ללא מחבר No Author

In my three decades as a media critic, this summer’s huge effort by the press to cover up the endless rioting by George Floyd’s mourners has been its most shameless and shameful episode yet.

Until very recently, a remarkable number of naive Americans had fallen for the mainstream media’s repetitions that the Peaceful Protesters were not—repeat, not—looting and burning. The MSM has been in such flat-out denial mode that it hasn’t even bothered to concoct exculpatory euphemisms for the riots, such as Retail Mourning, Do-It-Yourself Reparations, or Arson for Equity.

Even last week a new report from a leftist think tank, the Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project, admitting to the immense number of violent demonstrations during this Summer of George was spun by the media as proving that all those boarded-up shops near you don’t exist. CNN, for example, declaimed:

About 93% of racial justice protests in the US have been peaceful, a new report finds

About 93% of racial justice protests in the US since the death of George Floyd have been peaceful and nondestructive, according to a new report. The findings, released Thursday, contradict assumptions and claims by some that protests associated with the Black Lives Matter movement are spawning violence and destruction of property.

About 7,750 of those protests were linked to the Black Lives Matter movement, the report states. Peaceful racial justice protests took place in more than 2,440 locations across all 50 states and Washington, DC—violent demonstrations occurred in fewer than 220 locations, according to the report.

In other words, there have been riots in almost 220 different cities. Now, to you and me, riots in approximately 218 places might sound like a lot, especially since there were multiple riots in many of these locations. For example, ACLED records 69 separate riots in Portland.

If you look at the data behind this report, you will see this leftist group has characterized 617 incidents in the U.S. since the death of George Floyd as “riots,” with 598 falling in the subcategory of “violent demonstrations” and 19 of “mob violence.”

A few were unassociated with Black Lives Matter or Antifa, such as a July 21 brawl in Los Angeles between Armenians and Azerbaijanis. But the vast majority of the 617 riots were related to the media-proclaimed Racial Reckoning.

As a science and technology aficionado who believes in using science to promote human health and prosperity, I was startled to find myself classified as a Luddite by Frontier Centre research associate Paz Gomez in her article “Luddites Stand in the Way of 5G Prosperity: Fears Overblown, Ignore Benefits of Communications Connectivity” published on July 29, 2020.

The one thing I can agree with Ms. Gomez on is that faster communications would provide many benefits to humankind. However, choices have to be made about how to deliver faster communications to households, offices, farms and manufacturing buildings. Not all choices are good ones. And you can’t do a proper cost/benefit analysis without thoroughly exploring all of the costs.

The expression “5G” refers to the fifth generation of wireless technology, which will carry more data, at higher speeds, than previous cellular networks. But wireless 5G is not the only game in town when it comes to delivering high-speed internet. It faces stiff competition from fibre optic systems.

Fibre optic cables consist of extremely thin interior strands of glass or plastic which carry signals in the form of light, surrounded by multiple layers of cladding, coating and jacketing which prevent the light signals from escaping.

Fibre optic cables are already in use for most of the world’s internet transmissions. This 2010 article estimated that “ninety-nine percent of the Internet’s physical distance has been strung with fiber already.”

This means there’s a good chance that the street where your home or workplace is located already has fibre optic cable running along its length, even though it may not yet be in use (this is known as “dark fibre”.) I’ve been told that’s the case in the municipality where I live.

The problem stems from what’s called “the last mile”: the distance between the street’s central fibre optic cable and the customer’s wifi router or receiving devices. Until recently, this last mile (which might be only 20 feet in some cases) has ordinarily been wired with coaxial cable or DSL (Digital Subscriber Lines). Such cables transmit data reliably over shielded wires, but the transmission speed is relatively slow compared to fibre optics.

It’s the last mile that the two competing new technologies propose to speed up. This can be done in two ways: either by replacing the coaxial or DSL cable running from the street to your home with additional fibre optic cable, or by simply beaming signals wirelessly to your devices using antennae referred to as “small cells”.

Wireless 5G in North America would require the installation of millions of small cellular antennae in order to ensure continuous coverage[1]. That’s because the wavelengths they use have a very short range, so antennae have to be placed close together. For indoor use, small cells might need to be located as little as 10 meters apart. Outdoors, small cells have a range varying from 500 meters to 2.5 kilometers.[2] Some neighbourhoods might end up with small cells located on almost every telephone pole.

Different companies use different frequency bands for their 5G, but the most important thing to note is that none of the wireless 5G technologies have undergone any safety testing whatsoever with respect to the impact of these waves on human health. None. This was admitted by industry representatives at a U.S. Senate hearing held on February 7, 2019, an excerpt of which can be seen in this YouTube video.

Yes, there are government guidelines for electromagnetic energy. Here in Canada, they’re called Safety Code 6. Critics such as Canadians for Safe Technology (“C4ST”) allege that the code is severely obsolete[3]. It was created by Health Canada in the 1970s (long before the development of smart phones) to evaluate the technology existing at that time. It has not had any major revisions made to it in the last 30 years—but it has nevertheless has been extended to constitute the guidelines for a host of later-developed technologies including smart phones and cell phone antennae. Health Canada is apparently content to let it serve as the safety guideline for the untested 5G wireless radiation.

An international appeal signed by 398 scientists and doctors has recommended a moratorium on the roll-out of wireless 5G. They say new scientific evidence demonstrates that living organisms (both plants and animals) are adversely affected by EMFs (that is, existing electromagnetic frequencies emitted by 2G, 3G and 4G technologies—let alone 5G) at levels well below current national and international guidelines. The problem would simply be exacerbated by 5G.  The National Toxicology Program in the U.S. has published a study showing “a statistically significant increase in the incidence of brain and heart cancer in animals exposed to EMF below the… guidelines followed by most countries.”

The Bioinitiative Report (published in 2012 and recently updated to cover the period up to 2020) was authored by 29 people from 10 countries. Among them, they held 10 medical degrees (MD), 21 PhDs, and a few other degrees. This group doesn’t seem to fit the description of Luddites. Among the health problems they identified from EMFs, as indicated in scientific studies, are:

• Increased oxidative stress and free radical production (associated with numerous conditions such as Alzheimer’s disease, high blood pressure, atherosclerosis, heart disease, arthritis and diabetes—all of which have increased dramatically since the 1990s)
• Neurological effects (changes in memory, learning or perception)
• Disrupted immune function (an especially important problem in these days of COVID-19).

Dr. Martin Pall, Ph.D., is Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry and Basic Medical Sciences at Washington State University. He has studied extensively the biological effects of electromagnetic fields, and summarized his findings in a letter to California legislators three years ago. His list of 14 different adverse health effects include life-threatening cardiac arrhythmias, lower sperm counts, cataract formation and sleep disruption.

In short, it is absurd to dismiss the health concerns about EMFs that have been brought forward by hundreds of scientists as the grumpy rumblings of Luddites who just can’t get their heads around the potential benefits of science.

Continue reading…

From LRC, here.