Connect with us

Health

Straight Pride Flag: Freedom Of Expression Or Freedom Of Oppression?

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    In the town of Chipman, NB, the raising of a 'straight pride' flag in the heart of the village, requested by some residents after an LGBT flag had been promoted months earlier, brought about a hostile reaction from some residents.

  • Reflect On:

    How does the struggle for acceptance on the part of any particular group in society affect the process of the whole of society coming together as one?

The town of Chipman, New Brunswick, a village of some 1,100 people about 60 kilometers east of Fredericton, was host to the latest dustup on gender and sexual preference. It provides an interesting context for a deeper discussion about how to promote acceptance, equal rights, and freedom of expression for all human beings in our communities. Here is the story from this CBC article in a nutshell.

advertisement - learn more

On Sunday, October 21, a ‘straight pride’ flag was raised in the heart of the village of Chipman, NB. For those who have never heard of a ‘straight pride’ flag, like myself before I had read this article, the flag has a background of black and white horizontal lines which may or may not depict interlinked male and female symbols on top of them. It has been raised by some conservative groups in the U.S. in response to gay pride events.

--> FREE Documentary Series: "Exhausted" explores how you can regain, restore and replenish the endless energy you thought you had lost forever. Click here to save your spot!

In June, the village council had gone ahead for the first time to raise an LGBT pride flag in support of the LGBT community. A group of 11 Chipman residents headed by Glenn Bishop had met since to find ways to show support for straight people. Bishop had gone to the mayor about two months ago and asked to fly the flag. According to Bishop, the mayor said, ‘Sure we represent all groups of people.’ Subsequently, the council voted unanimously to raise the flag on October 21.

Resident Outrage

The appearance of the flag was met with outrage from some residents. When Margaret Clark first saw pictures on Facebook of the flag waving in the heart of the village, she said she felt as if she’d been kicked in the stomach. Her son is a gay man who was bullied when he was at the local high school:

“It’s just like they created a time machine and they put us back 10 years. To put up a straight pride flag is almost like putting up a swastika. It’s scary in this day and age — it’s 2018… It represents hatred: ‘We’re going to show them that us white, straight people are better.” –Margaret Clark

advertisement - learn more

Less than half an hour after it was taken down, Bishop arrived and asked “Who took down my flag?” Members of the LGBT community who were standing there said, “We did,” and an altercation ensued. Bishop argued that he never meant to offend anyone and that they were being “sensitive.” Bishop maintains that “We are not against the gay pride people at all. I’m not against gay people; anybody’s sexual preference is their choice.”

But resident Mat Miller (seen holding an LGBT pride flag while arguing with Glenn Bishop, right) saw things differently. He and others said Bishop didn’t understand how the flag makes light of the struggle of being gay or non-binary.

“You’re against them by putting the flag up,” Miller told Bishop. “There’s no such thing as straight pride.” Miller said he’s happy to see the flag is down, but he still expects an apology from the mayor and council.

Council’s Statement

The council said later that the backlash against the raising of the straight pride flag included “personal attacks and threats” against councilors. The village council said Sunday’s flag raising was meant as a show of support to “all groups in our municipality and to respect everyone’s right to freedom of speech.”

“No harm or hate was intended in any way as we pride ourselves on Chipman being a diverse and vibrant community. This flag distraction is a lesson for us and for other rural communities such as our own.”–Council statement

What’s The Lesson?

If there is one thing in all this that I’m in full agreement with, it is that last statement that ‘This flag distraction is a lesson for us.’ The question is, how many have actually gleaned the true lesson contained therein?

Here’s an idea, some have mused. Those who are straight, and would like to show support for straight people but in so doing want to make it clear that they hold nothing against members of the LGBT community, like Bishop claims, can combine the two flags together and identify as a straight person who is an ‘ally’ of the LGBT community. Problem solved, right?

Alas, not exactly. As well-meaning as this effort may be, it still ultimately causes division, because it discriminates between heterosexuals who self-identify as ‘allies’ of the LGBT community and those heterosexuals who don’t. And anything that continues to subdivide us is not a lasting and all-inclusive solution.

The Trouble With Flags

The root of the problem here stems from what the action of flying a flag actually means. A flag is a representation of something: an idea, a nation, or in this case, a segment of the population. But because the LGBT flag and the straight pride flag each represent one part of the population at the exclusion of the other, the flying of these flags can be divisive when they are supposedly being ‘endorsed’ by representatives of a whole population (i.e. a village council).

The village council of Chipman, who seem well-meaning, missed the mark by agreeing to hoist either flag in the heart of the village. Firstly, because it is not necessary for the council to endorse a group which represents a segment of the population in order to safeguard their freedom of speech; freedom of speech is an individual right, as only one individual can speak at a time. So members of the LGBT community each have the right to speak freely. A group literally cannot ‘speak,’ and even a representative who speaks on behalf of a group, is still exercising their individual right to free speech.

Secondly, neither flag actually embodied the town’s desire to be seen as diverse and inclusive. In fact, when the representatives of the people (the council) endorse a flag as a community, they are essentially excluding one segment while making the other one special. But members of the LGBT community are not special, in the same way that non-members are not special. We are all equal.

When the LGBT community raises their flag within their own community, then it becomes a symbol of unity through diversity, an inspiration for people of different orientations to come together and feel accepted and welcome. But this flag will not go very far in bringing whole communities together, unless it is changed so that ALL people are represented on it. And the same is obviously true for the ‘straight pride’ flag.

The Takeaway

The ultimate destination of human evolution is for us to come together as one. While any particular group’s struggle for acceptance and equality in society may be a noble one, their is always the danger that it solidifies into a permanent identity founded on victimhood. It is only once this identity is fully transcended, the group’s collective ethos embodies the love and acceptance towards all of society that they want the rest of society to provide them with, do they become agents of change that actually helps to bring the entire collective together.

Become Part of CE's Inner Circle

Collective Evolution is one of the world's fastest-growing conscious media and education companies providing news and tools to raise collective consciousness. Get inside access to Collective Evolution by becoming a member of CETV.

Stream content 24/7 and enjoy mind-expanding interviews, original shows, documentaries and guided programs.

Click here to start a FREE 7-Day Trial and help conscious media thrive!

Advertisement
advertisement - learn more

Alternative News

Nearly One Billion Genetically Modified Mosquitoes To Be Released In Florida & Texas

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    British-based biotechnology company, Oxitec, received approval from the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to release approximately one billion genetically modified male mosquitoes in Florida and Texas despite opposition from many.

  • Reflect On:

    How is this able to happen without or consent as a global citizenry, especially when there are so many clear concerns being raised by so many non corporate/government affiliated scientists who are publishing research.

What Happened: A couple of months ago, British-based biotechnology company, Oxitec, received approval from the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to release approximately one billion genetically modified male mosquitoes in Florida and Texas, the decision took a step closer to reality after state regulators then approved the idea, despite the objection of many environmentalists and scientists.

The purpose of the planned release is to supposedly help fight diseases that normal mosquitoes infect people with, like malaria, for example. For this specific release, the lab-altered patented bugs are members of the Aedes aegypti, the species of mosquito that spreads diseases such as yellow fever, malaria and chikungunya. They’ve been genetically altered to artificially reduce future mosquito populations.

We are being told that the plan is to unleash these insects so they can mate with female mosquitoes and produce weak offspring that never make it to adulthood, thus reducing the total population and in turn reducing the rate of disease spread. Male mosquitoes don’t drink human blood, and since all of the mosquitoes are male, there is apparently nothing to worry about, but this simply isn’t true. Releasing nearly one billion genetically modified mosquitoes into the environment raises multiple causes for concern, and a percentage of the released insects will still be genetically modified females that are capable of biting humans and other animals, more on that below.

Why This Is Important: It’s important to ask why the independent scientists who have been raising a cause for concern about this new technology are being ignored, and if federal health regulatory agencies like the EPA and biotech giants like Oxitec actually hold more power and influence when it comes to receiving such approval. Do we really know what goes on behind the scenes within these federal health regulatory agencies? The CDC SPIDER is one of many great examples that has emerged throughout the years. If history tells us anything, one common theme seems to be corruption and the deliberate destruction of data that hinders the corporations plans.

It’s also noteworthy to mention that these mosquitoes have already been released around the world. Multiple regions in Africa have been subjected to this, and from 2013 to 2015 Oxitec released millions of them into neighbourhoods in Jacobina, Brazil. In this case, some of the gene-edited mosquitoes passed their genes to the native insects, causing concerns that they created a more robust hybrid species.

They found that some of the genes from the genetically modified mosquitoes had transferred to the native population. In other words, some of the offspring had survived and were strong enough to reproduce. This new population is a hybrid of Brazilian mosquitoes and the genetically modified mosquitoes that were created from strains in Cuba and Mexico, according to the study, which was published Sept. 10 in the journal Scientific Reports.

In fact, the genes that were passed on weren’t the tweaked genes that were designed to kill and tag the mosquitoes but rather genes from the strains in Cuba and Mexico, according to Science magazine. The researchers also noted that this mixing of genes might have led to a “more robust population,” perhaps one that would be better able to resist insecticides or transmit diseases, Science magazine reported. (source)

Oxitec has always opposed science coming from independent scientist, and the science used to gain approval for the release of genetically modified mosquitoes into the environment comes straight from the corporation.

Critics have accused Oxitec of a lack of transparency. Earlier this year, scientists at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Biology in Germany examined information regarding the release of modified insects into the environment in Malaysia and Grand Cayman, which were carried out by Oxitec. The scientists’ findings suggest that there are “deficits in the scientific quality of regulatory documents and a general absence of accurate experimental descriptions available before releases start”.

There are various concerns such as, what happens if someone receives a bite from one of these mosquitoes? The company had widely publicized that they were only releasing males, which don’t bite. But it turns out that their method of sorting males from females is flawed, and thousands of biting female mosquitoes are released. In addition, their method to create non-viable offspring is also incorrect. Between 3%-15% of the offspring survive and prosper. This can obviously equate to millions of biting females, born from a genetically engineered family tree.

The potential exists for these genes, which hop from one place to another, to infect human blood by finding entry through skin lesions or inhaled dust. Such transmission could potentially wreak havoc with the human genome by creating “insertion mutations” and other unpredictable types of DNA damage. (Joe Cummins, long time genetics professor at Western University, London, Ontario)

Todd Shelly, an entomologist for the Agriculture Department in Hawaii, said 3.5 percent of the insects in a laboratory test survived to adulthood, despite presumably carrying the lethal gene. (source)

Another factor to consider is this:

Tetracycline and other antibiotics are now showing up in the environment, in soil and surface water samples. These GM mosquitoes were designed to die in the absence of tetracycline (which is introduced in the lab in order to keep them alive long enough to breed). They were designed this way assuming they would NOT have access to that drug in the wild. With tetracycline exposure (for example, in a lake) these mutant insects could actually thrive in the wild, potentially creating a nightmarish scenario(source)

It’s also important to note that there is there is no specific regulatory process for GM insects anywhere in the world. Oxitec seems to have infiltrated the decision making process around the world, and they have a close relationship with multinational pesticide and seed company, Syngenta. Oxitec has already made large-scale open releases of GM mosquitoes in the Cayman Islands, Malaysia and Brazil and is developing GM agricultural pests, jointly with Syngenta. (source)

Where have we seen this before? Not long ago I wrote an article about Glyphosate, an active ingredient within Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide and how it was recently re-licensed and approved by the European Parliament. However, MEPs found the science given to them was plagiarized, full of industry science written by Monsanto. This is just one of many examples. You can read more about that story here.

A report released as far back as 2012 from GeneWatch UK, Testbiotech, Berne Declaration, SwissAid, and Corporate Europe Observatory explains:

Regulatory decisions on GM insects in Europe and around the world are being biased by corporate interests as the UK biotech company Oxitec has infiltrated decision-making processes around the world. The company has close links to the multinational pesticide and seed company, Syngenta. Oxitec has already made large-scale open releases of GM mosquitoes in the Cayman Islands, Malaysia and Brazil and is developing GM agricultural pests, jointly with Syngenta.

The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) is one of several examples showing how industry organises its influence. In EFSA´s GM insects working group, which was established to develop guidance for risk assessment of genetically engineered insects, there are several cases of conflicts of interest, including experts with links to Oxitec who only partially declared their interests. The draft Guidance on risk assessment of GM insects shows some significant deficiencies: for example it does not consider the impacts of GM insects on the food chain. Oxitec’s GM insects are genetically engineered to die mostly at the larval stage so dead GM larvae will enter the food chain inside food crops such as olives, cabbages and tomatoes.

Living GM insects could also be transported on crops to other farms or different countries. EFSA has excluded any consideration of these important issues from its draft guidance. Many other issues are not properly addressed. A World Health Organisation (WHO)-funded project has allowed the company to bypass requirements for informed consent for the release of GM mosquitoes. The WHO-funded Mosqguide project, which was supposed to be developing best practice, also allowed the company to gain approval from Brazilian regulators to release 16 million GM mosquitoes before draft regulations on the release of GM insects had been finalised or adopted, without publishing a risk assessment.

The report also outlines how Oxitec influences regulation around the world, which include:

  • Attempts to define ‘biological containment’ of the insects (which are programmed to die at the larval stage) as contained use, by passing requirements for risk assessments and consultation on decisions to release GM insects into the environment.
  • Attempts to avoid any regulation of GM agricultural pests on crops which will end up in the food chain.
  • Avoidance of any discussion of how GM insects can be contained at a site, or products produced using GM insects can be labelled
  • Exclusion of many important issues from risk assessments, including impacts of surviving GM mosquitoes on the environment and health, and impacts of changing mosquito populations on human immunity and disease
  • Failure to follow transboundary notification process for exports of GM insects correctly
  • Undermining the requirement to obtain informed consent for experiments involving insect species with transmit disease
  • Attempts to avoid liability for any harm if anything goes wrong
  • Pushing ahead with large-scale open releases of GM mosquitoes before relevant guidance or regulations are adopted

The amount of environmental, health and food-safety issues that this is creating among many scientists around the world in the field is quite overwhelming. There is a lot of information out there and many publications that clearly oppose these decisions. This ‘quiet’ release of genetically modified insects that has been happening for a few years now. The information presented in this article is simply a tidbit, and I really wanted to emphasize how the only one’s approving the release are the corporation, their science, and their claims. They do this by the power they (the corporation) exercise over federal regulatory agencies.

The Takeaway

Why do we continue to be subjected to, and allow our environment to be subjected this type of ‘experimentation’ against our will? Are there other agendas at play here besides the ones we are told, the ones used to justify these actions? Why do corporations and government agencies have the authority and ability to do something that could have long lasting, and quite large health and environmental consequences? How are they able to sneak their way through any type of appropriate regulation and safety testing? Why are these decisions going forward despite the concerns raised by so many scientists, health and environmental organizations? Why are there always conflicts of interests? Why has the mainstream heard nothing of this, and why aren’t the concerns being addressed appropriately? What’s going on here?

We’ve created a pyramid system, we are on the bottom, the government is above us, and the corporations are above the government because they dictate government policy. The corporations get their money from the big banks, who sit above the corporation. Is this something we want to keep playing with? Why are the people and so many activists rendered completely powerless in their/our ability to stop these efforts. Why do we keep playing with and participating in the political process when all it does is hand our power over to people who don’t really have humanities best interests at heart, and have the ability to take such actions?

There are so many initiatives like this and many others that are being rolled out on the human population without our consent, and as a result many people are experiencing a shit in consciousness, a shift in the way they view our world. We have to ask ourselves, why do we live the way we do and think the way we think?

Become Part of CE's Inner Circle

Collective Evolution is one of the world's fastest-growing conscious media and education companies providing news and tools to raise collective consciousness. Get inside access to Collective Evolution by becoming a member of CETV.

Stream content 24/7 and enjoy mind-expanding interviews, original shows, documentaries and guided programs.

Click here to start a FREE 7-Day Trial and help conscious media thrive!

Continue Reading

Alternative News

Canada Inks Deal With Pfizer & Moderna To Prepare The Nation For “Mass Vaccinations”

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Canada recently announced that they signed a deal with Pfizer & Moderna to secure millions of doses of a coronavirus vaccine when it's ready.

  • Reflect On:

    Why is vaccine hesitancy growing? Should the freedom of choice always remain? Are people who refuse made out to be the "bad" ones as a result of mainstream media/government/big pharma perception manipulation?

What Happened: The Canadian government has inked a new deal with pharmaceutical giants Pfizer and Moderna to secure tens of millions of doses of the new coronavirus vaccine in 2021, which is still currently in the developmental stages. Procurement Minister Anita Anand recently made the announcement after Pfizer tweeted news of the new deal, stating that “We are increasingly focused on the next stage of our recovery, including preparing Canada for mass vaccinations”

This comes shortly after the U.S. government gave more than a billion dollars to Bill Gates‘ vaccine alliance called Gavi, which was co-founded by Bill & Melinda Gates. President Trump also signed a deal with Pfizer for one hundred million doses of the COVID-19 vaccine. You can read more about those stories here.

Why This Is Important: Many people are wondering if the coronavirus vaccine will be mandatory, or perhaps similar to recent mask mandates that multiple governments have put in place in certain areas. In Canada, masks are mandatory when inside many public buildings, and many people are starting to see that these types of mandates may actually become permanent, and also worry that other permanent changes are being put in place that will remain as “then new normal” under the guise of necessity.

 Survey results released on Tuesday from the non-profit Angus Reid Institute found half of Canadians say they have no reservations and are ready to get a COVID-19 vaccination as soon as it’s available. But 32 per cent — roughly a third of respondents — say they’d likely wait a while. Another 14 per cent don’t want to get a vaccine at all. This comes from CBC, a major mainstream media organization in Canada. I do have a hard time trusting these numbers, and personally feel that the number of those who do not desire the vaccine may be much greater than 50 percent, but I could be wrong. At the end of the day, mainstream media and poll organizations could easily team up and manipulate numbers, it’s so hard to trust anything that comes from mainstream media given their relationship with corporations and governments. We’ve already seen a great amount of manipulation when it comes to the new coronavirus, as with many other topics over the years.

Are powerful people creating a problem in order to propose a solution? In today’s day and age, this is an important question to ask.

According to Edward Snowden, “Governments around the world are are exploiting the pandemic to monitor us like never before.” He and many others have been pointing out how society is moving fast towards an authoritarian type of existence, and how it’s already here. The enforcement or advocacy of strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom has been here for quite a while, and it’s done in a very clever way, often hiding under the guise of good will, or making people feel that they may be harming others if they do not comply.

This pandemic has been a catalyst for many people to question actions taken by government and if they’re actually in societies best interest. Are governments simply following the will of their masters, without question, like we follow the will of our government? Global chaos seems to be a recipe for change, awareness, and for more people to see through potential lies and manipulation.

Can human beings do better? We have unlimited potential to create a human experience where everyone can thrive. We have solutions, finding them is not the problem, implementing them seems to be the case and solutions that can change our world for the better have long threatened powerful interests and their ability to control the human population.

Is COVID-19 doing what 9/11 did for human consciousness? 

A common theme throughout this pandemic is the ‘waking up’ of humanity. Given the discrepancy that’s existed around the world with regards to categorizing coronavirus deaths when they are not the result of COVID-19, the controversy surrounding masks, an infection fatality rate that is no different from a seasonal flu (read more about that here and here), treatment options that have worked yet have been constantly ridiculed, and the unreliability of the tests used to detect the new coronavirus, many people are asking themselves what’s really going on?

Vaccine hesitancy hasn’t only increased among the citizenry, Professor Heidi Larson, a Professor of Anthropology and the Risk and Decision Scientist Director at the Vaccine Confidence Project, recently emphasized that, “The other thing that’s a trend, and an issue, is not just confidence in providers but confidence of health care providers, we have a very wobbly health professional frontline that is starting to question vaccines and the safety of vaccines.” She did so at a World Health Organization (WHO) conference on vaccine safety. You find find links to the conference and read more about it here, if interested. She cites multiple studies proving her point.

Doctors and scientists are starting to distrust pharmaceutical companies, and many don’t feel comfortable prescribing certain medications, another point emphasized by Larson at the conference, and the research she cites.

Multiple clinical trials for COVID-19 vaccines have shown severe reactions within 10 days after taking the vaccine. Meanwhile, the US government and Yale University are collaborating in a clinical trial to determine the best messaging to persuade Americans to take the COVID-19 vaccine.

The Takeaway

At the end of the day, we have to ask ourselves, why is there a digital authoritarian Orwellian “fact-checker” going around the internet censoring any information that contradicts the WHO on health issues? Why are so many scientists and doctors experiencing censorship, and why is mainstream media bringing no attention to what these doctors have been saying? What’s really going on here? How long has our perception of major global events been completely manipulated? Should we not have the right to examine information openly and freely, and determine for ourselves what is and what isn’t and choose, for ourselves, what decisions we desire to make?

Become Part of CE's Inner Circle

Collective Evolution is one of the world's fastest-growing conscious media and education companies providing news and tools to raise collective consciousness. Get inside access to Collective Evolution by becoming a member of CETV.

Stream content 24/7 and enjoy mind-expanding interviews, original shows, documentaries and guided programs.

Click here to start a FREE 7-Day Trial and help conscious media thrive!

Continue Reading

Alternative News

Landmark Case Filed Against U.S. Federal Communications Commission On 5G & Wireless Health Concerns

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    The Environmental Health Trust is has filed a case against the U.S. Federal Communications Commission regarding 5G and wireless radiation, citing health and environmental concerns.

  • Reflect On:

    How are federal health regulatory agencies able to approve this technology without any appropriate safety testing? Is there an Industry influence? Why are health concerns raised by thousands of papers considered a "conspiracy?" What's going on here?

The case is Environmental Health Trust, et al. v. FCC  case number 20-1025, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

The Environmental Health Trust is a think tank that promotes a healthier environment through research, education, and policy and the only nonprofit organization in the world that carries out cutting edge research on environmental health hazards. They work directly with communities, health and education professionals, and policymakers to understand and mitigate these hazards. Dr. Devra Davis founded the non-profit Environmental Health Trust in 2007 in Teton County, Wyoming. She has been awarded a Nobel Peace Prize, and has authored more than 200 publications in books and journals. She is currently Visiting Professor of Medicine at The Hebrew University Hadassah Medical School, Jerusalem, Israel, and Ondokuz Mayis University Medical School, Samsun, Turkey. Dr. Davis lectures at the University of California, San Francisco and Berkeley, Dartmouth, Georgetown, Harvard, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and major universities in India, Australia, Finland, and elsewhere.

She’s actually one of the scientists who was creating awareness about big tobacco and how they were deceiving the public back in the day, and she’s compared that with the current climate of wireless technologies, proving that these technologies, like 5G and its predecessors, may be harmful to not only human health, but environmental health as well. The bottom line is, it’s firmly established in scientific literature that there are biological effects to be concerned about. These technologies pose great risks, and it’s quite alarming that federal health regulatory agencies have approved the rollout of these technologies without our consent, and furthermore, without any health and/or environmental safety testing.

There are hundreds, if not thousands of scientists doing their part to try and tackle this issue together by raiding red flags.

What Happened: The Environmental Health Trust has filed a case against the Federal Communications Commission. They explain:

Environmental Health Trust v. FCC challenges the FCC’s refusal to update its 25-year-old obsolete wireless radiation human exposure “safety” limits and the FCC’s refusal to adopt scientific, biologically based radio frequency radiation limits that adequately protect public health and the environment. The brief is filed jointly with Children’s Health Defense.

Our joint brief proves that the FCC ignored the record indicating overwhelming scientific evidence of harm to people and the environment from allowable levels of wireless radiation from phones, laptops and cell towers. Furthermore, the FCC “sees no reason to take steps to protect children”, despite being presented with scientific evidence indicating that children are uniquely vulnerable due to their developing brains and bodies.  Therefore, its decision not to review the “safety” limits is arbitrary, capricious, not evidence-based and unlawful.

Our brief contends the FCC has violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and the 1996 Telecommunications Act (TCA).

Here is a clip of Senator Richard Blumenthal during a hearing that took place last year, questioning wireless industry representatives about the safety of 5G technology. During an exchange with wireless industry representatives who were also in attendance, Blumenthal asked them whether they have supported research on the safety of 5G technology and potential links between radio-frequency and cancer, and the industry representatives conceded they have not.

The EHT goes on to explain that:

The FCC opened an Inquiry into the adequacy of its exposure limits in 2013 after the Government Accountability Office issued a report in 2012 stating that the limits may not reflect current science and need to be reviewed. In response, hundreds of scientists and medical professionals submitted a wealth of peer-reviewed studies showing the consensus of the scientific community is that RFR is deeply harmful to people and the environment and is linked to cancer, reproductive harm, and other biological ills to humans, animals, and plants.

Notwithstanding the extremely well-documented record of these negative impacts from RFR, the FCC released an order in December 2019 deciding that nothing needed to be done and maintaining that the existing, antiquated exposure limits are adequate now and for the future.

In large measure, the FCC simply ignored the vast amount of evidence in the record showing an urgent need for action to protect the public and the environment. EHT contends that the FCC ignored the recommendations of hundreds of medical experts and public health experts who called for updated regulations that protect against biological impacts and for the development of policies to immediately reduce public exposure.

The brief contends the FCC has violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) because its order is arbitrary and capricious, and not evidence-based; violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) because the FCC did not take a hard look on the environmental impacts of its decision; and violated the 1996 Telecommunications Act (TCA) because the FCC failed, as required by the TCA, to consider the impact of its decision on the public health and safety.

“The FCC entirely ignored the recommendations of the American Academy of Pediatrics, hundreds of scientists and over 30 medical and public health organizations. Wireless emission limits should protect children who will have a lifetime of exposure,” stated Theodora Scarato, Executive Director of Environmental Health Trust. Scarato pointed out that the FCC “saw no reason to take steps to protect children” despite voluminous scientific evidence on the record showing that children are uniquely vulnerable due to their developing brains and bodies.

“Equally shocking is how the FCC could state that the existing limits which were developed in 1996 are protective without even addressing the impact of the existing limits on the natural environment. In this regard, there was a noticeable absence of on-the-record comments by the EPA. In fact, the EPA recently stated that it has no funded mandate to even review research on RFR. Yet there is a great deal of evidence in the FCC proceeding showing that radiofrequency radiation is harmful to birds, bees and trees.”

Video of Press Conference 

Opening Brief 

EHT Submissions to 13-84

The science is also clear, there are thousands of peer-reviewed publications raising cause for concern. For example, A study published in 2019 is one of many that raises concerns. It’s titled “Risks to Health and Well-Being From Radio-Frequency Radiation Emitted by Cell Phones and Other Wireless Devices.”

It outlines how, “In some countries, notably the US, scientific evidence of the potential hazards of RFR has been largely dismissed.  Findings of carcinogenicity, infertility and cell damage occurring at daily exposure levels—within current limits—indicate that existing exposure standards are not sufficiently protective of public health. Evidence of carcinogenicity alone, such as that from the NTP study, should be sufficient to recognize that current exposure limits are inadequate.”

Would it not be in the best interests of everybody to simply put this technology through appropriate safety testing?

It goes on to state that “Public health authorities in many jurisdictions have not yet incorporated the latest science from the U.S. NTP or other groups. Many cite 28-year old guidelines by the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers which claimed that “Research on the effects of chronic exposure and speculations on the biological significance of non-thermal interactions have not yet resulted in any meaningful basis for alteration of the standard”

It’s one of many that call for safety testing before the rollout of 5G testing, because all we have right now from those who claim that it’s safe are ‘reviews of literature’ that are determining it’s safe.

This particular study emphasizes:

The Telecom industry’s fifth generation (5G) wireless service will require the placement of many times more small antennae/cell towers close to all recipients of the service, because solid structures, rain and foliage block the associated millimeter wave RFR (72). Frequency bands for 5G are separated into two different frequency ranges. Frequency Range 1 (FR1) includes sub-6 GHz frequency bands, some of which are bands traditionally used by previous standards, but has been extended to cover potential new spectrum offerings from 410 to 7,125 MHz. Frequency Range 2 (FR2) includes higher frequency bands from 24.25 to 52.6 GHz. Bands in FR2 are largely of millimeter wave length, these have a shorter range but a higher available bandwidth than bands in the FR1. 5G technology is being developed as it is also being deployed, with large arrays of directional, steerable, beam-forming antennae, operating at higher power than previous technologies. 5G is not stand-alone—it will operate and interface with other (including 3G and 4G) frequencies and modulations to enable diverse devices under continual development for the “internet of things,” driverless vehicles and more (72).

Novel 5G technology is being rolled out in several densely populated cities, although potential chronic health or environmental impacts have not been evaluated and are not being followed. Higher frequency (shorter wavelength) radiation associated with 5G does not penetrate the body as deeply as frequencies from older technologies although its effects may be systemic (7374). The range and magnitude of potential impacts of 5G technologies are under-researched, although important biological outcomes have been reported with millimeter wavelength exposure. These include oxidative stress and altered gene expression, effects on skin and systemic effects such as on immune function (74). In vivo studies reporting resonance with human sweat ducts (73), acceleration of bacterial and viral replication, and other endpoints indicate the potential for novel as well as more commonly recognized biological impacts from this range of frequencies, and highlight the need for research before population-wide continuous exposures.

A number of countries have already banned wireless technology in schools, and more are taking action steps, but it’s difficult when so many governments are dominated by corporations. Many people believe we now live in a corporatocracy, not a democracy, given the fact that they (corporations) have amassed so much power and have ways of dictating government policy. Paul Bischoff, a tech journalist and privacy advocate, recently compiled data regarding telecom’s political contributions to influence policies that benefit their industry, it’s quite revealing.

The list is quite long, and for the sake of a short read, if you want to learn more and access more of the science, you can start by visiting the Environmental Health Trust. It’s an excellent resource. There is a bit more information this article I recently published, but we’ve published many on the topic so you can browse around our site as well if interested, just use the search bar.

Why This Matters: 5G technology, and wireless technologies in general are a great example of measures being imposed on us against our will. It’s one of many examples that should have us questioning, do we really live in a democracy? Why has so much effort and awareness been raised, yet the idea that these technologies could pose a threat, and do pose a threat, is still considered a conspiracy theory within the mainstream? Why? What’s really going on here? Are there constant battles over human perception when it comes to certain topics? How much have we been misled? Is it time to start thinking for ourselves instead of relying on federal health regulatory agencies? How are we living? Why do we think the way we do? Human beings are full of unlimited potential, and there are better ways to do things here on planet Earth!

Become Part of CE's Inner Circle

Collective Evolution is one of the world's fastest-growing conscious media and education companies providing news and tools to raise collective consciousness. Get inside access to Collective Evolution by becoming a member of CETV.

Stream content 24/7 and enjoy mind-expanding interviews, original shows, documentaries and guided programs.

Click here to start a FREE 7-Day Trial and help conscious media thrive!

Continue Reading
advertisement - learn more
advertisement - learn more

Video

Elevate your inbox and get conscious articles sent directly to your inbox!

Choose your topics of interest below:

You have Successfully Subscribed!