It may be more prone to melting than expected
You may have missed this important story in the media.
Updated information relating to the safety of wireless radiation
An open letter to whom it may concern
12th of December 2018
Electromagnetic fields and public health: Mobile phones
My name is John. I am not a scientist nor a medical professional. I see myself as being political-history investigator. I have two grandchildren. I am concerned about the possible harmful effects that electromagnetic field radiation might be having in the public arena, especially with respect to mobile phones and allied WiFi electromagnetic transmissions emanating from wireless computer modems.
I know that this is not a new debate. I also know that it is a divisive topic amongst international scientists. Whilst I am concerned about how radiation might be harmfully impinging on all or our health right now, and possibly animals as well, I am more concerned about the welfare of later generations in respect to radiation. I have in mind the quality of male sperm and DNA as I write these words. I acknowledge these possible adverse radiation effects probably extend much wider and deeper than this.
The story I care to share with you now has unfolded merely over the last few weeks. Each day that has passed has provoked me to further explore what I now see as being an issue that probably deserves greater attention and concern amongst citizens than has ever been considered before. Contemporary literature with respect to possible radiation pollution within the community at every conceivable level seems to be suggesting that this should be the case.
I am neither qualified or competent to talk about the relationship between radiation and public health at a scientifically accurate level. It is likely that you might know more about the subject than I do. What I feel that I can do, however, is to share with you information that I have found on this subject that might stir you to be just as concerned and passionate about the issue as I am.
I have decided to separate the information into four parts. Each of these parts pretty well reflects the chronological sequence in which I assembled and attempted to fathom over the last few weeks. Some parts are in a staccato and ill-considered form, and there are overlaps. The contents of this presentation are principally references. These references are derived mostly from internationally respected sources such as the Council of Europe
I am not seeking to prove anything to you. Only you can decide if my information is worthy of further consideration or not. Furthermore if you feel sufficiently moved by this information to share it amongst your family, friends and perhaps other individuals and groups that you feel might be interested in the material as well, I would be grateful.
I now present my information to you in the manner that I have just described. There are numerous articles and videos for you to consider. I strongly urge you to conduct your own further research in order to check if my line of thinking with respect to this matter has merit or not. I am concerned.
Thank you
John
Abstract
The debate about wireless radiation is not new. This is more especially so with respect to mobile phones and WiFi wireless systems. Contemporary scientific evidence suggests that a new scientific approach needs to be taken in order to more accurately determine what new safety guidelines are most appropriate with respect to life form exposure to wireless radiation. This is more especially so in respect to young children. Brain cancers amongst children are internationally on the rise. My references seem to demonstrate that it is the non-thermal biological effect beyond one degree C that is responsible for non-thermal DNA, skin and body cell damage. It seems that this type of biological effect may have thus far been overlooked some by international radiation safety authorities.
Prologue
When I came up with the idea of compiling a bundle of contemporary information that demonstrates that wireless radiation emanating from mobile phones and WiFi sources is probably harmful to life forms, I was not then aware of the wider range of information with respect to this issue than I am today. I have decided not to significantly re-adjust my presentation at this time. In due course I will create a newer and more inclusive range of material and ideas that is more accurately reflective of the scientifically perceived risks of wireless radiation to the condition of all life forms.
What I feel that you should know at this time is that, for all intents and purposes, there is merely a single entity in the world that shapes the recommendations for maximum threshold values for the different frequencies of electromagnetic fields. This body finally decides which frequencies and power levels of electromagnetic fields are dangerous to life forms or not. This privately run and funded organisation is located in Munich in Germany. Its name is the International Committee on Non-Ionisation Radiation Protection [ICNIRP]. The ICNIRP has been shown by researchers to have close links with the international electrical science industry. The ICNIRP effectively sets the safety policies of most government safety agencies around the world. This includes the World Health Organisation. It sets the international maximum threshold values for determining the safe different frequencies of electromagnetic fields.
I quote from an article entitled “The potential dangers of electromagnetic fields and their effect on the environment” by the respected Council of Europe in order to justify my words. I have underlined what I consider to be the most important information in the quotation. The paper was published in 2011. However, I have included more contemporary information in the references at the rear of this presentation.
Quote:
“28. Indeed, it is in this connection that the Committee on the Environment, Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs is currently working on the question of conflicts of interest and the urgent need for real independence of scientists involved in the official agencies tasked with evaluating the risks of products prior to licensing.
29. The rapporteur underlines in this context that it is most curious, to say the least, that the applicable official threshold values for limiting the health impact of extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields and high frequency waves were drawn up and proposed to international political institutions (WHO, European Commission, governments) by the ICNIRP, an NGO whose origin and structure are none too clear and which is furthermore suspected of having rather close links with the industries whose expansion is shaped by recommendations for maximum threshold values for the different frequencies of electromagnetic fields.
30. If most governments and safety agencies have merely contented themselves with replicating and adopting the safety recommendations advocated by the ICNIRP, this has essentially been for two reasons:
- in order not to impede the expansion of these new technologies with their promise of economic growth, technological progress and job creation;
- and also because the political decision-makers unfortunately still have little involvement in matters of assessing technological risks for the environment and health.
31. With regard to the frequently inconclusive if not contradictory findings of scientific research and studies on the possible risks of products, medicines or, in this case, electromagnetic fields, a number of comparative studies do seem to suggest a fairly strong correlation between the origin of their funding – private or public – and the findings of risk assessments, a manifestly unacceptable situation pointing to conflicts of interest which undermine the integrity, the genuine independence and the objectivity of scientific research.
32. Concerning the assessment of health risks resulting from mobile telephone radio frequencies, for example, in 2006 Swiss researchers from Bern University presented the findings of a systematic analysis of all research results and concluded that there was a strong correlation between how the research was funded and the results obtained: 33% of studies funded by industrial concerns conclude that exposure to mobile telephone radio frequencies has an effect on our organism. That figure rises to over 80% in studies carried out with public funding.
33. Accordingly, in this field and in others, one should call for genuine independence on the part of the expert appraisal agencies and for independent, multidisciplinary and properly balanced expert input. There must no longer be situations where whistle-blowers are discriminated against and renowned scientists with critical opinions are excluded when experts are selected to sit on expert committees or no longer receive funding for their research.”
Please remember these words as I progress. It is the harmful biological effects of mobile phones and WiFi radiation with respect to children that we all should be the most concerned about.
From my limited cursory readings of different science journals it seems to me that cross disciplinary studies should be considered by scientists in order to determine at what level wireless radiation waves are safe or not. This might help to standardise the ways of safety evaluation if this were to occur. It would also help to determine whether the recommendations of the ICNIRP could be regarded as universally acceptable as it seems to be in most western countries today.
Part one.
The beginning.
With respect to items one, two and three of this first part that immediately follows, I originally thought I had sufficient evidence to demonstrate that there was a serious problem with radiation emanating from mobile phones, and to a lesser extent, WiFi radiation transmission. I was wrong. This is why I have constructed this wider four-part presentation as you find it today. I have entitled this first part of the extended work:
Three items with respect to Cell Phone Radiofrequency Radiation
1.
National Toxicology Program
Peer Review of the Draft NTP Technical Reports on Cell Phone Radiofrequency Radiation
March 26-28 2018
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
Research Triangle Park, NC
Peer-Review Report
https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/about_ntp/trpanel/2018/march/peerreview20180328_508.pdf
2.
Video “The truth about mobile phone and wireless radiation” – Dr Devra Davis
The University of Melbourne Lecture
Published on Dec 2, 2015
Note: I have provided you with a guide to the subject types and their time location in this video in reference 1 on page 15 of this document.
3.
Video WiFi Radiation – Dangers of WiFi – See It Measured – How To Remediate WiFi Radiation
Note: With respect to item three of this series I acknowledge that this video has been recorded in a domestic home environment. I do not think that this compromises the presenter’s argument. He has gone to considerable effort in filming and presenting his viewers what appears to be sound evidence of a potential health threat. I believe that this is strengthened by the information included in items one and two above.
The presenter has filmed the readings of his measuring instruments at every step of the way. He has also provided constructive commentary where he felt it was needed. I also note that the information within this document relating to mobile phone and wireless radiation seems to be at odds with many other on-line commentaries on the same subject.
I proceeded to investigate potential new references and support material. I copied and pasted a segmented over view of the interim WHO 2014 report in section two and commented on different parts of it that I felt needed further clarification or challenging as follows. [It is important that you keep in mind the contents of section one as you read this. You will probably notice the extensive variations between the different lines of thinking with respect to the contents of each of these two sections]
Part Two.
Electromagnetic fields and public health: mobile phones
WHO Report
8 October 2014
Quote:
“Key facts
- Mobile phone use is ubiquitous with an estimated 6.9 billion subscriptions globally
- The electromagnetic fields produced by mobile phones are classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer as possibly carcinogenic to humans.
- Studies are ongoing to more fully assess potential long-term effects of mobile phone use.
…. *WHO will conduct a formal risk assessment of all studied health outcomes from radiofrequency fields’ exposure by 2016. (I italicised)
Mobile or cellular phones are now an integral part of modern telecommunications. In many countries, over half the population use mobile phones and the market is growing rapidly. In 2014, there are an estimated 6.9 billion subscriptions globally. In some parts of the world, mobile phones are the most reliable or the only phones available.
Given the large number of mobile phone users, it is important to investigate, detect and monitor any potential public health impact.
Mobile phones communicate by transmitting radio waves through a network of fixed antennas called base stations. Radiofrequency waves are electromagnetic fields, and unlike ionizing radiation such as X-rays or gamma rays, can neither break chemical bonds nor cause ionization in the human body.
ME: It is the width and strength of the electromagnetic wavebands with respect to this argument that is important to understand. It is the non-thermal biological effects beyond one degree C that causes damage to DNA. This is an atheric biological effect that does damage to skin tissue and body cells. This seems to be rarely discussed in the mainstream literature. It is the lower risk acute thermal effects that seem to dominate the debate. This area of debate is further advanced in section three.
Exposure levels
Mobile phones are low-powered radiofrequency transmitters, operating at frequencies between 450 and 2700 MHz with peak powers in the range of 0.1 to 2 watts. The handset only transmits power when it is turned on. The power (and hence the radiofrequency exposure to a user) falls off rapidly with increasing distance from the handset. A person using a mobile phone 30–40 cm away from their body – for example when text messaging, accessing the Internet, or using a “hands free” device – will therefore have a much lower exposure to radiofrequency fields than someone holding the handset against their head.
In addition to using “hands-free” devices, which keep mobile phones away from the head and body during phone calls, exposure is also reduced by limiting the number and length of calls. Using the phone in areas of good reception also decreases exposure as it allows the phone to transmit at reduced power. The use of commercial devices for reducing radiofrequency field exposure has not been shown to be effective.
Mobile phones are often prohibited in hospitals and on airplanes, as the radiofrequency signals may interfere with certain electro-medical devices and navigation systems.
Are there any health effects?
A large number of studies have been performed over the last two decades to assess whether mobile phones pose a potential health risk. To date, no adverse health effects have been established as being caused by mobile phone use.
ME: This is probably not the case as my references throughout this paper indicate.
Short-term effects
Tissue heating is the principal mechanism of interaction between radiofrequency energy and the human body. At the frequencies used by mobile phones, most of the energy is absorbed by the skin and other superficial tissues, resulting in negligible temperature rise in the brain or any other organs of the body.
A number of studies have investigated the effects of radiofrequency fields on brain electrical activity, cognitive function, sleep, heart rate and blood pressure in volunteers. To date, research does not suggest any consistent evidence of adverse health effects from exposure to radiofrequency fields at levels below those that cause tissue heating. Further, research has not been able to provide support for a causal relationship between exposure to electromagnetic fields and self-reported symptoms, or “electromagnetic hypersensitivity””.
ME: This reference from the Council of Europe demonstrates that this is not the case, http://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/Xref/Xref-XML2HTML-en.asp?fileid=13137.
Also what about effects on children, late term unborn babies, people with sensitive skin and animals?
“Long-term effects”
Epidemiological research examining potential long-term risks from radiofrequency exposure has mostly looked for an association between brain tumours and mobile phone use. However, because many cancers are not detectable until many years after the interactions that led to the tumour, and since mobile phones were not widely used until the early 1990s, epidemiological studies at present can only assess those cancers that become evident within shorter time periods *. However, results of animal studies consistently show no increased cancer risk for long-term exposure to radiofrequency fields”.
- My italics
ME: It is the longer-term consequences that arguably should be of much greater concern. This is why precautionary principles should apply with respect to wireless radiation danger rather than absolute proof of causation as seems to apply now.
“Several large multinational epidemiological studies have been completed or are continuing, including case-control studies and prospective cohort studies examining a number of health endpoints in adults. The largest retrospective case-control study to date on adults, Interphone, coordinated by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), was designed to determine whether there are links between use of mobile phones and head and neck cancers in adults.
The international pooled analysis of data gathered from 13 participating countries found no increased risk of glioma or meningioma* with mobile phone use of more than 10 years. There are some indications of an increased risk of glioma for those who reported the highest 10% of cumulative hours of cell phone use, although there was no consistent trend of increasing risk with greater duration of use. The researchers concluded that biases and errors limit the strength of these conclusions and prevent a causal interpretation”.
- Tumour
ME: This seems to have been scientifically demonstrated that this is not the case.
Also, what does ‘use’ mean? Does it mean every time a call is made or received when the power input and outgoing radiation is greatest? Or does it include when the phone is switched on (on stand by) as well. If the latter is the case, then the degree of radiation absorbed by the skin of a person (or the thinner skin of a baby) is proportional to the distance between the skin of that individual and the phone that is on an adjacent nearby stand by mode. Causal interpretation for brain cancer has been determined to be around forty years (determined from atomic bomb victims in Japan following WW2). Also the input radiation power is also proportional to the distance between the phone and the transmitting control tower. It is the cumulative effect of all these variables that determines the degree of risk involved. This includes the length of time of each phone call as well as an individual exposure to the WiFi radiation from their computer modems.
“Based largely on these data, IARC has classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B), a category used when a causal association is considered credible, but when chance, bias or confounding cannot be ruled out with reasonable confidence.
ME: How can this be true when based upon the earlier text?
While an increased risk of brain tumours is not established, the increasing use of mobile phones and the lack of data for mobile phone use over time periods longer than 15 years warrant further research of mobile phone use and brain cancer risk. In particular, with the recent popularity of mobile phone use among younger people, and therefore a potentially longer lifetime of exposure, WHO has promoted further research on this group. Several studies investigating potential health effects in children and adolescents are underway”.
Younger people are far more at risk because of their more sensitive skin tissue.
“Exposure limit guidelines”
Radiofrequency exposure limits for mobile phone users are given in terms of Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) – the rate of radiofrequency energy absorption per unit mass of the body. Currently, two international bodies have developed exposure guidelines for workers and for the general public, except patients undergoing medical diagnosis or treatment. These guidelines are based on a detailed assessment of the available scientific evidence.
WHO response
In response to public and governmental concern, WHO established the International Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) Project in 1996 to assess the scientific evidence of possible adverse health effects from electromagnetic fields. WHO will conduct a formal risk assessment of all studied health outcomes from radiofrequency fields exposure by 2016. In addition, and as noted above, the International Agency for Research on carcinogenic potential of radiofrequency fields, as from mobile phones in May 2011.
WHO also identifies and promotes research priorities for radiofrequency fields and health to fill gaps in knowledge through its research agendas.
WHO develops public information materials and promotes dialogue among scientists, governments, industry and the public to raise the level of understanding about potential adverse health risks of mobile phones.
- International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). Statement on the “Guidelines for limiting exposure to time-varying electric, magnetic and electromagetic fields (up to 300 GHz)”, 2009.
(2) Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). IEEE standard for safety levels with respect to human exposure to radio frequency electromagnetic fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz, IEEE Std C95.1, 2005”.
ME: Why were there no Government instrumentalities incorporated is such important international endeavours as well? It is Govt’s that must pick up the bills if things go wrong.
What you need to consider with respect to the ICNIRP organisation cited in references one and two shown above:
1] What the ICNIRP is.
2] What the operational guidelins of ICNIRP are.
3] What the Council of Europe thinks about ICNIRP.
4] What might be the most important criticisms of ICNIRP.
Additional complementary information is contained in part three that follows. Also see page 16 in section four (reference two) where I cite further ideas that support this area of discussion.
Part Three
The World Health Organization, radiofrequency radiation and health
This item was originally published in the International Journal of Oncology. It currently appears in The US National Library of Medicine, National Institute of Health. It was first published June 21st 2017. I have little doubt that this authoritative publication is one of the most important reference inclusions in my presentation today. This is why I have treated it as a part unto itself. If you are engaged in the medical profession I feel that you will probably agree with my opinion.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5504984/
Part Four
Various complimentary references and statements relating to parts 1-3
Reference 1.
The truth about mobile phones and wireless radiation.
(Speech by Dr D. Davis. Visiting Professor of Medicine at the Hebrew University, Israel)
Abbreviated points from a video recording at a Melbourne University Lecture 2015. Treat as a guide to contents only! Times shown in relation to the video are approximate.
1. Is an emergent risk. It is a pulse problem. Is an erratic and irregular pulse that is of greatest concern. Is biologically important. It is the properties of signals related to power that is critical. When phones ring, the radiation is most powerful and at highest risk. Microwave ovens not at risk. Pulse fluctuations are not the same
2. Skin types determine the radiation intake (absorption). Absorption of small heads is proportionally greater for small children because the power is the same (17 mins).
3. Testicles and groin area are vulnerable if phone is worn in pockets (18 -19 mins). Keep away from abdomen when women near the end of pregnancy. Children at schools are exposed to danger (21 mins). It is the fast growing tissue that is most at risk with children. It is the cumulative impact that do damage. It is difficult to discover and measure because there are no test controls.
4. Wireless radiation conclusively negatively impacts on male sperm, it lowers sperm counts (30 – 32 mins). Discovered in sperm clinics (33 mins). It found to lower testosterone in rats as well as causes DNA damage. Offspring have lower sperm fertility.
5. Relating to breasts keep antenna away from abdomen. Under the antenna is the most important problem area (35 -37 mins).
6. Affects memory of mice, engenders hyperactivity and anxiousness with little fear (38 mins).
7. Contents of earlier related IRAC. RE Radiation research in France 2011 (39 mins).
8. Study shows brain cancer at three times greater risk (40 mins)
9. Brain cancer takes a long time to develop. Japan atomic bomb explosions showed it takes up to 40 years. It is thought that the most at risk are those following heavy exposure after ten years. Even one call per week for six months can have an impact (42 mins).
10. Example is honey bees. Workers do not come back to hive after ten days when phones are left on. It is thought to be related to electromagnetic radiation (45 mins).
11. Test results always tend to vary. The research is not simple because of lack of test controls. For this reason the call for more research can be seen as being like a smoke screen. There should be an interim policy response like to wear head phones (49 mins). There needs to be a standardisation of the types of tests to get more accurate results. It is a serious health problem
Reference 2.
This reference compliments the text in part two entitled “Electromagnetic fields and public health: mobile phones”
Quotes:
1. “What Is WiFi ?
WiFi is a registered trademark owned by the WiFi Alliance. The WiFi Alliance defines WiFi as any wireless local area network (WLAN). By definition definition WiFi does not use any wires it uses radio frequency technology.
Webopedia defines radio-frequency as any frequency within the electromagnetic spectrum associated with radio wave propagation and gives the following analysis of the frequencies that make up the electromagnetic radiation spectrum
Ultra-low frequency (ULF) — 0-3 Hz
Extremely low frequency (ELF) — 3 Hz – 3 kHz
Very low frequency (VLF) — 3kHz – 30 kHz
Low frequency (LF) — 30 kHz – 300 kHz
Medium frequency (MF) — 300 kHz – 3 MHz
High frequency (HF) — 3MHz – 30 MHz
Very high frequency (VHF) — 30 MHz – 300 MHz
Ultra-high frequency (UHF)– 300MHz – 3 GHz
Super high frequency (SHF) — 3GHz – 30 GHz
Extremely high frequency (EHF) — 30GHz – 300 GHz
Power lines operate at 50 to 60 Hz are located in the extremely low frequency range, ELF. An FM radio for instance operates in the VHF range, usually between 88 and 110 MHz. Analog TV operates in the 400 – 600MHz range, Digital TV is in the 600 – 1000MHz range. Cell phones operate in the range of 850 to 1900 MHz (0.8-1.9GHz), UHF, depending where you live in the world.
WiFi has a carrier signal in the 2.4 GHz range (which is nearly S HF) with some more recent devices operating in the 5-6 GHz range AND a digital pulsed signal of 10-250Hz which penetrates walls, ceilings, floors and not to mention humans.
WiFi radiation is commonly termed RF (radio frequency) radiation because it operates within the range 3kHz-300GHz. It is also called microwave radiation. Microwave radiation is in fact a subset of RF radiation, it operates in the range 300 MHz to 300 GHz.
Is WiFi More Dangerous Than Cell Phones?
So cell phones and digital TV are operating broadly in the same frequency. The reason why we don’t hear any alarming reports about cancer and digital TV usage is probably because your digital TV is not positioned a few centimeters from your head.
But WiFi is operating much higher up the spectrum than these other devices, more energy is in play. Fortunately WiFi modems and transmitters are not held in such close proximity to the human body as cell phones, or are they? Many cell phones also offer a WiFi functionality.
WiFi Pollution Is Non Stop
The biggest problem with WiFi is that the majority of WiFi modem/routers emit radio frequency radiation 24/7. It’s pulsed microwave radiation just like cell phones.
You may have a cell phone but is your cell phone switched on all the time? If you have a WiFi router at home this generally operates 7 days a week, 365 days a year. Many people sit in offices completely oblivious to the fact that they are exposing themselves to WiFi radiation”
Source: https://www.electricsense.com/198/is-wifi-safe/
2. Dangers of cumulative effects
Wi-Fi Dangers Made Worse by Cumulative Effect
Wireless routers – as well as Bluetooth and similar wireless systems – give off electromagnetic radiation in the low-gigahertz frequency. This level is considered potentially dangerous to people. And the danger is compounded by several factors:
Just like the wireless signals themselves, the EMFs can pass through walls.
Most routers are not turned off at night, so you are exposed 24/7.
You are not only exposed to EMFs from your own router. Did you ever search for a wireless signal and see not only your wireless network, but also your neighbor’s and the one from the business down the street? All of them emit EMFs.
Source: https://www.safespaceprotection.com/emf-health-risks/emf-health-effects/wi-fi-router-dangers/
Reference 3
Guardian article re mobile phone cancer. It’s a complicated argument
Reference 4.
Supporting Videos
4.1 Professor Olle Johannson Dept. of Neuroscience Karolinska Institute Sweden
Infertilité – Prof Olle Johansson – A video entitled “WiFi Irreversible sterility within five generations”
4.2 Face to Face with Dr. Magda Havas: The title of the video is “The Dangers of Wireless Technology”
4.3Another video presentation featuring Magda Havas entitled “Cell Tower Microwave Radiation”
Reference 5
The politics of the debate.
The advocates saying mobile phones are a health hazard.
5.1 Guardian article 2018
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jul/14/mobile-phones-cancer-inconvenient-truths
5.2 Supported by the Investigative Fund at The Nation Institute. Author Christopher Ketcham 2010
https://www.gq.com/story/warning-cell-phone-radiation
5.3 US National Library of Medicine 2011
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3184892/
The defenders denying that mobile phones are a health hazard.
5.4 Guardian article 2018
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jul/21/mobile-phones-are-not-a-health-hazard
5.5 Forbes article 2013
5.6 Sydney Morning Herald article 2016
https://www.smh.com.au/opinion/its-undeniable-mobile-phones-are-killing-us-20161124-gswjhy.html
There are numerous others that you may care to choose from to compare on line.
Reference 6.
Introductory words with respect to a diverse range of medical papers associated with mobile phone and WiFi radiation contamination in reference to human beings and animals.
http://wifiinschools.org.uk/resources/Wi-Fi+papers.pdf
Reference 7
References to numerous Studies Showing Adverse Biological Effects From Wi-Fi RadiationSource: http://wifiinschools.org.uk/30.html
The following quotations have been derived from this source
Quote:
“Akar A. et al., 2013. Effects of low level electromagnetic field exposure at 2.45 GHz on rat cornea.Int J Radiat Biol. 89(4): 243-249.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23206266
Atasoy H.I. et al., 2013. Immunohistopathologic demonstration of deleterious effects on growing rat testes of radiofrequency waves emitted from conventional Wi-Fi devices. Journal of Pediatric Urology 9(2): 223-229.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22465825
Avendaño C. et al., 2012. Use of laptop computers connected to internet through Wi-Fi decreases human sperm motility and increases sperm DNA fragmentation. Fertility and Sterility 97(1): 39-45.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22112647
Aynali G. et al., 2013. Modulation of wireless (2.45 GHz)-induced oxidative toxicity in laryngotracheal mucosa of rat by melatonin. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 270(5): 1695-1700.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23479077
Ceyhan A.M. 2012. Protective effects of β-glucan against oxidative injury induced by 2.45-GHz electromagnetic radiation in the skin tissue of rats. Arch Dermatol Res 304(7): 521-527.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22237725
Chaturvedi C.M. et al., 2011. 2.45GHz (CW) microwave irradiation alters circadian organization, spatial memory, DNA structure in the brain cells and blood cell counts of male mice, Mus musculus. Prog Electromag Res B 29: 23-42.
Chou C.K. et al., 1992. Long-term, low-level microwave irradiation of rats. Bioelectromagnetics 13(6): 469–496.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1482413
Ciftci Z.Z. et al., 2015. Effects of prenatal and postnatal exposure of Wi-Fi on development of teeth and changes in teeth element concentration in rats : Wi-Fi (2.45 GHz) and teeth element concentrations. Biol Trace Elem Res. 163(1-2): 193-201.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25395122
Cig B. and Naziroglu M. 2015. Investigation of the effects of distance from sources on apoptosis, oxidative stress and cytosolic calcium accumulation via TRPV1 channels induced by mobile phones and Wi-Fi in breast cancer cells. Biochem Biophys Acta.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25703814
Dasdag S. et al., 2014. Effect of long-term exposure of 2.4 GHz radiofrequency radiation emitted from Wi-Fi equipment on testes functions. Electromagn Biol Med. 34(1): 37-42.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24460421
Dasdag S. et al 2015. Effects of 2.4 GHz radiofrequency radiation emitted from Wi-Fi equipment on microRNA expression in brain tissue. Int J Radiat Biol. Epub ahead of print.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25775055
Desmunkh P.S. et al., 2013. Detection of Low Level Microwave Radiation Induced Deoxyribonucleic Acid Damage Vis-a-vis Genotoxicity in Brain of Fischer Rats. Toxicol Int. 20(1): 19-24.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23833433
Deshmukh P.S. et al., 2015. Cognitive impairment and neurogenotoxic effects in rats exposed to low-intensity microwave radiation. Int J. Toxicol. Epub ahead of print.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25749756
Eser O., 2013. The effect of electromagnetic radiation on the rat brain: an experimental study. Turk Neurosurg. 23(6): 707-715.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24310452
Ghazizadeh V. and Naziroglu M. 2014. Electromagnetic radiation (Wi-Fi) and epilepsy induce calcium entry and apoptosis through activation of TRPV1 channel in hippocampus and dorsal root ganglion of rats. Metab Brain Dis. 29(3): 787-799.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24792079
Grigoriev Y.G. et al., 2010. Confirmation studies of Soviet research on immunological effects of microwaves: Russian immunology results. Bioelectromagnetics 31(8):589-602.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20857454
Gumral N. et al., 2009. Effects of selenium and L-carnitine on oxidative stress in blood of rat induced by 2.45-GHz radiation from wireless devices. Biol Trace Elem Res. 132(1-3): 153-163.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19396408
Gürler H.S. et al, 2014. Increased DNA oxidation (8-OHdG) and protein oxidation (AOPP) by Low level electromagnetic field (2.45 GHz) in rat brain and protective effect of garlic. Int. J. Radiat. Biol. 90(10): 892-896.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24844368
Havas M. et al., 2010. Provocation study using heart rate variability shows microwave radiation from 2.4GHz cordless phone affects autonomic nervous system. European Journal of Oncology Library Vol. 5: 273-300.
http://www.icems.eu/papers.htm?f=/c/a/2009/12/15/MNHJ1B49KH.DTL
part 2.
Kesari K.K. et al., 2010. Mutagenic response of 2.45 GHz radiation exposure on rat brain. Int J Radiat Biol. 86(4): 334-343.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20353343
Kesari K.K. et al., 2012. Pathophysiology of microwave radiation: effect on rat brain. Appl Biochem Biotechnol. 166(2): 379-388.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22134878
Kumar S. et al., 2011. The therapeutic effect of a pulsed electromagnetic field on the reproductive patterns of male Wistar rats exposed to a 2.45-GHz microwave field. Clinics (Sao Paulo) 66(7): 1237-1245.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21876981
Maganioti A. E. et al., 2010. Wi-Fi electromagnetic fields exert gender related alterations on EEG. 6th International Workshop on Biological Effects of Electromagnetic fields.
Margaritis L.H. et al., 2014. Drosophila oogenesis as a bio-marker responding to EMF sources. Electromagn Biol Med. 33(3): 165-189.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23915130
Meena R. et al., 2014. Therapeutic approaches of melatonin in microwave radiations-induced oxidative stress-mediated toxicity on male fertility pattern of Wistar rats. Electromagn Biol Med. 33(2): 81-91.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23676079
Misa-Augustiño M.J. et al., 2012. Electromagnetic fields at 2.45 GHz trigger changes in heat shock proteins 90 and 70 without altering apoptotic activity in rat thyroid gland. Biol Open 1(9): 831-839.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23213477
Naziroğlu M. and Gumral N. 2009. Modulator effects of L-carnitine and selenium on wireless devices (2.45 GHz)-induced oxidative stress and electroencephalography records in brain of rat. Int J Radiat Biol. 85(8): 680-689.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19637079
Nazıroğlu M. et al., 2012. 2.45-Gz wireless devices induce oxidative stress and proliferation through cytosolic Ca2+ influx in human leukemia cancer cells. International Journal of Radiation Biology 88(6): 449–456. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22489926
Nazıroğlu M. et al., 2012b. Melatonin modulates wireless (2.45 GHz)-induced oxidative injury through TRPM2 and voltage gated Ca(2+) channels in brain and dorsal root ganglion in rat. Physiol Behav. 105(3): 683-92. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22019785
Ozorak A. et al., 2013. Wi-Fi (2.45 GHz)- and mobile phone (900 and 1800 MHz)- induced risks on oxidative stress and elements in kidney and testis of rats during pregnancy and the development of offspring. Biol. Trace Elem. Res. 156(103): 221-29.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24101576
Oksay T. et al., 2012. Protective effects of melatonin against oxidative injury in rat testis induced by wireless (2.45 GHz) devices. Andrologia doi: 10.1111/and.12044, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23145464
Papageorgiou C. C. et al., 2011. Effects of Wi-Fi signals on the p300 component of event-related potentials during an auditory hayling task. Journal of Integrative Neuroscience 10(2): 189-202.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21714138
Paulraj R. and Behari J. 2006. Single strand DNA breaks in rat brain cells exposed to microwave radiation. Mutat Res. 596(1-2): 76-80. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16458332
Paulraj R. and Behari J. 2006b. Protein kinase C activity in developing rat brain cells exposed to 2.45 GHz radiation. Electromagn Biol Med. 25(1): 61-70. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16595335
Salah M.B. et al., 2013. Effects of olive leave extract on metabolic disorders and oxidative stress induced by 2.45 GHz WIFI signals. Environ Toxicol Pharmacol 36(3): 826-834.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23994945
Saili L. et al., 2015 Effects of acute exposure to WIFI signals (2.45 GHz) on heart variability and blood pressure in Albinos rabbit. Environ Toxicol and Pharmacology 40 (2): 600–605.
Sangun O. et al., 2015. The effects of long-term exposure to a 2450 MHz electromagnetic field on growth and pubertal development in female Wistar rats. Electromagn. Biol. Med. 34(1): 63-67. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24460416
Senavirathna M.D., et al., 2014. Nanometer-scale elongation rate fluctuations in the Myriophyllum aquaticum (Parrot feather) stem were altered by radio-frequency electromagnetic radiation. Plant Signal Behav. 9(4): e28590. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25764433
Shahin S. et al., 2013. 2.45 GHz Microwave Irradiation-Induced Oxidative Stress Affects Implantation or Pregnancy in Mice, Mus musculus. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 169: 1727–1751.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23334843
Shahin S. et al., 2014. Microwave irradiation adversely affects reproductive function in male mouse, Mus musculus, by inducing oxidative and nitrosative stress. Free Radic Res. 48(5): 511- 525.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24490664
Sinha R.K. 2008. Chronic non-thermal exposure of modulated 2450 MHz microwave radiation alters thyroid hormones and behavior of male rats. Int J Radiat Biol. 84(6): 505-513.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18470749
Somosy Z. et al., 1991. Effects of modulated and continuous microwave irradiation on the morphology and cell surface negative charge of 3T3 fibroblasts. Scanning Microsc. 5(4): 1145-1155.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1822036
Soran M.-L. et al., 2014. Influence of microwave frequency electromagnetic radiation on terpene emission and content in aromatic plants. J Plant Physiol. 171(15): 1436-1443. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4410321/pdf/emss-61504.pdf
Tök L. et al., 2014. Effects of melatonin on Wi-Fi-induced oxidative stress in lens of rats. Indian Journal of Opthalmology 62(1): 12-15. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24492496
Türker Y. et al., 2011. Selenium and L-carnitine reduce oxidative stress in the heart of rat induced by 2.45-GHz radiation from wireless devices. Biol Trace Elem Res. 143(3): 1640-1650.
What is so special about my son Chris?
One reason is that Chris is such a devoted and knowledgeable person. This is especially so in respect to his involvement with the international environmental science movement. I believe that this link demonstrates the merit of my words. Chris is a co-author of a science document currently [2023] featured in Nature Magazine.
Understanding 5G. Unraveling some mysteries
I present an article written by Anthony Rutkowski. Rutkowski’s credentials are cited further down. I believe that very few of us are aware of the greater story quietly lurking behind the contemporary international 5G debate. It seems to me that the author has done a sound job in composing this article. I have emboldened text that I feel that might most interest my readers
Quote:
“The initial, essential step toward understanding 5G is to perform an intellectual body purge of the endless disgorging of cluelessness and disinformation that emerges from the Washington White House and radiates out around that city and then to the outside world that it infects. The institutes, pundits, self-professed experts, summits, and even the U.S. press all pretty much feed out of the same trough of 5G political slop that gets passed around as incantations of ignorance, spin, and K-street lobbying.
The next essential step is the difficult one. Unfortunately, it requires the hard work and a knowledge base obtained from following and analyzing the only authoritative collective sources of 5G information — and that is the multiple global industry bodies where hundreds of technical experts constantly collaborate at diverse locations contributing thousands of input documents per month developing and specifying in great detail, the architectures, services, interfaces, radio links, and capabilities that constitute 5G. These bodies have been working on this effort for the past five years, and publish the resulting documents in a series of releases that resemble computer operating system versions. Release 16 — which is true 5G SA with network core virtualization (as opposed to transitional precursors) — is being accomplished this year. Subsequent releases promise ever more advanced applications and features. The bottom line: 5G is a constantly evolving continuum.
These bodies are usually layered and have endless strings of acronyms like the 3GPP (SA, CT, RAN) core, which is then surrounded by NFV ISG, MEC ISG, ETSI TCs, MEF, ITU-R, ITU-T, OASIS, TCG, IETF, OMA, GSMA, IEEE802. You can search on the acronyms for meanings, access portals, meetings, participants, and input and output materials. Additionally, large swaths of 5G work never make it into the global industry fora, and only appear in patent filings, research literature, and product announcements that require continuous monitoring and assessment. Given the enormous complexity and continuously evolving technical and institutional complexities spread across all these venues, anything approaching a complete understanding is not possible. All 5G knowledge is an approximation at a point in time.
Principal 5G features
A number of basic features can be distilled out of the enormous swirling 5G maelstrom that go far beyond the focus on political trivializations, lobbying, trolling for spectrum, and marketing in the popular press. These features represent a tectonic change far exceeding anything seen in the history of electronic communications – in the way networks and services are instantiated and provided.
- Virtualization of everything from data centres and local Mobile Edge Computing facilities
- Partitioned architectures & services on demand transparently across all media using network slicing
- Shifting away from DARPA internet protocols to low-latency Virtual Carrier Ethernet
- Prolific ephemeral encryption
- High-speed mobility support combined with constant dynamic portability to mobile platforms and IOT
- Commoditized hardware and orchestration of everything else
- Ubiquitous, high bandwidth radio access capabilities
- Shift to global “content distribution networks” on demand where discoverable endpoint and traffic intelligence become highly valuable
- Intelligence shifts from endpoints to middleboxes and data centres
- Trusted platforms, middlebox based traffic analysis, and auditing become security essentials
Explaining these features and conclusions are beyond the scope of a basic primer, but readers can do their own homework using authoritative source materials.
Threaded through this array of capabilities is a need for security that is best summed up as constant “cyber hygiene” representing a virtualization reapplication of today’s 20 CIS Critical Security Controls. Unilateral actions undermining public international law like banning a vendor’s hardware because of its place of incorporation are not only unlawful but utterly delusional and counterproductive toward addressing the necessary capabilities. The 5G security capabilities have for several years been developed and evolved continuously in global industry bodies.
The problem here is that understanding all of the above requires a comprehensive level of knowledge and available resources to distill from a broad array of activities — and those resources only exist in a few companies and institutions. As a result, the purveyors of jingoistic 5G snake oil political analysis are left to pursue their trade. Simplistic portrayals of 5G are low-hanging fruit for a world challenged by understanding even the basics of how a smartphone works.
Emerging 5G markets, strategies, and participants
There are arguably four classes of winners in the 5G world. In the near term, they include a few companies and their component suppliers who can exist in the global 5G mass commodity physical “box” game that has a finite market period and extends into developing countries. Their success is synergistic and important to the derivative markets. The three additional, larger, persistent, and even more lucrative market winners in this massive tectonic shift to a tailored, on-demand, content delivery global architecture, are: 1) those who provide the low latency, trusted network slice orchestrations out of cloud data centre/MEC facilities and middleboxes, 2) those who collect and maintain the mobile endpoint identifiers and intelligence to provide resolver services, and 3) those who can maintain and provide content for specific classes of customers.
The providers who fall into all of the above categories are very actively engaged in the real 5G/NFV work. They encompass product vendors and service providers at multiple levels across the globe — in many instances, orchestrating different subsidiaries across multiple countries. Some industry consortiums in the cable, railway, and automobile fields have become prominent. The metrics of the huge commitments of personnel and contributions of intellectual property in submissions are available in all the venues. In the 5G security arena, by any metric, there is only one clear global leader — the UK’s National Cyber Security Centre.
Principal 5G Challenges
Although the challenges are certain to evolve over time, those that are obvious at this point fall into three categories: 1) effective, inclusive global arrangements for extraterritorial orchestrations of 5G architectures and services including access to forensics, 2) concentration of 5G orchestration, resolver and end-point intelligence services in the hands of a few commercial providers, and 3) an inability of government institutions to understand the previous two challenges and their own strategic interests. The last challenge is largely resident in only one nation at the moment.
The first challenge can be potentially satisfied by further extending the many global intergovernmental arrangements developed a century ago for the first global radio-based networks and a quarter-century ago for public internets. To the extent solutions cannot be found, costs will simply be driven up and market access limited by building more national-based facilities that operate within a confined jurisdiction. The second challenge is similar to the first with complex antitrust, privacy, law enforcement, and national security overlays. Nations will similarly insist on geographic jurisdictional compartmentalization. The third challenge will hopefully be solved in the near future.
About the author:
Quote:
“Principal, Netmagic Associates LLC
Joined on August 15, 2012 – United States
Total Post Views: 602,279
Tony Rutkowski is a Distinguished Senior Research Fellow at the Georgia Institute of Technology’s Center for International Strategy, Technology, and Policy (CISTP) at the Sam Nunn School of International Affairs. As Executive Vice President for Yaana Technologies, he has served as rapporteur for cybersecurity in ITU-T since 2009 and served as the counselor for two ITU Secretaries-General between 1988 and 1992, co-authored a published ITU history, and led development and authored many regulatory provisions, laws, briefs, treaties, standards, books, and articles as an engineer-lawyer over many years in multiple positions in industry, government and academic institutions. At one time, he did real engineering – being responsible for the communications and command & control systems as part of the Apollo Launch Teams at KSC Launch Complex 39″ http://www.circleid.com/members/6809/
It seems that bees understand what zero is
Scientists are alleged to have demonstrated that honey bees have the capacity to count and discriminate up to four objects.
It seems that honey bees can discriminate between greater than and less than and as such can understand the concept of zero numerosity. Scientists suggest that honey bees seem to understand the concept of zero in relationship to other numerical values and that zero is lower than one. Scientists are now speculating that because insects, with different brain structures from birds and primates can understand the concept of zero as to whether such capacities might exist in other animals too. If this topic is of interest to you click here.
Geo-political round up and akin
In this new blog I introduce you to important news stories that you may never have heard about or seriously considered before. You will notice that I put emphasis on subjects relating to international politics and the potential for war. This includes the politics behind the development of new highly destructive international weaponry. You will find a few of these links are a little dated but I do not feel that this is detracts from their potential reader interest. I intend to update this list from time to time.
Begin your reading experience here:
1] Does Australia need a nuclear arsenal? And what would be the cost?
3] Trump is Forcing China to Reassess its Strategy
4] Trump spoils Xi’s Belt and Road Forum, without even attending
5] US Submarines to Field Hypersonic Weapons in 2025
6] How China fooled Donald Trump
7] South China Sea: Deterring a Fait Accompli
8] In Korean War Commemoration, Xi Warns That China Will ‘Use War to Prevent War’
9] Your 5G Phone Won’t Hurt You. But Russia Wants You to Think Otherwise
10] India’s First Indigenous Air-Launched Radar-Killing Missile Is Headed For Service
11] Blasting The Air In Front Of Hypersonic Vehicles With Lasers Could Unlock Unprecedented Speeds
12] The Real Strategic End Game in Decoupling From China
13] You Can’t Imagine World War III Between America and China
14] America’s Startling Short Range Air Defense Gap And How To Close It Fast
15] U.S. won’t ‘tiptoe’ around China with Asia stability at threat: defense chief
16] China and U.S. clash again on trade and regional security
17] Twitter-post garbage the clearest sign yet of desperation in Beijing
18] Just like Trump’s tariffs, China’s trade attack will backfire
19] Tightening the Chain: Implementing a Strategy of Maritime Pressure in the Western Pacific
20] An India-Australia-France Trilateral Dialogue Is Overdue
21] China’s Hong Kong security laws could lead to ‘complete decoupling’ from US
22] China and Iran: Joining Forces to Beat U.S. Stealth Fighters?
23] Pentagon secretly struck back against Iranian cyberspies targeting U.S. ships
24] Russia and China Go War Against America. Here’s What Could Happen Next
25] Australia may need to consider nuclear weapons to counter China’s dominance, defence analyst says
27] Chinese Nuclear Armed Submarines in Russian Arctic Ports? It Could Happen
28] Sanctions: the new economic battlefield
29] America vs. Russia and China: Welcome to Cold War II
30] The Army’s ‘Big Six’: America Plan to Wipe Out Russia or China In a War
31] The Ultimate Way to Deter China: Why Island-Chain Defense Can Work
32] China vs. Japan: Is the East China Sea Showdown Back on?
33] Is Russia Having Second Thoughts About Integration With China?
34] Why the China-Russia Alliance Won’t Last
35] Baoshang Bank collapse threatens China’s economy and may trigger central bank response
36] Nuclear Holocaust: If an Israel vs. Russia War Broke Out in the Middle East
37] As China and the United States fight for global dominance, is Australia’s safety at risk?
38] The Limits of the Alliance Between China and Russia
39] NATO needs to address China’s rise, says Stoltenberg
40] Indo-Pacific security should also be a European affair
42] The bitter reality is the Morrison Government doesn’t know how to deal with China
43] Why China’s Premature Bid for Hegemony Is More Fragile Than You Imagine
44] The Kremlin Hierarchy Is Fast Decaying
45] So Much for Suez: What Britain’s Tanker Crisis with Iran in the Gulf Really Means
46] Chinese construction boom in Cambodian town raises fears of secret military pact
We are all interested in the devastating Australian fires but how about us also seriously thinking about the massive melting of harmful permafrost in Canada and Russia too?
I hope that you do not mind me sharing this issue with you at this time. Even if you disagree with my position I think that we all should at least be seriously thinking and talking about it and certainly not play politics with the subject.
If you read the literature carefully you will find that this melting permafrost in Canada [also including Russia and elsewhere] is far more likely to adversely impact on the planet than widespread forest fires in various nations as has been happening in recent times. With global warming both disasters go hand in hand! Also see my blog Omnicide who is responsible for the greatest of all crimes generally relating to this same subject.
I will leave it to the following story about this subject to talk for itself:
Quote:
” ‘It scares me’: Permafrost thaw in Canadian Arctic sign of global trend
…”It scares me,” said Kumari Karunaratne, a permafrost expert who works for the Northwest Territories Geological Survey. “This methane that’s being released is being released over huge areas across the north. And it’s continually seeping out.
Methane is a greenhouse gas that is 25 times more potent than carbon dioxide. So, as climate change speeds up the permafrost melt, the permafrost melt will exacerbate climate change. By exactly how much, it’s impossible to say. Karunaratne won’t even try to guess, because measuring it is difficult and imprecise. The area where it’s happening is vast and much of it remains uninhabited and unexplored. But there are dramatic examples that show just how much methane is bubbling up from underground. Some lakes in the Arctic are so full of it, if you punch a hole in the ice you can light the escaping gas on fire. YouTube has videos of researchers and others doing it in Alaska and Siberia. But the same thing is happening in the Northwest Territories.
There are other problems, too.
Last summer in Siberia, the unusually intense summer heat melted the permafrost, exposing a reindeer carcass that had been embedded in it. That carcass was infected with anthrax, a deadly bacteria that had been locked in the ice. A 12-year-old boy died after being infected and at least eight others were sickened. It opens up the possibility that other dangers could be unleashed. Siberian researchers say a gravesite in one town contains bodies of people who died of smallpox in the 1890s. They were buried in the soil just above the permafrost, which is now melting. That’s raising fears that smallpox, which was eradicated globally in 1977, could make a comeback. A woman stands with reindeer in the Yamal-Nenets region of Siberia, Russia, where a 12-year-old boy died and 20 people were infected in 2016 after an anthrax outbreak. An unusually intense summer had melted the permafrost, exposing a reindeer carcass containing anthrax.
Sergey Netesov, chief of the virology laboratory at Novosibirsk State University, told the Siberian Times newspaper that there are thousands of graves in the region — some human, some cattle. The recent anthrax outbreak, he said, is “reason enough to finance research into the diagnostics and prevention of exceptionally dangerous infections.” Whether that happens or not, people in the Northwest Territories know they have no power to stop climate change. Global temperatures are already at record levels and the polar regions are feeling the effects more dramatically than anywhere else. “There are really remarkable changes that are happening in a short amount of time,” said Karunaratne.
And there’s likely more to come.”…”
Also see the story that respected Skeptic allowed to be published in it magazine in 2008 entitled “How We Know Global Warming is Real. The Science Behind Human-induced Climate Change”
(In this instance I do not see that the age of this document is relevant)
Important update from The Diplomat August 1st 2020
…as well as this BBC Science article and this one too.
…as well as this one too
Making Smart Cities Smarter
A video presentation relating to the new frontier for sustainability science
I feel that the content in this two hour presentation is very important for those who care to better understand how future urban environmental development may occur. This is perhaps more so in respect to what many people see as the emergent global climate change phenomenon.