5G Negative Health Effects

🖨️ Print post

5G SURVIVAL: PROTECTING YOURSELF IN A CONNECTED WORLD

There is a great deal of fear and confusion surround­ing 5G and its precise meaning. Metaphorically, 5G has become a specter or apparition in our culture, shrouded in mystery and concern. But what precisely is it? Let’s come out of the darkness, where specters live, and examine this phenomenon in the light of day. Although the various elements associated with 5G are not without harm,¹ instead of succumbing to fear, we should replace fear with knowledge and a plan for reducing personal exposure. This article aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of 5G and its implications. I also discuss practical ways to minimize personal and familial exposure to potentially harmful electromagnetic radiation.²

To do so, we need to consider four key concepts: the malignant spread of Wi-Fi; 5G cell service, including service that relies on millimeter waves; the abundance of millimeter-wave radiation not related to 5G cell service; and fifth-generation warfare—a paradigm that can help us understand the media and industry messaging that is normalizing personal radiation expo­sure without any cumulative limit.

SOME DEFINITIONS

The focal point of the 5G apparition is 5G digital voice and data services delivered over the cellular network—the fifth generation of cell phone “service.” For brevity, I’m going to refer to “5G cell service,” but keep in mind that 5G cell service is about digital transmission of both voice and data using cellular technology.

Also, please remember that from a synthetic EMF exposure perspective, the word “service” in the twenty-first century means an adulterated electromagnetic environment. Other examples include Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, mobile phones, GPS, the Internet of Things (IoT), public safety communications, wireless payment systems, wireless gaming, radio-frequency identification (RFID) and drone communication. Use of these services requires an altered electromagnetic environment, one that is foreign to natural life. Without this sea of unnatural radiation, there would be no cell service, no Wi-Fi, and so on.

Among the primary types of synthetic elec­tromagnetic fields—electric fields, magnetic fields, dirty electricity and radio-frequency (RF) radiation—5G, in its various forms, is a radio-frequency radiation problem. Anything related to 5G creates exposure to man-made RF radiation.

MALIGNANT SPREAD OF WI-FI

Let’s clarify a common misconception: not everything labeled “5G” pertains to 5G cell service. A prime example is “5G” in the context of Wi-Fi’s malignant spread. (Note: It is because the only known safe level of exposure to RF radiation is zero that I have chosen to label this phenomenon “malignant.”)

People sometimes conflate Wi-Fi with 5G cell service because of the letter “G.” Let me ex­plain. When you’re looking at a list of local Wi- Fi network servers, you may see a (hypothetical) name like “Triton Industries 5G.” You’ve been dreading this day. Given all you know about the undesirability of 5G in local communi­ties, you’re shocked to see what you believe to be ironclad evidence of 5G in your area. You don’t know who or what “Triton Industries” is, but it’s clearly part of the awful 5G rollout, right? No—it’s not part of the 5G cell service at all. This misunderstanding is based solely on the capital letter “G” and nothing more. In the context of Wi-Fi networks, the “G” signifies one thing, while in the context of 5G cell service, it signifies something entirely different. That’s it.

To unravel this mystery, we need to talk about frequency allocation bands and special bands called ISM bands. These are specific ranges of frequencies within the electromag­netic spectrum designated for particular uses. The ISM bands are unique because they are reserved for industrial, scientific and medical purposes, allowing devices operating within these bands to operate without requiring a license, which implies lower costs for the manufacturer. Examples include microwave ovens, wireless local area networks (LANs) (that is, Wi-Fi), Bluetooth devices and cordless phones. Got that? Humanity has chosen to modify the natural electromagnetic environment, which I believe was created for our mutual benefit, into designated bands for human use.

There are many ISM bands. The most popular is called the 2.4 giga­hertz (GHz) band, which ranges from 2.400 GHz to 2.4835 GHz. This is a popular spot where, without a license, manufacturers create devices that intentionally propagate RF radiation into the environment.

The first generation of commonly available Wi-Fi routers radiated exclusively within the 2.4 GHz band. It’s important to note that you don’t need Wi-Fi to connect to the Internet; wired connections can achieve the same result without wireless radiation. However, the key point here is that the initial introduction of Wi-Fi—and the subsequent increased disruption of our natural electromagnetic environment—was confined to the 2.4 GHz band.

Over time, the 2.4 GHz band became saturated with Wi-Fi radiation, to the extent that data throughput (which refers to the ability of a cellular network to deliver data at a faster rate) was sometimes affected, result­ing in network slowdowns. What was our response? Did we implement public health communications encouraging the use of non-radiating, wired methods for connecting to the Internet or printers? No. We allowed synthetic Wi-Fi radiation to spread into an additional part of the electromagnetic spectrum—the 5 GHz ISM band, which typically spans frequencies from approximately 5.150 GHz to 5.925 GHz.

When we began shipping Wi-Fi products that operated on the so-called 5 GHz band, all the early adopters rushed to buy brand-new Wi-Fi routers that operated in that band. They communicated their new status by using new Wi-Fi server names. Thus, the hypothetical “Triton Industries” Wi-Fi router became “Triton Industries 5G.” The “5” in this “5G” meant 5 GHz, not 5th generation—in other words, it has nothing to do with 5G cell service.

This malevolent spread of synthetic Wi-Fi radiation from the ISM 2.4 GHz to the 5 GHz band began in the early 2000s. That’s the story of 5G in the context of Wi-Fi. It has nothing to do with what’s going on with 5G cell service, but it’s a recurring point of confusion to this day. What you need to know is that just because you see a list of Wi-Fi servers on your “smartphone” that includes one or more servers with names that include “5G” doesn’t mean you have 5G cell service.

5G CELL SERVICE

The second type of 5G we need to talk about is 5G cell service— digital voice and data services delivered over the cellular network.

As successive generations of cell service have been deployed over the last forty years, three trends have become apparent. First, more and more locations are being “served.” In this context, “served” means that all life within a “service area” is exposed to an unnatural sea of man-made radiation. Without the sea of man-made radiation, there is no “service.”³ I think of this trend as creating uninhabitable spaces for myself and my clients because our biology is tuned to the native electromagnetic environ­ment, whereas I believe that all generations of cell service pollute the native electromagnetic environment to the detriment of all life.

Second, each successive generation of cell service has provided greater throughput, al­lowing users to down­load or upload content (such as web pages, videos or files) more quickly. The technical details of how this is achieved are not rel­evant to my work; the essential point is that greater throughput means more information transferred per unit of time. I think of greater throughput as an increase in toxicity. A one-second exposure to 1G carries much less data content than a one-second exposure to 5G. Although I would argue that neither is without harm, 5G is more toxic firstly due to greater throughput.

Third, there has been a malignant spread to other parts of the electromagnetic spec­trum. Just as Wi-Fi began with only one “band allocation”—a contiguous set of frequencies set aside for corruption by Wi-Fi and other technol­ogies—but then spread to a new band allocation around 5 GHz, this pattern also characterizes successive generations of cell service. There are now a multitude of bands that have been given over to cell service. (I think of this as more and more of the natural electromagnetic spectrum devoted to destruction.)

The three trends combined mean that more areas on Earth have a corrupted electromagnetic environment (cell service); with each successive generation of cell phone technology, the toxicity has increased (due to the increased informa­tion content per unit of time); and cell service claims more portions of the electromagnetic environment.

MILLIMETER WAVE MADNESS

What’s unique about some, but not all, im­plementations of 5G cell service is the allocation of bands among the millimeter wave (mmWave) frequencies. mmWave refers to wavelengths less than one centimeter. These wavelengths are unique because they have previously been used primarily in military weapons systems, not cell service.

Coupled with mmWave implementations is another unique dynamic called beamform­ing, which projects a beam of higher intensity directly at 5G mmWave-enabled devices. This means that all living organisms between the beam source and the area around the target de­vice are exposed to a selectively higher-intensity mmWave radiation.

As the frequency of electromagnetic radia­tion increases, so does the energy. This concept is crucial in understanding the behavior of electromagnetic waves across the spectrum, from low-energy radio waves to high-energy gamma rays. This is a fourth factor at play with 5G cell service—higher frequency means higher energy.

Not all 5G cell service uses mmWave technology, but those that do rely on more an­tennas and transmitters relative to the number of antennas and transmitters required for lower-frequency implementations like 3G and 4G. This means that all life in such an environment is exposed to a variety of mmWave radiation intensities—more from the closer antennas, less from further antennas. This is a critical issue because biophysics (EMF exposure) can produce non-linear dose-response relation­ships (unlike biochemistry, which produces a linear dose-response relationship). Therefore, in a 5G mmWave environment, you will have a broader spectrum of continuously varying doses, which may have the effect of maximizing potential harm. Dense urban areas with lots of cell towers, and especially areas with flat ter­rain, already have this phenomenon in effect even with non-mmWave implementations, but mmWave implementations involve significantly more transmitters per service area and, there­fore, a greater number of exposures at varying intensity.

It’s important to understand that there are several different implementations of 5G cell service according to frequency, but all bear the name “5G.” A national carrier may claim 5G service in an area served by lower frequen­cies (for example, frequencies below 1 GHz). In such areas, many of those frequencies may have been formerly allocated to 3G cell service. In this case, you may be dealing with greater information transfer per unit of time with 5G, which is troubling, but you don’t have the ma­levolent spread to higher frequencies, including mmWave. This is the best-case scenario for someone wanting to reduce personal exposure, and it’s typically only available in remote areas with low population density and appropriate terrain features.

Understanding the frequency range of any given 5G service can be challenging, as cell service providers don’t always make it clear. For example, they may refer to 5G low-band service as “part of our 5G network.” Verizon, AT&T and T-Mobile brand their higher-frequency services as “5G Ultra Wideband,” “5G+” and “Ultra Capacity 5G,” respectively, without necessarily indicating whether you’re being exposed to mmWave radiation. To determine whether you have mmWave service in your area, you have two options. The first is to consult a qualified local EMF consultant; they should know what’s been deployed in your area. The second option is to purchase and learn to use your own mmWave RF meter, ensuring that it has the requisite accuracy, sensitivity, frequency range and third-party testing.

YOUR LOCAL GROCERY STORE: A SOURCE OF MILLIMETER WAVE RADIATION?

In my remote rural area, I believed that we were safe from mmWave radiation exposure due to rugged terrain and low population den­sity, making it unlikely they would implement mmWave 5G cell service here. In the spring of 2023, however, as a beta tester for a new mmWave RF meter, I discovered that while we are safe from mmWave 5G for now, we are not safe from mmWave radia­tion from other sources. Though it is commonly believed that mmWave radiation exposure is synonymous with 5G, it has become apparent that mmWave radiation has been quietly deployed across various applica­tions for some time. The result is a surprising and significant level of involuntary exposure to mmWave radiation in areas considered safe from mmWave 5G cell service, as well as additional and unexpected mmWave radiation exposure in areas that do have mmWave 5G cell service. Unfortunately, there doesn’t seem to be a way to completely shield an infant, pregnant mother or anyone else looking to eliminate mmWave radiation exposure, aside from avoiding areas where this type of radiation is prevalent.

Consider this: who doesn’t visit grocery stores? The issue revolves around the door sensors that control the automatic sliding doors at the entrances and exits. In the Inland Northwest, and perhaps across the U.S. and beyond, my observations indicate that all local, regional and national grocery stores expose customers to high levels of mmWave radiation through these sensors. To ac­cess the products inside the store, you need to enter, and if you use these automatic doors, you’re going to be exposed to mmWave radiation.

In my area, there is one local grocery chain, two regional chains and one national chain. I mea­sured mmWave radiation levels at four stores—one from each regional chain, one from the national chain and one from the local chain—by entering and exiting each store three times and then averaging the results. I found that the average exposure levels to mmWave radiation when enter­ing or exiting ranged from just over 11,000 μW/m² to just under 23,000 μW/m² (microWatts/square meter).

It is unknown precisely how toxic these mmWave exposures are. However, in Dr. Neil Cherry’s work,4 he concluded by October 2001 that “there was very strong evidence that electromagnetic radiation across the spectrum is a ubiquitous universal genotoxic carcinogen.” Additionally, some of my most sensitive clients report feeling well in environments with radio-frequency power density levels up to 0.1 μW/m², while others require levels below 0.0005 μW/m² to feel their best. The levels I sampled in the grocery stores are hundreds of thousands to tens of millions of times higher. The safest assumption remains that there is no known safe level of exposure.

During a presentation I gave in the summer of 2023 to a large au­dience, someone mentioned in the chat that their child couldn’t enter a supermarket without experiencing seizures. Others shared that they also felt ill upon entering grocery stores. From a technical perspective, mmWave radiation isn’t necessary for controlling door openers. Given the many available alternatives (such as pressure mats, photoelectric eyes and doormen, none of which involve RF exposure), I wonder why every store in my area relies on mmWave technology for this purpose. Is the convenience worth the potential health risks? Do we risk missing an epidemiological signal that mmWave radiation is harmful by exposing ev­eryone to it? Could mmWave radiation exposure in everyday environments be having significant effects on more people than we realize?

MILLIMETER WAVES AND ROADWAYS

As the use of vehicular radar technology becomes more widespread, byways, roads and highways are increasingly contaminated with mmWave radiation. The issue here stems from new “conveniences” in automobiles that use mmWave radar technology. Depend­ing on the model, these systems can emit radiation from the front, rear and/or sides of the vehicle.

Some believe that mmWave radiation cannot pass through glass, but I have found that untreated window glass offers no protection. My testing shows that I can easily detect this radiation from other ve­hicles while inside my own. This demonstrates how poor decisions by others regarding the use of technologies involving harmful man-made electromagnetic radiation can unfortunately have an impact on those who are more cautious about managing their personal exposure—a pat­tern I see time and again in my practice.

I’m not certain how long we’ve been ex­posed to mmWave radiation from vehicles, but the increasing discomfort experienced by my most sensitive clients and their growing difficulties with travel clearly indicate a prob­lem. Although we can’t definitively say that mmWave exposures are the culprit, I propose that they should be considered a prime suspect. Electromagnetic suffering doesn’t always come with a return address, making it challenging to pinpoint the exact sources of exposure.

As with many other RF radiation-emitting technologies, those involving vehicular radar present a trade-off, offering perceived benefits in exchange for increased personal exposure to mmWave radiation. The bait for this particular trap includes adaptive cruise control (adjusts the vehicle speed to maintain following distance, us­ing radar to detect the speed and distance of the vehicle ahead); automatic emergency braking (uses radar to automatically apply the brakes); blind spot detection; lane change assistance; rear cross traffic alert (alerts drivers to vehicles approaching from the sides when backing out of a parking space); and parking assistance.

Car travel is increasingly problematic for those seeking to avoid mmWave radiation. In a recent trip to a neighboring town, my meter showed continuous extreme levels of mmWave exposure for several miles. I recognized the sound signature my meter provides to be ve­hicular radar. When I changed my position in traffic, the mmWave radiation levels went to zero. Unknowingly, I had been driving down the highway with a radar-equipped car both in front of and behind my vehicle. Without this meter, I never would have known. This concern extends to pedestrians and bicyclists as well, who are at risk of exposure while walking or biking near roadways where vehicles equipped with mmWave technology frequently pass.

Another concern related to vehicular radar technology involves sidewalks. In my testing, I have found that mmWave emissions from ve­hicles easily corrupt surrounding sidewalks. In a personal observation, physical discomfort prompted my wife and me to abandon sidewalk dining at a favorite restaurant in favor of sitting inside, even before I became aware of the mmWave exposures from passing traffic. Once I measured the mmWave emissions, I could not in good conscience continue to subject ourselves to the known risks and unknown dangers of mmWave exposure. Awareness of these dangers enables better avoidance strategies, but it is regrettable when the simple pleasure of sidewalk dining has to be sacrificed. Unfortunately, the number of spaces that are intolerable or uninhabitable for those who need or prefer lower personal radiation exposure is growing.

Residences located near roadways can also be affected by mmWave radiation, as the radiation can easily pass through untreated glass. This exposure can extend to balconies, yards and gardens that are close to roads, potentially impacting the areas at home where people spend sig­nificant outdoor time.

FIFTH-GENERATION WARFARE

Thus far, we have discussed the intricate components and implica­tions of the 5G specter. What we need now is some context—a way of viewing the elements of 5G. Why are we observing the malignant spread of Wi-Fi? Why are we embracing millimeter-wave radiation for cell phone service? Why are nonconsensual millimeter-wave RF exposures tied to food procurement and travel?

CHARACTERISTICS	COMMENTS
Non-Kinetic Warfare	Methods are primarily non-lethal and non-kinetic, such as cyberattacks, misinformation, social engineering and psychological warfare.
Technology-Driven	There is a heavy reliance on technology.
Blurring of Lines	The lines between war and peace, combatant and non-combatant, and military and civilian targets are no longer distinct but blurred, making it difficult to define the battlefield and the belligerents.
Psychological and Cultural Manipulation	There is extensive use of propaganda and media to manipulate public perception and influence cultural and social dynamics.
Legal and Ethical Ambiguity	Operations often exploit gaps in international law and ethical standards, operating in gray zones to avoid clear legal definitions and repercussions.
Global Reach	The battlefield is global, utilizing the world’s interconnected nature, particularly through the Internet and global media, to influence and execute operations worldwide.

Author Stephen Covey notes, “We see the world, not as it is, but as we are—or, as we are conditioned to see it.” Thus, some of us want to believe that it’s all a mistake: “The people in charge are just misinformed and don’t understand that these technologies are causing harm.” Failing that, some of us cling to the hope that it’s just some sort of a “Gee whiz, boys will be boys” money thing. But does this hold water? Could it be something else? Could it be intentional that we lack biologically based exposure guidelines supported by legitimate scientific evidence? Could the normalization of personal radiation exposure over the last forty years be intended not for good but for harm? Could the increasing levels of radiation be the objective?

If increasing levels of involuntary personal radiation exposure are the goal, then many other aspects of the EMF picture (including others not discussed in this article) begin to make sense as soon as we consider another type of “5G” called fifth-generation warfare.⁵ In fact, fifth-generation warfare—which has distinct features that differentiate it from previous forms of warfare (see Table 1, previous page)—seems the perfect context for understanding the reckless spread of harmful man-made electromagnetic radiation everywhere. It can explain why we put Wi-Fi in schools, ignoring safer ways to access the Internet; why we hide RF emitters in kitchen and laundry appliances; why we replace safe electric utility meters with radiation-emitting “smart” meters; why Bluetooth hearing aids are legal; why radiation-emitting baby monitors exist; and much more.

Through the lens of “5G warfare,” we can also understand why we replaced the term “microwave sickness” with “electromagnetic hyper­sensitivity,” why we marginalize suffering people in the media, why the allopathic medical community is kept in the dark regarding EMF harms and also continues to gaslight patients, why wireless providers can put cell phone towers anywhere they like and why we turn a deaf ear to health effects.

Is this what is happening? Are we under attack in the electromagnetic spectrum? If so, it is a pretty clever strategy because it is just beyond the understanding of most people. Who could imagine, for example, that we can be attacked through our home lighting appliances? Is this why the safer incandescent light bulbs are illegal? Is it why their replacements (LED and compact fluorescent lights) generate copious dirty electricity and an altered, arguably toxic light spectrum?

It’s time to be wise, recognize the situa­tion for what it may be and become aware that someone may be intentionally causing us harm. Within the history and philosophy of warfare, the term for the awareness of being under attack and taking definitive action is often referred to as “situational awareness.” This concept is crucial in military strategy, emphasizing the importance of responding effectively to ensure survival and achieve tactical objectives. Situational awareness involves continuously scanning the environment for potential threats, understand­ing the significance of those threats and devising appropriate strategies to counter them. It’s a dynamic process that requires quick thinking and decision-making under pressure.

I’m not a fan of fear, and my work revolves around replacing fear with knowledge and a plan. However, if you study the matter of fifth-generation warfare and reach conclusions similar to mine—namely, that it can explain all the nonsensical policies and practices regarding normal­izing personal radiation exposure—then it may be time to improve your situational awareness regarding synthetic EMFs of all types.

CONCLUSION

We have seen that 5G represents the malignant spread of Wi-Fi from the 2.4 GHz band into the 5 GHz range, the deployment of an expanded cell service with potentially greater toxicity and more frequency ranges (including mmWave deployments with beamforming and an abundance of new antennas) and a dramatic increase in involuntary mmWave RF radiation exposure from vehicles and supermarkets. Moreover, it may represent a method of conquering the world without declaring a conflict or firing a shot. While half of the world clamors for better “service,” the other half is coming to recognize that this “service” is antithetical to life itself.

The proliferation of mmWave radiation, both related to and inde­pendent of 5G, is creating increasingly uninhabitable environments for those who need or desire to live free from the proliferation of synthetic radiation. From supermarkets to roadways, the spread of this technology presents significant challenges for reducing personal radiation exposure. Awareness and proactive measures can help mitigate some risks, but the pervasive nature of mmWave radiation calls for greater scrutiny and more comprehensive solutions to protect life on earth.

Someday, we may be able to achieve justice, facilitate productive changes in our governing bodies and develop and enforce exposure limits⁶ that reflect the reality that synthetic radiation is incompatible with organic biology.^7,8 In the meantime, we need to prioritize looking after ourselves and our loved ones. My objective in this article is to replace fear of the specter of 5G with knowledge and a plan. By staying aware and taking practical steps to minimize exposure, you can safeguard your health and well-being in an increasingly complex and challenging environment.

If you are serious about taking steps toward a healthier, safer living environment and making a dramatic change in your family’s synthetic EMF exposures, find a qualified local EMF consultant to perform a comprehensive EMF evaluation of your home. Follow through with every action item on your custom remediation plan. Make sure the consultant teaches you the basics of maintaining RF hygiene. If possible, consider building a home with durable, built-in EMF protection, ideally located in a naturally shielded area. There is much that can be done to reduce personal exposures once you make synthetic EMF exposure reduction a core tenet of your family’s wellness plan.

---

SIDEBAR

REDUCING PERSONAL EXPOSURE

RADIO-FREQUENCY RADIATION AT HOME: There are three solutions to reduce your personal exposure to RF radia­tion. The first (and best) option will protect the outside of your home, and the other two will provide limited protec­tion inside the home. The second and third options will require the help of an appropriately qualified EMF consultant.

1. If building a new home, carefully position the structure with regard to the terrain so that your house and land are unexposed (and cannot be exposed in the future by others) to cell service or any other terrestrial source of synthetic RF radiation. If you can achieve this, you’ll have greater peace both inside and outside your home— forever free from terrestrial RF sources. I call this concept “finding a wrinkle in the earth.”
2. If the terrain solution is not available, the second-best solution involves a house designed with synthetic EMF resilience, ensuring that the inside of the home has a much lower intensity of exposure to RF radiation and no RF sources within the home.
3. The third best solution is to protect your bed by implementing a carefully designed sleep sanctuary, including an appropriate RF-shielded bed canopy.

GROCERY STORE MILLIMETER WAVE EXPOSURE: There are several options for minimizing your personal exposure to mmWave radiation on entry or exit to grocery stores:

1. Try to shop at a store that doesn’t require mmWave exposure on entry/exit.
2. Find and use a manually operated door.
3. Consider home or curb delivery.
4. If you must enter a mmWave-radiation-controlled portal, don’t spend unnecessary time before, between or beyond the doors and move away from the doors safely and swiftly until well inside the store.
5. Avoid using the checkout stands nearest the doors.

EXPOSURE TO MILLIMETER WAVES ON OR NEAR ROADWAYS: As you become aware of roadway-related exposures:

1. Carefully consider whether you want a vehicle with mmWave RF-based radar.
2. Avoid traveling in vehicles with radar.
3. Avoid sidewalk dining.
4. Consider purchasing a mmWave meter.
5. Avoid living arrangements near roadways.
6. As an extreme measure, speak with your trusted EMF resource about the possibility of shielding your vehicle, as well as the pros and cons of doing so.

---

REFERENCES

1. Firstenberg A. Power level is irrelevant: radio waves are harmful, period! Arthur Firstenberg [Substack], Apr. 4, 2024.
2. Persson BRR, Salford LG, Brun A. Blood-brain barrier permeability in rats exposed to electromagnetic fields used in wireless com­munication. Wireless Networks. 1997;3:455- 461.
3. Philips A. The Invisible Rainbow—review by Alasdair Philips. Cellular Phone Task Force, Spring 2018. https://cellphonetaskforce.org/the-invisible-rainbow-review-by-alasdair-philips/
4. Cherry N. Evidence in support of the a priori hypothesis that Electromagnetic Radiation across the spectrum is a Ubiquitous Uni­versal Genotoxic Carcinogen. Canterbury, New Zealand: Lincoln University, Sep. 10, 2002. https://neilcherry.nz/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/90_b2_EMR_is_a_Universal_Genotoxic_Carcinogen_11-01.pdf
5. Corbett J. Your guide to fifth-generation war­fare. The Corbett Report, Mar. 28, 2022.
6. EHT wins in historic decision, federal court orders FCC to explain why it ignored scientific evidence showing harm from wireless ra­diation. Environmental Health Trust, Aug. 16, 2021. https://ehtrust.org/in-historic-decision-federal-court-finds-fcc-failed-to-explain-why-it-ignored-scientific-evidence-showing-harm-from-wireless-radiation/
7. Firstenberg A. Rainbow lorikeets dropping from the sky and many other such reports from around the world. Arthur Firstenberg [Substack], Feb. 7, 2024.
8. Firstenberg A. Where have all the insects gone? Satellites are taking them, every one. Arthur Firstenberg [Substack], Mar. 21, 2024.

🖨️ Print post