MICROWAVE MASTS ARE EVERYWHERE
260 HOURS TOTAL EXPOSURE TO MOBILE PHONE RADIATION
IS ENOUGH TO INITIATE LONG-TERM BRAIN DAMAGE
HAARP: THE MAC-DADDY OF MICROWAVE TRANSMITTERS,
currently operating at levels on the order of
tens or hundreds of giga-watts into the ionosphere
COLONY-COLLAPSE DISORDER BEGAN THE SAME MONTH,
APRIL 2006, THAT HAARP'S PHASE 2 POWER UP-GRADE CAME ON-LINE
RFID IMPLANTS: COMING SOON TO TISSUE WITHIN YOU!
MICROWAVE LEVELS THAT ARE TYPICAL FOR THE CBD OF ANY CITY...
EXTREMELY DANGEROUS AND EXCEEDING BIOINITATIVE SAFETY LEVELS
BY A FACTOR OF TENS OF THOUSANDS
MICROWAVE LEVELS THAT ARE ACCEPTABLE FOR LONG-TERM EXPOSURE: PRACTICALLY ZERO!
DR. ROSALIE BERTELL
.jpg)
"A scientific benchmark of 0.003 uW/cm2 or three nano-watts per centimeter squared for ‘lowest observed effect level’ for RFR is based on mobile phone base station-level studies. Applying a ten-fold reduction to compensate for the lack of long-term exposure (to provide
a safety buffer for chronic exposure, if needed) or for children as a
sensitive subpopulation yields a 300 to 600 picowatts per square
centimeter precautionary action level. This equates to a 0.3 nanowatts
to 0.6 nanowatts per square centimeter as a reasonable, precautionary
action level for chronic exposure to pulsed RFR."
Christchurch is known to have the highest per capita concentration of mobile phone masts of any city on the planet; and thanks to a Royal Commission decree in the late 1990's, telecommunications transmitters in New Zealand are legally allowed to operate at power levels FAR in excess of any levels allowed in Europe.
Note also that the entire country of Austria REMOVED ALL WIRELESS DEVICES FROM PUBLIC SCHOOLS over four years ago, and just this past year Canada and Belgium have done the same thing. NOW France is doing it, too. WHAT MORE NEEDS TO BE SAID???
Bioinitiative is perhaps the single best source of truly leading-edge research on the health and biological effects of non-ionizing radiation, that is, EMR (electro-magnetic) and RE (radio frequncy) radiations. A coalition of internationally recognized health and medical professionals originally formed in 2008, they have just released their brand new Bioinitative 2012 report. All you need to know is there.
Included below are also links to a great interview with Dr. Neil Cherry, a brilliant New Zealand environmental health scientist who was an out-spoken critic of telecommunications policy and educator about the negative health consequences of these energies, and who believed that NO SAFE LEVELS exist for non-ionizing radiation. His untimely passing in 2003 from a sudden onset of motor-neuron disease was highly suspicious in light of his activism and influence against the agenda of the powers that be.
Also there's a link to a fantastic interview with Cindy Sage,one of the original founders of Bioinitiative.
Dr. Rosalie Bertell was a leading bio-medical researcher and Catholic nun who was light years ahead in her education and research. In 2000 she published an amazing book entitled Planet Earth: Latest Weapon of War in which she described the new generation of high-tech microwave weapons systems like HAARP now being deployed in covert military environmental modification and geo-engineering projects, using Mothership Earth as both target and weapon. She passed away at the age of 83 in June of 2012 leaving a legacy of a life-time devoted to a true love of humanity and Mother Earth. Her work is being carried on by people like Dr. Claudia von Werlhof in Austria, who is currently involved in many projects, including the publication of a revised edition of Planet Earth in several languages. Attached are several documents relating to Rosalie's highly relevant work.
Finally, Ingrid Dickenson of the UK was one of the very first scientists to speak out abou the health hazards of mobile phone technologies. She has two fantastic sites, see below.
In conclusion, I highly recommend two excellent documentary films, 'Resonance' and 'Holes in Heaven.' 'Resonance' begins with a great introduction to electromagnetic radiation and proceeds to explain the technology and health hazards of microwave devices like mobile and cordless phones and wi-fi. 'Holes in Heaven' is an excellent introduction to HAARP, what it is, how it works, and what its uses actually are: it's not a research instrument but is the ultimate weapons system.
NOTE: The entire EMR-RF/TTA (Tesla-Technology Array) scenario of microwave-based weapons systems represents one of the greatest threats to whales and dolphins around the world as the global ocean is saturated with higher and higher levels of a full spectrum of artificial frequencies and energetic emanations which are not only making the ocean uninhabitable for all marine life but which are actively killing them all as well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?
CINDY SAGE INTERVIEW
http://youtube.googleapis.com/
TWO FANTASTIC SITES by Ingrid Dickenson, interviewed in 'Resonance'...
http://www.bemri.org/
BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF NON-IONIZING RADIATION
http://www.bemri.org/?Itemid=
http://www.earthbreathing.co.
BIOINITIATIVE REPORT 2012
http://iemfa.org/
http://www.bioinitiative.org/
ELF-EMF AND RFR ARE CLASSIFIED AS POSSIBLE CANCER-CAUSING AGENTS –WHY
ARE GOVERNMENTS NOT ACTING?
The World Health Organization International Agency for Research on
Cancer has classified wireless radiofrequency as a Possible Human
Carcinogen (May, 2011)*. The designation applies to low-intensity RFR
in general, covering all RFR-emitting devices and exposure sources
(cell and cordless phones, WI-FI, wireless laptops, wireless hotspots,
electronic baby monitors, wireless classroom access points, wireless
antenna facilities, etc). The IARC Panel could have chosen to classify
RFR as a Group 4 – Not A Carcinogen if the evidence was clear that RFR
is not a cancer-causing agent. It could also have found a Group 3
designation was a good interim choice (Insufficient Evidence). IARC
did neither.
NEW SAFETY LIMITS MUST BE ESTABLISHED – HEALTH AGENCIES SHOULD ACT NOW
Existing public safety limits (FCC and ICNIRP public safety limits) do
not sufficiently protect public health against chronic exposure from
very low-intensity exposures. If no mid-course corrections are made to
existing and outdated safety limits, such delay will magnify the
public health impacts with even more applications of wireless-enabled
technologies exposing even greater populations around the world in
daily life.
SCIENTIFIC BENCHMARKS FOR HARM PLUS SAFETY MARGIN = NEW SAFETY LIMITS
THAT ARE VALID
Health agencies and regulatory agencies that set public safety
standards for ELF-EMF and RFR should act now to adopt new,
biologically-relevant safety limits that key to the lowest scientific
benchmarks for harm coming from the recent studies, plus a lower
safety margin. Existing public safety limits are too high by several
orders of magnitude, if prevention of bioeffects and minimization or
elimination of resulting adverse human health effects. Most safety
standards are a thousand times or more too high to protect healthy
populations, and even less effective in protecting sensitive
subpopulations.
SENSITIVE POPULATIONS MUST BE PROTECTED
Safety standards for sensitive populations will more likely need to be
set at lower levels than for healthy adult populations. Sensitive
populations include the developing fetus, the infant, children, the
elderly, those with pre-existing chronic diseases, and those with
developed electrical sensitivity (EHS).
PROTECTING NEW LIFE – INFANTS AND CHILDREN
Strong precautionary action and clear public health warnings are
warranted immediately to help prevent a global epidemic of brain
tumors resulting from the use of wireless devices (mobile phones and
cordless phones). Common sense measures to limit both ELF-EMF and RFR
in the fetus and newborn infant (sensitive populations) are needed,
especially with respect to avoidable exposures like baby monitors in
the crib and baby isolettes (incubators) in hospitals that can be
modified; and where education of the pregnant mother with respect to
laptop computers, mobile phones and other sources of ELF-EMF and RFR
are easily instituted.Wireless laptops and other wireless devices
should be strongly discouraged in schools for children of all ages.
STANDARD OF EVIDENCE FOR JUDGING THE SCIENCE
The standard of evidence for judging the scientific evidence should be
based on good public health principles rather than demanding
scientific certainty before actions are taken.
WIRELESS WARNINGS FOR ALL
The continued rollout of wireless technologies and devices puts global
public health at risk from unrestricted wireless commerce unless new,
and far lower exposure limits and strong precautionary warnings for
their use are implemented.
EMF AND RFR ARE PREVENTABLE TOXIC EXPOSURES
We have the knowledge and means to save global populations from
multi-generational adverse health consequences by reducing both ELF
and RFR exposures. Proactive and immediate measures to reduce
unnecessary EMF exposures will lower disease burden and rates of
premature death.
DEFINING A NEW ‘EFFECT LEVEL’ FOR RFR
On a precautionary public health basis, a reduction from the
BioInitiative 2007 recommendation of 0.1 uW/cm2 (or one-tenth of a
microwatt per square centimeter) for cumulative outdoor RFR down to
something three orders of magnitude lower (in the low nanowatt per
square centimeter range) is justified.
A scientific benchmark of 0.003 uW/cm2 or three nanowatts per centimeter squared for ‘lowest observed effect level’ for RFR is based on mobile phone base station-level studies. Applying a ten-fold reduction to compensate for the lack of long-term exposure (to provide a safety buffer for chronic exposure, if needed) or for children as a sensitive subpopulation yields a 300 to 600 picowatts per square centimeter precautionary action level. This equates to a 0.3 nanowatts to 0.6 nanowatts per square centimeter as a reasonable, precautionary action level for chronic exposure to pulsed RFR.
These levels may need to change in the future, as new and better
studies are completed. We leave room for future studies that may lower
or raise today’s observed ‘effects levels’ a http://www.pbme-online.org/index.php/planetary-movement-for-mother-earth-movimiento-planetario-para-la-pachamama/nd should be prepared to accept new information as a guide for new precautionary actions.
DR. ROSALIE BERTELL
http://www.bioinitiative.org/
ELF-EMF AND RFR ARE CLASSIFIED AS POSSIBLE CANCER-CAUSING AGENTS –WHY
ARE GOVERNMENTS NOT ACTING?
The World Health Organization International Agency for Research on
Cancer has classified wireless radiofrequency as a Possible Human
Carcinogen (May, 2011)*. The designation applies to low-intensity RFR
in general, covering all RFR-emitting devices and exposure sources
(cell and cordless phones, WI-FI, wireless laptops, wireless hotspots,
electronic baby monitors, wireless classroom access points, wireless
antenna facilities, etc). The IARC Panel could have chosen to classify
RFR as a Group 4 – Not A Carcinogen if the evidence was clear that RFR
is not a cancer-causing agent. It could also have found a Group 3
designation was a good interim choice (Insufficient Evidence). IARC
did neither.
NEW SAFETY LIMITS MUST BE ESTABLISHED – HEALTH AGENCIES SHOULD ACT NOW
Existing public safety limits (FCC and ICNIRP public safety limits) do
not sufficiently protect public health against chronic exposure from
very low-intensity exposures. If no mid-course corrections are made to
existing and outdated safety limits, such delay will magnify the
public health impacts with even more applications of wireless-enabled
technologies exposing even greater populations around the world in
daily life.
SCIENTIFIC BENCHMARKS FOR HARM PLUS SAFETY MARGIN = NEW SAFETY LIMITS
THAT ARE VALID
Health agencies and regulatory agencies that set public safety
standards for ELF-EMF and RFR should act now to adopt new,
biologically-relevant safety limits that key to the lowest scientific
benchmarks for harm coming from the recent studies, plus a lower
safety margin. Existing public safety limits are too high by several
orders of magnitude, if prevention of bioeffects and minimization or
elimination of resulting adverse human health effects. Most safety
standards are a thousand times or more too high to protect healthy
populations, and even less effective in protecting sensitive
subpopulations.
SENSITIVE POPULATIONS MUST BE PROTECTED
Safety standards for sensitive populations will more likely need to be
set at lower levels than for healthy adult populations. Sensitive
populations include the developing fetus, the infant, children, the
elderly, those with pre-existing chronic diseases, and those with
developed electrical sensitivity (EHS).
PROTECTING NEW LIFE – INFANTS AND CHILDREN
Strong precautionary action and clear public health warnings are
warranted immediately to help prevent a global epidemic of brain
tumors resulting from the use of wireless devices (mobile phones and
cordless phones). Common sense measures to limit both ELF-EMF and RFR
in the fetus and newborn infant (sensitive populations) are needed,
especially with respect to avoidable exposures like baby monitors in
the crib and baby isolettes (incubators) in hospitals that can be
modified; and where education of the pregnant mother with respect to
laptop computers, mobile phones and other sources of ELF-EMF and RFR
are easily instituted.Wireless laptops and other wireless devices
should be strongly discouraged in schools for children of all ages.
STANDARD OF EVIDENCE FOR JUDGING THE SCIENCE
The standard of evidence for judging the scientific evidence should be
based on good public health principles rather than demanding
scientific certainty before actions are taken.
WIRELESS WARNINGS FOR ALL
The continued rollout of wireless technologies and devices puts global
public health at risk from unrestricted wireless commerce unless new,
and far lower exposure limits and strong precautionary warnings for
their use are implemented.
EMF AND RFR ARE PREVENTABLE TOXIC EXPOSURES
We have the knowledge and means to save global populations from
multi-generational adverse health consequences by reducing both ELF
and RFR exposures. Proactive and immediate measures to reduce
unnecessary EMF exposures will lower disease burden and rates of
premature death.
DEFINING A NEW ‘EFFECT LEVEL’ FOR RFR
On a precautionary public health basis, a reduction from the
BioInitiative 2007 recommendation of 0.1 uW/cm2 (or one-tenth of a
microwatt per square centimeter) for cumulative outdoor RFR down to
something three orders of magnitude lower (in the low nanowatt per
square centimeter range) is justified.
A scientific benchmark of 0.003 uW/cm2 or three nanowatts per centimeter squared for ‘lowest observed effect level’ for RFR is based on mobile phone base station-level studies. Applying a ten-fold reduction to compensate for the lack of long-term exposure (to provide a safety buffer for chronic exposure, if needed) or for children as a sensitive subpopulation yields a 300 to 600 picowatts per square centimeter precautionary action level. This equates to a 0.3 nanowatts to 0.6 nanowatts per square centimeter as a reasonable, precautionary action level for chronic exposure to pulsed RFR.
These levels may need to change in the future, as new and better
studies are completed. We leave room for future studies that may lower
or raise today’s observed ‘effects levels’ a http://www.pbme-online.org/index.php/planetary-movement-for-mother-earth-movimiento-planetario-para-la-pachamama/nd should be prepared to accept new information as a guide for new precautionary actions.
DR. ROSALIE BERTELL
http://geo-terrorism.blogspot.
“If we don't begin by changing ourselves, by reprogramming our daily
routines, we stand no chance whatsoever of affecting the behaviour of
the U.S. Navy or the global army of energy and resource extraction
corporations.” Jeff Wefferson
'Can I quote you in me article for the Pacific Ecologist? Can I use
some of the pictures you are sending? Are they copy righted? Who took
them? Thanks!' Dr. Rosalie Bertell, email to me, 2012
“If we don't begin by changing ourselves, by reprogramming our daily
routines, we stand no chance whatsoever of affecting the behaviour of
the U.S. Navy or the global army of energy and resource extraction
corporations.” Jeff Wefferson
'Can I quote you in me article for the Pacific Ecologist? Can I use
some of the pictures you are sending? Are they copy righted? Who took
them? Thanks!' Dr. Rosalie Bertell, email to me, 2012
DR. CLAUDIA VON WERLHOF'S web-site PLANETARY MOVEMENT FOR MOTHER EARTH
DR. NEIL CHERRY
http://www.whale.to/b/cherry_
http://www.wirelessimpacts.
NEIL CHERRY INTERVIEW (SAN FRANCISCO, 1997)
http://www.whale.to/b/cherry_
http://www.wirelessimpacts.
NEIL CHERRY INTERVIEW (SAN FRANCISCO, 1997)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?
CINDY SAGE INTERVIEW
http://youtube.googleapis.com/
TWO FANTASTIC SITES by Ingrid Dickenson, interviewed in 'Resonance'...
http://www.bemri.org/
BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF NON-IONIZING RADIATION
http://www.bemri.org/?Itemid=
http://www.earthbreathing.co.
UNFOLDING HORROR STORY ABOUT SPRAYING AN ELECTRICALLY-CONDUCTIVE NANO-PARTICLE SUBSTANCE ONTO TREES TO CONVERT THEM INTO ANTENNAS
RESONANCE: BEINGS OF FREQUENCY
HOLES IN HEAVEN (documentary about HAARP)
