“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.
The following is a slightly shortened version of a BBC Portuguese-language report on a carefully conducted study published in 2020, which has been largely overlooked till now. The study shows that glyphosate contamination of water, driven by expanded GM soy production, leads to a large increase in infant mortality, as well as a higher probability of low birth weight and a higher probability of premature births.
Glyphosate is the most popular pesticide in Brazil. It represents 62% of the total herbicides used in the country and, in 2016, sales of this chemical in thousands of tons were higher than the sum of the seven other pesticides most commercialised in the national territory.
Used on GM glyphosate-tolerant soybeans, the herbicide contributed to Brazil becoming the largest producer of the grain in the world, surpassing the United States.
As a result, the GDP (Gross Domestic Product) of soy-producing states has grown far above the economy of the country as a whole in recent decades. And the income generated by agricultural activity has stimulated other economic sectors in the producing regions.
But the new study, carried out by researchers at the universities of Princeton, FGV (Fundação Getulio Vargas) and Insper, reveals that this generation of wealth has a high cost. According to the study, the spraying of glyphosate on soybean crops led to a 5% increase in infant mortality in southern and central-western municipalities that receive water from soybean regions.
This represents a total of 503 more infant deaths per year associated with the use of glyphosate in soy production.
“There is great concern about the effects of herbicides on populations that are not directly involved in agriculture, who are not directly exposed to pesticides,” Rodrigo Soares, full professor at the Lemann Foundation Chair at Insper and one of the authors of the study, alongside Mateus Dias (Princeton) and Rudi Rocha (FGV), told the BBC.
“Although these substances are present in the body of more than 50% of the western population, we do not know if this is harmful or not,” added the researcher.
“Our article is one of the first to credibly show that this should indeed be a concern, as it demonstrates contamination through watercourses in areas far from the areas of use, in a way that has never been done before.”
Bayer, owner of Monsanto since 2018 – the company that launched glyphosate on the market in 1974, under the trade name Roundup – assesses the study as “unreliable and poorly conducted” and says the safety of its products is the highest priority of the company.
Aprosoja (Brazilian Association of Soy Producers), in turn, states that “the conclusions pointed out in the study do not seem to be supported by the scientific facts and reality found in the practice of Brazilian agriculture”.
Finally, CropLife Brasil, which represents the pesticide sector in the country, said that “for more than 40 years, glyphosate has undergone extensive safety tests, including 15 studies to assess the potential toxicity to human development and 10 studies to assess potential reproductive toxicity”.
“Regulatory authorities in Brazil, Europe, the USA and around the world have reviewed these studies and concluded that glyphosate does not pose a risk to human development or human reproduction,” said the organisation.
The use of glyphosate in Brazil
The most widely used herbicide in the world today, glyphosate was discovered by Monsanto in 1970. The pesticide is used to eliminate weeds in agriculture, acting by blocking an enzyme that is part of the synthesis of essential amino acids for plant development.
Glyphosate is a non-selective herbicide – that is, it kills most plants. Because of this, it became widely used on crops genetically modified to resist the chemical, such as GM soybeans, marketed by Monsanto under the name Roundup Ready. Glyphosate herbicides were first sold by the company under the name Roundup. In 2000, however, the glyphosate patent expired, and the product is currently offered by several manufacturers under different trade names.
Genetically modified soy was first marketed by Monsanto in the United States in 1996.
In Brazil, a first authorization for use was granted in 1998, but was almost immediately suspended by the courts. In 2003, the government granted a temporary marketing authorization, which required the incineration of the remaining seeds to prevent their reuse in the following year.
In September of that year, a provisional measure allowed producers to reuse the seeds and, in October 2004, the temporary sale concession was renewed. Finally, in March 2005, the Biosafety Law permanently authorized the production and sale of transgenic soybean seeds.
The use of genetically modified soy has spread rapidly in Brazil since 2004, representing 93% of the grain-planted area in the mid-2010s, according to data from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), cited by the study of researchers from Princeton, FGV and Insper.
Along with the productivity gain of the soybean crop, the use of glyphosate grew strongly in the country, more than tripling in volume between 2000 and 2010, from 39,500 tons to 127,600 tons.
Differences between Brazil and other countries
In the European Union, since 2015, there has been a wide debate about the possibility of banning the use of glyphosate, after a report by the International Cancer Research Agency (Iarc) that year classified the substance as “probable human carcinogen”, that is, as a possible cancer-causing agent.
In the United States, Bayer has already disbursed billions of dollars in deals to settle lawsuits over allegations that glyphosate causes cancer.
“In the European Union, unlike Brazil, the registration of pesticides is always for a finite time. Here, when a pesticide is registered, this registration is eternal, until it eventually comes to be questioned”, explains Alan Tygel, member of the coordination of the Permanent Campaign Against Pesticides and For Life.
In Europe, currently, the authorization for the use of glyphosate is valid until December 2022. Austria became the first country in the region to ban the product in 2019, while Germany plans to do without the herbicide from 2024.
Another important difference, according to the activist, concerns the maximum allowed value of concentration of the pesticide in water, so that it is considered suitable for human consumption.
“Brazilian water can be considered potable containing up to 500 micrograms of glyphosate per litre, while water in the European Union can have a maximum of 0.1 micrograms of glyphosate,” said Tygel. “So, the Brazilian limit is 5,000 times higher than the European Union limit.”
If these existing regulatory differences were not enough, Brazilian agribusiness has been pressing in recent years for the approval of the Bill of Law 6,299/2002, which eases the rules for inspection and application of pesticides.
In addition, within the federal government there has been a change in the correlation between forces opposed to and in favour of the use of pesticides.
“Until 2016, there was within the government a certain balance of forces between agribusiness, family farming and public policies to encourage agroecology,” said Tygel.
“From that year on, one of the first actions of the Michel Temer government [MDB] was to end the Ministry of Agrarian Development, which developed these organic agriculture policies. Since then, we have seen an exponential increase in the number of pesticide registrations,” he said.
In 2020 alone, Brazil approved the registration of 493 pesticides, the largest number ever documented by the Ministry of Agriculture, which has compiled this data since 2000.
Glyphosate and infant mortality
The authors of the study “Down the River: Glyphosate Use in Agriculture and Birth Outcomes of Surrounding Populations” say that they decided to study the relationship between pesticide and infant mortality due to the heated debate over the use of genetically modified seeds and their combination with herbicides.
“We thought the debate was very passionate and very uninformed,” says Rodrigo Soares, from Insper. “Then we realized that the expansion of GM soy in Brazil, mainly in the Midwest and the South, as it was very fast and very marked after the introduction of the GM seeds, could be an interesting context for analysis.”
The regulatory change that allowed the use of transgenic soybean seeds in Brazil has generated what is called in economics a “natural experiment” – an event brought about by external causes, which changes the environment in which individuals, families, companies or cities operate, and that makes it possible to compare groups affected and not affected by this event.
“One concern that existed is that there could be water contamination, since toxicological studies in the United States, Argentina and Brazil detected the presence of glyphosate in rivers, but in a one-off, non-systematic way,” says Soares.
“To evaluate this, we used information about the hydrographic basins in the country and the relative position of the municipalities – above or below areas of intensive use of glyphosate,” explained the researcher.
“It was a way of understanding how the expansion of the use of transgenic soy and glyphosate in a given municipality could affect the municipalities that receive water that passes through that region where pesticides are used.”
What the researchers did then was to analyze, for the period between 2004 and 2010, when the greatest expansion of transgenic soybean production occurred in Brazil and the use of glyphosate tripled, the birth statistics of these municipalities “downstream” from areas of use intensive herbicide.
“What we have shown is that there is a deterioration in health conditions at birth in these municipalities downstream from the municipalities that expanded soy production,” said the professor at Insper.
Within this deterioration in health conditions at birth are: a higher probability of low birth weight, a higher probability of premature births and – the most serious – an increase in infant mortality.
“We have also produced a series of other empirical analyzes to show that this was in fact associated with water and that this in fact appears to be associated with the expansion of soy.”
Isolating the effect of glyphosate
For example, comparing data from municipalities “downstream” with municipalities “upstream” – which therefore do not receive water that has passed through areas of use of glyphosate – the researchers find that municipalities “upstream” are not affected by this worsening of birth statistics.
The researchers also demonstrate that the negative effects on health outcomes at birth are particularly strong for pregnancies most exposed to the period of application of glyphosate, which in Brazil typically occurs between October and March, since soybeans are planted in the country between October and January.
The worsening of birth data is also greater when it rains more in the glyphosate application season, which the researchers showed by crossing health statistics with rainfall data. This finding is in line with the idea that more of the product reaches the rivers when soil erosion by rain is most significant.
Mateus Dias, a doctoral student at Princeton University and coauthor of Soares in the study, explained the researchers’ decision to analyse municipalities downstream and upstream, instead of the municipalities that apply the glyphosate itself.
“Glyphosate use has an impact on soybean productivity, and this may end up affecting child mortality in that municipality in other ways – for example, higher productivity can generate higher income and this will reduce child mortality,” he said.
The researchers also assessed whether the expansion of soybeans affected soil erodibility due to the advancement of agriculture over forested areas.
“We showed that this did not happen, because these areas that started to plant soy seem to have been pastures before, so there was no radical change in vegetation and consequently, there was no significant change in soil erodibility,” says Dias.
Study results may contribute to better regulation
According to the researchers, the objective of the study is not to “demonise” glyphosate, but to contribute to an improvement in public policies to regulate the use of pesticides in the country.
“We know what the use of agricultural substances in general has meant throughout human history – fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides. They have indeed enabled a revolution in terms of agricultural production and, in the net result, I believe that the effect was very positive,” said Soares, from Insper.
“We only have the production we have today, with its impact on the price of food and on the populations involved in agriculture that benefit from productivity gains, because of these substances,” he adds.
“This does not mean that we should not be aware of the potential negative effects,” he saod, defending changes in the regulations for the use and management of pesticides and the protection of water courses and water tables.
Alan Tygel, of the Permanent Campaign Against Pesticides and For Life – created in 2011 and composed of more than a hundred social movements, trade unions and class entities, NGOs, cooperatives, universities and research institutions, has a more radical opinion.
“We believe that the central objective is in fact to end the use of these substances, especially since today there is no doubt about the technical capacity to produce food without the use of chemical and synthetic pesticides,” the activist said.
According to him, the campaign’s proposals are contained in a bill (PL 6670/2016), which institutes a National Pesticide Reduction Policy, with measures that range from the ban on aerial spraying, through state support for agroecology, to the ban on pesticides banned in their countries of origin and the end of tax exemptions for pesticides.
“We will fight for every small gain that we may have, because we know that each percentage less of pesticides used results in lives saved,” says Tygel.
“But we know that there is no possible coexistence between organic production and the massive use of pesticides. The path that we envision is a production model that can be adopted nationally and is totally free of pesticides and transgenics.”
— The study:
Down the river: Glyphosate use in agriculture and birth outcomes of surrounding populations
Mateus Dias, Rudi Rocha, Rodrigo R. Soares
Latin American and the Caribbean Economic Association
Dec 2020 http://vox.lacea.org/files/Working_Papers/lacea_wps_0024_dias_rocha_soares.pdf
You may be wondering what’s been happening to I.G. Farbensanto lately. It’s been a while since we’ve heard from, or about, them, so it may be worthwhile to newer readers to apprise them of whom we’re talking about. I.G. Farbensanto is our nickname for Big Agribusiness, and we used to call it Mon(ster)santo, until the big German chemical firm Bayer – a former component of I.G. Farben, the notorious German chemicals cartel that included not only Bayer, but BASR (also a still existing company, Badische Anilin und Soda-Fabrik) and some other companies – Bayer bought Monsanto (and Monsanto’s legal problems) a few years ago. Accordingly, we changed our nickname for Big Agribusiness to IG Farbensanto. Our other reason for the monikers was the dubious history of Big Agribusiness and its practices regarding GMOs, which I assume most readers here are familiar with.
The federal judge overseeing nationwide Roundup litigation on Wednesday denied Bayer’s latest attempt to limit its legal liability from future cancer claims associated with its glyphosate-based herbicides, citing numerous “glaring flaws” in a settlement proposed to apply to Roundup users who have not yet sued the company but may want to do so in the future.
Saying parts of the plan were “clearly unreasonable” and unfair to cancer sufferers who would be part of the class settlement, U.S. Judge Vince Chhabria castigated Bayer and the small group of lawyers who put the plan together in conjunction with Bayer.
He pointed out that the company has been “losing trials left and right” in claims brought by people suffering from non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) who alleged exposure to Monsanto’s Roundup and other glyphosate-based herbicides were the cause.
Bayer has owned Monsanto since 2018 and has been struggling to defend the cancer claims ever since. Cancer victims have won three trials held to date, and tens of thousands of other plaintiffs have filed lawsuits alleging exposure to Monsanto’s herbicides caused them to develop NHL while Monsanto spent decades hiding the risks.
…
Judge Chhabria said in his decision that the company’s desire to set up a “science panel” to determine whether or not the herbicides actually cause cancer rather than leave that question to future juries is because of the trial losses the company has so far suffered.
The “reason Monsanto wants a science panel so badly is that the company has lost the ‘battle of the experts’ in three trials, the judge wrote in his order. “At present, the playing field on the issue of expert testimony related to causation is slanted heavily in favor of plaintiffs.”
Gee… fancy that. A multinational corporation which was formerly a part of I.G. Farben seeks to avoid legal liability for its products? Color me not surprised.
The article goes on to mention various other plans I.G. Farbensanto has for avoiding its mounting legal problems.
Here I have a suggestion for the I.G. Farbensanto board: why not take a page out of Big Pharma’s playbook, and invest heavily (and covertly) in gain-of-GMO-function research? This could easily be tied to quackcine research ala the suggestion of some scientific papers a few years ago where this very thing was being proposed: GMOs doubling as quackcines. With a few donations into the right pockets, one might be able to get the National Institute of Health, the Center for Disease Control, and the World Health Organization on board. At this point, you could hire a couple of Harvard chemistry professors, and locate your research facility in – oh, I don’t know, say, in Wuhan, China – and perhaps even be able to create a quackcine which is the “only” cure for a new kind of virus (that you could also support gain-of-function research into). Then you could use all of your influence on the propotainment media networks (which get lots of advertising revenue from you to begin with) to “fudge the numbers” a bit, and create a worldwide campaign of fear, while simultaneously getting your newly installed puppet in the White House to approve a slap-dash emergency GMO-quackcine approval plan (you could maybe call it Operation Warp Speed), bypassing the normal long-term trials, and, for good measure, exempting your firm from any liability for any “adverse GMO consumption reactions” because your new plants were rushed into production because the world was facing a crisis. On the way to achieving all this, you could also persuade your rubber glove company to support a campaign of food distancing, and wearing rubber gloves at all times, especially while dining. You could also persuade social media platforms to hire “fact checkers” in return for some carefully laundered donations, and censor any contrarian views. This way you won’t have to worry about any pesky lawsuits from whatever long-term effects of your products as might pop up in a few years.
In the meantime, one way to implement this would be to set up liaison committees with with various Big Pharma companies, to learn their techniques for avoiding legal liabilities for dubious products. While doing this, you could also donate heavily to the campaigns of Congressmen and Senators, and get special legislation passed to limit your liability, and establish “GMO courts” resembling “vaccine courts” to ensure that your liability is strictly limited.
Two years ago, in May 2019, I wrote an article titled Planetary Emergency, in which I explained what was about to happen to our world, listed the board members, chief officers and principal investors in SpaceX and OneWeb, and asked for help in reaching out to them. I wrote:
“Please contact me if you know any of the gentlemen or ladies I have listed, or if you know someone who can get us an audience with one of them. All we need is one. An opening into that community of billionaires, to begin a dialogue that will save this planet…
“All these people have families and children and have a stake in the future of the Earth. Some — for example, Kimbal Musk and his wife, Christiana — are long-time advocates for the environment and investors in environmental causes.”
In two years not a single person has answered that plea, and we are now only months away from global catastrophe. Below I will update you on the extraordinary escalation of the assault on the Earth’s life-giving envelope that is in progress, and I will renew my call for help.
March 24, 2021 and Beyond
Last month’s newsletter (Survey Results) contained a summary of about 1,000 emails I received from subscribers reporting sudden illness in themselves and their spouses, children, parents, neighbors, friends, coworkers, clients, cats, dogs, chickens, goats, and cows that I received from all over the world. On March 24-25, the first time that SpaceX and OneWeb both launched satellites on the same day, most people that I spoke with or heard from experienced similar, dramatic illness that came out of nowhere. Pain and itching all over their bodies, especially their legs, feet and head. Sudden increase in the ringing in their ears. Profound exhaustion and complete inability to sleep. Muscle spasms. Skin rashes. Stomach aches and diarrhea. Nosebleeds. Heart palpitations. Inflamed eyes. Ill temper, depression or suicidal thoughts.
In the following weeks it became clear that something extraordinary had happened, and is continuing to happen, not only to my friends and subscribers, and not only to people and their pets and farm animals.
In my newsletter of May 5, 2020 (The Evidence Mounts), I reported the sudden illness and deaths of thousands of blue tits and other small birds in Germany, in the Mosel River Valley and other areas with poor cell phone reception. They were described as “apathetic birds with breathing problems.” This occurred during March and April 2020, while Vodafone was upgrading its cell phone service in these regions from 2G to 4G LTE and building hundreds of new cell towers.
The German environmental organization NABU has been monitoring the health of these birds ever since and, like illnesses in the humans I heard from, blue tit deaths spiked in Germany beginning on March 25, 2021:
And lest anyone think that there aren’t animals that know what is going on, consider this report from a subscriber in Ireland:
“One of our cats now sometimes howls during the night, then takes my daughter upstairs, stands by the WiFi box demanding it’s turned off, then settles down to sleep.”
As I reported in my last newsletter, March 25 registered the second highest number of COVID-19 cases worldwide this year, and the fifth highest since the pandemic began.
There was a sudden spate of mass shootings in the U.S. in the news in March and April. A colleague asked me if that, too, had spiked on March 24 or 25. It had. The number of mass shootings rose suddenly on March 25 and remained high for three weeks. An average of 6 shootings involving 4 or more victims occurred every day between March 25 and April 13.
There were strange natural anomalies reported as well, that I cannot explain but neither can anyone else. A woman in Hoboken, New Jersey took this picture of worms arranging themselves in a great spiral on the sidewalk. It was on March 25, 2021:
And photographs of hundreds of unusually silent sheep, also arranged in a perfect spiral, were taken by by Christopher Hogg, a lecturer at Royal Holloway University, London on March 26, 2021:
SpaceX to Begin Commercial Service This Summer OneWeb to Begin Service by End of Year
Both SpaceX and OneWeb have announced that they plan to begin commercial service this year. They are both racing to convert the most beautiful place in the world, whose unchanging vista has given a sense of peace and belonging to millions of generations of people, animals and birds — the heavens — into the world’s largest garbage dump, streaking with moving lights and the refuse of burned up and exploded satellites.
With its launches of April 28, May 4 and May 9, 60 more satellites per launch, SpaceX now has 1,554 operating Starlink satellites in low orbit around the Earth. For command and control of these satellites it has already built 61 ground stations in the U.S., 1 in Canada , 6 in New Zealand, 9 in Australia, 2 in Germany, 2 in France, 3 in the UK, and 7 in Chile, and many more are under construction. More than 10,000 customers are now beta testing the satellite network, and 500,000 people worldwide have pre-ordered user terminals. SpaceX expects to fill all their orders and begin commercial service of high-speed Internet from space this summer. At that time, users will still only be able to receive stationary service in a single location. By the
end of 2021, SpaceX expects to also be able to provide mobile service anywhere in the world with user terminals that can be mounted on ships, planes, RVs and trucks.
With its launch of 36 more satellites on April 25, OneWeb now has 182 satellites in low polar orbit. It has announced that by June of this year, after two more launches, it will be able to provide connectivity to the UK, Alaska, northern Europe, Greenland, Iceland, the Arctic Seas and Canada, that it will begin commercial service to those northern regions before the end of this year, and that it will provide global service in 2022.
SpaceX states in its application to the FCC for approval of its mobile user terminals that it is responding to consumer demand. It states that by 2022 approximately 4,800 billion gigabytes of data will be exchanged worldwide per year. “No longer are users willing to forego connectivity while on the move,” writes SpaceX.
And that is exactly the problem. People are treating data, which didn’t even exist as a commodity until the 1990s, as their God-given right. They do not understand that “data” is not something abstract but has its source in a finite and increasingly scarce natural world. That when you manipulate “data” you are manipulating forests, oceans and wildlife. People do not understand that the more data you shoot all over the world, the quicker you scramble this planet’s ecosystems until there is nothing left of them.
Meanwhile, building and launching rockets is becoming quicker, easier and cheaper all the time. A company called Relativity Space is now able to produce rockets using the world’s largest 3-D printer, dubbed “Stargate.” It already has contracts with Lockheed Martin, Telesat, Iridium and other companies and plans to begin launching its disposable rockets this fall. It advertises on its website that its rockets have “100 times fewer parts” and that it can go “from raw material to flight in 60 days.”
Now, virtually anyone can destroy the Earth.
Second Call for Help
The list of board members, officers and investors in SpaceX and OneWeb in PlanetaryEmergency is still accurate. I remain convinced that Kimbal Musk, who is both an environmentalist and a board member of SpaceX, as well as being the younger
brother of Elon Musk, is the most likely person to begin a dialogue with us. If you would like to help me contact him, please get in touch with me.
The last 18 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 and French.
cover image credit of blue tit bird: Mopsgesicht / pixabay
“No 5G” Political Party Demands Moratorium Until 5G is Proven Safe to Human Health, Flora, Fauna and Property (Australia)
Opposition to 5G is worldwide due to economic, environmental, health, and safety risks. The majority of scientists worldwide oppose deployment. Cities AND entire countries have taken action to ban, delay, halt, and limit 5G installation AS WELL AS issue moratoriums. Since 2017, doctors and scientists have asked for 5G moratoriums on Earth and in space (see 1, 2). Since 2018 there have been reports of people and animals experiencing symptoms and illnesses after 5G was installed (see 1, 2, 3, 4).
5G opposition in Australia has been ongoing and gaining strength.
The No 5G Political Party is Official in Australia
The No 5G Political Party is now official in Australia.
Our mission is to protect life and freedom by regulating wireless 5G and associated technologies, and to establish a moratorium until such technologies are proven safe to health, the environment, privacy and security.
Watch the group’s video above and read the press release below.
MEDIA RELEASE
17 MARCH 2021 Edited: 29/4/21
Announcing the history-making formation of the No5G Party. Finally,
OUR VOICES WILL BE HEARD !!
Destined to become the largest single political party in Australia, your voice will once again matter.
Please join our ground-breaking political movement. Become a Registered Member today and help support our objectives:
1) To promote legislative schemes, laws and policies to regulate 5G and associated technologies.
2) To establish a moratorium on 5G until such technologies are proven safe to human health, flora, fauna and property.
3) Encouraging and supporting the development of safe wired and wireless electromagnetic radiation emitting technologies.
4) Initiating the design and evaluation of the Australian Government’s agency ‘Infrastructure Australia’, and utilising this infrastructure plan to advise governments, industry and the Australian community on the investments and reforms needed to deliver an environmentally sustainable national fibre optic cable telecommunications infrastructure to service all Australians.
5) To call for a parliamentary enquiry or Royal Commission investigating the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) and the Australian Centre for Electromagnetic Bioeffects Research as to, among other listed concerns, why they fail to heed medical advice as to the risk of harm to the health of the Australian public.
For a complete list of extensive policies and objectives of the No5G Party please go to:
www.no5gparty.org.au
The No5G Party will be nominating and endorsing candidates for elected public office in Commonwealth, State and Territory parliaments and Local government bodies in all Australian jurisdictions.
Growing our membership is key to having our voices heard. Millions of people have already become educated about the dangers of electromagnetic radiation being emitted from unsafe technology. Until now, we have had little or no say in how this technology is being foisted upon us.
Yes, No5G is a single issue party, for now. But with your support, once the No5G Party becomes a force for promoting safe technology and restricting that which is unsafe, we will – unlike other parties – adapt and change our name in order to promote other policies outside of the electromagnetic radiation issue.
We invite you to become a member of the No5G Party today so that we can become a force for good, in all of our communities.
The COVID vaccine is a gene treatment. RNA is injected into the body, for the purpose of forcing cells to manufacture a protein. The promise? Protection against a purported virus.
The first generation of Monsanto crops followed the same pattern. Genes were injected into plants. Like a vaccine, its purpose was protection; in this case, against Monsanto’s own herbicide poison, Roundup.
The overall health of the crops and the human body were reduced. The nutritive value of the crops diminished; super-weeds on the GMO farms flourished. The huge number of adverse effects from the vaccine testify to expanding human damage.
The Monsanto genes in the plants drifted. They were found in non-GMO plants, in soil bacteria, and human gut bacteria.
The RNA in the vaccine and/or its products appear to have shed and drifted from person to person, given the large numbers of reports from unvaccinated women who, after coming into contact with vaccinated persons, experienced interrupted patterns of menstruation, bleeding, and miscarriages.
As I wrote the other day, Pfizer’s own warnings about its COVID vaccine include pregnant women coming into the proximity of vaccinated persons (“inhalation, skin contact” mentioned).
Both GMO crops and the GMO vaccine are imposed, top-down, on the population, from corporate giants who are reaping massive profits. Continuing propaganda campaigns are designed to convince famers and the general population to accept and celebrate the dangerous GMO crops and the GMO vaccine.
Governments protect and run interference for the companies who produce the GMO crops and the vaccine.
Bill Gates is an ardent supporter, publicist, and funder of GMO crops and GMO vaccines. He keeps asserting, like a psychotic baron living in a castle on top of a mountain, that the crops and the vaccine will save the world.
Many critics of the GMO vaccine are unaware of (or have forgotten about) the dangers of GMO crops. And many critics of GMO crops fail to realize (or are afraid to criticize) the dangers of the COVID GMO vaccine.
Huge numbers of people in the general public blithely accept the (fake) science surrounding GMO crops and the GMO vaccine. “The experts must know what they’re talking about.”
The patents on both GMO crops and the GMO vaccine are jealously guarded by the corporations who control them. In both cases, ignorant people are calling for these patents to be made into open-source information—unaware that both technologies are highly dangerous and destructive.
The general field of genetics research—of which these crops and vaccines are products—is filled with liars, who claim their experimental work is safe and foolproof, when in fact the literature is rife with examples of ripple effects. The introduction of genes into organisms creates many unpredictable changes in genomes. “We have everything under control”—the battle cry of vaccine and crop researchers.
Agriculture and the human body are both viewed, from the ivory tower, as deficient and diseased, in need of genetic alteration.
Overall, genetic tinkering is a disaster already happening.
Ethical scientists who want to put moratoria on this research are being sidelined and ignored.
Manic technocrats see genetic modification as the massive gateway into a Brave New World, where humans are divided into gen-rich and gen-poor classes, from birth. From before birth.
Here are two mind-bending quotes from admired experts:
Lee Silver, Princeton University molecular biologist, predicts our future:
“The GenRich—who account for ten percent of the American population—all carry synthetic genes. All aspects of the economy, the media, the entertainment industry, and the knowledge industry are controlled by members of the GenRich class…”
“Naturals work as low-paid service providers or as laborers. [Eventually] the GenRich class and the Natural class will become entirely separate species with no ability to crossbreed, and with as much romantic interest in each other as a current human would have for a chimpanzee.”
“Many think that it is inherently unfair for some people to have access to technologies that can provide advantages while others, less well-off, are forced to depend on chance alone, [but] American society adheres to the principle that personal liberty and personal fortune are the primary determinants of what individuals are allowed and able to do.”
“Indeed, in a society that values individual freedom above all else, it is hard to find any legitimate basis for restricting the use of repro-genetics. I will argue [that] the use of reprogenetic technologies is inevitable. [W]hether we like it or not, the global marketplace will reign supreme.”
As shocking as Lee Silver’s assessment is, it’s mild when put up against the pronouncement of Gregory Stock, former director of the program in Medicine, Technology, and Society at the UCLA School of Medicine:
“Even if half the world’s species were lost [during genetic experiments], enormous diversity would still remain. When those in the distant future look back on this period of history, they will likely see it not as the era when the natural environment was impoverished, but as the age when a plethora of new forms—some biological, some technological, some a combination of the two—burst onto the scene. We best serve ourselves, as well as future generations, by focusing on the short-term consequences of our actions rather than our vague notions about the needs of the distant future.”
But don’t worry, be happy. Anthony Fauci, who has a direct pipeline to God, tells us the COVID vaccine is extraordinarily safe and effective. That’s all we need to know. I’ll take the Pfizer, the Moderna, and two AstraZeneca to go. Gift wrap? No, they’re for me. Just put the vials and syringes in a brown bag. I’ll shoot up while I watch the news on CNN. Their experts are reassuring…
RFK, Jr. and Black Warrior Riverkeeper Nelson Brooke on Holding Corporate Polluters Accountable
RFK, Jr. and Black Warrior Riverkeeper Nelson Brooke on Holding Corporate Polluters Accountable
Listen as Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. interviews Riverkeeper Nelson Brooke, spokesman and patrolman for the Black Warrior River watershed in Alabama, on how he is fighting back against powerful, entrenched interests.
The Black Warrior Riverkeeper organization is the muscle that help keep Alabama’s watershed clean by standing up to major polluters, holding them accountable when state and federal agencies fail to act.
Riverkeeper Nelson Brooke, spokesman and patrolman for the Black Warrior River watershed in Alabama, told Children’s Health Defense Chairman Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. on the “RFK Jr The Defender Podcast” that in the south, elected officials and politicians have handed the keys to polluters and allowed them to get rich by polluting the state and sickening its citizens.
Brooke said:
“A lot of us don’t even realize that we’re unfortunately being exposed to all of this stuff. So we’re having to fight really hard to educate the public about all these problems and fight these really entrenched, powerful interests who are used to getting their way. And unfortunately, that comes with fighting the elected officials and the regulatory agencies that are also essentially bought and paid for. They’re captured as a part of this fossil fuel pollution-generating wealth machine.”
The Black Warrior Riverkeeper uses the Clean Water Act and other environmental statutes to hold corporate polluters accountable in federal court. They often build their cases by collecting water samples from pipes that discharge pollution, and have the samples analyzed in a lab.
One of the biggest polluters in Alabama is the coal industry. The coal ash generated by power plants is incredibly toxic, said Brooke. And it’s not just a local issue — it’s a global problem, as the coal ash is shipped all over the world.
The organization works with folks from all backgrounds, connecting around the common belief that we all have a right to clean water, and we shouldn’t have to fight for it. They are looking to the future and fighting for a better one. Their goal is to leave the state better than they found it for future generations, Brooke said.
Glyphosate-based herbicides such as Roundup activate mechanisms involved in cancer development, including DNA damage – and these effects occur at doses assumed by regulators to have no adverse effects, a new study shows. The DNA damage was caused by oxidative stress, a destructive imbalance in the body that can cause a long list of diseases, GMWatch reported Tuesday.
The study also found that the isolated active ingredient of Roundup – glyphosate alone – damaged DNA. This finding, according to the EU’s pesticide law, should result in a ban on glyphosate and all its formulations. In addition, the results obtained in the study could strengthen the legal cases of the cancer sufferers in the US who are suing Bayer/Monsanto because they believe that exposure to Roundup caused their disease. Three such cases have already been decided in favour of the plaintiffs.
The new study is currently published on the pre-print website bioRxiv and has not yet been peer reviewed.
How the study was done
The new study, led by Dr Michael Antoniou and Dr Robin Mesnage at King’s College London, builds on the findings of a previous study by the same authors. In the previous study, the researchers compared the effects in rats of a Roundup formulation, MON 52276, with those of its “active ingredient”, glyphosate, tested alone. The findings showed that glyphosate and Roundup herbicide, given at doses that regulators say are safe, resulted in the animals suffering gut microbiome disturbances and oxidative stress, with indications that the liver was affected and possibly damaged.
In the followup study, the researchers analysed the liver tissue from the same rats to see if indeed damage had occurred.
The researchers carried out some of the standard tests that regulators require the pesticide industry to conduct to gain market authorisation for their products – namely blood biochemistry and kidney and liver histopathology (microscopic examination of tissue).
They also carried out in-depth tests (molecular profiling) that are not demanded by regulators or typically carried out by the industry. One type of test looked for adverse effects at a profound molecular level of biological functioning through analysis of gene expression (transcriptomics) and epigenetics (DNA methylation) in the liver and kidneys. Another type of test, using specialised genetically engineered cell lines, was intended to highlight changes in function linked with cancer formation.
In addition, the researchers carried out tests that can detect direct damage to DNA.
Roundup causes fatty liver disease – confirmed
The standard tests, histopathology and blood biochemistry analysis, found adverse effects from the Roundup treatment, namely a dose-dependent and statistically significant increase in fatty liver disease and liver cell death.
The finding of fatty liver disease from exposure to the MON 52276 formulation of Roundup confirmed the same researchers’ previous observation that an ultra-low dose of another Roundup formulation, Roundup Grand Travaux Plus, administered to the same strain of Sprague-Dawley rats over a 2-year period, caused non-alcoholic fatty liver disease.
An increase in liver and kidney lesions was also detected in animals treated with glyphosate, although this did not reach statistical significance. However, the authors commented that an experiment of longer duration using more animals may have resulted in statistical significance.
Non-standard tests most revealing
Worryingly for public health, it was the non-standard molecular profiling tests that are not required by pesticide regulators that were most revealing.
First, Roundup was found to alter the expression of 96 genes in the liver specifically linked to DNA damage and oxidative stress, as well as disruption of circadian rhythms or “body clocks”. The most affected genes in liver also had their expression similarly altered in kidneys. Crucially, a core set of genes whose expression was altered by Roundup was similarly changed in the glyphosate-treated animals. This strongly suggests that the key changes in gene function reflective of oxidative stress and DNA damage was due to glyphosate and not the additional substances (adjuvants) present in the Roundup formulation.
Second, direct DNA damage to the liver was found to increase with glyphosate exposure.
These findings potentially constitute a bombshell that could end the authorization of glyphosate in the EU. That’s because the EU pesticide regulation (1107/2009) has what’s known as hazard-based cut-off criteria. This means that if a pesticide active ingredient is shown to cause a certain type of harm to health at whatever dose, it must be banned. One of the named types of harm is damage to DNA. The discovery that glyphosate alone damages DNA in a living animal should, if regulators follow the law, result in a ban on glyphosate.
Third, both glyphosate and Roundup were found to cause epigenetic changes known as DNA methylation. Epigenetics describes consists of layers of molecular structures associated with DNA that control the underlying function of genes. The defining feature of epigenetic changes is that they can alter how genes work but do not involve changes to the actual DNA sequence. These types of changes were found at over 5,000 genomic sites for glyphosate and over 4,000 for Roundup. This is a concern because such alterations are typically found at high frequency in cancer tissues.
Cancer
The researchers performed further laboratory tests in mouse cell lines, which are designed to highlight effects that can lead to cancer formation. Glyphosate and three Roundup formulations were assessed in these tester cell lines. It was found that two formulations of Roundup herbicide, but not glyphosate, activated oxidative stress and misfolded protein responses, both clear markers of carcinogenicity.
Ending animal testing not yet feasible
Interestingly, glyphosate was shown to damage DNA in living animals but not in the cell culture system. This shows that in vitro tests (lab tests not performed in living organisms) cannot fully substitute for tests in a living animal because certain effects will be missed. This is because animals (including humans) are whole organisms whose complexity cannot be replicated in a flask, petri dish, or test tube. While many people (GMWatch included) would like to see an end to animal testing, as long as pesticides and other chemicals are allowed to be released into the environment, such a move would put public health at risk.
Roundup more toxic than glyphosate
In summary, in general Roundup was found to be more toxic than glyphosate, confirming and building on previous observations. However, taken together, the results from the various assays conducted show that both glyphosate and Roundup herbicides activate mechanisms involved in cancer development, causing gene expression changes reflecting oxidative stress and DNA damage. Also, glyphosate alone was clearly able to induce DNA damage.
These findings directly challenge the global regulatory practice of only assessing the isolated declared active ingredient (glyphosate) and not the complete commercial formulations (Roundup) as sold and used.
The study further highlights the power of in-depth molecular profiling “omics” methods to detect changes that are missed by relying solely on conventional biochemical and histopathological measurements conducted in standardised industry tests on pesticide active ingredients. The study paves the way for future investigations by identifying gene expression changes and altered DNA methylation sites, which can serve as biomarkers and potential predictors of negative health outcomes resulting from exposure to glyphosate-based herbicides.
Investigating Roundup health effects in people
Commenting on the implications of the results, study lead Dr Michael Antoniou said, “The biomarkers we identified can be tested for in people, but we don’t know if this particular pattern of biomarkers is unique to glyphosate-based herbicide exposure. Thus the biomarkers would need to be correlated with a history of exposure to glyphosate-based herbicides and measurements of glyphosate in urine.
“If high levels of glyphosate were found in the urine, and this correlated with the biomarkers identified in the new study and the person’s history of glyphosate herbicide exposure, this would indicate that exposure to glyphosate-based herbicides might be responsible for any health effects that are both indicated by our findings and found in the person. These findings should be tested first by investigations of herbicide applicators, as their exposure can be high and details of the particular herbicides used are often recorded, which would enable clearer results to be obtained.”
“Safe” and “no effect” doses shown to be harmful
In the 90-day rat feeding study, different groups of animals were fed three different doses of glyphosate and the glyphosate-equivalent dose of Roundup MON 52276. The lowest dose was the concentration that regulators assume to be safe to ingest on a daily basis over a lifetime (the EU acceptable daily intake or ADI: 0.5 mg per kg of bodyweight per day). The middle dose was the dose that EU regulators concluded had no observable adverse effect (the “no observable adverse effect” level or NOAEL) in industry-sponsored rat feeding studies (50 mg per kg of bodyweight per day). The highest dose was 175 mg, the dose that US regulators concluded had no observable adverse effect.
Adverse effects were found from Roundup exposure at all dose levels in a dose-dependent fashion. These findings show that the glyphosate ADI for the EU is not safe to ingest if it comes as part of a formulated herbicide – as is the case with public exposures to herbicides. Likewise, it shows that the EU and US regulators were only able to conclude that glyphosate had “no observable adverse effect” at the levels mentioned above because the tests that they require industry to carry out are inadequate and insufficiently sensitive.
Implications for Roundup/cancer litigation
Summarising the implications of the new study, Dr Antoniou commented, “Our results are the first to simultaneously show glyphosate and Roundup toxicity in a whole mammalian model system and provide a mechanism – oxidative stress – by which DNA damage has been observed in other systems, such as mammalian tissue culture cells.
“These findings have implications for the Roundup/cancer litigation in the US. They show that glyphosate and Roundup score positive in various tests of carcinogenicity (transcriptome/epigenome changes, oxidative stress, protein misfolding, and DNA damage) in a living animal (rat) that is accepted as a surrogate for human health effects. In my view, this strengthens the case that exposure to Roundup herbicides can lead to the type of cancer suffered by many plaintiffs, non-Hodgkin lymphoma.”
—
The new study:
In-depth comparative toxicogenomics of glyphosate and Roundup herbicides: histopathology, transcriptome and epigenome signatures, and DNA damage.
Robin Mesnage, Mariam Ibragim, Daniele Mandrioli, Laura Falcioni, Fiorella Belpoggi, Inger Brandsma, Emma Bourne, Emanuel Savage, Charles A Mein, Michael N Antoniou.
bioRxiv, doi: doi.org/10.1101/2021.04.12.439463
Posted April 13, 2021. www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.04.12.439463v1
Abstract
Background Health effects from exposure to glyphosate-based herbicides is an intense matter of debate. Toxicity including genotoxicity of glyphosate alone has been repeatedly tested over the last 40 years. Contrastingly, few studies have conducted comparative investigations between glyphosate and its commercial herbicide formulations, such as Roundup. We thus performed the first in-depth comparative toxicogenomic evaluation of glyphosate and a typical European Union Roundup formulation by determining alterations in transcriptome and epigenome profiles.
Methods
Glyphosate and the European Union reference commercial formulation Roundup MON 52276 (both at 0.5, 50, 175 mg/kg bw/day glyphosate equivalent concentration) were administered to rats in a subchronic 90-day toxicity study. Standard clinical biochemistry and kidney and liver histopathology was performed. In addition, transcriptomics and DNA methylation profiling of liver and selective gene expression analysis of kidneys was conducted. Furthermore, a panel of six mouse embryonic reporter stem cell lines validated to identify carcinogenic outcomes (DNA damage, oxidative stress, and protein misfolding) were used to provide insight into the mechanisms underlying the toxicity of glyphosate and 3 Roundup formulations.
Results
Histopathology and serum biochemistry analysis showed that MON 52276 but not glyphosate treatment was associated with a statistically significant increase in hepatic steatosis and necrosis. Similar lesions were also present in the liver of glyphosate-treated groups but not in the control group. MON 52276 altered the expression of 96 genes in liver, with the most affected biological functions being TP53 activation by DNA damage and oxidative stress as well as the regulation of circadian rhythms. The most affected genes in liver also had their expression similarly altered in kidneys. DNA methylation profiling of liver revealed 5,727 and 4,496 differentially methylated CpG sites between the control group and the group of rats exposed to glyphosate and MON 52276, respectively. Direct DNA damage measurement by apurinic/apyrimidinic lesion formation in liver was increased with glyphosate exposure. Mechanistic evaluations showed that two Roundup herbicides but not glyphosate activated oxidative stress and misfolded protein responses.
Conclusions
Taken together, the results of our study show that Roundup herbicides are more toxic than glyphosate, activating mechanisms involved in cellular carcinogenesis and causing gene expression changes reflecting DNA damage. This further highlights the power of high-throughput ‘omics’ methods to detect metabolic changes, which would be missed by relying solely on conventional biochemical and histopathological measurements. Our study paves the way for future investigations by reporting a panel of gene expression changes and DNA methylation sites, which can serve as biomarkers and potential predictors of negative health outcomes resulting from exposure to glyphosate-based herbicides.
[Truth Comes to Light editor’s note: When David Icke speaks about “the cult” he is referring to the global manipulators who are driving the agenda to enslave humanity.]
Australia’s Telco Watchdog Holds a Behind Closed Doors Auction to Sell the Untested 5G Millimetre (26GHZ) Wave Spectrum, Up for Grabs to the Highest Bidder
Today (12 April 2021) is an extremely concerning day in Australia for the advancement of the Fifth Generation (5G) roll-out.
The Australian Government’s agency Australian Media and Communications Authority (ACMA) is set to profit enormously from the sale of 5G millimetre wave spectrum licences (on top of the billions of dollars already made from previous spectrum license sales).
As we speak, there is a private auction being held behind closed doors.
Why did you not hear about this? Well, simply because ACMA and Big Telco want this to “slip under the radar” and subsequently our mainstream media have little interest in reporting on it.
What the mainstream media ought to be reporting on is the fact that Big Telco are moving ahead with experimental millimetre wave technology against the will of the people!
What we know is that over 100,000 people in Australia have come forward in social media communities objecting to the 5G upgrade due to lack of scientific research and safety!
What we know is that the Telco “watchdog” ACMA are now set to give even more power to the self-regulated Telco industry.
What we know is that we don’t just have land-based companies (Telstra, Optus, Vodafone, Nokia, NBN etc) vying for 5G in this auction. Satellite firms such as billionaire Elon Musk’s Starlink are also bidding to secure this untested spectrum, and beam millimetre waves at the earth from thousands of new communication satellites. This 26Ghz spectrum is 7.5 times more powerful (and this is just the start) than the 5G network we are already being exposed to.
Check out this blatant free-for-all flexibility from a so-called ‘watchdog’:
“The 26 GHz band spectrum license has inherent flexibility that allows winning bidders to choose how they deploy service in the spectrum they win. Licensees are able to determine the services they deliver and the technology they employ.
Bidders should take account of the spectrum available and bandwidth needed for the performance of the equipment the bidder desires to operate. The spectrum lots are not pre-designed to accommodate any particular equipment standard. However, they may accommodate the operation of a particular standard (or even non-standard equipment) at a particular location and frequency, depending on the total bandwidth and area of the spectrum licence that a bidder has acquired.”
(6.7.1 Flexibility of a spectrum licence pg.79)
What we know currently is that the 5G upgrades all over Australia are not yet operating in the millimetre wave spectrum.
But it’s only a matter of time.
There is no better time than NOW to oppose the further deployment of this experimental 5G infrastructure.
We are calling on you to take off your rose-coloured glasses and truly see the marketing propaganda that has been dished up by Big Telco.
WHAT CAN YOU DO?
Step 1. Boycott 5G phone. Simply don’t buy them. This one powerful action will disable the networks ability to communicate with the 5G technology!
Step 2. Know your stuff – stay informed! Sign up for the We Are Not SAM News and keep an eye out on our Instagram for truth bombs and the latest information. Learn more from We Are Not SAM and ORSAA.
Step 3. Find out where 5G is being rolled out in Australia.
Step 4. Talk with friends, family, neighbours, schools – spread the word!
We literally hold the remote control in our hands and it’s time to put a stop to this madness.
If we want to have a world with Safe Technology we must have proper safety testing and put a halt to any further deployment of Fifth Generation infrastructure.
France had a total of 22,857 5G authorized sites as of April 1, of which 12,213 were declared technically operational by the local mobile operators, according to the latest information provided by France’s spectrum agency ANFR.
The agency said that all of the 5G sites have been authorized on existing cellular sites, already used by 2G, 3G or 4G technologies.
ANFR also said that the total number of authorized 5G sites during March increased 5.3% compared to the previous month.
In France, mobile operators are currently providing 5G services through three frequency bands: 700 MHz, 2.1 GHz and 3.5 GHz.
A total of 15,985 sites are authorized in the 700 MHz band (Free Mobile), of which 8,084 are already technically operational. Also, ANFR said that 6,981 sites are authorized in the 2.1 GHz band (Bouygues Telecom, Orange and SFR), but 3,261 are technically operational.
Meanwhile, 6,679 sites are authorized in the 3.5 GHz band (Bouygues Telecom, Free Mobile, Orange and SFR), of which 2,271 are declared technically operational.
Some of the authorized sites are shared by the mobile operators, ANFR said.
In addition, 53,033 4G sites were authorized in mainland France as of April 1, of which 48,466 are in service.
French mobile operators are rapidly deploying 5G coverage across the country after they had launched the technology during 2020.
Since 2017, doctors and scientists have asked for moratoriums on Earth and in space (see 1, 2). Since 2018 there have been reports of people and animals experiencing symptoms and illnesses after installation (see 1, 2, 3, 4). Of course adverse effects from exposure ARE NOT isolated to 5G. In 2019 The World Health Organization warned that high levels of Electromagnetic Fields (aka “Electrosmog”) could cause health issues in a significant percentage of the population.
In his latest book, How to Avoid a Climate Disaster: The Solutions We Have and the Breakthroughs We Need, Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates lays out a plan to stop global warming by reducing greenhouse gas emissions to zero. A fact that seems a little ironic coming from one of the world’s largest emitters[1], whose “guilty pleasure” is flying on private jets and who just joined a bid to acquire the world’s largest private jet services company[2]. But this sort of contradiction, of placating a severe root problem with a superficial solution, is nothing strange for Gates, as a closer look into his million-dollar investments, billionaire and private company partnerships, and his political agenda show little alignment with the goal of truly curving climate change, helping alleviate world hunger, or lifting the poor out of poverty.
Gates’ unparalleled influence marks not only the extraordinary power of his wealth, but also a convergence of philanthropy, private corporations, and international institutions to shape policy and development landscapes to their own interests. But this shaping, while seemingly justified by a noble humanitarian and environmental cause, instead pushes a failed paradigm of industrialization and corporate concentration under the guise of necessary technological innovation.
While there is little doubt that we are living in moments of compounding crises, the push for new technological innovations as the path to solving the world’s problems is now quickly becoming the only mechanism. Creating a blind-spot for both the root causes of the crises we face, and how continually going down this path will only serve to exacerbate the crises further. But this avoidance of true systemic solutions is not an accidental overlook by a well-meaning technological innovations sector. Instead, it is resulting in the same giant corporations and power structures that created our current crises to sell us back their own proposed ‘solutions’.
This technological solutionism mentality is apparent in all of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation’s (BMGF) initiatives which, by their nature, end up denying real solutions to the climate crisis. These initiatives, grants, and development programs cover a vast area – such as food, agriculture, seed, health, climate change, education, media, infrastructure, and energy as shown in Navdanya International’s Gates to a Global Empire report[3] – and weave a complicated web of international power and influence to ensure specific interests. With the weight of investment capital held by both the Gates Foundation Trust and their personal wealth, in conjunction with their bought public media platform, Bill and Melinda Gates set the agenda across these different sectors with very little to no accountability. In the end, this works to align public opinion with private company investments, and international and state policy, to open up new markets through policy alignment and state co-investment in the name of ‘development’.
A principal example is how he spreads his agenda authority over global health by investing in international health institutions, like the World Health Organization (WHO), for whom the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation provides nearly 20% of the institution’s funds[4]. He aims to control education and the media, for instance, by funding scientific research establishments like Cornell University[5] and John Hopkins University, as well as providing generous grants to prominent newspapers[6] like the Guardian, BBC, and Al Jazeera to name a few, to publish stories aligned with his narratives.
Despite his pronouncement to help fight climate change, Gates also directly invests in the fossil fuel industry[7]. He is the largest shareholder[8] in one of Canada’s largest oil and gas companies, Canadian National Railway, while Microsoft also has direct ties to the oil and gas industries. As explained by ETC in “The Sugar Daddy of Geoengineering”[9], Gates has been one of the major supporters for extreme geoengineering (“miracle technologies”), Carbon dioxide Removal Techniques (CDR), Solar Geoengineering, and other such techniques alongside the fossil fuel industry for more than a decade. Techniques that could potentially lead to disastrous damage to the planet’s weather systems and natural cycles.
The Imposition of a Failed Agriculture Model
One of the major sectors where Gates’ private market and power interests are more apparent is in his push for agricultural transformation. The Gates Foundation has been pushing new technologies and an industrial agricultural model for decades, under the guise of putting an end to hunger and climate change.
In 2008, Gates attempted to revive the failed model of the 1960s Green Revolution in Africa by launching the AGRA[10] (Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa) program, encouraging farmers to move toward large-scale, commercial monocultures and promoting synthetic fertilizers, pesticides, and high-yield or GMO seeds. Timothy Wise’s research explained in the Gates to a Global Empire report[11], shows how 15 years later, there is no evidence that the objectives set out by AGRA have resulted in significant productivity improvements and have instead triggered a 30% increase of people suffering from extreme poverty in AGRA countries. Demonstrating direct evidence of this initiative’s failure.
Source: AGRA
While many have come out to critique the failure of AGRA, it is not the only example of Bill Gates’ attempts to control what goes on in farmer’s fields. In January 2020, the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation launched Ag One[12], a new research institute that aims “to empower smallholder farmers with the affordable, high-quality tools, technologies, and resources they need to lift themselves out of poverty”. The goal is to promote Green Revolution techniques alongside new technological innovations, like data and sensor technology, precision agriculture, gene drives, GMOs, artificial intelligence predictive models, and so on, to increase crop productivity in Africa, Asia, and in Latin America as Ag Tech[13]. With the launch of Ag Tech, partnerships were also announced with the Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture (IICA), Microsoft, Bayer, Corteva, and Syngenta, in addition to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, giving rise to a dangerous alliance in Latin America of industrial agriculture firms and biotechnology.
Source: Gates Notes
The BMGF clearly and proudly focuses on these partnerships and the perpetual pushing of the industrial agriculture paradigm. For instance, Gates’ enthusiasm for chemical fertilizers is well known, According to him, fertilizers are a “magical invention that can help lift millions of people out of poverty”[14], even though scientists say they emit dangerous amounts of greenhouse gases (GHG) [15], and are known environmental pollutants. Gates also sees GMO seeds as a “necessary technical solution” to agricultural development that could “end starvation in Africa”[16] regardless of their known failures, as well as their devastating environmental, social, health consequences. He has also publicly expressed his full-fledged support for highly problematic[17] gene editing methods like CRISPR-Cas9, which he has invested millions in[18]. His foundation also heavily funds the Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) centers, which receive over 70%[19] of BMGF agricultural research investments, making Gates the second largest donor of CGIAR. These investments give Gates a considerable amount of influence, allowing him to shape the global agriculture and development policy agenda and serve as a convenient way to open up new markets for agribusiness and biotech in previously unprofitable or hard-to-reach markets. Policy alignment in these countries and these sectors then ensures a return on Gates’ investments.
Global Commission on Adaptation
One of the ways Gates silently pushes his vision and agenda is through the Global Commission on Adaptation[20], an international commission co-founded by Gates that pushes technological solutions to climate change adaptation and mitigation, through such things as filling in the ‘data gap’ of the global south through digital agriculture[21]. For example, the policy recommendations and position papers of the Commission triggered in 2018 a report co-authored by IICA and CGIAR[22] which bluntly stated that “climate change adaptation in agriculture is contingent on increased investment to modernize agricultural systems.” The report was actively endorsed by the heads of the Global Commission at the time.
The Global Commission on Adaptation, co- founded by Gates, pushes technological solutions to climate change – Source: GCA
Founders of the commission also include Kristalina Georgieva, the current managing director at the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and former Chief Executive Officer of the World Bank; and the former 8th secretary-general of the UN, Ban-Ki Moon. The commission has 22 convening countries and is supported by a range of foreign ministers and ministries, policymakers, heads of development banks and development corporations, heads of the UN, and heads or former heads of governments. Since the end of its 2020 mandate, the board of directors no longer directly includes Gates, but still includes actors who remain close to the Gates agenda. These include Rodger Voorhies, the President of Global Growth & Opportunity Division of the BMGF and head of Ag One. As well as, Feike Sijbesma – current CEO[23] and honorary chairman of DSM, a synthetic biology and fake food company funded by Breakthrough Energy Ventures.
Breakthrough Energy Ventures: The Revolving Door for “Super Emitters”
While the political pushing of the industrial paradigm happens through development initiatives and policy lobby, where this game of billionaire profit-making and corporate partnerships is most clear is in one of Gates’ most prominent personal investment funds: Breakthrough Energy Ventures. Now being thrown into the spotlight as a symbol of Gates’ commitment to solving climate change, this investment fund is supported by other philanthrocapitalists[24] and billionaires such as Jeff Bezos, Mukesh Ambani, Michael Bloomberg, Richard Branson of Virgin Group, Reid Hoffman of LinkedIn, Jack Ma of Alibaba, former Enron trader and hedge fund manager turned philanthropist John Arnold, among other prominent names.
Breakthrough Energy Ventures is supported by several billionaires and philanthrocapitalists, including (from left): Bill Gates, Richard Branson, Mark Zuckerberg, George Soros, Jeff Bezos – Source: Great Game India
Out of the multiple startups funded by Breakthrough, seven are involved in the areas of food and agriculture, particularly through the development and marketing of synthetic biology and biotechnology products. While these startup companies use the greenwashed rhetoric of promoting ‘sustainable climate solutions’, a closer look reveals the company’s leadership teams to be riddled with ex DuPont, Monsanto, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, PepsiCo, and Microsoft executives. Raising the question, how can people involved in the very companies which created our health, ecological, and climate crisis, be in any way qualified to sell us back the ‘solution’?
A direct example of the overlap between industrial food and agriculture and the new tech-companies is, Motif Foodworks[25] a synthetic biotech company that works to create and market “plant-based alternatives” to meat and dairy products, as well as creating finished food products and ingredients. The startup makes its claim to sustainability by referencing its lack of need for land, agricultural inputs, and intensive external resources while providing enhanced nutrition. They have an exclusive partnership with prominent, and also Gates-funded, synthetic biotech firm Ginkgo Bioworks[26], which creates products for pharmaceutical companies, such as Moderna, industrial chemicals, and industrial food ingredients, such as for Motif Foodworks. Ginkgo Bioworks was also involved in a $100M partnership with Bayer to develop synbio microbe fertilizers. But this isn’t the only tie Motif Foodworks has to large industrial food and agriculture firms. All of their top leadership[27] – from their CEO, the Chief Commercial Officer (CCO), and the Chief Technology Officer (CTO) had previous tenures at DuPont and PepsiCo. Their head of Regulatory, Government and Industrial Affairs also spent eight years as the Director of Global Advocacy at Monsanto, another nine as Dupont’s Director of Corporate Regulatory affairs and four at CropLife as the VP of Science and Regulatory Affairs. Their top advisor is the ex-CEO of PepsiCo Indra Nooyi. The same applies to Breakthrough funded startups Nature’s Fynd[28] or Biomilq[29] where the Product Management & Business development executive, Rachel Lee was a former Strategy Officer at BMGF and co-founder of Biomilq underwent an internship at BMGF the year her company was founded.
This pattern repeats itself with another Breakthrough Energy Ventures company Pivot Bio, which looks to replace synthetic nitrogen fertilizers for corn monocultures, with synbio engineered nitrogen-fixing microbes. The company received a $70 million investment from Breakthrough in 2017, and then another $100 million investment[30] in the summer of 2020. Here all of the top executives are former DuPont or Monsanto executives: From the CTO who spent 30 years at DuPont and DuPont Pioneer developing industrial seed oils; the VP of Regulatory and Government Affairs who spent 27 years at DuPont as the former head of Government Affairs and leader of trade negotiations; the VP of Product Development spent 37 years at Monsanto; the VP of Communications led the global communications team for DuPont Pioneer, and the VP of Commercial Operations promoted the adoption of biotech while working for the marketing department of DuPont and DuPont Pioneer. Not to mention that Cooper Rinzler is both Director of Pivot Bio and a Member of the Breakthrough Energy Ventures Board of Directors.
Apart from the multiple problems with the development and application of these synthetic biology products in food and agriculture, the flight of ex-industrial agriculture company executives to new biotech startups signals the next iteration of industrial agriculture concentration and market expansion, not sustainable “climate-smart” solutions. Especially as members of the same companies that have continually denied the detrimental effects of their food and agricultural ‘innovations’, are now selling us back equally risky, myopic, and untested solutions to problems their companies created in the first place. Not to mention the obvious a repeated pattern of obviouse conflicts of interests present in this incestuous sector. This is why it is no surprise that Breakthrough Energy Ventures, also has an active policy toolkit[31]. Breakthrough does not just see itself as a private investment firm but is also involved in policy advocacy to make sure their innovations have a market. And in alignment with Gates’ strategy of shaping public opinion through media, a new journalism program, headed by former Wall Street Journal journalist Amy Harder, is also under development. But while these factors are purposefully obscured, the industry around “plant-based diets”, justified as “climate-smart”, a “sustainable diet” is starting to boom.
The False Promise of Fake Food
One of Gates’ most recent promotions is his prescriptions of synthetic foods for developed countries as a means to combat climate change. In a recent interview with MIT Technology Review[32], Gates says he thinks “all rich countries should move to 100% synthetic beef.” Fake food replaces animal products with highly processed food grown in labs, like fake meat, fake dairy products, or fake eggs. It is made possible by technical innovations such as synthetic biology, which involves reconfiguring the DNA of an organism to create something entirely new. For instance, plant-based meat companies like Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods use a DNA coding sequence from soybeans or peas to create a product that looks and tastes like real meat. Some companies are also investing in cell-based meat[33], grown from real animal cells, but it has yet to reach the market.
Source: Impossible Foods
More and more firms are getting involved in this fast-growing market, like Motif Foodworks (plant-based meat and dairy alternatives), Ginkgo Bioworks (custom-built microbes), BioMilq (lab-grown breast milk), Nature’s Fynd (fungi-grown meat and dairy alternatives), Eat Just (egg substitutes made from plant proteins), Perfect Day Food (lab-grown dairy products) or NotCo (plant-based animal products made through AI), to name but a few. The industrial meat-industry giants are also profiting from this blossoming market. Meat producers like Tyson Foods (which has invested in Memphis Meats and Future Meat Technologies which both create lab-grown meat replacements), Nestle, Cargill, Maple Leaf Foods, or Perdue Farms are thriving on this trend, selling products like sausages, burgers, and ground beef largely made from pea or soy protein. All these companies are backed up by high-ranked billionaires and Big Tech investors. Bill Gates alone has invested 50 million dollars in Impossible Foods and actively finances Beyond Meat, Ginkgo Bioworks, and BioMilq, as described above.
The perpetuation of ecologically damaging practices
Fake food advocates claim it is a real solution to climate change and solves environmental degradation, while also ironing out animal welfare concerns. For instance, Impossible Foods[34] declare their plant-based meat needs 96% less land, 87% less water and emits 89% fewer greenhouse gases than conventional animal-based products.
However, fake food has a larger carbon footprint than less-processed plant proteins[35]. Plant-based substitutes are up to seven times more GHG-intensive than whole pulses. Cell-based meat also emits more GHG than animal products, like pork or poultry. Recent research even suggests that over the long-term, the environmental impact of lab-grown meat[36] could be higher than that of livestock.
Moreover, fake food is advertised as “eco-friendly”, and yet it is made with proteins from pea, soy, or corn which are being grown on a large, industrial scale, relying on tillage, monocultures, toxic pesticides, and often, GMOs. The Impossible Burger is made with GMO Roundup-sprayed soya, leading to massive ecological devastation[37]. Total levels of glyphosate detected in the Impossible Burger by Health Research Institute Laboratories were 11.3ppb, making its consumption highly dangerous[38] as only 0.1ppb of glyphosate can destroy gut bacteria, damage to vital organs like the liver and kidneys, cause reproductive abnormalities, or even tumors, as glyphosate is also a “probable human carcinogen”. More broadly, the reliance on pesticides is directly linked with long-term chronic health problems, for consumers and farmers.
Other companies like Beyond Meat[39], who market their products as “cleaner” since they are free from genetically modified ingredients, still admit to not being organic[40], and still rely heavily on monocultures and pesticides. Ironically, these plant-based meat alternatives, which claim to save animals, water, and the environment, are instead directly contributing to the food system that is threatening global biodiversity[41], destroying wildlife, altering the soils, and polluting groundwater supplies[42]. Moreover, the fake food companies’ supply chains require excessive fossil fuel transport[43], like most industrial food.
The health impacts of hyper-processed fake foods
Not only is fake food harmful to the environment, but it also can be detrimental to human health. Plant-based substitutes are likely to have a range of adverse long-term health outcomes[44], due to them being highly processed and containing ingredients like isolated pea proteins and canola oil.
New additives also made through synthetic biology are being added to these products. For example, to make the Impossible Burger appear to “bleed” like real meat, a“heme” molecule is added which comes from soy leghemoglobin, a colorant produced in genetically engineered yeast. According to the Center for Food Safety, the FDA didn’t conduct adequate long-term testing[45] before approving the color additive in 2019, and after a short-term rat trial[46] several potential adverse effects were detected like changes in weight gain, changes in the blood that can indicate inflammation or kidney disease, disruptions in the reproductive cycle and possible signs of anemia. Despite the lack of evidence that the additive is safe, Impossible Foods’ products containing genetically engineered heme are now being sold in supermarkets across the United States, exemplifying a deregulatory environment that prefers corporate profit and influence over public health.
The entire process of isolating plant-based proteins can also have dangerous consequences[47] for human health. Many anti-nutrients are found within soy that can produce harmful health effects, such as digestive disorders, hormone imbalances, autoimmune diseases, obesity, digestive disorders, neurological conditions, or immunologic reactions. Especially as the soy and pea protein primarily used in most plant-based meats is heavily processed through high heating, chemical extractions and isolations of proteins, and now genetic altering, generating compounds that are not naturally found in foods.
Finally, artificially created animal products sometimes lack several natural nutrients or benefits. For instance, lab-grown milk such as BioMilq’s can’t change in response to the child’s need, as real breast milk can. It contains no hormones or bacteria from the mother’s biome and, more importantly, it does not have antibodies[48], which are vital to babies.
Plant-based meats, on the other hand, do not meet the nutritional requirements that are fulfilled by real animal foods. Simply adding isolated proteins, vitamins, and minerals to diets does not confer the same health benefits[49] as when these nutrients are ingested as whole foods, which contain thousands of compounds acting in synergy. Plant-based burgers aren’t healthier than animal products[50], including red meat.
Patenting: making profit from life
Far from ending climate change or world hunger, the patenting of artificial fake food growing techniques becomes yet another instrument of profit-making by corporations and billionaires. Especially as 20 patents[51] are now assigned to Impossible Foods, with over 100 additional patents pending[52] for other fake meat proxies, from chicken to fish.
It’s no wonder that big plant-breeding companies like Bayer see a great opportunity in the plant-based industry boom[53]. In a 2019 investor event in Missouri, Bob Reiter, Bayer’s head of research and development at the company’s crop science division, said that plant-based meat companies “are sourcing different types of crops and that could also create opportunity for us, being a company that is a plant-breeding company”.
This patenting logic also reduces animals and nature to an “improvable technology”, in the words of Pat Brown, CEO, and founder of Impossible Foods. According to him[54], “animals have just been the technology we have used up until now to produce meat”. This means they can simply be replaced by more efficient technologies like artificial food. Fake food separates humans from nature and food from life. But we need to think beyond our strictly human needs and understand the needs of the ecological systems in which we are embedded. We cannot address the pressing environmental crisis without transforming our relationship with nature.
Missing the point of regenerative agriculture
Fake food shifts political power away from organic farmers and local markets toward biotech companies. It disregards local and indigenous knowledge and diverse food cultures that have evolved alongside diverse ecosystems. Moreover, it completely ignores the solutions offered by the growing regenerative agriculture movement. While concerns about industrial meat production are legitimate, regenerative animal grazing practices[55] can actually improve biodiversity, soil health and actively sequester carbon into the soil[56] by grooming and fertilizing vegetation and soil. Such models have the potential to substantially help mitigate climate change[57], or at least not exacerbate it further, and to repair damaged soils and slow desertification processes. This means that, in some cases, meat from grass-fed animals can have a lower ecological footprint than plant-based burgers. Studies by Quantis International demonstrated a +3.5 CO2-eq emissions/per kg[58] product in the life cycle analysis of the Impossible Burger, versus −3.5 CO2-eq/per kg[59] for beef produced using regenerative grazing practices, meaning that over the lifecycle of the animal more carbon was sequestrated than emitted.
Fake food investors and advocates fail to see how the real problems lie in the industrial agriculture model, rather than in meat production alone. Pointing toward the need to implement agroecological practices and agricultural diversity[60] to ensure a healthier environment and food sovereignty on a global scale.
Fake food is a fake solution, that aims to replace meat without challenging the profit-driven capitalist food and farming industry. This mindset explains why we will soon see Beyond Meat burgers in McDonald’s plant-based menus[61] when we should instead focus on the necessity for real regenerative agriculture and systemic change to protect nature and people’s health.
Biodiversity and Agroecology are True Solutions to Climate Change
Climate change and its very real consequences cannot be fully addressed without recognizing the central role of the industrialized and globalized food system in creating the climate crisis by contributing 44% to 57% of all greenhouse gas emissions through deforestation, animals in concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), plastics and aluminum packaging, long-distance transport, and food waste.[62] Further industrialization, globalization, and now digitalization as promoted by the BMGF would mean further promotion of commercial seeds, toxic chemical use, high water usage, giant gas-guzzling farm equipment, and a massive fossil fuel-based global transport and production system, which would directly risk the rise of this GHG contribution. Not to mention, as has been shown during the initial Coronavirus lockdowns in 2020, these globalized and industrialized food systems are also significantly more vulnerable to disruptions, something climate change is already accelerating. Therefore, the way we produce our food should play an important role in how we reduce greenhouse gas emissions and directly adapt to climate change.
We have a choice to not go further down the path that has already destroyed biodiversity, farmers’ lives, and rural economies and is now threatening to fully close off the future by destroying our planet. Especially as there are other paths that farmers across the world have walked for nearly 10,000 years, which have been continually rejuvenated through diverse agroecological systems. An agroecological path that can now show the way toward a more ecological future and is now being walked by local, diverse food communities across the world as a way to bring in a new paradigm of living in harmony with nature.
Agroecology is based on a broad set of principles and includes diverse ways of farming with nature and rejuvenating biodiversity through living seed, soil, and local food communities, without the use of chemicals. From seed to table, a diversity of movements is formed by a variety of actors including small farmers, gardeners, civil society organizations, citizens, policymakers, researchers, and international organizations. Movements can also take many forms including, organic farming, permaculture, biodynamic, regenerative farming, Matsunuoba Fukukua’s vision of natural farming[63], local/ zero kilometer food chains, cooperative models of production and consumption, community-supported agriculture (CSAs), farmers markets, biodistricts[64], community and school gardens, urban farms, community seed banks,[65] slow food movements and revival of traditional[66] and forgotten foods, as well as hundreds of thousands of local farming traditions which have evolved over millennia. All of these approaches adapt agroecological methods to local contexts, to fit local needs, traditions, and knowledge systems. These traditions and approaches all put care for people and the land first, and place food sovereignty at the center of their local circular, cyclical, biodiverse, healthy, and sustainable food economies. Through these diverse methods, small farmers are feeding their local communities[67] healthy, nutritious food while simultaneously preserving ecosystemic health.
Agroecological food systems are a proven way to decrease CO2 emissions through actively sequestering greenhouse gases.[68] This is done through reorienting food supply chains to local food economies that eliminate fossil fuel-intensive methods and global supply chains, replacing them with resource recycling, low-intensity inputs which mimic nature’s nutrition, and hydrologic cycles to heal the soil and biodiversity.[69] It is also done through strengthening soils by increasing soil biodiversity, contributing both to fix carbon dioxide back into soils while reducing the need for chemical fertilizers and pesticides. Healthy soils also help sustain increased biodiversity, reducing pest and disease pressures.[70] To be specific, it has been estimated that through widespread agroecological and organic farming conversions 40 percent of the world’s agriculture greenhouse gas emissions could be mitigated in a minimum implementation scenario and up to 65 percent in a maximum carbon sequestration scenario.[71]
Along with providing a long-lasting solution to climate change, the transition to agroecological food and farming systems would also ensure the livelihoods of more than 1.5 billion smallholder farmers globally, along with working to ensure food sovereignty in the world’s most vulnerable populations. All over the world, these food communities are already transitioning to this ecological and democratic path, thus sowing the seeds of a food system in the hands of communities, women, farmers, and consumers free of corporate control, poisons, food miles, plastics, and patents. They are creating resilience in the face of deepening ecological and economic vulnerabilities through reclaiming seed, food, and knowledge as commons.
Agroecological solutions to climate change are based on a systemic approach that acknowledges the root cause of our crises, a deep understanding of living processing, and therefore, embodying a different vision of what food systems transformation could look like at the political, social, and economic levels. This true, agroecological transformation is incompatible with the industrial agriculture paradigm, as it requires a complete shift away from the hyper-centralized, corporate-controlled industrial food system.
So in reality, the Gates’ strategies have nothing to do with lifting poor people out of poverty or fighting climate change. There is nothing altruistic, coy, or ‘optimistic’ about Gates and his foundation. Instead, it is a blatant attempt for the accumulation of power through the stubborn imposition of a failed paradigm. The level of influence accumulated by Gates, a billionaire who actively admits his limited knowledge of the problems he is attempting to solve, stands to take power away from democratic governance, and calls for climate and ecological justice by replacing democratic decisions through enforcing policies that adhere to his whims. All the while usurping much needed attention, funds, and policy away from a diverse agroecological transformation.
In other words, Bill Gates and his fellow private business partners will continue to produce exponentially worse problems than the ones they propose to ‘solve’, while simultaneously working to concentrate ever more power into private hands through the dogma of technology. These described technologies are used as methods of direct imposition, without any democratic, ethical, social, or ecological assessment. All the while substituting complex, diverse, self-organized, autopoietic systems, creating a new level of illusion that is propelling us faster toward collapse.
In the end, two distinct futures of food and farming are emerging – one leads to the regeneration of our planet, our soils, our biodiversity, our water, our rural economies and farmers’ livelihoods, our health, and our democracy. The second road leads to the collapse of the planet’s ecosystems and of socioeconomic systems that sustain society. The future of diverse species, our common human future, and our daily bread depends on which road we take.
Authors: Ruchi Shroff, Carla Ramos Cortés, Marion Bessol
The so-called philanthropists, Bill Gates in particular, are taking more and more power over our governments.
Vandana Shiva warns us on how this is bringing new and more dangerous threats to our agriculture, food, seed sovereignty, and to the biodiversity of our planet.
Together with “surveillance capitalism” all this is putting at risk the rights to our health, our freedom and our future.
Interview by Berenice Galli.
“Bad Reception” Film (2003) about the Wireless Revolution and Opposition to Cell Towers in San Francisco (Free Online)
American opposition to cell tower installation started long before 5G due to concerns about reduced property value, public safety risks, as well as health and environmental effects from radiation emissions. For many years now American firefighter unions have also opposed the use of their stations for cell tower and antenna installation due to exposure risks.
Of course, where there has been opposition – there has been more of an effort to strategically camouflage telecommunications infrastructure. This has only increased due to the controversial “Race to 5G” (see 1, 2).
Environmental Health Trust has recommended several documentaries and films about risks associated with cell towers and other sources of wireless radiation. Recently, one produced in 2003 became available to watch for free online.
The Wireless Revolution in San Francisco: Film “Bad Reception” Streaming Free Online
Bad Reception: The Wireless Revolution in San Francisco
The Telecommunications Act of 1996, passed by the U.S. Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton, preempted local governments in the U.S. from considering the environmental effects of wireless facilities if they met F.C.C. exposure guidelines. These guidelines were designed to be protective solely of thermal (i.e., heating) effects of radiofrequency radiation, not all potential biological and health effects.
Armed with this federal preemption, the wireless industry in the late 1990s-early 2000s began the rollout of so-called 3G (i.e., digital voice and data) cellular phone technology and the infrastructure to run it. Across the country, local communities were faced with the sudden appearance of cellular phone towers and antennas mounted to buildings and other structures, oftentimes in close proximity to where people lived, worked and played.
Bad Reception: The Wireless Revolutionin San Francisco, which premiered in January 2003 at local venues in San Francisco, California and was subsequently broadcast nationwide on Free Speech TV, focuses on San Francisco as a case study of one of many of these communities where concerns were raised about the potential health and environmental consequences of this revolution in wireless communications. Bad Reception tells the compelling story of residents from backgrounds as diverse as the city itself as they take on one of the most powerful corporate entities in the world.
Produced and Directed by Doug Loranger. Co-Produced by Gordon Winiemko. USA. Running time: 55:23 minutes
Lawsuits have been filed against the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for failing to protect Americans from unsafe levels of cell phone and WiFi radiation as well as 5G on Earth (see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) and in space (see 1, 2). A petition has also been launched asking the World Health Organization (WHO) to establish more protective universal EMF and RF exposure limits.
Hundreds of farmers and human rights groups are boycotting the 2021 United Nations Food Systems Summit because they believe it favors agribusiness interests, elite foundations and the exploitation of African food systems
The controversy began when Agnes Kalibata was appointed as the event’s head; Kalibata is the president of the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA), an organization funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
Gates is promoting an agricultural agenda that supports agrochemicals, patented seeds, fake meat and corporate control
Planning documents for the Summit also reveal plans for a “radical transformation shift” in Africa, away from traditional farming practices and toward industrial farming — even describing the potential as the “new oil”
Hundreds of farmers and human rights groups are boycotting the 2021 United Nations Food Systems Summit because they believe it favors agribusiness interests, elite foundations and the exploitation of African food systems.1
The Summit claims it is convening to “launch bold new actions to transform the way the world produces and consumes food,”2 but critics say it is biased toward industrial, corporate farming while leaving out those in regenerative agriculture and the knowledge of indigenous people.3
The controversy began right from the start, when U.N. secretary general António Guterres appointed Agnes Kalibata as the event’s head. Kalibata is the former Rwandan agriculture minister who is now the president of the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA), an organization funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.4
AGRA is essentially a Gates Foundation subsidiary, and while some of its projects appear to be beneficial, most of its goals are centered on promoting biotechnology and chemical fertilizers.
Corporate Interests Dominating Food Summit
After Kalibata was appointed special envoy to the 2021 United Nations Food Systems Summit in December 2019, 176 civil society organizations and farmer groups from 83 countries urged Guterres to withdraw the appointment due to Kalibata’s clear conflicts of interest with corporate interests.
A second statement, signed by more than 500 academics and organizations, also opposed Kalibata’s appointment to, and her organization of, the Summit.5 AGRA is known to promote the interests of agribusiness, leading civil society organizations to argue that Kalibata’s appointment was a clear conflict of interest.
“This concern over Kalibata’s nomination has been largely borne-out by Kalibata’s top-down approach to organizing the Summit and her exclusion of those most affected by food insecurity and malnutrition in the planning process,” according to an August 2020 report by AGRA Watch.6
A dozen individuals representing development banks, academic institutions and the private sector came forward in support of Kalibata, but “11 had past or current connections to the Gates Foundation,” AGRA Watch reported, adding:7
“These findings illustrate the influence of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) on global food and agricultural policy. AGRA Watch has continually documented the role of the BMGF in influencing agricultural development, which has grown immensely in recent years.
That Gates Foundation seeks to exercise influence not only through its funding of projects and shaping of expertise, but also in funding the governance platforms that determine food and agricultural policy. This role of the BMGF in driving policy decisions based on its proprietary and technological model of agricultural development is often overlooked.”
Precision Agriculture, Genetic Engineering Take Center Stage
Concerns that the Summit was dominated by corporate industry heightened when its concept paper included precision agriculture, data collection and genetic engineering as pillars for addressing food security while leaving out regenerative agriculture.
As reported by The Guardian, Michael Fakhri, the U.N. special rapporteur on the right to food, wrote to Kalibata stating that the Summit was focused on “science and technology, money and markets” while leaving fundamental questions about inequality, accountability and governance unaddressed:8
“It [appears] heavily skewed in favor of one type of approach to food systems, namely market-based solutions … it leaves out experimental/traditional knowledge that has the acute effect of excluding indigenous peoples and their knowledge. The business sector has been part of the problem of food systems and has not been held accountable.”
The 300 million-member Civil Society and Indigenous Peoples’ Mechanism announced plans to boycott the Summit and set up a meeting of their own, while others, including Sofía Monsalve Suárez, head of nutrition rights group Fian International, questioned the Summit’s legitimacy:9
“We cannot jump on a train that is heading in the wrong direction … We sent a letter last year to the secretary general about our concerns. It was not answered. We sent another last month, which has also not been answered. The summit appears extremely biased in favor of the same actors who have been responsible for the food crisis.”
Other nutrition experts also expressed the need for the Summit to be more inclusive of initiatives such as agro-ecology and food sovereignty.
Food Group Calls on UN to Sever Ties With WEF
A group of 148 organizations from 28 countries also called on the U.N. to revoke their 2019 strategic partnership formed with the World Economic Forum (WEF). WEF’s involvement with the Summit has been called a form of “corporate hijacking” that would infringe on people’s rights to food and food production. According to the People’s Coalition on Food Sovereignty:10
“The WEF will exploit the Summit to streamline neoliberal globalization, which it has espoused for the past 50 years. It is the perfect venue to push for the role of ‘Fourth Industrial Revolution technologies’ to transform food systems, which the WEF has been championing since 2017.
A corporate-led FSS [Food Systems Summit] would be a great advantage to the political elites and corporate billionaires, enabling them to pose hypocritically as responsible entities that promote healthier diets and climate action.
… The sidelined and marginalized sectors in society — the poor farmers, workers, Indigenous Peoples, herders, pastoralists, fisherfolks, urban poor, women, Dalits, and youth — should replace these corporate moguls in shaping the Summit’s proceedings and reforms.”
Beyond the Summit, WEF’s takeover of the U.N. has been denounced by more than 400 civil society organizations and 40 international networks, which claim it will only accelerate the move toward a privatized, undemocratic global takeover. Monsalve Suárez stated:11
“Corporations in the global industrial food chain alone destroy 75 billion tons of topsoil annually and are responsible for the annual loss of 7.5 million hectares of forest. This destruction, along with other factors, leaves 3.9 billion underfed or malnourished people. The WEF represents the interests of those who destroy the environment and abuse our human rights. It cannot be considered a strategic partner in solving the world’s crises.”
Africa’s Traditional Food Systems Under Attack
Planning documents for the Summit also reveal plans for a “radical transformation shift” in Africa, away from traditional farming practices and toward industrial farming — even describing the potential as the “new oil.”12 The African Centre for Biodiversity (ACB), which released the documents, said the plans recycle the “same false solutions … with the same narrow benefits accruing to a limited number of actors.”13
For instance, one section of the documents is titled “the promise of digital and biotechnologies and the transformation of food systems,” and describes “the significant potential for capturing large economic, social and environmental payoffs from the use of biotechnology products … In West Africa, for instance, farmers can benefit significantly from the adoption of Bt cotton.”14
Technology and development take center stage, along with “strengthening the use of big data” for decisions on things like fertilizer use, genetically engineered crops and “accessing markets.” As noted by U.S. Right to Know:15
“This agenda aligns perfectly with the plans of the agrichemical industry, the Gates Foundation and its main agricultural development program, the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa, which encourages African countries to pass business-friendly policies and scale up markets for patented seeds, fossil-fuel based fertilizers and other industrial inputs they say are necessary to boost food production.”
“The main problem with AGRA,” Global Justice Now explains, “is that it is laying the groundwork for the deeper penetration of African agriculture by agribusiness corporations,” and:
“The BMGF, through AGRA, is one of the world’s largest promoters of chemical fertiliser. Some grants given by the BMGF to AGRA have been specifically intended to ‘help AGRA build the fertiliser supply chain’ in Africa. One of the largest of AGRA’s own grants, worth $25 million, was to help establish the African Fertiliser Agribusiness Partnership (AFAP) in 2012 whose very goal is to ‘at least double total fertiliser use’ in Africa.”16
Bill Gates Is the Biggest Owner of US Farmland
The BMGF’s involvement in the Summit is also self-serving, as Bill Gates owns more farmland in the U.S. than any other private farmer, having purchased a total of 242,000 acres — much of it considered some of the richest soil in the U.S. — at a frenzied pace over the past few years.17
Gates, however, isn’t interested in regenerative agriculture but instead is furthering an agricultural agenda that supports agrochemicals, patented seeds, fake meat and corporate control — interests that undermine regenerative, sustainable, small-scale farming. One of the key players in this agenda is the widespread adoption of synthetic meat.
Gates has made it clear that he believes switching to synthetic beef is the solution to reducing methane emissions that come from animals raised on concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs).18
The strong recommendation to replace beef with fake meat is made in Gates’ book “How to Avoid a Climate Disaster: The Solutions We Have and the Breakthroughs We Need,” which was released in February 2021.19 In an interview with MIT Technology Review, he goes so far as to say that people’s behaviors should be changed to learn to like fake meat and, if that doesn’t work, regulations could do the trick.20
What many aren’t aware of, however, is that Gates is either personally invested in, or invested in via Breakthrough Energy Ventures, fake meat companies like Beyond Meats, Impossible Foods, Memphis Meats and other companies he actively promotes.21
When asked whether he thinks plant-based and lab-grown meats could “be the full solution to the protein problem globally,” he says that, in middle- to above-income countries, yes, and that people can “get used to it.”22
Small Farmers, Regenerative Agriculture Are the Answer
The U.N. Food Summit is poised to bow down to corporate ideology instead of embracing the small farmers and regenerative practices that have true potential to feed the world and heal the planet. If you’re new to this discussion, you can find the top six reasons to support regenerative agriculture here. As Timothy Wise, senior adviser at the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, told The Guardian:23
“A growing number of farmers, scientists and development experts now advocate a shift from high-input chemical-intensive agriculture to low-input ecological farming. They are supported by an array of new research documenting both the risks of continuing to follow our current practices and the potential benefits of a transition to more sustainable farming.”
For years already, credible individuals, agencies, and organizations have warned against launching more vehicles into space. For one thing, there’s too much space junk out there already and it’s creating dangerous and potentially catastrophic situations.
Launching more vehicles is ill-advised for that reason and various others that are equally scary (see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9) including explosions (see 1, 2, 3). Recently, a 5G satellite moratorium was issued in South Africa due to interference issues as well.
Unfortunately, none of this has stopped Elon Musk or other tech billionaires from launching satellites or pursuing other business ventures in space. Of course, they are getting funding for some of this from the U.S. to provide high-speed internet.
Last month actor/comedian/activist Russell Brand produced a 13-minute video about his concerns regarding tech billionaires’ space endeavors:
Regarding internet satellites – protests are scheduled for March 19 and 20 (see 1, 2). Visit Stop 5G International to learn if there is an event scheduled near you.
GeoeongineeringWatch.org is excited to announce the release of our groundbreaking documentary that conclusively exposes the existence of global climate engineering operations.
Global climate engineering operations are a reality. Atmospheric particle testing conducted by GeoengineeringWatch.org has now proven that the lingering, spreading jet aircraft trails, so commonly visible in our skies, are not just condensation as we have officially been told. Over 75 years ago global powers committed the planet and populations to a climate engineering experiment from which there is no return. The intentional dimming of direct sunlight by aircraft dispersed particles, a form of global warming mitigation known as “Solar Radiation Management”, has and is causing catastrophic damage to the planet’s life support systems. The highly toxic fallout from the ongoing geoengineering operations is also inflicting unquantifiable damage to human health. Why aren’t scientists or official sources disclosing the ongoing climate engineering operations? Who is responsible for carrying out these programs? What will the consequences be if geoengineering / solar radiation management operations are allowed to continue? The Dimming documentary will provide answers to these questions and many more. Thank you for viewing and for notifying others of The Dimming film release.
Children’s Health Defense is one of several groups planning a March 19 protest at SpaceX headquarters to demand the company end its planned deployment of 42,000 low-orbit satellites.
Safe technology advocates, environmentalists and astronomers from California and beyond will gather March 19, 10 a.m. – 2 p.m. PT at SpaceX headquarters in Hawthorne, Calif., to demand the company end its planned deployment of 42,000 low-orbit satellites.
The groups are gathering signatures worldwide on an open letter to Elon Musk and SpaceX, urging Musk to sit down with scientists, astronomers and all stakeholders to discuss the dangers of satellite programs. A group of children will hand-deliver the letter at the March 19 rally.
The SpaceX low-orbit satellites, using 5G technology, would bathe the world with microwave radiation including the mid-ocean, Antarctic and wildlife preserves and protected natural areas. Other companies such as One Web and Amazon have plans to launch up to 40,000 additional satellites.
The SpaceX Starlink program calls for 8,400 satellites, each with a lifespan of only 5 years, to be built, launched, deorbited and burned up each year. This will add to ozone depletion, space debris and collisions, the conversion of deorbited satellites to toxic dust and smoke as they burn up in the atmosphere, and the proliferation of spaceports on pristine land and ground and water pollution around them.
Of particular concern is the global increase in microwave radiation from the satellites, ground stations and millions of “user terminals” which are, in effect, cell antennas all over the planet, one for each subscriber.
On Feb. 26 Children’s Health Defense filed a case against the Federal Communication Commission challenging an amendment to the “Over the Air Reception Devices” rule (OTARD). Among other things, the amended rule enables the deployment of at least 1,000,000 antennas which will provide the ground infrastructure for the SpaceX satellites. The amended rule goes into effect March 29.
“We are literally guinea pigs for this technological experiment about which we have not been consulted, and for which we have not given our consent,” said David Goldberg, an event organizer. “This is the same technology used in the microwave attacks on diplomats, currently under federal investigation. Safer and more energy-efficient wired technologies are available and should be implemented, instead of thousands of satellites and millions of cell antennas that will increase wireless radiation and harm the environment.”
Participants are being asked to please abide by all California COVID-19 public health laws and mandates. For more information on the planned protest, click here.
Watch this video on the planned protest:
Dr. Vernon Coleman: Is Your Drinking Water Contaminated with Vaccines?
[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 and Lbry/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.]
Dr. Vandana Shiva, the Founder and President of Navdanya, Technology and Natural Resource Policy who was awarded the Right Livelihood Award, also known as the ‘Alternative Nobel Prize’ explains how the World Bank is waging a war against Indian farmers.
She discusses the recent avalanche in Uttarakhand which has left hundreds missing and the causes behind it, how the World Bank’s actions in the 1991 was arguably the start of the war between Indian farmers and global capitalism, why India’s farmers are organising en masse to oppose India’s neoliberal farming laws, 1 in 4 farmers on Earth being Indian, multinational farming corporations and their war on India’s independent farmers, the history of the spread of GMO technology such as ‘Roundup’, why a transition away from industrial farming back to small-scale farming is needed to fight climate change and much more!
Weather modification and manipulation don’t exist.
Weather modification is a crazy conspiracy theory.
Weather modification is not scientifically possible.
All of these are phrases that have been repeated ad nauseam by mainstream media for years. Suddenly, however, now mainstream media outlets can (and do) openly discuss ongoing weather modification programs from both corporations and foreign governments.
It looks like weather modification is one of those “crazy conspiracy theories” that isn’t so crazy after all.
Let’s talk about China’s weather modification program.
China’s program sounds suspiciously like the “conspiracy theories” the MSM told us were false.
A recent story from Business Insider regarding China’s weather modification projects revealed that China is “massively expanding” its publicly admitted weather control projects. China aims to be able to cover half of the country in artificial rain and snow by 2025. The project is a rudimentary and now arcane method of “cloud seeding,” which General Electric claimed the discovery of in the United States in 1946. China launched its program in the 1960s.
Dozens of other countries have similar programs. However, China now has the world’s largest, and it employs around 35,000 people. Keep in mind this is the publicly acknowledged wing of the program, not secret research or facilities.
In a statement, the Chinese State Council said that the country’s cloud seeding project would expand five times over to cover an area of 2.1 million square miles. China is 3.7 million square miles, which means that the project would cover 56% of its land surface area.
China’s weather manipulation is set to be worldwide by 2034
The State Council said that the project would be at a “worldwide advanced level” by 2034 and that it will help alleviate “disasters such as drought and hail,” and that it will facilitate emergency responses “to forest or grassland fires.”
China’s current publicly admitted program uses artificial cloud seeding, spraying chemicals like silver iodide or liquid nitrogen into clouds which can make water droplets condense, then fall as rain or snow.
In 2008, China launched a cloud seeding project in Beijing right before the Olympics that caused rain to fall before the event started. In 2016, China devoted $30 million to cloud seeding and began firing bullets filled with salt and minerals into the sky.
In 2017, it spent $168 million on a massive supply of equipment to facilitate the project, including four aircraft and “897 rocket launchers.” Business Insider previously reported that China’s Ministry of Finance wanted to use cloud seeding to create at least 60 billion cubic meters of additional rain every year by 2020.
Chinese media reported in 2019 that cloud seeding tactics in Xinjiang prevented 70% of crops from anticipated hail damage.
One must wonder if a government has the scientific ability to manipulate the weather on such a grand scale, have they considered weaponizing it as well as using it for benevolent purposes? Some people might ask if the engineering is such that a once-in-a-century storm could be created, or some other ecological anomaly.
No, that’s just crazy talk.
For more information on the weaponization of weather, check out Steve Quayle’s book, Weather Wars.
The United States and the United Arab Emirates also have publicly acknowledged weather modification programs.
China is not the only country utilizing weather modification technology.
In 2015, for instance, the United Arab Emirates launched a $5 million research program for “rain enhancement science.”
From the mid-1960s to the early 1980s, the United States’ NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) actively pursued Project STORMFURY, a program designed to modify hurricanes. The US also used cloud seeding in the Great Plains and the Western States to “combat drought.”
Wyoming has dumped $15 million into a ten-year study that concluded cloud seeding could add 10 percent more snow to an existing storm.
Idaho even funded a National Science Foundation research project to test cloud seeding to increase snowfall.
“Idaho Power is interested in putting more snow on the ground in the mountains, which leads to more water in rivers from snowmelt,” said atmospheric scientist Jeff French of the University of Wyoming in a statement. “In turn, that leads to more power generation capability throughout the year.”
(Read a New Scientist article about Project SNOWIE here.)
The New Feudal Overlords are getting in on the act as well
Bill Gates is funding weather modification projects. (Big surprise.) One of those projects sounds eerily like the “chemtrails” that no one can talk about without mockery or accusations of insanity.
Gates’ project is called Solar Geoengineering, and it is meant to replicate the effects of a giant volcanic eruption. Thousands of planes would be flown at high altitudes and spray millions of tons of particles around the planet to create a massive chemical cloud that would cool the earth’s surface.
However, one problem with mimicking a giant volcanic eruption is that it doesn’t merely cool the earth. It can create an ice age, which leads to famine, which leads to starvation, chaos, war, and death. But that doesn’t matter to Gates. It doesn’t seem to matter to any of the national governments dead set on upending the earth’s natural balance and equilibrium humans must have with nature to survive on it either.
Many people would suggest that is the whole point.
The extremely anomalous surface cool-down in Texas and other parts of the world are not just random acts of Nature. Global climate engineering operations are not just a proposal, they have been an ongoing reality for over 70 years. Erratic and unprecedented weather is radically increasing everywhere. Though there are countless forms of human activity affecting the equation, the global climate engineering programs are by far the single greatest and most destructive factor. The geoengineers are manufacturing winter weather scenarios on a scale that can scarcely be comprehended, such operations are nothing short of winter weather warfare. Ecosystems are being decimated by the climate engineering onslaught. No habitat, no humans. What will it take to bring the geoengineering issue to light, once and for all?
The photos below were just captured near Kerrville, Texas. The images clearly reveal the results and consequences of chemical ice nucleation operations. Patented processes of chemical ice nucleation for weather modification are a primary component of the climate engineering programs.
Georgia and Tennessee are first states to gain approval to diffuse a chemical known to trigger asthma and other serious respiratory illnesses throughout schools, healthcare and food processing facilities and intrastate transportation.
In mid-January, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved requests from two southern states (Georgia and Tennessee) asking for an emergency exemption that would allow them to aerosolize selected indoor spaces with an antiviral “air treatment” called Grignard Pure.
Grignard Pure is a nanoparticle-based product. Its active ingredient is a substance called triethylene glycol (TEG).
The EPA’s approval slid in under Section 18 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), which allows the agency to green-light pesticides for unregistered uses in defined geographic areas for up to a year during public health emergencies deemed “urgent” and “non-routine.”
Grignard Pure contains TEG as a standalone chemical compound, but TEG is also a component of some polyethylene glycol (PEG) compounds (those of low molecular weight).
An estimated 72% of the general population has anti-PEG antibodies (including elevated levels in 8% of Americans) that can set those individuals up for adverse reactions when later exposed to PEG-containing substances.
Pharmaceutical and biotech companies, acutely aware of the correlation between anti-drug antibodies and increased adverse effects, acknowledge that the phenomenon poses a “vexing” and “serious” clinical problem — one that has come into sharp relief as recipients of COVID mRNA injections experience severe allergic reactions.
In light of the interrelationship between PEG and TEG, the planned diffusion of nanoparticle-based TEG in public spaces — including through building heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) systems — introduces important new questions: Could individuals already sensitized to PEG go into anaphylaxis when they inhale TEG? Or conversely, might people who are exposed to aerosolized TEG then become sensitized to PEG — and run the risk of an adverse reaction when they subsequently encounter a PEG-containing mRNA injection or another “PEGylated” drug?
The newest kid on the block: ‘atmospheric viricides’
The Grignard company describes itself as “an innovative leader in specialty chemical solutions for every industry need,” ranging from precision cleaners and wastewater treatments to “atmospheric effects” for the entertainment industry. In fact, the company’s Grignard FX branch is North America’s “largest producer of theatrical fog and haze fluids” for movies, stadium concerts and theater, as well as being the manufacturer of stage blood promoted as “so realistic they will freak out.”
The company now intends to parlay its extensive theatrical experience into the realm of atmospheric viricides, promising “a light atmospheric haze throughout an indoor space that inactivates enveloped viruses such as the novel coronavirus on non-porous hard surfaces and in the air.”
According to the EPA, the Grignard Pure product has the ability to “permeate and kill. . . over 98 percent of COVID-19 [virus] particles.” Dispersal of Grignard Pure is proposed “via a building’s HVAC system, or using conventional haze/fog machines typically deployed in entertainment venues and in fire training.”
In an example of the revolving regulator-industry door, a four-decade veteran of EPA pesticide regulation is now a leading consultant for Grignard, helping the company market the anti-COVID fluid as the solution to a “critical challenge.”
Meanwhile, outgoing EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler touted Grignard Pure as a “first-of-its kind” tool to “help fight the spread of the novel coronavirus,” vowing in the agency’s press release that “There is no higher priority for EPA than protecting the health and safety of Americans.”
Respiratory irritant
EPA’s emergency go-ahead permits Georgia and Tennessee to diffuse Grignard Pure continuously in “breakrooms, locker rooms, bathrooms, lobbies, elevators, eating areas and food preparation areas” in government, health care and food processing facilities as well as intrastate transportation — anywhere “where people are conducting activity deemed essential by the state.”
The EPA endorsed the product’s emergency use in food preparation and eating areas despite warnings in the triethylene glycol safety data sheet not to store TEG “near food, foodstuffs or potable water supplies.”
Did the EPA conduct an objective assessment of benefits versus risks? The agency’s press release does not say, nor does it include any warnings other than a one-sentence statement that “TEG may be an irritant for sensitive populations.” (Canadian fog and smoke safety guidelines for the live performance industry, on the other hand, specify that high-risk individuals — such as children, pregnant women and people with asthma or serious illnesses — should avoid exposure).
But if the EPA is unconcerned about the known short-term effects of exposure to glycol-containing fluids (including symptoms that sound a lot like COVID) or the potential for longer-term harm, the American College of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology (ACAAI) is much more up front about the risks. Addressing glycol-reliant fog machines, the ACAAI states:
“In people with asthma and airways hyper-reactivity, the irritant effect of short-term exposure to water-based fog machines — particularly when the chemical glycol is used — could trigger acute asthma symptoms including cough, wheeze, chest tightness and shortness of breath. Even in a person without asthma, short term exposure to glycol-containing fog machines can be associated with headaches, dizziness, drowsiness, and eye irritation. Prolonged exposure to this substance in a person with asthma could trigger even more severe respiratory difficulty and could cause bronchitic symptoms even in those without asthma. Long term exposure to smoke and fog can result in upper airway and voice symptoms as well, while extended (multi-year) exposure … has been associated with both short-term and long-term respiratory health problems.”
Confusingly, the TEG safety data sheet warns that “repeated excessive aerosol exposures may cause respiratory tract irritation and even death” but reports “no relevant information found” pertaining to respiratory toxicity. This may be because most TEG toxicity studies have focused on oral or dermal exposures, rather than inhalation, and primarily have studied reproductive endpoints or carcinogenicity.
The EPA undoubtedly is aware that inhalation exposures can produce different results than oral or dermal routes of administration. A 2007 study of TEG toxicology — though premised on the now obsolete assumptions that “aerosol exposure is not a usual exposure mode” and that TEG exposure is “mainly occupational” — concluded that “repeated exposures to a TEG aerosol may result in respiratory tract irritation, with cough, shortness of breath and tightness of the chest.”
Another study conducted in 2019 reported that rats exposed to an aerosol combination of TEG and a disinfectant (benzalkonium chloride) for two weeks exhibited severe respiratory symptoms as well as “significant ulceration and degenerative necrosis … in the nasal cavities.”
A mouse study found that mice exposed to “respirable aerosols” of TEG also manifested a number of “nonspecific indications of toxicity,” including irritation, fluid imbalance, liver dysfunction and decreased body weight, along with “unexplained mortality” in female mice two to three days after exposure to the highest concentration of TEG.
What about the nanoparticles?
In September 2020, Brazilian researchers published an extensive discussion of nanotechnology “for COVID-19 virus management.” Although eager to play up nanotechnology’s current and potential anti-COVID applications — including in disinfectants, personal protective equipment, nano-based sensors, “enhanced activity” drugs and nano-based vaccines — the authors also acknowledged some “bottlenecks,” one of the major ones being to ensure nanomaterials’ safe use!
A key observation by the Brazilian authors is that most studies only evaluate nanoparticle biocompatibility in vitro (that is, in a petri dish), rather than in vivo (in actual animals or humans). They state that without high-quality in-vivo studies, it is impossible to fully understand “the toxicokinetic behaviour of the nanoparticles in the body, especially for long-term exposure.”
Elaborating, the Brazilian researchers said: “Due to the multifaceted interactions between nanomaterials and biological systems (in vivo), it is very challenging to foresee the behaviour of these materials under physiological conditions,” particularly given that “[t]he fate and behaviour of nanomaterials in the body can … change when they reach blood circulation”
These interactions — critical to the production of adverse events — are, as yet, poorly understood.
As far as scientists in the burgeoning field of nanotechnology are concerned, the sky’s the limit for nanotech applications. However, these same experts also freely admit that nanoparticles have toxic effects that are “a strong limiting factor” hindering their wider use:
“The small size of NPs [nanoparticles] allows them … to be carried by the bloodstream and lymph stream to different organs and tissues, including the brain, heart, liver, kidneys, spleen, bone marrow, and nervous system … Experiments modeling the toxic effects of NPs on the body have shown that NPs cause thrombosis … , inflammation of the upper and lower respiratory tracts, neurodegenerative disorders, stroke, myocardial infarction, and other disorders. Note that NPs may enter not only organs, tissues, and cells, but also. . . mitochondria and nuclei; this may drastically alter cell metabolism and cause DNA lesions, mutations, and cell death.”
Unanswered questions
TEG is not a new substance. In the late 1940s and early 1950s, for example, doctors working on infant hospital wards explored the use of triethylene glycol vapors as “a method of disinfecting air in closed and heavily contaminated spaces.”
Reporting on one study’s disappointing results, which deemed TEG ineffective in preventing airborne transmission, the clinicians concluded that glycol vaporization in public buildings was “not yet ready for general use.”
Thanks to 21st-century developments in polymer chemistry and nanotechnology, TEG has now circled back around in the form of Grignard Pure — although the latter likely bears scant resemblance to the TEG vapors used in the 1950s.
Unfortunately for the Georgia and Tennessee residents who are about to be continuously exposed to Grignard Pure (with Nevada possibly being next in line due to heavy lobbying by Las Vegas entrepreneurs), neither Grignard nor the EPA are addressing the thorny safety issues of potential TEG-PEG cross-reactivity, toxic buildup of nanoparticles in the body or synergistic toxicity from TEG-nanoparticle interactions.
It is unclear whether the EPA provided an opportunity for public comment before rushing to approve Grignard Pure. Regardless, concerned citizens may wish to ask the agency some pointed questions about which safety data did — or did not — factor into its decision and how it plans to protect the health and safety of Americans.
