Live streaming on Altcast.TV is now available!


24 Views· 03/23/24
31 Subscribers

⁣The picture below is the “small cell” outside my hotel bedroom window in San Francisco on my last California trip, likely built in the name of 5G. Now, California Governor Newsom has a decision to make about two bills, AB 537and SB 556. If he signs them into law, these bills would strip local authority and make it easier for companies to build “short” 5G “small” cell towers on neighborhood streets.
5G is the fifth generation wireless aiming to tie together the latest and greatest technology at super-fast speeds.
In order to make it work, companies want to erect millions of new short cell towers called “small cells” near homes and schools on poles called “small cells.” According to the FCC, hundreds of thousands of new wireless transmitters will be attached to street lights, utility poles and buildings.
Published peer-reviewed research documents how 5G and the densification of network radiation emissions from small cells will increase environmental exposure levels of radio frequency non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation throughout the neighborhood.
Yet when people protest wireless network antennas being outside their bedroom windows, they are met with safety assurances from telecommunications company and government officials.
If 5G and wireless radiation are so safe then why do insurance authorities classify 5G as high risk?
“Off the leash — 5G mobile networks” is the title of a Chapter in the 2019 Swiss Re Report on New Emerging Risks for the Insurance industry, which rates
5G as a “high impact” risk.
“As the biological effects of EMF in general and 5G in particular are still being debated, potential claims for health impairments may come with a long latency. An uptick in liability claims could be a potential long-term consequence.”
Download the Swiss Re report classifying 5G as “high risk” off the leash here.
See Environmental Health Trust’s compendium of insurance company reports on non-ionizing radiation here.
If 5G and wireless radiation are so safe then why do insurance companies refuse to cover damages from non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation?
For example, the Portland Oregon Public School Genesis Insurance Company states,
“Exclusions: This insurance does not apply to: Bodily injury, personal injury, advertising injury, or property damage arising directly or indirectly out of, resulting from, caused or contributed to by electromagnetic radiation, provided that such loss, cost or expense results from or is contributed to by the hazardous properties of electromagnetic radiation.”
See Environmental Health Trust’s compendium of insurance company electromagnetic radiation exclusion clauses here
If 5G and wireless radiation are so safe then why do the wireless companies themselves define non-ionizing radiation as a “pollutant?”
Both AT&T Mobile Insurance(pg. 4)and Verizon Total Mobile Protection (page 10)state that coverage is excluded for pollutants, which are defined as “Any solid, liquid, gaseous, or thermal irritant or contaminant including smoke, vapor, soot, fumes, acid, alkalis, chemicals, artificially produced electric fields, magnetic field, electromagnetic field, sound waves, microwaves, and all artificially produced ionizing or non-ionizing radiation and waste.”
And finally, if 5G and wireless radiation are so safe then why do wireless companies themselves warn their shareholders of potential risks but not warn customers who buy their products and not warn people living with wireless network antennas directly outside their bedroom windows?
Crown Castle warns shareholders in their 2020 10-K tax filing that:
“If radio frequency emissions from wireless handsets or equipment on our communications infrastructure are demonstrated to cause negative health effects, potential future claims could adversely affect our operations, costs or revenues.
“The potential connection between radio frequency emissions and certain negative health effects, including some forms of cancer, has been the subject of substantial study by the scientific community in recent years. We cannot guarantee that claims relating to radio frequency emissions will not arise in the future or that the results of such studies will not be adverse to us.”
“If a connection between radio frequency emissions and possible negative health effects were established, our operations, costs, or revenues may be materially and adversely affected. We currently do not maintain any significant insurance with respect to these matters.”
Verizon Wireless warns their shareholders in their 10-K form to the US Securities and Exchange Commission that:
“We are subject to a substantial amount of litigation, which could require us to pay significant damages or settlements."
Read the rest at the thumbnail URL

Show more

 0 Comments sort   Sort By