Thursday, February 17, 2022

The Largest Unethical Medical Experiment in Human History

THE LARGEST UNETHICAL MEDICAL 
EXPERIMENT IN HUMAN HISTORY 
Ronald N. Kostoff, Ph.D. 
Research Affiliate, School of Public Policy, 
Georgia Institute of Technology 

KEYWORDS 
Unethical Research; Electromagnetic Fields; Wireless Radiation; Radiofrequency Radiation; RF; Non-Ionizing Radiation; Mobile Networking Technology; 5G; Adverse Health Effects 

ABSTRACT 
This monograph describes the largest unethical medical experiment in human history: the implementation and operation of non-ionizing non-visible EMF radiation (hereafter called wireless radiation) infrastructure for communications, surveillance, weaponry, and other applications. It is unethical because it violates the key ethical medical experiment requirement for “informed consent” by the overwhelming majority of the participants.

The monograph provides background on unethical medical research/experimentation, and frames the implementation of wireless radiation within that context. The monograph then identifies a wide spectrum of adverse effects of wireless radiation as reported in the premier biomedical literature for over seven decades. Even though many of these reported adverse effects are extremely severe, the true extent of their severity has been grossly underestimated.

Most of the reported laboratory experiments that produced these effects are not reflective of the real-life environment in which wireless radiation operates. Many experiments do not include pulsing and modulation of the carrier signal, and most do not account for synergistic effects of other toxic stimuli acting in concert with the wireless radiation. These two additions greatly exacerbate the severity of the adverse effects from wireless radiation, and their neglect in current (and past) experimentation results in substantial under-estimation of the breadth and severity of adverse effects to be expected in a real-life situation. This lack of credible safety testing, combined with depriving the public of the opportunity to provide informed consent, contextualizes the wireless radiation infrastructure operation as an unethical medical experiment. 

Addition of the nascent fifth generation of mobile networking technology (5G) globally to the existing mobile technology network will contribute further to the largest unethical medical experiment in human history! 

This monograph consists of four chapters and eight appendices. Chapter 1 focuses on unethical research, showing how wireless radiation infrastructure implementation fits into the framework of unethical medical experimentation, and providing many examples of other types of unethical medical experimentation. 

Chapter 2 is the main technical chapter, focusing on adverse health effects of wireless radiation. It describes: 

• adverse effects from past research, and what additional adverse effects can be expected when 5G is implemented fully 

• lack of full consensus among key stakeholders on adverse effects from wireless radiation, and the role played by conflicts-of-interest in this lack of consensus 

• the main reason that this unethical medical experiment was allowed to take place: 
The Federal government that promotes accelerated implementation of wireless radiation technology also 1) sponsors research examining the technology’s potential adverse effects and 2) regulates the technology’s potentially adverse impacts on the public. This unethical promotion-sponsorship-regulation conflict-of-interest lays the groundwork for unethical medical experimentation! [this is so messed up

Chapter 3 contains the references for the main text, and Chapter 4 contains the eight appendices. 

Appendix 1 presents more details about unethical medical experiments, including examples and many references for further study. 

Appendix 2 contains a manual taxonomy of a representative adverse EMF effects database; 

Appendix 3 contains a factor analysis taxonomy of the same database; and, 

Appendix 4 contains a text clustering taxonomy of the same database. All three taxonomies contain links between the categories in the summary tables and the titles of papers associated with each category. 

Appendix 5 shows the potential contribution of wireless radiation to the opioid crisis and potential contribution of wireless radiation to exacerbation of the coronavirus pandemic. 

Appendix 6 shows the link between funding source and research outcomes, and presents many references on the topic of funding source-driven bias. 

Appendix 7 describes the under-recognized adverse effects of wireless radiation related to medical implants (pacemakers, defibrillators, cochlear implants, dental implants, bone pins, etc) and metal appendages (metal jewelry, etc), and potential micro/nano-implant analogues. 

Appendix 8 shows adverse effects of wireless radiation on automotive vehicle occupants (and bystanders), and the under-advertised on-board and external sources of this radiation. Largest Unethical Medical Experiment in Human History 


PREFACE 
Humanity is racing along two parallel paths to self-destruction: 1) accelerating irreversible climate change, and 2) rapidly increasing exposure to health and life-threatening mixtures of toxic stimuli. The most ubiquitous constituent of these toxic mixtures is wireless radiation, which is proceeding to blanket humanity and its ecological life support chain. 

A small fraction of the population has given informed consent to wireless radiation exposure, gambling (like users of cigarettes, cocaine, fentanyl) that they can escape the severe adverse consequences of exposure. Another small fraction of the population has not given informed consent, but receives harmful second-hand exposure because of the broad-scale transmission of wireless radiation from terrestrial and satellite sources. The vast majority of the population has given Mis-informed Consent to this exposure. This mis-information is supplied by the telecommunications industry, its lobbyists, its government partners, its political enablers, its marketing arm (the mainstream media), and even some academic enablers. 

While research over the past seventy+ years has shown hard evidence of severe adverse effects from wireless radiation, the full extent of the damage from existing wireless radiation infrastructure is not known, much less the damage expected from 4G/5G infrastructure being implemented rapidly today. Attempting to identify the full extent of these adverse effects is the global medical experiment being conducted today. The fact that this experiment is being conducted with mis-informed consent makes it an unethical medical experiment. Because of the magnitude of this experiment, it is the largest unethical medical experiment in human history! 

Chapter 1 of this monograph presents the case for wireless radiation infrastructure implementation without credible safety testing being not only an unethical medical experiment, but the largest in human history. It presents wireless radiation infrastructure implementation in the context of other recent examples of unethical medical experiments, and shows how these others pale in comparison to the projected suffering and lethality from wireless radiation exposure based on even the incomplete biomedical data gathered to date. 

Chapter 2 is the main technical chapter in this monograph. It covers a broad scope of adverse health and life-supporting ecological effects from wireless radiation, mainly at communications frequencies. Some of these adverse effects are not well-known to the general public, but they are important nevertheless. While the majority of the chapter is technical, its initial section provides the context for evaluating the biomedical literature results. In particular, it emphasizes the conflicts-of-interest operable in all aspects of the wireless radiation biomedical research process, ranging from the initial health-effects research sponsorship to the final research results dissemination in the premier technical literature and other forums. As Chapter 2 shows, we have known about the adverse health and ecological effects of wireless radiation exposure for seventy+ years, but decision-makers of all stripes have nevertheless chosen to impose this health and life-threatening toxic stimulus on an unsuspecting global populace.

Additionally, there are eight appendices. The copious material contained in the appendices supports the statements made in the main text (Chapters 1 and 2). Three subappendices, while grounded in hard evidence, are somewhat more hypothetical than the rest. They include 1) linkages between wireless radiation exposure and exacerbation of the opioid crisis and the coronavirus pandemic, and 2) potentially enhanced heating and temperature increases to thermally-damaging levels from short RF pulses and tissue-imbedded nanoparticles. My purpose in presenting these three more hypothetical sub-appendices is to stimulate more discussion, and especially more research, on the nature and validity of these linkages. 

Finally, it is my hope that this monograph receives the widest distribution, especially among those who have 1) been the targets of this decades-long mis-information campaign and 2) given their consent to wireless radiation exposure based upon mis-information. It is this segment of the public whose informed actions could reverse the increasing implementation of wireless radiation infrastructure, and prevent the infliction of even more damage, since the other stakeholders involved in the promotion of wireless radiation infrastructure have shown little desire to protect the public against the known and projected ravages of wireless radiation.

Chapter 1 
Unethical Research 

1A. Monograph Overview 
We are in the midst of the largest unethical medical experiment in human history. This experiment is the implementation and operation of a global wireless network for communications, surveillance, and other purposes. It is a medical experiment because we do not know the full extent of the adverse health effects that will result from this wireless network implementation and operation. It is an unethical medical experiment because it violates the key ethical medical experiment requirement of ‘informed consent’ from the participants. 

The current chapter provides 1) some background on the requirements for ethical medical research/experimentation and 2) examples of how those requirements have been violated in the past century. It places wireless radiation implementation and operation in the context of these other examples of unethical medical experiments. 

Chapter 2 presents a detailed description of some of the adverse health effects of wireless radiation as reported in the unclassified open literature. Even though the adverse health effects of wireless radiation reported over the past seventy+ years span the range of severity from discomfort to lethality, we do not know the full extent of adverse health effects from this technology because: 

Most laboratory experiments aimed at identifying wireless radiation health effects bear no relation to real-life exposures, and are performed under the most benign conditions of 
• single stressors (wireless radiation only) 
• no pulsing and modulation of the carrier signal 
• no synergistic effects of other toxic stimuli acting in concert with the wireless radiation 

These experimental deficiencies are compounded by 
• lack of access to the global classified literature on adverse health effects from wireless radiation 
• lack of knowledge of proprietary basic and advanced studies on adverse health effects from wireless radiation.

As Chapter 2 shows, the adverse wireless radiation health effects that have been identified already from the incomplete literature openly available are massive in scope and magnitude. They support the conclusion that wireless radiation as already implemented is extremely dangerous to human health. It acts as both a promoter/accelerator and initiator of adverse health effects. Addition of the missing elements described above and more wireless radiation infrastructure will exacerbate further the adverse effects from wireless radiation on 

• human health directly through contribution to chronic disease and 
• human health indirectly through degradation of the food chain ecosystem. 

Chapter 3 contains the references for the main text. 

Chapter 4 contains eight Appendices: 

• Appendix 1 contains examples of unethical medical experiments conducted in the last century, mainly (not entirely) in the USA or under USA auspices; 
• Appendix 2 contains a manual taxonomy of the adverse health and biomedical effects component of a representative wireless radiation literature, and is derived in part from the taxonomies in Appendices 3 and 4; 
• Appendix 3 contains a taxonomy based on factor analysis of the same representative wireless radiation literature; 
• Appendix 4 contains a taxonomy based on text clustering of the same representative wireless radiation literature; 
• Appendix 5 shows potential links between wireless radiation exposure and 1) expansion of the opioid crisis and 2) exacerbation of coronavirus pandemic; 
• Appendix 6 lists references showing effects of industry funding on research outcomes for myriad (mainly biomedical) research disciplines; 
• Appendix 7 overviews the oft-neglected topics of wireless radiation adverse effects on regions containing medical implants (e.g., pacemakers, defibrillators, cochlear implants, dental implants, bone pins, plates, etc) and appendages (e.g., metal eyeglasses, earrings, metal jewelry, etc), as well as other micro/nano exogenous implant analogues; 
• Appendix 8 describes adverse effects of automotive-based wireless radiation. 

1B. Unethical Research 
1B1. Broad Definition 
There are myriad definitions for 'unethical' research 

These definitions of 'unethical' research encompass a broad spectrum of actions. Much reporting of 'unethical' medical research in myriad media tends to focus on one aspect only: biomedical experiments performed on subjects who did not give 'informed consent'. The classic example reflects the experiments performed on concentration camp inmates by the Nazi-regime doctors during WWII, and the lesser-known experiments performed by their Japanese counterparts during WWII. These experiments were certainly horrific, but not unique. The test subjects in these experiments were neither informed about the nature and consequences of these experiments, nor did they give consent

1B2. Informed Consent 
A comprehensive discussion of the importance of ‘informed consent’ in medical experimentation was presented in a journal Special Issue [Goodwin, 2016]. An excellent overview and rationale for informed consent in human experiments is shown in the following box (obtained from a booklet titled Informed Consent in Human Subjects Research), prepared by the Office for Protection of Research Subjects, University of Southern California (https://oprs.usc.edu/training/booklets/).

[Informed Consent is a voluntary agreement to participate in research. It is not merely a form that is signed but is a process, in which the subject has an understanding of the research and its risks. Informed consent is essential before enrolling a participant and ongoing once enrolled. Informed Consent must be obtained for all types of human subjects’ research including; diagnostic, therapeutic, interventional, social and behavioral studies, and for research conducted domestically or abroad. Obtaining consent involves informing the subject about his or her rights, the purpose of the study, the procedures to be undergone, and the potential risks and benefits of participation. Subjects in the study must participate willingly. Vulnerable populations (i.e. prisoners, children, pregnant women, etc.) must receive extra protections. The legal rights of subjects may not be waived and subjects may not be asked to release or appear to release the investigator, the sponsor, the institution or its agents from liability for negligence.] 

There are three important concepts in this definition: research, informed, and consent. 

[Research] 
What is a research experiment? According to myriad Web sources, an experiment is a set of actions undertaken to 
• make a discovery or 
• test a hypothesis or 
• demonstrate a known fact. 

The first two of these can be classified as research experiments, and the third is a demonstration experiment. A further breakdown would be informative. There are proactive experiments, where established rules and procedures (the scientific approach) are used to plan, conduct, and report the experiment. There are reactive experiments, where the experiment is secondary to higher priority actions, and consequently is conducted and reported under more constrained conditions. The proactive experiments can be viewed generally as explicit or ‘a priori’, and the reactive experiments can be viewed generally as implicit or ‘a posteriori’. 

Where does wireless technology implementation and operation fit in this research experiment categorization? Wireless technology implementation has two major characteristics: development and operation of a technology to achieve targeted technical goals (explicit), and conduct of an experiment that may result in serious adverse health impacts (implicit). Of interest in the current document is the experiment (implicit) component. 

Identification of wireless radiation health effects will result from both proactive and reactive experiments. The proactive experiments are (mainly) the thousands of laboratory-based studies (performed to estimate wireless radiation health impacts) that have been reported in the biomedical literature. The reactive experiments are (mainly) those studies that have been done after the previous generations of mobile networking technologies have been implemented (usually epidemiology), and those studies that will be done after 5G is implemented. 

Thus, 5G implementation can be viewed mainly as an implicit reactive research experiment with respect to identifying myriad adverse health effects on the exposed population. It will also have a demonstration component, confirming thousands of pre-5G research studies that have shown adverse health effects from wireless radiation in 5G and non-5G frequency ranges. Because these studies tend to underestimate real-life effects of wireless radiation, the full scope of adverse health effects from 5G operation under real-life conditions are currently unknown. Ascertainment of these adverse health effects will require ‘a posteriori’ reactive research experiments after 5G implementation, under today’s 5G implementation scenario. A major concern, especially in the current environment of accelerating 5G implementation, is that serious longer-term latent health effects will be discovered only after 5G has been fully implemented. 

[Informed]
There is much information available in the open literature detailing the adverse health effects of wireless radiation. These adverse effects reflect the role of wireless radiation both as a promoter/accelerator and/or initiator of myriad biomedical abnormalities and serious diseases. However, the vast public is not informed (or is misinformed) of these adverse health effects by the: 
• developers of wireless radiation systems, 
• vendors of these systems, 
• mainstream media 
• government regulators of these systems, and 
• Federal, State, and Local politicians who pass laws that accelerate implementation of these systems. 

These stakeholders 
1) do not inform the public of the demonstrated adverse effects of wireless radiation and, in many cases, 
2) misinform the public that wireless radiation is safe from a health perspective. 

[Consent] 
Many segments of the public do provide consent to be exposed to wireless radiation, because of its perceived benefits to them. A small amount of this consent may be informed, and the providers of this consent may be gambling that they can escape the adverse health effects. Most of the consent is probably not informed, since most people will not do the independent research required to gather in the relevant information on adverse health effects, but will rely on the government’s and mainstream media’s misleading assurances that wireless radiation is safe. 

However, other segments of the public do not provide consent to be exposed to wireless radiation from these implemented technologies. Unlike other forms of toxic stimuli (e.g., cigarettes, cocaine, alcohol, etc), where exposures may be individual or very local, wireless radiation exposure is very large in extent. With the advent of the latest generation of wireless radiation (5G), there may be 1) small cell towers erected outside of every few houses, with the consequent radiation blanketing the environment, and 2) thousands of satellites blanketing the Earth’s surface with wireless radiation. There are Federal laws that essentially prevent opposition to construction and operation of these small cell towers, and prevent opposition to the launching and operation of these satellites. Forcing exposure to this harmful wireless radiation on members of the public who do not provide consent is the cornerstone of wireless radiation implementation and operation being labeled unethical medical experimentation.

Its context differs from some other technologies with serious adverse effects, such as automotive technology and cigarette smoking. For the most part, users of these other technologies have been informed about potential serious consequences, and non-users are impacted minimally (at least today).

1B3. Examples of Unethical Medical Experimentation 
Many books and articles have been written concerning horrific medical experiments (that were performed in the USA over the past century) without obtaining ‘informed consent’ from the test subjects. These books describe a wide spectrum of experiments. Individual readers could have different opinions on whether any of the individual experiments reported are more or less 'unethical' than those in the Nazi concentration camps, or whether they are 'unethical' at all. Appendix 1 contains references to books and journal articles that describe some of these experiments (mainly, but not entirely, conducted in the USA or under USA auspices), based on Medline searches and Web sources. Like most research of this type, the conduct of the experiments and the experimental results are not advertised widely. I was not aware of most of these experiments prior to conducting the analysis on under-reporting of adverse events in my 2015 eBook “Pervasive Causes of Disease” [Kostoff, 2015]. 

[The experiments reported in Appendix 1 cover the full spectrum of toxic stimuli, including biological, chemical, and nuclear. These are the three types of toxic stimuli that constitute the core of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). Interestingly, with all of the USA’s concern about potential WMD attacks from Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea, we have completely overlooked the ongoing and exponentially increasing WMD attack on the Homeland that has been occurring for at least two decades: 24/7 spewing of harmful wireless radiation in almost every corner of the USA, with far more to come if 5G is implemented!] 

The copious references identified in Appendix 1 are not the result of an exhaustive search; they were obtained after a very brief survey. There are undoubtedly many other examples (of 'unethical' medical experiments) published already that were missed by the survey. Given the odious nature of these experiments, there are probably far more experiments whose disclosure has not yet seen the light of day. As shown in the tobacco and asbestos examples in section 9C of Kostoff [2015], most of this information comes to light either from 1) whistleblowers or 2) 'discovery' resulting from lawsuits. In addition, some investigators may stumble across evidence of this type of 'unethical' research while doing relatively unrelated types of investigations.

Documentation of many types of 'unethical' medical experiments may:

• not have been done, or
• have been done and destroyed, or
• have been done but distorted to protect the miscreants. 

This is why retrospective analysis of this type of 'research', which in many cases relies heavily on the printed word as 'proof', may be highly under-reflective of the full spectrum of what was actually done in these experiments (e.g., Stephen Kinzer’s description of the records destroyed by the Head of the CIA’s MK-Ultra program  https://www.c-span.org/video/?464648-1/poisonerchief).

While there are many stages of the medical research process that could be subjected to 'unethical' practices (e.g., those outlined in Chapter 9 of Kostoff [2015], including selection of the most important research problems for funding, conducting the research, disseminating the results of the research, etc), conducting the medical research experiments 'unethically' has received the most attention by far. The references in Appendix 1, and additional books and journal and magazine articles on unethical medical research experiments, are testimony to this imbalance.

Books and articles only tell part of the larger story. A more representative reporting on the damage from any type of 'unethical' medical research would reflect the pain, suffering, and premature mortality resulting from the medical research experimentation. A simple estimate of the experiment’s damage could be obtained by integrating the number of people affected by the 'unethical' medical experimentation and the degree of damage experienced by each person. This could be viewed as a ‘weighted’ impact of the adverse effects of the unethical medical experimentation.

In the most widely reported examples of 'unethical' medical research (the medical experiments performed in the Nazi concentration camps during WWII), perhaps a few thousand prisoners were involved; it is difficult to find accurate information for actual numbers of prisoners involved. Further, it is difficult to separate out the 

1) many thousands of German citizens subjected to forced sterilization procedures starting in 1933 and 
2) many deliberately exterminated in the concentration camps, from 
3) those who suffered from the medical experiments in the camps and died as a result of the experiments alone. 

In the references in Appendix 1 

• some of the ‘unethical’ medical experiments described involved under a hundred test subjects, 
• many of the 'unethical' medical experiments described tended to involve on the order of hundreds of test subjects (who did not provide 'informed consent'), and 
• in some rarer cases, perhaps thousands of test subjects were involved. 

Many of these experiments, in parallel with the spirit of the Nazi concentration camp experiments, involved people confined in large institutions who were (usually) not told the full story of the nature of the experiments, or, if they were told, either did not 1) understand it or 2) give 'informed consent'. These people were confined in prisons, the military service, mental institutions, children's institutions, etc. 

[How do the above odious procedures in these references differ conceptually from the recent trend toward government effectively promoting/mandating implementation of wireless radiation infrastructure whose safety has not been demonstrated, but (a fraction of) whose adverse health effects have been widely demonstrated?] 

Based on what has been reported in the experiments referenced in Appendix 1 (which could in fact be the tip of a much larger unreported iceberg), perhaps on the order of 10,000- 30,000 people may have been subjected to ‘unethical’ medical experiments in the past century (excluding those who unwittingly participated in clinical trials that were “off-shored” to (typically) developing countries with knowingly less stringent test subject protections [Kostoff, 2015, section 9D3]). A few thousand of these test subjects would have died prematurely, and most would have suffered unnecessarily. These, of course, are horrific numbers. Unfortunately, they pale in comparison to what can be expected if wireless radiation infrastructure is expanded domestically and globally to satisfy the requirements of 5G. The following box shows one estimate of potential adverse effects from wireless radiation. 

[One of the many adverse health effects of wireless radiation is cancer of the brain, especially gliomas. What approximate increases in glioma incidence can be expected from widespread expansion of wireless radiation? 

There are different estimates of glioma incidence and trends in glioma incidence. For an approximate estimate, Rasmussen et al [2017] estimates the glioma incidence in the Danish population at about 7/100,000, a figure in line with other national and global estimates. Additionally, Phillips et al [2018] presents evidence of a 100% increase in Glioblastoma Multiforme from 1995-2015, a major component of glioma. Some of this increase may have been due to wireless radiation exposure, since that time period was associated with a major expansion of cell phone and other wireless device use. For approximate estimation purposes, assume the wireless-free glioma incidence to be about 5/100,000. 

Hardell et al [2011] showed, in a case-controlled study, that glioma incidence doubled for those who starting using cell phones as adults (>20 years old), were ‘heavy’ users (>30 minutes per day), and used cell phones for more than ten years. Hardell also showed glioma incidence quadrupled for those who started using cell phones younger than twenty years old, were heavy users, and used cell phones for more than ten years. 

If we apply Hardell’s conservative doubling estimate to all potential users, then we can expect an increased glioma incidence per year of about 5/100,000. By the time 5G is rolled out, the global population will be at least eight billion. If we assume ¾ of the global population will be cell phone users and/or exposed to cell towers and other sources of wireless radiation, then about six billion people would be the pool for potential glioma victims from wireless radiation. Multiplying 5/100,000 by 6,000,000,000 yields 300,000 new cases of glioma/year. 

In one year, the deaths from glioma alone attributed to wireless radiation will swamp all the deaths from all the horrific unethical medical experiments of the twentieth century referenced in Appendix 1!]

[This number was obtained using the most conservative estimates of Hardell and the incidence data, and it didn’t take into account the increase in glioma incidence that would be expected as latency times increase. For smoking, the average latency period between initiation of smoking and lung cancer is between twenty and thirty years, depending on which database was examined. The fact that glioma incidence shows measurable increases after only a ten year latency period should be most disturbing, and does not bode well for glioma incidences after a twenty, thirty, or forty-year latency! 

Again, glioma is but one of the large numbers of adverse health effects potentially resulting from exposure to wireless radiation. Integrating over all the adverse health effects potentially resulting from the wireless radiation experiment would yield numbers of experiment-based premature deaths and enhanced suffering unparalleled in human history!] 

Given the magnitude of 5G projected global implementation, the numbers of people that will be exposed to this radiation, the numbers of people expected to suffer myriad adverse effects from this technology, and the lack of credible ‘informed consent’ from the vast majority of these people, we are well justified in calling global implementation of mobile networking technology The Largest Unethical Medical Experiment in Human History! 

Finally, in the spirit of the ‘unethical’ medical experiments referenced in Appendix 1, it is the poor and dispossessed who will suffer the most from wireless radiation exposure.

This is because wireless radiation plays a dual role of initiator and promoter/accelerator of serious disease, as will be shown in the next chapter. In its promoter/accelerator role, it can accelerate the progression of existing serious diseases such as cancer, and/or, through synergy, can produce serious adverse health effects when combined with other toxic stimuli that neither constituent of the combination could produce in isolation. [imagine that, same thing they are saying about side effects of the jabs. dc]

Many toxic stimuli, such as harsh chemicals, biotoxins, ionizing radiation sources, vibrating machinery, prolonged sitting doing repetitive tasks, high air pollution, etc, are used/experienced by the poorest members of society in their occupations, and many toxic stimuli, such as air pollutants, toxic wastes, etc, are very prevalent in their residential environments. Thus, people who spray pesticides in farm labor or household applications, people who do cleaning with harsh chemicals, people who dispose of hazardous materials, basically, people who do the dirty work in our society and live in dirty environments, are already leading candidates for higher risk of serious diseases. Adding a wireless radiation promoter/accelerator to their residential and occupational environments will radically increase their chances for developing serious diseases. Closing the ‘digital divide’ for them will translate to increased suffering and reduced longevity!

Chapter 2 
Adverse Impacts of Wireless Radiation 
2A. Overview 
Wireless communications have been expanding globally at an exponential rate. The latest imbedded version of mobile networking technology is called 4G (fourth generation), and the next generation (5G) is in the early implementation stage. Neither 4G nor 5G have been tested for safety in any credible real-life scenarios. The current chapter assesses the medical and biological studies that have been performed and then published in the biomedical literature, and shows why they are deficient relative to identifying adverse health and safety effects. 

However, even in the absence of the missing real-life components (which tend to exacerbate the adverse effects of the wireless radiation shown in the biomedical literature), the published literature shows there is much valid reason for concern about potential adverse health effects from both 4G and 5G technology. The studies reported in the literature should be viewed as extremely conservative, underestimating the adverse impacts substantially. 

2A1. The Context of Wireless Radiation 
Health and Safety Research 
Before addressing the technical and biological details of wireless radiation health and safety research shown in the published literature, the context in which this literature has been generated will be discussed. 

The results shown in the literature cannot be separated from the context in which this research has been sponsored, conducted, and disseminated! 

In the USA (and in most, if not all, countries), the two major sponsors of wireless radiation health and safety research are the Federal government and the wireless radiation industry, in that order. Both of these organizations have a strong intrinsic conflict-of-interest with respect to wireless radiation.

2A1a. Intrinsic Federal government 
wireless radiation conflict-of-interest 
The Federal government is a strong promoter of wireless radiation infrastructure development and rapid expansion, most recently supporting accelerated implementation of 5G infrastructure. Every 

• Congressional evaluation of 5G I have heard (or read), 
• Congressperson’s statement on 5G I have heard (or read), 
• Presidential proclamation on 5G I have heard (or read), and 
• FCC proclamation on 5G I have heard (or read), 

has unabashedly supported the most accelerated implementation of 5G infrastructure.

The Federal government that promotes accelerated implementation of wireless radiation technology also 1) sponsors research examining the technology’s potential adverse effects and 2) regulates the technology’s potentially adverse impacts on the public. The fact that these development, regulation, and safety functions may be assigned to different Executive Agencies within the Federal government is irrelevant from an independence perspective. The separate Executive Agencies in the Federal government are like the tentacles of an Octopus; they operate synchronously under one central command. 

The wireless promoters’ main objectives of developing and implementing the technology rapidly are enabled by suppressing knowledge (to the public) of potential adverse effects from the technology’s operation. These fundamental conflicts impact the objectivity of the health and safety R&D sponsors and performers. Any Federal research sponsor of wireless radiation technology safety would be highly conflicted between 1) a desire to satisfy Executive and Legislative objectives of accelerating expansion of wireless radiation technology and implementation and 2) sponsoring objective research focused on identifying and reporting adverse effects of wireless radiation expected under real-life conditions. Likewise, any sponsored research performer addressing wireless radiation technology safety would be highly conflicted between 1) reporting the actual adverse effects expected under real-life conditions and 2) the desire to satisfy wireless radiation promotional objectives of the research sponsors in order to maintain long-range funding. 

2A1b. Intrinsic wireless radiation industry conflict-of-interest 
The wireless radiation industry is obviously a strong promoter of accelerated development and implementation of wireless radiation devices and infrastructure, and is a sponsor of wireless radiation and safety research. Trillions of dollars in revenues are potentially at stake in successful promotion and adoption of wireless radiation infrastructure and technology! The industry’s conflicts with respect to promotion and safety research are similar to those of the Federal government listed above. 

The wireless industry’s role in suppressing information about the adverse impacts of wireless radiation was described eloquently in a 2018 Nation article (https://www.thenation.com/article/how-big-wireless-made-us-think-that-cell-phones-are-safe-aspecial-investigation/). As this exposé shows, studies on health effects were commissioned by the wireless radiation industry in the 1990s under the management of Dr. George Carlo. The adverse effects shown were downgraded and suppressed, in the spirit of similar suppression by the tobacco and fossil energy industries, as stated in the Nation article:

Carlo’s story underscores the need for caution, however, particularly since it evokes eerie parallels with two of the most notorious cases of corporate deception on record: the campaigns by the tobacco and fossil-fuel industries to obscure the dangers of smoking and climate change, respectively. Just as tobacco executives were privately told by their own scientists (in the 1960s) that smoking was deadly, and fossil-fuel executives were privately told by their own scientists (in the 1980s) that burning oil, gas, and coal would cause a “catastrophic” temperature rise, so Carlo’s testimony reveals that wireless executives were privately told by their own scientists (in the 1990s) that cell phones could cause cancer and genetic damage…..Like their tobacco and fossil-fuel brethren, wireless executives have chosen not to publicize what their own scientists have said about the risks of their products. On the contrary, the industry—in America, Europe, and Asia—has spent untold millions of dollars in the past 25 years proclaiming that science is on its side, that the critics are quacks, and that consumers have nothing to fear. This, even as the industry has worked behind the scenes—again like its Big Tobacco counterpart—to deliberately addict its customers. Just as cigarette companies added nicotine to hook smokers, so have wireless companies designed cell phones to deliver a jolt of dopamine with each swipe of the screen.” 

While the wireless radiation industry doesn’t play a formal role in regulating the safety aspects of wireless radiation, it plays a strong de facto role. In addition to its lobbying efforts to minimize regulations on wireless radiation exposure levels, it plays a revolving-door role with respect to regulation.

The previous FCC Chairman had been President of the National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA) and CEO of the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association (CTIA) before assuming his FCC Chairmanship. In recognition of his work in promoting the wireless industry, he was inducted into the Wireless Hall of Fame in 2003 and in 2009 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Wheeler)

The present FCC Chairman served as Associate General Counsel at Verizon Communications Inc., where he handled competition matters, regulatory issues, and counseling of business units on broadband initiatives is the case with so many other Federal regulatory agencies [Kostoff, 2015-Chapter 9; 2016], the FCC is essentially an agency captured by industry [Alster, 2015]! (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ajit_Pai#cite_note-Bio-2).

So, in the two most recent Administrations, under two supposedly very different Presidents, the FCC Chairmen had been, in different ways, lobbyists for the wireless radiation technology industry. Both were (and are) extremely ardent promoters of the most rapid acceleration of implementation of 5G infrastructure and associated devices and technologies.

2A1c. Relation of wireless radiation health and safety 
research to sponsors’ and performers’ conflicts-of-interest 
The incentives for sponsors of wireless radiation health and safety research to fund studies that will help promote accelerated expansion of wireless radiation devices and infrastructure are many and the disincentives are essentially non-existent. Likewise, incentives for performers of wireless radiation health and safety research to conduct studies that will help promote accelerated expansion of wireless radiation devices and infrastructure are many and the disincentives are few. Because of this unfortunate reality, 

EVERY wireless radiation health and safety study/experiment whose results support the wireless radiation promotion objectives of the organization(s) that sponsor these studies must receive the highest level of scrutiny. 

There is not a credibility symmetry between studies whose results 1) support the promotional objectives of their sponsors or 2) do not support the promotional objectives of their sponsors. For studies/experiments of equally high research/scientific quality, those studies that do not support the promotional objectives of their sponsors should be assigned relatively higher credibility priority than those that do support the promotional objectives of their sponsors. This should not be interpreted as a lack of absolute credibility for studies that support the promotional objectives of their sponsors. Many may very well be credible, as discussed further in section 2F. 

However, research findings opposing the promotional objectives of the sponsors may result in termination of further funding for the project, and adverse career and financial consequences for the performer(s). Conversely, research findings supporting the promotional objectives of the sponsors will most likely lead to continued and enhanced funding for the project, and very positive career and financial impacts for the performer(s). Therefore, high quality research studies whose results could impose serious career and financial risks for their performers should rank higher in the credibility chain. 

These conflicts-of-interest of researchers who accept funding from wireless radiation promoters extend well beyond the papers and studies they publish. This category of wireless radiation researchers tends to populate the Advisory Committees that help set the exposure safety studies imposed by government regulatory agencies. Hardell has done a comprehensive evaluation of some of the more influential Advisory Committees [Hardell, 2017], especially ICNIRP and WHO, and has shown clearly the inter-locking linkages among these proxies of the wireless radiation promoters. 

Operationally, the wireless radiation regulatory commissions, their advisory committees, their health and safety research sponsors, and some of the researchers sponsored by the wireless radiation promoters, along with the mainstream media, serve as the de facto marketing arm of the wireless radiation promoters, in their attempts to mislead the public into believing wireless radiation under present day exposure limits is safe! 

2A1d. Relation of wireless radiation health and 
safety research to publishers’ conflicts-of interest 
Some journal publishers of articles concerning health and safety effects of wireless radiation have similar conflicts of interest. Many journals are not independent from government or industry sponsorship, in whole or in part, directly or indirectly. This conflict-of-interest is addressed further in section 2F. These journals control the review process by which articles are selected for publication, and it is extremely easy for a journal to select articles for publication that will align strongly with the promotional interests of the organizations or people that contribute to their revenue stream. These direct or indirect journal sponsors include: 
• Promotional organizations that contribute directly to the journals; 
• Promotional organizations that contribute directly to professional societies that sponsor many of the ‘leading’ journals; 
• Individuals who receive funding from industrial or governmental organizations promoting wireless radiation technology and who 
o contribute directly to the journals and/or 
o contribute to professional societies that sponsor many of the leading’ journals 

Anyone who has read thousands of wireless radiation journal article abstracts on health and safety would have little problem in identifying those journals that rarely publish results opposing the promotional objectives of government and industry (see Slesin [2006] for allegations of possible bias in one journal’s publication patterns of microwave-induced genotoxic results). Equally, they would have little problem in identifying those authors or author institutions that even more rarely publish results opposing the promotional objectives of government and industry. If we take into account the credibility asymmetry between studies whose results 1) support the promotional objectives of their sponsors or 2) do not support the promotional objectives of their sponsors, then a much different picture of the wireless radiation health and safety research literature emerges. Many of the so-called conflicting results disappear when credibility weightings are applied, and the true serious adverse effects resulting from this harmful technology are shown in detail. The reader should keep this credibility asymmetry in mind when evaluating the myriad adverse health effects shown in sections 2D and 2E.

2B. Wireless Radiation/Electromagnetic Spectrum
This section overviews the electromagnetic spectrum, and delineates the parts of the spectrum on which this monograph will focus. The electromagnetic spectrum encompasses the entire span of electromagnetic radiation. The spectrum includes: ionizing radiation (gamma rays, x-rays, and the extreme ultraviolet, with wavelengths below ~10-7 m and frequencies above ~3x1015 Hz); non-ionizing visible radiation (wavelengths from ~4x10-7 m to ~7x10-7 m and frequencies between ~4.2x1014 Hz and ~7.7x1014 Hz); non-ionizing non-visible radiation (short wavelength radio waves and microwaves, with wavelengths between ~10-3 m and ~105 m and frequencies between ~3x1011 to ~3x103 Hz; long wavelengths, ranging between ~105 m and ~108 m and frequencies ranging between 3x103 and 3 Hz). 

The low frequencies (3 Hz–300 KHz) are used for electrical power line transmission (60 Hz in the U.S.) as well as maritime and submarine navigation and communications. Medium frequencies (300 KHz–900 MHz) are used for AM/FM/TV broadcasts in North America. Lower microwave frequencies (900 MHz–5 GHz) are used for telecommunications such as microwave devices/communications, radio astronomy, mobile/cell phones, and wireless LANs. Higher microwave frequencies (5 GHz– 300 GHz) are used for radar and proposed for microwave WiFi, and will be used for ‘high-band’ 5G communications. Terahertz frequencies (300 GHz–3000 GHz) are used increasingly for imaging to supplement X-rays in some medical and security scanning applications [Kostoff and Lau, 2017; Kostoff, 2019a; Kostoff et al, 2020]. 

In the study of non-ionizing EMF radiation health effects reported in this monograph, the frequency spectrum ranging from 3 Hz to 300 GHz is covered, with particular emphasis on the high frequency communications component ranging from ~1 GHz to ~300 GHz. A previous review found that pulsed electromagnetic fields applied for relatively short periods of time could sometimes be used for therapeutic purposes, whereas chronic exposure to electromagnetic fields in the power frequency range (~60 Hz) and microwave frequency range (~1 GHz-tens GHz) tended to result in detrimental health effects [Kostoff and Lau, 2013, 2017]. Because of present concerns about the rapid expansion of new communications systems without adequate safety testing, more emphasis will be placed on the communications frequencies in this monograph. 

2C. Modern Non-Ionizing EMF Radiation Exposures 
In ancient times, sunlight and its lunar reflections provided the bulk of the visible spectrum for human beings (with fire a distant second and lightning a more distant third). Now, many varieties of artificial light (incandescent, fluorescent, and light emitting diode) have replaced the sun as the main supplier of visible radiation during waking hours. Additionally, EMF radiation from other parts of the non-ionizing spectrum has become ubiquitous in daily life, such as from wireless computing and telecommunications. In the last two or three decades, the explosive growth in the cellular telephone industry has placed many residences in metropolitan areas within less than a mile of a cell tower. Future implementation of the next generation of mobile networking technology, 5G, will increase the cell tower geographical densities by an order of magnitude. Health concerns have been raised about non-ionizing EMF radiation from 
(1) mobile communication devices, 
(2) occupational exposure, 
(3) residential exposure, 
(4) wireless networks in homes, businesses, and schools, and 
(5) other non-ionizing EMF radiation sources such as ‘smart meters’ and ‘Internet of Things’. 

2D. Demonstrated Biological and Health Effects from 
Prior Generations of Wireless Networking Technology 

2D1. Limitations of Previous Wireless 
Radiation Health Effects Studies 
There have been two major types of studies performed to ascertain biological and health effects of non-ionizing radiation: laboratory and epidemiology. The laboratory tests provide the best scientific understanding of the effects of wireless radiation, but do not reflect the real-life operating environment in which wireless radiation is embedded. There are three main reasons that laboratory tests do not reflect real-life exposure conditions for human beings. 

First, the laboratory tests have been performed mainly on animals, especially rats and mice. Because of physiological differences, there have been continual concerns about extrapolating small animal results to human beings. Additionally, while inhaled or ingested substances can be scaled from small animals to human beings relatively straight-forwardly, radiation may be more problematical. For non-ionizing radiation, penetration depth is a function of frequency, tissue, and other parameters, and radiation of a given wavelength could penetrate much deeper into the (small) animal’s interior than similar wavelength radiation in humans. Different organs and tissues would be affected, with different power densities. 

Second, the typical incoming EMF signal for many/most laboratory tests performed in the past consisted of the single carrier wave frequency; the lower frequency superimposed signal containing the information was not always included. This omission may be important. As Panagopoulos states: “It is important to note that except for the RF/microwave carrier frequency, Extremely Low Frequencies – ELFs (0–3000 Hz) are always present in all telecommunication EMFs in the form of pulsing and modulation. There is significant evidence indicating that the effects of telecommunication EMFs on living organisms are mainly due to the included ELFs…. While ∼50% of the studies employing simulated exposures do not find any effects, studies employing real-life exposures from commercially available devices display an almost 100% consistency in showing adverse effects”. [Panogopoulos, 2019]. These effects may be exacerbated further with 5G: “with every new generation of telecommunication devices…..the amount of information transmitted each moment…..is increased, resulting in higher variability and complexity of the signals with the living cells/ organisms even more unable to adapt [Panogopoulos, 2019]”

Third, these laboratory tests typically involved one stressor (wireless radiation) and were performed under pristine conditions. This contradicts real-life exposures, where humans are exposed to multiple toxic stimuli, in parallel or over time. In perhaps five percent of the wireless radiation studies reported in the literature, a second stressor (mainly biological or chemical toxic stimuli) was added, to ascertain whether additive, synergistic, potentiative, or antagonistic effects were generated by the combination [Kostoff and Lau, 2013, 2017; Juutilainin et al, 2008; Juutilainin et al, 2006]. 

Combination experiments are extremely important because, when other toxic stimuli are considered in combination with non-ionizing EMF radiation, the synergies tend to enhance the adverse effects of each stimulus in isolation. In other words, combined exposure to 1) toxic stimuli and 2) non-ionizing EMF radiation translates into much lower levels of tolerance for each toxic stimulus in the combination relative to its exposure levels that produce adverse effects in isolation. So, the regulatory exposure limits for non-ionizing EMF radiation when examined in combination with other potentially toxic stimuli should be far lower for safety purposes than those derived from non-ionizing EMF radiation exposures in isolation [Kostoff et al, 2020]. 

Thus, almost all of the laboratory tests that have been performed are flawed with respect to demonstrating the full adverse impact of the wireless radiation. Either 1) non-inclusion of signal information or 2) using single stressors only 3) tends to underestimate the seriousness of the adverse effects from non-ionizing radiation. Excluding both of these phenomena from experiments, as was done in the vast majority of cases, tends to amplify this underestimation substantially. Therefore, the results (of adverse effects from wireless radiation exposure) reported in the biomedical literature should be viewed as 1) extremely conservative and 2) the very low ‘floor’ of the seriousness of the adverse effects, not the ‘ceiling’.

The epidemiology studies typically involved human beings who had been subjected to myriad known and unknown stressors prior to (and during) the study. The wireless radiation exposure levels from e.g. the cell tower studies reported in Kostoff and Lau [2017] associated with increased cancer incidence tended to be orders of magnitude lower than e.g. those exposure levels generated in the recent highly-funded NTP studies [Melnick, 2019] and other laboratory studies associated with increased cancer incidence. The inclusion of real-world effects in the cell tower studies most likely accounted for the orders of magnitude wireless radiation exposure level decreases that were associated with the initiation of increased cancer incidence.

Thus, the laboratory tests were conducted under very controlled conditions not reflective of the real-world, while the epidemiology studies were performed in the presence of many stressors, known and unknown, reflective of the real-world. The exposure levels of the epidemiology studies were, for the most part, uncontrolled. 

2D2. Adverse Health Effects Identified in Major Review Studies 
Many thousands of papers have been published over the past sixty+ years showing adverse effects from wireless radiation applied in isolation or as part of a combination with other toxic stimuli. Extensive reviews of these wireless radiation biological and health effects have been published, including [Belpomme et al, 2018; Desai et al, 2009; Di Ciaula, 2018; Doyon and Johansson, 2017; Havas, 2017; Kaplan et al, 2016; Kostoff and Lau, 2013, 2017; Kostoff et al, 2020; Lerchl et al, 2015; Levitt and Lai, 2010; Miller et al, 2019; Pall, 2016, 2018; Panagopoulos, 2019; Panagopoulos et al, 2015; Russell, 2018; Sage and Burgio, 2018; Van Rongen et al, 2009; Yakymenko et al, 2016; Bioinitiative, 2019]. 

In aggregate, for the high frequency (radiofrequency-RF) part of the spectrum, these reviews show that RF radiation below the FCC guidelines can result in: 

-carcinogenicity (brain tumors/glioma, breast cancer, acoustic neuromas, leukemia, parotid gland tumors), 
-genotoxicity (DNA damage, DNA repair inhibition, chromatin structure), 
-mutagenicity, teratogenicity, 
-neurodegenerative diseases (Alzheimer’s Disease, Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis), 
-neurobehavioral problems, autism, 
-reproductive problems, pregnancy outcomes, 
-oxidative stress, inflammation, apoptosis, blood-brain barrier disruption, 
-pineal gland/melatonin production, sleep disturbance, headache, 
-irritability, fatigue, concentration difficulties, depression, dizziness, tinnitus, 
-burning and flushed skin, digestive disturbance, tremor, cardiac irregularities, and can 
-adversely impact the neural, circulatory, immune, endocrine, and skeletal systems. 

The effects range from myriad feelings of discomfort to life-threatening diseases. From this perspective, RF exposure is a highly pervasive cause of disease! 


2D3. Adverse Health Effects from Open Literature Analysis 
2D3a. Overview 
To corroborate the findings from the major review studies of the previous section, an analysis of a representative sample of the wireless radiation adverse health effects literature was performed. A relatively simple query was used to retrieve records related to adverse health effects from wireless radiation. Some filtering was done to remove records that did not identify adverse health effects, but because of extensive use of titles (and sometimes abstracts) that discuss methodologies rather than results, some/many records were retrieved that did not demonstrate adverse health effects. 

In all, 5311 records with abstracts were retrieved from Medline (Pubmed), and these records were categorized by three different methods: manual taxonomy; factor analysis taxonomy; text clustering taxonomy. The three methods and their results will be briefly summarized here, and the more detailed results, including category record titles, will be presented in Appendices 2-4. 

2D3b. Manual taxonomy results 
Based on the factor analysis (section 2D3c) and text clustering (2D3d) results, as well as reading thousands of abstracts from the full database, a manual taxonomy of adverse health effects from wireless radiation was constructed. Appendix 2 presents this taxonomy (Table A2- 1), and the titles of the records that were assigned to each category in the taxonomy. The record titles give a better appreciation for the contents of each category than the brief category heading. 

This manual taxonomy is the most relevant (of the three taxonomies presented) to the main objective of identifying and categorizing specific adverse health effects from wireless technology, since it was not dependent on any algorithm to determine adverse effects categories and received a higher level of title filtering than the other two. Table A2-1 (reproduced in the following) presents the categories in the taxonomy, and a strong condensation of the key phrases 1) used to define the category and 2) link to the record titles shown in Appendix 2. A more detailed manual taxonomy, with orders-of-magnitude more phrases, is shown in Appendix 2. 

The adverse effects identified in the manual taxonomy cover those summarized in the comprehensive review analyses described previously, and go well beyond. While all the categories shown are problematical and harmful, the most researched categories with perhaps the most serious adverse effects are cancer/tumors, neurodegenerative diseases, reproduction problems, and genotoxicity. Thus, even confining these results to the non-classified open literature, many of which are based on single stressor experiments that tend to downplay greatly real-life adverse effects, there is more than enough hard evidence that wireless radiation 1) can be extremely harmful in real-life environments, and 2) needs to be subjected to orders-of magnitude harsher exposure limitations than is the case today. In Appendix 2, the categories in Table A2-1 are hyperlinked to their respective record title sections. 

Table A2-1 
Manual Taxonomy 
CATEGORY                         KEY PHRASES 
Cancer/Tumors cancer, leukemia, glioma, lymphoma, melanoma, Hodgkin's disease, tumor, acoustic neuroma, meningioma 

Neurodegenerative memory, central nervous system, learning, neurodegenerative, Alzheimer's disease, cognition, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, dementia, epilepsy, multiple sclerosis, cognitive impairment, seizures, autism 

Reproduction pregnancy, reproductive, sperm, embryos, testicular, fertility, embryo, testosterone, infertility 

Genotoxicity DNA damage, genotoxic, micronuclei, mutagenic, strand breaks, chromatin, mutation, chromosome aberrations, 

Cardiovascular Cardiac, cardiovascular, pacemaker, implanted, Cardiovascular disease, arrhythmia, arterial blood pressure, ventricular fibrillation 

Immunity lymphocytes, immune system, immunity, leukocytes, antibodies, neutrophils, autoimmune, macrophage, 

Biomarkers apoptosis, oxidative stress, Malondialdehyde, reactive oxygen species, superoxide dismutase, lipid peroxidation, inflammation, oxidation, ornithine decarboxylase, barrier permeability, atrophy, C-reactive protein, oxidative damages 

Sensory Disorders auditory, acoustic, hypersensitivity, electromagnetic hypersensitivity, cataract, tinnitus, dermatitis, cataractogenic, pain sensitivity, pain threshold 

Discomfort Symptoms depression, anxiety, headache, dizziness, depressed, vertigo, nausea, low back pain 

Congenital Abnormalities malformations, teratogenic, congenital malformations, cleft palate, 

Circadian Rhythym and Melatonin melatonin, sleep, circadian, insomnia, pineal function 

Chronic Conditions metabolism, glucose, endocrine, cholesterol, Diabetes, calcium homeostasis, obesity  

2D3b1. Adverse effects of wireless radiation on food chain 
The above taxonomy (and its associated records) focuses on the direct linkage between wireless radiation exposure and biomarkers, symptoms, and diseases. As such, these effects can be viewed as direct effects. Equally important, but usually overlooked in any discussions of adverse effects of wireless radiation, are the indirect effects, especially those on the ecological infrastructure that supports human life. 

An analogy to war and conflict may be instructive. When one examines the great wars and battles of human history, especially those that persisted for more than very short periods, the critical role of logistics in determining the outcome becomes obvious. Many wars/battles have been won or lost by the adequacy and timeliness of logistical supplies and support. 

The struggle for survival of human life on Earth is similarly dependent on the logistical food supply chain. At the foundation of this supply chain (before the farmers become involved in harvesting its bounty) are the insects, seeds, flora, trees, etc, that enable the bountiful growth of the myriad potential foods. If the integrity of this foundational logistical supply chain is threatened in any way, then both the animals and plant products we consume become unavailable. 

There is a substantial literature on the adverse impacts of wireless radiation on this foundational logistical supply chain. These adverse effects are from the pre-5G exposures, and would include enhanced coupling from the higher frequency harmonics. Many of these supply chain elements (e.g., insects, seeds, larvae, etc) are very small, and we could expect enhanced resonance/energy coupling from the shorter-wavelength 5G radiation when implemented. This indirect impact of wireless radiation may turn out to be at least as important (if not more important) as the direct impact of wireless radiation on human survival! At the end of Chapter 3 are a few references showing the harmful effects of wireless radiation on the foundational food supply chain. They are the tip of the iceberg of a much larger literature on adverse effects of wireless radiation on the foundational food supply chain. 

From a broader perspective, most of the laboratory experiment component of the wireless radiation adverse effects literature can be viewed as related to the foundational food supply chain. Much of this research is focused on mice, rats, insects, small birds, small fish, etc. These species tend to be prey of larger animals/fowl/fish, and eventually make their way to the human food table. Any environmental factor that affects the health of these species adversely will eventually impacts the humans who are at the end of that chain. In reality, we have accumulated a massive literature describing the adverse impacts of wireless radiation on myriad contributing components to our food supply, and the results do not bode well for our future ability to feed the existing world’s population, much less the growing world’s population!  

2D3b2. Implants and Appendages The adverse impacts of wireless radiation on myriad medical implants don’t get much discussion in the literature, especially passive implants (defined below), and especially with regard to radiofrequency radiation. A number of articles in the database addressed non-organic implants, which are foreign bodies inserted into humans and animals for medical purposes. Nonorganic implants addressed in the present database are typically not rejected by the immune system like organic foreign substances (although some adjuvants such as metal could induce autoimmune responses [Loyo et al, 2013]). Non-rejection does not mean they are safe, especially from exposure to wireless radiation. 

There were two major types of implants covered by the database articles showing adverse effects: active implants that produced electrical signals mainly for controlling heart irregularities (e.g., pacemakers, defibrillators) and hearing deficiencies (e.g., cochlear implants), and passive metallic implants for structural support (e.g., dental implants, bone pins, plates, etc). Additionally, there are articles addressing adverse effects from wireless radiation in the vicinity of metallic appendages (e.g., metallic eyeglasses, metallic jewelry, etc). 

The external EMF from microwaves (and other sources) could 1) impact the electrical operation of the active implants adversely, 2) increase the Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) values of tissue in the vicinity of the passive implants substantially because of resonance effects, and 3) increase the flow and acidity of saliva in the vicinity of dental structures. While the EMF effects on the cochlear implants could adversely affect auditory capability, EMF effects on the heart-related implants could potentially be life-threatening. The increased SAR values around the passive metal implants could result in increased tissue temperatures, and could adversely impact integration and longevity of the passive metallic implants. 

In the mouth, the combination of 1) increased tissue temperatures in proximity to the implant or other orthodontic structures and 2) increased flow rate and acidity of saliva could lead to 3) increased leaching of heavy metals. Exposure to heavy metals is a major contributor to myriad chronic diseases [Kostoff, 2015]. The question then becomes: what other adverse health effects from the exposure of both the active and passive implants to increasing levels of wireless radiation have not been identified or addressed? 

Appendix 7 addresses this issue of wireless radiation adverse effects related to medical implants and appendages in more detail, and additionally addresses potential wireless radiation adverse effects on tissues imbedded (deliberately or inadvertently) with exogenous-based nanoparticles that effectively act as micro/nano-implants. These nanoparticle-imbedded tissues may have the potential for enhanced energy absorption from the incoming RF signal, and may exhibit potentially harmful thermal transients (over and above the potential thermal transients resulting from the pulsed high peak-to-average power of the RF signal) that would be camouflaged under the wide averaging time periods in the FCC Guidelines. 

2D3c. Factor analysis taxonomy results 
The 5,311 records in the retrieved and partially filtered adverse health effects database were imported into the VP software [VP, 2019], and a factor analysis was performed. Thousands of MeSH Headings extracted by the VP software were inspected visually, and those directly applicable to adverse health effects were selected. The software then used these selected MeSH Headings to generate a factor matrix, which identified the main adverse health effects themes of the database. Appendix 3 presents this taxonomy (Table A3-1), and the titles of the records that were assigned to each category in the taxonomy. The titles give a better appreciation for the contents of each category than the brief category heading. 

Table A3-1 (reproduced from Appendix 3) follows. It presents the factors/categories in the taxonomy, and the key MeSH Headings used to define the factor/category and link to the record titles shown in Appendix 3. In Appendix 3, the factors in Table A3-1 are hyperlinked to their respective record titles.

Table A3-1 
Factor Analysis Taxonomy 
FACTOR THEME                               MESH HEADINGS 
1 Electromagnetic hypersensitivity and inflammation C-Reactive Protein, Liver Diseases, Thyroid Diseases, Inflammation, Tonsillitis, Hypersensitivity 

2 Coronary artery disease Plaque, Atherosclerotic, Coronary Artery Disease, Diabetes Mellitus, Carotid Artery Diseases, Inflammation, Hypertension 

3A. Congenital abnormalities Cleft Lip, Cleft Palate, Calcification, Physiologic, Congenital Abnormalities 
3B. Mammary tumors Fibroadenoma, Adenoma, Mammary Neoplasms, Animal, Mammary Neoplasms, Experimental, Adenocarcinoma 

4 Male infertility Sperm Count, Spermatozoa, Sperm Motility, Semen, Testis, Infertility, Male, Spermatogenesis, Testosterone, Fertility 

5. Brain neoplasms Meningioma, Glioma, Meningeal Neoplasms, Neuroma, Acoustic, Brain Neoplasms, Glioblastoma, Neoplasms, Radiation-Induced, Neuroma, Cranial Nerve Neoplasms, Parotid Neoplasms, Central Nervous System Neoplasms 

6 Sensory disorders Burning Mouth Syndrome, Taste Disorders, Skin Diseases, Mouth Diseases, Dizziness, Vision Disorders, Hypersensitivity, Delayed, Fatigue 

7. Breast neoplasms Carcinoma, Lobular, Carcinoma, Ductal, Breast, Breast Neoplasms, Male, Adenoma 

8.Oxidative stress Oxidative Stress, Malondialdehyde, Glutathione Peroxidase, Lipid Peroxidation, Reactive Oxygen Species, Apoptosis, DNA Damage, Nitric Oxide, Protein Carbonylation 

9.Neurodegenerative diseases Parkinson Disease, Neurodegenerative Diseases, Alzheimer Disease, Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis, Motor Neuron Disease, Occupational Diseases, Dementia, Brain Diseases, Dementia, Vascular 

10.Cerebrovascular disorders Cerebrovascular Disorders, Dementia, Migraine Disorders, Tinnitus, Headache, Sleep Wake Disorders, Carotid Artery Diseases, Alzheimer Disease, Dementia, Vascular

11 Congenital abnormalities and glandular-based tumors Cleft Lip, Cleft Palate, Fibroadenoma, Adenoma, Calcification, Physiologic, Mammary Neoplasms, Animal, Mammary Neoplasms, Experimental, Adenocarcinoma 

12 Skin neoplasms Carcinoma, Basal Cell, Carcinoma, Squamous Cell, Skin Neoplasms, Carcinogenesis, Neoplasms, Experimental, Neoplasms, Radiation Induced, Colonic Neoplasms 

13 Leukemia Leukemia, Myeloid, Acute, Leukemia, Lymphocytic, Chronic, B-Cell, Leukemia, Myelogenous, Chronic, BCR-ABL Positive, Leukemia, Myeloid, Leukemia, Multiple Myeloma, Lymphoma, Leukemia, Radiation-Induced, Acute Disease, Liver Neoplasms, Experimental, Central Nervous System Neoplasms 

14 Precancerous conditions Atrophy, Precancerous Conditions, Hyperplasia, Hypersensitivity, Delayed, Thymus Gland, Capillary Permeability, Lymphoma 

15 Circadian Rhythm Melatonin, Circadian Rhythm, Pineal Gland 

16 Eye diseases Eye Diseases, Cataract, Vision Disorders, Sensation Disorders, Neurotic Disorders, Lens, Crystalline, Corneal Diseases, Edema, Hematologic Diseases 

17 Electromagnetic interference in implanted electronic devices 
Tachycardia, Ventricular, Ventricular Fibrillation, Death, Sudden, Cardiac, Arrhythmias, Cardiac 

18 Liver Neoplasms Liver Neoplasms, Carcinoma, Hepatocellular, Neoplasm Recurrence, Local, Lymphatic Metastasis 

19 Symptoms of discomfort Headache, Dizziness, Fatigue, Depression, Anxiety, Tremor, Sleep Wake Disorders, Neurotic Disorders, Stress, Psychological, Anxiety Disorders, Nervous System Diseases 

20 Neoplasms Lung Neoplasms, Ovarian Neoplasms, Pituitary Neoplasms, Lymphoma, Prostatic Neoplasms, Colonic Neoplasms, Carcinoma, Breast Neoplasms, Hematologic Neoplasms, Neoplasms, Liver Neoplasms, Cell Transformation, Neoplastic, Nervous System Neoplasms....

continue here at page 45 on the scroll....

No comments:

Part 1 Windswept House A VATICAN NOVEL....History as Prologue: End Signs

Windswept House A VATICAN NOVEL  by Malachi Martin History as Prologue: End Signs  1957   DIPLOMATS schooled in harsh times and in the tough...