[2G – 3G – 4G LTE – 5G mmW Microcell / Small Cell Towers Antenna Public Right-of-way Siting (Higher Intensities in Open Space, Penetrate Buildings, Toxic Environment) – Accenture PLC – AI – BCE – Bruce Cullen – Calgary Lawsuit (Bell, Rogers, Shaw, Telus, Zayo Canada) – Camouflage – CRTC – Doctor Marc Arazi (French Wikipedia, Phonegate Scandal) – FCC – Federation of Canadian Municipalities – Fibre Optics – Gord McGuire – Health – Insects – ISED – Living Labs – RFR (Athermal / Non-thermal & Thermal, Coupling) – Rogers / UBC 5G Hub (Jorge Fernandes) – Ronald N. Kostoff – Safety – Smart Cities – Ted Woodhead – USCM U.S. Conference of Mayors (Lawsuit, Property Rights) – Wireless | Vancouver, BC – Calgary, Alberta – Hamilton, Ontario – Canada] & (video)
1) 5G is not yet active in Canada but microcells are being put outside our homes in preparation for it. The telecoms feel challenged by possible regulations or uncooperative municipalities who want to maintain control over siting on public rights of way.
The municipalities, while there is still time, need to write policies outlining what they will allow and won’t. These things are being put on public property and the owner of the property can always say no to having a cell tower on it. The Federal government has a lot of authority over transmitters and towers – but it cannot force a property owner to grant space.
(click on photos to enlarge)
Network Challenges Look Large for Telecom’s 4G on Steroids
2) Below in Letters is an email from Dr. Ron Kostoff in response to the excellent video re. 5G and insects in last night’s update [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHhUch5GgtY]. He included some other emails which are interesting, which I have included as an attachment [http://www.stopsmartmetersbc.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/The-Insect-Inspector-Report-video-and-The-Insect-RFR-Problem-by-Ronald-N.-Kostoff-October-17-2018.pdf]. Dr. Kostoff is suggesting that the millimeter waves, if used in 5G, could cause extremely serious harm due to a toxic environment. It is vital that we all get involved and push our governments at all levels to stop this new technology.
3) From Dr. Arazi – “Phonegate” is recognized by the French Wikipedia. I’m sure he’s working to get it into the English version as well.
The “Phonegate Scandal” makes its entry in the French Wikipedia
“After several months of collaborative work, the article “Scandal Phonegate” was proposed to the publication October 10, 2018 in the French version of Wikipedia. It has since been the subject of various modifications and improvements of the initial project. And like any Wikipedia article, its content may have to change throughout the coming developments.
For Dr Arazi, who launched the alert in July 2016 and founded the association in March 2018: “This is a new and important step forward in informing and sharing in a single article a structured, global vision. and referenced the different industrial and health issues of Phonegate. “https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scandale_du_Phonegate”
We should also note that the thermal shocks described in the email below will be repetitive. Thermal shocks, and the attendant thermal stresses, can lead to thermal fatigue. Presence of thermal fatigue in engineering systems can be very damaging, and is a key factor in failure of many physical structures. I assume it would be problematical in biological structures as well. Chronic exposures to RFR will be a key factor in any thermal fatigue effects.
= = =
From: Kostoff, Ronald N
Sent: October 18, 2018
To: Kostoff, Ronald N
Subject: Fw: The Insect Inspector Report … a must see video!!!!!!
From: Ron Kostoff
To: EMF Health Effects Distribution
Subject: Disappearing Insects
The appended emails were circulated yesterday, and appear in chronological order.
The initiating email (last one listed) from Magda/Andre linked to a video addressing the vanishing insect population. The narrator ascribed this disappearance, in part, to the effects of RFR on the insects, and showed evidence that insect populations around cell towers are especially reduced.
In response, I sent out a couple of emails (the first two appended) to a limited distribution showing one possible explanation. I wanted to summarize and amplify the contents of those emails to a larger distribution, and that’s the purpose of this email.
There are three issues of concern: coupling, pulsed heating, and free space exposure.
The coupling/impedance matching between the RFR and the target is best when the RFR wavelength is on the order of the antenna/target dimensions. Typical cell phone frequencies are in the 1-2 GHz range. One GHz wavelength is 30cm, and two GHz is 15cm.
Thus, best coupling will be with structures/antennae on the order of one foot or 1/2 foot. Most common insects are much smaller, and coupling will not be optimal. If the video narrator is correct in his assertions, then even under conditions of non-optimal coupling/energy transfer, there is sufficient energy transferred to disable/destroy the insects. In other words, even moderate amounts of RFR may be adequate to be extremely destructive, at least to insects.
As a side note, these 4G frequencies have wavelengths much closer to small children dimensions, as well as to adult heads, limbs, etc. I would expect good coupling with these structures/effective antennae.
For 5G, which covers the wavelength range from a few centimeters to a few millimeters, the coupling to various creatures will change. Coupling to insects should improve greatly, along with levels of energy transfer. I would expect the effects on insects to be far worse.
I would also expect the effects on smaller structures/smaller effective antennae on all animals to be larger. I’m not all that familiar with insect structures, but if insects have well-defined sub-structures for sensing/navigation purposes, and these are damaged by strong coupling to RFR, that’s all that is required to destroy the insect. It’s not necessary to ‘cook’ the insect.
So, it’s really the RFR coupling to the critical sub-structures that is of highest importance for survival, and the RFR coupling to the larger sub-structures (used mainly for structural support and integrity) may be less important (although not unimportant). The same would apply to humans, and the coupling of the RFR to critical sub-structures would be very important.
This topic was the essence of the emails yesterday. It’s based on the structure of the RFR signal.
RFR tends to have a signal consisting of a very short pulse of high intensity energy followed by a downtime many times larger than the energy pulse width. Under such conditions, the ratio of peak power to average power can be large. I have seen estimates for this ratio ranging from 100 to 1,000; I wouldn’t rule out the possibility of even larger ratios.
Why and when is this significant? As I showed yesterday for a completely different application, when energy is deposited in a material whose thermal time constant is long with respect to the energy pulse time, all the deposited energy effectively goes into raising the material temperature. The energy does not have the time to be conducted through the material and emitted from the surface because of the material properties.
Consider two solid spheres impacted by RFR. One sphere is metal; the other is water. Assume a pulse of RFR energy is deposited uniformly within each sphere. The metal is a good conductor, and, depending on the size of the sphere, much of the energy can be conducted to the surface and emitted in a relatively short time period, thereby limiting the temperature increase in the material. The water is a relatively poor conductor, and the energy won’t have time to exit the water sphere. The water sphere will experience not only a relatively large temperature increase, but a large temperature shock, since this increase will occur over a short time period. The water sphere model would be much more representative of biological systems (with their high water content) than the metal sphere model.
Thus, with good coupling of the RFR to the appropriate target/antenna, and under conditions where 1) the pulse of the RFR is total cycle energy over a very short time period and 2) the thermal time constant of the target material is long relative to the width of the pulse when the energy is being deposited, potentially damaging thermal effects can occur. For signals with this type of pulsing structure, peak to average power becomes critical. Deposition of this energy into e.g. insect antennae could result in thermal shocks sufficient to effectively disable the insect.
While the anti-RFR infrastructure community has been emphasizing athermal effects over thermal effects for the RFR signals, it may very well be that the thermal effects should not be ignored under the above-postulated conditions. For the extreme pulsing case, we may in fact have the COMBINATION of adverse thermal effects occurring concurrently with adverse non-thermal effects to produce a very damaging synergy.
FREE SPACE EXPOSURE
While 5G appears to be targeted mainly to mobile applications, I have seen a number of papers addressing the issue of how to penetrate buildings more effectively with 5G. If wireless is desired for this application rather than wired, then it seems to me the main option for increasing penetration (for a given frequency) is to ramp up the power as much as allowed. While, to first approximation, the same fraction of RFR will be absorbed by the windows in the high power and low power cases, starting with a high power outside will produce a relatively high power inside.
The consequence of this is that people and animals in open space near the 5G transmitters will be subject to much higher RFR intensities than required for open space communications. This higher power should intensify the insect exposures and destruction (along with the increased coupling of the insects to 5G), and create an extremely toxic environment for pedestrians, motorcyclists, bicyclists, etc.
BOTTOM LINE – We may want to revisit the issue of RFR thermal effects, since short-pulse energy deposition in animal tissue could have severe consequences.
Comments, corrections, etc, are welcome.