Navy Plans Electromagnetic War Games Over National Park and Forest in Washington State
An EA 18G Growler from the Shadowhawks of Electronic Attack Squadron (VAQ) 141 takes off. (Photo: Mass Communications Specialists 3rd Class Bradley J. Gee / US Navy)
Olympic National Park and Olympic National Forest in Washington State are two of the most beautiful wilderness areas in the United States. Majestic glacier-clad peaks rise above temperate rainforest-covered hills. Gorgeous rivers tumble down from the heights and the areas are home to several types of plants and animal species that exist nowhere else on earth.
EXTRACTED FROM ARTICLE ABOVE:
DECLASSIFIED MILITARY DOCUMENT: https://electroplague.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/rf-microwave-radiation-biological-effects-rome-labs.pdf
EXCERPT FROM MILITARY DOCUMENT:
- BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS
Exposure to RF/MW radiation is known to have a biological effect on animals and
humans. Damage to major organs, disruption of important biological processes, and the
potential risk of cancer represent the dangers of RF/MW radiation to living organisms.
Pulsed radiation appears to have the greatest impact on biological materials (8].
The response of biological materials to the absorption of thermal energy is the most
pecepble effect of exposure to RF/MW radiation . The energy emitted from an RF/MW
source is absorbed by the- human tissue primarily as heat. In this case, the radiated energy is
disposed in the molecules of the tissue. Dipole molecules of water and protein are stimulated
and will vibrate as energy is absorbed throughout the irradiated tissue area. Ionic conduction
will also occur in the same area where the radiation is incident. It is from these two natural
processes that radiant energy is converted into heat . The thermal effect of continuous
wave (CW) and pulsed radiation is considered to be the same (13].
Nonthermal responses can be less noticeable and are often more difficult to explain
than thermal effects. These responses are related to the disturbances in the tissue not caused
by heating. Electromagnetic fields can interact with the bioelectrical functions of the
irradiated human tissue (8]. Research conducted in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe
suggests that the human body may be more sensitive to the antheima effects of RF/MW
There are many reported biological effects to humans and animals that are exposed to
RF/MW radiation. A review of the important findings is given in the following:
- Heaing Ffm on die SkIn
Most RF/MW radiation penetrates only to the outer surface of the body. This is
especially true for RF/MW frequencies greater than 3 GHz where the likely depth of
penetration is about 1-10 mm (3]. At frequencies above 10 GHz the absorption of energy
will occur mostly at the outer skin surface. Since the therma receptors of the body are
contained primarily in this region, the perception of RF/MW radiation at these frequencies.
Read complete document at: https://electroplague.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/rf-microwave-radiation-biological-effects-rome-labs.pdf
Open letter to European Economic and Social Committee TEN Section on electrosensitivity
From Eileen O’Connor, Director, EM Radiation Research Trust
Open letter – please distribute widely.
For the attention of UK and Ireland members representing the European Economic and Social Committee TEN Section on electrosensitivity,
I am contacting you after receiving a copy of the opinion on Electormanetic hypersensitivity (EHS) report recently adopted by the EESC’s TEN section: https://toad.eesc.europa.eu/ViewDoc.aspx?doc=ces%5cten%5cten559%5cES%5cEESC-2014-05117-00-00-AS-TRA_ES.doc&docid=3045930
The reports main purpose is to protect people suffering with electrosensitivity and your important work will hopefully lead towards suggesting binding EU legislation on EMF. I am grateful to all members for allocating almost five hours towards this important debate on 7th January, 2015 and appreciate the voting has been close in the final text along in the voting on each of the amendments. I understand that the next plenary session is due to take place on 21st January, 2015 to finalise the report and therefore call on all members to review the evidence and information contained within this letter.
I am the founder and Director for the UK EM Radiation Research Trust. I am also founding member and Board member for the International EMF Alliance and member of the EU Commission Stakeholder Dialogue Group on EMF.
I can assure you that EHS is very real. It is a physiological condition, not a psychological one. Some studies have been published by psychologists who are not qualified to establish physiological causality, and funding from the telecommunications industry has also created a literature bias as evidenced in published figures by Henry Lai and Anke Huss.
READ FULL LETTER AT:
Radiofrequency (RF) Radiation Power Density Levels for Smart Meters, Various Biological Effects, and Exposure Guidelines
Introducing a New “Smart” Meter Wireless Radiation Comparison Chart …
There are growing concerns that radiofrequency (RF) emissions from wireless utility “smart” meters cause serious adverse health impacts. Unfortunately, no human health impact studies were conducted prior to the deployment of RF emitting smart grid technologies, which include the smart meters themselves as well as the associated gatekeepers and routers that are part of the overall mesh communications network for each utility’s smart grid system.
In the absence of health impact studies conducted prior to smart meter deployment by utility companies, equipment manufacturers, or health agencies, there have been myriads of anecdotal reports of adverse effects caused by smart meter emissions. In addition, there have been at least limited studies (as listed below) subsequent to smart meter deployments indicating ill-effects:
- “Symptoms Resulting from Exposure to Radiofrequency/Microwave Radiation from Smart Meters,” an article written by Ronald M. Powell, Ph.D. summarizing the results of a health effects survey conducted by Richard H. Conrad, Ph.D.;
- “Wireless Utility Meter Safety Impacts Survey,” by Ed Halteman, Ph.D., dated September 13, 2011;
- “Self-Reporting of Symptom Development from Exposure to Wireless Smart Meters’ Radiofrequency Fields in Victoria,” a case series by Dr. Federica Lamech, MBBS, and described by the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) in a document called, “Wireless Smart Meter Case Studies.” [Update: In November 2014, the Lamech case series was published in a peer-reviewed journal. Refer to the following link for more details: “Published Article: Symptom Development from Exposure to Wireless Smart Meters.”]
Peer-reviewed studies as outlined in the BioInitiative Report 2012 support an assertion that adverse biological effects should be expected based upon the RF radiation levels produced from wireless smart meters. For information on published studies showing biological effects from RF exposure from various emission sources, one can review summary information charts contained within The BioInitiative Report 2012, and specifically, relevant charts available at the following link: BioInitiative Report Color Charts for Reported Biological Effects.
Additional support for the claim that adverse effects can be expected from wireless emissions from smart meters can be found in a paper prepared by Ronald M. Powell, Ph.D. at the following link:
To more effectively communicate with the public on this topic, a new chart has been prepared (as shown below) to compare:
- Possible levels of radiofrequency (RF) radiation emitted from wireless smart meters;
- Bioeffects and adverse health impacts that have been measured “at very low levels” based upon published studies from various emission sources; and
- Various governmental RF exposure guidelines that do not fully protect public health. In particular, the guidelines for the USA and Canada were only established to protect tissues from significant overheating and electric shock.
The new chart pictured above was developed in cooperation with Stop Smart Meters!
The vertical axis of the above chart represents an RF power density for each displayed parameter. The units of measure selected for the vertical axis are milliwatts per square meter (mW/m2). The selected units for the vertical axis work well for relating the RF power density shown to the total RF power that an adult human might receive. The surface area of an adult (male) human is about 2 square meters (m2). So the surface area that an adult human presents to an RF wave arriving from the front, or from the back, is about 1 square meter (m2). One (1) milliwatt (mW) is one-thousandth of a watt.
Thus, when an adult human faces an oncoming wave of radiation with a power density of, say, 10 milliwatts per square meter (mW/m2), that human will receive a total of 10 milliwatts (mW) of radiation over the entire body. That is, the number describing the power density will be the same as the number describing the total power received, even though the units of measure are different in the two cases.
Descriptive terms used on the above chart are somewhat simplified for purposes of conveying information to the reader in an easy way and getting everything to fit on one chart. More complete reference information is provided below.
Somewhat expanded basis information for the above chart values is provided in the linked PDF document shown below.
Power density is likely just one parameter which may be used as a measure for predicting adverse health effects due to exposure to RF emissions. Published studies have shown that other characteristics such as the intermittence and modulation of the RF signal, as well as the overall duration of exposure (i.e., short-term vs. chronic) also play a role.
Additional Technical Perspective on Wireless “Smart” Meter Radiation Levels
(for those interested in more technical details)
As mentioned above, the smart meter radiation level delineated in the chart is a value calculated based upon a modeled scenario described in EPRI Document # 1022270, “Radio-Frequency Exposure Levels from Smart Meters: A Case Study of One Model,” February 2011. The value of 40 µwatts/cm2 (or 400 mW/m2) at three (3) feet in front of the smart meter should be valid for the model of smart meter analyzed in the EPRI document. Technically speaking, the 400 mW/m2 represents the RF power density value during signal transmission where wireless smart meters generally transmit that signal intermittently over time.
It is not expected that the 400 mW/m2 RF radiation level would represent the typical exposure level for residents in homes where smart meters are normally mounted external to the home or when people spend most of their time at distances greater than three (3) feet from their smart meter.
Based upon a technical review of available reference documentation and test results, SkyVision Solutions would generally state that a typical maximum indoor RF level associated with wireless smart meters would be about 10 mW/m2. The point of this explanation is that, based upon information presented below, it should not be considered uncommon to find RF measured values in homes in the range of 1 to 10 mW/m2 or slightly greater than that range. In fact, if you are in a room of a home with a smart meter on the other side of one of the room walls, the likelihood can be quite high that exposure levels will be within the range of 1 to 10 mW/m2. These values are still well in excess of levels found in published studies showing bioeffects and adverse health impacts for various RF emission sources.
In some situations where a smart meter is not installed on the outside of a home or business but rather on an inside wall, then indoor RF levels may certainly exceed the “typical” maximum value mentioned above. In those instances, the expected RF levels would more closely compare to the value shown in the above “Smart” Meter Wireless Radiation Comparison chart.
Reference material presented below forms the basis for the perspective that the typical maximum indoor RF level associated with wireless smart meters would be about 10 mW/m2:
Review of Another EPRI Study
- A review was conducted of EPRI Report # 1021829, December 2011, “Characterization of Radio Frequency Emissions from Two Models of Wireless Smart Meters.” This report provides industry accepted values for two specific models of smart meters each containing a nominal 1 watt RF transmitter.
- Overall, ninety (90) to ninety-five (95) % of RF fields inside a home will be less than 10 mW/m2, based upon measurements for six California residences. [This means that 5 to 10% of RF field measurements inside a home may be equal to or somewhat above this level.]
- Refer to link at: http://www.epri.com/abstracts/Pages/ProductAbstract.aspx?ProductId=000000000001021829.
RF Exposure Numbers from Smart Grid Advocates
- Page 13 of a joint presentation by smart grid advocates before the Florida Public Service Commission (PSC) on September 20, 2012, states: “Typical indoor peak exposure < 1 uW/cm2” (or 10 mW/m2)
- Refer to page 13 at link: https://skyvisionsolutions.files.wordpress.com/2014/06/fl-psc-joint-iou-presentation-on-smart-meters.pdf.
Review of a Richard Tell Study
- In situations where the nominal RF transmitter output is in the range of 200 to 300 milliwatts as is the case in the Richard Tell study within the state of Vermont, then typical RF indoor maximum RF levels would appear to well less than 10 mW/m2. In the 2013 report published by Richard Tell Associates, there were 141 indoor residential measurements where the peak indoor measurement was approximately 5.0 mW/m2. Based upon information on page 45 of the Tell report, approximately 10% of the indoor measurements were greater than 0.6 mW/m2 (but yet less than or equal to 5.0 mW/m2).
- Reference: Page 45 at: https://skyvisionsolutions.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/vermont-dps-smart-meter-measurement-report-final.pdf.
Indoor Smart Meter Measurements by Dr. Karl Maret
Dr. Karl Maret performed smart meter-related measurements early in 2014 where he found RF radiation power density measurements with frequent pulses in the range between 2 to 4 mW/m2. These measurements were performed inside a building where five (5) smart meters were located outside the building. Refer to the figure below which is a slide selected from the following file: Maret.Presentation.January 2014.
Modeled Exposure Levels for an Actual Home
- Note that in an actual home, where a smart meter faced toward a bedroom wall, calculated exposure levels in the bedroom were expected to be 5 mW/m2 at a distance of two (2) meters from a smart meter as discussed in a blog article at http://smartgridawareness.org/2013/09/20/smart-meter-home/. (Refer to home layout picture below.) A family member of the home’s occupant reported measured levels consistent with the values calculated by SkyVision Solutions although these values were not presented in the article because the peak measured levels were not formally documented.
Commonwealth Edison Indoor Smart Meter Measurement
Commonwealth Edison (ComEd) performed an indoor smart meter measurement as part of a YouTube video discussing RF concerns. This measurement was taken inside a utility customer’s kitchen and was indicated to be 910 µwatts/m2 or about 1 mW/m2. This measurement was said to have been verified by an independent third party. The video further stated that “placing a baby monitor about two feet from a transmitting baby monitor exposes the child to roughly the same RF emissions that one would receive in KC’s kitchen.” For further information regarding this video, refer to the link at: http://smartgridawareness.org/2014/01/22/comed-compares-smart-meters-to-baby-monitors/.
This webpage was updated on December 7, 2014.
“We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.” – Former CIA Director William Casey
This is a follow up to our last report based on a tip sent to us by a viewer who wanted to know how it was okay that the largest elementary school in Dallas put up a giant cell phone tower right on the basketball court next to the playground.
After we released the video, lots of people sent us tips from one side of the nation to the other.
These cell towers are being placed on school property — next to even preschool playgrounds and sometimes directly on the rooftops of the schools themselves — all over America.
With no long-term studies for safety, troubling health data pointing to everything from cancer to negative impacts on the immune system to impairing hormone function — why?
Why is there such a concerted, nationwide push to place these dangerous towers right next to our growing children in the very buildings they spend all their time in during the week?
Well…there is one theory…but you aren’t going to like it.
For more on this, check out the source docs on Stopthecrime.net.
About the Authors
Aaron Dykes and Melissa Melton created TruthstreamMedia.com, where this first appeared, as an outlet to examine the news, uncover the deceptions, pierce through the fabric of illusions, know the real enemy, unshackle from the system, and begin to imagine the path towards taking back our lives, one step at a time, so that one day we might truly be free…