How would you like it if we put a wireless antenna in your pants?

Chances are you wouldn’t like it either, especially if you knew that exposure to wireless radiation is linked to reproductive harm, neurological problems and even cancer.

So it’s very concerning that Pampers is about to launch its line of “smart” diapers that are equipped with a wireless-enabled sensor to track when a diaper needs changing.

This Tuesday, we are asking you to contact Pampers and demand that “smart” diapers never make it to market, because wireless radiation is not safe for our kids.

Here are three simple actions you can take to express your opposition to “smart” diapers today!

  1. Call the Pampers’ customer relations line at 1-800-726-7377 (USA)
  2. Submit a complaint via email here (USA)
  3. Sign the petition to Pampers here

Subject: Keep « smart » diapers off the market!

Dear Proctor and Gamble (Pampers),

I am calling/writing to express my deep concern about Pampers’ Lumi “smart” diapers.

All wireless devices emit radio-frequency (RF) microwave radiation, and a robust body of science proves that there is a link between exposure to this type of radiation and serious health problems. The danger is elevated for children.

We urge you to consider the science before you put young lives – and your company – at risk.

Thank you for your consideration and concern.

Sincerely,


Please spread this important message far and wide, folks! Our kids deserve action on this issue.

Thanks for all you do, – The 5G Crisis Team

5G Crisis is a project of Americans for Responsible Technology, an association of organizations and individuals across America who are committed to promoting new technologies that advance our common interests while protecting the health, safety, security, privacy and property values of all Americans.

Source = 5G Crises em 10 Sep 2019

(p/s for local actions check contact details e.g P&G in Switzerland)

Procter & Gamble Services (Switzerland) SA
Route de Saint-Georges 47, 1213 Petit-Lancy
Tel (+41) 022 709 61 11

Procter & Gamble International
Route de Saint-Georges 47, 1213 Petit-Lancy
Tel (+41) 079 230 52 25

Swiss Re Emerging Risk Report: 5G Mobile Networks Rated As « High Impact » Risk for Insurance Industry

5G mobile networks rated as « high impact » risk for insurance industry in new Emerging Risk report from Swiss Re. Swiss Re rated 5G as a « high impact » risk affecting property and casualty claims in more than 3 years.

From: Swiss Re. SONAR – New emerging risk insights. Zurich, Switzerland: Sustainability, Emerging and Political Risk Management, Swiss Re Institute, Strategy Development & Performance Management. SONAR May 2019

Off the leash – 5G mobile networks (p. 29)

« 5G – short for fifth generation – is the latest standard for cellular mobile communications. Providing ultrafast broadband connection with higher capacity and lower latency, 5G is not only heaven for your smartphone. It will enable wireless connectivity in real time for any device of the Internet of things (IoT), whether that be autonomous cars or sensor-steered factory. In doing so, it will allow decentralised seamless interconnectivity between devices.

To allow for a functional network coverage and increased capacity overall, more antennas will be needed, including acceptance of higher levels of electromagnetic radiation. In some jurisdictions, the rise of threshold values will require legal adaptation. Existing concerns regarding potential negative health effects from electromagnetic fields (EMF) are only likely to increase. An uptick in liability claims could be a potential long-term consequence.

Other concerns are focused on cyber exposures, which increase with the wider scope of 5G wireless attack surfaces. Traditionally IoT devices have poor security features. Moreover, hackers can also exploit 5G speed and volume, meaning that more data can be stolen much quicker. A large-scale breakthrough of autonomous cars and other IoT applications will mean that security features need to be enhanced at the same pace. Without, interruption and subversion of the 5G platform could trigger catastrophic, cumulative damage. With a change to more automation facilitated by new technology like 5G, we might see a further shift from motor to more general and product liability insurance. There are also worries about privacy issues (leading to increased litigation risks), security breaches and espionage. The focus is not only on hacking by third parties, but also potential breaches from built-in hard- or software “backdoors.” In addition, the market for 5G infrastructure is currently focussed on a couple of firms, and that raises the spectre of concentration risk.

Potential impacts:

  • Cyber exposures are significantly increased with 5G, as attacks become faster and higher in volume. This increases the challenge of defence.
  • Growing concerns of the health implications of 5G may lead to political friction and delay of implementation, and to liability claims. The introductions of 3G and 4G faced similar challenges.
  • Information security and national sovereignty concerns might delay implementation of 5G further, increasing uncertainty for planning authorities, investors, tech companies and insurers.
  • Heated international dispute over 5G contractors and potential for espionage or sabotage could affect international cooperation, and impact financial markets negatively.
  • As the biological effects of EMF in general and 5G in particular are still being debated, potential claims for health impairments may come with a long latency.

Source – SwissReMieuxprevenir

Additional resources – 5G Wireless Technology: Is 5G Harmful to Our Health?

5G: Explosives aus dem BAFU

Am 17. April verschickte das Bundesamt für Umwelt (BAFU) im Auftrag des Departementes Umwelt-Verkehr-Energie (UVEK) von Bundesrätin Simonetta Sommaruga ein 7-seitiges Informationsschreiben mit ziemlich explosivem Inhalt unter dem Titel «Mobilfunk und Strahlung – Aufbau der 5G-Netze in der Schweiz» an alle Kantonsregierungen.

Eine Information vom 14.Mai 2019 von
Hans-U. Jakob (Präsident von Gigaherz.ch)

In diesem Informationsschreiben wird den Regierungsrätinnen und Regierungsräten zu 5G zwecks «Beruhigung der Situation» allerhand höherer technischer Blödsinn aufgetischt, bei welchem jede Fachperson nur noch laut lachen kann.

Zum Beispiel, dass mit den neuen wunderbaren adaptiven Mobilfunkantennen die Strahlenbelastung der Bevölkerung viel niedriger würde. Der Strahlenkegel (Beam) werde jetzt direkt auf den Benutzer (User) ausgerichtet und in allen andern Strahlungsrichtungen sei die Strahlung tiefer. Dass es in einem Kreissektor von 120° jedoch nicht nur einen User gibt sondern bis 1200, die nicht nur mit einem Beam versorgt werden, sondern mit 64, wird selbstverständlich glatt verschwiegen. Bei 1200Usern und 64Beams ist das Loch dann voll. So voll wie nie zuvor.

Wer 100mal mehr Daten in 100mal höherer Geschwindigkeit übertragen will, kann dies nicht mit 100mal weniger Sendeleistung bewerkstelligen. Zu dieser Erkenntnis benötigt man(n) keine speziellen Funkkenntnisse, Gesunder Menschenverstand sollte da ausreichen.

Das dieser gesunde Menschenverstand bei den Bundesamtsjuristen völlig abhanden gekommen sein muss, steht dann im Kapitel 7.2 zum heutigen Erkenntnisstand. Da vergeht auch den Fachpersonen das Lachen.

Doch lesen Sie selbst:

Bild oben: Stand der Erkenntnisse.jpg

Da wird doch tatsächlich in Frage gestellt, ob denn bei einer Beeinflussung der Hirnströme, einer gestörter Durchblutung des Gehirns, einer Beeinträchtigung der Spermienqualität, einer Destabilisierung der Erbinformation sowie Auswirkungen auf die Expression von Genen, den programmierten Zelltod und den oxidativen Zellstress, überhaupt irgendwelche Gesundheitsfolgen zu befürchten seien.(?!)

Wir haben diese bundesamtliche Aufzählung von den aus unserer Sicht gravierenden Folgen bereits im Artikel https://www.gigaherz.ch/5g-der-musterbrief-zum-baustopp/ vermittelt und damit bei unseren Lesern ungläubiges Staunen bis zu Fälschungsvorwürfen ausgelöst. Aus diesem Grund steht der entsprechende Ausschnitt als Fotografie jetzt hier.

Doch keine Bange. Die Bundesamtsjuristen versprechen in ihrem Schreiben den Kantonsregierungen, die beim Mobilfunkstandard 5G verwendeten Frequenzen von 3400 bis 3600Megahertz und höher seien ja ganz ähnlich wie die bereits erforschten bis 1800Megahertz, welche ja keine gesundheitsschädigenden Erkenntnisse gebracht hätten. Ausser eben…. siehe Bild oben. Und 3400-3600MHz sei ja ganz nahe 1800MHz. (!)

Du heiliger Strohsack! Macht sich jetzt da bei den Bundesamtsjuristen bereits eine Beeinflussung der Hirnströme oder gar eine gestörte Durchblutung des Gehirns bemerkbar?

Da höhere Politiker, wie Regierungsräte bei den meisten Zuschriften nach spätestens 2 Seiten aufhören mit Lesen, ist zu befürchten, dass diese schon gar nicht erst auf Seite 6 bei Kapitel 7.2 angekommen sind.

Dringende Bitte an unsere Leser: Bild oben bitte ausschneiden und an die Regierungsräte Ihres Kantons schicken.

Source = 5G Explosives aus dem BAFU

Lloyds Insurers Refuse to Cover 5G Wi-Fi Illnesses

Published on February 12, 2019
Written by phibetaiota.net – Source principia-scientific.org

Lloyds of London, one of the world’s premier insurance groups, is refusing to insure health claims made against 5G wireless (“wi-fi”) technologies.

How curious that Lloyds of London has excluded from their policies any negative health effects caused by wi-fi technologies. Now, WHY would Lloyds leave all that money on the table if these technologies are so safe? And, why are other insurance companies following Lloyds’ lead?

If you think that following-the-money provides insights, you’ll probably conclude that something VERY BIG is embedded in this decision.

Here’s some background (including links):

The FCC and other government regulatory bodies, in collusion with the big telecomm industries, are ferociously pushing smart meters, 5G and the Internet of Things.

This roll-out is not only happening in the US, but all over the world. The giant telecomms gush enthusiastically about how EVERYTHING will be connected

OMG!! We’re gonna have Incredibly high-speed connectivity so your little girls and teens can, at supersonic speed, upload pix of their latest nail-polish jobs or cute puppy videos to FaceBook, Pinterest, etc., etc., for their friends to gasp and giggle…..and, of course, click “like” and forward these to their friends…. again, all at warp speed.

It’s pretty clear that this whole “play” by the giant telecomms is seen by them as a financial windfall – for them. And, via their lobby groups, it’s seen as a windfall for all the politicians who support this agenda. Politicians will be rewarded in the usual manner – pricey junkets to exotic places, elegant dinners, campaign contributions and, of course, cushy “golden parachute” jobs for those wi-fi supportive ex-politicians within the telecomm industries, or within their lobby groups. In short, crony business as usual.

BUT WAIT!! ….There’s a tiny but growing wrinkle in this rosy scenario of sugar plums dancing in the heads of these telecomm leaders. Specifically, Lloyds of London, one of the world’s premier insurance groups, is refusing to insure health claims made against wireless technologies. And, other insurance companies are following Lloyd’s lead in this.

If you follow the money, this is HUGE. After all, if these wi-fi techno-toys are so safe, why is Lloyds leaving all this additional money on the table?

Well, Lloyd’s November 2010 Risk Assessment Team’s Report gives us a solid clue: the report compares these wireless technologies with asbestos, in that the early research on asbestos was “inconclusive” and only later did it become obvious to anyone paying attention that asbestos causes cancer.

Keep in mind that Lloyd’s Risk Assessment study of wi-fi was published over 8 years ago. Even back then, however, their Risk Assessment Team was smart enough to realize that new evidence just might emerge showing that the various wi-fi frequencies do cause illness. The result? Lloyds opted to exclude coverage for wi-fi related illnesses.

And then, PG&E followed close on, slipping in its own legal clauses (just as it was rolling out smart meters) that claim no liability for wi-fi related health damage. The schools who opt to put in wi-fi are responsible, according to PG&E, and any other organizations that opt to have PG&E put wi-fi in their buildings are the responsible parties

Today, MANY more recent peer-reviewed scientific studies show a range of serious damage caused by these wi-fi frequencies. 5G brings a quantum leap in damage – to DNA, to cell mitochondria, and much more.

Fortunately the global public is waking up. Conversations are in the air about a global class-action lawsuit vs. the SPECIFIC INDIVIDUALS WORLDWIDE who are recklessly ignoring the Precautionary Principle in their promotion of advanced wi-fi technologies. In part – goes the growing conversation – the lawsuit will be based on the Nuremburg Principle of “informed consent.”

After all, what’s going on is a tiny handful of people are pushing a huge experiment on what will be billions of people, all without have gotten their informed consent … and without insurance for those who are electromagnetically sensitive – a growing group to watch. These unfortunate individuals are our “canaries” in the coal mine.

Pay close attention. This whole issue is about to become a whole lot more interesting.

Why Does Lloyd’s of London Exclude EMF Coverage – EMF and Your Health Series #4

After years of listening to cellular phone companies assure us that WiFi and cell phone transmission is safe, why did Lloyds of London, a company who will take risks when other insurers won’t exclude EMF injuries? Are they expecting an avalanche of health claims related to EMF?

What Does Lloyd’s of London Know that We don’t know?

We think Lloyd’s underwriters must be reading the research findings from major publications like the BioInitiative Report. Included in this report are summaries of research publications between 1990 -2014 on the biological effects of radio frequency and cell phone radiation. The research news is chilling. Prolonged exposure to EMF causes cellular malfunction, the formation of free radicals which then leads to a multitude of health issues. There are many physicians who now believe EMF effects underlie ALL medical issues.

This report was created by 29 authors from around the world, including 10 with medical degrees, 21 PhDs and 3 masters degrees. More than 100,000 people visit their site annually (http://www.bioinitiative.org). No longer can public officials pretend EMF is harmless. The cat is out of the bag!

Schools May Foot the Bill with WiFi Injuries

Lloyds is dumping the blame back on schools. In their insurance waiver, they state clearly that it is schools responsibility to inform parents and teachers if WiFi is being installed in their schools.

Parents for Safe Schools and other groups want to know why schools are not acknowledging the proven health effects of EMF? By allowing WiFi to be installed in the schools, they are acting as if WiFi is a safe technology. For many individuals, animals and plant life, serious health consequences occur with daily exposure to EMF.

Get Protection for Your Cell phone and WiFi & Your Body

We do recommend multi-level protection.

First and foremost, protect your entire body from the harmful effects of EMF and WiFi with a BioShield. There are also a number of ways you can dampen the amount of radiation coming from your cell phone. Visit our store to view several EMF blockers for phones and tablets. Don’t wait until you have symptoms to get protected. If you want to add EMF protection in your work and living spaces, there are several options as well.

Lloyd’s Won’t Discuss Their New EMF Exclusion Clause

My interpretation of this revealing statement is that CFC Underwriting, and perhaps all of “the market” has realized that the time has come to hedge against a future surge in “illnesses caused by continuous long-term non-ionising radiation exposure i.e. through mobile phone usage.” Why else would they refuse coverage “across the market as standard.”?

Lloyds Refuse To Discuss Why They Excluded RF/EMF Claims

“Unfortunately, Lloyd’s doesn’t have a spokesperson who can talk about this so we’re going to have to decline.” Now I’m used to rejection as a reporter, but I couldn’t quite believe this and told her so in my reply, mentioning that their refusal to talk about the policy change would possibly “draw attention away from more important aspects of the story.”

Read more at phibetaiota.net

P/s – In additional to the above article also read the following

Wireless carriers concede they are not aware of any independent scientific studies on safety of 5G technologies

(USA) « At Senate Commerce Hearing, Blumenthal Raises Concerns on 5G Wireless Technology’s Potential Health Risks – (Feb 7, 2019)

Blumenthal criticizes the FCC & FDA for inadequate answers on outstanding public health questions

Wireless carriers concede they are not aware of any independent scientific studies on safety of 5G technologies

[WASHINGTON, DC]— During today’s Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee hearing on the future of 5G wireless technology and their impact on the American people and economy, U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) raised concerns with the lack of any scientific research and data on the technology’s potential health risks. The full video of Blumenthal’s statement and exchange with industry representatives can be found below.

Blumenthal blasted the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)—government agencies jointly-responsible for ensuring that cellphone technologies are safe to use—for failing to conduct any research into the safety of 5G technology, and instead, engaging in bureaucratic finger-pointing and deferring to industry.

In December 2018, Blumenthal and U.S. Representative Anna G. Eshoo (CA-18) sent a letter to FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr seeking answers regarding potential health risks posed by new 5G wireless technology. At today’s hearing, Blumenthal criticized Carr for failing to provide answers, and instead, just echoing, “the general statements of the FDA, which shares regulatory responsibility for cell phones with the FCC.” Blumenthal also decried the FDA’s statements as “pretty unsatisfactory.” A PDF of Carr’s complete response is available here.

During an exchange with wireless industry representatives, Blumenthal asked them whether they have supported research on the safety of 5G technology and potential links between radiofrequency and cancer, and the industry representatives conceded they have not.

“If you go to the FDA website, there basically is a cursory and superficial citation to existing scientific data saying ‘The FDA has urged the cell phone industry to take a number of steps, including support additional research on possible biological effects of radio frequency fields for the type of signals emitted by cell phones.’ I believe that Americans deserve to know what the health effects are, not to pre-judge what scientific studies may show, and they also deserve a commitment to do the research on outstanding questions,” said Blumenthal. “So my question for you: How much money has the industry committed to supporting additional independent research—I stress independent—research? Is that independent research ongoing? Has any been completed? Where can consumers look for it? And we’re talking about research on the biological effects of this new technology.”

At the end of the exchange, Blumenthal concluded, “So there really is no research ongoing. We’re kind of flying blind here, as far as health and safety is concerned.

In November 2018, the National Toxicology Program released the final results of the longest and most expensive study to date on cellphones and cancer. Those studies found “some evidence” of a link to cancer, at least in male rats. However, the study only focused on the risks associated with 2G and 3G cell phones. The latest 5G wireless technology relies on the deployment of many more new antennas and transmitters that are clustered lower to the ground and closer to homes and schools. There has been even more limited research with respect to the health ramifications of 5G technology, and the FCC has thus far failed to adequately explain how they have determined 5G is safe. « 

Sources – Blumenthal