based Roundup induces various neurotoxic processes.
In the paper ‘Glyphosate damages blood-testis barrier via NOX1-triggered oxidative stress in rats: Long-term exposure as a potential risk for male reproductive health’ (Environment International, 2022) it was noted that glyphosate causes blood-testis barrier (BTB) damage and low-quality sperm and that glyphosate-induced BTB injury contributes to sperm quality decrease.
The 2020 paper ‘Glyphosate exposure exacerbates the dopaminergic neurotoxicity in the mouse brain after repeated of MPTP’ suggests that glyphosate may be an environmental risk factor for Parkinson’s.
In the 2019 Ramazzini Institute’s 13-week pilot study that looked into the effects of GBHs on development and the endocrine system, it was demonstrated that GBHs exposure, from prenatal period to adulthood, induced endocrine effects and altered reproductive developmental parameters in male and female rats.
Aside from glyphosate, Mason also notes that in 1991 Bayer CropScience introduced a new type of insecticide into the US: imidacloprid, the first member of a group now known as neonicotinoids.
Imidacloprid was licensed for use in Europe in 1994. In July of that year, beekeepers in France noticed something unexpected. Just after the sunflowers had bloomed, a substantial number of their hives would collapse, as the worker bees flew off and never returned, leaving the queen and immature workers to die. The French beekeepers soon believed they knew the reason: a brand new insecticide called Gaucho with imidacloprid as active ingredient was being applied to sunflowers for the first time.
In the 2022 paper ‘Neonicotinoid insecticides found in children treated for leukaemias and lymphomas’ (Environmental Health), the authors stated that multiple neonicotinoids were found in children’s cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), plasma and urine. As the most widely used class of insecticides worldwide, they are ubiquitously found in the environment, wildlife and foods. The data revealed multiple neonicotinoids and/or their metabolites in children’s CSF, plasma and urine.
Bottom Line
If the ‘Monsanto Papers’ told us anything, it is that a corporation’s top priority is the bottom line (at all costs, by all means necessary) and not public health. A CEO’s obligation is to maximise profit, capture markets and – ideally – regulatory and policy-making bodies as well.
Corporations must also secure viable year-on-year growth which often means expanding into hitherto untapped markets. Indeed, in the previously mentioned paper ‘Growing Agrichemical Ubiquity’, the authors note that while countries like the US are still reporting higher pesticide use, most of this growth is taking place in the Global South:
For example, pesticide use in California grew 10% from 2005 to 2015, while use by Bolivian farmers, though starting from a low base, increased 300% in the same period. Pesticide use is growing steeply in countries as diverse as China, Mali, South Africa, Nepal, Laos, Ghana, Argentina, Brazil and Bangladesh. Most countries with high levels of growth have weak regulatory enforcement, environmental monitoring and health surveillance infrastructure.”
And much of this growth is driven by increased demand for herbicides:
India saw a 250% increase since 2005 (Das Gupta et al. 2017) while herbicide use jumped by 2500% in China (Huang, Wang, and Xiao 2017) and 2000% in Ethiopia (Tamru et al. 2017). The introduction of glyphosate-tolerant soybean, maize, and cotton seeds in the US, Brazil, and Argentina is clearly driving much of the demand, but herbicide use is also expanding dramatically in countries that have not approved nor adopted such crops and where smallholder farming is still dominant.”
In response to the increasing use of GBHs in India, the influential Swadeshi Jagaran Manch recently demanded a complete ban on the use of glyphosate in the country. A petition with more than 201,000 signatories favouring a complete ban on glyphosate was submitted to the minister for agriculture.
The minister was also informed that the herbicide is blatantly being used for illegally grown genetically engineered herbicide tolerant (HT) cotton. He was told that “miscreant seed companies” are trying to illegally spread HT Bt cotton on hundreds of thousands of acres of land to promote the use of glyphosate.
In a 2017 paper, academics Glenn Stone and Andrew Flachs describe how cotton farmers in India have been encouraged to change their ploughing practices, leading to more weeds. The outcome in terms of yields (or farmer profit) is arguably no better but the change (conveniently) coincided with the appearance of an increasing supply of these illegal HT cotton seeds. Farmers are being pushed onto herbicide-intensive treadmills.
Industry figures like Niels Bjerre claim pesticide use is necessary in ‘modern agriculture’. But this is not the case: there is now sufficient evidence to suggest otherwise. It is simply not necessary to have our bodies contaminated with toxic agrochemicals, regardless of how much the industry tries to reassure us that they are present in ‘safe’ levels.
There is also the industry-promoted narrative that if you question the need for synthetic pesticides in ‘modern agriculture’, you are somehow ignorant or even ‘anti-science’. This is simply not true. What does ‘modern agriculture’ even mean? It means a system adapted to meet the demands of global agrocapital and its international markets and supply chains.
“Meeting the needs of modern agriculture – growing produce that can be shipped long distances and hold up in the store and at home for more than a few days – can result in tomatoes that taste like cardboard or strawberries that aren’t as sweet as they used to be. Those are not the needs of modern agriculture. They are the needs of global markets.”
What is really being questioned is a policy paradigm that privileges a certain model of social and economic development and a certain type of agriculture: urbanisation, giant supermarkets, global markets, long supply chains, external proprietary inputs (seeds, synthetic pesticides and fertilisers, machinery, etc), chemical-dependent monocropping, highly processed food and market (corporate) dependency at the expense of rural communities, small independent enterprises and smallholder farms, local markets, short supply chains, on-farm resources, diverse agroecological cropping, nutrient dense diets and food sovereignty.
The effects of this paradigm has had devastating ecological, environmental, social, economic and agronomic consequences on highly productive traditional agrarian systems (see Bhaskar Save’s 2006 open letter to Indian officials).
Furthermore, despite claims to the contrary, it is not as though the chemical-intensive Green Revolution actually led to increased food production per capita in the first place (see Glenn Stone’s paper ‘New Histories of the Green Revolution’).
Nevertheless, predatory agri-food conglomerates have been driving this policy paradigm. In doing so, they have actively consolidated their position throughout the entire global food system while promoting the false narrative that they and their inputs are necessary for feeding the world.
by Arthur Firstenberg, ECHOEarth (End Cellphones Here on Earth)
January 26, 2022
In 1996, when almost no one owned a cell phone, and WiFi had not yet been invented, organizations formed to oppose wireless technology in order to protect our world from an unprecedented assault. The telecommunications industry planned to put a cell phone in the hands of every man, woman and child so they could communicate instantaneously from any point on Earth to any other point on Earth. In order to accomplish this, and for the first time in the history of the planet, every square inch of the Earth was going to be bathed in microwave radiation at all times. Also every human being — all seven billion of us – were going to become sources of such radiation. This was also unprecedented. Human beings, like all other creatures, were part of nature, not its enemy. But for the first time in the history of the Earth, every member of one of its species was going to be emitting radiation wherever they went.
Today, in 2021, when almost everyone owns a cell phone, WiFi, and an average of 23 other wireless devices, both the organizations and their goals have changed. Health and nature have already been destroyed, and the fight is no longer against wireless technology but, often, against each other. The purpose of this article is to review this history in order to remind people of the purpose of our movement and to unify and redirect global action once again to where it needs to be: against all of wireless technology in order to stop the radiation and recover our health and environment before it is too late. I will focus this article on the opposition in the United States because I am most familiar with it, but similar dynamics have been operating in other countries.
On February 8, 1996, the Telecommunications Act was signed into law, mandating the rollout of wireless technology across America, and prohibiting local governments from protecting their citizens’ health and environment from the radiation that it produces. Both existing and new organizations all over the United States united to oppose wireless technology and to try to restore democracy.
The EMR Alliance, which until that time had focused on radiation from power lines and computers, now directed its energies to fight cell towers. Citizens for the Appropriate Placement of Telecommunications Facilities was organized. I helped found the Cellular Phone Task Force to oppose not just cell towers but cell towers’ reason for being, which is cell phones. Other organizations that formed included Noe Valley Families Against the Antennas; Healthy Home Alliance; Families for Appropriate Cellular Tower Siting; Ulysses Citizens for Responsible Technology; Hardwick Action Committee; Thistle Hill Neighborhood Alliance; Coalition of Concerned Citizens for Responsible Technologies; Citizens of Marin for Sensible Communications Planning; Northboro Residents for Responsible Tower Siting; Telecommunications Master Plan Coalition of San Francisco; and Rainier Valley Association for Safe Wireless Technology. These and other groups, individuals, public officials, and the Communications Workers of America, joined together to sue the Federal Communications Commission in order to protect health, nature and democracy.
In 2000, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against us, and the Supreme Court refused to hear our case.
In the aftermath of our failure, a national coalition called the EMR Network was formed to try to unify efforts to protect us all against radiation. But in the five years since the passage of the Telecommunications Act, a majority of the population had acquired cell phones, and many had also acquired WiFi, which had recently been invented. Cracks formed in the coalition, which was beginning to split into factions. One faction still opposed all of wireless technology. Another opposed cell towers but not cell phones, as if one could exist without the other, and as if the radiation did not come from both. A third represented the interests of people who called themselves electrically sensitive. And not only were there differences of opinion among us, but outside interests had infiltrated our movement and helped to divide us.
The EMR Alliance, which had previously functioned as a national coalition, vanished. Its corporate counsel, Michael Withey, was the head of a national network of personal injury lawyers hunting for million dollar lawsuits, called the Electromagnetic Radiation Case Evaluation Team (EMRCET). When those lawyers concluded that ours was a losing cause and there was no money to be made from lawsuits about electromagnetic radiation, EMRCET disbanded, and the EMR Alliance also disappeared.
Another lawyer, James Hobson, who had represented most of the parties before the Second Circuit, and who became counsel for the EMR Network, was a telecommunications lawyer who, simultaneous to representing the parties against the FCC, represented a number of telecommunications companies, as well as the Telecommunications Industry Association, on other matters. He had also previously been in-house counsel for the FCC.
George Carlo, a lawyer as well as a scientist, who had headed up the telecommunications industry’s effort to prove cell phones safe, made headlines when he switched sides and wrote a book condemning cell phones as dangerous. It was titled Cell Phones: Invisible Hazards in the Wireless Age. He attempted to join the national coalition against wireless technology, but like Hobson, not everyone trusted him. He had spent most of his career as a scientist-for-hire working for major polluters. In addition to being hired by the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association to prove cell phones safe, he had been a consultant to the Tobacco Institute, Dow Chemical, Dow Corning, the Chlorine Institute and other polluters and published articles for two decades purporting to show that tobacco smoke, breast implants, dioxins, herbicides, and other chemicals were not dangerous.
Eventually the EMR Network, beset by internal quarreling, broke up and yet another coalition, called the EMR Policy Institute, formed. And gradually, over the years, as the wireless industry’s adversaries came more and more to also be its customers, they abandoned, for the most part, the fight to protect human health, nature, and democracy. Many opponents of cell towers today are not only not opposed to cell phones, but they are heavily addicted to them and have damaged their health from years of exposing themselves to their radiation. The birds, insects and animals have already disappeared from their yards and they have grown used to living without them. I used to get more calls asking how to help fight wireless technology. Now, more often, people call me or email me from their cell phones asking me what is the safest kind of cell phone to use, how far away from their body to hold it, what kinds of devices will best neutralize the radiation, and how to distinguish a 5G tower from a 4G tower. When I tell them that radiation is radiation, that there is no way to “neutralize” it, that distance doesn’t matter, and that it is destroying the Earth regardless of what you call it, they don’t understand what I am saying. More and more, they ask, in frustration, “What is the alternative?” And when I answer that the alternative to not having a cell phone is the imminent, well-under-way destruction of all life on Earth, including their own, they don’t seem to register what I am saying. They simply can’t imagine living without a cell phone. ECHOEarth (End CellphonesHere On Earth), an organization that I helped create in May 2020 in order to build a movement to abandon wireless technology, still has fewer than 2,000 members although 300,000 people and organizations have signed the International Appeal toStop 5G on Earth and in Space.
Meanwhile the EMR Policy Institute has also disappeared and a lot of new organizations have taken its place. The focus of many is not to stop wireless technology, or even cell towers, any more, but just to stop the newest version of them, which is called “5G”. There is an international coalition called Stop 5G International. In the United States there are Stop 5G Chicago, Stop 5G San Diego, Stop 5G Hawaii, Stop 5G Georgia, 5G Free California, 5G Free Vermont, 5G Awareness Now, 5G Colorado Action, Citizens Against 5G Cell Towers, and dozens of other organizations with similar names. For many it is not because they no longer think radiation is harmful, but because they have given up trying to stop it, and because most of their members own cell phones.
And there are still outside interests assuming positions of leadership in our movement, and telecommunications lawyers representing us in court. Children’s Health Defense, directed by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., is doing wonderful advocacy work. However, it has been represented in its legal work against 5G by Scott McCollough, a telecommunications lawyer. Like George Carlo and James Hobson, he claims to have switched sides, but his website does not say anything of the sort, and he has told me that he does not believe RF radiation harms everyone, just people with electromagnetic hypersensitivity.
And there is a new national coalition that is now filling the void left by the EMR Policy Institute. It holds Zoom meetings every other Friday, and has invited a series of excellent speakers to present at these meetings. But they are only speaking to the choir, and the organizer of that coalition, Odette Wilkens, is a technology lawyer who makes her living representing IBM. IBM is the company that launched a “Smarter Planet” campaign in 2008 and a “Smarter Cities Challenge” in 2010. Everything IBM does today depends on cell phones and wireless technology. I have asked Odette whether she has a conflict of interest, but she has not responded. She is also an animal rights activist for which I admire her and I would like to be able to trust her, but she has give me no reason to do so.
Odette tried to sabotage the amicus brief that was filed in support of our current petition to the U.S. Supreme Court. She convinced the coordinator of the amicus brief not to file it, after a lot of organizations had already signed on and people had already donated money toward it, so that I had to find another organization on short notice to take over the effort and get it filed. She told a lot of people why not to sign on to the amicus brief and why not to donate money toward it. It was after she did this that I investigated her and discovered who she works for. Her new website, wiredbroadband.org, doesn’t even have her name anywhere on it. In an interview (at 37:55) she said, falsely, that the preemption clause in the Telecommunications Act, which we are again asking the Supreme Court to strike down, does not apply to 5G and that people should not worry about it. She said that local governments are free to prohibit 5G towers to protect our health and environment because they provide “broadband” services and not “cell phone” services.
But that is false. Today “cellular” and “broadband” have merged and there is no difference. 5G provides both voice and internet services. And the preemption clause does not say “cell towers,” it says “personal wireless service facilities,” which encompasses everything. We are back before the Supreme Court after twenty years asking it, again, to strike down that clause, in order to restore to local governments the right to protect our health and environment, and impose liability on telecommunications companies that injure and kill people. In 2000, the Second Circuit addressed only the issue of States’ Rights. Today we are asking for our Personal Rights to life, liberty, and property. And in our petition to the Supreme Court we are represented not by telecommunications lawyers, but by lawyers with expertise in environmental law and civil rights.
The radiation emitted by cell phones is more, not less harmful than the radiation emitted by cell towers. There are 15 billion mobile devices in the world, and only seven million towers. And the phones are right next to everyone’s body. The main difference is that people have become used to them. People have become used to the absence of butterflies and sparrows. People have become used to being fat and diabetic, and at risk for heart attacks and strokes. By this newsletter I am reaching out to all organizations and people who love this Earth. I ask them to remember what they are fighting for and to unite together in a campaign to abandon wireless technology and eliminate cell phones from this planet in order to save it. Cell phones are not the only threat to life on Earth, but they are the most urgent.
Cell phones are effectively radioactive devices. The idea that they are not radioactive comes from a mistaken distinction that the medical community made a century ago, which most people persist in believing despite a century of research showing that distinction to be little more than a fantasy. It is a fantasy that says that (a) only radiation above a certain frequency is energetic enough to remove electrons from molecules to form ions, (b) this causes genetic mutations which are the cause of cancer, and (c) radiation is harmless if it does not cause cancer.
The most obvious of those fictions is that radiation has no effects besides cancer. Whereas in fact radiation acts directly on the electrons in our mitochondria, slowing metabolism, making us hypoxic, and causing diabetes, heart disease and, yes, cancer. Radiation also acts directly on all the electric transmission lines in our bodies, including our nerves, our blood vessels, our heart’s pacemaker, and yes — even though western medicine doesn’t recognize their existence — our acupuncture meridians. All this plays havoc with life and in just 26 years has wiped out most of the Earth’s insects, a large percentage of the small birds, and is imminently threatening to put an end to what’s left — including us — if we do not put an end to it.
Please work with me on a campaign to abolish cell phones. It is necessary, it is realistic, and the alternative is unthinkable. Thousands of people have written to me over the past few years asking how they can help. You can all help to begin this movement by throwing away your cell phones and joining ECHOEarth. As soon as enough people have joined ECHOEarth so that it has strength in numbers, I will contact the people who want to work on this in earnest and we can discuss the next steps.
Earlier this month, 21WIRE raised the alarm about the dangerous consequences of western governments’ reckless 5G roll-out, which will leave airlines exposed to to incredible risks in terms of navigation interference due to the untested 5G C-band signal which will disrupt modern passenger and cargo airplanes that rely on sensitive radio altimeters to calculate their altitude above the ground in low visibility conditions. In addition, the 5G signal could also affect airplane’s essential safety features.
Due to pressure from corporate giants like AT&T and Verizon and other Big Tech firms, government agencies have opted to ignore this risk and press ahead anyway with this experimental unregulated technology.
Now airlines are finally speaking out about the blatant collusion between 5G stakeholders and corrupt government agencies.
As telecommunication giants Verizon and AT&T prepare to roll out their hotly anticipated new 5G service on Wednesday, major U.S. airlines are warning that the launch will result in “catastrophic” disruption for the aviation industry.
In a letter sent Monday to Biden administration officials, a group of airline CEOs stressed that the forthcoming C-Band 5G deployment would ground “huge swaths” of the U.S. fleet and “could potentially strand tens of thousands of Americans overseas.”
“Unless our major hubs are cleared to fly, the vast majority of the traveling and shipping public will essentially be grounded,” they said in the letter, viewed by NBC News.
The airline executives stated plainly that the rollout could be accompanied by an aviation crisis the likes of which the country has never seen.
“To be blunt, the nation’s commerce will grind to a halt,” they stated plainly.
The letter was reportedly signed by the CEOs of American Airlines, United Airlines, Delta Air Lines, Southwest Airlines, and Jet Blue, as well as by leaders of shipping companies UPS and FedEx.
What else?
Fifth-generation wireless technology, known simply as 5G, is expected to deliver ultra-fast internet speeds, massive capacity, and increased connectivity to users. However, the chief executives argued that, as it stands, 5G signals would interfere with safety equipment that pilots rely on to take off and land in inclement weather.
CNBC noted that the Federal Aviation Administration has indeed warned that potential interference could affect sensitive airplane instruments such as altimeters, which measure the distance from the bottom of an aircraft to the ground during low visibility operations.
As of Sunday, the FAA had only cleared an estimated 45% of the U.S. commercial airplane fleet to perform low-visibility landings at airports where the 5G service would be deployed.
“This means that on a day like yesterday, more than 1,100 flights and 100,000 passengers would be subjected to cancellations, diversions, or delays,” the CEOs cautioned in the letter, adding, “Immediate intervention is needed to avoid significant operational disruption to air passengers, shippers, supply chain and delivery of needed medical supplies”
Dr. Astrid Stuckelberger is an interdisciplinary scientist at University of Geneva and Lausanne, Switzerland. She is an invited professor in European universities, an author and international public speaker.
Below the video and transcript provided by Orwell City, you will find links to the two videos mentioned by Dr. Stuckelberger. The first is a presentation at a US military conference on the topic of Psycho-Neurobiology and War, The second is Dr. Reiner Fuellmich (Corona Investigative Committee) in conversation with Dr. David Martin.
In the same interview that CONUVIVE Mundial conducted with Dr. Astrid Stuckelberger two days ago, the scientist commented on the relationship between graphene, 5G, and Neuro-rights.
One mindblowing point is that the technology that’s being injected into the population would make it possible to intervene in human beings to send them virus imprints and make them sick, among other possibilities.
Dr. Stuckelberger emphasizes the need to become aware of this and start a detox from the graphene present in the body since it’s thanks to this nanomaterial that the bio-hacking of the human being is possible.
More details in the new excerpt that Orwell City has prepared.
Jorge Osorio:
Doctor, I’d like to ask you… Because I was just going to ask you about Dr. Pablo Campra’s report. And you already brought it up. In this same line, what do you think about graphene —which is a nano-conductor—, electromagnetic waves, and 5G?
5G is already being implemented all over the world. Especially here, in South America. And if we add to that, as part of this cocktail, the Neuro-rights that, at least here in Chile, are groundbreaking. Groundbreaking. This is the only country in the world where Neuro-rights have already been implemented. And now they want to implement them in Spain as well.
What could we be talking about, in your opinion? Graphene, 5G, and Neuro-rights.
Dr. Astrid Stuckelberger:
What are Neuro-rights? Can you just explain?
Jorge Osorio:
The Neuro-rights Law establishes —the Chilean President of the Republic said it here— that your thoughts could be intervened. He regularized it as a law.
Dr. Astrid Stuckelberger:
OK. Yeah, that’s… We’re coming to a very interesting topic. So, Dr. Charles Morgan… And I invite you to go and see it on YouTube. Bio-Psycho-Neurology. He made a YouTube video of 58 minutes. And it’s fantastic.
He’s teaching the military about this new DARPA technology in 2018. And in this… And it’s an eye-opening video, really. And in there, he says —about graphene oxide in nanoparticles—, that they were doing experiments —with monkeys, first— of the transmission of thought patterns. They can read or transmit thought patterns.
And they were taking the example of a surgeon. Of course, they want to make it look like it’s good, but you can also use it badly. So, they took the example and said that, if a neurosurgeon wants to make an operation in the Philippines and wants to take control of a person’s hand by his thinking, they can analyze his pattern lighting… We’re electric beings. We’re bioelectronic, so it’s easy to see the pattern. And then they transmit… The person has graphene, and they can transfer the pattern by WiFi. And the person in the Philippines gets the hands going into a pattern of a surgeon. And the person even says, “Oh, it’s very strange. I don’t even do anything, and I’m directed by this program.”
So can you see where I’m going? I’m going to this zombie pandemic because what they’re doing now is that… Yes. Professor Campra came to the conclusion that, in fact, this bioelectric graphene is able to receive information and change the body because it’s everywhere. It’s everywhere, and it even goes in the brain. So, of course, it can have a toxicity. So… The endpoint of this is that they’re going to… What they want to do is bio-hack the brain and bio-hack people. And yeah, that’s what I wanted to say.
I want to make the link with David Martin. Dr. David Martin is a patent expert in the USA who spoke to Reiner Fuellmich, in his debate (program). And he said something very important. I invite you to go and see his video with Dr. David Martin. He gives a clue. He says that he was responsible to give the patents of coronavirus and of the vaccine. And he was doing a mea culpa. He said, “I’m very sorry because I should have never accepted those patents because they aren’t biological. They are synthetic modélisations of the virus.”
And when you go and see into some of the documents of Bill Gates, you see in the back the… I have put this in the report. I can give it to you so you can translate it into Spanish. They have put the number of the patent of the synthetic modélisation of many diseases. Marburg, also.
So what they’re doing is: they have modelized a synthetic message to send through Wi-Fi, through 5G. Because the band is so potent, it’s going up to terahertz. Because of the ionization that increases 1000 times. That’s what La Quinta Columna says. It goes up to terahertz, so it can get the information very quickly.
So, the first thing is that people have to stop this receptor. The graphene. Because they’re going to get the information and will be sick. It’s not a biological virus. It’s a synthetic nanoparticle. Biotech through WiFi. And you can already, you know, transmit through your computer. Information.
And they know this because Luc Montagnier, the Nobel prize, was doing this with water. He was doing the composition of water. And he said that he can give the composition through the computer into a database at the time.
This is crazy. But now, I see that it has been used for the collection of data with the PCR —in the nose—, the mask, the antigenic test. They’re getting it through WiFi to the databank because there’s a hydrogel, and there’s everything to make this transmission.
OK, so this is what I’m saying. We’re in a world where they have kept us ignorant in medicine and science. And they have gone very far into what we’re doing now. We’re electric beings, and we can get the imprint of a virus. hat’s why we have to protect ourselves from 5G. From our phone. Even the phone. You hold it like this, and the graphene comes up. So we have to stop using the phone like this. We have to use it like that. Not having it in our pockets, not sleeping with WiFi, etc. And to detox with zinc, glutathione, and N-acetylcysteine, for example.
One blue sky above us, One ocean lapping all our shores, One earth so green and round, Who could ask for more?
– Pete Seeger
In 2018, on land and in space, preparations to deploy millions of antennas were very publicly being made and advertised, for “5G,” “Smart Cities,” and the “Internet of Things.” At the same time, and without any publicity, governments, research laboratories, and commercial and military interests were collaborating on plans to create “Smart Oceans” and the “Internet of Underwater Things” (IoUT). They did not consult the fishes, whales, dolphins, octopuses, and other inhabitants of those depths.
In the United States, the National Science Foundation funded what it called the SEANet Project. The goal was to enable broadband wireless communication from any point on or in the oceans to anywhere else on the planet or in space. The Internet of Underwater Things is being designed to enable all the same communication capabilities that are being provided on land, including “real-time video streaming from underwater.”
In the last three years, a flood of papers have been published by scientists and engineers in the U.S., China, Pakistan, Qatar, South Korea, Spain, Australia, Greece, Italy, France, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, and elsewhere. In 2020, the IEEE Internet ofThings Journal published a Special Issue on Internet of Things for Smart Ocean. In2019,thejournalSensorspublishedaSpecialIssueonSmartOcean:EmergingResearchAdvances,ProspectsandChallenges,andthesamejournalisnowpublishinganotherSpecial IssueonInternetofUnderwater Things.
Some of the activities that supposedly “need” this technology in the oceans are:
climatechangemonitoring
pollutioncontrolandtracking
disasterpreventionincludingtsunamiwarningsystems
oceanexploration
fishingand aquaculture
coralreefharvesting
tectonicplatemonitoring
navigation
globaloceanictrade
oilandgasexplorationandproduction
militarycommunication andsurveillance
The infrastructure that is beginning to be deployed, throughout the oceans, includes:
Communication being more difficult to accomplish underwater than through the air, and more subject to interference, several different types of communication media are being used in the oceans to send data at different speeds and over different distances. Acoustic waves, radio waves, lasers, LED light, and magnetic induction are all being used to flood the oceans with data. An underwater GPS system is being developed. Most of these media work only for short- to medium-range communication. Long-range communication relies on acoustic waves, and is similar to the technology used in ocean sonar.
These technologies are already being marketed commercially and installed in the world’s oceans today. At the 2022 Oceanology International conference, which will be held in London from March 15 to 17, dozens of these companies will be exhibiting their products.
WaterLinked sells underwater sensor technology through distributors around the world for use in aquaculture, and in underwater navigation. “Our Wireless Sense™ technology enables reliable wireless communication and innovative subsea sensor solutions,” says their website.
EvoLogics sells underwater acoustic modems, both mid-range and long-range, that “provide full-duplex digital communication.”
SonarDyne International sells underwater acoustic modems to the oil and gas industry and to governments and navies.
Voyis sells short- and long-range underwater laser scanners.
GeoSpectrum sells “integrated, end-to-end acoustic systems” for oil and gas exploration and for military purposes.
Hydromea markets “the first ever tether-less underwater drone.”
Mediterraneo Señales Maritimas sells “data buoys that integrate sensors through our datalogger so the data can be transmitted to a remote station and displayed on our software.”
3D at Depth, Inc. “provides advanced subsea LIDAR laser systems.”
Teledyne Marine sells Autonomous Underwater Gliders, Autonomous Underwater Vehicles (“unmanned robot submarines”) and “laser systems for both shallow and deep-sea submerged diving.”
“Underwater robots swarm the ocean,” says a page on the website of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute. The Institute has developed an acoustic-based navigation system that is enabling large numbers of underwater robots to work together. “Instead of using just a single, larger and more expensive underwater robot to cover an area of the ocean, we want to have hundreds or even thousands of smaller, lower-cost robots that can all work in sync,” says their webpage.
Ocean protection organizations have long been campaigning against noise pollution in the oceans, but they are only beginning to be aware of this new type of assault, which has the potential to dwarf all previous noise assaults in its scope and magnitude. For example, one of the campaigns of the environmental organization, Sea Shepherd, is “Silencing the Deafening Roar of Ocean Noise Pollution.” They write:
“In 1953, Jacques Cousteau published a classic memoir on his early days of underwater exploration. He titled this book The Silent World. Today, human activities make a mockery of that title. Over the past several decades, marine noise pollution has grown at an exponential rate. Noise from vessel traffic is doubling every decade. Pile-driving, dredging, sonar, and seismic exploration for oil and gas add to the cacophony. For marine wildlife, and especially for acoustically-sensitive cetaceans, this anthropogenic racket poses a grave and growing threat. Ocean noise pollution causes severe stress, behavioral changes, masking (i.e., difficulty perceiving important natural sounds), strandings, and noise-induced loss of hearing sensitivity.”
To this mix is now being added the Internet of Underwater Things, which is beginning to flood the oceans with sound in order to connect them to the Internet. And this sound will be pulse-modulated with the same harmful frequencies as radio waves in order to carry the same data. And to communicate over large distances, some of the underwater acoustic modems that are being marketed are capable of producing sound as loud as 202 decibels. That is equivalent to 139 decibels in air. It is as loud as a jet engine at a distance of 100 feet, and is above the threshold for pain in humans. These modems blast modulated sound at frequencies ranging from 7 kHz to 170 kHz, encompassing almost the entire hearing range of dolphins, which use sound for hunting and navigating.
The effects of sonar on whales and dolphins have been widely publicized. But the effects of noise pollution on fish and other denizens of the deep are just as devastating, as Lindy Weilgart details in her 36-pagereportforOceanCare. She reviews 115 research studies on the effects of noise on 66 species of fish and 36 species of invertebrates.
“Most fish and invertebrates use sound for vital life functions,” she writes. “Noise impacts on development include body malformations, higher egg or immature mortality, developmental delays, delays in metamorphosing and settling, and slower growth rates… Anatomical impacts from noise involve massive internal injuries, cellular damage to statocysts and neurons, causing disorientation and even death, and hearing loss… Behaviorally, animals showed alarm responses, increased aggression, hiding, and flight reactions; and decreased anti-predator defense, nest digging, nest care, courtship calls, spawning, egg clutches, and feeding… Some commercial catches dropped by up to 80% due to noise, with larger fish leaving the area.”
If the new assault continues, it will provide the last nails in the coffins of our oceans, and — since the oceans are the source of all life — of our planet. Already in 1970, just 17 years after he published The Silent World, Jacques Cousteau, returning from 3½ years of exploration in which he traveled 155,000 miles, told the world: “The oceans are dying. The pollution is general.”
“People don’t realize that all pollution goes to the seas,” said Cousteau. “The earth is less polluted. It is washed by the rain which carries everything into the oceans where life has diminished by 40 per cent in 20 years. Fish disappear. Flora too.” And what was not being poisoned was being mined for food as though ocean life was an inexhaustible resource. “The oceans are being scraped,” he said. “Eggs and larvae are disappearing. In the past, the sea renewed itself. It was a complete cycle. But this balance was upset with the appearance of industrial civilization. Shrimps are being chased from their holes by electric shocks. Lobsters are being sought in impossible places. Coral itself is disappearing. Even in the Indian Ocean, which is little traveled.”
Life in the oceans today is hanging by a thread. If the rate of population declines continues, there will be no almost fish left in the oceans by 2048.1 The oceans are absorbing 24 million tons of carbon dioxide every day, are 26% more acidic than before we began burning fossil fuels,2 and have absorbed 93% of the heat generated by greenhouse gases since the 1970s.3 The damage already done to coral reefs by acidification, rising temperatures, and bottom trawling would take 100,000 years for nature to repair.4 Diatoms — a type of algae at the base of the ocean’s food chain that is also the source of a third of the world’s oxygen production — have been declining by more than 1% per year for two decades.5 Populations of krill — the small shrimplike crustaceans that make up a large portion of the diet of many species of whales, penguins and seals — have declined by 80% since the 1970s.6 And the deepest layers of the oceans are severely depleted of oxygen — so much so that deep-diving fish no longer dive deep but remain near the surface in order to breathe. And populations of fishes that live in the deep sea are drastically declining. Warming oceans can no longer hold as much oxygen, and it is the deepest waters that are depleted of oxygen first.7,8,9,10 Large numbers of bottom-dwelling crabs have suffocated off the coast of Oregon.11 More than a thousand manatees died of starvation in 2021 off the coast of Florida because the seagrass they eat has been killed by pollution.12 And there is so much plastic throughout the oceans13 that sardines sold in an Australian fish market contain 3 milligrams of plastic in every gram of their tissue.14
Although many are the assaults on the oceans, and on the Earth, the single most urgent assault, which is destroying the planet the quickest, is wireless technology. It is the most destructive itself, and it speeds up and coordinates all the other assaults. And driving all of wireless technology, including wireless technology on land, in space, and in the oceans, is the cell phone. All of wireless technology, from 2G to 5G to the Internet of Things to the Internet of Underwater Things, requires everyone to be holding a cell phone in their hands. It is the director, it is the target, and without it, the present rate of destruction could not continue.
As Hillel said two thousand years ago, “If not now, when? If not me, who?”
While the attention of a terrified world has been riveted on a virus, and while concern about radiation has been focused on 5G on the ground, the assault on the heavens has reached astronomical proportions. During the past two years, the number of satellites circling the earth has increased from 2,000 to 4,800, and a flood of new projects has brought the number of operating, approved, and proposed satellites to at least 441,449. And that number only includes low-earth-orbit (LEO) satellites that will reside in the ionosphere.
The satellite projects include the ones listed below. The companies are based in the United States unless otherwise indicated.
17,270 satellites already approved by the U.S. Federal Communications Commission:
Amazon (Kuiper) – 3,236 satellites
Astro Digital – 30 satellites
Black Sky Global – 36 satellites
Boeing – 147 satellites
Capella Space Corp. – 7 satellites
Globalstar (operating since 2000) – 48 satellites
Hawkeye 360 – 80 satellites
ICEYE – 6 satellites (FINLAND)
Iridium (operating since 1998) – 66 satellites
Kepler Communications – 140 satellites (CANADA)
Loft Orbital – 11 satellites
OneWeb – 720 satellites (UNITED KINGDOM)
Planet Labs (operating) – 200 satellites
R2 Space, LLC – 8 satellites
Spire Global – 175 satellites
SpaceX – 11,943 satellites
Swarm – 150 satellites
Telesat – 117 satellites (CANADA)
Theia Holdings – 120 satellites
Umbra Lab – 6 satellites
Viasat – 24 satellites
Applications for 65,912 satellites pending before the FCC:
Amazon (Kuiper) – 4,538 additional satellites
AST & Science – 243 satellites
Astra Space – 13,620 satellites
Boeing – 5,789 additional satellites
Black Sky Global – 14 additional satellites
Fleet Space Technologies – 40 satellites (AUSTRALIA)
Hughes Network Systems – 1,440 satellites
Inmarsat – 198 satellites (UNITED KINGDOM)
Kepler Communications – two additional constellations of 360 satellites and 212 satellites (CANADA)
ICEYE – has already launched 14 satellites and plans 18, for 12 more satellites than have been approved by the FCC (FINLAND)
Innova Space – 100 satellites (ARGENTINA)
iQPS – 36 satellites (JAPAN)
Kinéis – 25 satellites (FRANCE)
KLEO – 300 satellites – (GERMANY)
Kleos Space – 80 satellites (LUXEMBOURG)
Lacuna Space – 240 satellites (UNITED KINGDOM)
Launchspace – 124 satellites
LunaSonde – unknown number (UNITED KINGDOM)
Lynk Global – 4,990 additional satellites (HONG KONG)
LyteLoop – 6 satellites
MDA – unknown number
Mission Space – unknown number (LATVIA)
Modularity Space – 150 satellites
Muon Space – unknown number
Myriota – 50 satellites (AUSTRALIA)
NanoAvionics – 72 satellites (LITHUANIA)
Ningxia – 10 satellites (CHINA)
NorthStar – 52 satellites (CANADA)
OHB Italia – 20 satellites (ITALY)
Omnispace – 200 satellites
OQ Technology – 60 satellites (LUXEMBOURG)
Orbital Micro Systems – 40 satellites
OroraTech – 100 satellites (GERMANY)
PION Labs – unknown number (BRAZIL)
PIXXEL – 36 satellites (INDIA)
PlanetIQ – 20 satellites
PredaSAR – 48 satellites
Prométhée – unknown number (FRANCE)
QEYNet – unknown number (CANADA)
QianSheng – 20 satellites (CHINA)
Reaktor Space Lab – 36 satellites (FINLAND)
RocketLab- “Mega-constellation” of unknown number (NEW ZEALAND)
Rogue Space Systems – 40 satellites
Rovial – unknown number (FRANCE)
Saab – 100 satellites (SWEDEN)
SaraniaSat – unknown number
Sateliot – 100 satellites (SPAIN)
Satellogic – 90 satellites (ARGENTINA)
SatRevolution – 1500 satellites (POLAND)
Scanworld – 10 satellites (BELGIUM)
Scepter and ExxonMobil – 24 satellites
SCOUT – unknown number
Shanghai Lizheng – 90 satellites (CHINA)
Skykraft – 210 satellites (AUSTRALIA)
Space JLTZ – 200 satellites (MEXICO)
Space Union – 32 satellites (LITHUANIA)
SpaceBelt – 12 satellites
SpaceFab – unknown number
Spacety – 56 satellites (CHINA)
Stara Space – 120 satellites
Startical – 200 satellites (SPAIN)
Sternula – 50 satellites (DENMARK)
Synspective – 30 satellites (JAPAN)
Telnet – 30 satellites (TUNISIA)
Tomorrow.io – 36 satellites
Totum Labs – 24 satellites
Trion Space – 288 satellites (LIECHTENSTEIN)
Trustpoint – unknown number
Umbra Lab – 18 additional satellites
UnseenLabs – 50 satelites (FRANCE)
Vyoma Space – unknown number (GERMANY)
WiseSat Space – unknown number (SWITZERLAND)
Xona – 300 satellites
ZeroG Lab – 378 satellites (CHINA)
Zhuhai Orbita – 34 satellites (CHINA)
Rwanda, which wants to catapult Africa into world leadership in space, filed an application with the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) on September 21, 2021 for 327,320 satellites. Its proposal includes 937 orbital planes, distributed in 27 orbital shells (layers of satellites at different altitudes), with 360 satellites in each plane.
Rwanda Space Agency – 327,320 satellites (RWANDA)
TOTAL: 441,449 SATELLITES OPERATING, APPROVED AND PROPOSED (+18 constellations whose numbers are not yet known)
Most of the above list of satellites would orbit at altitudes between about 325 km (200 miles) and 1,100 km (680 miles), except that some of Rwanda’s proposed orbits go as low as 280 km (174 miles). The above list does not include applications for satellites in geostationary orbit (GEO), or for LEO constellations of fewer than 5 satellites, or constellations in medium earth orbit (MEO) such as:
Intelsat (at 8600 km) – 216 satellites (LUXEMBOURG)
Mangata Networks (at 6,400 km and 12,000 km) – 791 satellites
O3b (at 8,062 km) – 112 satellites (LUXEMBOURG)
Brightening the Night Sky
Scientists have already begun to publish papers analyzing the effect all these satellites will have, not only on astronomy, but on the appearance of the night sky and the visibility of the stars to everyone on earth. An article published online on March 29, 2021 in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society by scientists in
Slovakia, Spain and the United States is titled “The proliferation of space objects is arapidly increasing source of artificial night sky brightness.” The scattering of sunlight from all of the objects in space, wrote the authors, is causing a “new skyglow” during the beginning and end of each night that has already brightened the natural night sky by about 10 percent. The authors are concerned that “the additional contribution of the new satellite mega-constellations” would ruin the night sky to a much greater extent.
A group of Canadian astronomers have an article in the January 2022 issue of The Astronomical Journal. “Megaconstellations of thousands to tens of thousands of artificial satellites (satcons) are rapidly being developed and launched,” they write. “These satcons will have negative consequences for observational astronomy research, and are poised to drastically interfere with naked-eye stargazing worldwide.” They analyzed what the effect on astronomy will be if 65,000 new low- orbit satellites are launched. At 40 degrees latitude (mid-United States; Mediterranean; mid-China; Japan; Buenos Aires; New Zealand), say these authors, more than 1,000 of these satellites will be sunlit and visible in the sky in the summer even at midnight. At higher latitudes (northern U.S.; Canada; most of Europe; Russia), thousands of these satellites will be visible all night long.
“In ancient times, humans everywhere in the world had access to completely dark skies. In stark contrast, today 80% of North Americans cannot see the Milky Way from where they live because of light pollution. The lack of darkness that many people now experience due to urban light pollution has been linked to many physical and mental health issues, both in humans and wildlife. But there are still pockets of darkness where urban-dwellers can escape the light pollution and experience skies nearly as dark as those seen by our ancestors. Unfortunately, light pollution from satellites will be a global phenomenon — there will be nowhere left on Earth to experience skies free from bright satellites in orbit.
“Anyone who has ever spent time in a truly dark place staring up at the stars understands the powerful feeling of connection and insignificance this act inspires. Our lives, our worries, even our entire planet seem so inconsequential on these scales — a feeling that has shaped literature, art, and culture around the globe.
Seeing the night sky makes it immediately obvious that we are part of a vast and wondrous universe full of countless stars… Connecting to the sky is part of our humanity, and everyone in the world is in very real danger of losing that…
“With the naked eye, stargazing from a dark-sky location allows you to see about 4,500 stars… Once Starlink approaches 12,000 satellites in orbit, most people in Canada will see more satellites than stars in the sky.”
The World’s Largest Garbage Pit
And not only do thousands of whole satellites threaten the heavens, but a phenomenal amount of debris orbits the earth as a result of satellites colliding, or exploding, or otherwise being destroyed while in space. During the 64 years that humans have been launching rockets, the protective blankets of the ionosphere and magnetosphere have become the Earth’s largest garbage pit.
According to the European Space Agency there are, in orbit around the Earth today, 7,790 intact satellites, of which 4,800 are functioning. Since 1957, there have been more than 630 breakups, explosions, collisions, and other satellite-destroying events. This has resulted in the creation of more than 9,700 tons of space debris. There are, in orbit today:
In 2021, there were 146 orbital rocket launches to put 1,800 satellites into space. At that rate, to maintain and continually replace 100,000 low-earth-orbit satellites,
which have an average lifespan of five years, would require more than 1,600 rocket launches per year, or more than four every day, forever into the future.
2020 and 2021 witnessed two of the largest Antarctic ozone holes since measurements began in 1979. The 2020 hole was also the longest-lasting on record, and the 2021 hole was only a few days shorter; larger than the continent of Antarctica, it began in late July 2021 and ended on December 28, 2021. Everyone is still blaming chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), which were banned by the Montreal Protocol in 1978. Nobody is looking at rocket launches, of which there were more in 2020 and 2021 than in any previous year. In addition to the 146 orbital launches in 2021, there were 143 sub-orbital launches of rockets to over 80 kilometers in altitude, for a total of 289 high-altitude launches for the year, or almost one every day.
Earthquakes and Thunderstorms
In 2012, Anatoly Guglielmi and Oleg Zotov reviewed evidence that the global use of electricity has an effect on both seismic activity and thunderstorms. In particular, global electric power consumption spikes every hour on the hour, and so does the average number of earthquakes in the world. In 2020, a group of Italian scientists supplied additional information: solar activity also correlates with earthquakes, and it appears to do so by raising the voltage of the ionosphere. Since this must increase the current flow in the global electric circuit (see chapter 9 of my book, The InvisibleRainbow), it would increase the electric currents that flow through the earth’s crust at all times, which would increase the stress on earthquake faults and increase the frequency of earthquakes. The Italian paper’s title is “On the correlation betweensolar activity and large earthquakes worldwide.”
Whether 100,000 satellites, although emitting powerful radio waves, would raise the ionospheric voltage, is doubtful. However, the rocket exhaust from every launch emits tons of water vapor, which is more conductive than dry air. The stratosphere is dry and contains very little water, and any water humans put there remains there for years and accumulates. Multiple daily rocket launches, in perpetuity, will fill the stratosphere with water vapor, increase its conductivity, and increase the current flowing in the global electric circuit. The current flowing through the earth’s crust will increase, possibly increasing the frequency of earthquakes.
I also speculate that this would increase the frequency and power of thunderstorms worldwide. Were it not for thunderstorms, the ionospheric voltage, which averages 300,000 volts, would discharge in about 15 minutes. About 100 lightning strokes per second, somewhere on Earth, continuously recharge it. Increasing the current flow in the global electric circuit would discharge the ionosphere more quickly, and since it is thunderstorms that recharge the Earth’s battery, the frequency and violence of thunderstorms would have to increase.
Alteration of the Earth’s Electromagnetic Environment
What everyone is completely blind to is the effect of all the radiation from satellites on the ionosphere, and consequently on the life force of every living thing. The relationship of electricity to qi and prana has escaped the notice of modern humans. Atmospheric physicists and Chinese physicians have yet to share their knowledge with one another. And at this time, such a sharing is crucial to the survival of life on Earth.
“The pure Yang forms the heaven, and the turbid Yin forms the earth. The Qi of the earth ascends and turns into clouds, while the Qi of the heaven descends and turns into rain.” So the Yellow Emperor’s Classic of Internal Medicine described the global electric circuit 2,400 years ago — the circuit that is generated by the ionosphere and that flows perpetually between the Yang (positive) heaven and the Yin (negative) earth. The circuit that connects us to earth and sky and that flows through our meridians giving us life and health. A circuit that must not be polluted with frequencies emitted by a hundred thousand satellites, some of whose beams will have an effective power of up to ten million watts. That is sheer insanity, and so far no one is paying attention. No one is even asking whether the satellites have anything to do with the profound and simultaneous decline, planetwide, in the number of insects and birds, and with the pandemic of sleep disorders and fatigue that so many are experiencing. Everyone is so focused on a virus, and on antennas on the ground, that no one is paying attention to the holocaust descending from space.
A shocking video recorded in El Ferrol, Galicia, illustrates the effect that electrofrequency pulses emitted by 5G antennas have on birds, affecting their sense of orientation, causing the inevitable collision and subsequent death of many of them.
These same wave qualities affect humans and can cause acute radiation syndrome and further complications if the graphene oxide factor is considered.
In the following video brought to you by Orwell City, La Quinta Columna explains what happened to this group of birds and why.
Let’s see this video, José Luis. It’s very shocking. And it’s not exactly about people, but about animals. Specifically, about starlings in El Ferrol. See what happens because someone, probably a follower of La Quinta Columna, had the opportunity to record a video with a cell phone camera that not all of us have, capable of capturing between 14 and 15 megapixels. And this is saving us a good amount of audiovisual testimonies about what happened the precise moment those starlings fell in the vicinity of the hospital in the city of Ferrol, Galicia. That is, let’s watch the video and judge for yourselves.
It says: “A video shows —COPE published it— the strange attitude of the starlings that died in Caranza when they collided with each other.” Remember that this is in the vicinity of the hospital, just behind the courtyard where we found a telephone antenna. Remember this because this is the firing pin weapon. Let’s take a look at the video, I’ll zoom in because I don’t know if I can put it in full screen, so I’ll zoom in. Zooming in to 200%. Well, here I think we’re more or less going to see it. Here it goes. Let’s see if the video loads. It says: “A video that has just been made public shows the strange attitude of the starlings that died around nine o’clock last Friday, November 26, in the neighborhood of Caranza. In the absence of official confirmation as to what caused the death of about 150 specimens, the graphic work captured from the Hospital Ribera Juan Cardona shows how the flock of birds collide in mid-flight, and how part of them fall straight to the ground.”
The strange thing about this case is the collision in mid-flight of the starlings, something that some of the experts consulted by COPE Ferrol cannot explain. The investigation rules out that the members of this flock died of avian flu”. But man, how can they all die simultaneously from bird flu? Of course, that’s nonsense. “Or by electrocution. This is what COPE Ferrol has been told by a source of the investigation.” But they don’t tell you what they died of. See? “They had trauma to their wings and legs. That is, they were in a decayed state and unable to fly.” They crashed. “Which causes them difficulties to stand up. Faced with this situation, they were treated with force-feeding and mobilization of the fractures observed.” That was what was done with those who were left half alive. “The corpses…” It says: ” To determine if the cause of death could have been intoxication, samples were taken for toxicological analysis of the brain, heart, lung, trachea, kidney, and intestine, and the results are currently awaited. Several hemorrhagic lesions were observed in the intrathoracic area, larynx, and cranioencephalic region, seriously affecting the heart, respiratory system, and brain, but which cannot be related to a viral, bacterial, or parasitic infection. And so, the tests carried out confirm negative for avian influenza.”
Man! They say it can’t be linked to a viral condition and yet the omicron variant does affect your heart, right? That’s what they’re saying. And the brain, too, as they’re telling us.
“The report also stresses that electrocution cannot be determined as the cause of death either since in such case, edema and burn necrosis should appear at the entry and exit points of the electric current.”
They tell you what it isn’t, but they don’t tell you what it might be. You already know what it is. But the video won’t load. I don’t know why. Let’s see. I’m going to adjust it a little bit more because it’s shocking. I have already watched it before. And now I don’t know why it doesn’t load. I’ll look for the exact moment, see if it’s down here. Let’s see. No, that wasn’t it. Let’s load the page again. Let’s see if we have luck. These are inconveniences that happen in the live shows we do. Now. Well, there you can hear the sound of starlings. And now, there comes the moment when they start to move. Look, there they come out. Something has happened, and they all come out. And now watch what they do. There they collide. You see? And you can even hear the noise of the fall. Let’s see, I’ll play it again. Look at it. Let’s see if it can be reproduced. Maybe having gone back a little bit has screwed up the reproduction. Let’s see. It doesn’t play. It takes a while to load. We know the internet is acting up more than it should. We’ll play it from the beginning. Listen for the crashing noise at the moment when all the birds drop all at once if it loads again. Well, there they go. Notice here they collide disoriented, and you can hear the noise of when they fall on a plate or somewhere. I think there are more than hundreds of birds. And then some of them flee in a flock as if they have received the impact or the pulse of something. Impressive, isn’t it?
Dr. Sevillano:
Yes. They were disoriented. Surely all these changes in the behavior of the flock of starlings are due to a level of orientation and perception of the group that, surely, is disturbed when the wave reaches them. And surely, one group got “disconnected” and crashed against the other. That’s what we have seen there. The flock, instead of being coherent in its evolution? There are two groups, one goes, and one comes, when in fact they had to go all in the same direction. Surely, there was an antenna nearby. It’s probably in the hospital from which everything was recorded.
Ricardo Delgado:
Yes, there is one. We saw it yesterday. There’s one just about 80 meters from where this happened.
Dr. Sevillano:
That’s the one that has caused part of the flock to become disoriented. Part of it has become disoriented and echoes the other. They have fallen, as they say out there, in a straight line. I think that…
At the crossroads, all the ones that have been impacted have been left. They have been killed. That’s why the lesions are hemorrhagic. But surely, you’re not going to detect the reason why they’ve become disoriented. It’s like dizziness. What sign can vertigo leave when you’re subjected to that? It leaves you no sign. It simply throws you off balance. But there’s no injury. There isn’t. And it’s the same with birds. The injuries are derived from trauma. That is what generates the hemorrhages that have been seen.
In their petition, advocates argued that it is “deeply inappropriate” for the UN agency to partner with CropLife, whose member companies (Bayer, Syngenta, Corteva Agriscience, FMC and Sumitomo) make around one-third of their sales from Highly Hazardous Pesticides (HHPs), or pesticides that pose the highest levels of risk to health and the environment.
Recent estimates show that there are 385 million cases of acute unintentional pesticide poisonings each year, up from an estimated 25 million cases in 1990. “This means that about 44% of farmers and agricultural workers around the world are poisoned each year by an industry dominated by CropLife members,” the petition said.
PAN Europe, along with other organizations, held a mobilization in front of the FAO headquarters in Rome to accompany the petition delivery and to mark the anniversary of the Bhopal tragedy, also commemorated as World No Pesticide Use Day. Advocates from around the world also participated in a Global Day of Action, including placard protests and a social media rally urging the FAO to stop the #ToxicAlliance.
“Pesticides have disastrous consequences on people’s health and biodiversity, while science shows agroecology can feed the world in a pesticide-free manner. There is no way FAO can justify its collaboration with CropLife. We will make sure the European Union reacts to this intolerable situation,” stated Martin Dermine, Policy officer at PAN Europe, who were among those gathered in Rome to urge the FAO leadership to abandon its controversial pesticide industry partnership.
“More than 187,000 people think that getting into bed with the pesticides industry is a bad move for the FAO. This partnership would turn the FAO into a marketing arm for these toxic companies whose products poison millions of farmers every year,” added Keith Tyrell, Director of PAN United Kingdom.
“The partnership between the FAO and CropLife will undermine all efforts made in Africa to ban dangerous pesticides, and will leave the door open to the export of pesticides banned in Europe such as atrazine, paraquat etc. We denounce and strongly reject this ‘Toxic Alliance’ as it is beset with conflict of interests not known to the public, to the detriment of health protection and environmental preservation,” said Maimouna Diene, coordinator of PAN Africa.
“The alliance between FAO and CropLife implies a greater influence on public policies by the companies that manufacture and sell pesticides, especially in the most vulnerable countries where the expansion of monocultures and the use of Highly Hazardous Pesticides is favored, which impacts socio-environmental health. On the contrary, FAO and governments should favor agroecological production as the basis of a comprehensive link with the environment to achieve food sovereignty,” commented Javier Souza, Regional Coordinator of PAN Latin America (RAPAL).
“FAO should not jeopardise its integrity and its achievements in agroecology by cooperating with the very industry that is responsible for the production of HHPs that are known to cause severe or irreversible harm to peoples’ health or the environment worldwide. We need a strong FAO, independent from the market interests of global corporations, and which supports the establishment of safe, healthy and sustainable food and farming systems,” said Susan Haffmans, Pesticides Officer at PAN Germany.
“We cannot expect that partnering with an association of hundreds of subsidiaries to multinational giants like Bayer and Syngenta –who have vested interests in increasing the sales of their products– will support FAO’s own goals of reducing reliance on pesticides. It is incompatible with FAO’s mandate as a UN institution to protect human rights, including the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment, which the UN Human Rights Council just recently recognized,” stated Simone Adler, Organizing Co-Director of PAN North America.
The global petition delivery follows letters of appeal submitted by over 350 international civil society and Indigenous peoples’ organizations and 250 scientists and academics last year, after the signing of the partnership agreement between FAO and CropLife in October 2020. A coalition of 11 global organizations, including PAN, followed up with a formal request to meet with Director-General Qu to discuss their concerns, but has not received a response to date.
“It is alarming how big business dominates in setting the direction of policymaking, as we have seen with the corporate capture of the UN Food Systems Summit. We expect that CropLife will take full advantage of this partnership with FAO to expand and consolidate corporate control over food and agriculture. We cannot just take it sitting down,” concluded Sarojeni Rengam, Executive Director of PAN Asia Pacific.
On Friday, civil society and indigenous peoples organizations delivered more than 187,300 petition signatures from over 107 countries to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) Director-General Qu Dongyu, demanding that the FAO end its partnership with CropLife International, an association representing the world’s largest agrochemical companies. The global petition was facilitated by Pesticide Action Network (PAN), Friends of the Earth, SumOfUs, and the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL).
It’s called a Natural Asset Company. With it the New York Stock Exchange has unveiled the most radical and potentially most destructive plan yet to make literally trillions of dollars on something that is the natural right and heritage of the entire human race—nature itself, all nature, from air, fresh water to rainforests to even farmland. It is being promoted as a way to incentivize the preservation of nature. In fact it is a diabolical scheme to financialize potentially trillions of dollars of nature, ultimately allowing a globalist financial elite to control even this. And the Rockefeller Foundation is a founding partner. The combination of the NYSE and that foundation ought to sound loud alarm bells .
The term financialize refers to the act of converting intangible value into financial instruments. Now hiding behind the fake facade of the Green Agenda that the UN and Davos WEF are promoting along with major OECD governments, Wall Street and the world’s largest financial institutions are promoting a scheme to financialize virtually all of nature. They even hired McKinsey and others to put a dollar value on it. They claim it all is worth 4 Quadrillion dollars or 4000 trillion dollars. Yet how can we put a dollar price on something given by nature?
Rockefeller Foundation is Behind it Too
The NYSE project to create a new class of stocks—NACs or Natural Asset Companies, to be traded alongside stocks like Apple or Boeing or Chevron—was developed in a collaboration by the Rockefeller Foundation and something they founded known as the IEG group or Intrinsic Exchange Group.
What is the IEG? To quote from their website, IEG was created by the Rockefeller Foundation together with World Bank affiliate IDB of Latin America. Two years ago IEG began work on the NYSE project. Their “Strategic Advisor”, Robert Herz, was Chairman of the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) from 2002 to 2010. That says volumes about the thinking behind the IEG project. Herz today sits on the boards of many corporations including Morgan Stanley bank and US Government-sponsored real estate enterprise, Fannie Mae.
As they state on their website, IEG has created “a new asset class based on nature and the benefits that nature provides (termed ecosystem services). These services include carbon capture, soil fertility and water purification, amongst others.” They plan to bring this about by creation of the NYSE-recognized “new form of corporation called a ‘Natural Asset Company’ (NAC). The NYSE agreement will serve as their “platform to list these companies for trading, enabling the conversion of natural assets into financial capital. The NAC’s equity captures the intrinsic and productive value of nature and provides a store of value based on the vital assets that underpin our entire economy and make life on earth possible.” They further state, “IEG is proposing a transformational solution whereby natural ecosystems are not simply a cost to manage, but rather, an investible productive asset which provides financial capital and a source of wealth for governments and its citizens.” Note the “source of wealth for governments and it’s citizens.”
Nothing can go wrong here, or? The same Rockefellers who created the oil trust and the deadly GMO patented seeds now want to put a price on all nature. This is the financialization of nature and it is not going to be for charity or good-hearted motives, but rather for profit of investors, lots of it. The key to it all is who defines the “nature agenda” and you can be sure it is the corrupt UN Agenda 2030 “sustainable” goals and its cousin the Davos WEF Great Reset of the world economy. The agenda is imposed top down and it is not good.
How it Works
The NAC is to be created through an IPO like any new stock listing. The NAC then publicly sells shares to investors who could include Institutional Investors such as BlackRock–the $9.5 trillion asset manager, the world’s largest–or Vanguard Group or, say, the Norwegian or Chinese Sovereign Wealth funds. BlackRock CEO Larry Fink conveniently sits on the board of Klaus Schwab’s World Economic Forum, promoters of UN Agenda 2030 and of the Great Reset of the global financial system to a “sustainable” one.
The IEG describes the possibilities: “…as the natural asset prospers, providing a steady or increasing flow of ecosystem services, the company’s equity should appreciate accordingly providing investment returns. Shareholders and investors in the company through secondary offers, can take profit by selling shares. These sales can be gauged to reflect the increase in capital value of the stock, roughly in-line with its profitability, creating cash-flow based on the health of the company and its assets.”
Where the Money Goes
Shares in the NAC can be bought by others but it will clearly be dominated by big financial actors as are all important stocks. The new company, say one which claims ownership of a part of the Amazon Rain Forest, will then be subject to accounting standards including a new IEG-created “Statement of Ecological Performance: The financial value of the flow of ecosystem services and the assets that produce them.” The value placed on the flow of ecosystem services is the key, and that is being controlled by people like IEG’s Robert Herz, a board member of Morgan Stanley bank.
As IEG states, via the NYSE platform, “IEG converts natural asset value to financial capital in order to provide owners a way to financially benefit from the value of their natural assets.” But the rewards would also go to the shareholders like BlackRock or others by creating “financial transactions valuing natural assets that allow institutional investors to recognize, participate in and preserve nature’s value.” That means to make a profit on their stocks. Here the door is wide open to manipulation.
According to the statement of the IEG the proceeds from the NAC stock offering or IPO can be used by the sponsoring government to invest as it will. That means a corrupt regime in say, Ukraine or Mexico or Lebanon could use it to buy arms or whatever. The opportunities for misuse are staggering.
The fact that this NAC scam is being orchestrated by the Rockefeller Foundation is more than revealing. That foundation has been behind every major transformation of the global economy since more than a century to bring control into the hands of a global oligarchy committed to population reduction. The Rockefeller Foundation created the destructive GMO patented plants coupled with the toxic glyphosate weed killers that are ruining out food supply and poisoning our waters. The foundation is playing a key role in the covid pandemic lockdown strategy, as well as in reorganizing the world food production to destroy self-sufficient farming in favor of “sustainable” carbon free farming. The New York Stock Exchange and its project with the Rockefeller Foundation does not promise benefit for mankind or nature, only for the money trust.
F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”
Organizations From 34 States and 29 Countries Join Amicus Brief Asking U.S. Supreme Court to Strike Down a Clause in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 That Prohibits Local Governments From Regulating Cell Towers
On November 23, 2021, 289 organizations and 34 individuals filed an amicus (friend of the court) brief in support of our petition to the United States Supreme Court.
Our petition asks the Court to strike down, as unconstitutional, a clause in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 that prohibits local governments from regulating cell towers on the basis of health and the environment.
The organizations that signed the amicus brief are from:
ALASKA
ARIZONA
CALIFORNIA
COLORADO
CONNECTICUT
FLORIDA
GEORGIA
HAWAII
IDAHO
IOWA
KENTUCKY
MAINE
MASSACHUSETTS
MICHIGAN
MINNESOTA
MISSOURI
NEVADA
NEW HAMPSHIRE
NEW JERSEY
NEW MEXICO
NEW YORK
NORTH CAROLINA
OHIO
OREGON
PENNSYLVANIA
RHODE ISLAND
SOUTH CAROLINA
TEXAS
UTAH
VERMONT
VIRGINIA
WASHINGTON
WEST VIRGINIA
WISCONSIN
and from:
ARGENTINA
AUSTRALIA
AUSTRIA
BELGIUM
CANADA
CHILE
DENMARK
FRANCE
GERMANY
IRELAND
ISRAEL
JAPAN
MEXICO
MONACO
NETHERLANDS
NEW ZEALAND
NORWAY
PANAMA
PERU
PHILIPPINES
PORTUGAL
ROMANIA
SLOVAKIA
SOUTH AFRICA
SPAIN
SWEDEN
SWITZERLAND
UNITED KINGDOM
In addition, the following national organizations signed the amicus brief:
AMERICANS FOR RESPONSIBLE TECHNOLOGY
BUILDING BIOLOGY INSTITUTE
MOMS ACROSS AMERICA
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR CHILDREN AND SAFE TECHNOLOGY
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL MEDICINE
NATIONAL SOCIETY OF LEADERSHIP AND SUCCESS
ORGANIC CONSUMERS ASSOCIATION
And the following international organizations signed:
FAI FEDERACIÓN AMBIENTALISTA INTERNACIONAL
(International Environmental Federation)
INTERNATIONAL EMF ALLIANCE
INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR HUMAN ACCOUNTABILITY
INTERNATIONAL NETWORK FOR SAFE TECHNOLOGY, ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY & PROTECTION (INSTEPP)
STOP 5G INTERNATIONAL
TAKE BACK YOUR HEALTH INTERNATIONAL
And the following organization representing Latin America signed:
LATINOAMÉRICA POR TECNOLOGÍA SEGURA (LATAMxTS)
(Latin America for Safe Technology)
The amici are not just EMF and Stop 5G organizations. They are also doctors, therapists, performing artists, and environmental organizations of all kinds:
1-800-EARTH
Rights of Nature
Health & Habitat
Community Planet Foundation
Malibu Agricultural Society
Santa Barbara Green Sisters
Willits Environmental Center
Once A Forest
NY4Whales
Ocean Mammal Institute
Help Our Planet Earth
Vermonters for a Clean Environment
Be The Change Earth Alliance
Entre Terre et Ciel
Natur-Akademie
Freundliche Erde e.v.
Terra SOS-tenible
Urobia, Parque Ecológico
Sortir du Nucléaire
The Conscious Farmer
Artemis Bees
Cornwall Lovers Environmental Activists Network
Mind Your Wildlife Manors
and others.
You can read all of the filed documents on the Supreme Court’s website: the petition we filed on October 25, 2021; the amicus brief that was filed on November 23, 2021 in support of our petition; and the list of all the amici.
We have about one and a half months to circulate these three documents far and wide, in order to get publicity and widespread support from around the world, before our petition goes before the Supreme Court for consideration. We want the general public to start talking about our petition, so that the Supreme Court hears about it from many sources, and knows that it is important.
The Petitioners are Santa Fe Alliance for Public Health and Safety, Arthur Firstenberg, and Monika Steinhoff. The Respondents are the City of Santa Fe, the Attorney General of New Mexico, and the United States of America. The Respondents have until December 29, 2021 to answer our petition. We then have until January 12, 2022 to reply to them. The petition then goes to the Court for its consideration, to decide whether or not to hear our case.
Please forward the three documents – the petition, the amicus brief, and the list of amici — to everyone you know. Send them to newspapers and radio and TV stations where you live. Send them to environmental organizations that you are members of, and to environmental organizations that you are not members of.
Give them to your elected representatives. Distribute them in the street. Call radio talk shows. Tell everyone this petition is for the future of life on Earth. And it is. Not just because it is about cell towers. But because it represents the restoration to us all of the right to health, a clean environment, and a future. We must stop fighting one another, take back responsibility for how we live in the world, and unite in common cause.
Democrats and Republicans, Liberals and Conservatives, blacks and whites, Christians and Muslims, rich and poor, advocates for insects, birds, whales and forests, and against plastics, pesticides, global warming, and both nuclear and wireless radiation.
There are practically no insects or birds left, and the oceans are dying. This is an opportunity — an opportunity to generate widespread awareness of this health and environmental problem and to build bridges and make connections that have not been possible until now.
“Let’s assume some Dr. Neo Frankenfauci bent over a bubbling cauldron somewhere in the bowels of the International Technoapparatchikcrats’ Institute for Genetic Shenanigans is cooking up a potion that includes all sorts of secret ingredients in the recipe, things like heavy metals and parasites and a clever code in the messenger RNA to modify a body in such a way to produce proteins it otherwise wouldn’t have produced.
And let’s imagine the same said Dr. Frankenfauci inventing various means to introduce the potion into the food supply and touting it as a way to quackcinate people via their GMO food supply. And let’s imagine cows, birds, pigs, foxes and wolves eating said food supply (or each other), and voila, the modifications spread and start executing their programs in several different species.”
On this website [Giza Death Star] and in our members’ vidchats, a number of readers and contributors of articles have been wondering to what extent a patented synthetic life form places a lien on an individual who may wittingly or unwittingly consume it. Well, if you have any doubts about the ultimate answer to that question and the lengths that Mr. Globaloney and his “technoapparatchikcrats” intend to go, check out the following article shared by V.S.:
As the article notes, the “plan” was outlined in a United Nations-sponsored conference (who else?) known as the Brundtland Commission, which was later published by Oxford University Press (who else?), under the title Our Common Future.
The article is well worth reading in its entirety, especially for its focus on the hypocrisy of global and corporate elites when they express concern for “the environment”:
The Rio conference proposed the question, what can be done to save the world from excessive development that causes pollution, global warming, loss of rain forests, etc. The answer was that more development was needed and by the same actors that were previously wrecking habitats and plundering nations. In other words, more development was needed to erase the effects of previous development. Brundtland convinced the UN that this somehow made sense, and it was subsequently adopted as “the agenda for the 21st century” in 1992.
But then comes the crucial question:
Others saw through the smoke and mirrors. Two environmental researchers and authors noted in their book, The Earth Brokers: “free trade and its promoters came to be seen as the solution to the global ecological crisis.”[3] They could not have been more blunt:
“We argue that UNCED has boosted precisely the type of industrial development that is destructive for the environment, the planet, and its inhabitants. We see how, as a result of UNCED, the rich will get richer, the poor poorer, while more and more of the planet is destroyed in the process.”[4]
In 2021, this result could not be more clearly seen: the rich are off the charts, the poor are in the gutters and the planet and its economic systems are in tatters.
How did we get here?
The answer is a stunner:
“Neither Brundtland, nor the secretariat, nor the governments drafted plan to examine the pitfalls of free trade and industrial development. Instead, they wrote up a convention on how to ‘develop’ the use of biodiversity through patents and biotechnology.”[5]
Note the buzzword “biodiversity”. This key term is the conceptual heart of a line of reasoning elegantly laid out in the article:
“The diversity of species is necessary for the normal functioning of ecosystems and the biosphere as a whole. The genetic material in wild species contributes billions of dollars yearly to the world economy in the form of improved crop species, new drugs and medicines, and raw materials for industry.”[6]
The specific development of biodiversity is seen in Chapter 6, Species and Ecosystems: Resources for Development:
“Species and their genetic materials promise to play an expanding role in development, and a powerful economic rationale is emerging to bolster the ethical, aesthetic, and scientific case for preserving them. The genetic variability and germplasm material of species make contributions to agriculture, medicine, and industry worth many billions of dollars per year… If nations can ensure the survival of species, the world can look forward to new and improved foods, new drugs and medicines, and new raw materials for industry.”[7]
Further on, Brundtland states:
“Vast stocks of biological diversity are in danger of disappearing just as science is leaning how to exploit genetic variability through the advances of genetic engineering… It would be grim irony indeed if just as new genetic engineering techniques begin to let us peer into life’s diversity and use genes more efficiently to better human conditions, we looked and found this treasure sadly depleted.”[8]
Conclusion #1:The word “biodiversity” is explained to mean “genetic resources”. Genes are something to be exploited and used more efficiently than they are used in their natural state.
Turning back to The Earth Brokers, the authors’ observations provide an eye-witness account of what they actually saw at the UNCED and Biodiversity Convention summit:
“The convention implicitly equates the diversity of life – animals and plants – to the diversity of genetic codes, for which read genetic resources. By doing so, diversity becomes something that modern science can manipulate. Finally, the convention promotes biotechnology as being ‘essential for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity.”[9]
If there is any doubt as to what the goal is, they conclude with this mind-blowing statement:
“The main stake raised by the Biodiversity Convention is the issue of ownership and control over biological diversity… the major concern was protecting the pharmaceutical and emerging biotechnology industries.”[10]
So note the steps of the “logic”: (1) the genetic diversity of of species on the planet is necessary to its survival; (2) this “bioviersity” is a source of great wealth; (3) this wealth can be increased by the “scientific manipulation” of that diversity; (4) that scientific manipulation in turn raises “the issue of ownership and control over biological diversity; and that in turn means that (5) the pharmaceutical and “biotechnology” industries would have to be protected.
How would these protected industries implement this ownership?
To reinforce the thought, the authors bluntly stated, “they wrote up a convention on how to ‘develop’ the use of biodiversity through patents and biotechnology.”[11]
In other words, to establish ownership over “biodiversity” it was only necessary to establish a patent lien on a species by the biotechnological or genetic manipulation of that species. The implication of this statement is that every species on the planet will have to be so modified in order to establish that lien. The process can be made much simpler by the introduction of genetic technologies capable of traveling from one species to another and executing biotechnological programming. Think of it as the next step in the Mon(ster)santo strategy of suing farmers whose property is discovered to have GMO plants growing on it, whether known to the farmer or not. Unlike the Mon(ster)santo strategy, it is no longer necessary to send out actual human spies, one can simply engineer the tracking of the modifications by including the tracking in the modification. Think Baal Gates here.
Of course, there’s an assumption implicit in all this “reasoning” and that is that the scientific manipulation of “biodiversity” will actually lead to more diversity and hence to “survivability” and “sustainability” (not to mention that the limits of the claim of patent liens on ownership as a legal issue impinging on fundamental God-given human rights are not mentioned at all). Let’s do a bit of high octane speculation. Let’s assume some Dr. Neo Frankenfauci bent over a bubbling cauldron somewhere in the bowels of the International Technoapparatchikcrats’ Institute for Genetic Shenanigans is cooking up a potion that includes all sorts of secret ingredients in the recipe, things like heavy metals and parasites and a clever code in the messenger RNA to modify a body in such a way to produce proteins it otherwise wouldn’t have produced. And let’s imagine the same said Dr. Frankenfauci inventing various means to introduce the potion into the food supply and touting it as a way to quackcinate people via their GMO food supply. And let’s imagine cows, birds, pigs, foxes and wolves eating said food supply (or each other), and voila, the modifications spread and start executing their programs in several different species.
As a result, what is happening is not more “biodiversity,” but less. And at a certain threshold it may be that “biodiversity” sufficiently collapses due to the degradation of the genetic pool of a species, indeed, of several species through the spread of the engineered manipulation itself.
In short, all of this wonderful plan depends on the hubris of the manipulators that, indeed, they have sufficient wisdom in the current state of human knowledge to do it.
Sorry, but I’m not buying the product. We were (and are) constantly assured that the mRNA quackcines were (and are) entirely safe… while the strange adverse reactions keep growing, as hospital emergency rooms are overflowing with people with respiratory and sudden heart problems, and so on.
Rather, what strikes me is that this is a reckless and desperate attempt to collateralize – to enslave – humanity itself via such a scheme.
And while we’re talking about ownership, these modern doctors Frankenfaucis are gambling on something else: that the original owner(s) won’t show up…
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:
“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 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.
“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. 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 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 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 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).
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).
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.
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).
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).
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/zeitwissen/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
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. . 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).
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 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).
Zaret, Milton M. “Blindness, Deafness and Vestibular Dysfunction in a Microwave Worker.” The Eye, Ear, Nose and Throat Monthly 54: 291 (1975).
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. 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 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 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 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 longdistance 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 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 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.
Petition Filed Asking U.S. Supreme Court to Restore the Right of Americans to Protect Their Health, Their Lives and Their Property From Microwave Radiation
The Santa Fe Alliance for Public Health and Safety filed a petition yesterday afternoon asking the U.S. Supreme Court to rule on a threat to the very existence of this country, and this world.
Twenty-five years ago, Congress passed a law that permitted the unlimited pollution of every square inch of this country with microwave radiation. The polluters — telecommunications companies — were exempted from all liability for injury, death and property damage. Cities and states were forbidden to protect their citizens. State courts were prohibited from hearing lawsuits. The millions of people who have been injured, killed, and deprived of their income and property by cell towers and antennas have had no remedy for their injuries, deaths and losses.
The law that accomplished this assault on our country is the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Section 704 of that law states:
“No State or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the Commission’s regulations concerning such emissions.”
The “Commission” is the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which has no authority over health or environment, and does not even have the power to enforce its own regulations concerning microwave (also called radio frequency) radiation.
The result of Section 704 is that no one has been protecting our country, our citizens, and our environment from this radiation for the past 25 years — not the FCC, not the states, not the cities, and not the courts.
The advent of 5G technology has brought this situation to a crisis point. Like many other cities, Santa Fe, New Mexico passed an ordinance exempting antennas in the public rights-of-way from all land use requirements, and in 2018, franchises were awarded to five telecommunications companies to place cell towers and antennas anywhere they please in the streets and on the sidewalks of Santa Fe. The Santa Fe Alliance for Public Health and Safety immediately filed a lawsuit in federal district court. That lawsuit is now before the highest court in the land.
We are asking the Supreme Court to rule on two related questions:
Does Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 violate the right of access to courts guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Constitution?
Does “environmental effects” mean “health effects” in Section 704?
Either an affirmative answer to the first question, or a negative answer to the second, would immediately restore to all Americans the right to protect their health, their lives and their property from microwave radiation, and would subject telecommunications companies to liability for the injuries, deaths and property damage they are causing.
We need as many organizations as possible to support this petition by joining the amicus (friend of the court) brief that is now being prepared, and which must be filed in the Supreme Court by November 24, 2021. The Supreme Court picks and chooses the cases it will decide, and the more support we have from organizations throughout the world, the more likely the Court will grant our petition and hear our case. The granting of our petition, by itself, will get publicity, and will advance public awareness of this invisible threat to our nation.
Simply talking to one another, putting on conferences, organizing protests, and filing lawsuits against the FCC, which has no authority over health, has not and cannot advance our cause to any significant degree. The proper target for attack is not the FCC, but the unconstitutional law that Congress passed 25 years ago. If your organization would like to join the amicus brief and has not already done so, please send the following information to me at <info@cellphonetaskforce.org> as soon as possible:
Organization’s name, email address, mailing address, and phone number
Your name and your role in the organization
Organization’s website and social media URLs (if any)
Roughly, how many members?
Mission statement
Is your organization for profit?
Any other information you would like to share Thank you.
Donations in any amount are always appreciated. This litigation has been costly. The Cellular Phone Task Force is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, and donations from U.S. residents are tax-deductible.
The last 29 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, and Norwegian.
On “The Defender Show,” Dr. Zach Bush, triple-board-certified physician, and host Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., discussed immunity, herbicides, gut health and the need to end chemical food systems “extremely quickly.”
To explain why the shikimate pathway is so vital to our microbiome, Bush described the process of a ripple effect. By adding glyphosate, genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and other environmental toxins to soils, air and water, the shikimate pathway, which contains the 22 amino acids that exist for all proteins, can no longer utilize most of those amino acids.
“The way glyphosate injures people is really by the microbiome,” Kennedy clarified. “And by rewarding the bacteria that caused inflammation and making a much more hostile environment in your gut and in your body.”
You are “removing the police force for the invaders,” Kennedy said, allowing inflammation to take over the body.
Bush likened the 22 amino acids in the body to the alphabet. “You’ve only got these few letters that produce hundreds of thousands of words.”
In the same way vowels are critical to the English language, the 22 essential amino acids are critical for the shikimate pathway. Without vowels most words will be misspelled. By eliminating four or more of the critical amino acids, the body is “misspelled” at the protein level.
“And when we miss the proteins, we lose detoxification capacity,” Bush said. He described the ripple effect, adding that without repair capacity, people age at an accelerated rate, which leads to the emergence of diseases such as sarcomas.
“And so in just a single generation, by deleting the alphabet of human biology, we ended up with a chronic disease epidemic on a grand scale,” he said.
Glyphosate “breaks the tight junctions of the Velcro between our body and the outside world,” Bush said. “And, when you lose the tight junctions, you turn into a leaky sieve. And what you’ve just destroyed is the very front line of a whole category of human immunity that we call the innate immune system.”
Bush shared an uplifting story about working with pre-diabetic children in a classroom in Hawaii, and how eating food grown from a regenerative school garden rebalanced their bodies so they no longer were predisposed for diabetes. His nonprofit focuses on planting regenerative gardens in food desert environments.
Kennedy told Bush he’s glad his work addresses both policy and practical solutions. “I wish you were secretary of HHS [Health and Human Services] and you were redirecting this thing to actually saving humanity,” Kennedy said.
“We can do it faster than HHS can,” said Bush. We need to end chemical food systems and we have to do it “extremely quickly,” he added.
“Now it’s time for mobilization and a coherent plan for the public,” said Bush, who has great faith in the power of our innate immune system. “It’s so easy to get stressed out over the powers that be when you hear things about the ‘deep state’ or a ‘cabal,’ but we’re in the driver’s seat — literally, we can go into their fear and guilt paradigm and play into the whole thing, or we can just create an alternative pathway.”
Watch the interview here:
“The Defender Show” is hosted by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., founder, chairman and chief legal counsel of Children’s Health Defense, and author of multiple books, including the New York Times bestseller, “Crimes Against Nature.” Kennedy was named one of Time magazine’s “Heroes for the Planet” for his success helping Riverkeeper lead the fight to restore the Hudson River. He is founder of Waterkeeper Alliance, and of counsel to Morgan and Morgan, a nationwide law firm.
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
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
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.
CookingYourDNAandRoastingYourNerves
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 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.”
EffortsbytheEPAtoProtectAmericans
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 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 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.
On September 29, 2021, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service published a notice in theFederal Register saying that it is proposing to list the American bumble bee as a threatened or endangered species, and that it is requesting comments and information about threats to the existence of this species. The agency is taking this action in response to a petition submitted by the Center for Biological Diversity.
Until 2002, the American bumble bee was the most common species of bumble bee in the United States, occurring in every state except Alaska, Hawaii and Washington. But in the past 20 years its numbers have plummeted nationwide by almost 90%. It has disappeared entirely from Connecticut, Idaho, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, Wisconsin and Wyoming, and has almost vanished from New York, Michigan, Pennsylvania and West Virginia.
The Fish and Wildlife Service lists four threats to the existence of the American bumble bee: habitat destruction, loss of genetic diversity, climate change, and competition from nonnative honey bees. But the agency has failed to explain why any of these threats should have caused a once-abundant species to suddenly begin to vanish, throughout the United States, in the year 2002. Radiation from cell towers can explain this. 2002 is the year that what we now call 3G technology was introduced in the United States, which turned every cell phone into a computer and connected every cell tower to the Internet. The number of cell towers and cell phone users began to increase tremendously.
Yesterday I submitted my comments to the Fish and Wildlife Service [see Arthur’s letter below] summarizing the threat to bees posed by radio frequency (RF) radiation from wireless technology. This is an opportunity for us to take collective action to bring this threat to bees, and to all life, out into the open. I have received hundreds of emails from people all over the world in recent years about bees suddenly vanishing from their yard and their neighborhood as soon as a cell tower was built nearby. I encourage everyone who has observed this happening to send comments to the Fish and Wildlife Service telling exactly what you saw happen to the bees after a cell tower was erected — the honey bees, the wild bees, and the bumble bees. Whatever you observed.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
MS: PRB/3W
5275 Leesburg Pike
Falls Church, VA 22041-3803
Attention: Louise Clemency, Chicago Ecological Services Field Office
Re: American Bumble Bee Docket No. FWS–R3–ES–2021–0063
THREAT TO THE AMERICAN BUMBLE BEE FROM RF RADIATION
In response to a petition from the Center for Biological Diversity, the Fish and Wildlife Service published a Notification of Status Review on September 29, 2021 in the Federal Register. The Service proposes to list the American bumble bee as a threatened or endangered species and requests comments and new information concerning threats to the existence of that species. In its Notification, FWS lists four threats that to the American bumble bee that it has identified: habitat destruction, loss of genetic diversity, climate change, and competition from nonnative honeybees.
I submit the following information regarding a fifth threat to this species: radio frequency (RF) radiation. RF radiation is a threat to both honeybees and bumble bees and is a greater and more urgent threat to the American bumble bee than any of four threats the Service has listed. This pollutant has been responsible for reducing both domestic and wild bee populations for more than a century. This threat to bees has intensified since the beginning of the wireless revolution in 1996, with the construction of hundreds of thousands of cell towers and antennas in all areas of the United States including farmland, forest land, parkland, and nature preserves. It has become an emergency in the past two years with the national rollout of 5G technology, which is multiplying the density of antennas tenfold and more, as well as increasing the frequency, bandwidth, and effective radiated power from each antenna. Cell towers are already exposing the entire world to levels of RF radiation that are up to ten million times stronger than the natural radiation that comes from the sun and stars.
Mechanisms of Action
RF radiation is a form of electromagnetic energy that is used for communication. It is emitted by radio and TV towers, radar stations, cell towers, cell phones, and all of the other wireless devices that are proliferating in today’s world. It interferes with navigation, communication and metabolism in bees. It is the effect on metabolism that is killing bees the quickest and driving them to extinction.
Metabolism
Electronic devices and systems manufactured today must be hardened against electromagnetic interference (EMI) from RF radiation coming from so many sources today. A living organism is also electronic in nature and is also subject to EMI. However, life evolved in the virtual absence of RF radiation and is not hardened against it. This radiation affects biology in many ways, but most critical for bees is the interference with electron transport in the mitochondria of cells. The electron transport chain is which is where the last, energy-producing step in metabolism takes place. It is where electrons generated by the metabolism of the sugars, fats and proteins we eat are transferred to the oxygen we breathe, resulting in the generation of ATP. Interference with metabolism affects bees more than other creatures because bees have such a high metabolic rate. It deprives them of energy by starving them of oxygen.
That this actually happens was proved in 2011. N. Kumar, S. Sangwan and P. Badotra, “Exposure to Cell Phone Radiations Produces Biochemical Changes in Worker Honey Bees.” ToxicologyInternational 181(a):70-72 (2011). These researchers exposed bees to an ordinary cell phone and sampled their hemolymph. After 10 minutes of exposure to a cell phone, the concentration of total carbohydrates in their hemolymph increased from 1.29 to 1.5 mg/ml. After 20 minutes it increased to 1.73 mg/ml. The glucose content rose from 0.218 to 0.231 to 0.277 mg/ml. Total lipids rose from 2.06 to 3.03 to 4.50 mg/ml. Cholesterol rose from 0.230 to 1.381 to 2.565 mg/ml. Total protein rose from 0.475 to 0.525 to 0.825 mg/ml. In other words, after just ten minutes of exposure to a cell phone, metabolism of sugars, fats and proteins was severely inhibited.
If bees cannot metabolize their food they cannot fly and they will crawl on the ground and die.
Science
The quickest way to destroy a bee hive, scientists have found, is to place a wireless telephone inside it.
In 2009, VP Sharma and N Kumar placed two cell phones each—one in talk mode and one in listening mode in order to maintain the connection—in two of four hives. They turned them on at 11:00 in the morning for 15 minutes, and again at 3:00 in the afternoon for 15 minutes. They did this twice a week between February and April. As soon as the phones were turned on the bees would become quiet and still. During the course of three months fewer and fewer bees flew in and out of those two hives. The number of eggs laid by the queen declined from 546 to 145 per day. The area under brood declined from 2,866 to 760 square centimeters. Honey stores declined from 3,200 to 400 square centimeters. “At the end of the experiment there was neither honey, nor pollen nor brood nor bees in the colony resulting in complete loss of the colony,” wrote the authors.
The following year Kumar performed the experiment described above in which she demonstrated that electromagnetic fields from a cell phone interfere with cellular metabolism in bees and cause them to become oxygen starved.
Daniel Favre, at the Apiary School of the City of Lausanne, Switzerland, observed that bees exposed to a cell phone would become quiet and still at first, but within 30 minutes they would starts to produce loud, high frequency sounds like worker piping, which is usually produced by bees when they are preparing to swarm.
Sainudeen Pattazhy, a professor at Sree Narayana College, placed one cell phone inside each of six bee hives and turned the phone on for just ten minutes, once a day for ten days. While the phone was on, the bees became still. The egg-laying rate of the queen declined from 355 to 100 per day. After ten days no bees were left in any of the hives.
German biologist Ulrich Warnke has published a booklet titled Bees, Birds and Mankind: Destroying Nature by ‘Electrosmog’, in which he reviews the science on the effects of electromagnetic pollution on orientation, navigation and communication in birds and in bees. “Animals that depend on the natural electrical, magnetic and electromagnetic fields for their orientation and navigation through earth’s atmosphere are confused by the much stronger and constantly changing artificial fields created by technology and fail to navigate back to their home environments.”
Russian researchers EK Eskov and AM Sapozhnikov found in 1975 that bees generate electromagnetic signals with a modulation frequency between 180 and 250 Hz as they perform their waggle dance, and that hungry bees react to the frequencies by holding their antennae erect.
History
Bees 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 1996, when cell towers began to be erected throughout the United States, and became a worldwide emergency by 2006, when it was renamed “colony collapse disorder.” Today not only domestic bees, but also all wild bees are in danger of extinction.
In the winter of 1995-1996, beekeepers lost 45 percent of their hives in Kentucky, 60 percent in Michigan, and 80 percent in Maine. By 1997, 90 percent of all feral honey bee colonies had disappeared nationwide.
Europe’s first UMTS network—what is now known as “3G” technology, which greatly expanded the network of cell towers and connected them all to the Internet, enabling the operation of smartphones—went into service in the fall of 2002, just before the disastrous winter during which so many of Europe’s honey bees vanished.
Ferdinand Ruzicka, a medical physicist and beekeeper in Austria, wrote an article in Bienenwelt (“Bee World”) about this problem in 2003 and published a survey form in Bienenvater (“Beekeeper”) requesting to be contacted by beekeepers with antennas near their hives. Ruzicka’s colonies had collapsed after telecommunications antennas appeared in a field near his hives. The majority of Bienenvater readers who filled out his form similarly observed that their bees had become suddenly aggressive when antennas appeared, had begun to swarm, and that their healthy colonies had vanished for no other reason.
In 2003, Swedish beekeeper Börje Svensson published an article titled “Silent Spring in northern Europe?”
During the winter of 2006-2007, when disappearing disease was renamed “colony collapse disorder,” a team of researchers examined thirteen large apiaries owned by eleven different commercial beekeepers in Florida and California, and could not find any specific nutritional, toxic, or infectious factor that differentiated bees or colonies with and without colony collapse disorder. Tracheal mites were more than three times as prevalent in the healthy colonies as in the decimated colonies. The supposedly devastating Varroa mite was not more prevalent in collapsed or collapsing colonies. The only specific observation they were able to make was that colony collapse disorder was location-specific, and that colonies with this disorder tended to cluster together. The colonies in those locations not only died, but tended to be left alone even by the parasites that normally infest dead honey bee colonies.
Simultaneous to the disappearance of honey bees, bumble bees also disappeared. The Franklin bumble bee, formerly prevalent in southwestern Oregon, has not been seen since about 2005. Until the mid-1990s, the western bumble bee was abundant in forests, fields, and urban backyards throughout western North America, from New Mexico to Saskatchewan to Alaska. It has vanished except for small pockets in the Colorado Rockies. The rusty-patched bumble bee has not been seen in New York State since 2004. Once common in 26 states and two Canadian provinces, this bee has disappeared from the eastern United States and Canada and has drastically declined in the American midwest.
And, the FWS’s 90-day finding reports that the American bumble bee, formerly the most common species of bumble bee in the United States, has disappeared entirely from 12 states and is in severe decline in the 35 states in which it is still found. The petition from the Center for Biological Diversity reports that this species exists at only 11% of its former abundance, and that its rapid decline began only 20 years ago, in 2002.
Conclusion
The Service has failed to provide any reason why any of the four threats to this species that have been identified so far—habitat destruction, loss of genetic diversity, climate change, and competition from nonnative honey bees—should have suddenly cause the American bumble bee’s population to plummet after 2002. RF radiation can provide that reason. 3G cell towers and smartphones were introduced in that year in the United States as well as in Europe. On January 28, 2002, Verizon launched 3G service in Utah; in a corridor from Norfolk, Virginia to Portland, Maine; and in the San Francisco/Silicon Valley area. Sprint launched a nationwide 3G network on August 8, 2002.
The American bumble bee should be listed as an endangered species. This listing should occur as quickly as possible. And the FWS should investigate the urgent threat to this species from RF radiation, in addition to the threats that it has listed in its Notification of Status Review.
References
Anderson, John. 1930. “‘Isle of Wight Disease’ in Bees. I.” Bee World 11(4): 37-42.
Dyer, F.C. and J.L. Gould. 1981. “Honeybee orientation: a backup system for cloudy days.” Science 214: 1041-1042.
Eskov, E. K. and A. M. Sapozhnikov. 1976. “Mechanisms of Generation and Perception of Electric Fields by Honeybees. Biophysik 21(6): 1097-1102.
Imms, Augustus D. 1907. “Report on a Disease of Bees in the Isle of Wight.” Journal of the Board of Agriculture 14(3): 129-40.
Kuhn, J. and H. Stever. 2002. “Auswirkungen hochfrequenter elektromagnetischer Felder auf Bienenvölker.” Deutsches Bienen Journal 4: 29-22.
Kumar, Neelima R., Sonika Sangwan, and Pooja Badotra. 2011. “Exposure to Cell Phone Radiations Produces Biochemical Changes in Worker Honey Bees.” Toxicology International 18(1): 70-72.
Lindauer, Martin and Herman Martin. 1972. “Magnetic Effect on Dancing Bees.” In: Sidney R. Galler, Klaus Schmidt-Koenig, G. J. Jacobs, and Richard E. Belleville, eds., Animal Orientation and Navigation (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office), NASA SP-262, pp. 559-67.
Pattazhy, Sainudeen. 2011. Impact of Electromagnetic Radiation on the Density of Honeybees: A Case Study. Saarbrücken, Germany: Lambert Academic.
Pattazhy, Sainudeen. 2011. “Impact of Mobile Phones on the Density of Honey Bees.” Munis Entomology and Zoology 6(1): 396-99.
Pattazhy, Sainudeen. 2012. “Electromagnetic Radiation (EMR) Clashes with Honeybees.” Journal of Entomology and Nematology 4(10): 1-3.
Phillips, Ernest F. 1925. “The Status of Isle of Wight Disease in Various Countries.” Journal of Economic Entomology 18: 391-95.
Rennie, John, Philip Bruce White, and Elsie J. Harvey. 1921. “Isle of Wight Disease in Hive Bees: The Etiology of the Disease.” Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, vol. 52, part 4, no. 29, pp. 737-79.
Ruzicka, Ferdinand. 2003. “Schäden Durch Elektrosmog.” Bienenwelt 10: 34-35.
Ruzicka, Ferdinand. 2006. “Schäden an Bienenvölkern.” Diagnose: Funk 2006.
Sharma, Ved Parkash and Neelima R. Kumar. 2010. “Changes in Honeybee Behaviour and Biology under the Influence of Cellphone Radiations.” Current Science 98(10): 1376-78.
Svensson, Börje. 2003. “Silent Spring in Northern Europe?” Bees for Development Journal 71: 3-4.
Underwood, Robyn M. and Dennis vanEngelsdorp. 2007. “Colony Collapse Disorder: Have We Seen This Before?” Bee Culture 35(7): 13-18.
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. 2009. “Colony Collapse Disorder: A Descriptive Study.” PLoS ONE 4(8): e6481.
Warnke, Ulrich. 1973. “Neue Ergebnisse der Elektrophysiologie der Bienen. Apidologie 4(2): 150.
Warnke, Ulrich. 1976. “Effects of Electric Charges on Honeybees.” Bee World 57(2): 50-56.
Warnke, Ulrich. 2009. Bienen, Vögel und Menschen: Die Zerstörung der Natur durch “Elektrosmog.” Published in English as Bees, Birds and Mankind: Destroying Nature by “Electrosmog.” Kempten, Germany: Kompetenzinitiative.
Westerdahl, B. B. and N. E. Gary. 1981. “Flight, Orientation, and Homing Abilities of Honeybees Following Exposure to 2.45-GHz CW Microwaves. Bioelectromagnetics 2: 71-75.
Wilson, William T. and Diana M. Menapace. 1979. “Disappearing Disease of Honey Bees: A Survey of the United States.” American Bee Journal, February, pp. 118-19; March, pp. 184-86, 217.
Respectfully submitted,
Arthur Firstenberg, President
Cellular Phone Task Force
Wildfire roulette continues to take a terrible toll in Northern California. The climate engineering cabal has relentlessly cut of the flow of moisture into much of the US West. Ionosphere heater induced high pressure heat domes and constant jet sprayed aerosol dispersions are core to the equation. The Fawn Fire is the latest of numerous forest incinerations to occur in the vicinity of my habitat preserve and off-grid home.
Arthur Firstenberg is a scientist, journalist and author who is at the center of a growing worldwide movement to bring attention to the most ignored threat to life on Earth. His book, The Invisible Rainbow: A History of Electricity and Life is the first book to tell the history of electricity from an environmental point of view.
The Cellular Phone Task Force: https://www.cellphonetaskforce.org/ provides a global clearinghouse for information about wireless technology’s harmful effects, and a support network for the millions of people injured by this technology.
Firstenberg is the Administrator and Co-author of the International Appeal to Stop 5G on Earth and in Space. To date, the Appeal has more than 300,000 signatures from 214 countries and territories.
Spangdahlem Air Base, Germany September 5, 2012 – An American airman takes a sample of wastewater from the wastewater treatment facility. The U.S. Air Force command says the facility removes hazardous chemicals from wastewater before it is released into the environment. Per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are not considered to be hazardous substances by the Americans. [Source: U.S. Air Force]
Günther Schneider, a farmer from Binsfeld, Germany, has photos that show what the stream that flows through the village of Binsfeld looks like when aqueous film-forming foam is released from a fire suppression system in hangars on the Spangdahlem Air Base—like a fluffy white ribbon.
All around the meadows, shreds of foam remained like huge snowballs. The toxic substances used in fire-fighting foams on base have contaminated the sewer water, ground water, surface water, and the air, both on and off the base. The foam contains highly toxic per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances, (PFAS).
Throughout the world, the U.S. military has taught soldiers to practice putting out super-hot petroleum-based fires using the deadly foams on military installations.
They dug one-meter-deep craters that were 30 to 60 meters in diameter, and they filled them with jet fuel. They ignited the fuel before extinguishing the flames with the PFAS-laden foams. The toxic “forever chemicals” were allowed to leach into the groundwater and pour into sewer systems, thereby contaminating the environment.
The groundwater monitoring program of the state of Rhineland-Palatinate in the vicinity of the Spangdahlem Air Base found PFAS at concentrations of 1,935 parts per trillion (ppt). The drainage system in Spangdahlem is still spreading the chemicals.
Some U.S. states, like New Jersey, limit two varieties of PFAS found in the poisoned German ground to 14 parts per trillion for Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and 13 parts per trillion for Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS). There are about 8,000 types of PFAS and they are all believed to be dangerous.
The chemicals—in the tiniest amounts—are known to contribute to testicular, liver, breast and kidney cancers, as well as abnormalities in the developing fetus and a host of childhood diseases, ranging from Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder to childhood asthma. Most of the PFAS in our bodies comes from the food we eat, especially fish.
Alexander S. Neu, a member of Die Linke (The Left) in the German Bundestag, along with other Die Linke members of the parliament, have questioned the responsibility for the assumption of environmental damage caused by U.S. troops in Germany.
When the town of Wittlich-Land, close to the sprawling NATO Spangdahlem base, tried to sue the U.S. military for poisoning the town’s sewer system and croplands with PFAS where the contaminated sludge was spread, it discovered it was not allowed to sue the Americans in court.
The poisonous sludge grows poisonous crops. Today, the town incinerates the substances at great environmental and financial cost. The PFAS in the sludge doesn’t burn. Incineration sprinkles tiny toxic particles of PFAS onto homes and fields downwind.
A German brown trout caught in Spanger Bach Creek, near Spangdahlem, was found to contain 82,000 parts per trillion of PFAS. Public health scientists around the world have been warning people not to consume more than 1 ppt of the poisons daily.
Last year, 9,000 kilometers away, a fire suppression system at an aircraft hangar discharged 143,830 liters of the deadly fire-fighting foam from Marine Corps Air Station Futenma in Okinawa. Carcinogenic clouds of foam soared 30 meters into the sky settling on children at a nearby playground.
Okinawan children play with giant toxic “snowflakes” near the U.S. Marine Corps Air Station Futenma, Okinawa. [Photo courtesy of YouTube]
Toshio Takahashia, an Okinawan environmental activist, reported immediately after the incident that frothy foam could be seen pouring from several sewer pipes coming from the Marine Corps base into a a small stream. The deadly bubbles flow to the Hira River through Ginowan City into the East China Sea, poisoning water and fish along the way.
Tomohiro Yara, a representative of the National Diet from Okinawa, reflected the attitude of the Okinawan public when he said, “The U.S. government should take full responsibility for cleaning up soil and water at any military base abroad. We must protect the environment for everyone on the planet.”
Swordtail, pearl danio, guppy, and tilapia caught near the base all contained more than 100,000 ppt of PFAS.
David Steele, Commanding Officer, Marine Corps Air Station Futenma, Okinawa, told the Okinawan people, “When it rains it will subside.” Sadly, these are “forever chemicals” and will poison people and the environment for many generations to come. The Americans accept no responsibility for their criminality because they are not required to do so.
Imperial subjects worldwide need only watch this video of a suppression system at McGhee Tyson Air National Guard Base, in Knoxville, Tennessee, to witness the criminal assault on future generations in that state. One teaspoon of this foam is enough to poison the drinking water reservoir of a large, modern city. See video here.
The U.S. military has known these chemicals are poisonous since the 1970’s. They have contaminated huge swaths of the earth while using them, and they will continue to use them until they are forced to stop. Much of the world has moved beyond the toxic fire-fighting foams and has begun using extraordinarily capable fluorine-free foams while the U.S. military sticks to its killer chemicals.
The American military is not only at war against many of the world’s people, but it is also at war against its own people. It is a war of poisons. Rather than being fought with bombs and bullets it is fought with an arsenal of toxins. The American military is on a mission (we’re still trying to figure out exactly what it is) and everything is subservient to it. Fetal abnormalities, altered DNA, a host of cancers and childhood diseases are no less a threat to humanity than the American missiles hurled from afar to burn human flesh.
Truths conveyed here are largely unmarketable and unpalatable in the United States of America. The American people must learn to seek truth in media that may not include outlets like the New York Times or CNN.
From Germany and Japan to Maryland, 75 Miles South of Washington
PFAS-laden foam travels across St. Inigoes Creek from Webster Field to my beach in Southern Maryland. [Photo by Pat Elder]
Like Günther, Alexander, Toshio, and Tomohiro, I am also a subject of the American empire. I have no rights or protections from the abuses of the American overlords beyond those of my German and Japanese brethren.
The Patuxent River Naval Air Station in Maryland (Pax River) reported lthat groundwater at Pax River’s Webster Outlying Field contains 84,757 ppt of PFOS. The toxins were detected at Building 8076, also known as Fire Station 3. The level of toxicity is 1,200 times the 70 ppt federal non-mandatory advisory. The groundwater and the surface water from the small naval installation drain into St. Inigoes Creek, a short distance to the Potomac River and the Chesapeake Bay.
I live on the beach 1,800 feet across a deep saltwater creek from the area where PFAS was routinely released into the environment over many years.
Webster Field is located 12 miles southwest of Pax River in St. Mary’s County, Maryland, about 75 miles south of Washington, D.C.
PFAS Contamination at Webster Field
Webster Field occupies the peninsula between St. Inigoes Creek and the St. Mary’s River, a tributary of the Potomac River. The Webster Outlying Field annex is home to the Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft Division, along with Coast Guard Station St. Inigoes, and a component of the Maryland Army National Guard.
Building 8076 is adjacent to the aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) Crash Truck Maintenance Area where trucks using foams containing PFAS were regularly tested. The site is less than 200 feet from St. Inigoes Creek, directly across from my family. The practice, according to the Navy, was discontinued in the 1990’s, although the damage continues. The high PFAS levels recently reported are a testament to the staying power of the so-called “forever chemicals.”
Firehouse 3 Webster Field
Highest Readings
PFOS 84,756.77
PFOA 2,816.04
PFBS 4,804.83
In February 2020, I tested the water on my beach on St. Inigoes Creek in St. Mary’s City for PFAS. The results I published shocked the community. The water was shown to contain a total of 1,894.3 ppt of PFAS with 1,544.4 ppt of PFOS. In early March 2020, immediately before the pandemic, 275 people packed into the Lexington Park Library to hear U.S. Navy representatives dismiss their concerns and defend its use of PFAS.
Many were more concerned with the quality of the waters in the creeks and the rivers and the Chesapeake Bay than the drinking water. They had many unanswered questions for the Navy. They were worried about contaminated seafood.
The results I received were generated by the University of Michigan’s Biological Laboratory using EPA method 537.1.
The Navy has only addressed PFOS, PFOA, and PFBS. It fails to address the levels of 11 other types of harmful PFAS found in St. Inigoes Creek: PFHxA, PFHpA, PFHxS, PFNA, PFDA, PFUnA, PFDoA, PFTrDA, PFTA, N-MeFOSAA, NEtFOSAA.
Instead, Patrick Gordon, NAS Patuxent River Public Affairs Officer questioned the “veracity and accuracy” of my results.
This is pretty much a full-court press, and I don’t stand much of a chance while trying to warn the public. The Navy wants to be left alone. The Maryland Department of the Environment doesn’t give a damn, and neither do the St. Mary’s County and State of Maryland Health Departments.
The five conservative Republican County Commissioners are not leading a charge. Senators Ben Cardin (D-MD) and Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) and Representative Steny Hoyer (D-MD 5th District) have been largely silent.
The watermen see a threat to their livelihood. My neighbors say if it were so bad, the authorities would have taken care of it by now.
It’s a lonely, frightening business telling the truth in the land of the free and the brave.
In response to the findings of high levels of the fire-fighting toxins at my beach last year, Ira May, who oversees federal site cleanups for the Maryland Department of the Environment, told the Bay Journal that contamination in the creek, “if it exists,” could have another source. The chemicals are often found in landfills, he noted, as well as in biosolids and at sites where civilian fire departments sprayed foam. “So, there are multiple potential sources,” May said. “We’re just at the beginning of looking at all of those.”
It appears the state’s top environmental official was covering for the military. The nearest firehouse is five miles away, while the closest landfill is 11 miles away. My beach is 1,800 feet from the deadly foam releases.
Fate and Transport of PFAS
It is important to understand the fate and transport of PFAS. The science is not settled. I found 1,544 ppt of PFOS while the Webster Field groundwater on the facility had 84,000 ppt of PFOS.
Our beach sits on a cove north-northeast of the base while the prevailing winds blow from the south-southwest, that is, from the base to our beach. The foams gather with the tide on many days. Sometimes the foam is a foot high and becomes airborne. If the waves are too high the foam dissipates.
Within about one to two hours of high tide, the foams dissolve into water, like dish detergent bubbles left alone in the sink. Sometimes we can see the line of foam begin to form as it hits the shelf of the creek.
For approximately 125 meters the water in front of our house is about 1-1.5 meters deep at low tide. Then, suddenly, it drops to 6-8 meters. That’s where the foams begin to build and move toward the beach. This is 20-30 years after the Navy says they stopped releasing the materials into the ground.
There are other factors to consider regarding the fate and transport of various PFAS in water. For starters, PFOS is the great PFAS swimmer and can travel for miles in groundwater and in surface water. The Germans and the Japanese know a lot about PFOS levels in their rivers near NATO and U.S. bases. They know how poisoned their fish have become.
PFOA, on the other hand, seems to be more stationary and tends to contaminate the land, agricultural produce, beef, and poultry. PFOS moves in the water, as is evidenced in the University of Michigan results of the water in St. Inigoes Creek.
After my water results were dismissed by the state, I tested the seafood from the creek for PFAS. Oysters were found to have 2,070 ppt; crabs had 6,650 ppt; and a rockfish was contaminated with 23,100 ppt of the substances. There has been no official response and no mea culpa from the military.
This stuff is poison. The Environmental Working Group says we ought to keep the consumption of these chemicals below 1 ppt daily in our drinking water. More importantly, the European Food Safety Authority says 86% of the PFAS in humans is from the food we consume, especially the seafood.
The state of Michigan tested 2,841 fish for various PFAS chemicals and found the average fish contained 93,000 ppt of PFOS alone. Meanwhile, the state limits drinking water to 16 ppt of PFOS –while people are free to consume fish containing thousands of times more of the toxins.
The 23,100 ppt found in our St. Mary’s City, Maryland, rockfish may seem low compared to the Michigan average, but Webster Field is not a major airbase and cannot service the Navy’s large fighters, like the F-35.
Larger installations typically have higher PFAS levels. A single F-35 may cost more than $100 million and the Pentagon wants to make sure they’re not destroyed in a hangar fire or a training exercise, so they make a judgment that the value of the jet fighter is greater than the value of a baby in the womb.
Although the Naval Command at the Pax River NAS says, “There is no current complete exposure pathway to people from releases of PFAS to on or off base receptors,” they are only considering drinking water sources, and even this claim may be challenged.
Many homes in the predominately African-American Hermanville community, which straddles the west and south sides of the base, are served by well water. The Navy has refused to test these wells, claiming that all of the PFAS from the base runs into the Chesapeake Bay.
The St. Mary’s County (MD) Health Department says it will not test the wells because it trusts the Navy’s findings regarding the toxic plumes of contamination.
Last month the Navy invited “Residents and other interested parties in the vicinity of NAS Patuxent River and Webster Outlying Field” to attend a virtual meeting on PFAS to be held on April 28th.
The way I see it, everyone on the planet is in the vicinity of these two naval installations 75 miles south of Washington. It would be good for people to join such meetings and post comments. They are poisoning our rivers and our oceans. We are one world, subjects of the American empire, whether we live in Germany, Japan or Maryland.
Environmentalist and campaigner Dr Rosemary Mason recently wrote an open letter to the head of the Pesticides Unit at the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), Jose Tarazona.
(Since this article was written, Jose Tarazona has stepped down from his position and the letter has been forwarded to his successors, Manuela Tiramani and Benedicte Vagenede.)
Mason wrote to Tarazona because the licence for glyphosate is up for renewal in the EU in 2022 and the Rapporteur Member States (France, Hungary, the Netherlands and Sweden), tasked with risk assessing glyphosate and appointed by the European Commission in 2019, said in June 2021 that there was no problem with glyphosate-based herbicides, the world’s most widely used weedkillers in agriculture.
Mason informs Tarazona that the European Commission has colluded with the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to allow Bayer to keep glyphosate on the market. A substance that is toxic to both human health and the environment.
To set out her case, Mason enclosed a 5,900-word report informing Tarazona of the malfeasance and corruption that have resulted in environmental devastation and a severe, ongoing public health crisis. Her report brings together key research and analyses into the toxicity of glyphosate and industry dominance over regulatory processes.
What appears below is the second part of an article based on Mason’s report. Part one can be read here. This second part questions why a proven toxic substance like glyphosate is still sanctioned for use in the EU.
Industry PR and reality
Although the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) Committee for Risk Assessment agreed that glyphosate causes serious eye damage and is toxic to aquatic life with long-lasting effects, in December 2017 the then European Commissioner Jean-Claude Juncker still reauthorised glyphosate use in the EU for five more years.
The European Glyphosate Renewal Group (GRG) has lobbied hard to ensure that the licence for glyphosate will again be renewed in 2022. The GRG is a collection of companies that have prepared a dossier with scientific studies and information on the supposed safety of glyphosate. This dossier was submitted to the evaluating member states and the EFSA as part of the EU regulatory procedure to evaluate whether glyphosate and glyphosate-containing products should be kept on the market in the EU.
Current members of the GRG are Albaugh Europe SARL, Barclay Chemicals Manufacturing Ltd., Bayer Agriculture bvba, Ciech Sarzyna S.A., Industrias Afrasa S.A., Nufarm GMBH & Co.KG, Sinon Corporation and Syngenta Crop Protection AG.
Cristina Alonso is the chair of the GRG and is also the head of Regulatory Affairs Crop Protection at Bayer AG. On the GRG website, Alonso writes:
“As GRG Chairman, I am personally committed to ensuring the decisions made during the regulatory process are based on sound science and supported with transparent, honest and cooperative dialogue among all stakeholders, while also respecting different viewpoints.”
Based on what is set out in this article, it could be concluded that Alonso’s notion of “sound science” has little to do with the regulatory process that she refers to.
Bayer CropScience was also part of the European Glyphosate Task Force (GTF) which lobbied for the reauthorisation of glyphosate in the EU back in 2017. Mason argues that the GTF conveniently overlooked many critical papers from South America in its submission as part of the EU glyphosate reapproval process. She fears that what we are currently seeing is a repeat of the previous process which led to the reauthorisation of glyphosate.
It raises the question, do sound science, honesty and transparency really govern how Bayer et al act in general and, more specifically, where the glyphosate regulatory process is concerned?
“In the last 25 years, the consumption of pesticides increased by 983%, while the cultivated area increased by 50%. A production system based on the systematic application of agricultural poisons means, inevitably, that nature responds by adapting, forcing farmers to apply greater quantities of pesticides in the field to achieve the same objectives. Over the years, a system has been created by and for sellers of pesticides, who every year increase their net sales (in 2015, the increase was 9%) while our patients, too, year after year are being exposed to this pesticide pollution more and more.”
The doctors stated that the massive and growing exposure to pesticides has changed the disease profile of Argentine rural populations and that cancer is now the leading cause of death. They noted that exposure to glyphosate or agricultural poisons in general leads to increases in spontaneous abortions and birth defects as well as increased endocrine disorders such as hypothyroidism, neurological disorders or cognitive development problems and soaring of cancer rates to a tripling of incidence, prevalence and mortality.
The physicians warned about the toxic nature of modern agriculture which results from the immense influence of large multinational pesticide companies.
As explained in part one of this article, this public health crisis is not limited to South America. People elsewhere, not least in the US and UK, are experiencing the devastating health impacts because of the huge increase in glyphosate-based herbicides being sprayed on food crops in recent decades.
The agrochemical conglomerates are more concerned with increasing their sales regardless of the damage to the environment and public health. No number of sound-bites about sound science or transparency can disguise their genuine motives and the impacts of their actions.
Glyphosate is a multi-billion-dollar cash cow for these companies and protecting that revenue stream is their priority. In 2015, for example, Monsanto made nearly $4.76 billion in sales and $1.9 billion in gross profits from herbicide products, mostly Roundup.
Sound science?
A new scientific analysis confirms the dominance of industry in driving policy and its reliance on selective science and dubious studies when lobbying to keep glyphosate on the market.
‘Evaluation of the scientific quality of studies concerning genotoxic properties of glyphosate’, by Armen Nersesyan and Siegfried Knasmueller of the Institute of Cancer Research at the Medical University of Vienna, concludes that the claim of glyphosate not being genotoxic cannot be justified on the basis of manufacturers’ studies. (Genotoxic substances induce damage to the genetic material in cells through interactions with the DNA sequence and structure.)
Of the 53 industry-funded studies used for the EU’s current authorisation of glyphosate in 2017, the evaluation concluded that some 34 were identified as “not reliable”, with another 17 as “partly reliable” and only two studies as “reliable” from a methodological point of view.
In response to this new research, Angeliki Lyssimachou, environmental scientist at the Health and Environment Alliance, says:
“This new scientific analysis shows yet again that the European Union’s claim to having the most rigorous pesticide authorisation procedure in the world has to be taken with a heavy grain of salt. The authorisation procedure in place is evidently not rigorous enough to detect errors in the execution of the regulatory studies that are blindly considered the gold standard. Yet these were at the heart of the 2017 EU market approval of glyphosate, and they have now been submitted again in an effort to water down scientific evidence that glyphosate may cause cancer and is a danger to human health.”
Helmut Burtscher, biochemist at GLOBAL 2000, argues that if you subtract from the 53 genotoxicity studies those studies that are not reliable and those studies that are of minor importance for the assessment of genotoxicity in humans, then nothing remains. He asks on what basis are the EU authorities claiming that glyphosate is ‘not genotoxic’?
According to Peter Clausing, toxicologist at Pesticide Action Network Germany, in 2017, EU authorities violated their own rules to ensure an outcome that pleased the chemical industry.
A point reiterated by Nina Holland, researcher at Corporate Europe Observatory, who argues that national regulators and EU authorities alike do not seem to pay close scrutiny when looking at the quality of industry’s own studies.
Holland states that regulators exist to protect people’s health and the environment, not serve the interests of the pesticide industry.
Eoin Dubsky, Campaigner at SumOfUs, goes a step further by saying that people are sick of glyphosate and of being lied to.
Dubsky asks:
“How could EFSA give glyphosate a thumbs-up based on such shoddy scientific studies when IARC warned that it is genotoxic and probably cancer-causing too?”
The IARC is the WHO International Agency for Research on Cancer.
Unsound studies aside, there is sound scientific research that should be driving the risk assessment but which seems to have been overlooked. A point not lost on Dr Mason.
She asks why key scientific studies have been side-lined, especially those from Latin America where Monsanto has grown GMO Roundup Ready crops since 1996 (glyphosate is the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup weedicide).
She also asks why was a 2010 groundbreaking study showing that Roundup causes adverse impacts on embryonic development and produces birth defects side-lined? Why have scientific studies that show that glyphosate is an endocrine-disrupting chemical that causes infertility been overlooked? Why have papers that show that glyphosate causes cancer been missed? And why have the effects of exposure to glyphosate-based herbicides on the brain not been properly considered?
Some key studies documenting the adverse effects of glyphosate are listed at the end of this article.
Ban Glyphosate Now!
In April 2017 (before Bayer purchased Monsanto), Bart Elmore, assistant professor of environmental history at Ohio State University, wrote a telling piece for Dissent Magazine that pointed out some of the real costs of producing glyphosate. These included radioactive waste piles, groundwater pollution, mercury emissions and poisoned livestock.
Glyphosate is derived from elemental phosphorous extracted from phosphate rock buried below ground. Monsanto got its phosphate from mines in Southeast Idaho near Soda Springs, a small town. The company has been operating there since the 1950s.
Elmore visited the site and watched as trucks dumped molten red heaps of radioactive refuse over the edge of a mountain of waste. The dumping happened about every 15 minutes. Horses grazed in a field just a few dozen yards away and rows of barley waved in the distance.
When phosphate ore is refined into elemental phosphorous, Elmore explains, it leaves a radioactive by-product known as slag. Monsanto’s elemental phosphorous facility, situated just a few miles from its phosphate mines, produces prodigious quantities of slag that contains elevated concentrations of radioactive material.
In the 1980s, the EPA conducted a radiological survey of the community and warned that citizens might be at risk from elevated gamma ray exposure and thus cancer.
Of course, the cancerous effects of glyphosate are not restricted to the community of Soda Springs. Due to its prevalence in agriculture and its use by municipal authorities, glyphosate is in our food and in our bodies. Marius Stelzmann of the Coordination gegen BAYER-Gefahren (CBG), refers to the ongoing court cases in the US regarding glyphosate use and cancer.
Marius says:
“… despite more than a year and a half of negotiations for a settlement in the glyphosate affair, the global player (Bayer) still cannot present a solution. It still has not reached agreements for compensation with all of the 125,000 US plaintiffs who accuse the herbicide of being responsible for their cancers. As a response to these actions, the CBG has launched the campaign ‘Carcinogen. Climate killer. Environmental toxin. Ban glyphosate now!’”
In a recent press release, the European Federation of Food, Agriculture and Tourism Trade Unions (EFFAT) demanded an immediate ban on glyphosate. It also called for more investments in the promotion of alternatives to the use of glyphosate and other harmful pesticides and urges a clear governance in charge of a smooth transition with the involvement of trade unions.
The EFSA, ECHA and the European Commission should carry out their current assessment of glyphosate in a transparent and reliable way. Instead, it seems that, as in 2017, the agrochemical industry is still manipulating and driving the process.
The EFFAT says that alternatives to the use of glyphosate and other harmful chemicals already exist and must be further promoted, not least appropriate agronomic practices, mechanical and biological weed control, animal grazing and natural herbicides.
Selected key studies documenting serious adverse health impacts of glyphosate
Dafna Tachover is an attorney and former telecoms specialist for the Israeli Defence Force.
Dafna Tachover is director of the Children’s Health Defense 5G & Wireless Harms Project. She is an attorney in both New York and Israel, has an MBA and is the founder of We Are The Evidence, an advocacy organization for the protection of the rights of the many people who have been injured by wireless technology radiation.
She has a technology background including in wireless networks and infrastructures from her service in the Israeli Defense Forces as a telecommunication and computers officer and the commander of the computer center of the IDF’s Operations Center and of its headquarters.
She recently sued the US government for ignoring safety studies surrounding the current 5G rollout.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit court ruled the Federal Communications Commission failed to provide a reasoned explanation for its determination that its current guidelines adequately protect against harmful effects of exposure to radiofrequency radiation.
Dafna spoke to me about wireless technology, from wifi to bluetooth to 5G, explaining the dangers and harm it all causes.
Climate engineering operations are cutting off the flow of moisture to the US West, how much longer can Californians last without rain? Primary reservoirs are about to run dry, Lake Shasta in Northern California is a case in point. Though there is very little water left in the lake and record wildfires are burning in regions surrounding Lake Shasta, the boat launching and recreating continues unabated. No matter how devastating and dire environmental degradation has become, there are many who are willing to ignore biosphere collapse in order to keep their personal pursuit of pleasure going till the last possible moment. Can the masses be awakened in time?
Recently, former assistant secretary of Housing and Urban Development Catherine Austin Fitts and I recorded her latest Solari Report quarterly wrap-up, and during those sessions, she briefly mentioned a very significant thing, so significant it may have been lost amid all the other things we were talking about. That thing was space debris, and the possibility – in my opinion a strong one – that one of this century’s boom industries might very well be space debris clean-up operations.
With that in mind, consider this story that was spotted and shared by N. (Thank you!) The story in a nutshell? A bit of Russian space debris recently collided with a Chinese satellite:
The collision itself is not all that unusual, nor noteworthy:
Several researchers have warned against space debris. Last March, their cautions proved to be true after the Chinese satellite Yunhai 1-02 came in contact with the remains of the Russian Rocket Zenit-2. Yunhai 1-02 gained severe damages during the collision.
In September 2019, China launched a military satellite for disaster prevention and mitigation, observing atmospheric, marine and space environments and scientific experiments. It was later reported to have suffered a “break-up event” on March 18.
…
At that time, the details of the collision were unclear. Many theorized it might have experienced problems with its propulsion system.
However, astrophysicist and satellite tracker Jonathan McDowell served a different explanation for the damage.
…
On August 15, McDowell spotted an update on the Space-Track.org. This is a website that monitors space activity, with records available to registered users. McDowell said that the update wrote “Object 48078, 1996-051Q: ‘Collided with satellite.'”
McDowell further explained that Object 48078 is a small piece of space junk, about 4 inches and 20 inches pieces from the Zenit-2 rocket that launched Russia’s Tselina-2 spy satellite back in September 1996.
Now, before we continue, let me be clear. Some collisions I view as highly suspicious. Back in 2009, for example, a Russian and American satellite collided. (See https://www.rferl.org/a/US_Russian_Satellites_Collide_In_Space/1491787.html) At the time, I entertained a high octane speculation that perhaps “someone” had nudged both satellites together: after all, neither Russia nor the United States is in the habit of placing satellites in orbits where they will deliberately collide. I still adhere to this view, at least with respect to that particular incident.
Here, however, I incline to the view that this was an accident. And the reason I do so is highlighted by the article itself:
This recent incident reiterates the earlier warnings of researchers. If space debris is not cleared up from Earth’s orbit, the number of space collisions will increase to insane rates.
McDowell told Space.com that “Collisions are proportional to the square of the number of things in orbit. That is to say, if you have 10 times as many satellites, you’re going to get 100 times as many collisions.”
With each collision producing more debris, the chances of collisions increase proportionally, and with plans to increase manned orbital and deep space missions, this can be life-threatening. And with plans for the further commercialization of space, this is also asset-threatening. And it’s here that a new industry looms: “If space debris is not cleared up from Earth’s orbit, the number of space collisions will increase to insane rates.” Enter Ms. Fitt’s “space-junk cleaning” industry. And note, that this is a pressing need.
The question is, what form will such an industry take?
I submit that there will be two basic forms: (1) the need to recover, and perhaps recycle, valuable components from various types of satellites and debris, which would require a cost-effective technology to go out there, a “grab-and-snag” technology, and return it to Earth or a space-based platform for recycling. Much more interesting, however, is the second possibility: (2) a technology capable of completely vaporizing debris, of getting rid of it altogether. That sort of clean-up implies a technology capable of “zapping” space debris into such small bits that the bits are no threat. But the “zappers” themselves could be. In effect, that component of the industry would effectively mean that weapons of some sort, along with their detection and targeting systems, would be in private industry hands. And of course, it also implies that those nations with space programs, and that are opposed to privatization of space, will be building their own national versions of space-clean up industry.
Either way one slices it, in other words, the space-junk phenomenon will require the weaponization of space. Space-junk makes it all but inevitable.
WASHINGTON, D.C. — 124 consumer, health and environmental groups sent letters today calling on Lowe’s(NYSE: LOW) and Home Depot(NASDQ: HD) to immediately end the sale of Roundup following Bayer’s recent decision to remove cancer-causing glyphosate from weedkiller Roundup by 2023 for the U.S. consumer market. Urging that the health of people and pollinators can’t wait, the groups contend that unless major home and garden retailers act now, consumers will continue to use and be exposed to glyphosate via Roundup for the next two years.
Friends of the Earth and allies have been campaigning for Home Depot and Lowe’s to end sales of Roundup and other glyphosate-based weedkillers based on science linking the chemical to cancer and other serious health concerns, as well as threats to pollinators and endangered species.
The groups are also pushing Lowe’s and Home Depot to not supply Bayer’s reformulated Roundup products once they are available in 2023 unless they are truly safe for people and pollinators. A recent analysis showed that half of all herbicides offered by these retail giants contain highly hazardous ingredients, highlighting the need for truly safe alternatives. In a process known as “regrettable substitution,” the replacements for high-profile chemicals of concern like glyphosate are often as toxic as the original chemicals.
Bayer’s decision is a response to years-long court battles the company inherited after acquiring Roundup manufacturer Monsanto in 2018. In a series of high-profile court cases, glyphosate exposure has been linked to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma in farmers, groundskeepers, and homeowners using the herbicide for lawn care.
However, Bayer’s decision only applies to consumer markets – the company will continue selling glyphosate-based formulas for agricultural and professional use.
“Despite Bayer’s decision, the battle against glyphosate is far from over — massive amounts of this toxic chemical will continue to be bought and sprayed in our yards, communities and farms. Retailers and regulators must act now to protect people and the planet from this cancer-linked weedkiller,” said Paolo Mutia, food and agriculture campaigner for Friends of the Earth.
“It is great news that after years of public outcry, Bayer is finally going to stop selling cancer-linked glyphosate products in U.S. home and garden stores. But we need to get these dangerous products off of shelves now, not in two years,” said Lacey Kohlmoos, U.S. campaign manager for SumOfUs. “Lowe’s and Home Depot need to show that they care about their customers’ health by ending all sales of Roundup and other glyphosate products immediately.”
According to Akayla Bracey, science and regulatory manager for Beyond Pesticides, “People generally aren’t aware that the pesticides widely available in garden retailers like Home Depot and Lowe’s are a threat to health and the environment, and that there are safer products that are available and used in organic land management.”
“Home Depot and Lowe’s need to take action for human and environmental health and immediately end the sale of Roundup and all other pesticides and herbicides with toxic chemicals,” said Todd Larsen, executive co-director for Green America. “When people go to big box stores looking for weedkiller, they don’t realize the chemicals they are purchasing are harming them and pollinators. It’s up to retailers to sell only products that are safe to use, and as the largest Do It Yourself stores in the U.S., Home Depot and Lowe’s need to be leaders in selling only the safest products.”
“In light of Bayer’s announcement, Home Depot and Lowe’s have no reason to wait until 2023 to end the sales of Roundup and other toxic glyphosate-based herbicides,” said Rebecca Spector, west coast director for the Center for Food Safety. “It’s time for these major retailers to demonstrate bold leadership that prioritizes environmental stewardship and human health over short-term profits resulting from continued sales of these harmful products. Our pollinators cannot wait two more years, and as consumers, we deserve better, now.”
“We will not accept the continued sale of glyphosate; it wreaks havoc on both environmental and human health,” said Rose Williamson president for Herbicide Free Campus Loyola Marymount University. “It should no longer be sold on Lowe’s and Home Depot shelves starting today, rather than waiting until 2023.”
“This is a win against the toxic chemical market; we the people hold the power and, with this news, we are more motivated than ever to continue working with our campuses to eliminate synthetic herbicide use,” said Christie Jones, a student activist with Herbicide-Free Campus at Emory University.
It’s no secret that graphene is a nanomaterial in vogue that’s being used to transhumanize the population. However, once it’s introduced into the environment, not only human beings are affected by it. But also all life around us: bacteria, animals, plants, etc.
The essence that defines the natural part of the expression of life has been under attack for a long time. There are chemtrails, transgenic food, drugs, and synthetic elements that affect the natural processes of living beings. However, this moment in history is probably the most crucial of all.
Nanomaterials and nanotechnology seem to be present in everything. The controlling elite wants —at all costs— to turn us into something completely different from what we’re by definition. And, at the same time, it aims to change our environment by subjecting it to the same processes. What is the point of living in an artificial world if our nature inherently diverges from what we really are?
It’s almost like the latest technological advances —instead of bringing benefits to all of us—, are only bringing benefits to the controllers who want to keep us subdued.
In the following video that Orwell City has prepared, Dr. José Luis Sevillano and Ricardo Delgado from La Quinta Columna comment on an IBM video showing a negative priming connecting hemoglobin, chlorophyll, and graphene. Something worth keeping in mind given all the changes we are seeing in humans, animals, and food.
Transcript:
Ricardo Delgado:
We’ll watch a video where they talk about the world of computing from the basement of an IBM facility. It talks about graphene. In addition, there’s an image that we are going to stop at second 13. The video lasts 2 minutes. Let’s watch it because it is very curious.
OK. I’m going to stop it and go back a little bit so you can see something. Look at what appears here.
Graphene appears here. And hemoglobin. But there’s also chlorophyll. OK? That’s, there’s an interaction of graphene with chlorophyll and with human cells as well. We’ll see more of this later because it’s relevant. This is, as I said, the basement of an IBM facility.
IBM video:
Let me give you a little bit of context. This you’re looking at here is an atomic force microscope. A type of…
Ricardo Delgado:
That’s the same microscope that was in that video about magnetic graphene. Remember, José Luis? They managed to see it through that microscope. The atomic force microscope characterizes nanomaterials with the Raman technique to identify what’s graphene, graphene oxide, fullerene, or whatever.
Dr. Sevillano:
Yes.
Ricardo Delgado:
But they don’t need to be that big either. They sell much cheaper ones. A type of microscope developed in these same IBM laboratories thanks to the advances made by Binnig and Rohrer in 1981, which is why they were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1986.
And you may ask, why is this type of microscope so interesting? Well, because with it, we can obtain images with a resolution of less than a nanometer. That is, at the atomic scale. We’re talking about being able to visualize molecules and the position of the atoms that make them up. This image you’re looking at was presented in 2009 by IBM. And was the first to show at this level of resolution the atomic structure of a molecule.
Currently, the team has not only managed to visualize these structures, but they have also managed to create new molecules by manipulating them at the atom level.
Remember that carbon, depending on how it’s molecularly structured, can give us substances as different as graphite, diamond, or graphene? Well, in that sense, during the presentation, it was explained to us that their latest project on which they’re working has consisted of isolating a carbon molecule whose structure is shaped like a ring of 18 atoms. The CycleCarbon 18.
All this is to study its properties. To achieve this, they have got, via postal mail, from the University of Oxford, with whom they collaborate, this type of triangular molecules here and then…
Ricardo Delgado:
Oxford University, huh? That one is also involved in all this.
IBM video:
And then, to proceed to cut it by eliminating atoms that aren’t of interest, and then we get the desired carbon ring. And, seriously, stop and think about what they’re doing. To me, this is science fiction.
Ricardo Delgado:
Well, this is for those at VerificaRTVE, who claim that there are no different two-dimensional sheet structures. They talk about carbon, for example.
Our friend Josep, who brings out very good news, has shared with us this screenshot. He found, precisely, this one.
It says, ‘The most beautiful thing I learned today is that chlorophyll’ —related to graphene in the video— ‘chlorophyll and blood’ —the video also shows hemoglobin and graphene— ‘are chemically identical.’ The only difference is that chlorophyll has the center of a magnesium atom and blood has the center of an iron atom. Plants and animals are very, very similar at that level. Fascinating. And here comes the comparison.
This means that, just as it has been done with animal life in some way, it has also been introduced to plant life. And it would explain what we’re seeing. Perhaps, José Luis, this could be a hypothesis to take into account in order…
Dr. Sevillano:
Yes, yes, it could be. It could be. It should also be taken into account. Because of the damage that can be done to plants in the future by the fact that… There’s damage being done to plants through electromagnetic waves as well. At the end of the day, chlorophyll is what makes it possible to create energy. And if it affects them… Well, my friend, the plants die. In the same way that it happens with human beings, with animal cells, it also happens to plants with these fields.
It’s a very nice detail to have compared the two molecules and see that only the central atom changes.
We are being told to trust the science. But what science? From which scientists? Join James for this week’s edition of The Corbett Report podcast as he explores the transparent lies of the “settled science” crowd and how those lies will increasingly be used to run our lives in the new biosecurity state.
When it comes to the safety and efficacy of the so-called COVID-19 vaccinations the public has been thoroughly divided and conquered. On one side of the carefully crafted argument, governments can’t get enough shots in enough arms to ward off a “pandemic” of unvaccinated people. The other side has as many excuses for avoiding these injections as it has members. So when a controversial study comes along showing that these injections may contain a toxic substance called graphene oxide the allowed spectrum of debate is quickly alight and the bigger picture is missed by all but a few.
The story of vaccines containing graphene oxide broke in late June when Ricardo Delgado Martin, Founder and Director of Quinta Columna, which calls itself a “free thinking movement,” published the the results of an analysis conducted by a Spanish research team at the University of Almeria. The analysis claims to have discovered graphene oxide in a vial of a Pfizer vaccine via electron microscopy and spectroscopy. The analysis can be read in English here.
It took a few weeks for this story to find it’s way into the English speaking world it would seem. Once it did, the mainstream media’s fact checkers were all over this story. Reuters, Full Fact, and Forbes among other establishment outlets have tried to debunk the study by assuring their readers that only an anti-vax QAnon conspiracy theorist would believe such nonsense. On the other side of the aisle, the analysis has been uncritically circulated which only adds to the problem.
As usual, the truth lies somewhere in the middle. The analysis conducted by the team at the University of Almeria has it’s flaws but concerns over the presence of graphene oxide in the Pfizer vaccines, and elsewhere in our environment, should be given serious consideration.
But first, let’s address some of the issues with the analysis:
The analysis is an interim report needing further study.
The analysis was commissioned.
The origin of Pfizer vial used in this analysis is unknown.
Graphene oxide and reduced graphene oxide are, at times, used interchangeably.
Comparative images of graphene oxide are of different magnification levels.
For an in-depth look at these concerns and others that arise from this analysis we recommend watching world class researcher, Whitney Webb’s recent appearance over at The Last American Vagabond where they dive into this analysis.
Just because this study currently stands on scientifically shaky grounds does not mean that the theory that graphene oxide is in fact in these injections should be dismissed. The substance has also already been discovered in face masks in Canada and Spain while patents in China (1, 2) that explore the possibility of using graphene oxide in COVID19 vaccines are pending.
It is also curious graphene oxide can be made to have magnetic properties which would explain the countless videos circulating online of magnets sticking to those who’ve been injected with these so-called vaccines. More research on this phenomenon is certainly needed but a recent “statistical and sociological” survey conducted by the European Forum for Vaccine Vigilance in Luxemburg found that 29 of the 30 “vaccinated” individuals interviewed showed attraction to the magnet at the site of injection.
Additionally, it has been shown that graphene oxide can cause blood clots and damage lungs. Does this explain why blood clots are such an often reported adverse effect from these shots? Is there a connection to this lung damage and surge in supposed surge in COVID-19 cases in areas of high injection rates?
These questions and many others surrounding graphene oxide, injections, masks, and the so-called pandemic need answering but if we just focus on these elements of the conversation we risk missing the bigger picture. Graphene oxide, its applications, and its impact on humanity are not limited to the so-called pandemic. The applications of graphene and it’s related materials are almost limitless and as they are introduced into the ecosystem, inside and out of the human body, they have the potential to reshape our relationship with the natural world by making it impossible to escape the digital realm.
On the future applications of graphene, Alan S. Brown writes:
Silicon electronics dominate the world, but engineers frequently turn to other types of semiconductors to do things that silicon cannot. These materials—ranging from silicon carbide to indium gallium arsenide—emit and interact with light, enable high-frequency microwave communications in smartphones, run at higher speeds, and handle massive amounts of power.
Yet, what if a single material could do all that—if it could interact with electrons, light, and even magnetism. What if it could transmit electricity like a metal and also behave as a semiconductor. Just for good measure, suppose it might make a good building block for quantum computers? And—most impressively—what if it could do all these things just by changing its shape?
That material is graphene.
By introducing graphene and other related nanoparticles into the human system, our bodies become cybernetic systems where light, microwaves and other frequencies, or magnets could be used to control bodily and neurological functions. If some predictions are correct then graphene oxide will one day be as prevalent in our world as plastic is now. It is already raining down on us from above, polluting our soil, being laser printed onto food, and, in turn, is likely already in all of us. If so, it seems reasonable to conclude that, based on all that we know about previous medical experimentation carried out on humans, something similar is happening today.
But why introduce a material like this into the human body? Catherine Austin Fitts ventures a guess:
So let me go through where I think he’s going. I think where they’re going—and they’re they’re prototyping tons of technology, so I don’t think they have it yet—but where they want to go is they want to download a Microsoft Office system into your body, into your brain, and hook it up to the Jedi cloud contract and the Amazon Cloud contract at the CIA. And if they can get seven people seven billion people hooked up directly to their cloud contracts and use viruses—I mean, it’s very clever—use viruses to keep those updates coming. You know, just keep those updates coming.
So you saw my most recent article, “The Injection Fraud.” I think it’s a fraud to call these vaccines they’re not vaccines, they’re not medicine. But I think it’s the exact same model you used in the computers and the ideas. Just like Bill Gates made it possible for the intelligence agencies to get a backdoor into our—you know, our data—and our computers. They want a backdoor into our mind and it’s very hard if you haven’t if you haven’t looked into the creepy technology, the Charles Lieber kind of technology, it’s hard to fathom but we’re beginning to fathom it.
Experimental injections. Magnetic nanoparticles. A human operating system. Sadly, these are not the fever dreams of a lone, crazed scientist but technologies which have already arrived. The COVID-19 panic has accelerated the introduction of these and many more frightening technologies into the public sphere as trojan horses for even more terrifying technologies yet to be revealed. The work from researchers like Whitney Webb, Alison McDowell, Catherine Austin Fitts, Rosa Koire, James Corbett, Patrick Wood, and everyone else which shines light on the this transhumanist agenda is becoming more important than ever.
For too long we’ve narrowed in on all things COVID-19 just like the powers-that-shouldn’t-be hope for. There is no pandemic, only a psychological operation afoot. That operation needs as much resistance as possible but if we fail to see beyond this then their dream of can be reached without a fight. Beyond saying no to experimental injections and nanoparticle-laden masks we must starting saying no to everything that is being used to create the graphene oxide prison being built around us.
Earth’s life preserving ozone layer is deteriorating at blinding speed, covert climate engineering operations are the single greatest causal factor. If this destruction is allowed to continue unabated, the total collapse of the ozone layer will soon determine our collective fate. UVC radiation is now reaching the surface of the planet, this DNA damaging spectrum of solar radiation is the last spectrum of UV before x-rays. Geoengineering Watch has monitored the ever increasing UVC radiation for many years while trying simultaneously to sound the alarm. In this video report a former NASA contract engineer sends a dire warning.
When airplanes routinely dump megatons of toxic garbage into our atmosphere as they have been doing for twenty years plus now, the most obvious question is: What are the biological impacts? What are the environmental implications of very small coal fly ash particles entering our bodies and fouling our biosphere? As one might guess, the implications are grave. Although the geoengineers will undoubtedly tell us that everything is fine, the best available evidence shows that the general population’s health is being negatively impacted, at least hundreds of thousands of people are dying, and our environment is being summarily wrecked as well. These are the biological impacts of the New Manhattan Project.
Particulate matter
The inhalation of aerosolized particulate matter has generally harmful human health impacts. This is not a matter of debate. Common sense and many studies show this. A slew of studies referenced at the end of this chapter shows that inhalation of fine particulate matter is associated with: Alzheimer’s disease, risk for stroke, risk for cardiovascular disease, lung inflammation and diabetes, reduced renal (kidney) function in older males, morbidity and premature mortality, decreased male fertility, low birth weight, onset of asthma, and increased hospital admissions.
Coal fly ash
As far back as October of 1979, a study was performed about the health effects of aerosolized coal fly ash. Unsurprisingly, the authors of the study found that exposure to aerosolized coal fly ash through the lungs causes harm. In other news, the geniuses at the World Health Organization found that bullets fired from guns can kill people.
We should be thankful that the good Dr. Marvin Herndon has recently produced a series of peer-reviewed, published journal articles detailing the health effects of exposure to that specific material being routinely pumped out of jet aircraft. His first paper in this area titled “Coal Fly Ash Aerosol: Risk Factor for Lung Cancer,” published in February of 2018, was co-authored by Dr. Mark Whiteside, MD, MPH, the Medical Director of the Monroe County, Florida Department of Health. Herndon and Whiteside found that coal fly ash has lots of nasty, cancer-causing stuff in it. The authors write:
“CFA [coal fly ash] contains a variety of potentially carcinogenic substances including aluminosilicates, an iron oxide-containing magnetic fraction, several toxic trace elements, nanoparticles, and alpha-particle-emitting radionuclides. Silica, arsenic, cadmium, and hexavalent chromium are found in CFA and all have been associated with increased lung cancer risk.”
Further, the authors write, “Chronic exposure to aerosolized CFA, emplaced in the atmosphere for climate intervention, may be an important, yet unrecognized, environmental risk factor for development of lung cancer.”
Doctors Herndon and Whiteside
As we can see from the passage above and as many have feared, Dr.s Herndon and Whiteside have found that at least some of these atmospheric coal fly ash particles are nano-sized. This is a concern because when nano-sized particles are inhaled, they are so small that they go directly into the blood stream and right into the brain, often causing a host of neurological disorders. Nano-sized particles are so small that one ingests them through one’s skin.
Herndon and Whiteside teamed up again for the March 2018 publication of their paper “Aerosolized Coal Fly Ash: Risk Factor for Neurodegenerative Disease.” The authors write:
“The recent finding of spherical exogenous magnetite (Fe3O4) nanoparticles in the brain tissue of persons with dementia suggests an origin in air pollution produced by coal fly ash. The primary components of coal fly ash, iron oxides and aluminosilicates, are all found in the abnormal proteins that characterize Alzheimer’s dementia. The presence of these substances in brain tissue leads to oxidative stress and chronic inflammation. Energy absorbed by magnetite from external electromagnetic fields may contribute to this neuropathology.”
Later, in May of 2018, Herndon and Whiteside were published once again. This time, their paper titled “Aerosolized Coal Fly Ash: Risk Factor for COPD and Respiratory Disease” found that:
“Aerosolized CFA [coal fly ash] is a particularly hazardous form of deliberate air pollution. Ultrafine particles and nanoparticles found in coal fly ash can be inhaled into the lungs and produce many toxic effects including decreased host defenses, tissue inflammation, altered cellular redox balance toward oxidation, and genotoxicity. Oxidative stress and chronic inflammation can predispose to chronic lung disease. Recognition and public disclosure of the adverse health effects of geoengineering projects taking place in our skies, and their concomitant cessation will be necessary to prevent an ever-widening epidemic of COPD and other respiratory illnesses.”
Rounding out this duo’s series of papers on the Human health impacts of chemtrails, Herndon and Whiteside wrote a November 2019 paper titled “Geoengineering, Coal Fly Ash and the New Heart-Iron Connection: Universal Exposure to Iron Oxide Nanoparticulates.” The authors write:
“Coal fly ash is a rich source of nano-sized metal, iron oxide, and carbonaceous particles. Previous findings revealed that coal fly ash is widely utilized in undisclosed tropospheric aerosol geoengineering. Proper iron balance is central to human health and disease, and the harmful effects of iron are normally prevented by tightly controlled processes of systemic and cellular iron homeostasis. Altered iron balance is linked to the traditional risk factors for cardiovascular disease. The iron-heart hypothesis is supported by epidemiological, clinical, and experimental studies. Biogenic magnetite (Fe3O4) serves essential life functions, but iron oxide nanoparticles from anthropogenic sources cause disease. The recent finding of countless combustion-type magnetic nanoparticles in damaged hearts of persons from highly polluted areas is definitive evidence of the connection between the iron oxide fraction of air pollution and cardiovascular disease. Spherical magnetic iron oxide particles found in coal fly ash and certain vehicle emissions match the exogenous iron pollution particles found in the human heart. Iron oxide nanoparticles cross the placenta and may act as seed material for future cardiovascular disease. The pandemic of non-communicable diseases like cardiovascular disease and also rapid global warming can be alleviated by drastically reducing nanoparticulate air pollution. It is crucial to halt tropospheric aerosol geoengineering, and to curb fine particulate emissions from industrial and traffic sources to avoid further gross contamination of the human race by iron oxide-type nanoparticles.”
Now that we have seen the Human health impacts of aerosolized coal fly ash, we will now take a look at the Human health impacts of some known constituents of coal fly ash.
Aluminum
As evidenced by voluminous rainwater sample lab reports (ch 1), chemtrails have been shown to consist significantly of aluminum oxide. Aluminum is a common component of coal fly ash. As we have learned from Dr.s Herndon and Whiteside, these particles can be nano-sized.
Aluminum nanoparticles are nasty stuff. A material safety data sheet (MSDS) produced by US Research Nanomaterials, Inc. says that they can cause: respiratory problems, skin irritation, eye irritation, tumors, Alzheimer’s, pulmonary disease, neoplasms, and gastric or intestinal disorders. This MSDS also states that people coming in contact with aluminum nanoparticles should wear a respirator and a fully protective, impervious suit.
A 2016 paper titled “Assessing the Direct Occupational and Public Health Impacts of Solar Radiation Management with Stratospheric Aerosols” says that Aluminum aerosols will target these bodily systems: respiratory, cardiovascular, hematologic (blood), musculoskeletal (muscles & bones), endocrine (glands), immunologic, and neurologic (brain). They also say exposure to small atmospheric aluminum particles can cause cancer and death.
It appears coincidental that Wright-Patterson Air Force Base has studied the biological impacts of aerosolized aluminum. In March 2001, the Air Force Research Laboratory at Wright-Patterson published a study titled “In Vitro Toxicity of Aluminum Nanoparticles in Rat Alveolar Macrophages.” Scientists exposed rats to airborne, nano-sized aluminum oxide particles. The authors concluded:
“Aluminum oxide nanoparticles displayed significant toxicity after 96 and 144 hours post exposure at high doses (100 and 250 µg/ml). Aluminum nanoparticles also showed slight toxicity after 24 hours at high doses (100 and 250 μg/ml). When these cells were dosed at lower non toxic levels (25 μg/ml) Al 50, 80, 120 nm caused a significant reduction in phagocytosis. Even at a dose as low as 5 μg/ml Al 50 nm still caused a significant reduction. None of these nanoparticles caused the induction of nitric oxide, TNF-alpha, or MIP-2, important components in inflammatory responses. In summary, based on viability aluminum nanoparticles appear to be slightly toxic to rat alveolar macrophages. However, there was a significant reduction in phagocytic function of macrophages.”
In other words, they found that even at low doses, forcing rats to breathe in tiny aluminum particles screwed up their lungs. The induced lack of phagocytes means that the rats’ immune systems (especially in the lungs) became unable to fight off invading harmful organisms.
“In Vitro Toxicity of Aluminum Nanoparticles in Rat Alveolar Macrophages” was but one of a series of studies produced by Wright-Patterson pertaining to aluminum nanoparticle exposure. Wright-Patterson also produced a 2010 study titled “Nanosized Aluminum Altered Immune Function” in which they found that inhaled aluminum nanoparticles impair human immune systems. The authors again noted that nanoparticles have more deleterious health effects than do larger sized particles. Curiously, “Nanosized Aluminum Altered Immune Function” also states that we are prone to inhale aluminum nanoparticles because they are used in jet fuels. This information, makes yet another case for aluminum-spiked jet fuels. All this is extremely interesting when one considers Wright-Patterson’s involvement in the New Manhattan Project such as that which was documented in chapter 5.
A 2009 paper titled “Manufactured Aluminum Oxide Nanoparticles Decrease Expression of Tight Junction Proteins in Brain Vasculature” found that, due to brain cell death, aluminum exposure can cause: Alzheimer’s, stroke, reperfusion, hypoxia, mitochondrial disease, and general vascular dysfunction.
In a 2012 paper written by one of the world’s top neurosurgeons (now retired), many neurological diseases are linked to aluminum exposure. Russell Blaylock’s “Aluminum Induced Immunoexcitotoxicity in Neurodevelopmental and Neurodegenerative Disorders” found a link between aluminum exposure and: Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, Huntington’s, Pick’s, HIV dementia, multiple sclerosis, viral encephalopathies, chronic traumatic encephalopathy, and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS / Lou Gehrig’s disease). In this paper, Dr. Blaylock also found that aluminum exposure is linked to: impaired cognition, poor memory, impaired learning, poor attention, social withdrawal, irritability, reduced food and water intake and depression. Not only that, but Dr. Blaylock cites another paper here showing how extremely small aluminum particles like the ones used in today’s New Manhattan Project can intensify adverse health reactions.
Dr. Blaylock has provided us with some impressive evidence for a causal relationship between chemtrails and Alzheimer’s here. He tells us that the aluminum nanoparticles we constantly inhale are carried directly to the part of the brain that is first affected by Alzheimer’s disease AND most severely affected by Alzheimer’s disease. On March 28, 2013 Dr. Blaylock went on the Linderman Unleashed radio program. The host asked him how he became chemtrail aware and Dr. Blaylock said this:
Dr. Russell Blaylock, MD
“Well, you know, the connection has been the aluminum in the vaccines. I wrote several articles about the effects of the adjuvants in vaccines including the mercury and the aluminum effect.
“Then I found some articles about the chemtrails and there was a lot being said about it and I wasn’t too sure whether it was true or not because in my state we rarely saw them. But as I started looking on the Internet and I would see these states in which there were these criss-cross patterns and they were very tight patterns and geometrical shapes where it was obvious that it was a purposeful covering of the atmosphere with these patterns and the trails were so long. Well now, you know, we’re starting to see them in my state and as I look at them, they go from to horizon to horizon. Well, you know, I’ve been alive long enough to know that jets never did that in the past and I see the same patterning effect now where they’re criss-crossing; it’s an obvious pattern.
“And so I look into the literature and some of the reports and YouTube videos and they were saying that they were dropping as one of the ingredients, aluminum. Well, I had done a fair amount of writing and research on the effect of aerosolized chemicals in the nose when you breathe them. And what we knew was that these particles tend to travel along the olfactory nerves which are the smell nerves in the nose. And it travels directly to the part of the brain that has to do with memory and emotions; the hippocampus, the interlinal area, and the prefrontal cortex. And that you can trace these chemicals traveling along that nerve and depositing in this area of the brain.
“The other thing that was known is that if you aerosolize aluminum, it’s one of the metals that passes very easily along this track and directly into the brain. So it bypasses the blood-brain barrier and goes directly into the brain and accumulates. Well, if you do it in animals, it produces lesions, or damage in that area of the brain and the animal will begin to show changes of memory and learning and emotional changes.
“When we look at people who have Alzheimer’s disease, ironically, the highest concentration of aluminum in the brain is that same entry point; what’s called the interlinal cortex. And the levels continue to accumulate. So we have compelling evidence that aerosolized aluminum alone will enter the brain and produce damage to that critical area of the brain.
“The worst of all is the nano-sized. Nano-size means you make it such a small particle that it easily penetrates skin. It penetrates barriers in the body that normally metals cannot pass through. When you nano-size and produce these incredibly small particulate matter, it passes very easily. So when you nano-size aluminum and you use it in these aerosols through the nasal passages, it enters the brain in very high concentration and they find that the nano-sized aluminum in the brain is infinitely more toxic.
“Now one of the toxic reactions to aluminum is intense inflammation and activation of cells in the brain that are the immune cells called microglia. Aluminum is a very potent activator of these immune cells and that triggers the release of a powerful substance called glutamate which is an excitotoxin that causes cells to die from an excitatory mechanism. Kinda complex mechanism, but it is a combination of inflammation and excitotoxicity. And I coined the term in the medical literature called immunoexcitotoxicity to describe that process. So, we know that occurs. We know it occurs very easily.
“Now, the reports are coming out now that what they’re spraying is nano-sized aluminum and the idea is the old concept of preventing global warming. And they nano-size the aluminum so it will stay in the upper atmosphere longer; supposedly as a reflective compound metal. The problem with that, even from a climatological description is that if you make it into cirrus-like clouds rather than reflecting it upward and out of the atmosphere, it reflects the heat downward and actually causes global warming. So, you know, you could envision that they’re doing this on purpose to make the atmosphere heat up so they can say, ‘See, the atmosphere is warming up.’
“But what I’m concerned about mainly is the medical effect and that’s because of these very strong connections between aluminum passing through this pathway into the brain [which] is so strongly connected with Alzheimer’s disease and other diseases of memory.
“If you’re aerosolizing this and spraying literally tons of it over the world, people are constantly breathing that aerosolized, nano-sized aluminum which will easily penetrate filters in your air-conditioning system [and] enter your home. So you’re breathing it 24 hours a day; producing high levels of aluminum in this part of the brain. And the consequences could be absolutely devastating. It could cause a huge increase in Alzheimer’s disease and inflammatory neurological disorders.
“I watched a YouTube which was a geoengineering conference that the government had put on. And in the conference, one of the questions somebody in the audience asked was: What is the medical effect of spraying aluminum in the atmosphere? And the speaker said, ‘Well, uh, we don’t really know. But we’re in the process of researching that.’ Well, of course that was an absolute lie. We do know what it does. But the fact that they were admitting that in fact they were going to spray, they gave it in the future tense that they were going to spray aluminum, the evidence now from the examination by biologists and scientists around the world is that the aluminum level in the lakes and streams and trees is increasing enormously. Some areas have incredible elevations of aluminum in the groundwater and in the vegetation. So if this indeed is happening, we’re looking at a medical catastrophe that’s worldwide.”
There is lots of other highly credible evidence available linking aluminum exposure to the diseases mentioned here. If you want more information, please search the term ‘aluminum toxicity.’ Expediency demands that we move on.
Barium
Rainwater sample test results from around the world consistently show barium as well, and barium can also be a component of coal fly ash. Barium is highly toxic. Barium material safety data sheets (MSDS) readily available online will inform you that barium is extremely hazardous in case of inhalation. Severe exposure to barium can cause lung damage, choking, unconsciousness and death. Many other barium oxide MSDSs go on and on in a similar fashion. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) says that barium oxide reacts violently with water while the atmosphere has lots of water in it and our bodies consist mostly of water. My science advisor says that barium titanate and barium sulfate have been used in atmospheric dispersions as well.
The aforementioned paper “Assessing the Direct Occupational and Public Health Impacts of Solar Radiation Management with Stratospheric Aerosols” says that barium compounds used as atmospheric sprays target these Human bodily systems: respiratory, gastrointestinal, musculoskeletal, renal, metabolic, and neurologic. They also say barium compounds dispersed by aircraft as part of geoengineering programs can cause death.
Strontium
Rainwater sample test results as well as others such as ambient air sample test results collected by Dr. Herndon have also been showing a presence of strontium. Strontium can be a component of coal fly ash. It is not surprising, but, like aluminum and barium, strontium is highly toxic as well.
A strontium MSDS from Sigma-Aldrich states that it is corrosive. It causes burns when it comes in contact with the skin and can be absorbed through the skin. If one inhales it, the MSDS states that it is, “…extremely destructive to the tissue of the mucous membranes and upper respiratory tract.” The MSDS continues:
“Inhalation may result in spasm, inflammation and edema of the larynx and bronchi, chemical pneumonitis, and pulmonary edema. Material is extremely destructive to tissue of the mucous membranes and upper respiratory tract, eyes, and skin.”
The Sigma-Aldrich MSDS finishes up by noting that the chemical, physical, and toxicological properties of strontium have not been thoroughly investigated.
Strontium hydroxide is even worse. Being that there is lots of water in the atmosphere, the atmospheric strontium produced as part of the New Manhattan Project may react with it and form the extremely caustic strontium hydroxide. Not only that, but don’t forget that our bodies are comprised of mostly H2O. Strontium in the atmosphere and inside of us has lots of opportunities to become strontium hydroxide. The Sigma-Aldrich MSDS cautions potential users to never expose strontium oxide to water because it reacts violently.
Because strontium can be a component of coal fly ash, it is interesting to note that studies have been done concerning exposure to the strontium found in ‘fly ash.’ The CDC writes:
“Rats were exposed to aerosols of 85Sr [strontium] carbonate, phosphate, fluoride, oxide, or titanate (particle sizes and doses not specified) (Willard and Snyder 1966). Greater than 99% of the initial lung burden of 85Sr was cleared from the lung 5 days after inhalation of the carbonate, phosphate, fluoride, or oxide, whereas 60% of the 85Sr remained in the lung after inhalation of the more insoluble strontium titanate.
“In rats exposed to airborne fly ash (sieved to have a particle diameter of distribution of 90% less than 20 μm) for 6 hours, strontium was eliminated from the lung with a half-time of 23 days (observations were made for 30 days) (Srivastava et al. 1984b). One day after the exposure, the tissue: plasma strontium concentration ratios were 0.3–0.5 in the liver, kidney, small intestine, and heart. The report of this study does not indicate whether whole-body or nose-only exposures were utilized in the study; therefore, it is not possible to know for certain how much of the absorption may have resulted from ingestion of fly ash deposited on the animals. Furthermore, given the relatively large particle size of the fly ash, it is likely that deposition in the respiratory tract was largely in the tracheobronchial and nasopharyngeal region, from which the strontium may have been cleared mechanically to the esophagus and swallowed. Nevertheless, studies in which 89Sr-enriched fly ash was instilled into the trachea of rats indicate that strontium in this form was partly absorbed and appeared in plasma and other tissues within days of the exposure (Srivastava et al. 1984a).”
The CDC goes on to note that the fly ash strontium administered to the lab rats ended up mostly in the bones. After that, it appeared in (in order of prevalence): muscle, skin, liver, and kidneys. Those heady days of just dumping dry ice into clouds are long gone.
Mercury
Dr. J. Marvin Herndon produced a December 2017 paper co-authored by Mark Whiteside, MD in which the authors write specifically of the Human health impacts of mercury. It has been well known for a long time now that mercury is one of the most toxic substances on the planet and we now know that mercury is a common constituent of the coal fly ash currently being sprayed by the megaton. The authors write:
“Despite strengthened mercury emission regulations, mercury measured in rainwater is increasing. Since it is known that the upper troposphere contains oxidized, particle-bound mercury, it is likely that covert aerosolized coal fly ash sprayed into this region is a major source of mercury pollution. Mercury affects multiple systems in the body, potentially causing neurological, cardiovascular, genitourinary, reproductive, immunological, and even genetic disease.”
CDC rates of associated diseases
As this chapter has explained, chemtrails are associated with many diseases. As we have been assaulted by this New Manhattan Project for over twenty years now, it is no surprise that the best available data shows rates of the associated diseases going up significantly. Historical rates of every disease associated with chemtrail spray are not presented here due to a lack of CDC data. Every associated disease with available CDC data is presented.
Let’s start with the most strongly correlated disease: Alzheimer’s. According to the latest data from the CDC, from 1999 to 2014, age-adjusted rates of death from Alzheimer’s increased 54.5% with the 2014 number of total deaths at 93,541. That means that in 2014 alone we saw tens of thousands of additional American deaths from Alzheimer’s. If one adds up all the additional deaths from Alzheimer’s between 1999 and 2014, we’re talking about hundreds of thousands of additional deaths. Let us recall that large-scale domestic spraying operations began in 1996.
Age adjusted rates of Alzheimer’s disease 1999-2014
In a 2013 report, the CDC found that while deaths from other diseases such as cancer, heart disease, and stroke decreased significantly, Alzheimer’s deaths increased 39%. They write, “Mortality from Alzheimer’s disease has steadily increased during the last 30 years.” Knowing what we now know, it is reasonable to assume that chemtrails have contributed greatly to this.
Not only have the rates of adult Alzheimer’s disease been increasing, but a disease that used to be relegated to the elderly is now showing up in children. Reports have been pouring in from around the world documenting research into Niemann Pick Type C disease, also known as ‘childhood Alzheimer’s.’ As previously mentioned, Dr. Blaylock has seen this phenomenon as well.
~ ~ ~
Dr. Blaylock says that there is also a correlation between aluminum exposure and Parkinson’s. The latest data from the CDC shows that between 1999 and 2017, the age-adjusted rate of Parkinson’s disease in people aged 65 or older went from 41.7 per 100,000 to 65.3 per 100,000.
CDC rates of Parkinson’s disease 1999-2017
Despite what the tobacco companies said in the 1950s, routinely breathing in particulate matter is bad for your lungs. It is for this reason that we now take a look at the CDC data pertaining to diseases associated with the routine inhalation of particulate matter such as COPD, asthma, and lung cancer. Although the CDC found that the rate of chronic pulmonary disease (COPD) was stable between 1998 and 2009, they also found that the prevalence of asthma rose during a similar period (between 2001 and 2010). The CDC also reports that between 1995 and 2011, smoking went from 35% among students and 25% among adults to 18% and 19% respectively. Concurrently, the CDC reports significant drops in the rate of lung cancer between 2002 and 2011.
Rate of smoking from 1965-2011
With these big drops in the rate of smoking, one might assume that the rate of COPD and asthma would go down as well, instead of remaining stable. Chemtrails probably kept the rate of COPD stable while contributing to the prevalence of asthma. Lung cancer probably decreased because chemtrail exposure has not been as carcinogenic for your lungs as smoking. It’s good to know that there are more carcinogenic things for your lungs than routine chemtrail exposure. Smoking cigarettes apparently fits that category. Moderate chemtrail exposure is probably better for you than inhaling burning plutonium too, but that doesn’t mean it’s ok.
Overall life expectancy
Very recently, we here in America have seen a slight reduction in our life expectancies. According to CDC data, for the first time in many decades, between 2016 and 2017 overall life expectancy at birth fell by .1 years.
CDC life expectancy 1970-2017
One might think, with all the much-touted breakthroughs in medicine, a growing health care industry, expanded access to better nutrition such as organic foods and supplements, and the like, that we would be experiencing longer average life expectancies, not shorter. Might chemtrails have something to do with it?
Early exposures
Although it appears that our bodies have been finding ways to better cope with this daily onslaught of aerosolized toxic waste, around the times when people were first exposed, emergency rooms filled up. William Thomas’ aforementioned 2004 book Chemtrails Confirmed chronicles many of these examples. Thomas recounts the words of a registered nurse:
“Approximately December 16th or the 17th, while traveling north, I could see ‘stripes’ in the sky. It appeared as if someone took white paint on their fingers and from north to south ran their fingers through the sky. These contrails were evenly spaced and covered the whole sky! They covered it completely! When I was finished with the next visit, approximately 45 minutes, I came out of the house and found the whole sky was white. There was no definition in cloud pattern.
“Within the 24 hours I became very weak, feverish, and my asthma began to act up. I didn’t think too much about it, until my boyfriend told me that many in his family started coming down with the same complaints. I also started noticing a lot of my patients and their family members were coming down with these symptoms at the same time. In our area we have one main hospital which I was the Supervisor of for four years. I worked there a total of six years. I stay in close contact with the nurses and physicians and am planning on investigating into this more. At that time, they complained of being extremely busy with respiratory diagnoses.”
Another passage from Chemtrails Confirmed recounts the experiences of a restaurant owner from Oklahoma. The passage reads:
“On January 24, 1999 [Pat] Edgar reported that on, ‘Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday and Thursday of last week, we were really hit hard with the contrails. I mean real bad. Everybody in this town is sick right now; sicker than a damn dog. It’s all in their head and their sinuses, and it hangs in the throat, (sore necks), ears ringing.’
“Edgar added: ‘Some customers that frequent our business have stated that they have been to the doctor and the offices have been full of sick people. Same thing at the Indian clinic.’
“‘People have to wait for hours because the waiting room is full. Some people have reported being on their third and fourth round of antibiotics and they are still ill. We noticed excessive contrails Thursday, Feb. 11th.’
“Edgar became ill the following day, and visited a doctor. From a friend he learned that Sparks regional hospital had over 500 people seeking medical attention at the emergency room for flu, or flu-like symptoms.”
Others appearing in Thomas’ book tell similar stories.
Bodily contamination testing
When we ingest aluminum, some of it eventually comes out in our hair and fingernails. There are many reports online of people finding high levels of chemtrail toxins in their hair and fingernails. Certain laboratories can analyze hair and fingernail samples for aluminum and other substances. If you are curious about your bodily contamination, one may get their hair tested by the Great Plains Laboratory or Analytical Research Labs. One can find their websites online.
Biospheric implications
There is evidence that chemtrails are changing soil pH. This could be very bad for our biosphere. As mentioned in the first chapter, anti-geoengineering activist Francis Mangels has a Bachelor of Science in forestry from the International School of Forestry at Missoula, spent 35 years with the U.S. Forest Service as a wildlife biologist and worked several years with the USDA Soil Conservation Service as a soil conservationist. In order to document the effect of chemtrail spray upon soil pH, Mr. Mangels wrote on Oct. 30, 2009:
“The soil scientists from the USDA Soil Conservation Department visited private property east of Shasta Lake, California, on Oct. 27, 2009. Mr. Bailey, Komar, and Owens tested the pH with standard federal meters. All agreed the pH should be 5.5.
“Under Douglas fir, the ph was 7.4, astoundingly basic for that habitat.
“Under Poderosa pine, at the precise soil-needle interface, I would expect a pH of 5. At that point, Bailey’s meter showed 6.5. This is high for a microhabitat that should be very acid. Old soil surveys indicate this soil should be very acid, around pH of 5.5.
“I bought a house in Mt. Shasta old black oak/pine pasture in 2002, tested the pH at below 6, good for vegetable gardening. It was a major reason for purchase, and proceeded with highly acid composting of leaves and grass to drive the pH down or at least keep it low, as every master gardener knows. I added a touch of sulphur and avoided wood ash to insure acidity, and proceeded to teach organic gardening courses out of my yard through COS. The pH tests were an embarrassment because now my garden is pH 7, sometimes higher. This is the opposite of what should happen.
“The pH meter of Jon McClellan proceeded to show pH in McCloud gardens also running close to 7 or 8, which is too high for heavy organic mulch with no ashes. General lawns were also running over pH 7 under oaks and pines and fir trees. This is contrary to everything I learned in college and the Soil Conservation Service for 35 years. The old data sheets say these soils should be running at a pH of 5-6.”
Francis Mangels
In the movie What In the World Are They Spraying?, Mr. Mangels says that when soil pH changes, soil arthropods (a vital link in our ecosystem) start to go away. This type of disruption could have negative effects up and down the food chain.
Reports of massive plant and animal die-offs potentially due to chemtrails are widespread. Spraying vast regions of the Earth with tens of thousands of megatons of toxic waste is probably contributing to the alarming rate of animal species extinction as well. Although many other factors are in play here, the chemtrails surely don’t help. The Center for Biological Diversity reports that:
“Scientists estimate we’re now losing species at 1,000 to 10,000 times the background rate, with literally dozens going extinct every day. It could be a scary future indeed, with as many as 30 to 50 percent of all species possibly heading toward extinction by mid-century.”
Once again, our Spartacus with the dragon energy, Dr. J. Marvin Herndon, PhD has been on the case. Dr. Herndon has again teamed up with the Medical Director of the Monroe County, Florida Department of Health, Dr. Mark Whiteside, MD, MPH to publish a series of peer-reviewed, published journal articles addressing the biospheric implications of the ongoing and uncontrolled geoengineering experimentation and we will go over them here.
Let’s start at the bottom of the food chain. In June of 2019 Herndon and Whiteside published a paper titled “Role of Aerosolized Coal Fly Ash in the Global Plankton Imbalance: Case of Florida’s Toxic Algae Crisis.” In this paper, the authors provide evidence for the assertion that the coal fly ash sprayed by the megaton into our biosphere is causing, among other things, an overabundance of harmful plankton blooms which, in turn, has more harmful effects. The authors write:
“Our objective is to review the effects the multifold components of aerosolized coal fly ash as they relate to the increasing occurrences of HABs [harmful algal blooms]. Aerosolized coal fly ash (CFA) pollutants from non-sequestered coal-fired power plant emissions and from undisclosed, although ‘hidden in plain sight,’ tropospheric particulate geoengineering operations are inflicting irreparable damage to the world’s surface water-bodies and causing great harm to human health (including lung cancer, respiratory and neurodegenerative diseases) and environmental health (including major die-offs of insects, birds and trees). Florida’s ever-growing toxic nightmare of red tides and blue-green algae is a microcosm of similar activity globally. Atmospheric deposition of aerosol particulates, most importantly bioavailable iron, has drastically shifted the global plankton community balance in the direction of harmful algae and cyanobacterial blooms in fresh and salt water.”
A little further up the food chain we find insects. Herndon and Whiteside have been working in this area as well. In August of 2018 their paper titled “Previously Unacknowledged Potential Factors in Catastrophic Bee and Insect Die-off Arising from Coal Fly Ash Geoengineering” was published. In this paper, the authors substantiate a multitude of harmful, observed effects upon insects from chemtrail spray. We can stop wondering why bee populations are being decimated. The authors write:
“The primary components of CFA [coal fly ash], silicon, aluminum, and iron, consisting in part of magnetite (Fe3O4), all have important potential toxicities to insects. Many of the trace elements in CFA are injurious to insects; several of them (e.g., arsenic, mercury, and cadmium) are used as insecticides. Toxic particulates and heavy metals in CFA contaminate air, water, and soil and thus impact the entire biosphere. Components of CFA, including aluminum extractable in a chemically-mobile form, have been shown to adversely affect insects in terrestrial, aquatic, and aerial environments. Both the primary and trace elements in CFA have been found on, in, and around insects and the plants they feed on in polluted regions around the world. Magnetite from CFA may potentially disrupt insect magnetoreception. Chlorine and certain other constituents of aerosolized CFA potentially destroy atmospheric ozone thus exposing insects to elevated mutagenicity and lethality levels of UV-B and UV-C solar radiation.”
This information goes a long way towards explaining the tremendous drops in global insect populations lately. It’s almost too scary to look into, but an Internet search of the term ‘insect populations’ will bring pages and pages of relevant results. Of course, many are blaming it on the dreaded global warming/climate change, but insect populations have done just fine throughout previous fluctuations in Earth’s average temperature. In fact, insect populations have most probably done better in warmer climates, so maybe we should look instead at the gigantic aircraft routinely dumping megatons of toxic waste into our biosphere.
As noted, Francis Mangels has been observing a lack of insects as well. He logically attributes it to geoengineering. On July 19, 2017, Francis emailed to the author the following:
“Several streams were sampled for aquatic insects, and I likewise fished them hard to get stomach samples of trout. Total sample over 1000, lately around 400 stomach samples. Methods used were fairly casual, using typical nets for streams in gravel substrates that appeared similar. Standard data was orders of aquatics per square foot, accuracy about 80% due to equipment. It was very easy to see which streams would have the most trout.
“The bottom fell out of the sampling from 2000 to 2008, and it continues today. All major orders of bugs took severe hits from an unknown source. Then I was contacted by Dane [Wigington], and logic said only sky pollution could hit all the streams at once in the same way.
“Likewise, the trout I caught before then always were loaded with bugs and etc. food both terra and aquatic. Ever since about 2006, the trout stomachs were almost empty, and I quit taking data because there was no data to take, for the most part. A bug here and there, mostly terrestrials, very small amounts and the trout got skinny over the years (except for those freshly planted, that soon lost the fat and got skinny too, as we say, poor condition factors). Very clear streams went almost barren, no bugs or trout either.
“Net sweeps in lots showed plenty of earwigs, pill bugs, ants, aphids, box elder bugs, any SUCKING types. However, the caterpillar types for the most part became very scarce, as did moths and butterflies as you would expect (leaf eaters eat the aluminum). I turned in a huge collection to the American butterfly association of CA, but damned if I could do it now….Lepidoptera are around, but rare now except for the cabbage butterfly and a few swallowtails. Point is, this distribution showed in the trout stomachs, which caused me to do the sweeps.”
Further up the food chain we find birds. Dr.s Herndon and Whiteside published a paper in November of 2018 titled “Aerosolized Coal Fly Ash: A Previously Unrecognized Primary Factor in the Catastrophic Global Demise of Bird Populations and Species.” In this paper, the authors find that coal fly ash is causing unprecedented bird die-offs.
The authors write, “Bird populations and species world-wide are experiencing die-offs on an unprecedented scale.” A little later, the authors continue, “Aerosolized CFA [coal fly ash], a particularly toxic form of air pollution, contains multiple metals and elements well-known to adversely affect all portions of the avian life cycle, in aerial, terrestrial, and marine environments. Studies from around the globe reveal systemic contamination of birds by these elements.” The authors conclude that, “Coal fly ash, including its use in ongoing atmospheric geoengineering operations, is a major factor in global bird die-off. The accelerating decline of birds parallels the catastrophic decline of insects, due in part to the same type of aerial pollution.”
Doctors Herndon and Whiteside have also looked at the biological impacts of chemtrails upon bat populations. In January of this year (2020), they published a paper titled “Unacknowledged Potential Factors in Catastrophic Bat Die-off Arising from Coal Fly Ash Geoengineering.” In this paper, the authors find that bat populations worldwide are suffering a precipitous decline. The authors write:
“Bats are excellent mammalian bioindicators of environmental contaminants and it is known that their tissue contains high levels of metals and persistent organic pollutants. From a review of the literature, we show that the pollutant element ratios in bat tissue and bat guano are consistent with an origin in CFA-type air pollution. These findings suggest that CFA [coal fly ash], including its use in covert climate engineering operations, is an unacknowledged factor in the morbidity and mortality of bats. Bats, therefore, are an important ‘canary in the coal mine’ pointing to the urgency of halting covert climate engineering and greatly reducing ultrafine particulate air pollution.”
~ ~ ~
As we saw at the beginning of this section, with all the professionally observed soil pH anomalies, plants are not doing very well under this New Manhattan Project either. Doctors Herndon, Whiteside and other co-authors have been doing work in these areas as well. In a series of published, peer-reviewed journal articles, they have found that a combination of factors, all caused by the spraying of coal fly ash, are causing mass die-offs of global vegetation. They found that trees, in particular, are weakened by increased UV radiation, desiccation, and toxicity – all caused by chemtrails. Once a tree is weakened by this trifecta, it becomes susceptible to insect infestations, fungal infections, and other biotic factors such as bacteria and viruses.
The result of all this is dry, dead and dying vegetation. An abundance of dry, dead and dying vegetation makes forest fires occur more often and burn more furiously. Herndon et al. find that this is most probably why we have seen such tremendously large forest fires lately. The increased levels of UV radiation noted by Herndon et al. as being harmful to vegetation, are also harmful to Humans as well as phytoplankton, coral, and insects.
Silver iodide
The conventional weather modification industry has been openly spraying vast areas of the United States with silver iodide since 1947. The super-secret New Manhattan Project only started spraying us with coal fly ash in 1996. Hence, the vast majority of the weather modification and atmospheric sciences literature is geared towards the dispersion of silver iodide. Although silver iodide is not what is used in today’s New Manhattan Project, as a side issue, let’s take a look at the scientific evidence (or lack thereof) concerning the biological impacts of silver iodide. Past is prelude.
Considering that this issue is the most obvious question and of grave importance, the lack of publicly available research pertaining to the biological impacts of silver iodide dispersion is quite shocking. You may read the 746 page, 1978 Congressional Research Service report on weather modification. You may read all 21 of the Interdepartmental Committee for Atmospheric Sciences reports or all of the National Science Foundation annual weather modification reports. You may read scores of weather modification reports, book after book, and myriad reports and papers about weather modification and the atmospheric sciences. But nowhere in any of these documents may you find an adequate examination of biological impacts and specifically human health impacts caused by exposure to atmospheric silver iodide. Only after reading a stack of documents about a yard high, did your author finally find a report containing an adequate discussion of this topic.
A popular silver iodide material safety data sheet describes silver iodide as, “Hazardous in case of skin contact (irritant), of eye contact (irritant), of ingestion, [and] of inhalation.” Unbelievably, the authors of this data sheet write that much of the toxicology information is NOT AVAILABLE. They’ve been spraying us with this stuff since 1947 and the toxicology information is not available?! Equally as unbelievable, to date, no publicly available, long-term studies have been done.
It is widely suggested that exposure to silver iodide causes argyria – characterized by a blue-grey discoloration of the eyes, skin, mucous membranes, and internal organs. Does that sound healthy? Another MSDS produced by Fisher Scientific reads:
“Chronic ingestion of iodides during pregnancy has resulted in fetal death, severe goiter, and cretinoid appearance of the newborn. Prolonged exposure to iodides may produce iodism in sensitive individuals. Symptoms could include skin rash, running nose and headache.”
In spite of this information, the historical weather modification literature notes a lack of data. A 1966 National Science Foundation report stated, “The present state of knowledge places uncomfortable limits on the prediction of the biological consequences of modifying the weather.” A 1969 Bureau of Reclamation report noted, “There has so far not been a single biological field study completed and reported in the literature specifically designed to identify any aspect of the ecological effects of weather modification.” A 1972 study conducted by the Council on Environmental Quality stated, “Projects may have significant adverse environmental effects, ranging from immediate hazards to life and property to long-term alterations in land use patterns and threats to ecological systems.”
Weather modifiers have exhibited a pattern of dismissing the potentially harmful effects of substances used in weather modification activities. In 1967 weather modifier Archie Kahan, writing for the Bureau of Reclamation, dismissed concerns about the use of silver iodide as he conflated the biological impacts of silver iodide with its efficacy as a nucleant and any possible hazardous weather that might arise from its use.
In 1972, decades after silver iodide was first used as a nucleant, Bernard Vonnegut and another atmospheric scientist by the name of Ronald Standler wrote a biology paper published in the Journal of Applied Meteorology that mollified concerns about their activities. Although the biological impacts of prolonged silver iodide dispersion has implications not only for Human health, but also for the health of the entire biosphere, the paper concerns itself almost exclusively with impacts upon Human health. The questionable biological impacts of their activities pertaining to plant and animal life is glossed over only briefly. They note that prolonged exposure to silver iodide has been known to cause Humans to exhibit an ashen appearance, but they claim that this is not of particular concern. They also dismiss concerns about silver iodide’s ability to cause a yellowing of the skin when exposure is topical. They even dismiss two examples of individuals having been significantly harmed by exposure to silver iodide. Their paper is full of phrases like ’seem to be’ and ‘we do not expect’ because much of what is presented in the paper is assumptions and extrapolations based on other people’s work rather than any scientific findings of their own.
The vast majority of research done in this area does not even concern itself with Human health impacts or biospheric contamination. Rather, it focuses on the ancillary issue of how plants and animals may be affected by either more or less rainfall. The work that is publicly available is mostly cursory. In the vast majority of cases where the subject is even so much as broached, the literature quickly follows with assurances that there are probably no adverse effects and that further study is not necessary.
Thankfully, some research indicating silver iodide’s negative biological impacts has surfaced. It is not good news, but we need to hear it. Evidence suggests that it is exceptionally bad for organisms further down the food chain. The aforementioned 1969 Bureau of Reclamation report also noted:
“Silver compounds are much more toxic to fish than to terrestrial vertebrates. Some of the higher concentrations of Ag recorded in precipitation from seeded storms are comparable to the lowest concentrations lethal to fish in the short run. In one set of experiments, sticklebacks were able to withstand no more than 0.003 ppm Ag in water at 15-18° C. The fish survived one week at 0.004 ppm, four days at 0.01 ppm, and but one day at 0.1 ppm.”
This 1969 report also found silver to be, “…highly toxic to microorganisms….” The report continues:
“Many investigators have placed Ag at or near the top of the list among heavy metals in toxicity to fungi, slime molds, and bacteria. Water containing 0.015 ppm Ag from contact with specially prepared metal has exhibited bacteriocidal activity. 0.006 ppm Ag has killed E. coli in 2 to 24 hours, depending on numbers of bacteria. Bacteriocidal activity in this context usually implies death of 9.99% or so of the cells present.”
Killing fungi, E. coli, and slime molds may sound like a good thing. But in the context of our complex and interdependent biosphere, it is not. Our overall ecosystem needs slime molds and the like. These things are vital links in the food chain.
Why does the conventional weather modification and atmospheric sciences literature not sufficiently address the issue of silver iodide’s biological impacts? They wouldn’t have anything to hide, would they? That which is not disclosed is often more incriminating than that which is. Although today’s Weather Modification Association claims it is completely safe, they have a conflict of interest and they do not have enough data to sufficiently back up their claims.
The bottom line is that there is evidence showing that silver iodide has negative biological impacts. We cannot know for sure that spraying this stuff is safe if no public long term studies have been done. But they have been going ahead and doing it anyway – just like today’s geoengineers.
Conclusions
Although it is currently not feasible to completely assess the damage to Earth’s biosphere caused by this New Manhattan Project, the available evidence does not paint a pretty picture. This is an area of study and body of work which should be vastly expanded and updated in the coming years and decades. We already know that massive quantities of atmospheric coal fly ash are bad for Humans, animals, insects, plants, and the overall environment. In Humans, the rates of diseases linked to exposure are on the rise. Many people became very sick when first exposed. The historical precedent set by the conventional weather modification industry mandates irresponsibility. When geoengineers say that their activities are harmless, we have plenty of good reasons to not believe them.
References
“An Open Letter to Members of AGU, EGU, and IPCC Alleging Promotion of Fake Science at the Expense of Human and Environmental Health and Comments on AGU Draft Geoengineering Position Statement” a paper by J. Marvin Herndon, published by New Concepts in Global Tectonics Journal, September 2017
Kampa, M.; Castanas, E. Human health effects of air pollution Environmental Pollution 2008, 151, 362-367.
Calderon-Garciduenas, L.; Franko-Lira, M.; Mora-Tiscareno, A.; Medina-Cortina, H.; Torres-Jardon, R.; et al. Early alzheimer’s and parkinson’s diese pathology in urban children: Friend verses foe response – it’s time to face the evidence. BioMed Research International 2013, 32, 650-658.
Moulton, P.V.; Yang, W. Air pollution, oxidative stress, and alzheimer’s disease. Journal of Environmental and Public Health 2012, 109, 1004-1011.
Beeson, W.L.; Abbey, D.E.; Knutsen, S.F. Long-term concentrations of ambient air pollutants and incident lung cancer in california adults: Results from the ahsmog study. Environ. Health Perspect. 1998, 106, 813-822.
Hong, Y.C.; Lee, J.T.; Kim, H.; Kwon, H.J. Air pollution: A new risk factor in ischemic stroke mortality. Stroke 2002, 33, 2165-2169.
Haberzetti, P.; Lee, J.; Duggineni, D.; McCracken, J.; Bolanowski, D.; O’Toole, T.E.; Bhatnagar, A.; Conklin, D., J. Exposure to ambient air fine particulate matter prevents vegf-induced mobilization of endothelial progenitor cells from bone matter. Environ. Health Perspect. 2012, 120, 848-856.
Potera, C. Toxicity beyond the lung: Connecting pm2.5, inflammation, and diabetes. Environ. Health Perspect. 2014, 122, A29
Mehta, A.J.; Zanobetti, A.; Bind, M.-A., C.; Kloog, I.; Koutrakis, P.; Sparrow, D.; Vokonas, P.S.; Schwartz, J.D. Long-term exposure to ambient fine particulate matter and renal function in older men: The va normative aging study. Environ. Health Perspect. 2016, 124(9), 1353-1360.
Dai, L.; Zanobetti, A.; Koutrakis, P.; Schwartz, J.D. Associations of fine particulate matter species with mortality in the united states: A multicity time-series analysis. Environ. Health Perspect. 2014, 122,
Dockery, D.W.; Pope, C.A.I.; Xu, X.P.; Spengler, J.D.; Ware, J.H.; et al. An association between air pollution and mortality in six U. S. Cities. N. Eng. J. Med. 1993, 329, 1753-1759.
Pope, C.A.I.; Ezzati, M.; Dockery, D.W. Fine-particulate air pollution and life expectancy in the united states. N. Eng. J. Med. 2009, 360, 376-386.
Pires, A.; de Melo, E.N.; Mauad, T.; Saldiva, P.H.N.; Bueno, H.M.d.S. Pre- and postnatal exposure to ambient levels of urban particulate matter (pm2.5) affects mice spermatogenesis. Inhalation Toxicology: International Forum for Respiratory Research: DOI: 10.3109/08958378.2011.563508 2011, 23.
Ebisu, K.; Bell, M.L. Airborne pm2.5 chemical components and low birth weight in the northeastern and midatlantic regions of the united states. Environ. Health Perspect. 2012, 120, 1746-1752.
Tetreault, L.-F.; Doucet, M.; Gamache, P.; Fournier, M.; Brand, A.; Kosatsky, T.; Smargiassi, A. Childhood exposure to ambient air pollutants and the onset of asthma: An administrative cohort study in quebec. Environ. Health Perspect. 2016, 124(8), 1276.
Bell, M.L.; Ebisu, K.; Leaderer, B.P.; Gent, J.F.; Lee, H.J.; Koutrakis, P.; Wang, Y.; Dominici, F.; Peng, R.D. Associations of pm2.5 constituents and sources with hospital admissions: Analysis of four counties in connecticut and massachusetts (USA). Environ. Health Perspect. 2014, 122, 138-144.
“The Effect of Reaerosolized Fly Ash from an Atmospheric Fluidized Bed Combustor on Murine Alveolar Macrophages” a paper by Patricia C. Brennan, Frederick R. Kirchner, and William P. Norris, published by Argonne National Laboratory, 1979
“Coal Fly Ash Aerosol: Risk Factor for Lung Cancer” a paper by Dr. Mark Whiteside and J. Marvin Herndon, PhD, published by the Journal of Advances in Medicine and Medical Research, February 2018
“Aerosolized Coal Fly Ash: Risk Factor for Neurodegenerative Disease” a paper by Dr. Mark Whiteside and J. Marvin Herndon, PhD, published by the Journal of Advances in Medicine and Medical Research, March 2018
“Aerosolized Coal Fly Ash: Risk Factor for COPD and Respiratory Disease” a paper by Dr. Mark Whiteside and J. Marvin Herndon, PhD, published by the Journal of Advances in Medicine and Medical Research, May 2018
“Geoengineering, Coal Fly Ash and the New Heart-Iron Connection: Universal Exposure to Iron Oxide Nanoparticulates” a paper by Dr. Mark Whiteside and J. Marvin Herndon, PhD, published by the Journal of Advances in Medicine and Medical Research, November 2019
“Weather and Climate Modification: Report of the Special Commission on Weather Modification” by the National Science Foundation, 1965
Aluminum oxide material safety data sheet by US Research Nanomaterials, Inc., 2013
“Assessing the Direct Occupational and Public Health Impacts of Solar Radiation Management with Stratospheric Aerosols” a paper by Utibe Effiong and Richard L. Neitzel, published in Environmental Health, 2016
“In Vitro Toxicity of Aluminum Nanoparticles in Rat Alveolar Macrophages” a report by Andrew Wagner, Charles Bleckmann, and E. England of the Air Force Institute of Technology, Krista Hess of Geo-Centers, Inc., Dayton, Ohio, and Saber Hussain and John J. Schlager of the Air Force Research Laboratory, Human Effectiveness Directorate, Applied Biotechnology Branch, Wright-Patterson AFB, published by the Air Force Research Laboratory, Human Effectiveness Directorate, Applied Biotechnology Branch, Wright-Patterson AFB, 2001
“Nanosized Aluminum Altered Immune Function” a paper by Laura K. Braydich-Stolle, Janice L. Speshock, Alicia Castle, Marcus Smith, Richard C. Murdock, and Saber M. Hussain, published by the American Chemical Society, 2010
“Manufactured Aluminum Oxide Nanoparticles Decrease Expression of Tight Junction Proteins in Brain Vasculature” a paper by Lei Chen, Robert A. Yokel, Bernhard Henning, and Michal Toborek, published by the Journal of Neuroimmune Pharmacology, December, 2008
“Aluminum Induced Immunoexcitotoxicity in Neurodevelopmental and Neurodegenerative Disorders” a paper by Dr. Russell L. Blaylock, as published in Current Inorganic Chemistry, 2012
“Gila Activation Induced by Peripheral Administration of Aluminum Oxide Nanoparticles in Rat Brains” a paper by X. Li, H. Zheng, Z. Zhang, M. Li, Z. Huang, H.J. Schluesener, Y. Li, and S. Xu, published in Nanomed, 2009, 5, (4), 473-479
Strontium oxide material safety data sheet by Sigma- Aldrich, 2007
“Aluminum Poisoning of Humanity and Earth’s Biota by Clandestine Geoengineering Activity: Implications for India” a paper by J. Marvin Herndon, PhD, published by Current Science, 2015
“Strontium” a report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
“Contamination of the Biosphere with Mercury: Another Potential Consequence of On-going Climate Manipulation Using Aerosolized Coal Fly Ash” a paper by Dr. Mark Whiteside and J. Marvin Herndon, PhD, published by the Journal of Geography, Environment and Earth Science International, December 2017
Inhaled Particles and Vapours a book edited by C.N. Davies, published by Pergamon Press, 1961
“Fine Particulate Air Pollution and Mortality in 20 U.S. Cities, 1987-1994” a report by Jonathan M. Samet, MD, Francesca Dominici, PhD, Frank C. Curriero, PhD, Ivan Coursac, MS, and Scott L. Zeger, PhD, published by the New England Journal of Medicine, volume 343, number 24, 2000
Pulmonary Deposition and Retention of Inhaled Aerosols a book by Theodore F. Hatch, Paul Gross, the American Industrial Hygiene Association, and the United States Atomic Energy Commission, published by Academic Press, 1964
“Mortality from Alzheimer’s Disease in the United States: Data for 2000 and 2010” a report by Betzaida Tejada-Vera, M.S., published by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2013
“Deaths from Alzheimer’s Disease – United States, 1999-2014” an article by Christopher A. Taylor, PhD, Sujay F. Greenlund, Lisa C. McGuire, PhD, Hua Lu, MS, and Janet B. Croft, PhD, published in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, May 26, 2017
“Age-Adjusted Death Rates for Parkinson’s Disease Among Adults Aged ≥65 Years – National Vital Statistics System, United States, 1999-2017” an article by Nancy Han, MS and Barnali Das, PhD, published by the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Sept. 6, 2019
“Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Among Adults Aged 18 and Over in the United States, 1998–2009” a report by Lara J. Akinbami, MD; and Xiang Liu, MSc, published by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2011
“United States Life Tables, 2017” an article by Elizabeth Arias, PhD and Jiaquan Xu, MD, published by National Vital Statistics Reports, June 24, 2019
“National Surveillance of Asthma: United States, 2001-2010” a report by the Centers for Disease Control, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, November, 2012
Chemtrails Confirmed a book by William Thomas, published by Bridger House Publishers, 2004
What In the World Are They Spraying? a documentary film by Michael Murphy, Paul Wittenberger, and Edward G. Griffin, produced by Truth Media Productions, 2010
“Role of Aerosolized Coal Fly Ash in the Global Plankton Imbalance: Case of Florida’s Toxic Algae Crisis” a paper by Dr. J. Marvin Herndon, PhD and Dr. Mark Whiteside, MD, published by the Asian Journal of Biology, June 2019
“Previously Unacknowledged Potential Factors in Catastrophic Bee and Insect Die-off Arising from Coal Fly Ash Geoengineering” a paper by Dr. J. Marvin Herndon, PhD and Dr. Mark Whiteside, MD, published by the Asian Journal of Biology, August 2018
“Aerosolized Coal Fly Ash: A Previously Unrecognized Primary Factor in the Catastrophic Global Demise of Bird Populations and Species” a paper by Dr. J. Marvin Herndon, PhD and Dr. Mark Whiteside, MD, published by the Asian Journal of Biology, November 2018
“Unacknowledged Potential Factors in Catastrophic Bat Die-off Arising from Coal Fly Ash Geoengineering” a paper by Dr. J. Marvin Herndon, PhD and Dr. Mark Whiteside, MD, published by the Asian Journal of Biology, January 2020
“Previously Unrecognized Primary Factors in the Demise of Endangered Torrey Pines: A Microcosm of Global Forest Die-offs” a paper by J. Marvin Herndon, PhD, Dale D. Williams, and Dr. Mark Whiteside, MD, published by the Journal of Geography, Environment and Earth Science International, August 2018
“California Wildfires: Role of Undisclosed Atmospheric Manipulation and Geoengineering” a paper by J. Marvin Herndon and Dr. Mark Whiteside, MD, published by the Journal of Geography, Environment and Earth Science International, October 2018
“Deadly Ultraviolet UV-C and UV-B Penetration to Earth’s Surface: Human and Environmental Health Implications” a paper by J. Marvin Herndon, PhD, Raymond D. Hoisington and Dr. Mark Whiteside, MD, published by the Journal of Geography, Environment and Earth Science International, March 2018
Silver iodide material safety data sheet produced by ScienceLab.com, 2010
Silver iodide material safety data sheet produced by Fisher Scientific, 2009
National Science Foundation Report No. 66-3 as it appeared in a hearing before the Subcommittee on Oceans and Atmosphere of the Committee on Commerce, United States Senate, Ninety-fourth Congress, second session, Feb. 17, 1976
“Ecological Effects of Weather Modification: A Problem Analysis” a report by Charles F. Cooper and William C. Jolly, produced by the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Office of Atmospheric Water Resources, published by the University of Michigan, 1969
“Some Comments About Weather Modification Affects on Man’s Environment” by Archie M. Kahan, Office of Atmospheric Water Resources, Office of Chief Engineer, Bureau of Reclamation, Department of the Interior, published by the Department of the Interior, 1967
“Federal Regulation of Weather Modification” a report by the Council on Environmental Quality, Washington, D.C., 1972 as it appeared in a hearing before the Subcommittee on Oceans and Atmosphere of the Committee on Commerce, United States Senate, Ninety-fourth Congress, second session, Feb. 17, 1976
Environmental Impacts of Artificial Ice Nucleating Agents a book edited and co-written by Donald A. Klein, published by Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross, 1978
“Weather Modification Association Position Statement on the Environmental Impact of Using Silver Iodide as a Cloud Seeding Agent” a paper by the Weather Modification Association, published by the Weather Modification Association, 2009
“Estimated Possible Effects of AgI Cloud Seeding on Human Health” a paper by Ronald B. Standler and Bernard Vonnegut, published by the Journal of Applied Meteorology, Volume 11, August 11, 1972
Peter A. Kirby is a San Rafael, CA researcher, author, and activist. The greatly revised and expanded second edition of his book Chemtrails Exposed: A New Manhattan Project is now available. Join his email list at his website PeterAKirby.com.
[As a service to protect truth from censorship and to share widely, mirrored copies of this video are available at Truth Comes to Light BitChute, Brighteon, and Odysee channels. All credit, along with our sincere thanks, goes to the original source of this video. Please follow links provided to support their work.]
Parents of Harmed Children Sue Manufacturer of Brain-Damaging Insecticide Chlorpyrifos
(Beyond Pesticides, July 14, 2021) Corteva (formerly DowDupont) is facing a potential class-action lawsuit after several California families filed suit claiming that the use of the insecticide chlorpyrifos around their homes resulted in birth defects, brain damage, and developmental problems in their children. Chlorpyrifos is an organophosphate insecticide that has been linked to a range of health ailments, posing significant hazards particularly for pregnant mothers and their children. The lawsuits come as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approaches a court-imposed 60-day deadline to decide the fate of the pesticide’s registration.
Attorneys for the court cases, filed on behalf of individuals located in four California communities (Fresno, Kings, Medera, and Tulare counties), indicate they intend to pursue class-action status, which would allow additional injured parties to join the lawsuit. The plaintiffs argue that the effects of chlorpyrifos exposure lingers in the agricultural communities where they reside. “We have found it in the houses, we have found it in carpet, in upholstered furniture, we found it in a teddy bear, and we found it on the walls and surfaces,” said Stuart Calwell, lead attorney for the plantiffs. “Then a little child picks up a teddy bear and holds on to it.” Ultimately, 100,000 people in California’s farming regions may need to remove items in their homes that were contaminated by chlorpyrifos, attorneys say.
Each of the four plaintiff families have children with developmental disabilities that they indicate were caused by chlorpyrifos exposure. This real-world occurrence is supported by the scientific literature. Studies find that children exposed to high levels of chlorpyrifos experience mental development delays, attention problems, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder problems, and pervasive developmental disorders at three years of age. Concentrations of chlorpyrifos in umbilical cord blood were also found to correspond to a decrease in the psychomotor development and a decrease in the mental development in 3-year olds. Additional research reinforces these findings, with evidence that children with high exposure levels of chlorpyrifos have changes to the brain, including enlargement of superior temporal, posterior middle temporal, and inferior postcentral gyri bilaterally, and enlarged superior frontal gyrus, gyrus rectus, cuneus, and precuneus along the mesial wall of the right hemisphere.
Meanwhile, EPA, despite a change in administration, has taken no significant action to eliminate chlorpyrifos to date. In May 2021, a federal appeals court gave EPA a 60-day deadline to provide a “legally sufficient response” to a petition originally filed in 2007, urging the agency to ban food uses of the chemical. Advocates say this is a low bar for the Biden administration to clear. With the Biden EPA, under the leadership of Administrator Michael Regan, defending a broad range of Trump-era pesticide decisions, advocates are concerned that EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs remains broken.
Like other recent lawsuits filed around toxic pesticide exposure, including Parkinson-linked paraquat and cancer-causing glyphosate, EPA inaction has made it so that the only remedy for affected individuals and communities is the court system.
Canada has begun to quietly phase out chlorpyrifos, and the European Union continues to lead the world in pesticide protections after it decided not to renew its registration for the chemical, permitting only a short grace period of 3 months for final storage, disposal, and use.
If EPA fails to ban chlorpyrifos, it will be a major blow for environmental justice, given that risks of exposure fall disproportionately on low-income African American and Latino families, including farmworker families, who are at the greatest risk of harm. Help stop the ongoing poisoning of these communities by urging EPA to ban chlorpyrifos today. But don’t stop at chlorpyrifos – as banning its use is simply the first step in eliminating other neurotoxic pesticides on the market. Tell EPA chlorpyrifos and all brain-damaging pesticides need to be banned immediately.
All unattributed positions and opinions in this piece are those of Beyond Pesticides.
In this book, which has been a labor of love for the past decade, Seneff explains how and why glyphosate poses an existential threat to humanity, and why it’s so important to avoid it if you care about your health and the health of your family.
“It’s been a decade of learning everything I could about glyphosate,” Seneff says. “When I first heard about it I basically dropped everything else I was doing because I was so confident that I had found the answer to the autism epidemic. That was the thing I was looking for. Back in 2012, I heard a two-hour lecture by Don Huber, and it changed my focus entirely.
I already understood the symptoms of autism, a very complex disease — lots of gut problems and mineral issues — and it all came together with his lecture. Overnight I just started poring over all the papers I could find.
Shortly after that I found Séralini’s paper,1 which had not yet been retracted at that time. It was later republished, the paper by Séralini, a French toxicologist who had shown that very low doses of glyphosate over the lifespan of a rat could cause a lot of damage.
He pointed out that after three months, everything looked good, so it’s a slow kill. This is one thing I emphasize in my book. Glyphosate is subtle, and that’s really a huge problem because people don’t [make the connection]. We have diabetes, obesity, autism, Alzheimer’s. It’s a long, long list, all the gut problems.
The microbes are being very much disturbed by the chronic poisoning with glyphosate, and then the gut becomes a central starting point for many diseases, including neurological diseases and arthritis. So, you see that disruption of the gut, and glyphosate can cause exactly the things that we’re seeing.”
Glyphosate Contamination in Common Products
Before delving into glyphosate, Seneff spent five years focusing on the potential toxicities of vaccines. She still believes vaccines can play a role in the chronic diseases we’re seeing, including autism.
However, glyphosate may actually play a more significant role. Seneff believes it contributes to and worsens damage caused by vaccines, in part because it binds very efficiently to aluminum used as an adjuvant in certain vaccines. It likely binds strongly to many other toxic metals as well.
The theory is that, by being wrapped up with glyphosate molecules, the metals can more easily penetrate various barriers in your body. This is because glyphosate causes these barriers, such as your intestinal barrier and your blood-brain-barrier, to become more porous. And, as leaky gut or leaky brain set in, the toxic metals are shuttled across, along with the glyphosate.
Interestingly, Anthony Samsel, a public health research scientist, and Zen Honeycutt, founder and director of Moms Across America, have independently found glyphosate contamination in live virus vaccines that do not contain aluminum adjuvant.
Seneff suspects glyphosate may be a contaminant in many drugs as well, particularly drugs produced by genetically engineering E. coli or yeast. They’ve also found glyphosate in tampons, which may then be absorbed through your uterine lining.
Seneff also hypothesizes that, since glyphosate is found in many vegetable-based fats, such as canola and soybean oil, studies comparing the health effects of fats may be compromised since they never consider the effects of glyphosate. Interestingly, while not fat-soluble, glyphosate can still enter fats (and is found in the vegetable oils just mentioned).
Samsel suspects glyphosate acts as a phosphate analog, because it has a phosphonate unit, and fats have phosphates (phospholipids). This is something he’s investigating right now, so eventually, we may learn more about that mechanism.
Glyphosate and the Rise in Celiac Disease
In her book, Seneff details the dramatic increase in glyphosate use since its introduction in the mid-‘70s. Estimates suggest that one pound of glyphosate is applied in the U.S. every year for every man, woman and child, in America, which is an astounding amount. It’s not even enough to buy non-GMO products, as many non-GMO items have been shown to have some of the highest levels of glyphosate.
Oats, wheat, barley and legumes like chickpeas and lentils tend to be very high in glyphosate because these crops are sprayed with glyphosate right before harvest as a desiccant to speed the drying process.
“I think that’s the reason for the epidemic in celiac disease,” Seneff says. “Samsel and I wrote a paper on that. We showed there’s a strong correlation between the rise in celiac disease over time and the rise in glyphosate usage on wheat, specifically on wheat. It matches much better to wheat than it does to the other crops, which makes sense, because wheat is the source of celiac disease.”
A case study of an American woman who tried to commit suicide by drinking glyphosate reveal some of the chemical’s effects. She developed a paralyzed gut, and this may well be what’s happening to many, on a low-grade scale. In essence, people’s guts are sort of semi-paralyzed by the glyphosate in the diet, which causes small intestinal bacterial overgrowth (SIBO).
Bacteria starts festering in the upper intestine because the peristalsis is not working properly, so food remnants get stuck. Glyphosate has also been shown to accumulate in the brain, and animal studies show it causes neuro excitotoxicity due to excess glutamate in the brain. This, in turn, “is absolutely connected to autism,” Seneff says.
In her book, Seneff also discusses the importance of sulfur for optimal health, how sulfate deficiency is connected to autism, and how glyphosate can cause sulfate deficiency.
How Glyphosate Affects Your Gut and Autoimmunity
Part of what makes glyphosate so toxic has to do with the fact that it’s a very efficient metal chelator. It binds metals and minerals really well. For example, glyphosate is a million times more effective at chelating aluminum than EDTA, a chelating agent used in heavy metal chelation treatment.
This, in turn, disrupts your gut microbes because it makes minerals unavailable to the microbes. Your gut microbes need minerals, as their enzymes depend on them for proper functioning. Glyphosate also disrupts the shikimate pathway, both in plants and microbes, and beneficial microbes are particularly sensitive to glyphosate.
When lactobacillus bacteria are killed off in your gut, your ability to digest gluten and casein (milk protein) is impaired, as this bacterium carries several enzymes your body does not have that specialize in breaking down proline, an amino acid found in gluten and casein. This, in turn, can eventually lead to autoimmune problems. Seneff explains:
“We have all these allergies to gluten and casein these days, all these different food sensitivities, and I think it’s because the lactobacillus are being killed off. They can’t support the digestion of those proteins anymore. Then the protein sticks around, the peptide sequence, and that’s what causes an immune reaction.
Then you can get an autoimmune attack through molecular mimicry — the antibody mis-recognizes a human protein because it looks like the piece of gluten that they become sensitive to, so they attack a human protein instead.”
Glyphosate Makes Harmful Fat Even More Hazardous
Interestingly, glyphosate may also contribute to the harm caused by the omega-6 fat linoleic acid (LA). LA is metabolized into arachidonic acid, which is metabolized into an endogenous cannabinoid that eases pain. The enzyme that accomplishes this conversion is cytochrome P450 enzyme, which is disrupted by glyphosate.
Seneff suspects arachidonic acid is getting redirected through enzymes that convert arachidonic acid into extremely immunogenic products instead, such as leukotrienes, which act as signaling molecules that turn on an inflammatory response. A generic term for these signaling molecules is eicocanoids. She explains:
“Leukotrienes are rightfully blamed for causing all the chronic pain we’re seeing — rheumatoid arthritis, joint and bone pain, and even, probably, problems with the brain, maybe headaches.
All the different kinds of pain we’re experiencing that are connected to inflammation could be a consequence of cytochrome P450 enzymes blocking the ability to convert arachidonic acid into the endogenous cannaboid. Instead, it gets redirected towards these signaling molecules that cause all this damage.”
On top of that, LA, when oxidized, turns into highly toxic free radicals such as 4HNE, which cause direct oxidative stress damage to cell membranes, mitochondria, stem cells and DNA. In your mitochondria, a feedback loop then occurs that causes the shutdown of your energy metabolism system, resulting in an increase in adipose tissue. Translation: Excessive LA causes accumulation of belly fat.
Glyphosate Is a Biological Toxin
Its effect on the shikimate pathway is a key mechanism by which glyphosate causes biological harm in humans. The human body does not have this pathway — a fact used by Monsanto to argue for glyphosate’s safety. But the microbes in your body do have it. Research has shown over half the microbes, on average, in your gut have the shikimate pathway and can therefore be decimated by glyphosate.
These include lactobacillus and bifidobacteria, which use the shikimate pathway to produce the aromatic amino acids tryptophan, tyrosine and phenylalanine, crucial coding amino acids that go into all the proteins of your body. They’re absolutely essential for protein assembly, and your body must rely on your diet and gut microbes to produce adequate amounts of these amino acids, as your body cannot produce them any other way.
When your gut microbes are harmed, it can result in a deficiency of tryptophan, tyrosine and phenylalanine. These amino acids are also precursors to many other important biologically active molecules. For example, tryptophan is a precursor to melatonin and serotonin. Tyrosine is a precursor to thyroid hormone, dopamine and adrenaline.
“These are all really, really important hormones that control brain behavior and regulate behavior and mood,” Seneff says. “Serotonin deficiency is connected to depression, and we have an epidemic in depression. So, I think there’s a direct path there. Also, some of the B vitamins come out of the shikimate pathway, including thiamine (B1), riboflavin (B2) and niacin (B3) …
You need thiamine for augmenting your immune system. If you don’t have a lot of thiamine, you’re not going to be able to generate a healthy immune response. That’s why it’s a part of septic protocols. If you’re wrecking it with glyphosate exposure that’s disrupting the shikimate pathway in your gut microflora, you’ve got a huge problem.”
Glycine Can Help Counteract Adverse Effects of Glyphosate
One simple remedy that can help lower your glyphosate burden is to take a glycine supplement. As explained by Seneff, the way glyphosate disrupts the shikimate pathway is by affecting an enzyme called EPSP synthase. That enzyme bonds to a molecule called phosphoenolpyruvate (PEP). The “phospho” in that name stands for phosphate.
At the place where EPSB synthase binds to PEP, there’s a glycine molecule. It’s a highly-conserved glycine in the enzyme. If that glycine is swapped out for alanine, a very similar amino acid, the EPSB synthase enzyme becomes completely insensitive to glyphosate.
“So, it’s black and white — either there’s a glycine there, in which case it’s incredibly susceptible to glyphosate, or there’s alanine, in which case it’s completely insensitive,” Seneff says.
Incidentally, this is how agricultural scientists create glyphosate-resistant GMO crops. They turn the glycine molecule into alanine, thereby rendering the plant impervious to glyphosate.
When glyphosate enters your system, it can take the place of the glycine molecule. While similar, (the “gly” in glyphosate stands for glycine) it’s not identical and does not work the same way as glycine. Hence, this replacement causes all sorts of trouble.
By taking a glycine supplement, you can counteract this chain of events by making sure there’s enough glycine present to fill up those glycine slots. As noted by Seneff, “If there’s lots of glycine, you’re going to be much less likely to pick up glyphosate.” She continues:
“I had thought about glyphosate being glycine, and knowing that it’s a glycine analog and that it was affecting places where glycine binds. Glycine acts as a neural transmitter. Glyphosate messes that up. I thought, ‘I wonder if it can get into the protein in place of glycine?’
My book actually centers on this idea that glyphosate substitutes for glycine in certain proteins. There’s a specific algorithm for where it would happen, and you can show that those proteins are suppressed by glyphosate experimentally.”
Importantly, glyphosate suppresses glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PD), a very important enzyme in red blood cells that maintains NADPH in its reduced form. If you have reduced levels of NADPH, you’re at increased risk for chronic disease, as your ability to recharge antioxidants is impaired. This is yet another mechanism by which glyphosate contributes to any number of disease states.
Glyphosate’s Impact on Collagen
Yet another protein that has a high glycine content is collagen, the primary protein for your connective tissue. It constitutes about one-quarter of your body’s proteins. Because of the presence of glycine, glyphosate has the ability to impair collagen as well.
“I feel confident that glyphosate is messing up collagen,” Seneff says. “Collagen has a beautiful triple helix structure, which gives it really special properties of tensile strength and flexibility to hold water. Collagen has long, long sequences called GXY, GXY, GXY, where every third amino acid is a glycine. Those glycines hook together to form that triple helix.
There are people who have mutations in those glycines that cause joint and bone diseases, and I think glyphosate is causing that. Ehlers-Danlos syndrome is associated with glycine mutations in collagen, and there’s an increase in the prevalence of that syndrome recently.
Of course, you have many more people getting hip replacement surgery, and people have back issues, back pain and shoulder surgery, knee and foot problems. All these different problems with the joints, I suspect, are being caused by misfolded collagen because of glyphosate messing it up.”
Glyphosate’s Impact on Your Vascular System
Another mechanism of action involves the suppression of nitric oxide (NO), primarily through the suppression of endothelial nitric oxide (eNOS), which is one of three ways your body makes NO. eNOS is a close relative to cytochrome 450 enzymes which, as mentioned, are decimated by glyphosate.
“The NO works together with sulfur dioxide to control the viscosity of your blood,” Seneff explains. “NO turns into nitrate … And sulfur dioxide turns into sulfate … Nitrate is a chaotrope, and sulfate is a kosmotrope. Kosmotropes are very interesting molecules that control the viscosity of blood. It’s all about water structuring, stuff that Gerald Pollack talks about.
Kosmotropes make the water structure more like gel and the chaotropes make it more like fluid, liquid. Those two work against each other to maintain the correct viscosity of the blood while other things are going on. If you put a bunch of lipid particles into the blood, it’s going to get more viscous, so you’ve got to make it less-viscous by adding NO.
So, there’s a back and forth between NO and sulfur dioxide that’s regulated by eNOS. This is a theory that I have, and it makes a lot of sense. I have continued to gather evidence that supports it.
If glyphosate messes up eNOS, then it messes up the blood’s ability to maintain its proper viscosity, which means your blood could be too fluid. You could end up with hemorrhaging. It could be too thick, it can’t circulate, so you end up with blood clots.”
More Information
One piece of good news is that Mexico is banning glyphosate and will phase it out entirely by 2024. There are fears Mexico may also start banning U.S. imports found to be contaminated with glyphosate, which would actually work in everyone’s favor by shining a bright light on the matter.
While the ultimate answer is to ban the use of glyphosate worldwide, in the meantime, a key strategy to protect your own health is to buy certified organic or biodynamic food. Glyphosate is not permitted in organic agriculture, and even if contamination occurs, the levels are going to be far lower than that of conventionally-grown foods.
Seneff also recommends eating a high-sulfur diet, as sulfur is crucial for the health of your metabolism and immune system. “Sulfur deficiency, I think, is a driver behind some of our health problems,” she says.
Also consider taking a glycine supplement to counteract and push out any glyphosate you might be exposed to. “Glycine is not very expensive and it is very safe, so it’s an easy thing to take as a supplement, which I think could definitely help,” Seneff says.
Other health-promoting habits include eating plenty of fermented foods and getting optimal amounts of vitamin D and K2. As noted by Seneff, your vitamin D conversion is also adversely affected by glyphosate.
As is typically the case when talking to Seneff, as she is phenomenally well-informed, we cover far more details in this interview than I’ve summarized here — including environmental effects and countermeasures to speed the cleanup of soil and water — so I encourage you to listen to the interview in its entirety.
Of course, to learn more about glyphosate, be sure to pick up a copy of “Toxic Legacy.” It’s by far the best book to date on this pernicious toxin that is robbing people everywhere of their health and quality of life.
The Maine Legislature last week approved a proposal to ban aerial spraying of some herbicides, including glyphosate, in the state’s forests, Associated Press reported.
The proposal, introduced by Democratic Senate President Troy Jackson, bans the the aerial spraying of glyphosate and other synthetic herbicides as a forest management strategy.
Jackson said he was concerned the herbicides seep into rivers and streams, jeopardize ecosystems and pose threats to human health. He said the ban was a step to “protect the health and well-being of the people working and living in northern Maine, and safeguard our natural resources for future generations.”
Across the pond in Europe, the European Federation of Food, Agriculture and Tourism Trade Unions (EFFAT) recently called for an immediate ban on glyphosate-based herbicides and other harmful pesticides.
“The newly adopted position on the issue responds to EFFAT’s commitment to a more sustainable agriculture which underpins, inter alia, free trade agreements with binding requirement to respect highest environmental and social standards, investments in workers’ skills, social protection and research and development towards sustainable pest management.
“As sufficient evidence exists on the risks related to the use of glyphosate for workers, human health and biodiversity, EFFAT calls for the immediate ban of glyphosate as an active substance in herbicide products.”
A newly published analysis in the journal Frontiers in Environmental Science argues that a toxic soup of insecticides, herbicides and fungicides is causing havoc beneath fields covered in corn, soybeans, wheat and other monoculture crops. The research is the most comprehensive review ever conducted on how pesticides affect soil health.
The study is discussed by two of the report’s authors, Nathan Donley and Tari Gunstone, in a recent article appearing on the Scientific American website.
The authors state that the findings should bring about immediate changes in how regulatory agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) assess the risks posed by the nearly 850 pesticide ingredients approved for use in the USA.
Conducted by the Center for Biological Diversity, Friends of the Earth and the University of Maryland, the research looked at almost 400 published studies that together had carried out more than 2800 experiments on how pesticides affect soil organisms. The review encompassed 275 unique species or types of soil organisms and 284 different pesticides or pesticide mixtures.
Pesticides were found to harm organisms that are critical to maintaining healthy soils in over 70 per cent of cases. But Donley and Gunstone say this type of harm is not considered in the EPA’s safety reviews, which ignore pesticide harm to earthworms, springtails, beetles and thousands of other subterranean species.
The EPA uses a single test species to estimate risk to all soil organisms, the European honeybee, which spends its entire life above ground in artificial boxes. But 50-100 per cent of all pesticides end up in soil.
The researchers conclude that the ongoing escalation of pesticide-intensive agriculture and pollution are major driving factors in the decline of soil organisms. By carrying out wholly inadequate reviews, the regulatory system serves to protect the pesticide industry.
The study comes in the wake of other recent findings that indicate high levels of the weedkiller chemical glyphosate and its toxic breakdown product AMPA have been found in topsoil samples from no-till fields in Brazil.
Writing on the GMWatch website, Claire Robinson and Jonathan Matthews note that, despite this, the agrochemical companies seeking the renewal of the authorisation of glyphosate by the European Union in 2022 are saying that one of the greatest benefits of glyphosate is its ability to foster healthier soils by reducing the need for tillage (or ploughing).
This in itself is misleading because farmers are resorting to ploughing given increasing weed resistance to glyphosate and organic agriculture also incorporates no till methods. At the same time, proponents of glyphosate conveniently ignore or deny its toxicity to soils, water, humans and wildlife.
With that in mind, it is noteworthy that GMWatch also refers to another recent study which says that glyphosate is responsible for a five per cent increase in infant mortality in Brazil.
The new study, ‘Pesticides in a case study on no-tillage farming systems and surrounding forest patches in Brazil’ in the journal Scientific Reports, leads the researchers to conclude that glyphosate-contaminated soil can adversely impact food quality and human health and ecological processes for ecosystem services maintenance. They argue that glyphosate and AMPA presence in soil may promote toxicity to key species for biodiversity conservation, which are fundamental for maintaining functioning ecological systems.
These studies reiterate the need to shift away from increasingly discredited ‘green revolution’ ideology and practices. This chemical-intensive model has helped the drive towards greater monocropping and has resulted in less diverse diets and less nutritious foods. Its long-term impact has led to soil degradation and mineral imbalances, which in turn have adversely affected human health.
If we turn to India, for instance, that country is losing 5334 million tonnes of soil every year due to soil erosion and degradation, much of which is attributed to the indiscreet and excessive use of synthetic agrochemicals. The Indian Council of Agricultural Research reports that soil is becoming deficient in nutrients and fertility.
India is not unique in this respect. Maria-Helena Semedo of the Food and Agriculture Organization stated back in 2014 that if current rates of degradation continue all of the world’s topsoil could be gone within 60 years. She noted that about a third of the world’s soil had already been degraded. There is general agreement that chemical-heavy farming techniques are a major cause.
It can take 500 years to generate an inch of soil yet just a few generations to destroy. When you drench soil with proprietary synthetic agrochemicals as part of a model of chemical-dependent farming, you harm essential micro-organisms and end up feeding soil a limited doughnut diet of toxic inputs.
Armed with their multi-billion-dollar money-spinning synthetic biocides, this is what the agrochemical companies have been doing for decades. In their arrogance, these companies claim to have knowledge that they do not possess and then attempt to get the public and co-opted agencies and politicians to bow before the altar of corporate ‘science’ and its bought-and-paid-for scientific priesthood.
The damaging impacts of their products on health and the environment have been widely reported for decades, starting with Rachel Carson’s ground-breaking 1962 book Silent Spring.
As the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) Conference convened its 42nd Session on Monday, Pesticide Action Network Asia Pacific (PANAP) called on the FAO to review its desert locust program and stop the use of chlorpyrifos, a pesticide linked to brain damage and other neurodevelopmental disorders in children.
An overview of the FAO desert locust response shows the use of several Highly Hazardous Pesticides (HHPs), including chlorpyrifos. According to data available on the FAO’s website, more than half a million liters of chlorpyrifos was purchased and delivered by the FAO for desert locust control in Ethiopia (490,000 liters), Uganda (47,000 liters), Yemen (5,000 liters) and Sudan (4,800 liters).
Governments, meanwhile, separately purchased and used hundreds of thousands of liters of chlorpyrifos for desert locust response. These were the governments of Eritrea (41,250 liters), Ethiopia (145,000 liters), Kenya (38,666 liters), Sudan (80,000), Uganda (1,000 liters), and Yemen (26,740).
Overall, both the FAO and governments have used around two million liters of pesticides in desert locust affected countries since January 2020, almost half of which (879,456 liters) is chlorpyrifos.
Chlorpyrifos, an organophosphate pesticide, is a potent neurotoxin at low levels of exposure, causing delayed cognitive and motor development, reduced IQ, and attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). It is associated with several cancers and causes birth defects. It is also extremely toxic to fish, birds, bees and other beneficial insects.
In addition, on April 7th this year, the Council of the European Union decided to submit a proposal to the secretariat of the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) for the listing of chlorpyrifos under Annex A of the Convention, for global phase-out of its production and use. POPs are chemicals that travel long distances to cold regions of the world, particularly the Arctic and Antarctic, where they persist in the environment, bioaccumulate in the food chain and, through their toxicity, threaten both wildlife and humans. “Peristent Organic Pollutants are particularly prone to evaporating from warm regions of the world, so it is highly likely that some of the chlorpyrifos sprayed in Africa will find its way to the Inuit children living in the Arctic,” said Dr. Meriel Watts, PANAP director of science and policy.
As part of its campaign to Protect Our Children from Toxic Pesticides, PANAP is calling for a global ban on chlorpyrifos. Chlorpyrifos is currently banned in 35 countries, according to PAN’s latest consolidated list of banned pesticides.
Other HHPs used in the FAO’s desert locust response program are malathion, deltamethrin, and fenitrothion. Clorpyrifos, malathion (banned in 32 countries) and deltamethrin are also among PANAP’s Terrible 20 pesticides that are especially toxic to children.
The FAO’s Practical guidelines on pesticide risk reduction for locust control recommends a minimum buffer distance for “ecologically sensitive areas” (1,500 meters or about one mile when aerially sprayed, and 100 meters or about 330 feet when sprayed on foot). It instructs locust control staff to wear appropriate personal protective equipment, and to tell local populations to “follow precautionary measures” before control operations.
However, environmental groups have reported that communities in Kenya were not given timely warning before spraying. Pesticide drift from aerial spraying can also reach several miles and cause extensive poisoning of village inhabitants and the surrounding ecosystem.
The FAO’s Pesticide Referee Group recommends organophosphate pesticides as a “last resort” method in locust control. But the FAO insists that the current emergency status of the desert locust crisis warrants the use of these pesticides as “the most appropriate tool.”
“The FAO’s path of choosing to use Highly Hazardous Pesticides, including potential POPs, for desert locust control when more agroecological alternatives are available is alarming. It may have disastrous outcomes for succeeding generations. It should be noted that the use of these toxic pesticides occurs at a time when the UN agency has forged a controversial partnership with CropLife International, the industry association of the world’s biggest pesticide manufacturers,” Watts added.
Hundreds of civil society organisations and scientists around the world are calling on the FAO to stop its deepening collaboration with CropLife, raising concerns that it ties the FAO with manufacturers of harmful pesticides and unsustainable technologies. PANAP is co-coordinating the global campaign to stop this #ToxicAlliance.
In a few short years, the majority of the world’s population has accepted the fifth generation of wi-fi called 5G, where the speed to send full-length, high definition movies to your ipad is said to be ten times faster. The frequencies of 4G, 5G, and 6G are comprised of psychotronic waves. Psychotronics is the study of mind-body-environmental relationships.
By any other name, frequency technology is weaponry being unleashed with the ability to cause an invisible rise in disease on a mass scale. For a history of how the purposeful introduction of electromagnetic frequencies have caused the health problems of humanity, read, The Invisible Rainbow by Arthur Firstenberg.
The Consequences
The need for speed has the consequence of going from moderate to severe adverse health effects in record time. Note that 4G operates at 2.5 GHz or oscillates about 2.5 billion times per second. This frequency mimics water molecules in your body, and was chosen specifically for broadcasting services and equipment under government license. This means that all company products must meet this frequency or be deemed illegal. For what purpose is matching the human body’s frequency, you may ask, other than for weaponization? Good question.
The higher frequencies of 5G comprise a range from 60–100 GHz. 60 GHz is a frequency known to affect oxygen uptake in the human body. In fact, one vocal doctor has warned his colleagues that what they may be seeing in hospitals as COVID are symptoms of 60GHz frequencies.
If not already deployed, the FCC plans to erect small scale wireless refrigerator-sized boxes, placed in front of every 2-10 homes on every street, in every city. The reason is because, since 5G waves travel shorter distances than other waves, they are easily blocked by buildings and trees. As you watch the latest Hollywood flick, you will bask, unaware, in 4G & 5G microwave emissions that oscillate at the same rate as your water and oxygen molecules. These frequencies can cause burning sensations on your skin, impact fertility, as well as alter the electrochemical waves of your brain to affect mind and consciousness. A new form of indoctrination?
Firefighters in Sacramento have reported memory problems and confusion following the installation of new towers in Los Angeles in 2004. Some cities, including Santa Rosa, have halted their 5G plans while health concerns are addressed. These same millimeter waves have been used by the U.S. Army as a crowd control dispersal weapons called Active Denial Systems.
The ‘Live Exercise’
What is a Live Exercise?
A live exercise is part of a script that some have called a ‘false flag operation,’ fake news, or a hoax. A list of suspect false flag operations amount to fraud on the people who unknowingly participate. A live exercise is an opportunity for the operators behind the hoax to provide full disclosure under the guise of an event perceived to be serious or dangerous.
One such famous event occurred on the radio on the night before Halloween, 1938. Orson Welles and his Mercury Theatre on the Air performed a radio adaptation of H.G. Wells’s The War of the Worlds, by converting the 40-year-old novel into fake news bulletins describing a Martian invasion of New Jersey. The show caused hysteria nationwide as many listeners mistook those bulletins for the real thing and called police, newspaper journalists and hospitals with reports of mass stampedes and suicides.
More recently, live exercises occurred when secret testing of 5G emissions happened during the 2018 Olympics, and then again at the 2018 Super Bowl where over 67,000 people were part of a secret stress-test without their consent. The 5G antennae networks have since been beta tested in nineteen U.S. cities including San Francisco, Los Angeles, Jacksonville, and San Jose.
Even more recently, in March of 2020, CNN filmed Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, who admitted “we’re in a live exercise here” when referring to the COVID-19 pandemic during a press conference.
The art of deception continues as governments worldwide promote high frequency 5G signals as necessary for your Wi-Fi experience. What is the point of adding short waves to all the frequencies already deployed? Why duplicate technology when fiber optics works perfectly well, and maybe better?
No time for answers. It’s full steam ahead to remove the obstacles that block the signals.
First the trees.
Trees Targeted
During the summer of 2017, many people in California reported that extensive “weird fires” destroyed many trees, leaving homes untouched. Everything did not burn. At other times, the metal of cars and rails burned along with the leaves on trees, leaving tree trunks and kindling. Many claimed these unusual fires to be the result of lasers from Directed Energy Weapons. Whole forests have been devastated down straight lines, obeying fence lines. In addition, the sanctioned poisoning of hardwood trees by timber companies that has led to over one million dead trees to create a fire hazard.
Are the trees being destroyed merely to open a path of hazardous signals? Is this treason/tree-son on multiple levels? A Freedom of Information request by the Sunday Times in England found that more than 110,000 trees had been cut down by UK councils between 2015 and June 2018.
Unless you can stand up, speak up, collaborate and network, you risk being a victim of a attack coming unseen, as millimeter waves, directed at body and mind. If people feel powerless and isolated now, imagine what it would feel like once the newly installed 5G towers are fully operational. Image what it would be like when the trees are replaced with towers that look like trees. We only feel isolated when we work alone and isolate ourselves, or when we respond to dictates by governments that convince us to isolate ourselves without the authority to do so. Like a forest, there is strength in numbers.
Health Effects of 5G
Because 5G frequencies affect oxygen molecules, they affect all biological systems, including DNA, circadian rhythm, heart function, hormonal regulation, and immune system. Hundreds of scientists have expressed concern that humans may experience serious health risks including increases in blindness, cataracts, retinal degeneration, hearing loss, male infertility, cancers, peripheral nervous system damage, impacts on immune cells, red blood cells leading to low cellular oxygen, and impaired transport of nutrients into cells. Impacts on birds and plants may be more severe than the impacts on humans.
Silent Wars
Beyond direct effects to health, harmful frequencies threaten society as a whole by ignoring the human right to informed-consent to high levels of radiation. All life on the planet has a right to health and a healthy life. By accepting the 4G,5G,6G rollout without a discussion, as happened with airport scanners and GMO foods, people innocently give up sovereignty over their bodies. The new frequencies ionize metals being sprayed into the atmosphere under military “geo-engineering” programs to charge the atmosphere. They do the same in our bodies.
Could injections with metal contaminants be part of the weaponized network? China began compulsory vaccinations on December 1, 2019, under the The Vaccines Administration Law, which the People’s Republic of China adopted on June 29, 2019. Soon after, South Korea became a location for mandatory vaccines, then 5G networks were launched on November 1, 2019 in both regions. This happened before the pandemic was declared and reports of sudden deaths.
On September 26, 2018, the United States FCC voted to approve its Wireless Infrastructure Order (dockets 17-79 and 17-84). This order preempts local control of the public rights-of-way. Wireless companies can more easily install — in front homes — cell towers that would irradiate those nearby with intense, pulsed, data-modulated, Radio-frequency Electromagnetic Microwave Radiation (RF-EMR) — 24/7. Many of these companies use cloud seeding technologies and weather modification technology
For instance, under the new space programs, patent US7612284B2 , a solar-powered satellite will generate a powerful microwave radio frequency beam focused on an array of collector antennas where it will be transformed to electrical power supplied to PG&E (Pacific Gas and Electric).
Under patent US20110204159A1, a solar-powered satellite will generate a powerful microwave radio frequency beam to control the weather by heating deployments of aluminum oxide or other conductive particulates, sprayed from aircraft. The patent describes methods of steering and changing the intensity of a hurricane.
Some Solutions
Voice the power of NO to all new generation wi-fi systems without proven safety.
Hardwire all electrical connections or unplug Wi-Fri before sleeping.
Use aluminum screens on windows to block EMF signals.
Use RF-shielding paint to block EMF signals.
Consume Carbon60, a powerful antioxidant, metal absorber, and carrier of metals out of the body.
Unsubscribe to the genetically-modified corporate food system.
Eat an organic diet to strengthen and maintain your immune system.
Come together in small communities to maintain simple wi-fi for the benefit and balance of the group.
Grow your own food. Plant a garden. Grow herbs and fruit trees.
Stop using aluminum cookware, antiperspirants, baking powder, injections for health.
Remove the outdoor refrigerators and towers from your sightline.
In usual form, attacks to human health and the health of Earth are coming from new technologies that are unproven, untested, and amoral. Though governments always attempt to divide humanity using race, religion, wars, lies, and unlawful mandates, we are all Earthlings born free, united at the level of our cells and our microbes. Do we slow down and take inventory of humanity at this crossroads? Or do we accept the coming tidal wave?
Speed for the sake of speed is the same as growth for the sake of growth, which is the ideology of a cancer cell.
I recently received a letter in the mail from a woman in Florida describing the illnesses from which she has suffered for the past dozen years: Hashimoto’s disease, liver dysfunction, sinus infection, “exploding head,” complete loss of smell and partial loss of taste. “After all this time,” she wrote, “I now wonder how much radiation has been a part of my illness.” She has joined a Stop 5G group in her city. To protect herself she keeps her cell phone in a “faraday pouch” when she is not using it, and she turns off her wifi at night. She also asked about the effectiveness of the various devices, pendants and chips being sold to protect oneself from the radiation. I replied to her as follows:
“You are right to wonder how much radiation is a part of your illness. First and foremost, you should not ever use a cell phone or WiFi. Getting rid of all wireless on your person and in your home will make a tremendous difference in your health. A faraday pouch does not block all the radiation. A cell phone radiates even when it is off, as long as the battery is in it. And it takes your body several days to recover, even from a single two-minute phone call. No products will protect you from the radiation — if they do anything at all, those products are dangerous.”
She was shocked, because that is not what everyone else has been telling her. “I have found that most people do not believe cell phones are the issue, just the towers. I must get a landline and work from there,” she wrote back.
More Radiation Than Cell Towers
It is beyond me how anyone can expect their cell phone to work if all the towers are not there, but that is not the worst error people are making. Somehow, they have convinced themselves that most of their exposure to radiation is coming from the towers and not their phones and computers. Not only is the opposite true, but it is all one system. The more radiation the towers put out, the less radiation your phone has to emit to connect with them. The less radiation the towers put out, the more radiation your phone emits. You can’t have one without the other.
A cell phone operating at 2 watts (maximum power) held six inches from your head exposes your brain to more radiation than if there were a 200-watt tower ten feet away, or a 2000-watt tower thirty feet away. If you live in a city with a lot of towers, your phone may only emit a milliwatt of power (0.001 watts). But then you’re getting the same radiation from the towers that you would have gotten from your phone if all the towers were not there. It’s all one system. And if you put the 1-milliwatt phone up against your head, you are still exposing your brain to more radiation than from all the towers in the city.
And even when you are only texting, and the phone is only emitting a milliwatt of power, as long as you are touching the phone, the frequencies are being conducted through your hands into your heart, lungs and brain, and your whole body is radiating them into your environment and exposing everyone to them that you pass on the street. And this is not a good thing, because the harm done by the radiation does not depend on power level at all. It depends on the informational content, and we are living in a crazy age where we demand more and more information from our devices, at greater and greater speeds, while our axons and dendrites are trying to send complex information to our brains, and our hearts’ pacemakers are trying to communicate with our hearts’ atria and ventricles, and the oxidative phosphorylation enzymes in our mitochondria are trying to send electrons to the oxygen we breathe in order to generate the energy for life, and our cells are trying to whisper to other cells with instructions about where to go, and what kinds of cells to become, to choreograph our growth, and to orchestrate the healing process when we are injured or ill. And even one milliwatt is millions of times louder than the whispered signals between our cells, which can no longer follow the instructions that they can no longer hear.
And the result is diabetes, and heart disease, and cancer, and neurological disease, at rates that just 25 years ago, at the beginning of the wireless revolution, would have seemed unimaginable, but that are now accepted as normal, because the population is not connecting them, is not willing to connect them, to their cause.
Living in a Prison Created by Phones
I communicate with hundreds of thousands of people, a large number of whom are environmental refugees. Year after year they are moving further and further away from civilization, desperately trying to live where cell phones do not work in order to stay alive, while the rest of the population has grown more and more dependent on their phones, counting on them to work wherever they go.
Even if others know on some level that there is a radiation problem, they don’t really know. “I’ve got to have a phone in case of emergency” means their phones have to be able to work everywhere they go, which means there have to be cell towers everywhere they go, especially in the middle of nowhere, and it means they are condemning all those refugees to torture and death. Never mind all the insects, birds and animals that can never be free of radiation, anywhere on earth, no matter where they fly to or run to to stay alive. If a cell phone will work where they fly, they are being irradiated.
When the wireless revolution came to the United States in 1996, I stayed alive only by leaving my home and my city and my family and friends and camping out in places where cell phones did not work for the next eight years. I have stayed alive since 2004 by living in a location where the conductivity of the earth is extremely high, and I cannot leave. Santa Fe is a nice place, but I am not here by choice. I am here because there is no other place left to even camp. I am here because it is one of the few places on earth where I can stay alive in spite of the fact that a cell phone will work here. It is a nice prison, but a prison nonetheless, a prison from which I have not left for more than a few hours since 2007. I am kept in this prison by everyone who owns a cell phone and expects to be able to use it “in case of emergency.”
I, and the refugees in Green Bank, West Virginia, and the refugees in the French Alps, and the refugees sleeping in their vehicles in the fewer and fewer places that still exist where cell phones do not work, are not different from everyone else, except that at some point in our lives our eyes were opened to what was making us so sick, and that we learned to recognize the effects of radiation and to avoid radiation in order to survive, instead of dying of heart attacks, strokes, and neurological disease. We learned to feel the radiation, which everyone else could also learn to feel if they would only stop using their devices that are numbing them to the pain, stop using them long enough to discover what a horror they are, and what a tremendous difference it makes to their physical and psychological health to get rid of them, permanently, from their person and their home. What a tremendous difference for themselves, for the refugees, for the birds, for the whales. For the honey bee, waiting, imploring, at the top of this newsletter.
Lawsuits Being Filed in the D.C. Circuit and the United States Supreme Court
Children’s Health Defense v. FCC
On February 26, 2021, Children’s Health Defense sued the Federal Communications Commission in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. CHD is asking the court to overturn a new, illegal, unconstitutional order that the FCC had issued the previous day.
The FCC had revised its rules for Over-the-Air Reception Devices (OTARD), which sounds innocuous enough. Except that the new rules have nothing to do with reception devices. Instead they have repealed all zoning regulations for broadband antennas and towers on private property by calling them “reception devices.” Wireless internet providers can now build base stations wherever they please on anyone’s property anywhere in the United States and are no longer subject to any restrictions by cities, counties or states in the unlimited expansion of their networks of towers and antennas.
The lawsuit is Case No. 21-1075 in the D.C. Circuit, and CHD’s opening brief is due on June 23, 2021. An amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief in support of CHD’s lawsuit is being prepared now that will represent Stop 5G groups, other anti-wireless organizations, organizations representing people injured by radio-frequency radiation, and other environmental organizations in the United States. The amicus brief is due on June 30, 2021. If your U.S. organization would like to join the amicus brief, please contact Petra Brokken at <dpetrab@yahoo.com>.
City of Portland v. FCC
In 2018, hundreds of cities and counties joined together to sue the FCC over new orders prohibiting states and local governments from regulating cell towers in the public rights-of-way, and on August 12, 2020 the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled against them. On October 22, 2020 the Ninth Circuit denied their petition for rehearing. On March 22, 2021 they appealed their case to the United States Supreme Court. The case is City of Portland v. Federal Communications Commission, Docket No. 20-1354.
Together, the FCC orders under challenge by those cities and counties, and the OTARD order under challenge by Children’s Health Defense, mean that local governments in the United States can no longer regulate most towers or antennas anywhere — not on public land and not on private land.
Santa Fe Alliance v. City of Santa Fe
In 2018, the Santa Fe Alliance for Public Health and Safety sued the City of Santa Fe, the Attorney General of New Mexico, and the United States of America.
Unlike the petitioners in Portland v. FCC, which are suing to be able to protect the health, safety and welfare of their citizens, the City of Santa Fe and State of New Mexico have voluntarily relinquished that right. Both the City and the State have passed laws repealing all zoning regulations for antennas and towers in the public rights-of-way.
The Santa Fe Alliance is challenging the constitutionality of those City and State laws, and of Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which prohibits local governments from regulating cell towers on the basis of health and denies people injured by radio-frequency radiation of any remedy.
On March 30, 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled against the Santa Fe Alliance, and on May 27, 2021, the Court denied our petition for rehearing. We are preparing to appeal our case to the United States Supreme Court. Our petition for certiorari must be filed in the Supreme Court by August 25, 2021.
Our lawsuit goes to the heart of the problem, which is the unconstitutional law passed by Congress in 1996 that has enabled a thickening fog of radiation to envelop this nation ever since.
Our excellent attorney, Theresa Kraft, who argued our case in the Tenth Circuit, has been sick and in and out of the hospital for two months following her second COVID vaccination, and we must find another attorney to replace her. We are currently contacting law firms. Please contact me immediately if you are an attorney who can help, or if you have a referral to one.
On June 13, 2021, Swiss citizens are called to vote for the outlawing of synthetic pesticides. A citizens’ initiative, turned referendum, supported and endorsed by Navdanya International on the path towards a true agrofood systems transition. In case the ‘Yes’ vote should win, the ban would extend from agriculture, to private use, and to the import and marketing of foodstuffs containing synthetic chemicals. Voters will also have to decide on the proposal to remove public subsidies for farmers who are not willing to convert to ecological production practices.
The initiative holds significant symbolic value as Switzerland is home to one of the most powerful agribusiness corporations in the world, Syngenta. Recently acquired by ChemChina, Syngenta was recently at the center of the Paraquat Papers scandal, named after the herbicide produced by the company and considered one of the most toxic and dangerous in the world.
The Swiss initiative is intended to inspire similar actions in other countries.
The president of Navdanya International, Vandana Shiva, commented: “We are members of one Earth family. Poisons and pesticides kill insects and biodiversity, they are destroying the infrastructure of life. Poisons are causing a health emergency, as chronic diseases such as cancer, autism, infertility are connected to toxins in food and environmental pollution. Through knowledge manipulation and propaganda, the Poison Cartel also undermines independent science and threatens democracy by trying to silence citizens’ efforts towards pesticide-free communities. The health of the planet, her biodiversity, our health makes poison-free food and farming a survival imperative. As our work in Navdanya over 3 decades has shown, we can grow more and better food through biodiversity-intensive, chemical-free organic farming. I congratulate and support the Swiss Referendum as a significant step towards Earth Democracy to defend the rights of the biodiversity of species, including all human beings. Poison free food and farming is our birthright.”
Navdanya International
Good news: Vandana Shiva supports our initiative! «We are members of One Earth Family. Poisons and Pesticides kill insects and biodiversity, they are destroying the infrastructure of life. Poisons are causing a health emergency. (…) (1/6) pic.twitter.com/Pg0G7ovxDH
— #PestizidinitiativeJA am 13. Juni (@LebenstattGift) June 4, 2021
The volatile nature of the pesticide dicamba has meant that it can wind up miles away from where it was sprayed.
Dicamba, and dicamba-resistant seeds, were meant to be the next huge product for Monsanto, which was bought by agrochemical giant Bayer back in 2018. But “dicamba drift,” the name for the phenomenon in which dicamba particles float through the air onto plants that have no protection against it, has affected farmers and forests across the country. Most often, we’ve seen dicamba drift pegged as a damaging agent on unprotected soybean fields, but soy is far from the only victim. A new lawsuit claims that dicamba drift leveled extensive damage on vineyards—in Texas.
When we think of American wine production we tend to think of California first, then maybe Washington state, Oregon and the Finger Lakes region of New York. But grapes are grown just about everywhere and many wine grape varieties are well suited for non-coastal environments as well. In the High Plains region of Texas, just south of the Texas Panhandle, wine grape (and wine) production has been a recent local success story; Texas wines have even won awards held elsewhere.
In the larger wine-grape-growing regions of the United States, like in Northern California, dicamba drift has not been a substantial problem. Dicamba can drift for about three miles from where it was applied, which means that any affected crops need to be within that range to be hit. Napa and Sonoma counties in California, just for example, don’t have substantial dicamba-treated crops that close to the vineyards; there’s much more money to be made in growing grapes in those counties than growing cotton or soy.
But in Texas, cotton is a major crop and can be very close to the vineyards. Those vineyards’ owners, according to a press release from the law firm that filed the case, “saw their highly productive vineyards wither and, in some cases, die as a result of the dicamba-resistant seed system’s use on over two million surrounding acres of cotton.” That release says that 57 Texas wine grape growers have filed suit against Bayer-Monsanto and BASF (which also sells dicamba products) for “hundreds of millions of dollars.”
The suit alleges that some grape growers saw a truly insane 90 percent reduction in their yield owing to dicamba drift. And grapevines, unlike some other crops, cannot simply be replanted the next year for a similar yield; they require decades to mature and produce the right quality of fruit for some wines.
The European Federation of Food, Agriculture and Tourism Trade Unions (EFFAT) has called for an immediate ban on glyphosate-based herbicides and other harmful pesticides.
In a press release on Friday EFFAT stated “Protecting agri-workers’ health is EFFAT’s number one priority. EFFAT calls for an immediate ban on glyphosate in the renewal process, which ends in 2022. EFFAT also calls for more investments in the promotion of alternatives to the use of glyphosate and other harmful pesticides and urges a clear governance in charge of a smooth transition with the involvement of Trade Unions. Existing jobs must be protected and new quality ones created.
“The newly adopted position on the issue responds to EFFAT’s commitment to a more sustainable agriculture which underpins, inter alia, free trade agreements with binding requirement to respect highest environmental and social standards, investments in workers’ skills, social protection and research and development towards sustainable pest management.
“As sufficient evidence exists on the risks related to the use of glyphosate for workers, human health and biodiversity, EFFAT calls for the immediate ban of glyphosate as an active substance in herbicide products in the renewal process which is expected to end in 2022. The precautionary principle should guide EFSA and ECHA assessments.
Glyphosate Box
Glyphosate Residue Free Certification for Food Brands – Click Here
Test Your Food and Water at Home for Glyphosate – Click Here
Test Your Hair for Glyphosate and other Pesticides – Click Here to Find Out Your Long-Term Exposure
“If a transition period is to be set, it should be as short as possible and only apply for limited cases in professional use, whilst for uses in public areas, private gardens, railway tracks, desiccation, and all cases where Integrated Pest management (IPM) can be used, the ban should apply immediately. In any case, there should be no more use of glyphosate in Europe from 2024.
“EFSA, ECHA and the European Commission should carry out their assessment in atransparent and reliable way, free of the influence of the agro-chemical industry. The protection of agricultural workers’ health and safety must be considered as one of the main priorities throughout the scientific evaluation that will guide the process. The use of Personal protective equipment (PPE) should not be given a prominent position in the scientific assessment, as evidence shows that PPE is not always available, and its effectiveness is often over-estimated.
“Alternatives to the use of glyphosate and other harmful chemicals already exist and must be further promoted. This includes agronomic practices, mechanical and biological weed control, animal grazing and natural herbicides.
“A 13-week pilot study run by the Ramazzini Institute in Bologna in 2019 demonstrates that exposure to glyphosate-based herbicides from prenatal period to adulthood induced endocrine disruptive effects and altered reproductive developmental parameters in male and female rats. A recent study has proven glyphosate acts as an endocrine disruptor in the case of exposure during pregnancy.
“EFFAT supports the ambitious environmental objectives of the Green Deal and the Farm to Fork strategy, including the 50% reduction target for use and risk of pesticides by 2030.1 However, acting solely at a European level will not be sufficient to protect consumers’ health, safeguard our ecosystems and biodiversity and prevent soil erosion. On the contrary, it may affect jobs and the competitiveness of the EU agriculture sector. A vision towards a more sustainable agriculture without glyphosate and other hazardous chemical must be pursued at a global level. The EU should be at the forefront of this radical change, since the decisions taken in the EU will also have a substantial impact in other countries.
“It is not acceptable that harmful pesticides already banned in the EU keep being produced and exported by European agro-chemical companies. Foodstuff produced using pesticides banned in Europe should not enter the EU market.
“If the EU were to adopt a different approach to Free Trade Agreements (FTAs), this could contribute to building a more sustainable vision for the agriculture sector. Agriculture and food always require specific attention in the negotiation of FTAs, as the economic, social and environmental sustainability of these sectors is fragile and easily disrupted. Moreover, the respect of equal environmental and social standards must be a precondition to engage in negotiations.”
When I was living in Northern California from 2008-2010, the state was rolling out wireless smart utility meters. I was one of the individuals who became disabled as the result of exposure to the pulsed microwave radiofrequencies. California held a number of hearings where individuals who were concerned about billing fiascos, privacy, security, cost, green-washing, surveillance, and health damages gave testimony.
I remember the testimony of one father whose young son had been in a serious accident and was being sent home to convalesce and heal . . . and it reminded me that any of us, in this point in time, might believe that smart meters are safe. But our circumstances can change in a moment. Many of us were already losing ground due to lack of sleep and constantly being induced by the frequencies – what would the experience be for a child with a metal plate in the head?
For those of us already recognizing that the meters and infrastructure installations were capable of causing tremendous disruption to normal, healthy brain function, it was a terrible experience to be in the presence of unresponsive, detached, autocratic decision-makers who ignored the early warnings for whatever reason, whether they did not believe what was happening, or didn’t care.
The posture of not believing and/or not caring has grown worse over time, with the unsubstantiated claims and prevailing beliefs that increased wireless telecommunication (including “fixed wireless broadband” and 5G) is safe, sustainable, and necessary. But as the industry spin and surveillance has increased, so has the dawning of reason.
Many mothers, fathers, and children have been recognizing risks, and taking action, throughout the country and around the world, and the numbers continue to increase. Many communities, neighborhoods, and families are seeking to prioritize wired, rather than wireless options.
Mother’s Day Countdown
In our series at Natural Blaze counting down to Mother’s Day, we learned about:
Godelieve Richards, the new mother who co- founded the Piti Theatre Group with her husband Jonathan, in Massachusetts and Switzerland, on her experience of the acute onset of EHS, her journey to receive an accurate diagnosis, and the efforts she has to make to protect her home environment.
Kirstin Beatty, a young mother and teacher forced to leave her profession, whose daughter is her advocate, who despite isolation due to EHS, works actively on legislative efforts on a number of environmental fronts.
Courtney Gilardi, whose community is opposing a macrotower, with many neighbors and her family experiencing adverse health effects when the tower was “turned on” after being installed without the knowledge and consent of the community, questioning outdated and inaccurate exposure standards and lack of legislative response.
Virginia Hines, a psychotherapist, noting the opportunity for cognitive coherence as society adopts health-protective choices; for examples, speaker phone, wired ear buds, and a chiropractic office that hardwired to protect the safety of their patients (after measuring the RF emitted from an iPad being used, unquestioningly, to check in patients.)
Mothers vs. Peter Valberg
In a 3-part series, we looked at historical efforts dating back to the late 1990s featuring Diana Warren and Peggy Patton; Thea Fournier, Julie Riccardi, and Nina Anderson, while noting the pervasive influence of Philip Morris tobacco scientist Peter Valberg on public policy regarding microwave radio frequencies and meters. Part 3 highlighted more recent efforts by Sandi Maurer of the EMF Safety Network, publisher Carol Bedrosian, Noise Pollution Activist Sandra Chianfoni, Dover-Sherborn mothers opposing a tower on school property, Janet Davis opposing yet another cell antenna in a church steeple, and MA for Safe Technology’s Cece Doucette.
In interviewing the women for Mother’s Day, a theme emerged: nearly everyone had some kind of experience or had been affected by the work of Peter Valberg. Because the product defense firm Gradient is located in Massachusetts, and the articles were based mostly around New England contacts, this pattern may not have seemed surprising. But in fact, Peter Valberg provided “expertise” to utilities promoting smart meters in many states, and provided testimony for regulators in many others – from Texas, Florida, Maryland, Arizona, Florida, Oregon, Pennsylvania, to Iowa. The exorbitant fees for his brand of science come from ratepayers. He served as the primary health expert for the defunct, pro-industry. Smart Grid Consumer Collaborative, which had no consumers, and was comprised of both industry and regulators.
In fact, in 2012, the National Conference of State Legislators shared a report with decision makers nationally from the Utilities Telecom Council that relied on Valberg’s opinion (along with mercenary scientists from another notorious product defense firm.)
In a testimony submitted in Minnesota regarding magnetic fields and power lines, Valberg was asked, “Describe how you maintain your expertise in the area of health effects related to radiofrequency fields and EMF.”
He responded, “On a continuing basis, the librarians at Gradient provide me with recently published articles related to EMF health effects. I review those publications that are relevant to health risks potentially attributed to RF and power-line exposure.”
Given that these firms that work for the wireless industry also work for the tobacco industry, including Valberg’s continuing work for Philip Morris Light cigarettes, I can only imagine a scene from the TV show Mad Men, with the cast sucking on cigarettes and the secretaries like Joan Holloway, “Now try not to be overwhelmed by all this technology. It looks complicated, but the men who designed it made it simple enough for a woman to use.”
No regulatory scrutiny of health concerns and complaints has been forthcoming, other than from engaged citizens. The industry, regulators, and electeds, in most cases, with a few exceptions, checked off the box – “get a tobacco scientist to sign off on the safety!” and have kept going, while running over a portion of the population.
This denotes that we are operating at a time in history reflected by treacherous collaborations between powerful entities. It is one level of evil to see tobacco science applied in a courtroom regarding adult consumers who unwittingly smoked and destroyed their health. It is another level of evil to see tobacco science underpinning federal infrastructure agendas that will extend to every neighborhood, under the banner of “Endless Frontiers,” “addressing the digital divide,” and “telehealth access.” The wireless agenda is being forcefully imposed on every man, woman, child, and nature environment, from land to sea to space, not only in the U.S., but worldwide. The implementation has been weaponized by enabling legislation that abuses human rights, including property rights.
Father’s Day, Many Honorable men
This week, we begin our countdown to Father’s Day, featuring fathers, sons, brothers, uncles, husbands, and friends who are engaged in the 5G/EMF/RF issue, whether due to smart meters, like Paul; or cellphone towers next to school, like Jeff; or WiFi in school, like David. We also highlight some of the researchers, scientists, and physicians working earnestly on the issue of the EMF/RF environmental stressor and pollutant.
None of them rely on “secretaries to provide recently published articles.”
Some treat actual patients, some conduct peer-reviewed scientific research. They don’t talk about “blue ribbon panels,” or “prepare an in-depth analysis,” using their intellectual gifts to protect harmful industries and to sustain harm and injury by irresponsible industries.
Elected and unelected officials who are not ready, willing, and able to practice discernment regarding the integrity of the experts they reference cannot be trusted to safeguard communities, human health, and the environment. This is malfeasance. The product defense firm industry must be removed from the driver’s seat of technological innovation, because the products the industry promotes are not safe. It’s not rocket science.
It’s time to require that the tech industry’s “get of jail free” card for health and environmental damages be revoked. It’s time to hold ourselves accountable, as a species, for rejecting consumer products that pose health risks, and to require the industry to develop safe products and infrastructure.
It’s way past time to move the needle on the RF/EMF science.
In honor of Father’s Day, as we start our countdown, here are “a few good men.”
Father Says No To School Cell Tower: Milestone Son Got Cancer Testimony to Anne Arundel Public Schools on a proposed cell tower at an elementary school. “Please don’t poison my babies.”
Patricia Burke works with activists across the country and internationally calling for new biologically-based microwave radio frequency exposure limits. She is based in Massachusetts and can be reached at stopsmartmetersMASS@gmail.com.
