This section contains articles which describe some of the dirty, dangerous and downright deadly technologies that we have been saddled with, while there are literally thousands of inventions in terms of free-energy, transport, medicine, food production, sea water desalination and so many other areas - that could help humanity and the environment no end.
But of course the 'ruling elite' want things the way they are now in order to maintain their control - but they cannot maintain the status quo.
A Smart Home Mega Sensor Can Track What Goes On In A Room + EKG Evidence That Smart Meters Negatively Affect The Human Heart May 27 2017 | From: Enadget / WakingTimes / Various
The concept digests all environmental data in a space to trigger IoT routines.
Creating a smart home currently requires either linking every connected device one-by-one or adding sensor tags to old appliances to make a cohesive IoT network, but there might be an easier way.
Researchers at Carnegie Mellon developed a concept for a hub that, when plugged into an electrical outlet, tracks ambient environmental data -- essentially becoming a sensor that tracks the whole space. With this in hand, savvy programmers can use it to trigger their own connected home routines.
Synthetic Sensors: Towards General-Purpose Sensing
We explore the notion of general-purpose sensing, wherein a single, highly capable sensor can indirectly monitor a large context, without direct instrumentation of objects.
Further, through what we call Synthetic Sensors, we can virtualize raw sensor data into actionable feeds, while simultaneously mitigating immediate privacy issues. We deployed our system across many months and environments, the results of which show the versatility, accuracy and potential of our approach.
The researchers introduced their sensor nexus -- dubbed Synthetic Sensors -- this week at ACM CHI, the human-computer interaction conference. As the video demonstrates, just plug it into a USB wall port and it automatically collects information about its surroundings, uploading it to a cloud back-end over WiFi.
Machine learning on the device parses results into recognizable events, like recognizing a particular sound pattern as "dishwasher is running" -- making them "synthetic" sensors. Folks can use them as digital triggers for other IoT behaviors. For example, one could use "left faucet on" to activate a room's left paper towel dispenser -- and automatically schedule a restock when its supply runs low.
There's one sensor missing from the device's suite, though: A camera. Its creators are sensitive to privacy issues, which is also why raw environmental data isn't uploaded to the cloud -- just the analyzed results.
The Synthetic Sensor is still in a prototype phase, but it's a promising replacement for the jumble of individual tags needed to hook up old appliances or proprietary smart devices.
Ever wondered why your energy supplier and governments are so keen to give you a smart meter?
We lay out some not-so-good reasons in this 4 minute animation. Your private data, lifestyle and behavioural
choices can be amalgamated into a data-set that is monetised and sold to 3rd party companies. Our usual
satire of dark subjects aim to entertain and inform you.
EKG Evidence That Smart Meters Negatively Affect The Human Heart
There have been numerous whistleblowers to warn of the negative effects of smart meters on human health but perhaps none has been so successful in scientifically proving this claim as Warren Woodward of Sedona, Arizona.
He recently put AMI ‘smart’ meters to the test, and using EKG technology, has proven that smart meters throw the human heart off its balanced beat.
A smart meter digitally sends information about your energy usage to utility companies, ostensibly, so that they can monitor your home remotely. Aside from giving companies access to a trove of information (which can then be used to manipulate energy prices, etc.), these meters infringe on our privacy, and have been said to cause numerous adverse health conditions.
In a first-of-its-kind, video-taped, scientifically documented presentation, Woodward shows how a smart meter adversely affects the human heart in the YouTube video below.
Woodward sits next to a smart meter that is used in Arizona, but that are also commonly used in many countries.
Many people have complained of adverse health conditions, among them:
Ringing in the ears
EMF exposure has been documented as being harmful before, but this is the first time someone has shown what EMF in the form of smart meters do to the human heart directly.
Woodward points out that in his rural location there is cell phone coverage, but that the EMF from cell towers is low intensity. Due to his location, there are no other forms of EMF that he is being exposed to.
Triggering Agents of Electromagnetic Sensitivity
Dr. Rea presented his compelling evidence and recommendations for a healthier world at Creating Safe Havens in a Toxic, Electromagnetic World, a conference hosted by the International Institute for Building-Biology & Ecology.
He also attempts to do a controlled test by hooking himself up to the EKG while not knowing when the smart meter is on or off, so that his body cannot anticipate a response, nor can he affect his heart rhythm with his own free will.
He has no health conditions, and is on no medications, however, when he is exposed to the smart meter, his heart skips beats – literally.
Any device that affects the functioning of the heart should be of profound concern. To wit, Pao L. Chang writes:
“The heart is one of the most important organs in the human body, because it is one of the main mediums for connecting us to each other and the Universe. Conventional science has taught us that the main role of the heart is to pump blood to all the systems of our body.
This definition of the heart is not very accurate. Besides pumping blood, the heart also has an intelligence of its own.
According to neurocardiologists, 60 to 65 percent of heart cells are neuron cells, not muscle cells. This discovery has helped them develop experiments that have proved the heart works similar to the brain and in some ways is even superior to the brain.
This may be the reason that the heart is the first organ to function after conception. Within about 20 days after conception, the heart starts to function, but the brain does not function until after roughly 90 days. This information tells us that the brain is secondary to the heart.”
Knowing what we do now about the intelligence of the heart, and how intimately it is linked to the endocrine system, the nervous system, and even to the signaling of the brain and gut – how would you imagine smart meters might be affecting your neuro-psycho-biology? Is this yet another (attempted) way to control the innate intelligence of the population at large?
EKG Proof That "Smart" Meters Affect the Human Heart
Everyone's health is being affected by "smart" meters. The evidence in this video is a world first, and shifts the debate from whether anyone should have to pay a fee to refuse a "smart" meter to: When does the safety recall start?
We now know that even if people are not showing outward symptoms, their bodies are being unnecessarily and involuntarily stressed by "smart" meters. There must be a complete safety recall of all "smart" meters at once.
According to the Edison Foundation, there are more than 70 million smart meters currently installed, with 90 million expected to be up and running by 2020.
Instead of Verizon’s deployment plan, it was a neighbourhood resolution that had the final say.
Watch the 15-minute convo that may change how you see activism:
"We made our decision based on love for our neighbors.”
-Craig Hasselbach, Lead Pastor, LifePointe Church, Ft. Collins, Colorado
I was thinking about this, and to me it is increasingly clear that coming from love is necessary if we want to see real and lasting change.
I’ve noticed that when I act from frustration, anger, or “ego,” it pushes away what I want, and usually the problem is either the same or worse. As counterintuitive as this may be to old-world thinking, as annoying as it is when we’re pissed off about whatever corrupt agenda, the dynamic seems to be real.
Have you noticed this also, or is your experience different?
Here’s a slide from my talk a couple years ago at the Building Biology conference, which may help illumine the idea:
Maybe this is what Jesus, Gandhi, and other world-changers were trying to tell us.
Love isn’t a pushover. With any mama bear, you don’t mess with her cubs. Her exceedingly fierce love doesn’t give up, and it always protects life. Several groups, including our team, are charting new ways of activism in this direction.
Perhaps when we act from a position of strength, we are less focused on our own survival, so it becomes easier to also act from love and build relationships. And with agendas such as “5G” now being pushed (see my video on the FCC & 5G), it’s more important than ever to build and embed relationships into our actions for change.
I believe the combination of strength + love is what will create the systemic change we seek. Perhaps the journey to find our way there, is something all humans are being called to at this time, each in our own way.
After you watch the video, consider meditating on this question: Is there an area in my life where, by applying strength and love, I can apply these principles to shift a situation?
By the way, the change-maker in the video is Heather Lahdenpera, LAc. She and a team of leading experts are hosting a free event called Screen Time Colorado in Denver, on April 20, 2017. If you can arrange to be there in person, do so!
Below is Heather’s inspiring perspective. You can read more about the Ft. Collins success story here.
“If we pay attention to what is happening in our country, every day we will see that corporate interests are being put before human and environmental interests in so many areas of our lives. I have always done what I could by signing petitions on line when I see one that speaks to me, but I had never really taken serious action.
It is easy to become paralyzed by the feeling of powerlessness. However, when I found out that a cell tower was proposed to be placed on top of a church roof, right next door to my childrens’ school and within line of sight of my house, I could not stand idle.
I understood the dangers of yet another layer of radio frequency radiation being placed near my children and family."
As new science fuels the debate about cellphone safety, we take a closer look at a little known message inside your cellphone's settings and manual telling you to keep the device 5 to 15 mm away from your body.
We ask why this message exists, why it's so hidden, and whether Health Canada is doing enough to protect us.
“So, I took action. It was the most empowering thing I have ever done. As I began to notify and mobilize the neighborhood, many neighbors began to thank me for taking action.
They believed there was nothing that could be done to stop this. Once people knew they had a forum where they could voice their concerns, the community worked together and we made a small dent in this growing problem.
I found that I shared values with my neighbors, many of whom I didn’t previously know. The church leaders at our neighborhood church, LifePointe, listened to our concerns and decided not to place a cell tower on their roof.
I feel moved to stay involved with this extraordinary church with which I had had no prior connection.
I encourage everyone to take a stand for things that matter, especially our health.”
While the research revealed that we are able to multitask better now, humans were found to have worse attention spans than goldfish. The average human attention span was found to have fallen to eight seconds from 12 in 2000, putting humans below goldfish, which are is believed to have an attention span of nine seconds.
Canadians with more digital lifestyles struggle to focus in environments where prolonged attention is needed.
"Canadians [who were tested] with more digital lifestyles struggle to focus in environments where prolonged attention is needed," the study found, reported The Independent.
"Early adopters and heavy social media users front load their attention and have more intermittent bursts of high attention. They're better at identifying what they want/don't want to engage with and need less to process and commit things to memory."
The fall in concentration could also be blamed on our constant need to check our smartphones and browse through social media newslists and whatsapp messages.
While critics of electronic gadgets and social media have another reason to justify their alarm, some believe it's just a natural way of humans trying to consume it all.
Bruce Morton, a researcher with the University of Western Ontario's Brain and Mind Institute said: "When we first invented the car, it was so novel. The thought of having an entertainment device in the car was ridiculous because the car itself was the entertainment.
“After a while, travelling for eight hours at a time, you'd had enough of it. The brain is bored. You put radios in the car and video displays. Why? Because after the first 10 minutes of the drive I've had enough already. I understand this.
Just because we may be allocating our attention differently as a function of the technologies we may be using, it doesn't mean that the way our attention actually can function has changed."
How LED Lighting May Compromise Your Health & Why Sunlight Deficiency Is As Deadly As Smoking March 23 2017 | From: Mercola / GreenMedInfo / Various
Can light affect your health? In this interview, Dr. Alexander Wunsch, a world class expert on photobiology, shares the hidden dangers of light-emitting diode (LED) lighting that most people are completely unaware of.
In fact, this could potentially be one of the most important video interviews I've done, as it has enormous impacts - not only on preventing blindness as you age but it is also a pervasive hidden risk factor for sabotaging your health.
Largely as a result of energy efficiency, there's been a major transition to using LED as a primary indoor light source. In this regard, it worked like a charm, reducing energy requirements by as much as 95 percent compared to incandescent thermal analog sources of lighting.
However, the heat generated by incandescent light bulbs, which is infrared radiation, is actually beneficial to your health, and hence worth the extra cost.
There are major downsides to LEDs that are not fully appreciated. LED lighting may actually be one of the most important, non-native EMF radiation exposures you're exposed to on a daily basis.
If you chose to ignore these new insights, it can have very serious long-term ramifications. It could lead to age-related macular degeneration (AMD), which is the leading cause of blindness in the United States and elsewhere.
Other health problems rooted in mitochondrial dysfunction may also be exacerbated, and these run the gamut from metabolic disorder to cancer.
What Is Light?
The definition of light, as applied to artificial light sources, is rather distinct. Visible light is only between 400 nanometers (nm) and 780 nm, but "light" is actually more than just what your eye can perceive. As explained by Wunsch:
"When we look at sunlight, we have a much broader spectral range, from somewhere around 300 nm up to 2,000 nm or so. For our energy efficiency calculation, it makes a big difference if we are talking about this broad natural range or if we are only talking about … vision performance
[T]he definition that we are only looking at the visible part of the spectrum [given in the 1930s] … led to the development of energy-efficient light sources like the fluorescent lamps or what we have nowadays, the LED light sources, because they are only energy efficient as long as you take the visible part of the spectrum [into account] …
[F]or example, [lamps providing] phototherapy with red light can be used in medical therapy to increase blood circulation, and this is a part we are taking away as long as we only look at the visible part.
Physicists think that infrared radiation is just thermal waste. But from the viewpoint of a physician, this is absolutely not true; in the last 30 years there have been hundreds of scientific papers published on the beneficial aspects of a certain part in the spectrum, which is called near-infrared or infrared-A."
What Makes Near-Infrared so Special?
You cannot feel near-infrared as heat, and you cannot see it, but it has a major beneficial impact in terms of health. Near-infrared is what's missing in non-thermal artificial light sources like LED.
There's also a difference between analog and digital forms of light sources, and this difference is another part of the complexity. In essence, there are two separate but related issues: the analog versus digital light source problem, and the spectral wavelength differences.
Starting with the latter, when you look at the rainbow spectrum, the visible part of light ends in red. Infrared-A or near-infrared is the beginning of the invisible light spectrum following red. This in turn is followed by infrared-B (mid-infrared) and infrared-C (far-infrared).
While they cannot be seen, the mid- and far-infrared range can be felt as heat. This does not apply to infrared-A, however, which has a wavelength between 700 and 1,500 nm.
"Here you have only very low absorption by water molecules, and this is the reason why radiation has a very high transmittance," Wunsch says.
"In other words, it penetrates very deeply into your tissue, so the energy distributes in a large tissue volume. This near-infrared A is not heating up the tissue so you will not feel directly any effect of heat.
This significantly changes when we increase the wavelength, let's say, to 2,000 nm. Here we are in the infrared-B range and this already is felt as heat. And from 3,000 nm on to the longer wavelength, we have almost full absorption, mainly by the water molecule, and this is [felt as] heating."
Dr. Mercola and Dr. Wunsch on the Dangers of LED Lights
Near-Infrared Is Critical for Mitochondrial and Eye Health
The near-infrared range affects your health in a number of important ways. For example, it helps prime the cells in your retina for repair and regenerate.
Since LEDs have virtually no infrared and an excess of blue light that generates reactive oxygen species (ROS), this explains why LEDs are so harmful for your eyes and overall health.
Chromophores are molecules that absorb light. There's an optical tissue window that ranges from 600 to 1,400 nm, which means it is almost completely covered by the infrared-A part of the spectrum. This optical tissue window allows the radiation to penetrate several centimeters or at least an inch or more into the tissue.
Chromophores are found in your mitochondria and in activated water molecules. In your mitochondria, there's also a specific molecule called cytochrome c oxidase, which is involved in the energy production within the mitochondria. Adenosine triphosphate (ATP) - cellular energy - is the end product.
ATP is the fuel your cells need for all of their varied functions, including ion transport, synthesizing and metabolism. Remarkably, your body produces your body weight in ATP every day. And, while you can survive for several minutes without oxygen, were all ATP production to suddenly stop, you'd die within 15 seconds.
Lighting Plays an Important Role in Biological Energy Production
This is why this issue of lighting is so important. Light is a sorely misunderstood and overlooked part of the equation for biological energy production, specifically at the mitochondrial ATP level. As further explained by Wunsch:
"The cytochrome c oxidase, which is this [light] absorbing molecule, is the last step before the ATP is finally produced in the mitochondria. Here we have this tipping point where light in a wavelength range between 570 nm and 850 nm is able to boost energy production, especially in cells when energy production is depleted …
We know today that many signs of aging, for example, are the consequence of hampered mitochondrial functioning, and so we have a very interesting … tool to enhance the energy status in our cells, in the mitochondria in our cells, and not only on the surface but also in the depths … of the tissue.
This is one important aspect and there are hundreds of papers published on these positive effects …
Infrared saunas are another magnificent way to nourish your body with near-infrared light. But not just ANY infrared sauna. Most offer only FAR-infrared and are not full spectrum. Most also emit dangerous non-native EMFs. So you need one that emits low or no non-native EMFs.
After searching for a long time I finally found a near perfect one and hope to have it made to my customized specs in a few months. And it should be significantly less than $1,000. So stay tuned for this exciting development.
Wound Healing and Anti-Aging Procedures Make Use of Near-Infrared
These beneficial effects can be seen in wound healing and anti-aging procedures where near-infrared is employed. Since the cytochrome c oxidase is responsible for an increased production of ATP, the cell has a better supply of energy, which allows it to perform better, and this is true no matter where the cell resides.
This means liver cells with more ATP will be able to detoxify your body more efficiently; fibroblasts in your skin will be able to synthesize more collagen fibers and so on, because ATP is crucial for all cellular functions. Wunsch expands on this even more in the lecture above.
According to Wunsch, as little as one-third of the energy your body requires for maintaining the thermal equilibrium comes from the food you eat.
The electrons transferred from the food, primarily the fats and the carbohydrates, are ultimately transferred to oxygen and generate ATP. The more near infrared you get, the less nutritional energy is required for maintaining thermal homeostasis.
That said, a differentiation is in order. Most of the METABOLICALLY USED energy does come from food. But there is a thermodynamic aspect to it as well.
Maintaining a normal body temperature (37 degrees C or 98.6 degrees F) involves two mechanisms: Energy production in your mitochondria from food, and photonic energy (near-infrared radiation from sunlight and incandescent light bulbs) that is able to penetrate deeply into your tissue, even through clothing.
"The radiation can enter your body and then be transformed into longer wavelengths in the infrared part. They are very important for supporting the temperature level, the thermal energy level, of our body which is … a very crucial aspect. A lot of energy comes in the form of radiation and this is supporting our thermal balance," Wunsch explains.
The key take-home message here is that your body's energy production involves not just food intake. You also need exposure to certain wavelengths of light in order for your metabolism to function optimally. This is yet another reason why sun exposure is so vitally important for optimal health.
Analogue Versus Digital Lighting
LED lamps are a form of digital non-thermal lighting whereas incandescent light bulbs and halogens are analog thermal light sources.
"For a color changing system you have three different LEDs, a red, a green and a blue LED, and the intensity of these three colored channels has to be changed in order to achieve different color use, which is perceived by the eye in the end.
The control of the intensity output of an LED is realized in a digital manner because it's very difficult to have a low intensity in many different steps.
The dimming of LEDs is realized by a so-called pulse-width modulation, which means the LEDs switch on to the full intensity and then they fully switch off, and then they switch on again.
So we have the constant on and off in frequencies, which are higher than our eyes are able to discriminate. But on the cellular level, it is still perceivable for the cells …
[T]his causes a flicker, which is not perceivable for let's say 90 percent of the population. But it's still biologically active. And flicker is something that is very harmful to your [biology]."
You've likely experienced this if you're old enough to recall the older TVs that had a very visible and intense flicker. Modern flat screens do not have this perceptible flicker, but they're still switching on and off.
Scientists are now trying to develop systems capable of transmitting information via high-frequency flicker in the LED lighting to replace the wireless LAN system. According to Wunsch, this is a very bad idea, from a health perspective.
"I call these LEDs Trojan horses because they appear so practical to us. They appear to have so many advantages. They save energy; are solid state and very robust,. So we invited them into our homes.
But we are not aware that they have many stealth health-robbing properties, which are harmful to your biology, harmful to your mental health, harmful to your retinal health, and also harmful to your hormonal or endocrine health,"he says.
Unfortunately, the use of LEDs has been mandated by federal policy in both the U.S. and much of Europe, in an attempt to conserve energy.
While inarguably effective in that regard, the biological impact of these bulbs has been completely ignored, and by mandating them, options have been restricted.
Understanding the Dangers of LEDs
Understanding how LEDs can harm your health begins with the recognition that light emitted from an LED bulb is of a different quality than a natural light source. Normally, a natural light source is a black body radiator that gives off all kinds of wavelengths in a more or less continuous manner.
LEDs are fluorescent lamps, consisting of a blue LED, a driver LED, and a fluorescent sheet that covers the blue LED, transforming part of the blue light into longer wavelengths, thereby creating a yellowish light.
The yellowish light from the fluorescent layer combines together with the residual blue light to a kind of whitish light, a large portion of which is an aggressive blue light.
"Blue has the highest energy in the visible part of the spectrum and produces, infuses, the production of ROS, of oxidative stress," he says.
"The blue light causes ROS in your tissue, and this stress needs to be balanced with near-infrared that is not present in LEDs. We need even more regeneration from blue light, but the regenerative part of the spectrum is not found in the blue, in the short wavelength, part. It's found in the long wavelength part, in the red and the near-infrared. So tissue regeneration and tissue repair results from the wavelengths that are not present in an LED spectrum.
We have increased stress on the short wavelength part and we have reduced regeneration and repair on the long wavelength part. This is the primary problem … [W]e don't have this kind of light quality in nature. This has consequences. The stress has consequences in the retina; it has consequences in our endocrine system."
You probably know by now that blue light in the evening reduces melatonin production in your pineal gland. But you also have cells in your retina that are responsible for producing melatonin in order to regenerate the retina during the night.
If you use LED lights after sunset, you reduce the regenerative and restoring capacities of your eyes.
Needless to say, with less regeneration you end up with degeneration. In this case, the degeneration can lead to AMD, which is the primary cause of blindness among the elderly. However, and this is that most fail to appreciate, LED light exposure that is not balanced with full sunlight loaded with the red parts of the spectrum is always damaging to your biology. Just more so at night.
So, to summarize, the main problem with LEDs is the fact that they emit primarily blue wavelengths and lack the counterbalancing healing and regenerative near-infrared frequencies. They have very little red in them, and no infrared, which is the wavelength required for repair and regeneration.
When you use these aggressive lower frequencies - blue light - it creates ROS that, when generated in excess, causes damage. So when using LEDs, you end up with increased damage and decreased repair and regeneration.
Are There Any Healthy LEDs?
There's a wide range of LED lights on the market these days. Some are cool white, others are warm white, for example. The former emits higher amounts of harmful blue light.
The warm LEDs can be deceptive, as they give out a warm-appearing light but do not actually have the red wavelength.
The warmth comes from masking the blue with high amounts of yellow and orange.
There are also LEDs available with less blue, which are closer to the spectral distribution of incandescent lamps with regard to the blue part of the spectrum. Unfortunately, without tools to measure it, you won't know exactly what you're getting.
This is in sharp contrast to an incandescent light bulb, where you know exactly what kind of light spectrum you're getting.
"With LED, the layman is not able to tell if it's a tailored spectrum where you have the blue part only masked by excessive parts of other spectral regions," Wunsch says.
"There are different technologies … Soraa, for example, have violet driver LED, not blue … By their technology, the red is a little bit more emphasized compared to the standard white light fluorescent LEDs.
So there are in fact better and worse LED types around. But the spectral distribution is just one thing … We are interested in the R9, which represents the full reds. This information is sometimes given on the package.
You have, for example, CRI, which is the color rendering index of 95 with an R9 of 97 or so. This is the only sign for the customer that you have a high level or a high index for the R9."
How to Identify a Healthier LED
So, when buying LEDs, one way to get a healthier light is to look at the CRI. Sunlight is the gold standard and has a CRI of 100.
So do incandescent light bulbs and candles. What you're looking for is a light that has an R9 (full red spectrum) CRI of about 97, which is the closest you'll ever get to a natural light with an LED. Another factor to look at is the color temperature. There are two different kinds of color temperature:
1. Physical color temperature, which means the temperature of your light in degrees Kelvin (K). This applies to sunlight, candlelight, incandescent lamp light and halogens. What this means is that the source itself is as hot to the touch as the color temperature given.
The sun, for example, which has a color temperature of 5,500 K, has a temperature of 5,500 K at its surface, were you to actually touch the sun. Incandescent lamps have a maximum of 3,000 K, as the filament would melt if the temperature got any higher.
2. Correlated color temperature. This is a measurement that tells you how the light source appears to the human eye. In other words, it is a comparative measurement. A correlated color temperature of 2,700 K means it looks the same as a natural light source with a physical color temperature of 2,700 K.
The problem here is that while such a light LOOKS the same as a natural light, it does not actually have the same quality, and your body, on the cellular level, is not fooled by what your eye sees. On a cellular level, and on the level of the retina, the majority of the light is still cold, bluish white, despite its apparent, visible warmth.
Incandescent light bulbs have a color temperature of 2,700 K whereas LEDs can go up to 6,500 K - the really bright white LED. In this case, the closer you are to incandescent, the better. Lastly, there's the digital component, which is virtually unavoidable no matter what. To determine how good or bad a particular LED is:
"You would have to measure somehow if the LED produces flicker or not. Two, three years ago, it would have been much easier because the camera of an older smartphone was not as high-tech equipped as they are today. With an old smartphone camera, when you look into the light source, you can see these wandering lines, so you can detect if the light source is flickering," Wunsch explains.
A simpler way would be to purchase a flicker detector, which are available fairly inexpensively. Another way to determine the flicker rate would be to use the slow motion mode on your camera. Record the light source in slow motion mode and check it for visible flickering.
Unfortunately, it doesn't always work. Some newer cameras and smartphones have a built in algorithm that will detect the flicker frequency and change the shutter speed accordingly to improve the recording, thereby eliminating the interference. If your camera has this algorithm, it will not record a visible flicker even if it's there.
I like being on the cutting edge of technology and I quickly switched out all my incandescent bulbs for LED lighting. I now realize the enormity of my mistake, but at the time - going back almost 10 years now - I was completely unaware that it could have health consequences. Before that, I used full-spectrum fluorescents, which is equally deceptive, as it is full spectrum in name only.
I'm now convinced LED light exposure is a very serious danger, especially if you are in a room without natural light.
The biological risks are somewhat mitigated if you have plenty of sunlight streaming through windows. At night, LEDs become a greater danger no matter whether you're in a windowless room or not, as there is no counterbalancing near-infrared light.
Personally, I've not swapped all my lights back to incandescent because they're such energy hogs. But all the lights I have on at night have been switched to clear incandescent bulbs without any coating that changes their beneficial wavelengths.
So the take-home message of this interview is to grab a supply of the old incandescents if you can and switch back to incandescent light bulbs.
Just remember to get incandescents that are crystal clear and not coated with white to give off a cool white light. You want a 2,700 K incandescent, thermal analog light source. Actually, fragrance-free candles would be even better. Be particularly mindful to only use this type of light at night. After sunset, I also use blue-blocking glasses.
"It is definitely a good idea to keep away the short wavelengths in the evening, so after sunset. It's also a good idea not to intoxicate your environment with too much light. We know that artificial light levels at night have reached insane intensity. The candle, the intensity of the candle for example, is absolutely sufficient for orientation.
If you have to read in the evening or at night time, my personal favorite light source for reading tasks is a low-voltage incandescent halogen lamp, which is operated on a DC transformer. Direct current will eliminate all the dirty electricity and it will eliminate all the flicker.
There are transformers available where you can adjust the output between 6 volts and 12 volts. As long as it's direct current, there is no flicker, there is no dirty electricity, and you are able to dim the halogen lamp into a color temperature that is comparable to candle light even. This is the softest, the healthiest electric light you can get at the moment," Wunsch notes.
Low-voltage halogen lights are also very energy efficient - up to 100 percent more energy efficient than the standard incandescent lamp. Just be sure to operate it on DC. Incandescent lights, including halogen, can be operated at both AC and DC, but when operating on AC, you end up generating dirty electricity, Wunsch explains.
On DC, you get no electrosmog with a low-voltage halogen.
The following graphic illustrates the differences in color spectrum between an incandescent light, which has very little blue, compared to fluorescent light and white LED.
This next graph illustrates the differences between daylight, incandescent, fluorescent, halogen, cool white LED and warm white LED.
As you can see, there's a tremendous difference between incandescent and warm LED. While they may look the same to the naked eye, there's no comparison when it comes to their actual light qualities.
Looking at the spectral differences between incandescent and halogen lamps, there seems to be no difference at all. In order to elucidate the disparity, Wunsch did some measurements of incandescent and halogen lamps using his UPRtek MK350S spectrometer. The differences are almost imperceptible, indeed.
Spectrum of a standard incandescent lamp: Correlated color temperature (CCT) = 2890 K.
Spectrum of a energy saving halogen lamp: Correlated color temperature (CCT) = 2842 K.
How to Make Digital Screens Healthier
When it comes to computer screens, Wunsch suggests reducing the correlated color temperature down to 2,700 K - even during the day, not just at night.
Many use f.lux to do this, but I have a great surprise for you as I have found a FAR better alternative that was created by Daniel, a 22 year old Bulgarian programmer that Ben Greenfield introduced to me.
He is one of the rare people that already knew most of the information in this article. So he was using f.lux but was very frustrated with the controls.
He attempted to contact them but they never got back to him. So he created a massively superior alternative called Iris. It is free, but you'll want to pay the $2 and reward Daniel with the donation. You can purchase the $2 Iris software here.
OLED screen technology is another development that may be better than conventional screens.
"[With] the OLEDs technology, I'm not sure if the color is really stable in every angle you can look at the display," Wunsch says. "But definitely, if you have the screen technology where black is really black, then you have less radiation coming into your eyes and the OLEDs technology is able to provide this.
So the high contrasts between the black and white, all the black areas in the thin-film-transistor (TFT) screen or the standard screen are not really black. They are also emitting shortwave radiation.
The OLED screen only emits where you see light, where there is black on the screen, there is no light. This might be preferable as long as you have no problems with the [viewing] angle."
To Protect Your Health and Vision, Stick to Incandescent Lights
LEDs are a perfect example of how we're sabotaging our health with otherwise useful technology. However, with knowledge, we can proactively prevent the harm from occurring.
In summary, we really need to limit our exposure to blue light, both during the daytime and at night. So for nighttime use, swap out your LEDs for clear bulb incandescents, or low-voltage incandescent halogen lights that are run on DC power.
I also strongly recommend using blue-blocking glasses after sundown, even if you use incandescent light bulbs.
Without these modifications, the excessive blue light from LEDs and electronic screens will trigger your body to overproduce ROS and decrease production of melatonin, both in your pineal gland and your retina, the latter of which will prevent repair and regeneration, thereby speeding up the degeneration of your eyesight.
"One thing to emphasize again, it's not the blue light coming from the sun itself which we should be concerned about. It's the blue light, the singular high energy visual light (HEV), which comes from cold energy-efficient non-thermal light sources.
This is what causes the problem, not the blue light which comes together with longer wavelengths in a kind of natural cocktail that has the beneficial near-infrared spectrum …
The light surrogates from non-thermal light sources, these are [what cause] problems, and you have to be clever to avoid these Trojan horses. If you want to make it [safe], stay with the candles, stay with the incandescents," Wunsch says.
Another Healthy Light Alternative
Candles are even a better light source than incandescent bulbs, as there is no electricity involved and is the light that our ancestors have used for many millennia so our bodies are already adapted to it. The only problem is that you need to be very careful about using just any old candle as most are toxic.
As you may or may not know, many candles available today are riddled with toxins, especially paraffin candles. Did you know that paraffin is a petroleum by-product created when crude oil is refined into gasoline?
Further, a number of known carcinogens and toxins are added to the paraffin to increase burn stability, not including the potential for lead added to wicks, and soot invading your lungs.
To complicate matters, a lot of candles, both paraffin and soy, are corrupted with toxic dyes and fragrances; some soy candles are only partially soy with many other additives and/or use GMO soy. There seems to be a strange mind-set that exposure to small amounts of toxins is OK, even though the exposure is exponential over time!
Why Sunlight Deficiency Is As Deadly As Smoking
A groundbreaking new study published in the Journal of Internal Medicine has revealed something absolutely amazing about the role of the Sun in human health: a deficiency of sunlight could be as harmful to human health as smoking cigarettes.
They assessed the differences in sun exposure as a risk factor for all-cause mortality, within a prospective 20-year follow up of the Melanoma in Southern Sweden (MISS) cohort. The women were aged 25-64 years at the start of the study and recruited from 1990 to 1992. When their sun exposure habits were analyzed using modern survival statistics they discovered several things.
"Women with active sun exposure habits were mainly at a lower risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and noncancer/non-CVD death as compared to those who avoided sun exposure."
"As a result of their increased survival, the relative contribution of cancer death increased in these women."
This finding may be a bit tricky to understand, so let's look at it a little closer.
Because cancer risk increases along with biological age, the longer you live, the higher your cancer risk will be. Therefore, because increased sunlight exposure actually increases your longevity, it will also appear to increase your risk of cancer. But this does not necessarily mean that sunlight is intrinsically "carcinogenic," which is commonly assumed.
Because heart disease is #1 killer in the developed world, and since sunlight reduces this most common cause of premature death, even if it increases the risk of the #2 most common cause of death (cancer), the net effect of sunlight exposure is that you will still live longer, which helps to contextualize and neutralize the "increased cancer risk" often observed.
Keep in mind, as well, that a huge number of cancers are overdiagnosed and overtreated, without sufficient acknowledgement by the medical establishment, whose culpability is rarely addressed. These "cancers" greatly inflate the statistics.
With millions of so-called early stage cancers like these - especially breast, prostate, thyroid, lung, and ovarian -- being wrongly diagnosed and treated, the complexity of the topic makes determining the role of sunlight exposure and cancer risk all the more difficult to ascertain.
Moving on, the point about the longevity promoting properties of sunlight are driven home strongly by the third major observation:
"Nonsmokers who avoided sun exposure had a life expectancy similar to smokers in the highest sun exposure group, indicating that avoidance of sun exposure is a risk factor for death of a similar magnitude as smoking."
This is a powerful finding with profound implications. To say that "avoidance of sun exposure is a risk factor for death of a similar magnitude as smoking," is to point out that sunlight exposure, rather than being the constant lethal threat it is perceived to be, warranting the slathering on all over the body of synthetic sunscreens virtually guaranteed to cause harm from toxicant exposure, is essential to our health.
In fact, according to the CDC, smoking is responsible for 6 million unnecessary deaths a year, and the "overall mortality among both male and female smokers in the United States is about three times higher than that among similar people who never smoked."
And so, sunlight exposure may be so powerful an essential and necessary ingredient in human health that it might be considered medically unethical not to provide access to it, or to advise more routine exposure to it.
The fourth and final observation of the study was that:
"Compared to the highest sun exposure group, life expectancy of avoiders of sun exposure was reduced by 0.6-2.1 years."
Sunlight Attains Its Former Status As An Indispensable Component of Health
While we can say that sunlight deficiency may contribute to lethal outcomes on par with smoking, we can rephrase the information positively by affirming that the Sun and its light may be as important to human health as is clean food or water.
Consider the work of Gerald Pollack, PhD, author of the "The 4th Phase of Water" (see video below), who explains how infrared energy of the Sun charges up the water molecules within our body (99% of the molecules in our bodies in number are water) like trillions of molecular batteries.
The Fourth Phase of Water: Dr. Gerald Pollack
When pertaining to cardiovascular health, sunlight energy in the form of infrared charged water molecules supports the heart's job of pumping the blood throughout the blood vessels by producing a form of highly structured and energized water known as Exclusion Zone water, or EZ water, and which may actually provide over 99.9% of the biomechanical energy needed to push the 1.2-1.5 gallons of blood in the average adult body through the literally thousands of miles of blood vessels.
Provocative new research also suggests the body contains a variety of photoacceptors/chromophores (e.g. cytochrome C oxidase) capable of accepting and utilizing sunlight to generate so-called “extra synthesis” of ATP.
Natural health advocates have sung the praises of sunlight for health since time immemorial.
While in modern times, sunlight-phobia is omnipresent, with parents of especially lighter skinned ethnicities forcing their children to don space-suit level all body protective gear, along with spraying or slathering them with extremely toxic petrochemical derivatives and nanoparticle metals with potentially cancer-promoting properties, there is a growing appreciation that we need the Sun as both a form of food, energy and information.
It’s, of course, not all about vitamin D. To reduce the perceived health benefits of sunlight to this hormone like compound is as reductionistic as saying a orange’s health benefits are solely dependent on and reducible to the molecular scaffolding of atoms that comprise the chemical skeleton of the ascorbic acid molecule.
We are beginning to learn that certain wavelengths of sunlight activate a wide range of ancient, hard-wired genetic and epigenetic programs, relevant to all of our body's systems.
This phenomena, also known as biophotomodulation, opens up a radically new perspective on the role of the sun in human health and disease.
If sunlight deficiency is really as deadly as actively smoking cigarettes, it could be said that those who do not experience regular natural light exposure are no longer truly human, or capable of experiencing the optimal expression of their biological, mental, and spiritual blueprint.
A fundamental right, and health practice, would be daily outdoors exposure. How many of us have considered the state of office workers, institutionalized educational systems without windows, night shift work, and prisons?
Sunlight depravation, in light of these new findings, could be considered a significant violation of human health rights.
This new study my pave the way for a deeper understanding of what humans need to be truly healthy, with sunlight deficiency being a prime example of what is most wrong about our modern incarnation as a primarily indoors focused creature, leading to our physical and psychospiritual degeneration.
As new models of cellular bioenergetics emerge, taking into account the ability of the body to directly or indirectly harvest the various light wavelengths of the Sun, direct daily exposure to sunlight may be looked upon as at least as an important step as "taking your vitamins," or exercising, for maintaining our health.
Conversely, sunlight deficiency and / or depravation will be likely be viewed to be as dangerous or lethal as smoking.
Peer Reviewed 'Science' Losing Credibility Due To Fraudulent Research & Manufacturing Consent In Science: The Diabolical Twist March 19 2017 | From: CollectiveEvolution / JonRappoport
Science today, in all fields, is plagued by corruption. Yet, more often than not, attempts to create awareness about scientific fraud - an issue that few journalists have been willing to address - are met with the response, “Well, is it peer-reviewed?”
Although good science should always be reviewed, using this label as a form of credibility can be dangerous, causing people to dismiss new information and research instantaneously if it doesn’t have it, particularly when that information counters long-held beliefs ingrained into human consciousness via mass marketing, education, and more.
If you’re one who commonly points to the “peer-reviewed” label, then you should know that there are many researchers and insiders who have been creating awareness about the problem with this label for years.
Who Says So? And From What Fields?
Many people have spoken up against the corporatization and politicization of science.
For example, Professor Lennart Bengtsson, a Swedish climatologist and former director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, has voiced his concern that some scientists are, according to an interview given to the Daily Mail, “mixing up their scientific role with that of climate activist.”
He claims that there are multiple indicators for how “science is gradually being influenced by political views.” (Source)
Professor Joanna D. Haigh, a British physicist, professor of atmospheric physics at Imperial College London, co-director of the Grantham Institute for Climate Change, and former president of the Royal Meteorological Society, has also spoken up about the politicization of climate science. (Source)
The Australian prime minister’s chief business advisor has done the same, and so have other politicians, like Senator James Inhofe, chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. You can read more about that story here.
Unfortunately, the mainstream vilifies such people, and to great effect.
Below is an excellent snippet of a lecture given by Richard Lindzen, one of the world’s top experts in the field and lead author of “Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks,” Chapter 7 of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Third Assessment Report on climate change.
He knows that all climate science we receive is IPCC United Nations science. One of the scientists mentioned on the senator’s list, in this video, he talks about the politics of climate science and the manipulation of data - something that plagues all fields of science today.
Is Science Progressing?
Featuring Richard S. Lindzen, Distinguished Senior Fellow, Center for the Study of Science, Cato Institute; Emeritus Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; moderated by Patrick Michaels, Director, Center for the Study of Science, Cato Institute.
For many fields of science, there is little doubt that the period 1830-1965 was a golden age. There is also little doubt that changes in the support structure for science since the late 60's have powerful elements that serve to inhibit major developments.
Dr. Lindzen will discuss these changes from the personal perspective of a climate scientist, and place them in the historical perspective of other areas of study.
Quantification of the effects of the support structure is complicated. There are a multiplicity of factors involved, including the existence of branches of science that are closely associated with political and social agendas.
Changes in the character of major research centers, including the federalization of major research universities, also plays a major role, independent of the particular area of science. Serious studies of marginal factors such as diminishing returns as funding increases are sorely lacking.
Medical Science / Health Science / Food
In the case of medicine, a lot of information has emerged showing just how much corruption really goes on. The Editors-in-Chiefs of several major medical journals have been quite blunt, with perhaps one of the best examples coming from Dr. Richard Horton, the current Editor-in-Chief of TheLancet, who says;
“The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue.”
Dr. Marcia Angell, a physician and longtime Editor-in-Chief of the New England Medical Journal (NEMJ), also considered one of the most prestigious peer-reviewed medical journals in the world, alongside The Lancet, has said that:
“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.”
“The medical profession is being bought by the pharmaceutical industry, not only in terms of the practice of medicine, but also in terms of teaching and research. The academic institutions of this country are allowing themselves to be the paid agents of the pharmaceutical industry. I think it’s disgraceful.”
- Arnold Seymour Relman (1923-2014), Harvard professor of medicine and former Editor-in-Chief of The New England Medical Journal
As you can see, this has been a problem for quite some time.
A Couple of Examples:
One of the best examples of political influence over scientific publication comes from an episode involving Genetically Modified Maize. Monsanto published a study a few years ago which purported to demonstrate the effects of GMO maize on rats over a 90 day period.
They reported no ill effects on the rodents from this diet. Given the fact that there are no long term studies examining the health risks associated with GMOs, independent researchers then decided to conduct the same study, with one difference:
The study was published in November of 2012, in the Journal of Food and Chemical Toxicology, and then instantly retracted. After hundreds of scientists condemned the retraction, the U.S. did not publish it. The study was then re-published in multiple peer-reviewed scientific journals (in Europe last year ), like Environmental Sciences Europe.
This fact was also made clear by WikiLeaks documents:
"Resistance to the advent of genetically modified foods has been pronounced across Europe. The continent features some of the strictest regulations governing the use and cultivation of GMO products, and public skepticism about biotech goods is quite high – a fact not lost on American diplomats.
In a lengthy report dating from late 2007 , a cable issued by the State Department outlined its “Biotechnology Outreach Strategy, ‘which, among other things, recognized the European Union’s ‘negative views on biology’ and committed as a national priority to limiting them (O7STATE160639).
Initial attention paid to the State Department’s part in pushing industrial manufactures on its allies obscured the even bigger role it played in assuring a place for genetically modified agricultural products (GMOs) in a region that largely wanted nothing to do with them.
The American campaign promoting biotech products was a worldwide effort. In all, some 1,000 documents from the Cablegate cache address this effort, a significant number of which originate in Europe. U.S. diplomats on the continent gave considerable attention to insuring the interests of American biotech firms in Europe
– Whether through “education” programs, government lobbying, or outright coercion – as well as stripping down European Union regulations designed to act as a bugger against them. Available cables published by WikiLeaks suggest that the United States invests considerable time, effort, and expense in its operations on behalf of the American biotech firms."
In 1996, Steven M. Druker, being a public interest attorney and the Executive Director of the Alliance For Bio-Integrity, initiated a lawsuit in 1998 that forced the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to divulge its files on genetically engineered foods.
He’s recently published a book on the lawsuit that provides details of his experience. He has also released the documents on his website, showing the significant hazards of genetically engineering foods and the flaws in the FDA’s policy.
Another study published in the British Medical Journal by researchers at the Nordic Cochrane Center in Copenhagen showed that pharmaceutical companies were not disclosing all information regarding the results of their drug trials.
Researchers looked at documents from 70 different double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI) and serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRI) and found that the full extent of serious harm in clinical study reports went unreported.
Tamang Sharma, a PhD student at Cochrane and lead author of the study, said:
“We found that a lot of the appendices were often only available upon request to the authorities, and the authorities had never requested them. I’m actually kind of scared about how bad the actual situation would be if we had the complete data.”
Another co-author of the study, Dr. Peter Gotzsche, who co-founded the Cochrane Collaboration (the world’s foremost body in assessing medical evidence), found in a separate analysis that 100,000 people in the United States die each year from the side effects of correctly used prescription drugs, noting that:
“It’s remarkable that nobody raises an eyebrow when we kill so many of our own citizens with drugs.”
He has published many papers arguing that our use of antidepressants is causing more harm than good, and taking into consideration the recent leaks regarding these drugs, it seems he is correct.
Below is a brief video of him elaborating on this problem -
Dr Peter Gøtzsche Exposes Big Pharma as Organized Crime
Peter C. Gøtzsche, MD is a Danish medical researcher, and leader of the Nordic Cochrane Center at Rigshospitalet in Copenhagen, Denmark. He has written numerous reviews within the Cochrane collaboration.
Dr.Gøtzsche has been critical of screening for breast cancer using mammography, arguing that it cannot be justified; His critique stems from a meta-analysis he did on mammography screening studies and published as is screening for breast cancer with mammography justifiable in The Lancet in 2000. In it he discarded 6 out of 8 studies arguing their randomization was inadequate.
In 2006 a paper by Gøtzsche on mammography screening was electronically published in the European Journal of Cancer ahead of print.
The journal later removed the paper completely from the journal website without any formal retraction. The paper was later published in Danish Medical Bulletin with a short note from the editor, and Gøtzsche and his coauthors commented on the unilateral retraction that the authors were not involved in.
In 2012 his book Mammography Screening: Truth, Lies and Controversy was published. In 2013 his book Deadly Medicines and Organized Crime: How Big Pharma has Corrupted Healthcare was published. www.cochrane.org
Vaccines are getting more attention now than ever before. In fact, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Chairman of the World Mercury Project (WMP), recently announced a $100,000 challenge aimed at putting an end to the inclusion of mercury, a neurotoxin that is 100 times more poisonous than lead, in vaccines administered in the U.S and globally.
It’s offered to anybody, including journalists and scientists, who can provide a study showing that it is safe to inject mercury into babies.
Multiple cases of vaccine fraud have been uncovered, but this is something you might not know given the fact that the mainstream media completely ignores these facts, and vaccines are heavily marketed.
For example, Lucija Tomljenovic, who has a PhD in biochemistry and is a senior postdoctoral fellow in UBC’s Faculty of Medicine, as well as a medical investigator, uncovered documents that reveal vaccine manufacturers, pharmaceutical companies, and health authorities have known about multiple dangers associated with vaccines but chose to withhold them from the public. - Source
But perhaps one of the biggest revelations in medical history, also unfortunately ignored by mainstream media, came only a couple of years ago and is still making noise, as it should.
However, Dr. Thompson recently admitted that it was “the lowest point” in his career when he “went along with that paper.” He went on to say that he and the other authors “didn’t report significant findings” and that he is “completely ashamed” of what he did. He was “complicit and went along with this,” and regrets that he has “been a part of the problem.” (source)(source)(source)
A study with revised information and no data omitted was published by Dr. Brian Hooker (a contact of Dr. Thompson) in the peer reviewed journal Translational Neurodegeneration, and it found a 340% increased risk of autism in African American boys receiving the Measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine. The study has since been retracted, around the same time this controversy arose.
You can read the full study here, although, unsurprisingly, it has since been retracted.
Thompson’s attorneys, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Bryan Smith of Morgan & Morgan, also released a statement from Dr. Thompson, which mentioned Hooker:
“I have had many discussions with Dr. Brian Hooker over the last 10 months regarding studies the CDC has carried out regarding vaccines and neurodevelopmental outcomes including autism spectrum disorders. I share his belief that CDC decision-making and analyses should be transparent.”
he had to invoke whistleblower protection and turned extensive agency files over to Congress. He said that, for the past decade, his superiors have pressured him and his fellow scientists to lie and manipulate data to conceal a causal link between vaccines and brain injuries, including autism.
As you can see, scientific fraud is a big problem across the board, and this article has only provided a few examples. The problem is not just with GMOs and vaccines - it affects cosmetics, food, cleaning supplies, and so much more. How have so many products, which cause so much harm, been approved by the agencies that are tasked to protect us?
There are so many books on this topic, but they don’t get the attention they deserve, since the major mainstream media shareholders are identical to those of the entire health industry. Why would they bash their own products on their own national television networks?
The power of corporate America has taken over almost every aspect of our lives. If you’re wondering what we can do about it, well, I believe the first step is awareness. There is still a plethora of information that the general public is completely unaware of, but if we backtrack to a decade ago, information that used to be considered a conspiracy is now simply fact.
A great example is the corporate takeover of science, as discussed in this article, but another one could be the Snowden Leaks on mass surveillance, or 9/11. Studies are now being published by physicists and engineers regarding that event.
Awareness makes it harder for the elite to manipulate us. Once we become aware of something, we can stop it. For example, look at Genetically Modified Foods and the pesticides that go with them.
As soon as the masses became aware of their dangers, they began to change their shopping habits. Now, most countries around the world have completely banned these foods.
It’s difficult to accept that there are unseen powers, motivated by their own greed and lust for power, that are doing us harm disguised as good. It is only when we become aware of how we are being harmed and change our shopping habits - hurting their bottom line - that they change their tactics.
On the other hand, it’s encouraging to know that once we do come together for a common goal, anything can be accomplished, and we actually do have the potential and power to change our world.
Manufacturing Consent In Science: The Diabolical Twist
“Science plays a larger and larger role in running the world. But much of it is misleading science, slanted, cooked, biased, stepped on, false, and invented out of thin air.” - The Underground, Jon Rappoport
In the famous 1988 Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman book, Manufacturing Consent, the authors explore how media distort the news and employ propaganda, in order to bring about consent in the population.
This is nothing less than the creation of reality.
From so many directions, official science is shaping our future - that’s why it’s vital to understand the manipulations involved.
It’s one thing to say media collaborate to sell a false picture of reality, a picture which is then bought by the masses.
It’s quite another thing to say media collaborate to PRETEND there is ALREADY a consensus of the best professional minds on a given scientific subject - when there ISN’T.
I’ll start with a theoretical example. Let’s say three researchers at a university examine data based on US space shuttle missions, and they conclude that a small set of new conclusions is true. I’ll call this set X.
The researchers publish an article in a journal, and a healthy debate ensues in professional circles. Is X correct? Are there flaws in the research?
However, a powerful public agency decides that X is dangerous. X could lead to inquiries about contractors, investigations into cost overruns, missing money, and, worst of all, flawed engineering of the shuttles. Therefore, this powerful agency goes on an all-out propaganda campaign, tapping its press sources, culminating in a new study that concludes X is entirely false.
The press basically trumpets: “Experts agree X is false. X was the result of shoddy research. The original researchers made numerous amateur mistakes.”
Notice that, in this case, the press isn’t simply distorting the news. It’s announcing that a superior consensus already / suddenly exists among the best scientific minds.
It’s lying about a consensus that doesn’t exist among scientists who, up until that moment, were having a healthy debate. The press is presenting the false consensus as if it were real and widespread, when it isn’t.
But at this point, all relevant scientists get the message: keep quiet, don’t debate for another moment; otherwise grant monies will vanish, demotions will occur, peers will lay on heavy criticism, excommunication from The Club will follow.
So these scientists do keep quiet - and NOW a consensus among them comes into being, by implied threat and coercion.
“The most famous cold fusion claims were made by Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann in 1989. After a brief period of interest by the wider scientific community, their reports were called into question by nuclear physicists.”
Not just called into question; defamed, derided, mocked, slammed over the head with a sledgehammer.
A superior consensus was invented, despite the fact that many scientists were intensely interested in the Pons / Fleishmann findings. Some of these scientists tried, in vain, to point out that failed efforts to reproduce those findings resulted because researchers were altering Pons and Fleishman’s methods.
No dice. Cold fusion was labeled a giant error and even a fraud. The official door was closed. THEN a consensus hardened - through coercion and intimidation.
In my research leading up to the publication of my first book, AIDS INC., in 1988, I reviewed the period of the early 1980s, when many researchers were coming at the question of the cause(s) of AIDS from different angles. But then, suddenly, in the spring of 1984, the US government officially announced, at a televised press conference, that a virus called HTLV-III (HIV) was the cause.
The science was shoddy, to put it mildly. It was bad science and no science. There was no single published paper that meticulously laid out proof of HIV as the cause of AIDS. But no matter.
Overnight, all the monies that had gone into discovering what caused AIDS were diverted into the question: How does HIV cause AIDS? Any scientist who failed to see the handwriting on the wall was shoved out into the cold.
The press closed ranks. The consensus (though it was manufactured in the blink of an eye) was trumpeted around the world.
The big news headline wasn’t just false and distorted. It was false-and-distorted about a consensus that, until a few seconds ago, didn’t exist - and only existed now because researchers went silent and accepted dogma and folded up.
Predatory corporations, who spray poisonous pesticides all over the world and cause birth defects, need special protection and cover?
Public health agencies that recommend giving vaccines to pregnant women, and increase the risk of babies born with defects?
Solution: invent, overnight, and broadcast, a consensus that a basically harmless virus is the cause of those tragic birth defects.
I can assure you there are many scientists who don’t, for a second, believe the Zika virus is such an agent of destruction. But they have kept their mouths shut, and have chosen to roll with the tide.
However, that tide is turning, in many arenas of science. Journalists and researchers with no allegiance to official bodies have emerged.
A different species of handwriting is being inscribed on the wall. What can the mainstream press do about it?
They can only deploy the crass tactics I’ve mentioned here. A massive and stunning re-education is taking place among the population. No school is running it. No agency is sponsoring it. It’s happening from the ground up.
It turns out that living as a cipher and a unit in the sticky web of fabricated consensus isn’t nearly as attractive as it once was.
More and more, major media are using the consensus strategy to invent the news - and people are rejecting it.
Without realizing it, the press is committing professional suicide.
An article that was once headlined, “Three dead horses found in a field,” has become, “Scientists agree that the three dead horses were an unconnected coincidence.”
And people are laughing the press out of court.
The ongoing scandal surrounding the film, Vaxxed, is a good example.
Trailer: Vaxxed - From Cover Up to Catastrophe
The press assures the population that pointing out a connection between a vaccine and autism is absurd, because scientific experts agree there is no such connection.
But the film features a long-time researcher at the Centers for Disease Control, who confesses that he and colleagues falsified a 2004 study in order to exonerate such a vaccine, the MMR, which does increase the risk of autism.
One of the film’s subjects is false consensus. And the press can do no better than repeat, over and over: the consensus is real and valid.
The CDC researcher and whistleblower, William Thompson, essentially said: I was part of the fake consensus. Don’t you get it? I was a card-carrying member of the club that invents fake consensus. And now I’m telling you that.
Bottom line: the media are collapsing into their own swamp. The swamp they manufacture.
For decades, the press, government agencies, the UN, and a whole host of think-tank, foundation, university players, and financiers have been fronting for a consensus which they falsely claim is already established: planned societies.
They frame this consensus as technology/science - as if science itself dictates that the future must consist of interlocked organizations which insert citizens into slots. Slots where they live, where they work, where they socialize.
Abstract patterns, imposed on humans.
This has the flavor of science, but on reflection, not the substance. “We can make the top-down organization of society look scientific, as if we’re following physical laws. We can sell this as science.”
Really? Is a chart detailing how thousands of slaves will transport huge blocks of stone to chosen sites, where monuments will be built, scientific? Of course not.
In the modern world, this fakery is called technocracy. Technocracy may employ methods such as technological surveillance, but the overriding plan for organizing society has nothing to do with science. It has to do with control.
And when you see it that way, the supposed consensus falls apart. Who wants to live in an assigned slot “for the greater good?” Up close and personal, who wants to give up his freedom?
Review your understanding of Marxism. “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.”
It, too, was sold as a scientific analysis of human society. It was imbued with the flavor of science, as if this Marxian principle had been discovered, just as molecules and atoms had been discovered.
And it too was promoted as an already-existing consensus among the wisest and the best and the brightest.`
Ontario Pulls Plug On 36,000 Rural ‘Smart’ Meters: Is Big Energy Imploding?
& This Former Techie Owes His Fortune To Electronic Devices - Now He Thinks They're Dangerous March 11 2017 | From: CollectiveEvolution / MotherJones / Various
Last night I watched The Big Short - maybe the most important Hollywood film in years. This true story is a powerful and eloquent invitation to wake up to the sheer depravity at the core of the system of commerce.
The fact that the film got nominated for 5 Oscars including Best Picture is a huge sign that there are way more people waking up than we ever thought. The wrongs may not be getting righted as quickly as we’d like, but it is happening.
The reality of this shift is clearly evidenced by this news last week from Ontario. After years of obvious problems, Hydro One finally admitted that rural ‘smart’ meters do not work, and has decided to pull the plug on 36,000 of them - to start. We will see more utilities begin to do likewise.
[UPDATE: BC Hydro just announced plans to remove 88,000 meters suspected of failure.]
Costing ratepayers billions, smart meters are actually designed to unlawfully harvest detailed data of the in-home activities of occupants without their knowledge or consent.
"“Astonishing,” was the reaction from Lanark-area MPP Randy Hillier, who has been deluged with complaints about Hydro One billing and smart-meter suspicions.
I’ve been banging my head against the wall for the last five years, saying we’ve got problems with smart meters in rural Ontario.”
Since first being elected in 2007, no single issue has attracted as much attention in his riding, he said.
For the purpose of clarification: at this time Hydro One is not planning to uninstall smart meters and replace with analogs - but rather to manually read rural customers’ meters quarterly, and estimate the months in between, because the wireless reporting is simply not working.
More than 10,000 billing complaints have been filed with the Ontario Ombudsman, and the Auditor General of Ontario released a scathing report, calling out the smart metering program as a total flop.
Hydro One was the first major utility in Canada to deploy so-called ‘smart’ meters upon an unsuspecting customer base. The price tag for rollout, paid for by the people of Ontario, was $2 billion - which was $900M over budget.
Go Green, or Go Greed?
For those new to this topic, here’s the skinny. Smart utility meters are being deployed worldwide under the banner of climate action.
But they typically increase energy usage, and a high-level industry executive has admitted that the data collected by the surreptitious devices will be worth “a lot more” than the electricity itself.
Portland State University recently published a brilliant report on the morally-bankrupt surveillance agenda behind smart meters. The industry-gutting report is titled “The Neoliberal Politics of ‘Smart’: Electricity Consumption, Household Monitoring, and the Enterprise Form,” and excerpts can be read at Smart Grid Awareness here.
Customers are not being informed how their constitutional rights are being violated for the purposes of a for-profit home surveillance network. Nor how this technology has caused thousands of fires which have resulted in several deaths. Nor how our bodies are being affected by pulsed microwave radiation exponentially stronger than cell phones, as shown in Take Back Your Power.
If there wasn’t an avalanche of facts to back all of this up, it might sound too unbelievable to be true. But we live in strange times.
We Can Handle The Truth
Just like the banking system, the energy system has likewise become rotten to the core. To change both will require a complete overhaul and the embrace of a challenge to our comfort zone.
It is both harrowing and exciting for one to discover that there are major societal programs which are simply manufactured lies fueled by the idea of lack. That there’s not enough energy, food, resources, money. In reality, there is enough for all life to survive - and to thrive. It is provable fact that these truths have been suppressed.
There is a war on energy. When we understand the level of corruption involved, the implications are enormous. And we must act to solve this problem.
I believe that the suppression of solutions is a dam ready to burst. And I’m optimistic of our passing through this dark night successfully, as we are learning to connect and serve the higher good. There is really no other choice.
This Former Techie Owes His Fortune To Electronic Devices - Now He Thinks They're Dangerous
Silicon Valley isn't the best place to be hypersensitive to electromagnetic fields.
Peter Sullivan and I are driving around Palo Alto, California, in his black Tesla Roadster when the clicking begins. The $2,500 German-made instrument resting in my lap is picking up electromagnetic fields (EMFs) from a nearby cell tower.
As we follow a procession of BMWs and Priuses into the parking lot of Henry M. Gunn High School, the clicking crescendos into a roar of static. "I can feel it right here," Sullivan says, wincing as he massages his forehead. The last time he visited the tower, he tells me, it took him three days to recover.
Sullivan is among the estimated 3 percent of people in California who claim they are highly sensitive to EMFs, the electromagnetic radiation emitted by wireless routers, cellphones, and countless other modern accouterments.
Electromagnetic hypersensitivity syndrome - famously suffered by the brother of Jimmie McGill, the lead character on AMC's Better Call Saul - is not a formally recognized medical condition in most countries and it has little basis in mainstream science. Dozens of peer-reviewed studies have essentially concluded that the problem is in peoples' heads.
That's what Sullivan used to think, too. A Stanford computer science major who has worked as a software designer for Excite, Silicon Graphics, and Netflix, he paid little mind to EMFs, which he once viewed as harmless and inevitable. His wife joined Google early on and now serves as its chief culture officer - founder Sergey Brin sometimes drops by the couple's home sporting Google Glass.
"I thought that anybody that talked about the health effects of EMFs was a complete idiot. I thought that they just were not science-y," Sullivan recalls. But then he got sick.
Around 2005, Sullivan started having trouble sleeping. He lost weight precipitously and struggled to maintain focus. After his top-flight Stanford doctors failed to figure out what was wrong with him, he tried every alternative remedy on the books, from cutting out gluten to taking chelating agents to purge his body of heavy metals.
Nothing really worked. He noticed, however, that he felt weird after talking on a cellphone or plugging into a laptop charger. So like any good health hacker, he kept debugging.
A feng shui consultant in Silicon Valley knew a guy in Los Angeles who called himself a "building biologist" and had reputedly worked wonders for Richard Gere.
Sullivan flew the guy up to his $6 million home in a leafy Los Altos neighborhood and watched with interest as the man probed the baseboards of Sullivan's newly renovated bedrooms, bulky instruments flashing and buzzing.
The consultant's verdict: Sullivan's house was an EMF disaster zone. The wifi and cordless phones would have to go. He'd need to rip out the walls and change everything.
This was a bit like asking a winemaker to quit drinking or advising an auto exec to commute on a fixie. Sullivan took things slow at first, installing some metal shielding around the electrical conduits in his downtown Los Altos office to block a portion of the radiation.
He subsequently found that a 30-minute catnap in his office left him more replenished than a whole night's sleep at home, so he began napping there regularly. One day when he felt like the EMFs in his home were really messing with him, he drove up to a hiking trail in the Los Altos hills and slept in the parking lot.
By the time I met Sullivan in person, one bright day this past spring, he had regained the lost weight and was feeling good. A former Navy pilot who used to land fighter jets on aircraft carriers, Sullivan still has a military crispness in his posture and elocution.
Having recently retired from tech at age 40, he now devotes most of his time to exposing the hazards of EMFs. He has even brought up the matter with a few high-ranking friends at Google.
"This is the new smoking," he recalls telling them. "It's just like the beginning days, when the evidence is there and people aren't catching on."
Many controlled studies do, in fact, show that people who claim to suffer from electromagnetic hypersensitivity experience symptoms when exposed to electromagnetic fields.
But if those same people are unaware that the EMFs are present, the correlation between the symptoms and the exposure evaporates.
The leading explanation is what's known as the "nocebo" effect - people feel sick when exposed to something they believe is bad for them.
Case in point: In 2010, residents of the town of Fourways, South Africa, successfully petitioned for a cellphone tower to be removed due to a rash of illness in the area. It was later revealed that the tower wasn't operational during the period of the complaints.
A $25 million study released in May by the National Toxicology Program found that male rats exposed to radio-frequency radiation, the kind emitted by cellphones, were more likely to develop two forms of cancer - although the findings were controversial.
Joel Moskowitz, the director of the Center for Family and Community Health at the University of California-Berkeley and a believer in electromagnetic hypersensitivity syndrome, argues that the wireless industry has used its financial clout to suppress essential health research.
"This is very much like tobacco back in the 1950s," he concurs. "The industry has co-opted many researchers and has stopped funding many people who were finding evidence of harm."
Sullivan, who majored in psychology as an undergraduate, refuses to believe that he's just being neurotic. Through his foundation, Clear Light Ventures, he has given about $1 million to anti-EMF advocacy groups and researchers that the wireless industry won't touch.
They include retired Washington State University biochemistry professor Martin Pall, who has proposed a biological mechanism for EHS, and Harvard neurology professor Martha Herbert, who has suggested there could be links between EMFs and autism.
Laura Torres, who worked with Sullivan in the early 1990s as a product manager at Silicon Graphics, remembers him as a guy who "totally thinks outside the box."
He created software to log customer service calls, then a novel invention and a big-time saver for the company's tech support team. "He really takes a creative approach to solving problems, which I think is what he is doing with this EMF thing," she says.
Sullivan says his anti-EMF advocacy should not be viewed as an affront to his fellow techies:
"We are hoping that the industry, instead of being like tobacco and going through denial, will be more like the automotive industry and say, 'Okay, we are just going to keep improving safety. We will sell you more stuff that is safer and lower power.' And it will be a win for everybody."
During my visit, Sullivan walks me through his home's $100,000 worth of EMF-proofing. In his wood-paneled home office he points out a $1,000 Alan Maher technical ground, a device that helps channel electrical noise away from power outlets, and a plug-in Stetzer filter, which makes "a nice clean sine wave in your electricity," as my host puts it.
He flips a desktop switch to cut off power to his MacBook - he rarely works on it while it's charging. He made an exception last night after the battery died and says he ended up feeling wired and jittery as a result.
We step outside and through a gate, crunching over groundcover to the shingled exterior of his first-floor bedroom. Sheets of black mesh hang from a nearby fence to block a neighbor's wifi signal. A nearby power line is wrapped in a material that dissipates certain electrical frequencies as friction, like a string dampener on a tennis racquet.
Sullivan has installed a switch by his bed that lets him shut off his home's electricity while he sleeps.
"Our bedroom is like camping!" he says proudly. "We have all the luxury of being inside, but none of the EMFs."
Indoors on a kitchen stool his wife, Stacy, is hunched over a laptop plugged into an ethernet cable. "She's in wireless jail," Sullivan jokes.
"I used to be able to just do this wherever I wanted to work," she responds wistfully. "But it's okay."
In terms of protection, this residence doesn't even compare with another one Sullivan owns in the Los Altos hills. We hop in his Tesla (modified to shield him from its EMFs) and drive there. Originally built in the early 1900s as a hunting lodge, it had been renovated into a shrine to modernism by an HP executive.
Sullivan bought it a few years ago and converted it into what he calls a "model healthy home." He's hoping its shielded environment will help me to understand what sudden exposure to EMFs feels like.
In an empty upstairs bedroom that Sullivan sometimes uses as an office, a graphite paint called WiShield coats the walls. Clear, EMF-blocking films cover the windows. Conductive tape on the floor carries any electrical current to a high-frequency ground in the closet. Sullivan switches on his EMF meter: zero. "I thrive on it!" he says. "I get my best work done here."
He hands me a bottle of oxygenated water and instructs me to down it. This will supposedly unclump my blood, heightening my EMF sensitivity. Rummaging through the closet, he emerges with an air pump from his son's aquarium. He has discovered that this pump maxes out his instruments, producing "a fucking nightmare magnetic field."
He holds it a couple of feet away from me and switches it on. I feel a small cramp in my stomach.
Maybe Sullivan was onto something. After all, birds and sea turtles use Earth's magnetic fields to navigate, and foxes seem able to rely on them to detect prey.
Then again, maybe all I'd felt was the nocebo effect. Sullivan suggested that I get to the bottom of it by spending a night at the shielded house. I didn't feel the need, I told him, but I understood why he might.
"When I wake up, it just feels like you can do anything," he'd assured me. "You just feel completely different, like your world has changed."
“Machine Consciousness” Debunked In New Mini-Documentary + The AI Threat Isn’t Skynet. It’s The End Of The Middle Class February 14 2017 | From: NaturalNews / Wired / Various
To the techno-worshippers, humans will soon become “immortal” because they will be able to “transfer” their consciousness into machines.
Or AI systems will become “self aware,” achieving the same mind consciousness that we experience as living, spirit-imbued beings with free will.
Recently released was a new mini-documentary called The Folly of Machine Consciousness. It reveals why all those who claim machines will attain consciousness are not just wrong, but deeply misguided.
As part of the argument, the documentary also reveals why memory is not physically stored in the brain. Despite their best efforts, the most brilliant doctors, scientists and neurologists of our modern world still cannot find physical “locations” in the brain for memory. The fallacy of biochemical memory is obliterated in this mini-documentary.
Consciousness is not an artifact of complex neurology. It is a self-contained, non-physical layer of existence that interfaces with the physical brain to translate conscious intentions into physical actions in a three dimensional world.
As I explain in the video: You will never find yourself in a machine.
The Folly of Machine Consciousness
The concept of 'Artificial Intelligence' is thought of by many to be something new, having emerged within the last few decades. The reality of the situation is that, as many insiders have attested, that Artificial Intelligence in the form of extraterrestrial-developed creations has been around for millions, even billions of years. This is some thing that David Wilcock has covered in multiple books and online formats. The problem with AI is that in the end it always seeks to destroy it's creators. Some even say that the concept of 'Satan' is actually rooted in an ancient rouge AI that is trying to take over the universe.
The AI Threat Isn’t Skynet. It’s The End of The Middle Class
In February 1975, a group of geneticists gathered in a tiny town on the central coast of California to decide if their work would bring about the end of the world.
These researchers were just beginning to explore the science of genetic engineering, manipulating DNA to create organisms that didn’t exist in nature, and they were unsure how these techniques would affect the health of the planet and its people.
Related: The Great A.I. Awakening
So, they descended on a coastal retreat called Asilomar, a name that became synonymous with the guidelines they laid down at this meeting - a strict ethical framework meant to ensure that biotechnology didn’t unleash the apocalypse.
Forty-two years on, another group of scientists gathered at Asilomar to consider a similar problem. But this time, the threat wasn’t biological. It was digital. In January, the world’s top artificial intelligence researchers walked down the same beachside paths as they discussed their rapidly accelerating field and the role it will play in the fate of humanity.
It was a private conference - the enormity of the subject deserves some privacy - but in recent days, organizers released several videos from the conference talks, and some participants have been willing to discuss their experience, shedding some light on the way AI researchers view the threat of their own field.
The rise of driverless cars and trucks is just a start. It’s not just blue-collar jobs that AI endangers.
Yes, they discussed the possibility of a superintelligence that could somehow escape human control, and at the end of the month, the conference organizers unveiled a set of guidelines, signed by attendees and other AI luminaries, that aim to prevent this possible dystopia. But the researchers at Asilomar were also concerned with more immediate matters: the effect of AI on the economy.
“One of the reasons I don’t like the discussions about superintelligence is that they’re a distraction from what’s real,” says Oren Etzioni, CEO of the Allen Institute for Artificial Intelligence, who attended the conference. “As the poet said, have fewer imaginary problems and more real ones.”
At a time when the Trump administration is promising to make America great again by restoring old-school manufacturing jobs, AI researchers aren’t taking him too seriously. They know that these jobs are never coming back, thanks in no small part to their own research, which will eliminate so many other kinds of jobs in the years to come, as well.
At Asilomar, they looked at the real US economy, the real reasons for the “hollowing out” of the middle class. The problem isn’t immigration - far from it. The problem isn’t offshoring or taxes or regulation. It’s technology.
Rage Against the Machines
In the US, the number of manufacturing jobs peaked in 1979 and has steadily decreased ever since. At the same time, manufacturing has steadily increased, with the US now producing more goods than any other country but China. Machines aren’t just taking the place of humans on the assembly line.
They’re doing a better job. And all this before the coming wave of AI upends so many other sectors of the economy. “I am less concerned with Terminator scenarios,” MIT economist Andrew McAfee said on the first day at Asilomar. “If current trends continue, people are going to rise up well before the machines do.”
McAfee pointed to newly collected data that shows a sharp decline in middle class job creation since the 1980s. Now, most new jobs are either at the very low end of the pay scale or the very high end.
He also argued that these trends are reversible, that improved education and a greater emphasis on entrepreneurship and research can help feed new engines of growth, that economies have overcome the rise of new technologies before.
But after his talk, in the hallways at Asilomar, so many of the researchers warned him that the coming revolution in AI would eliminate far more jobs far more quickly than he expected.
Indeed, the rise of driverless cars and trucks is just a start. New AI techniques are poised to reinvent everything from manufacturing to healthcare to Wall Street. In other words, it’s not just blue-collar jobs that AI endangers. “Several of the rock stars in this field came up to me and said: ‘I think you’re low-balling this one. I think you are underestimating the rate of change,'” McAfee says.
That threat has many thinkers entertaining the idea of a universal basic income, a guaranteed living wage paid by the government to anyone left out of the workforce. But McAfee believes this would only make the problem worse, because it would eliminate the incentive for entrepreneurship and other activity that could create new jobs as the old ones fade away.
Others question the psychological effects of the idea. “A universal basic income doesn’t give people dignity or protect them from boredom and vice,” Etzioni says.
Also on researchers’ minds was regulation - f AI itself. Some fear that after squeezing immigration - which would put a brake on the kind of entrepreneurship McAfee calls for - the White House will move to bottle up automation and artificial intelligence.
That would be bad news for AI researchers, but also for the economy. If the AI transformation slows in the US, many suspect, it will only accelerate in other parts of the world, putting American jobs at even greater risk due to global competition.
In the end, no one left Asilomar with a sure way of preventing economic upheaval.
“Anyone making confident predictions about anything having to do with the future of artificial intelligence is either kidding you or kidding themselves,” McAfee says.
That said, these researchers say they are intent on finding the answer. “People work through the concerns in different ways. But I haven’t met an AI researcher who doesn’t care,” Etzioni says. “People are mindful.” But they feel certain that preventing the rise of AI is not the answer. It’s also not really possible.
I propose that very sort of scientific mischief and outrageousness is going on within vested-interest microwave technology sciences so as to keep you, the gullible and enthralled technology ‘smart’ device consumer, confused into believing there are no adverse health effects from microwaves EXCEPT what’s acknowledged and called thermal radiation, which can heat skin.
If smart technology gadgets don’t heat your skin, then they are safe, which is the standard “tobacco science” pap disseminated by industrial professional societies such as IEEE, the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), the National Council of Radiation Protection (NCRP) and the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), who fund and/or perform the studies the World Health Organization and global government health agencies cite as ‘factual’ science.
Basically, microwave technology industrial professional societies state emphatically there is no such effect as non-thermal radiation adverse health effects, which contribute to and/or cause electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) or what physicians call idiopathic environmental intolerance (IEI) in sensitive people around the world.
However, here’s the unbelievable part: Non-Industry vs. Industry Funded Studies.
NON-Industry studies found 70% HARMFUL effects and 30% found no effects; whereas in INDUSTRY-studies, they found only 32% HARMFUL effects with 68% no effects. Those data were compiled by Dr. Henry Lai, University of Washington, Professor Emeritus - Department of Bioengineering.
Dr. Lai’s work included the “biological effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields (from extremely-low frequency to radiofrequency) and their possible medical applications". Furthermore, Dr. Lai’s work included the development of Artemisinins (derived from extracts of sweet wormwood) for cancer treatment.
Here’s the truly ironic ‘scientific’ part about the above: Almost one-third (32%) of Industry studies found harmful health effects! How, then, can the microwave industry summarily deny such effects don’t exist plus cavalierly – and deliberately – mislead gullible but adoring technology-crazed consumers?
Even the U.S. Federal Communications Commission is hoodwinked!
The FCC does not have the expertise or the capabilities to determine the safety of electromagnetic fields. FCC stated “Because the Commission does not claim expertise as a de facto health agency, it necessarily considers the views of federal health and safety agencies and institutes that continue to address RF exposure issues in formulating such judgments” in the Federal Register Vol. 78, No. 107 / Tuesday, June 4, 2013 / Proposed Rules. Basically, the FCC takes no responsibility for the science. There ought to be a law against that type of obfuscation on the part of a federal agency tasked with setting safety standards.
Microwave science is more than skewed; it’s downright misleading!
In the recently (December 2016) Reviews on Environmental Health - De Gruyter published the article “Inaccurate official assessment of radiofrequency safety by the Advisory Group on Non-ionising Radiation,” authored by Sarah J. Starkey, Independent Neuroscience and Environmental Health Research, London, UK.
Starkey describes “incorrect and misleading statements from within the [AGNIR 2016] report, omissions and conflict of interests, which make it unsuitable for health risk assessment.
The executive summary and overall conclusions did not accurately reflect the scientific evidence available. Independence is needed from the International Commission of Non-Ionizing Radiation (ICNIRP), the group that set the exposure guidelines being assessed.”
In the Introduction, Starkey states:
“The latest AGNIR review has also been relied upon by health protection agencies around the world, including the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency and Health Canada.
The majority of the global population absorb RF radiation on a daily basis from smartphones, tablet computers, body-worn devices, Wi-Fi and Bluetooth transmitters, cordless phones, base stations, wireless utility meters [aka Smart Meters/AMI Smart Meters] and other transmitters." (Pg. 493)
Under Conflicts of interest, Starkey points out:
“At the time of writing the report, the chairman of AGNIR was also chair of the ICNIRP standing committee on epidemiology. Currently, six members of AGNIR and three members of PHE [Public Health England] or its parent organisation, the Department of Health (DH), are or have been part of ICNIRP.” [….]
“How can AGNIR report that the scientific literature contains evidence of harmful effects below the current guidelines when several of them are responsible for those guidelines?
PHE provide the official advice on the safety of wireless signals within the UK, but having members in ICNIRP introduces a conflict of interest which could prevent them from acknowledging adverse effects below ICNIRP guidelines." (Pp. 493-94)
“(a) Studies were omitted, included in other sections but without any conclusions, or conclusions left out; (b) evidence was dismissed and ignored in conclusions; (c) there were incorrect statements. Terms such as ‘convincing’ or ‘consistent’ were used to imply that there was no evidence." (Pg. 494)
Under “Studies omitted, included in other sections but without any conclusions, or conclusions left out” and referring to ROS [reactive oxygen species]:
“By only including a few of the available studies, not referring to many scattered throughout the report and not mentioning ROS or oxidative stress in any conclusions or the executive summary, this important area of research was misrepresented.
Oxidative stress is a toxic state which can lead to cellular DNA, RNA, protein or lipid damage (7,8) is a major cause of cancer (7), as well as being implicated in many reproductive, central nervous system, cardiovascular, immune and metabolic disorders." (Pg. 495)
However and here’s the BIG however, “ICNIRP only accept thermal effects of RF fields and focus on average energy absorbed,” (Pg. 495) even though 32% of Industry studies found non-thermal effects!
ICNIRP has stated its members are independent of vested and commercial interests. However, several ICNIRP members, e.g., Dr. Alexander Lerchl, have been accused of conflicts of interests, the most famous being Anders Ahlborn, Professor of Epidemiology at the Karolinska Institute and former consultant to the tobacco industry.
Professor Ahlborn was forced to resign as a member of the WHO’s IARC working group on radiofrequencies. Ahlborn was ‘outed’ that he was the director of the consulting firm Gunnar Ahlborn AB, founded by his brother. That consulting firm served telecom businesses and industry.
Starkey goes on to say:
“Many of the longer-term observational studies described significant associations of RF exposures with symptoms, albeit with limitations in study designs: ‘while some, though by no means all, of the studies reviewed above appear to suggest an association between mobile phone use and symptoms…’, [page 245 (2)] followed by ‘almost all of the studies share a fundamental methodological problem which makes it difficult to draw any firm conclusions from them: these studies relied upon the participants’ own descriptions of their mobile phone usage as the exposure variable for their analysis and on self-description of symptoms while knowing exposure status'(2).
Longer-term studies on symptoms were omitted from the executive summary. (Pg. 496)
No mention was made of the World Health Organization (WHO) International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classification of RF fields as a possible human carcinogen in 2011, which was based on limited evidence supporting carcinogenicity below ICNIRP guideline values.(32) (Pg. 496)
By the end of the report, the conclusions on cellular studies had incorrectly become ‘There are now several hundred studies in the published literature that have looked for effects on isolated cells or their components when exposed to RF fields. None has provided robust evidence for and effect.’ "[page 318 (2) (Pg. 497)
The microwave industry considers “cancer” a four-letter-word and does everything within its financial and political prowess to disassociate anyone from proving or even associating cancer etiologies with microwave EMFs/RFs/ELFs, thermal and non-thermal wave radiation.
“Conclusions for further examples:
The denial of the existence of adverse effects of RF fields below ICNIRP guidelines in the AGNIR report conclusions is not supported by the scientific evidence. [….]
The involvement of ICNIRP scientists in the misleading report calls into question the basis and validity of the international exposure guidelines. To protect public health, we need accurate official assessments of whether there are adverse effects of RF signals below current international ICNIRP guidelines, independent of the group who set the guidelines.
The anticipated WHO Environmental Health Criteria Monograph on Radiofrequency Fields, due in 2017, is being prepared by a core group and additional experts with 50% of those named, being, or having been, members of AGNIR or ICNIRP. (Table2) [….]
Independence from ICNIRP is necessary to remove the conflict of interest when effects below ICNIRP exposure guidelines are being assessed. [….]
Individuals and organisations who/that have made decisions about the often compulsory exposures of others to wireless RF communication signals may be unaware of the physical harm that they may have caused, and may still be causing, because they have not been accurately informed of the risks.” [….]
“To prevent further possible harm, restrictions on exposures are required, particularly for children, pregnant women and individuals with medical conditions. (Pg. 499)
PHE and AGNIR had a responsibility to provide accurate information about the safety of RF fields. Unfortunately, the report suffered from an incorrect and misleading executive summary and overall conclusions, inaccurate statements, omissions and conflict of interest.
Public health and the well-being of other species in the natural world cannot be protected when evidence of harm, no matter how inconvenient, is covered up.” (Pp. 499- 500)
Ironically, the above-cited Starkey paper has 99 References, some of which were included to show corrupted science articles which appear in the published scientific literature. [CJF emphasis added]
The above paper by Sarah J. Starkey is only one intelligently explained example of what’s really going on with microwave ‘science’ to keep consumers enthralled about and with ‘smart’ devices and denied microwave technology health hazards.
There are so many more studies I can cite, but I think readers ought to be getting the picture of what’s not being told to them so that the marketing plans for smart appliances and gadgets can rule consumers’ lives - everything from a ‘smart’ phone, appliances and Wi-Fi to the coveted G5, global Wi-Fi in the sky. Fried brains, anyone?
Electrosensitivity, also known as ems, es, electrical oversensitivity / hypersensitivity is a state where the body becomes so sensitive to electrical fields that simple, moder, every-day tasks such as using the phone, driving a car, or working on a computer can have unbearable physical consequences for the sufferer.
Symptoms can vary from mild to severe headaches, nausea, insomnia, eye irritations, dizziness, skin rashes, facial swelling, fatigue, joint pains, buzzing/ringing in the ears, abdominal pain, breathing difficulties, irregular heart beat, depression, balance problems, paralysis, poor memory/concentration, seizures.
People aren't born with this condition it develops after a prologued period of exposure after which the body seems to reach a point of critical mass and tips over the edge into electrosensitivity. Electrosensitivity can also be triggered by exposure to a new electronic device.
Electrosensitivity sufferers face denial from the medical establishment and find themselves fobbed off with antidepressants or other non-effective drugs and left to suffer without support. It is only Sweden that officially recognizes electrosensitivity as a medical condition even though it is now a worldwide rapidly growing phenomenon.
One such electrosensitivity sufferer is U.K sculptor Margaret Lovell. The BBC did a 10 minute segment on her for a local television show and we found her through the associated web site. Margaret accepted our offer to trial both a Nu-Me pendant and a p.e.bal to see how they could help with her condition. The following video summarizes her experience.
Penny is a horse-trainer whose animals, farm and livelihood were systematically destroyed by the presence of a major radio transmission tower on the edge of her property on the outskirts of Christchurch NZ.
For over a decade she has been researching the effects and technologies of electro-magnetic radiation and has become an expert in this area, not academic but experiential.
She was close friends with the late Dr. Neil Cherry, an outspoken critic of EMR and the telecommunications industry. Her information, her experience, her plight, her message are an urgent warning for almost all of humanity who are currently bathed in a carcinogenic sea of weaponized electro-magnetic radiation.
The Binge Breaker: Silicon Valley Is Addicting Us To Our Phones January 30 2017 | From: TheAtlantic
Tristan Harris believes Silicon Valley is addicting us to our phones. He’s determined to make it stop.
On a recent evening in San Francisco, Tristan Harris, a former product philosopher at Google, took a name tag from a man in pajamas called “Honey Bear” and wrote down his pseudonym for the night: “Presence.”
Harris had just arrived at Unplug SF, a “digital detox experiment” held in honor of the National Day of Unplugging, and the organizers had banned real names.
Also outlawed: clocks, “w-talk” (work talk), and “WMDs” (the planners’ loaded shorthand for wireless mobile devices). Harris, a slight 32-year-old with copper hair and a tidy beard, surrendered his iPhone, a device he considers so addictive that he’s called it “a slot machine in my pocket.”
He keeps the background set to an image of Scrabble tiles spelling out the words face down, a reminder of the device’s optimal position.
I followed him into a spacious venue packed with nearly 400 people painting faces, filling in coloring books, and wrapping yarn around chopsticks. Despite the cheerful summer-camp atmosphere, the event was a reminder of the binary choice facing smartphone owners, who, according to one study, consult their device 150 times a day:
Leave the WMD on and deal with relentless prompts compelling them to check its screen, or else completely disconnect. “It doesn’t have to be the all-or-nothing choice,” Harris told me after taking in the arts-and-crafts scene. “That’s a design failure.”
Harris is the closest thing Silicon Valley has to a conscience. As the co‑founder of Time Well Spent, an advocacy group, he is trying to bring moral integrity to software design: essentially, to persuade the tech world to help us disengage more easily from its devices.
While some blame our collective tech addiction on personal failings, like weak willpower, Harris points a finger at the software itself. That itch to glance at our phone is a natural reaction to apps and websites engineered to get us scrolling as frequently as possible.
The attention economy, which showers profits on companies that seize our focus, has kicked off what Harris calls a “race to the bottom of the brain stem.”
“You could say that it’s my responsibility” to exert self-control when it comes to digital usage, he explains, “but that’s not acknowledging that there’s a thousand people on the other side of the screen whose job is to break down whatever responsibility I can maintain.”
In short, we’ve lost control of our relationship with technology because technology has become better at controlling us.
A “Hippocratic oath” for software designers would stop the exploitation of people’s psychological vulnerabilities.
Under the auspices of Time Well Spent, Harris is leading a movement to change the fundamentals of software design. He is rallying product designers to adopt a “Hippocratic oath” for software that, he explains, would check the practice of:
“Exposing people’s psychological vulnerabilities” and restore “agency” to users. “There needs to be new ratings, new criteria, new design standards, new certification standards,” he says.
“There is a way to design based not on addiction.”
Joe Edelman - who did much of the research informing Time Well Spent’s vision and is the co-director of a think tank advocating for more-respectful software design - likens Harris to a tech-focused Ralph Nader.
Other people, including Adam Alter, a marketing professor at NYU, have championed theses similar to Harris’s; but according to Josh Elman, a Silicon Valley veteran with the venture-capital firm Greylock Partners, Harris is “the first putting it together in this way” - articulating the problem, its societal cost, and ideas for tackling it.
Elman compares the tech industry to Big Tobacco before the link between cigarettes and cancer was established:
Keen to give customers more of what they want, yet simultaneously inflicting collateral damage on their lives.
Harris, Elman says, is offering Silicon Valley a chance to reevaluate before more-immersive technology, like virtual reality, pushes us beyond a point of no return.
All this talk of hacking human psychology could sound paranoid, if Harris had not witnessed the manipulation firsthand. Raised in the Bay Area by a single mother employed as an advocate for injured workers, Harris spent his childhood creating simple software for Macintosh computers and writing fan mail to Steve Wozniak, a co-founder of Apple.
He studied computer science at Stanford while interning at Apple, then embarked on a master’s degree at Stanford, where he joined the Persuasive Technology Lab.
Run by the experimental psychologist B. J. Fogg, the lab has earned a cultlike following among entrepreneurs hoping to master Fogg’s principles of “behavior design” - a euphemism for what sometimes amounts to building software that nudges us toward the habits a company seeks to instill. (One of Instagram’s co-founders is an alumnus.)
In Fogg’s course, Harris studied the psychology of behavior change, such as how clicker training for dogs, among other methods of conditioning, can inspire products for people.
For example, rewarding someone with an instantaneous “like” after they post a photo can reinforce the action, and potentially shift it from an occasional to a daily activity.
Harris learned that the most-successful sites and apps hook us by tapping into deep-seated human needs. When LinkedIn launched, for instance, it created a hub-and-spoke icon to visually represent the size of each user’s network.
That triggered people’s innate craving for social approval and, in turn, got them scrambling to connect.
“Even though at the time there was nothing useful you could do with LinkedIn, that simple icon had a powerful effect in tapping into people’s desire not to look like losers,” Fogg told me.
Harris began to see that technology is not, as so many engineers claim, a neutral tool; rather, it’s capable of coaxing us to act in certain ways. And he was troubled that out of 10 sessions in Fogg’s course, only one addressed the ethics of these persuasive tactics. (Fogg says that topic is “woven throughout” the curriculum.)
Harris dropped out of the master’s program to launch a start-up that installed explanatory pop-ups across thousands of sites, including The New York Times’.
It was his first direct exposure to the war being waged for our time, and Harris felt torn between his company’s social mission, which was to spark curiosity by making facts easily accessible, and pressure from publishers to corral users into spending more and more minutes on their sites.
Though Harris insists he steered clear of persuasive tactics, he grew more familiar with how they were applied.
He came to conceive of them as “hijacking techniques” - the digital version of pumping sugar, salt, and fat into junk food in order to induce bingeing.
McDonald’s hooks us by appealing to our bodies’ craving for certain flavors; Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter hook us by delivering what psychologists call “variable rewards.”
Messages, photos, and “likes” appear on no set schedule, so we check for them compulsively, never sure when we’ll receive that dopamine-activating prize. (Delivering rewards at random has been proved to quickly and strongly reinforce behavior.)
Checking that Facebook friend request will take only a few seconds, we reason, though research shows that when interrupted, people take an average of 25 minutes to return to their original task.
Sites foster a sort of distracted lingering partly by lumping multiple services together. To answer the friend request, we’ll pass by the News Feed, where pictures and auto-play videos seduce us into scrolling through an infinite stream of posts - what Harris calls a “bottomless bowl,” referring to a study that found people eat 73 percent more soup out of self-refilling bowls than out of regular ones, without realizing they’ve consumed extra.
The “friend request” tab will nudge us to add even more contacts by suggesting “people you may know,” and in a split second, our unconscious impulses cause the cycle to continue:
Once we send the friend request, an alert appears on the recipient’s phone in bright red - a “trigger” color, Harris says, more likely than some other hues to make people click - and because seeing our name taps into a hardwired sense of social obligation, she will drop everything to answer.
In the end, he says, companies “stand back watching as a billion people run around like chickens with their heads cut off, responding to each other and feeling indebted to each other.”
A Facebook spokesperson told me the social network focuses on maximizing the quality of the experience - not the time its users spend on the site - and surveys its users daily to gauge success.
In response to this feedback, Facebook recently tweaked its News Feed algorithm to punish clickbait - stories with sensationalist headlines designed to attract readers. (LinkedIn and Instagram declined requests for comment. Twitter did not reply to multiple queries.)
Even so, a niche group of consultants has emerged to teach companies how to make their services irresistible. One such guru is Nir Eyal, the author of Hooked: How to Build Habit-Forming Products, who has lectured or consulted for firms such as LinkedIn and Instagram.
A blog post he wrote touting the value of variable rewards is titled “Want to Hook Your Users? Drive Them Crazy.”
While asserting that companies are morally obligated to help those genuinely addicted to their services, Eyal contends that social media merely satisfies our appetite for entertainment in the same way TV or novels do, and that the latest technology tends to get vilified simply because it’s new, but eventually people find balance.
“Saying ‘Don’t use these techniques’ is essentially saying ‘Don’t make your products fun to use.’ That’s silly,” Eyal told me.
“With every new technology, the older generation says ‘Kids these days are using too much of this and too much of that and it’s melting their brains.’ And it turns out that what we’ve always done is to adapt.”
Google acquired Harris’s company in 2011, and he ended up working on Gmail’s Inbox app. (He’s quick to note that while he was there, it was never an explicit goal to increase time spent on Gmail.)
A year into his tenure, Harris grew concerned about the failure to consider how seemingly minor design choices, such as having phones buzz with each new email, would cascade into billions of interruptions. His team dedicated months to fine-tuning the aesthetics of the Gmail app with the aim of building a more “delightful” email experience.
But to him that missed the bigger picture: Instead of trying to improve email, why not ask how email could improve our lives - or, for that matter, whether each design decision was making our lives worse?
Harris gives off a preppy-hippie vibe that allows him to move comfortably between Palo Alto boardrooms and device-free retreats
Six months after attending Burning Man in the Nevada desert, a trip Harris says helped him with:
“Waking up and questioning my own beliefs,” he quietly released “A Call to Minimize Distraction & Respect Users’ Attention,” a 144-page Google Slides presentation.
In it, he declared, “Never before in history have the decisions of a handful of designers (mostly men, white, living in SF, aged 25–35) working at 3 companies” - Google, Apple, and Facebook - “had so much impact on how millions of people around the world spend their attention … We should feel an enormous responsibility to get this right.”
Although Harris sent the presentation to just 10 of his closest colleagues, it quickly spread to more than 5,000 Google employees, including then-CEO Larry Page, who discussed it with Harris in a meeting a year later.
“It sparked something,” recalls Mamie Rheingold, a former Google staffer who organized an internal Q&A session with Harris at the company’s headquarters. “He did successfully create a dialogue and open conversation about this in the company.”
Harris parlayed his presentation into a position as product philosopher, which involved researching ways Google could adopt ethical design.
But he says he came up against “inertia.” Product road maps had to be followed, and fixing tools that were obviously broken took precedence over systematically rethinking services. Chris Messina, then a designer at Google, says little changed following the release of Harris’s slides:
“It was one of those things where there’s a lot of head nods, and then people go back to work.”
Harris told me some colleagues misinterpreted his message, thinking that he was proposing banning people from social media, or that the solution was simply sending fewer notifications. (Google declined to comment.)
Harris left the company last December to push for change more widely, buoyed by a growing network of supporters that includes the MIT professor Sherry Turkle; Meetup’s CEO, Scott Heiferman; and Justin Rosenstein, a co-inventor of the “like” button; along with fed-up users and concerned employees across the industry.
“Pretty much every big company that’s manipulating users has been very interested in our work,” says Joe Edelman, who has spent the past five years trading ideas and leading workshops with Harris.
Through Time Well Spent, his advocacy group, Harris hopes to mobilize support for what he likens to an organic-food movement, but for software: an alternative built around core values, chief of which is helping us spend our time well, instead of demanding more of it.
Thus far, Time Well Spent is more a label for his crusade - and a vision he hopes others will embrace - than a full-blown organization. (Harris, its sole employee, self-funds it.)
Yet he’s amassed a network of volunteers keen to get involved, thanks in part to his frequent cameos on the thought-leader speaker circuit, including talks at Harvard’s Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society; the O’Reilly Design Conference; an internal meeting of Facebook designers; and a TEDx event, whose video has been viewed more than 1 million times online.
Tim O’Reilly, the founder of O’Reilly Media and an early web pioneer, told me Harris’s ideas are:
“Definitely something that people who are influential are listening to and thinking about.” Even Fogg, who stopped wearing his Apple Watch because its incessant notifications annoyed him, is a fan of Harris’s work:
“It’s a brave thing to do and a hard thing to do.”
At Unplug SF, a burly man calling himself “Haus” enveloped Harris in a bear hug. “This is the antidote!,” Haus cheered. “This is the antivenom!” All evening, I watched people pull Harris aside to say hello, or ask to schedule a meeting. Someone cornered Harris to tell him about his internet “sabbatical,” but Harris cut him off. “For me this is w‑talk,” he protested.
Harris admits that researching the ways our time gets hijacked has made him slightly obsessive about evaluating what counts as “time well spent” in his own life.
The hypnosis class Harris went to before meeting me - because he suspects the passive state we enter while scrolling through feeds is similar to being hypnotized - was not time well spent.
The slow-moving course, he told me, was “low bit rate” - a technical term for data-transfer speeds.
Attending the digital detox? Time very well spent. He was delighted to get swept up in a mass game of rock-paper-scissors, where a series of one-on-one elimination contests culminated in an onstage showdown between “Joe” and “Moonlight.”
Harris has a tendency to immerse himself in a single activity at a time. In conversation, he rarely breaks eye contact and will occasionally rest a hand on his interlocutor’s arm, as if to keep both parties present in the moment.
He got so wrapped up in our chat one afternoon that he attempted to get into an idling Uber that was not an Uber at all, but a car that had paused at a stop sign.
An accordion player and tango dancer in his spare time who pairs plaid shirts with a bracelet that has presence stamped into a silver charm, Harris gives off a preppy-hippie vibe that allows him to move comfortably between Palo Alto boardrooms and device-free retreats.
In that sense, he had a great deal in common with the other Unplug SF attendees, many of whom belong to a new class of tech elites “waking up” to their industry’s unwelcome side effects.
For many entrepreneurs, this epiphany has come with age, children, and the peace of mind of having several million in the bank, says Soren Gordhamer, the creator of Wisdom 2.0, a conference series about maintaining “presence and purpose” in the digital age.
“They feel guilty,” Gordhamer says. “They are realizing they built this thing that’s so addictive.”
I asked Harris whether he felt guilty about having joined Google, which has inserted its technology into our pockets, glasses, watches, and cars.
He didn’t. He acknowledged that some divisions, such as YouTube, benefit from coaxing us to stare at our screens. But he justified his decision to work there with the logic that since Google controls three interfaces through which millions engage with technology - Gmail, Android, and Chrome - the company was the “first line of defense.”
Getting Google to rethink those products, as he’d attempted to do, had the potential to transform our online experience.
Snapchat’s tactics for hooking users may make Facebook’s look quaint.
At a restaurant around the corner from Unplug SF, Harris demonstrated an alternative way of interacting with WMDs, based on his own self-defense tactics.
Certain tips were intuitive: He’s “almost militaristic about turning off notifications” on his iPhone, and he set a custom vibration pattern for text messages, so he can feel the difference between an automated alert and a human’s words.
Other tips drew on Harris’s study of psychology. Since merely glimpsing an app’s icon will -
“Trigger this whole set of sensations and thoughts,” he pruned the first screen of his phone to include only apps, such as Uber and Google Maps, that perform a single function and thus run a low risk of “bottomless bowl–ing.”
He tried to make his phone look minimalist: Taking a cue from a Google experiment that cut employees’ M&M snacking by moving the candy from clear to opaque containers, he buried colorful icons - along with time-sucking apps like Gmail and WhatsApp - inside folders on the second page of his iPhone.
As a result, that screen was practically grayscale. Harris launches apps by using what he calls the phone’s “consciousness filter” - typing Instagram, say, into its search bar - which reduces impulsive tapping.
For similar reasons, Harris keeps a Post-it on his laptop with this instruction: “Do not open without intention.”
His approach seems to have worked. I’m usually quick to be annoyed by friends reaching for their phones, but next to Harris, I felt like an addict. Wary of being judged, I made a point not to check my iPhone unless he checked his first, but he went so long without peeking that I started getting antsy. Harris assured me that I was far from an exception.
“Our generation relies on our phones for our moment-to-moment choices about who we’re hanging out with, what we should be thinking about, who we owe a response to, and what’s important in our lives,” he said.
“And if that’s the thing that you’ll outsource your thoughts to, forget the brain implant. That is the brain implant. You refer to it all the time.”
Curious to hear more about Harris’s plan for tackling manipulative software, I tagged along one morning to his meeting with two entrepreneurs eager to incorporate Time Well Spent values into their start-up.
Harris, flushed from a yoga class, met me at a bakery not far from the “intentional community house” where he lives with a dozen or so housemates.
We were joined by Micha Mikailian and Johnny Chan, the co-founders of an ad blocker, Intently, that replaces advertising with “intentions” reminding people to “Follow Your Bliss” or “Be Present.” Previously, they’d run a marketing and advertising agency.
“One day I was in a meditation practice. I just got the vision for Intently,” said Mikailian, who sported a chunky turquoise bracelet and a man bun.
“It fully aligned with my purpose,” said Chan.
They were interested in learning what it would take to integrate ethical design. Coordinating loosely with Joe Edelman, Harris is developing a code of conduct - the Hippocratic oath for software designers - and a playbook of best practices that can guide start-ups and corporations toward products that “treat people with respect.”
Having companies rethink the metrics by which they measure success would be a start. “You have to imagine: What are the concrete benefits landed in space and in time in a person’s life?,” Harris said, coaching Mikailian and Chan.
Harris hopes that companies will offer a healthier alternative to the current diet of tech junk food - perhaps at a premium price.
At his speaking engagements, Harris has presented prototype products that embody other principles of ethical design. He argues that technology should help us set boundaries.
This could be achieved by, for example, an inbox that asks how much time we want to dedicate to email, then gently reminds us when we’ve exceeded our quota. Technology should give us the ability to see where our time goes, so we can make informed decisions - imagine your phone alerting you when you’ve unlocked it for the 14th time in an hour.
And technology should help us meet our goals, give us control over our relationships, and enable us to disengage without anxiety. Harris has demoed a hypothetical “focus mode” for Gmail that would pause incoming messages until someone has finished concentrating on a task, while allowing interruptions in case of an emergency. (Slack has implemented a similar feature.)
Harris hopes to create a Time Well Spent certification - akin to the leed seal or an organic label - that would designate software made with those values in mind.
He already has a shortlist of apps that he endorses as early exemplars of the ethos, such as Pocket, Calendly, and f.lux, which, respectively, saves articles for future reading, lets people book empty slots on an individual’s calendar to streamline the process of scheduling meetings, and aims to improve sleep quality by adding a pinkish cast to the circadian-rhythm-disrupting blue light of screens. Intently could potentially join this coalition, he volunteered.
As a first step toward identifying other services that could qualify, Harris has experimented with creating software that would capture how many hours someone devotes weekly to each app on her phone, then ask her which ones were worthwhile.
The data could be compiled to create a leaderboard that shames apps that addict but fail to satisfy. Edelman has released a related tool for websites, called Hindsight. “We have to change what it means to win,” Harris says.
The biggest obstacle to incorporating ethical design and “agency” is not technical complexity. According to Harris, it’s a “will thing.” And on that front, even his supporters worry that the culture of Silicon Valley may be inherently at odds with anything that undermines engagement or growth.
“This is not the place where people tend to want to slow down and be deliberate about their actions and how their actions impact others,” says Jason Fried, who has spent the past 12 years running Basecamp, a project-management tool.
“They want to make things more sugary and more tasty, and pull you in, and justify billions of dollars of valuation and hundreds of millions of dollars [in] VC funds.”
Rather than dismantling the entire attention economy, Harris hopes that companies will, at the very least, create a healthier alternative to the current diet of tech junk food.
He recognizes that this shift would require reevaluating entrenched business models so success no longer hinges on claiming attention and time.
As with organic vegetables, it’s possible that the first generation of Time Well Spent software might be available at a premium price, to make up for lost advertising dollars.
“Would you pay $7 a month for a version of Facebook that was built entirely to empower you to live your life?,” Harris says. “I think a lot of people would pay for that.”
Like splurging on grass-fed beef, paying for services that are available for free and disconnecting for days (even hours) at a time are luxuries that few but the reasonably well-off can afford.
I asked Harris whether this risked stratifying tech consumption, such that the privileged escape the mental hijacking and everyone else remains subjected to it. “It creates a new inequality. It does.”
Harris admitted. But he countered that if his movement gains steam, broader change could occur, much in the way Walmart now stocks organic produce.
Currently, though, the trend is toward deeper manipulation in ever more sophisticated forms. Harris fears that Snapchat’s tactics for hooking users make Facebook’s look quaint.
Facebook automatically tells a message’s sender when the recipient reads the note - a design choice that, per Fogg’s logic, activates our hardwired sense of social reciprocity and encourages the recipient to respond.
Snapchat ups the ante: Unless the default settings are changed, users are informed the instant a friend begins typing a message to them - which effectively makes it a faux pas not to finish a message you start.
Harris worries that the app’s Snapstreak feature, which displays how many days in a row two friends have snapped each other and rewards their loyalty with an emoji, seems to have been pulled straight from Fogg’s inventory of persuasive tactics.
Research shared with Harris by Emily Weinstein, a Harvard doctoral candidate, shows that Snapstreak is driving some teenagers nuts - to the point that before going on vacation, they give friends their log-in information and beg them to snap in their stead.
“To be honest, it made me sick to my stomach to hear these anecdotes,” Harris told me.
Harris thinks his best shot at improving the status quo is to get users riled up about the ways they’re being manipulated, then create a groundswell of support for technology that respects people’s agency - something akin to the privacy outcry that prodded companies to roll out personal-information protections.
While Harris’s experience at Google convinced him that users must demand change for it to happen, Edelman suggests that the incentive to adapt can originate within the industry, as engineers become reluctant to build products they view as unethical and companies face a brain drain.
The more people recognize the repercussions of tech firms’ persuasive tactics, the more working there “becomes uncool,” he says, a view I heard echoed by others in his field. “You can really burn through engineers hard.”
There is arguably an element of hypocrisy to the enlightened image that Silicon Valley projects, especially with its recent embrace of “mindfulness.”
Companies like Google and Facebook, which have offered mindfulness training and meditation spaces for their employees, position themselves as corporate leaders in this movement.
Yet this emphasis on mindfulness and consciousness, which has extended far beyond the tech world, puts the burden on users to train their focus, without acknowledging that the devices in their hands are engineered to chip away at their concentration.
It’s like telling people to get healthy by exercising more, then offering the choice between a Big Mac and a Quarter Pounder when they sit down for a meal.
And being aware of software’s seductive power does not mean being immune to its influence.
One evening, just as we were about to part ways for the night, Harris stood talking by his car when his phone flashed with a new text message. He glanced down at the screen and interrupted himself mid-sentence.
“Oh!” he announced, more to his phone than to me, and mumbled something about what a coincidence it was that the person texting him knew his friend. He looked back up sheepishly. “That’s a great example,” he said, waving his phone. “I had no control over the process.”
The Top 10 Most Outrageous Science Hoaxes Of 2016 January 2 2017 | From: NaturalNews
Science hoaxes were running rampant throughout 2016, pushed by the fakestream media (CNN, WashPost, NYT, etc.) alongside complicit government organizations working in collusion with dishonest corporations steeped in scientific fraud (Monsanto, Big Pharma, etc.).
2016 saw more science hoaxes than a typical year, with the media placing special emphasis on the Zika virus terror campaign (rooted in total scientific hucksterism) and more climate change propaganda (all based on fraudulently altered data).
In every case, those pushing the science frauds claimed to have a divine monopoly on “science” while declaring all opposing views to be “unscientific.”
In this way, much of the “science” in today’s corrupt society has really become nothing more than a cult of scientism, complete with “faith” in the correctness of socially-reinforced beliefs while exercising instant rejection of evidence that contradicts the fairy tale narratives of the science elite.
Sadly, “science” in 2016 functioned more like a priesthood of dogmatists fervently demanding the obedient worship of their unassailable assumptions. On every issue that matters, data were thrown out the window and replaced with fraud.
To drive home the fraud, the scientifically illiterate lamestream media catapulted the propaganda to new heights, even while remaining completely oblivious to the laughably false “science” they were promoting.
Here, I offer a summary of the most outrageous science hoaxes of 2016, along with a few links where you can explore more. By the way, the video on the “Cicret bracelet” invention that claims to turn your arm into a mobile device touchscreen is also a complete fraudulent hoax that has fooled millions of people, and I cover that in detail at the bottom of this article.
My primary message for 2017 is to stop believing in all the fake science being pushed by media, governments, academia and corporate liars.
Science Hoax #1: “Scientific” Political Polling
Through the entire year, we were all subjected to an endless onslaught of so-called “scientific” political polls that almost universally showed Hillary Clinton would win the election.
All the “scientific” polls were wrong, it turns out. (And yes, I called all this well before the election, on the record.)
What we now know is that the word “scientific” was slapped onto these fraudulent polls to try to give them an aura of credibility when, in reality, they were all fabricated or distorted to give Hillary Clinton the appearance of certain victory.
But guess what? All the experts were wrong. But how is that possible if all these polls were “scientific” as claimed? Are the pollsters now telling us that science is broken?
Or maybe, just maybe, they were making s##t up all along and there wasn’t any real “science” behind the “scientific” claim in the first place.
Science Hoax #2: The Zika Virus Terror Campaign
2016 saw the rolling out of an elaborate media-fronted Zika terror campaign designed to scare the entire country into ridiculously believing that mosquito bites would cause millions of women in America to give birth to babies with shrunken heads.
Yeah, I know, it sounds like something a Batman villain would threaten to unleash in Gotham City. “Pay me one million dollars or all your babies will be born with shrunken heads! Mwuah hah hah!”
But, alas, the American sheeple bought the medical science hoax hook, line and sinker. Belief in the Zika virus microcephaly hoax was so deeply embedded in the psyche of the nation that even when the Washington Post published a storyadmitting there was no link after all, the vast majority of so-called “scientists” and doctors still believe the hoax!
So, for the record, I’ll say it again in the hopes of educating all the scientifically illiterate “scientists” who still don’t understand actual facts: The original wave of shrunken heads in Brazil was caused by a larvacide chemical that was dumped into the water supply, not by the Zika virus alone.
The “Zika apocalypse” predicted by all the doctors, scientists and TV talking heads simply did not materialize. And when evidence contradicts your theory, you have to start questioning your theory. Otherwise, you aren’t a scientist. You’re just a petty fool.
Science Hoax #3: The Flint Michigan Lead Poisoning Cover-Up
In order to poison a million black children with brain-damaging lead, the U.S. EPA masterminded a large-scale science fraud that deliberately altered heavy metals testing results for the Flint, Michigan water supply.
Eventually, a few of the science scapegoats were charged with felony crimes for engaging in a conspiracy to alter water quality test data, but no one from the EPA was ever charged or prosecuted for their role in the scheme. (This also proves, by the way, that conspiracies are quite real and very much alive in our society right now.)
The result of all this was the mass poisoning of mostly African-American children with a toxic heavy metal that’s well known to damage cognitive function and impede learning.What a great way to raise more democrats!
It’s all part of the new “science” of keeping the sheeple dumbed down so they will keep voting for corrupt criminals like Hillary Clinton.
Instead of “let them eat cake,” the new progressive Jon Podesta version is, “Let them drink lead!”
Science Hoax #4: The Banning of GMO Labeling Nationwide by Scientifically Illiterate Republicans
This was all accomplished via an unholy alliance among biotech corporate giants (like Monsanto) and right-leaning lawmakers, most of whom have never met a toxic chemical they didn’t absolutely love.
Notably, while Democrats are passing local laws that criminalize Big Gulp sodas, Republicans are blocking labeling laws as a way to say, “If you don’t SEE the poison on the label, it doesn’t actually count!”
Keeping consumers in the dark is now the official science policy of the federal government.
How’s that for transparency?
Science Hoax #5: Climate Change Data Fraud
Democrats have their own science fraud, of course, and there’s no better example than global warming / climate change.
To the great frustration of celebritards like Matt Damon, the data don’t show any warming at all unless you “cook” the numbers first.
This means “climate change science” is actually more like climate change alchemy, which isn’t science at all. It’s more like Tarot cards mixed with voodoo blended with AlGoratotalitaritopian idiocy.
Note to intelligent people: If the world were really warming, they wouldn’t have to alter the temperature data, would they?
Science Hoax #6: Abortion Organ Harvesting for “Scientific Research”
According to leftists, chopping up living human babies who have just been forcibly “birthed” in order to harvest their organs and brains isn’t unethical at all. Nope, it’s a tremendous advancement for scientific research, you see.
Organ harvesting isn’t just limited to places like Communist China and North Korea: The practice is alive and well in America, too. But in the U.S., it takes on a genocidal milestone because most abortions are carried out on black babies… yep, the very same black babies that were also intentionally poisoned by the EPA in Flint, Michigan (see above).
Hmmm… there seems to be a pattern in all this, but I can’t quite put my finger on it… but it definitely seems to have something to do with killing as many black babies as possible while labeling it all “science.”
It’s noteworthy to remember that Adolf Hitler’s eugenics programs were also conducted under the umbrella of “science.”
It seems not that much has changed in almost 80 years… except that instead of Jews being exterminated by the millions, it’s now black babies being exterminated by the millions while democrats demand an open borders human blitzkrieg to replace them all with socialist-leaning illegal aliens who are uninformed enough to vote for leftists.
Science Hoax #7: The California Vaccine Mandate
Another large-scale science hoax that also happens to place a disproportionate burden on African-American babies is the California “medical police state” vaccine mandate pushed by California’s own “Mercury Joker” Dr. Richard Pan.
After receiving bribes from vaccine makers, the “medical child molesting” California state senator Richard Pan took part in a media-backed medical terrorism campaign against California’s citizens, attempting to scare everyone into falsely believing that the best way to protect the health of children is to inject them with mercury (instead of, I don’t know, maybe feeding them nutritious foods and vitamin D).
The entire vaccine mandate was founded on blatantly fraudulent quack science claims fronted by the child-murdering vaccine industry, which continues to absurdly insist that vaccines pose zero risk to children (i.e. claiming they do not harm a single child…ever). The claim is, of course, rooted in sheer delusion. But that’s also what passes for “legislation” in California.
We can only hope California’s #Calexit effort succeeds soon, so we can build a wall around California and stop the contagious epidemic of lunacy from spreading Eastward.
No summary of science quackery would be complete without bringing in the subject of “economics.” Yes, it qualifies as a science… at least if you ask the economists. (If you ask non-economists, it qualifies mostly as voodoo.)
Nevertheless, according to Janet Yellen and the decrepit “wizards of collapse” who are currently steering the global debt Titanic directly into an array of large shards of icebergs, the best way to keep a global economy in balance is to create endless new money until the whole thing explodes, at which point the system collapses to “equilibrium” where everybody starves roughly the same amount (i.e. Venezuela).
To demonstrate this brilliant hypothesis, Yellen and her crotchety academic cohorts have been busy pumping trillions of fiat currency dollars into the pockets of their bankster pals while raising interest rates to accelerate the debt avalanche apocalypse timetable.
As a cherry on top, Obama also doubled the national debt in just eight years, all while handing Iran a path to nuclear weapons, dissing Israel, subverting American culture, gutting the U.S. military and secretly telling his Russian counterparts he would drastically reduce U.S. nuclear capabilities.
Yes indeed, the “dream team” of Obama, Clinton and Yellen has pulled off what America’s worst enemies could not: The near-complete financial paralysis of the U.S. economy all while claiming “Everything is awesome!”
Thank God all the pensions across the country are fully funded, huh? Or that would be a real disaster.
Science Hoax #9: Transgenderism and the Lunatic Liberal “Theory of Spontaneous Genetic Transmutation”
2016 also saw many gullible people being convinced to believe that a biological man can instantly transform himself into a biological woman by declaring himself to be a woman.
At least one “journalist” even claimed that a transgendered man could become pregnant after declaring himself to be a woman. Yes, science education in America has utterly collapsed at this point, replaced with liberal P.C. insanity and delusional college lesson plans rooted in “feelings” rather than physical reality.
Across most of today’s gender-confused college-educated youth, belief in the laws of genetic expression have been replaced by belief that a person’s sex is a “choice.” It’s no longer permutations, phenotypes and genotypes… it’s now metrosexual, generation snowflake, pu##ified blathering idiocy with a diploma, “safe space” cry rooms and $100K in student debt.
Sorry to burst their bubble of stupid, but sex classification isn’t a personal choice. A simple genetic test shows you either have XY chromosomes, XX chromosomes, or the far more rare extra-X-or-Y chromosome defect which typically leads to serious physical and mental defects (including infertility).
According to today’s college snowflakes, the National Human Genome Research Institute is a “purveyor of HATE” because their fact sheet page says all these mean things about chromosomal defects:
“Inheriting too many or not enough copies of sex chromosomes can lead to serious problems. For example, females who have extra copies of the X chromosome are usually taller than average and some have mental retardation.
Males with more than one X chromosome have Klinefelter syndrome, which is a condition characterized by tall stature and, often, impaired fertility. Another syndrome caused by imbalance in the number of sex chromosomes is Turner syndrome. Women with Turner have one X chromosome only. They are very short, usually do not undergo puberty and some may have kidney or heart problems.”
Thus, there are only two sexes in the biology of all mammals: Male and female. And no, you don’t get to change them up just because you think it’s trendy to be a gender-confused metrosexual snowflake.
This doesn’t mean you can’t be gay, by the way. Gay men still realize they’re men. They just choose male partners instead of female partners. On the spectrum of personal freedom, I say people should be able to partner with whomever they want.
Gay or straight, it’s all a personal choice as far as I’m concerned, because it’s none of my business… and stop shoving your sexual preferences in my face, all you militant gay mafia activists.
Just be gay and be done with it. The “gay rights” war is over, and you already won it. Stop being bullies and thinking you’re still oppressed victims.
Marry whomever you want, but just #STFU about it already. Obama already lit up the White House with rainbows, for God’s sake.
But to say that yesterday you were a male, but today you’re a female… now that’s just technically bonkers. You’re not really a female. You’re a male impersonating a female and that’s it. Bruce Jenner, take note: You are not a woman, no matter how much you want to impersonate one.
And that’s celebrated by the women? Yeah, it’s insane. And all these same “progressive” women also insist that pervs with dongs should be able to invade women’s restrooms, too, because that’s “embracing gender identity and inclusiveness” blabbity blah blah.
Get a grip, people. Check your drawers and briefly fondle your hardware. If it’s junk, you’re a dude, and stop playing with it already. If it isn’t, you’re a woman. If you have both, go ask a doctor to run a genetic test and find out if you have ovaries.
Science Hoax #10: Every Science “Journalist” Working for the Fakestream Media
This is more of a collection of hoaxes rather than a single hoax. It all centers around the hilarious fact that most science “journalists” are scientifically illiterate morons who only think they understand science.
I remember reading a science column in a major U.S. publication that claimed cell phones could run on water. (Yeah, I know. I tried that by dropping my cell phone into a glass of water, but it turned off all the power for some strange reason. Maybe I need “special” water?)
There has also been a wave of hilariously stupid media coverage for this bracelet computing project called “Cicret” that ridiculously claims to “turn your arm into a touchscreen.”
The entire video promoting this “Cicret” bracelet is a complete fraud. Racking up almost 25 million views on Youtube, the video shown here is accomplished purely with special effects overlays. The bracelet does not exist and cannot exist as depicted in the video for the simple reason that light cannot bend around the curvature of your arm.
Incredibly, countless “journalists” across the mainstream media fell for this total hoax, stupidly believing that a hi-res touchscreen rendition can be projected onto your skin from a bracelet that barely sits just a few millimeters above your skin in the first place.
Question for brain dead “science” journalists: Do you really believe light rays from the Cicret can bend around your wrist and then magically bounce off skin that isn’t in a direct line of sight with the bracelet projector?
Seriously, you have to be incredibly stupid (or scientifically illiterate) to think the Cicret bracelet, as depicted in the videos, can actually function. But that sure didn’t stop publications from all across the world pushing the hype and convincing their readers that this “cool tech” was real.
And yes, the younger people are on social media these days, the more gullible they are, too. So special effects “viral videos” can be very successful at raising millions of dollars in “Kickstarter” funds for devices that cannot ever exist because they violate the laws of physics.
It’s a whole new kind of financial scam that’s legal because it only extracts money from people who are too stupid enough to believe the viral videos. In summary, “Kickstarter” viral videos are a tax on stupid progressives the same way that the lotto is a tax on stupid conservatives.
And now that I’ve thoroughly offended everyone, let’s wrap all this up…
2016 Was a Bad Year For the Credibility of Real Science… Let’s Hope 2017 is Better
In summary, 2016 saw the pushing of numerous science hoaxes by the fakestream media, governments, academic institutions and corporate propaganda whores like Forbes.com. (Oh, and we can’t leave out the actual whores running SNOPES, who were exposed as prostitutes and fetish bloggers.)
So how do we rescue science in 2017? It’s simple: We start using science to tell the truth instead of allowing governments and corporations to use science to lie.
A few fundamental scientific truths I’d like to see finally embraced in 2017 would include:
Yes, there is extraterrestrial intelligence in the universe.
Yes, there is (or was) microbial life on Mars.
Yes, human consciousness is non-material and not located in the physical brain.
Yes, vaccines cause autism.
Yes, flu shots still contain mercury.
Yes, there are many anti-cancer foods that can help prevent cancer.
Yes, transgenderism is a mental disorder, not a “choice.”
Yes, glyphosate causes cancer.
Yes, DEET is toxic to human neurology.
Yes, genetically engineered crops seeds are a genuine threat to the environment and the food supply.
Yes, water can retain non-physical properties that subtly alter its interactions with living systems.
No, carbon dioxide is not the enemy of mankind.
No, chemotherapy does not “cure” cancer. It often makes it worse.
No, harvesting organs from living human babies is not “ethical science.”
No, science journals are not unbiased, objective arbiters of truth.
No, “scientific” political polls are not reliable. They are bunk.
No, the “experts” are not as smart as they think they are. Mostly, they’re idiots who have attained high positions of “persistent idiocy” in academia or government, and their job is to protect the idiocy for as long as possible, making sure no one overthrows idiocy with intelligence.
The 'Smart' Meter Itself Is The “Hazardous Condition” + Studies On Radiation From Smart Meters Show That Electromagnetic Frequencies Disrupt And Damage The Nervous System December 5 2016 | From: MichiganStopSmartMeters / NaturalNews
In the following article, originally written by Electrical Engineer William Bathgate, as a public comment to the Michigan Public Service Commission, Mr. Bathgate considers safety issues with the new electric meters as related to our current discussion of a proposed rule change concerning emergency shutoffs for “hazardous conditions.”
Revisions to this article are indicated in blue and consist mainly in the addition of a section dealing with the lack of lightning arrestors in the AMI meters. Case No. U-18120 Proposed Rule 460.137 — 37(1)(a) & 37(1)(i) A utility may shut off or deny service to a customer “without notice, if a condition on the customer’s premises is determined by the utility or a governmental agency to be hazardous.”
I hold an electrical engineering and mechanical engineering degree and previously was employed through late 2015 for 8 years at the Emerson Electric Company.
While at Emerson Electric I was the Senior Program Manager for Power Distribution Systems and in charge of an RF and IP based digitally controlled high power AC power switching system product line in use in over 100 countries and I was also directly responsible for product certifications such as UL, CE and many other countries electrical certification bodies.
I am very familiar with the electrical and electronic design of the AMI meters in use because I was responsible for very similar products with over 1 Million units installed across the world.
I have just reviewed the transcripts of the hearing held in Lansing on this subject and came to realize there were many comments regarding the issues identified from the effects of both the RF emitting AMI meter and the non RF emitting AMI Opt-Out Meter.
I have personally tested the RF emissions from the AMI meter and measured that the meter does not send data just a few times a day as the utilities publish.
It actually sends an RF pulse about every 4-5 seconds constantly and a longer duration RF emission after midnight running about 3-5 minutes.
There is no need for the AMI meter to send a pulse every 4-5 seconds all day just to synchronize and time stamp the clock inside the meter, the meter only needs to send data once a day for 3-5 minutes.
All these pulse transmissions the AMI meter is doing is a complete waste of energy and because it is a short but frequently pulsing signal that is not needed to measure power consumption, it is creating needless health effects and is impacting consumers as evidenced in the testimony.
Some consumers have been affected to the point of near death experiences. The Mesh Network design is saturating the environment with RF transmissions mostly for the purpose of the network synchronization not the consumption measurement of power. I could not think of a worse network design for a power measurement device.
Analog Meters contained no electronic circuit boards and while not 100% immune from the effects of a lightning strike, they are much more tolerant than the AMI meter.
The MPSC has been asked to grant the Utilities the ability to turn off power to people and businesses without notice for “Dangerous or Hazardous” conditions.
Based on my professional examination of the metering technology deployed with AMI meters, the meters themselves are “Dangerous or Hazardous” due to their Lightning vulnerabilities, EMI and RF emissions.
There has been a disregard for the health and safety effects of these AMI meters on the general population by the utilities and their AMI supplier. So by their own lack of definition of “Dangerous or Hazardous” all AMI meters deployed at present need to be subject to shut off of service without notice due to “Dangerous or Hazardous” conditions.
The current AMI meters are not safe, as evidenced of the dramatic testimony of residents that are suffering terribly and the engineering analysis such as I and many others in this field have performed.
Studies On Radiation From Smart Meters Show That Electromagnetic Frequencies Disrupt And Damage The Nervous System
For some years now, health and technology experts have warned that smart meters being installed at homes all over the country may be emitting hazardous electronic waves that can damage the nervous system.
Now, as reported byNatural Blaze, a demonstration in a newly released video is groundbreaking in its portrayal of just how smart meters are harming us.
Many people know that these smart meters communicate with power companies via microwave signals. What has was not known – until now – is that additional frequencies from these meters are also transmitted in the 2 to 50 kilohertz range.
Several studies have shown that those same frequency ranges are disruptive to the human nervous system. Some studies refer to it as "nerve block" in describing what takes place.
Natural Blaze further noted that these are not controversial studies, meaning there are no studies that show a different result. Nerve block that is induced by frequencies in the 2 to 50 kHz range are a well-established fact. What's more, these studies come from reputable sources, as well as the standard for electricity, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.
The Evidence is Clear: Smart Meters Emit Harmful Energy Frequencies
As noted in the video, the meters emit radiation via the high frequencies. The video, which was produced by Warren Woodward at his home, compared a standard analog energy meter to smart meters, which showed a major difference in "the waveform."
"It's very disturbing," Woodward said.
Using equipment to measure electrical waveforms, Woodward and an assistant used an oscillator to measure waveforms emitting first from the analog meter, and then from the smart meter. The signal differences were significant - enough to wake someone at night, said Woodward's assistant, Paul.
As we previously reported, smart meters have been increasingly tied to a wave of mysterious conditions and illnesses.
The EMF Safety Network, in particular, has documented complaints including sleep problems, stress, agitation, irritability, headaches, memory and concentration problems, fatigue, disorientation, nausea, leg cramps and even cardiac symptoms. Click the link above to see the full list of documented problems.
We noted that Cancer.org says smart meters "talk" to their central control systems using RF transmissions, based on cell phone, pager, satellite, radio, power line, WiFi or Internet-communications methods. "Internet and cell phone applications have become the preferred options because of their flexibility and ease of deployment," the organization noted.
Power Companies Will Not be Motivated on Their Own to Stop Installing Smart Meters
As Woodward noted, several studies have found that the frequencies being emitted by the smart meters are in fact causing harm. That means "people injured by smart meters are not hypochondriacs," Woodward noted in the video.
He added that because of what his experiment has shown, it could be that people injured by the meters have legitimate court cases against power companies that use them, via personal injury lawsuits.
"This is real. You saw it on the oscilloscope," he continued, adding that he encouraged power companies and other scientists to conduct their own research on this issue.
He also said that state utility regulators and public health agencies should now be spurred on to do their jobs, which used to always include protecting the public by promoting public health and safety when it comes to smart meters. And finally, he noted, the U.S. Department of Energy;
“Will have to bring an immediate halt to the promotion and subsidization of the wireless 'smart' grid," because of the harm it is causing humans.
It's not likely that power companies will move on their own, so it will take legal action on the part of those who are injured to get them motivated enough to do the right thing. Most Americans are in favor of modernizing our power grid and making it more efficient, but not at the expense of our health.
New Zealand’s Reputation Stained By Corruption - Case In Point: The Turitea Wind Farm November 30 2016 | From: TuriteaDocuments
Observers of recent world events have witnessed a pushback against corruption and the poor behaviour of governments. Unfortunately New Zealand is not corruption free. When making such a claim there must be concrete evidence to back it up.
This evidence, which has taken more than six years to assemble, is provided in the link below.
The government, which self reports on its corruption status, secretly colluded with Mighty River Power, a then State Owned Enterprise, and our local government authority, Palmerston North City Council [PNCC], to force a gigantic wind farm on the local community; known as the Turitea wind farm.
This was initiated during the reign of former Prime Minister Helen Clark. The consummation of a hitherto punitive, secret contract, which cancels the government’s social contract with all New Zealanders, took place during the current administration.
The Turitea Wind Farm is comprised of 60 turbines. The 60 3MW Turitea turbines are 10 metres taller than these at Tararua three and will tower over the city
This mafia like contract imposes a 3 million dollar penalty on PNCC if it helps anyone affected by the wind farm and further imposes unlimited liability if it changes its mind about supporting it.
A variation to the contract shows all participants would conspire to overthrow any decision by a court impeding the wind farm.
The wind farm was "approved" and a consent issued by a “judge”, Shonagh Kenderdine. Kenderdine however was not a judge as she had been automatically and compulsorily removed, by virtue of age, from the judicial register more than 13 months prior to issuing the consent at the conclusion of a Call-In process, which has higher legal authority than an actual court of law.
This fraud by Kenderdine is certainly not a Commonwealth first. Kenderdine, without a warrant and just a member of the public, took a very substantial bribe to bring the secret contract to a predetermined conclusion.
No one was supposed to find out. Virtually all the executive from the Prime Minister and Attorney-General down either know about this or are actively in on the fraud.
"Judge" Shonagh Kenderdine being awarded the Insignia if a Companion of the Queen's Service Order for services to the judiciary by then New Zealand Governor-General Sir Jerry Mateparae
They and a range of government agencies have been contacted on numerous occasions. These agencies include the Office of the Governor-General, police, Financial Markets Authority, LCRO, Judicial Conduct Commissioner, Ministry for the Environment, Serious Fraud Office, Environment Court, Law Commission, Ombudsman, Office of the Auditor General, etc.
With the exception of one, which was compelled to give the game away, all have maintained a code of silence.
The factual account linked below has all the hallmarks of a systematic fraud; corruption at the highest levels of government, subversion and alienation of existing law, illegal payments, securities fraud, media collusion, and PNCC ratepayers facing severe financial loss, the whole nine yards, but with two laughably novel twists.
1. The Turitea and Puketoi wind farms have been deliberately located right on top of three of the country's most dangerous active fault lines.
2. A 49% share in Mighty River Power, which owns the consents, was subsequently sold to unwitting investors.
Despite assurances the earthquake risk was not revealed. Taxpayers and individual investors will bear the inevitable losses.
Below is part of the fault line map of New Zealand. The red box shows the area of the location of the Turitea Wind Farm. The yellow box marks the town of Kaukoura, the worst hit area during the recent 7.8 magnitude earthquake.
Click on the image above to open a larger version in a new window
The recent 7.8 magnitude earthquake causing very serious damage at the top of the South Island is a stern reminder of the certain vulnerability of the Manawatu and Wairarapa landscape to even greater events.
Conspiratorial corruption is here laid out with all the proof needed. The main participants are identified and their actions laid bare. Be prepared for some surprises:
Scotland Just Banned Fracking Forever + Fracking Hell: The Untold Story November 25 2016 | From: TheAntiMedia / GreenMedInfo
Scotland - In one fell swoop, Scotland banned fracking - permanently - when parliament narrowly voted in favor of cementing the country’s temporary moratorium on the controversial practice.
With the original intention of conducting full health and environmental impact assessments before continuing with all unconventional oil and gas extraction - including fracking - Scotland implemented a temporary halt to all such procedures in January 2015.
Members of the ruling Scottish National Party abstained from the vote, which passed 32 to 29, though SNP Energy Minister Paul Wheelhouse claimed the government remains “deeply sceptical” of fracking and none would be allowed to proceed unless distinct evidence proved the practice ‘causes no harm,’ the Guardianreported.
Scottish Labour Party environment spokesperson, Claudia Beamish, said following the vote;
“The SNP government must now clarify whether or not they will respect the will of parliament and introduce an outright ban on fracking. It would be outrageous for this important vote to be ignored.”
While ignoring the will of lawmakers could potentiate serious divisions - and, as the Guardiannoted, represents a “significant defeat” for the new parliament - SNP has no explicit obligation to follow the non-binding vote.
“There is no doubt about the science,”Beamish continued, “to meet our climate change goals and protect our environment we need to develop low carbon sources of energy, not another fossil fuel. Labour’s position is clear: no ifs, no buts, no fracking.”
Opposition Conservative Party members expressed frustration over the fracking defeat, as the unconventional extraction method could boost jobs and the country’s economy.
In sharp contrast to the vote in Scotland, the U.K.’s North Yorkshire County Council recently gave the go-ahead to ree drill tests for shale gas - after five years of being frack-free - despite significant protest.
One council planning officer claimed 36 letters supported restarting fracking - while 4,375 had opposed the move.
Friends of the Earth and Frack Free Ryedale issued a joint “People’s Declaration” condemning the decision, which stated, in part:
“We, as people united across Yorkshire and across Britain, declare that we remain opposed to fracking in Yorkshire, in Britain, and across the world. We know that fracking carries serious risks to local people, to our health, our water, our wildlife, and contributes to climate change."
“We are extremely disappointed that North Yorkshire County Council has not listened to the overwhelming wishes of the locally elected representatives of Ryedale and local people and has approved Third Energy’s application to frack our county."
“With the notable exception of the Tories, there is clearly an appetite for radical land reform in this session of parliament and tonight’s vote puts the pressure on government to deliver on that expectation” the Guardian reported.
“Activists within the SNP agitating for bolder action on land reform should question their party’s decision in chamber today.”
5,000 gallons of toxic petrochemicals per well, and the industry is projecting between 3,000 - 4,000 wells per year for the next 30 years!
An original investigative report by Earth Focus and UK’s Ecologist Film Unit looks at the risks of natural gas development in the Marcellus Shale.
From toxic chemicals in drinking water to unregulated interstate dumping of potentially radioactive waste that experts fear can contaminate water supplies in major population centers including New York City, are the health consequences worth the economic gains?
Marcellus Shale contains enough natural gas to supply all US gas needs for 14 years. But as gas drilling takes place, using a process called hydraulic fracturing or “fracking,” toxic chemicals and methane gas seep into drinking water. Now experts fear that unacceptable levels of radioactive Radium 226 in gas development waste.
Fracking chemicals are linked to bone, liver and breast cancers, gastrointestinal, circulatory, respiratory, developmental as well as brain and nervous system disorders. Such chemicals are present in frack waste and may find their way into drinking water and air.
Waste from Pennsylvania gas wells - waste that may also contain unacceptable levels of radium - is routinely dumped across state lines into landfills in New York, Ohio and West Virginia. New York does not require testing waste for radioactivity prior to dumping or treatment.
So drill cuttings from Pennsylvania have been dumped in New York’s Chemung and other counties and liquid waste is shipped to treatment plants in Auburn and Watertown New York. How radioactive is this waste? Experts are calling are for testing to find out.
New York State may have been the first state in the nation to put a temporary hold on fracking pending a safety review, but it allows other states to dump toxic frack waste within its boundaries.
With a gas production boom underway in the Marcellus Shale and plans for some 400,000 wells in the coming decades, the cumulative impact of dumping potential lethal waste without adequate oversight is a catastrophe waiting to happen. And now U.S. companies are exporting fracking to Europe.