No Agenda Episode 1105 - "BOMBSHELL!"

  Feed
  Donate
  News Network
  Store
  Adam Curry
  John C Dvorak
[Collaboration node - do not delete.]
.highlight{background-color:#FF0}
No Agenda Episode 1105 - "BOMBSHELL!"
  No Agenda Episode 1105 - "BOMBSHELL!"
    BOMBSHELL!
    Direct [link] to the mp3 file
    ShowNotes Archive of links and Assets (clips etc) 1105.noagendanotes.com
    Sign Up for the newsletter
    Archive of Shownotes (includes all audio and video assets used) archive.noagendanotes.com
    The No Agenda News Network- noagendanewsnetwork.com
    RSS Podcast Feed
    Experimental IPFS RSS Feed
    Get the No Agenda News App for your iPhone and iPad
    Get the NoAgendDroid app for your Android Phone
    Torrents of each episode via BitLove

    document.write("Last Modified " + document.lastModified)
    This page created with the FreedomController

  Credits
    "BOMBSHELL!"
    Where The C Stands For
    Executive Producers:
      Sir Onymous of Dogpatch and Lower Slobovia
      Baronet Able Kirby
      Sir Ray Jacobsen
      Justin Smith
      Sherri Laurie
    Associate Executive Producers:
      Jonathan Keegan
      Michael Omealy
      Sir Johnny the Swamp Knight
      Fernando DeLosReyes
      Steven Schnuelle
      Sir Tim of the Tunnels
      The Boz
    Become a member of the 1106 Club, support the show here
    Art By: Darren O'Neill
    End of Show Mixes: - UKPMX - Gx2 -Oh My Bosh - Danny Loos-Secret Agent Paul-Stepford Wives-PlaceBoing- Dave Courbanou - Able Kirby - Jungle Jones - Chris Wilson - Tom Starkweather - Conan Salada - Future Trash - Phantomville Billy Bon3s
    Sign Up for the newsletter
    No Agenda Peerage
    ShowNotes Archive of links and Assets (clips etc) 1105.noagendanotes.com
    New: Directory Archive of Shownotes (includes all audio and video assets used) archive.noagendanotes.com
    --No Agenda Player--
    The No Agenda News Network- noagendanewsnetwork.com
    RSS Podcast Feed
    Get the No Agenda News App for your iPhone and iPad
    Get the NoAgendDroid app for your Android Phone
    No Agenda Lite in opus format
    NoAgendaTorrents.com has an RSS feed or show torrents
    New! BitTorrent Sync the No Agenda Show

    document.write("Last Modified " + document.lastModified)
    This page created with the FreedomController

  Cover Art
    Art By: Darren O'Neill
  Shownotes
    Search
    Build the Wall
      Trump sending bricks to Chuck & Nancy
      Chaos on House floor as Dems hold hasty vote to end shutdown, Republicans demand redo
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Thu, 17 Jan 2019 23:43
        (C) Provided by Fox News Network LLC Chaos briefly broke out on the floor of the House Thursday as Republicans accused House Democrats of trying to pull a fast one with a hasty vote to end the partial shutdown.
        The drama began in the afternoon when the Democratic-controlled House held a voice vote on an interim spending bill to re-open the government through February 28.
        Customarily, after a voice vote is held, the opposition party will demand a recorded roll call vote. But when no one said anything, North Carolina Rep. G.K. Butterfield, who was presiding over the House, did not hold a roll call vote and instead announced that the measure was approved.
        ''The ayes have it!'' Butterfield announced. ''The Joint Resolution is agreed to!''
        PELOSI URGES TRUMP TO DELAY STATE OF THE UNION UNTIL GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN ENDS
        This led to a tense exchange on the floor between House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and House Minority Whip Steve Scalise, who claimed a Republican lawmaker had actually requested a recorded vote.
        ''The gentlemen from Kentucky did stand and ask for a recorded vote,'' Scalise said on the floor. ''Whether or not it was heard or not, we'll have to watch the tape, but it's an important piece of legislation that I'm sure members from both parties would like to be recorded on.''
        Hoyer denied that ''games were played,'' saying the request was simply not heard.
        ''I was surprised that a vote was not asked for,'' Hoyer said.
        Eventually after the back and forth, Hoyer agreed to redo the vote next Wednesday.
        CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
        Hoyer also said on the floor that an unnamed Republican member heckled California Rep. Tony Cardenas to ''return to Puerto Rico.'' Cardenas was born in Los Angeles.
        After the kerfuffle, Scalise thanked Hoyer for rescheduling the vote, acknowledging ''emotions ran high.''
        Fox News' Chad Pergram contributed to this report.
      Genetically, There's No Such Thing as a Mexican
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Sun, 20 Jan 2019 16:03
        Breaking News EmailsGet breaking news alerts and special reports. The news and stories that matter, delivered weekday mornings.
        June 12, 2014, 7:03 PM GMT / Updated June 12, 2014, 7:19 PM GMT
        Medical researchers, doctors and census-takers may lump Latinos or Hispanics into one group, but a giant study of Mexican genetics shows there's really no such thing.
        Mexicans themselves show such extreme diversity that someone from the dry north is genetically as different from someone from the Yucatan as a European is from an East Asian.
        The findings, published in the journal Science, are important for medical research and healthcare, the researchers said.
        "In this study, we realized that for disease classification it also matters what type of Native American ancestry you have,'' said Carlos Bustamante, a professor of genetics at Stanford University.
        Sign up for top Health news delivered direct to your inbox.
        ''In terms of genetics, it's the difference between a neighborhood and a precise street address."
        Before the Spanish conquerers arrived in the 16th century, Mexico was inhabited by Native Americans who had carved out their own, often isolated, kingdoms. These genetic differences show up even today, the team at Stanford, the University of California, San Francisco and the Mexican National Institute of Genomic Medicine found.
        "Mexico harbors one of the largest amounts of pre-Columbian genetic diversity in the Americas," said Stanford's Dr. Andres Moreno-Estrada. "For the first time, we've mapped this diversity to a very fine geographic scale, and shown that it has a notable physiological impact on an important clinical trait: lung function."
        They compared their genetic map to tests of lung function as measured by the volume of air a person can expel in one second or FEV1. They found a 7 percent difference in baseline FEV1 as they moved from populations in the western state of Sonora to Yucatan in the east.
        "We were really fascinated by these results because we had expected that 500 years of population movements, immigration and mixing would have swamped the signal of pre-Columbian population structure," said Bustamante.
        The differences hold even though most Mexicans are mestizos. ''Today, the majority of Mexicans are admixed and can trace their ancestry back not only to indigenous groups but also to Europe and Africa,'' the researchers wrote.
        It will be important as medicine becomes increasingly tailored based on an individual's genes. Their specific origin '-- not just a broad racial group '-- may provide crucial pointers.
        "We can't just clump everyone together and call them European Americans or Mexican Americans,'' added Dr. Esteban Burchard of UCSF.
      House Democrats Add $1 Billion in Border-Related Spending to Measures to Reopen Government
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Sat, 19 Jan 2019 07:50
        (C) Reuters Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) speaks during a press briefing on the 27th day of a partial government shutdown on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S., January 17, 2019. REUTERS/Joshua Roberts WASHINGTON '-- House Democrats have added more than $1 billion in border-related spending to a package of funding bills that would reopen most of the government, even as President Trump said he would have a ''major announcement'' on Saturday about the border and the shutdown stalemate.
        Both sides' actions were the first indications of possible movement over the shutdown after a week of inertia and harsh words between Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Mr. Trump. That conflict culminated when the president, responding to Ms. Pelosi's request that he postpone his State of the Union address, announced on Thursday that he would not authorize the use of a military plane to fly her and other members of Congress to Afghanistan to meet with American troops.
        Ms. Pelosi said Friday she was postponing the trip after the White House leaked her alternative plan to use a commercial airline because she had been advised it was too dangerous.
        Sign Up For the Morning Briefing Newsletter
        ''Why would Nancy Pelosi leave the Country with other Democrats on a seven day excursion when 800,000 great people are not getting paid?'' Mr. Trump asked on Twitter before Ms. Pelosi's office had announced the postponement. The trip had actually been scheduled for six days, departing late Thursday and returning on Tuesday.
        The proposal to include more spending on border measures is scheduled for a vote next week, according to two senior Democratic officials. The plan reflects a shift in strategy by congressional Democrats, who have maintained that they would not give the president a counterproposal until he drops his insistence on a wall and signs legislation to reopen the government. It is an attempt to rebut Mr. Trump's repeated portrayal of Democrats as opponents of border security and their denunciation of his wall as an embrace of open borders.
        About half the money, $524 million, would be for additional infrastructure at ports of entry on the border, one Democrat said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because the plans have not been formally announced, while $563 million more would be inserted to fund 75 immigration judges, who adjudicate the claims of migrants who make asylum claims at the border.
        The funds were incorporated into a package of six spending bills that House and Senate Republicans and Democrats agreed to last year, and which cover funding for all the closed portions of the federal government except for the Department of Homeland Security.
        Democrats are also considering a new funding bill for the department, which has $1.3 billion allocated for border security. The proposal would include additional border protection measures they have endorsed, such as more personnel and scanning technology to intercept illicit drugs.
        It is far from clear whether the strategy will lead anywhere given Mr. Trump's demand that any such measure must include money for his wall. Over the past two weeks, the House has passed an array of bills to reopen the government, including several Republican-drafted measures, only to be blocked by Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky and the majority leader, who says he will not bring up any bill the president will not sign.
        But the ideas amount to a tacit acknowledgment by Democrats that, even as they criticize Mr. Trump's tactics and demands in the shutdown fight, they have largely allowed him to define the terms of the debate on border security, and that they must be more effective in articulating their own position on the issue.
        ''People want to make sure that it's clear that the Democrats do stand for border security, and not allow the president to determine how we talk about it,'' said Representative Ro Khanna, Democrat of California. ''We can't cave to his vision for a wall, because of everything that it represents, but we also want to show that we're for something.''
        The issue came up in a meeting of the Democratic caucus this week as Ms. Pelosi was briefing rank-and-file lawmakers about her latest broadside against Mr. Trump over the shutdown: her letter requesting that he delay or cancel his State of the Union address this month in light of the security measures that would have to be provided by federal workers who are working without pay. Mr. Trump's response was to prevent Ms. Pelosi from taking her trip on a military plane.
        His letter to Ms. Pelosi announcing that step also disclosed her itinerary, which was secret given that Afghanistan was her destination. Official congressional trips are kept confidential for security reasons, particularly when they involve travel to war zones and high-ranking leaders like the speaker, who is second in line to the presidency.
        ''You never give advance notice of going into a battle area '-- you just never do,'' Ms. Pelosi told reporters at the Capitol, adding that Mr. Trump may not have understood that because of his inexperience.
        ''The people around him, though, should have known that,'' she said. ''That's very dangerous.''
        After Ms. Pelosi rushed to salvage the trip by making alternative travel arrangements to fly commercial instead, people close to Mr. Trump who had been briefed revealed the speaker's plans to reporters late Thursday. By dawn on Friday, said Drew Hammill, her deputy chief of staff, facing a heightened State Department threat assessment and amid concern that the administration's leaks had further compromised the safety of those involved, Ms. Pelosi canceled the trip.
        A White House official on Friday denied the charge, saying that there was no way for Ms. Pelosi to have kept her trip a secret and that any suggestion of a leak ''is a flat-out lie.''
        Ms. Pelosi was asked by reporters on Friday whether she considered Mr. Trump's grounding of her plane a reprisal for her request to delay his speech. ''I would hope not,'' she said. ''I don't think the president would be that petty, do you?''
        Mr. Trump had been just as pointed in his letter to Ms. Pelosi a day earlier, writing that with federal workers not receiving their paychecks, he was asking her to delay what he branded a ''public relations event.''
        As the bad blood continued between the president and the speaker, the White House announced a new policy on Friday that banning all official, taxpayer-funded congressional travel for the duration of the shutdown, unless lawmakers had direct approval from Mr. Trump's team.
        ''Under no circumstances during a government shutdown will any government-owned, rented, leased or chartered aircraft support any congressional delegation, without the express written approval of the White House chief of staff,'' Russell T. Vought, the acting director of the Office of Management and Budget, wrote in a memo announcing the change.
        Travel expenses also will not be paid for such trips, the memo said, suggesting that even if lawmakers sought to keep their plans and fly commercial, they would have to pay personally for the trip.
        Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, was on one such trip to Turkey this week. Asked whether Mr. Graham would have to cover his travel and expenses, his office referred questions to the White House.
        An administration official said the policy would not apply to Mr. Graham's trip, since he had departed before the change was made.
        Annie Karni and Katie Rogers contributed reporting.
      'Wow!' Nancy Pelosi answered Trump's new proposal to end the shutdown 'before he even spoke'
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Source: US News – twitchy.com
        Sun, 20 Jan 2019 05:58
        President Trump spoke this afternoon, and offered up some middle ground for Democrats to consider in order to end the shutdown. Here are some details:
        Trump's border proposal:-$800 million in humanitarian assistance-$805 million for drug detection technology-$5.7 billion for wall-Three year relief for "Dreamers"-More immigration judges to reduce court backlogsMore:https://t.co/mA1AxC51sL
        '-- Tim Hanrahan (@TimJHanrahan) January 19, 2019
        Pres. Trump says he would extend protections for 700,000 DACA recipients for three years, as well as an extension of the legal status of TPS holders https://t.co/SzQ7PTIwBB pic.twitter.com/bHtXfxClE4
        '-- CBS This Morning (@CBSThisMorning) January 19, 2019
        Trump endorses 3 years "of legislative relief for 700,000 DACA recipients." And three-year extension of TPS
        Plus his supplemental request, namely $5.7B for wall
        '-- Burgess Everett (@burgessev) January 19, 2019
        BREAKING: Trump offers temporary protection for people brought to U.S. illegally as children in bid to secure border wall funding and end shutdown. pic.twitter.com/KGyToYssO3
        '-- Miami Herald (@MiamiHerald) January 19, 2019
        Just before Trump spoke, Trump already had his answer from Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi:
        Wow! @SpeakerPelosi had this denial letter written even before Trump spoke
        '-- Big G (@ajgAdLitem) January 19, 2019
        @SpeakerPelosi all but said she'd refuse his deal, before he even spoke. And personally, I think @realDonaldTrump already knew they would. He's calling their bluff and putting it on display for all Americans to see
        '-- Nebraska Bred (@Nebraska_bRED27) January 19, 2019
        That happened. Here's what Pelosi tweeted a couple minutes before Trump's address:
        Democrats were hopeful that @realDonaldTrump was finally willing to re-open government & proceed with a much-needed discussion to protect the border. Unfortunately, reports make clear that his proposal is a compilation of previously rejected initiatives. https://t.co/MFwebWSevG pic.twitter.com/yMTm4iP27h
        '-- Nancy Pelosi (@SpeakerPelosi) January 19, 2019
        Pelosi has repeatedly said that there will be no deal as long as Trump insists on billions for a physical border barrier. Stay tuned.
      Immigration group demands SPLC revoke 'hate' label - Washington Times
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Sun, 20 Jan 2019 16:26
        One of the most prominent groups advocating for stricter immigration went to court Wednesday to demand a judge order the Southern Poverty Law Center to stop labeling it a ''hate group,'' accusing the self-described watchdog of running an illegal racket to silence political opponents.
        The Center for Immigration Studies says the SPLC's accusations that it is racist and anti-immigrant are wrong and have cost the nonprofit support and financial backing by scaring people away from doing business with the center.
        The center brought its challenge to U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia by filing a civil complaint under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act against SPLC President Richard Cohen and Heidi Beirich, who runs the group's Hatewatch blog.
        Mark Krikorian, the Center for Immigration Studies executive director, says his organization doesn't meet the SPLC's definition of a hate group and the Alabama-based watchdog knows it but persists anyway '-- which he said was evidence of the racket.
        ''SPLC and its leaders have every right to oppose our work on immigration, but they do not have the right to label us a hate group and suggest we are racists,'' he said. ''The Center for Immigration Studies is fighting back against the SPLC smear campaign and its attempt to stifle debate through intimidation and name-calling.''
        The Center for Immigration Studies is not the only group to protest the SPLC's profligate use of the hate tag, but it appears to be the first to mount a challenge under RICO, a law that is usually associated with the FBI's anti-mob efforts.
        The center says the SPLC defines hate groups as organizations whose official statements or activities ''attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics.''
        Mr. Krikorian said that doesn't define his group, whose motto is ''pro immigrant, low immigration.'' In practice, he said, that means the center makes the case for ''fewer immigrants but a warmer welcome for those admitted.''
        The center says it doesn't think its work amounts to attacks on people but rather attempts to raise policy questions.
        Beyond that, Mr. Krikorian said, the Supreme Court has held that being an immigrant is not an immutable characteristic, so maligning migrants wouldn't qualify as hate anyway.
        The center's work is widely cited in the press, including in The Washington Times. It issues awards for press coverage of immigration, including, in the past, to The Times. Its analysts are regularly called to testify before Congress and have been invited to meet with top security officials in the Obama and Trump administrations.
        The center's work also is used by independent fact-checkers such as PolitiFact.com, which in 2017 fact-checked the SPLC's hate designation. PolitiFact concluded that most of the evidence was guilt by association.
        Under the Trump administration, the center's profile has grown. Some former staffers have been hired for government jobs, and analysts have conducted interviews with top Homeland Security Department officials in events broadcast on C-SPAN.
        Those interviews raised the ire of congressional Democrats. Joe Crowley, as House Democratic caucus chairman, fired off a note last year urging the chief of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to cancel an appearance, saying the Center for Immigration Studies spread ''abhorrent viewpoints, including white supremacism and anti-Semitism.''
        Mr. Cohen, in a statement to The Times, said the center ''richly deserves the hate group label'' and he looked forward to battling the group in court.
        ''It has a history of making racially inflammatory statements, associating with white nationalists and circulating the work of racist writers,'' he said. ''Its lawsuit is nothing more than a heavy-handed effort to try to silence us from exercising our First Amendment right to express our opinion.''
        The SPLC, in its write-up, said the center made the list in 2016 after circulating a weekly reading list that sometimes linked to ''white nationalist and antisemitic writers'' and by commissioning work from a former Heritage Foundation employee who the SPLC said had been ousted ''for his embrace of racist pseudoscience.''
        Of Mr. Krikorian, the SPLC says: ''While capable of appearing as a sober-minded policy analyst in some settings, longtime CIS executive director Mark Krikorian's contributions to the immigration policy debate rarely rise above petulant commentary dashed with extremist statements.''
        Among other evidence, the SPLC lists in its 8,000-word write-up the center's support for mandatory E-Verify, the federal government's voluntary program to let businesses check the legal status of potential hires.
        Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer, New York Democrat, spoke glowingly of E-Verify this month, but the SPLC cast the program in a more nefarious light, saying it was a linchpin of the ''anti-immigrant movement.''
        Perhaps most damning for the SPLC is the center's association with John Tanton, whom the SPLC labels a racist. CIS counters that it is independent of Mr. Tanton.
        The SPLC cut its teeth on taking on the Ku Klux Klan in the 1970s and built a sterling reputation and a massive bank account in doing so.
        In recent years, the group has become a major player in questions of Muslim rights and the immigration debate, and it has expanded its list of haters to include groups that may have taken politically controversial stands but had not generally been accused of racism.
        The more expansive role also has earned it new headaches.
        The SPLC last year agreed to pay a $3.4 million settlement to a Muslim activist whom the group in 2016 listed among ''anti-Muslim extremists.'' Mr. Cohen issued a statement in June acknowledging his group botched that one.
        The group has been making increasing forays into activism, which can build tension with its more long-standing role as a clearinghouse for information.
        GuideStar, another clearinghouse for information on nonprofits, last year adopted the SPLC's hate list and attached the label to dozens of profiles in its influential database. Among those slapped with the label was the Center for Immigration Studies.
        After protests, GuideStar reversed itself and removed the label from all of the 46 groups it had targeted on SPLC's say-so.
        GuideStar CEO Jacob Harold said it reversed course because there were ''reasonable disagreements'' over the labels and because he feared for his employees' safety after he said they received threats for relying on the SPLC's determinations.
        AmazonSmile, a program by internet commerce giant Amazon to allow users to donate money to nonprofits, also has cited SPLC's designation as a reason to terminate the account for the Center for Immigration Studies, according to the lawsuit.
        The center says that has cost it at least $10,000 in donations.
        Because it doesn't meet the SPLC's definition of a hate group yet the SPLC uses that label online, the center said, it amounts to wire fraud in violation of RICO.
        The center says it wants a judge to award damages and order the SPLC to remove the ''hate'' label, and it wants the SPLC to affirmatively state on its website ''that CIS is not a hate group.''
        RICO has been used to settle other thorny political clashes, including by the National Organization for Women, which in the 1980s and 1990s filed civil RICO claims against pro-life activists at abortion clinics.
        The National Organization for Women said the protesters' actions amounted to extortion and asked for triple damages allowed under RICO. Decades of litigation produced a mixed outcome.
        Copyright (C) 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
        The Washington Times Comment PolicyThe Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our
        Comment Policy before commenting.
    The Purge
      NA Content reviewer report
        ITM J&A!
        Excuse the long delayed response as I've been trying to
        gather show-worthy material to share. First, I'll start with a mental state
        report and am glad to say that I am still at 100%! No PTSD yet! TDS has done
        far more damage to others!
        Onward! I believe the question you asked before was whether
        we report to the police about child abuse content. Short answer: No...and yes.
        After some prying, or 'sleuthing', into the child safety department reviewers,
        all I got is that the agent that happens upon such content is to fill out a
        NCMEC report that will be escalated to the Client; the popular video hosting
        platform everybody loves to hate but won't stop using. From there, the Client
        will report it to the authorities. Incidentally, I found out that when pedophilic
        content is discovered, the Client will then dig into that violative users'
        cloud drive(s). This sometimes exposes child porn smuggling/sharing rings.
        On my side of things, all is the same as before. Brutal
        beheadings and dismemberment! I WILL say that I noticed the algorithm that
        sorts content to be reviewed between projects seems to pick out Fox News, and
        other conservative news voices, to be reviewed by us at a far greater rate than
        CNN, etc. 10-1 at least. By us I mean the extremism or hate speech reviewers.
        Not all are in violation, but, being subject to review means the chance of
        demonetization and/or
        age-restriction is far more likely.
        That is all I
        have for now and I hope this will be of some use.
    OTG
      Automating Retail: Googly-Eyed Robots Are Coming to Nearly 500 Grocery Stores | Zero Hedge
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Sun, 20 Jan 2019 15:59
        Robots may soon be scooting around the aisles of your local grocery store.
        Approximately 500 robots will be coming to supermarkets in Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, and West Virginia, thanks to a strategic partnership between Retail Business Services and Badger Technologies.
        Retail Business Services, a subsidiary of Ahold Delhaize USA, currently provides services to six of Ahold Delhaize USA's East Coast supermarket brands, including Food Lion, Giant Food, GIANT/MARTIN'S, Hannaford and Stop & Shop, as well as the online grocery retailer, Peapod.
        Within the next six months, Ahold Delhaize USA brands will have at least one robot in nearly 500 of their stores following successful in-store pilot programs at Harrisburg and Carlisle locations.
        ''As part of our continued focus on technology transformation, we're pleased to support one of the most significant deployments of robotics innovation in the grocery retail industry.
        Several companies in the grocery retail space have recently begun testing or using in-store robots '' something Retail Business Services and the local brands we serve have been doing for some time. We're pleased to support the GIANT/MARTIN'S and Stop & Shop brands as they now lead the industry from test to large-scale usage of robots and to see the benefits the technology continues to drive for their businesses," '' said Paul Scorza, EVP and Chief Information Officer for Retail Business Services.
        Dubbed "Marty," the in-store fully autonomous robot has been designed for the grocery retail environment to address out-of-stock, planogram compliance, price integrity, and audit and compliance issues.
        The robot operates safely alongside patrons and employees while scanning aisles. Advanced technologies include:
        Rotating lidar to map and navigate the storeHigh resolution and 3D depth cameras for navigation and data acquisitionNavigation sensors ' Firmware in robotics operating system (ROS)Modular application software architecture for custom system integrationAutonomous base with rechargeable 12-hour battery''We are excited to be part of this industry-leading rollout of fully autonomous robots that collect safety data while traversing retail stores,'' said Frederic McCoy, SVP, Jabil Retail. ''Real-time hazard alerts empower stores to resolve incidents like spills, as well as improve operations.''
        Nationwide, other retailers, including Walmart and Target, have been testing or rapidly deploying robots. This is part of the great transformation, and a defined theme by Karen Harris, Managing Director of Bain & Company's Macro Trends Group, who recently penned the piece Labor 2030: The Collision of Demographics, Automation and Inequality.
        For more color on how automation will disrupt the business environment in the next decade, Harris discusses the collision at play.
    5G
      Retired General Warns Against Letting China Dominate 5G Networks - Bloomberg
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Sat, 19 Jan 2019 22:31
        Need help? Contact us We've detected unusual activity from your computer networkTo continue, please click the box below to let us know you're not a robot.
        Why did this happen?Please make sure your browser supports JavaScript and cookies and that you are not blocking them from loading. For more information you can review our Terms of Service and Cookie Policy.
        Need Help?For inquiries related to this message please contact our support team and provide the reference ID below.
        Block reference ID:
      Germany 'considers ban on Huawei' amid global backlash - BBC News
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Sun, 20 Jan 2019 05:51
        Image copyright Getty Images Germany is considering ways to block Huawei from its next generation mobile phone network, according to reports.
        Berlin is exploring stricter security requirements which may prevent Huawei products being used in its 5G network.
        Many countries have pushed against the involvement of the Chinese technology firm in their 5G networks over security concerns.
        The networks represent the next big wave of mobile infrastructure.
        The Chinese company, one of the world's biggest producers of telecoms equipment, has faced resistance from foreign governments over the risk that its technology could be used for espionage.
        Huawei has denied claims it poses a spying risk.
        In a statement, the firm said it sees "no rational reason why it should be excluded from building 5G infrastructure in Germany, or indeed in any country in the world."
        Germany's interior ministry had previously said it opposes banning any suppliers from its 5G network.
        But it may consider stricter security requirements and other ways to exclude Huawei, according to reports.
        Such a move would bring it in line with other Western countries.
        The US, Australia and New Zealand have all blocked local firms from using Huawei to provide the technology for next-generation 5G mobile networks.
        The UK has raised concerns with Huawei, and Canada is also reviewing its relationship with the firm.
        Last month BT said it would not use Huawei's equipment for its 5G mobile network when it is rolled out in the UK.
        On Thursday, China's ambassador to Canada warned of "repercussions" if the country banned the company from its 5G network.
        The two countries are embroiled in a diplomatic row.
        A court in China this month sentenced a Canadian to death for drug smuggling in a ruling that comes after Canada arrested Meng Wanzhou, a top official at Huawei and its founder's daughter, on a request from the US.
        The US is also reportedly investigating Huawei for "stealing trade secrets" from US businesses, and has accused it of contravening sanctions by lying about its business in Iran.
      GSMA issues 5G spectrum warning - Mobile World Live
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Sat, 19 Jan 2019 20:40
        06 NOV 2018
        The rollout of 5G will be at risk if operators do not get timely access to the right spectrum, industry body GSMA warned as it called on governments to strongly support the sector's needs over the next year.
        In a statement, the GSMA highlighted a growing need for governments, regulators and the industry to work together to deliver widespread coverage of the new technology, as the race to launch 5G services intensifies with one year to go until the World Radiocommunication Conference 2019 (WRC-19).
        The WRC conferences, held every three-to-four years, are used to review and possibly revise global spectrum regulations. The next event will be held during October 2019 in Sharm el Sheikh, Egypt, with a strong focus expected on 5G suitable frequencies given many leading countries are gearing up to launch the technology over the next two years.
        Key focusesIn its GSMA Public Policy Position on 5G Spectrum report, the GSMA highlighted several key considerations for governments and regulators including: the need for wider frequency bands to support higher speeds and increased traffic volumes; and the need for 5G spectrum to cover three key frequency ranges to deliver widespread coverage and support all use cases.
        On the first point, the GSMA said regulators which make 80MHz to 100MHz of spectrum available per operator in prime 5G mid-bands (for example 3.5GHz) and around 1GHz per operator in mmWave bands ''will support the very fastest 5G services''.
        For rural, urban, suburban and IoT services, GSMA said sub-1GHz spectrum should be used to extend high-speed 5G mobile broadband coverage, while spectrum from 1GHz to 6GHz will offer a good mix of coverage and capacity for 5G. Spectrum above 6GHz can be used for services such as high-speed broadband.
        At WRC-19, the GSMA added it was essential for governments to support the 26GHz, 40GHz (37GHz to43.5GHz) and 66GHz to 71GHz bands with a sufficient amount of harmonised 5G spectrum ''critical to enabling the fastest 5G speeds, low-cost devices and international roaming, and minimising cross border interference''
        Inflated spectrum pricesFinally, governments should avoid inflating 5G spectrum prices, and avoid setting aside spectrum for verticals in key bands where the Association said sharing approaches such as leasing ''are better options where vertical industries require access to spectrum''.
        Brett Tarnutzer, head of spectrum at the GSMA said operators urgently need more spectrum, with the future of 5G heavily dependent on the decisions governments ''are making in the next year as we head into WRC-19''.
        ''There is a real opportunity for innovation from 5G, but this hinges on governments focusing on making enough spectrum available, not maximising auction revenues for short term gains.''
        Subscribe to our daily newsletter Author Kavit Majithia
        Kavit joined Mobile World Live in May 2015 as Content Editor. He started his journalism career at the Press Association before joining Euromoney's graduate scheme in April 2010. Read More >>
        Read more
        Related Tags
      Nokia Bell Labs & Verizon Stretch Fixed 5G to the Home | Light Reading
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Sat, 19 Jan 2019 22:37
        5G in the 'burbs? Don't bet your hedge on it. Leafy greens may not be a good diet for Verizon's planned fixed wireless service.
        Nokia Bell Labs is working with Verizon Wireless on a window-mounted radio to help high-band 5G deliver wireless broadband to US homes, but mostly in urban environments. It won't help in areas where foliage can block the 28GHz signal.
        Tod Sizer, VP of the Wireless Research Program at Nokia Bell Labs, told Light Reading at our 5G Transport & Networking Strategies event in New York Friday that the joint project aims to help the 28GHz signal to be better used in homes, apartments and other buildings.
        "We can't change the laws of physics. Millimeter wave doesn't propagate well in buildings with concrete, or brick, walls, and covered in [low-e] glass windows," Sizer stated during a panel discussion. (Light Reading recently reported on millimeter wave's problems with glass -- see Could 5G Have Found Its Glass Ceiling?)
        So, what the Bell Labs unit has been doing is to develop a 28GHz transciever that sits outside a user's window and connects wirelessly to a WiFi router inside the window, which then distributes the signal to other devices in the house or apartment. Verizon is hoping to offer 1-Gbit/s download with its fixed wireless 28GHz 5G service, which could support multiple video streaming devices and Internet-connected units in a household.
        Sizer said the first unit they developed for Verizon used a 2.6GHz signal to connect the 28GHz radio to the indoor unit. This is so that user doesn't have to make a hole in the wall or window. The latest iteration uses an optical connection that Sizer said works better.
        The aim, he said, is to create, "a unit that so simple to install that my history professor father can install it." This involves developing a way to show the users when the 5G radio is situated so that it gets the best, strongest connection. Much like an electronic instrument tuner, Sizer said that having a red-light/green-light system that shines green when the user hits the best connection might be easiest.
        This doesn't mean that fixed 5G is going to become a way to offer fixed 5G across the entire country. Sizer thinks that it is suitable for cities and "dense suburban areas."
        "The idea of this solving the rural problem is folly. There are too many trees," Sizer said.
        This resonantes with what Light Reading heard from other conference attendees and a reader too: Foliage is a problem when it gets in the path of a 28GHz signal. So, if you want fixed 5G, you might want to start hacking down any topiary or trees that could impede your glorious gigabit experience. Perhaps Verizon should sell a chainsaw with its fixed 5G package?
        Verizon hasn't yet revealed many results from its fixed 5G trials in 11 markets in the US yet. Although the company has asked for an extension on 28GHz testing license recently. CFO Matt Ellis has said the operator will reveal more details by the end of the year. (See Verizon Says Fixed 5G Will Happen in 2018, Less Clear on Mobile and Verizon Asks for Additional 6 Months for Fixed 5G Tests.)
        '-- Dan Jones, Mobile Editor, Light Reading
        (12) | 50%
        50%
        kq4ym, User Rank: Light Sabre11/28/2017 | 11:43:13 AM Re: Roof mount Because of the interference difficulties for those high frequencies noting that " foliage can block the 28GHz signal," as well as lots of manmade structure and materials, I can just predict cutting down lots of trees just to enable the signals to have a straight shot. Even the outside window installations will have the same diffficulties. 50%
        50%
        brooks7, User Rank: Light Sabre11/15/2017 | 7:09:37 PM Re: Roof mount My assumption is that this is why Verizon has sold as many rural properties as it can.The only thing is even with the loosened rules they are still the COLR.
        seven
        100%
        0%
        Duh!, User Rank: Blogger11/15/2017 | 1:00:33 PM Re: Roof mount Verizon either has, or will have to, make some hard decisions about rural customers. Maintaining that copper plant is a losing proposition, but the business case for converged fiber access in those areas often is going to be weak. Tomorrow, the FCC is going to vote on an NPRM to loosen the rules for copper retirement. It will be adopted, probably 5-2. It's a long story, but the fact that your parents have cable gives VZ dispensation to shut down the regulated copper network. Plus they've signaled their intentions by turning down CAF money. OTOH, they may need to build out or buy fiber anyway, for LTE coverage and ultimately 5G, as well as any business customers and/or IOT plays. I wouldn't be surprised to see them offering a wireless solution.As far as urban fixed wireless: everything is different in the high bands. Not only is there a LOT of bandwidth (475 MHz per channel at 28 GHz), but spatial reuse coefficients explode because of high directionality and beam steering. With massive MIMO, urban canyon multipath is their friend. I'm sure that they'll be able to handle mobile and fixed in the same 28 GHz band.
        -- Dan Grossman
        50%
        50%
        DanJones, User Rank: Blogger11/15/2017 | 12:11:11 PM Re: Roof mount Herd the words, "there's just not a business case for it," several times yesterday! 50%
        50%
        DanJones, User Rank: Blogger11/15/2017 | 12:10:06 PM Re: Roof mount My guess from the backhaul people are talking about is that they could perhaps be looking at 10 homes per small cell for good performance, up to 20 if they want to push it. This is pure back of the envelope stuff at the moment and, in the end, depends on the users in each household. 100%
        0%
        brooks7, User Rank: Light Sabre11/15/2017 | 11:21:46 AM Re: Roof mount I thought I should add, this is why I think this notion of new competition fixing things in Broadband Access is just nonsense. It is really hard to justify an investment when there is good capability (not talking price yet) already. If you are going into an area, you want a take rate the justifies the upfront capex and marketing campaigns. If there is a significant shift starting in market share, the incumbent just lowers prices (unless they don't care). At that lowered price point, the ROI on the CAPEX gets worse and worse. The consumer does better, but the 2nd provider stops investing and the competition dies. I know of overbuilders who think they can get over 70% market share. They are new. I internally shake my head and do a facepalm. Externally I smile and move on.
        seven
        50%
        50%
        brooks7, User Rank: Light Sabre11/15/2017 | 11:14:10 AM Re: Roof mount My parents are in a rural Verizon property about 1 hour north of Albany. They live 10 miles outside what is nominally my hometown. That town has 1100 people. The closest city is Saratoga Springs which is just over 15 miles away. That is not the most rural spot in Verizon, but is pretty typical of upstate NY where Verizon still has rural properties.Of course, they have cable run right to their front door. Verizon doesn't even have a dsl installation in the cabinet that is about 1/2 mile from their house. So, I think Verizon has already lost the rural battle. Urban Fixed Wireless is going to be a challenge as it will eat lots of spectrum that will want to be used by mobile if they decide to mass deploy it. Fiber (actually any wireline medium) provides a new set of spectrum for every connection. In GPON as deployed per Verizon, that is spectrum for every 32 homes. Not sure that is going to fly as replaced by wireless.
        seven
        50%
        50%
        Duh!, User Rank: Blogger11/14/2017 | 7:28:25 PM Re: Roof mount "Real rural" covers a lot of topographies. Wireless systems that work really well in, say, Kansas may not be so happy in, say, the Appalachians.More to the point, mm-wave systems are short-range -- maybe a quarter of a mile. Once the operator has built out fiber at half-mile intervals on a long country road with a few homes, they might as well go the rest of the way with fiber. That, or more likely, go to mid-band spectrum and lower data rates.
        I think that mm-wave fixed 5G is a play for high-density urban areas and MDUs, where simple drop installation can be a big headache and multipath is their friend. That is, if they can consistently work around the low-e glass problem. Maybe there are other use cases, but I can't think of one.
        50%
        50%
        bosco_pcs, User Rank: Light Sabre11/14/2017 | 5:26:31 PM Re: Roof mount Some thoughts about the roof mounted variation for a "real rural area": can be any more explicit about a "real rural area." Perhaps it depends on one's thought of rural, in my mind I have Smallsville type. People there are pretty much DIY folks anyway. Obviously, that is a subset of the scenario.
        Assuming my vision of being rural is wrong, the optical link in the urban area still requires calibration. So urban or rural makes no difference unless there is some self-guiding mechanism for the indoor and outdoor units for optimization purposes
        Perhaps it really hinges on the strength and flexibility of the optical link between the two. If so, maybe even the urban setting is also a problem if VZ is shooting for a DIY scenario in all settings. My point is that the leafy environment is solvable if the conceptual design is sound
        50%
        50%
        DanJones, User Rank: Blogger11/14/2017 | 4:49:47 PM Re: Roof mount The big thing for Big Red is cutting costs on deployment versus FiOS, they really want a user installed unit if they can make it happen. Educational Resources
        sponsor supplied content 5G Poll
      Everything you need to know about 5G technology (non-technical)
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Sat, 19 Jan 2019 23:19
        There's been a lot of talk about the next ''revolutionary'' wave in telecom networks starting to roll out, aptly dubbed ''5G'', or ''5th Generation'' of cellular network standards. For those who are already able to stream on their phone with ease, though, this begs the questions'Š'--'Šwhat's the big deal and why should I care?
        This article will hopefully clarify what 5G technology actually is and how it'll affect far more than just our ability to watch cat videos on the train. I'll cover the basic vocabulary, technological concepts, and discuss how/when it'll actually be implemented.
        Let's start with the basics. What is 5G and why is it any better than the status quo?To understand 5G and its relevance, we first need to examine its predecessors (with each iteration rather uncreatively named 1G, 2G, 3G, 4G) and how it built off of them:
        Introduced in the 1980s, 1G was the first mode for mass wireless communication, allowing us to make simple calls between mobile phones. The data transfer speed was about 0.01 MB per second.2G was introduced a decade later in 1991, offering greater security through its use of digital encryption, as opposed to analog signals, and greater speed (3.1 MB per second). It also allowed for regular, text-only SMS messages to be sent.3G came out in 1998 and made way for the eventual smartphone revolution, offering higher speeds (14.4 MB per second) and bridging mobile devices to the Internet.The current standard, 4G/LTE, was released in 2008. The most notable change here was the incredible jump in speed to 300 MB per second, allowing users to engage in activities like high-definition media streaming.That brings us to 5G. It offers the same fundamental features as its predecessors (SMS messaging, cellular voice calls, and internet connectivity), largely built upon the core of 4G LTE technology. There are four notable changes here, though: bandwidth, which is expected to reach up to 1 GB per second, decreased latency times (less than a millisecond), energy efficiency, and greater network capacity.
        The relevance of the speed is pretty self-explanatory, but to put that number in perspective, a full 1080p HD movie is typically between 2 GB to 3 GB. For potential applications like self-driving cars (discussed below) which generate up to petabytes (1 million GB) of data at a time, this is a game-changer.
        Relatedly, the lowering of latency, which is a delay in the actual process of transferring data, is also a pretty big deal. No matter how large the data packets you can transfer at a given moment (bandwidth) are, the speed is rate-limited by the actual rate at which the information gets from point A to B (latency). This is why currently even on high-bandwidth internet, your Netflix app might still pause and load to process more data. Reread this paragraph if you didn't understand it'Š'--'Šlatency is going to come up a lot in just a bit!
        Energy efficiency is relatively straightforward. 5G will consume less power on devices, meaning longer battery lives, and perhaps by extension, less carbon waste from charging devices less often.
        As for greater network capacity, this is quite possible the most important change of all. With the rapid expansion of the Internet of Things, more and more devices are being designed for use on cellular networks, meaning that we need an infrastructural change to accommodate this (and future) demand.
        OK, so 5G includes some pretty big technological improvements. I'm still not seeing how this will affect my day-to-day life, though.This is a fair statement, and a sentiment I shared at first as well. The core logic likely underlying such a claim, though, is the fallacy that cellular networks exist primarily to be used by cell phones. While 5G certainly will allow for a much quicker user experience in that regard, there are also several very different technologies it will altogether revolutionize. Below are brief explanations on some of the most exciting (in my opinion):
        Self-driving cars: 5G's low latency (in tandem with powerful edge-computing algorithms) would allow autonomous vehicles to respond quickly to any sudden environmental shifts, while also potentially communicating with nearby vehicles to optimize traffic and route times. To clarify, edge computing essentially designates a significant portion of computational activity to the car itself, rather constantly relaying information back and forth all the way between the car and a remote server (thus placing less burden on the cellular networks). 4G networks even then aren't able to handle such high-speed, high-volume transfers of information, nor send data with low enough latency to keep passengers safe.Virtual and augmented reality: Virtual reality is the placement of a user (typically with a headset) in a completely simulated, digital world. Augmented reality is the placement of digital constructs on top of a live feed of the real world. In both cases, the user is interacting in real-time with their environment. When this is being done without the need for cellular connection (ex: the landscape for the VR world is downloaded locally, or the AR object layered on the world is pre-configured) that's not an issue. When the user needs to interact in real-time with the digital environment over a cellular connection, though (ex: Facebook's virtual reality world), it's only with the low latency of 5G that there can be a seamless, responsive experience.Tactile internet: This is essentially real-time, haptic feedback on a machine, is perhaps the most interesting prospect. In surgery, for example, a surgeon could in theory control robotic equipment to perform the surgery with, which allows him/her to make much more precise movements than just the human hand. With tactile internet then, the device they're using will be able to buzz/move/etc. at certain positions so that the doctor controlling the equipment can feel what the machine ''feels'', such as the firmness of a bone or pumping of blood through an artery. This allows them to benefit from the senses of a human, while using the precision of a machine. To be able to simulate what something feels like over the internet in response to real world events, though, requires a (perceived) instantaneous transfer of information, which only the low-latency of 5G can allow. It's possible the same technology could even be used for remotely performed surgeries.Smart cities: Here, it's a general combination of 5G's core capabilities (high-speed, low latency, larger capacity) that creates the possibility of smart cities. The smart city is basically applying IoT capabilities to every function/service in a city, ranging from the power grid to public transportation. For example, (self-driving) buses could target locations with the highest population density at any given moment (as determined by connected security cameras), eradicating the need for constant, permanent bus stops as the system evolves. Everything connected to the internet is suddenly optimized to interact with the rest of the city.These are just a few example, but as you may have noticed, 5G's low latency is the key to unlocking quite a few capabilities. It's crazy to think that these revolutionary technologies, all of which we've been discussing for decades, have been limited primarily by data speeds, rather than a product development issue itself. Speaking more broadly, we now have the opportunity to create entire industries that were once stuff of science fiction. The ability to quickly transfer information will rarely again serve as a bottleneck for innovation.
        Often, we connect to cellular networks when we just don't have access to WiFi or ethernet. In a world with 5G though, that 5G service becomes the preferred default (speaking from a technological standpoint'Š'--'Špricing/general implementation is a whole different ball game, as discussed below).
        It sounds like 5G is going to be everywhere. What resources do telecom companies need so that they can offer it?Offering 5G will soon enough be a baseline expectation, meaning that those who can't keep up will be left behind. As I'll explain below, though, keeping up isn't such an easy task. There's two core resources to discuss here: spectrum and fiber.
        Spectrum is a collection of all the frequencies (of the electromagnetic spectrum) at which wireless signals can be deployed between a wireless tower and the device being used. It exists in three main forms: unlicensed, licensed, and shared.
        Unlicensed spectrum is pretty straightforward, and it's what we typically expect. It consists frequencies that anyone can use, like a WiFi connection (in this case, the spectrum is between a device router and a router, rather than a tower). There's not really a limit on the use here, as its freely available and locally hosted.Licensed spectrum, however, isn't as easy to get ahold of. The government holds a highly competitive auctioning process so that companies (such as AT&T, Verizon, etc.) can own certain frequencies across the country for their cellular networks. Companies bid based on frequencies and locations that they'd like to own, both of which are variables that depend entirely on the specific company's intentions (different frequencies are optimized for different applications/technologies). It may seem odd that the government is essentially putting the country's airwaves for sale, but if spectrum wasn't sold on a per-company basis, multiple companies using the same frequencies in the same area would for all practical purposes destroy the signals being sent.Shared spectrum allows third-parties that don't own specific frequencies of spectrum to use the frequencies for their own purposes. Despite the competitive process to get spectrum, there are places at which as little as no purchased spectrum is being used. This allows those with spectrum licenses to generate passive income, while also optimizing the use of resources by creating opportunities for other businesses (who, for example, may be smaller and couldn't compete in the spectrum bidding war).The FCC has announced that the 5G spectrum auction begins on November 14, 2018, and we can expect the bids to get astronomically high, as spectrum is generally regarded to be a relatively rare resource. Mobile spectrum alone is estimated to be worth $500 billion. Some believe more spectrum will be made available as the technology to communicate over more frequencies is developed, but at least for now, availability is scarce. The market will only get more competitive in the meanwhile.
        The other key component telecom companies will need in order to offer 5G is fiber. Fiber is shorthand for fiber-optic technology, which transmits information by sending pulses of light through wires made of optical fiber. It's essentially wired internet, and it's incredibly fast (as in, equal to the speed of 5G). This may seem a bit confusing, as I've been going on endlessly about the power of 5G as a wireless connectivity service, so requiring fiber optic cables sounds like it's going against what we're trying to do with wireless technology.
        This is actually quite a prominent and dangerous misconception about 5G. It turns out that to reach the speeds that 5G requires, the signals need to be at very high frequencies (meaning that the spectrum companies bid on in a few months are significantly higher frequencies than what we use for technologies like 4G).
        With a quick flashback to high school physics, you may remember that a higher frequency indicates a shorter wavelength. In this case, it means that 5G signals can only travel up to about 100 meters during the day with absolutely no obstruction (such as the walls of a house), and significantly less with obstruction.
        As a result, to make 5G a reality, we're going to need to set up millions of ''stations'' (which are essentially antennas sending out the 5G signal) all across the country, in places ranging from our neighborhoods to our highway. These stations are built upon fiber optic cable, which can carry the massive volumes of information that we want for hundreds of miles with pretty much no degradation. Because of how easily the signals can be interrupted, we may even end up bringing stations into our houses at some point as well. Essentially, the underground, wired fiber brings all the data to the 5G stations that will be everywhere, and from these stations, the ''5G part'' happens when the signal is wirelessly transmitted to our device.
        To clarify, the reason 5G is so fast isn't just because it's right next to the stations. The waves themselves can carry far more information than 4G could, and the actual process of transmitting the information doesn't have nearly as high of a latency. The technology is more powerful (though I concede you could make a valid argument saying the distance constraint actually nullifies this claim), but it also happens to have constraints.
        It seems like spectrum has been mostly dealt with. What about fiber, though? Doesn't requiring millions of stations render 5G useless?It's certainly not useless (or I wouldn't be writing this much about it). However, it's definitely not something we're going to see in mass market applications for a while.
        In order to actually make 5G accessible to the average consumer, we're going to first need fiber laid across pretty much the entire country. Right now, it exists primarily just in large cities (and even then, there's no station present for 5G). Stations can just be added to existing infrastructure like lamp posts, but this effort is still an undertaking will cost up to $150 billion and take around five years, as per a Deloitte estimate. The current situation also means that 5G technologies will first come to urban areas, then suburban, and likely much later, rural as well.
        While companies, such as AT&T, have already begun preparing 5G networks for deployment, it's important to remember this isn't true 5G. As explained by 3GPP, the organization which writes the standards, ''5G will remain a marketing & industry term that companies will use as they see fit'' until the standards are published (which was only this past December). Case in point: AT&T's supposed 5G network essentially just leverages 4G LTE technology.
        How are policymakers preparing us for this future?This has actually become quite a big issue that's manifested itself several times in the past year alone. 5G is for all intents and purposes an arms race between two countries: the United States and China. That said, given the current situation, most seem to agree that China has pretty much already won.
        Sure, part of the reason both countries are taking 5G so seriously is because of its direct application to technologies like self-driving cars and their economic implications. What's really on their mind, though, is artificial intelligence. Once 5G networks are operational, that's worlds more of data being generated, processed, and transferred. Artificial intelligence algorithms are taught and improved based on data, meaning that they get better when they're fed more data (so long as its useful data). Whichever country can implement a true 5G network first is essentially going to end up light years ahead of the other in artificial intelligence because of this advantage, which in turn pretty much guarantees geopolitical dominance for eternity (or at least, a really long time).
        This calls into question how exactly China is currently ahead. The most apparent way is from an infrastructure standpoint. With regards to the millions of local stations that I mentioned need to be created for 5G to be operational, it's estimated that China has built over 350,000, while the United States has only built about 30,000.
        Less obvious, but equally important, is the spectrum distribution process. The highly competitive spectrum auctioning process among numerous cellular carriers in the US leaves a dent in the wallets of the participants, meaning their ability to actually invest in technology development after they buy the rights to it is hurt quite badly. In China, on the other hand, there's only a few major players, all of which are government owned. This means that they can still invest heavily in developing 5G stations across the country after their auctions because it's ultimately the Chinese government that's footing the bill.
        Some have suggested that the US should change their spectrum auction process to basically turn the entire network into a shared spectrum, which is allocated by a non-carrier third party. The Trump administration seems to be quite open to this ''nationalized'' 5G network concept, though details about how to pay for things like building the stations aren't known (and there also hasn't been any talk of cancelling the auction yet).
        This race is why the Trump administration blocked Broadcom (a Chinese company) from purchasing Qualcomm (a US company), as Qualcomm is generally regarded to be America's 5G leader alongside Intel. Some policy experts also believe it's the real reason behind the recent tariffs placed on Chinese imports, with a supposed intention of stunting China's massive investment in the technology.
        Overall, the situation isn't going too well here for America. China's network is expected to roll out in early 2019, while the timeline in the United States still remains quite unclear. Heavier investment is needed to compete.
        Alright, so 3,000+ words later, what are the major takeaways here?5G allows us to develop all sorts of fantastical new technologies, but it's several years away from being a reality. Geopolitically speaking, it's crucial to develop a full-fledged 5G network as soon as possible, which is why we need policymakers to take more action in this domain.
        I'll conclude with a quote from the World Economic Forum for some final perspective: ''Economists estimate the global economic impact of 5G in new goods and services will reach $12 trillion by 2035 as 5G moves mobile technology from connecting people to people and information, towards connecting people to everything.''
        It may not be here tomorrow, but there's no doubt about it: 5G is the future.
        Sources: NBC, Wired, CNN, Deloitte, World Economic Forum, Cisco, 5G.co 1, 5G.co 2, Spectrum Futures, Network World, Axios, Forbes.
      5G Will Change How Your Smartphone Is Designed | Light Reading
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Sat, 19 Jan 2019 22:37
        High-band 5G technology is going to shake up the design of smartphones and other devices as the next-generation wireless technology arrives in networks in the next few years.
        Millimeter wave (mmWave) technology -- centered around 30GHz to 300GHz -- is expected to deliver cellular download speeds up to 100 times faster than today's 4G LTE networks. Tests in the US so far show speeds of a gigabit are possible at up to 2000 feet from the basestation. (See Millimeter Wave 5G: The Usain Bolt of Wireless?)
        The "proximity effect" of placing a human finger, hand or face in front of a 28GHz millimeter antenna will block the signal, as Maryam Rofougaran, co-CEO of 5G startup Movindi told me recently.
        Think of it like Apple Inc. (Nasdaq: AAPL)'s "antennagate" saga around the iPhone 4 in 2010, where a user could make the 3G signal weaker by holding the phone in a certain way, but much worse. Holding a 5G phone the "wrong" way wouldn't just attenuate the signal but block it. (See Apple's Antenna Issues: Them's the Breaks.)
        "Human blockage" is a well-known phenomenon in academic work on millimeter wave. With wireless infrastruture, multi-path beam-forming is used to try to transmit signals through windows, walls, and folliage. Because of the small size of smartphones, however, blockage of the microstrip antenna arrays onboard is likely to become more of an issue with normal usage. (See 60GHz: A Frequency to Watch, Could 5G Have Found Its Glass Ceiling? and Nokia Bell Labs & Verizon Stretch Fixed 5G to the Home.)
        There aren't any commercial phones supporting the first 5G New Radio (5G NR) available, devices are expected by mid-2019. Early prototypes look like ordinary, albeit bulky, smartphones. (See Qualcomm: The First 5G Smartphone on Display?)
        The recent leak of photos of a rumored 5G radio add-on from Motorola Inc. (NYSE: MOT) hints at how mmWave may shake things up. The module appears to an antenna ridge or lip. (See Motorola Clips On 5G Phone Features.)
        Source: XDAdevelopers
        It might be most sensible, however, to have the phone rely on the 4G connection, which is always on as part of "dual-connectivity" in the 5G standard, when the user makes a voice call. All major US carriers, aside from Sprint Corp. (NYSE: S), support voice-over-LTE (VoLTE) calls now. So this may provide the most elegant solution in the short-term, even if it delays those blazin' gigabit-speed 5G downloads when you just have to take a call from your mom. (See VoLTE Can Drive 4G Small Cells Adoption.)
        '-- Dan Jones, Mobile Editor, Light Reading
        (8) | 50%
        50%
        DanJones, User Rank: Blogger6/6/2018 | 10:07:10 AM Re: 5Gone Not this time! 50%
        50%
        Phil_Britt, User Rank: Light Sabre6/6/2018 | 10:01:41 AM Re: 5Gone I agree. As you move to each new generation (3G, 4G, 5G, etc.), the improvements will be slimmer and slimmer. 50%
        50%
        DanJones, User Rank: Blogger6/4/2018 | 11:10:08 AM Re: 5Gone I think you'll need significantly more speed for AR/VR but a gigabit? Don't know yet... 50%
        50%
        DanJones, User Rank: Blogger6/1/2018 | 9:45:53 AM Re: 5Gone 2 points:1. The technology will evolve over time.
        2. Many people barely need their phone to be a phone anymore, and they don't need to be streaming super-fast video when they do use it as a phone.
        I'm just trying to look at all the possibilities. I can, and will, go deeper on this in the future.
        Expect a wide range of download speeds from AT&Ts Nighthawk 5G unit as you use the hotspot in AT&T's initial 5G cities.
        For 5G, the bigger the bandwith the better!
        Fingers can block signals from the phone antenna, so phone designers will have to work around that.
        Any day now, according to recent statements by the company's executives. Try not to get too excited!
        What's latency got to do with it? Quite a bit actually...
        March 12-14, 2019, Denver, Colorado April 2, 2019, New York, New York April 8, 2019, Las Vegas, Nevada May 6, 2019, Denver, Colorado May 6-8, 2019, Denver, Colorado May 21, 2019, Nice, France September 17-19, 2019, Dallas, Texas October 1, 2019, New Orleans, Louisiana October 10, 2019, New York, New York November 5, 2019, London, England December 3, 2019, New York, New York December 5-3, 2019, Viena, Austria All Upcoming Live Events
      Frightening Frequencies: The Dangers of 5G & What You Can Do About Them - Eluxe Magazine
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Sat, 19 Jan 2019 22:33
        By Jody McCutcheon
        As the old saying goes, give us an inch and inevitably we'll want a mile. And certainly, this sentiment is true with technology.
        Who doesn't want faster, bigger (or smaller), more efficient? Take wireless mobile telecommunications. Our current broadband cellular network platform, 4G (or fourth generation), allows us to transmit data faster than 3G and everything that preceded. We can access information faster now than ever before in history. What more could we want? Oh, yes, transmission speeds powerful enough to accommodate the (rather horrifying) so-called Internet of Things. Which brings us to 5G.
        Until now, mobile broadband networks have been designed to meet the needs of people. But 5G has been created with machines' needs in mind, offering low-latency, high-efficiency data transfer. It achieves this by breaking data down into smaller packages, allowing for faster transmission times. Whereas 4G has a fifty-millisecond delay, 5G data transfer will offer a mere one-millisecond delay''we humans won't notice the difference, but it will permit machines to achieve near-seamless communication. Which in itself may open a whole Pandora's box of trouble for us '' and our planet.
        More bandwidth '' more dangers of 5GLet's start with some basic background on 5G technology. Faster processing speeds require more bandwidth, yet our current frequency bandwidths are quickly becoming saturated. The idea behind 5G is to use untapped bandwidth of the extremely high-frequency millimeter wave (MMW), between 30GHz and 300GHz, in addition to some lower and mid-range frequencies.
        High-frequency MMWs travel a short distance. Furthermore, they don't travel well through buildings and tend to be absorbed by rain and plants, leading to signal interference. Thus, the necessary infrastructure would require many smaller, barely noticeable cell towers situated closer together, with more input and output ports than there are on the much larger, easier to see 4G towers. This would likely result in wireless antennas every few feet, on every lamp post and utility pole in your neighbourhood.
        Here are some numbers to put things into perspective: as of 2015, there were 308,000 wireless antennas on cell towers and buildings. That's double the 2002 number. Yet 5G would require exponentially more, smaller ones, placed much closer together, with each emitting bursts of radiofrequency radiation (RFR)''granted, at levels much lower than that of today's 4G cell towers''that will be much harder to avoid because these towers will be ubiquitous. If we could see the RFR, it would look like a smog that's everywhere, all the time.
        Serious health concernsFirst, it's important to know that in 2011, the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer classified RFR as a potential 2B carcinogen and specified that the use of mobile phones could lead to specific forms of brain tumors.
        Many studies have associated low-level RFR exposure with a litany of health effects, including:
        DNA single and double-strand breaks (which leads to cancer)oxidative damage (which leads to tissue deterioration and premature ageing)disruption of cell metabolismincreased blood-brain barrier permeabilitymelatonin reduction (leading to insomnia and increasing cancer risks)disruption of brain glucose metabolismgeneration of stress proteins (leading to myriad diseases)As mentioned, the new 5G technology utilizes higher-frequency MMW bands, which give off the same dose of radiation as airport scanners. The effects of this radiation on public health have yet to undergo the rigours of long-term testing. Adoption of 5G will mean more signals carrying more energy through the high-frequency spectrum, with more transmitters located closer to people's homes and workplaces''basically a lot more (and more potent) RFR flying around us. It's no wonder that apprehension exists over potential risks, to both human and environmental health.
        Perhaps the strongest concern involves adverse effects of MMWs on human skin. This letter to the Federal Communications Commission, from Dr Yael Stein of Jerusalem's Hebrew University, outlines the main points. Over ninety percent of microwave radiation is absorbed by the epidermis and dermis layers, so human skin basically acts as an absorbing sponge for microwave radiation. Disquieting as this may sound, it's generally considered acceptable so long as the violating wavelengths are greater than the skin layer's dimensions. But MMW's violate this condition.
        Furthermore, the sweat ducts in the skin's upper layer act like helical antennas, which are specialized antennas constructed specifically to respond to electromagnetic fields. With millions of sweat ducts, and 5G's increased RFR needs, it stands to reason that our bodies will become far more conductive to this radiation. The full ramifications of this fact are presently unclear, especially for more vulnerable members of the public (e.g., babies, pregnant women, the elderly), but this technology
        Furthermore, MMWs may cause our pain receptors to flare up in recognition of the waves as damaging stimuli. Consider that the US Department of Defense already uses a crowd-dispersal method called the Active Denial System, in which MMWs are directed at crowds to make their skin feel like it's burning, and also has the ability to basically microwave populations to death from afar with this technology if they choose to do so. And the telecommunications industry wants to fill our atmosphere with MMWs?
        Other distressing researchUnfortunately, innocent animals have already been the victims of testing to see MMW's effects on living cells. Extrapolating the results from animal testing to humans isn't straightforward, but the results nonetheless raise some serious red flags. Perhaps most significantly, a US National Toxicology Program study noted that male rats exposed to RFR for nine hours a day over two years developed rare forms of tumours in the brain and heart, and rats of both sexes developed DNA damage.
        The researchers noted that the increased risk to the rats was relatively small; but if these findings translate to humans, the widespread increase in cellphone use could have a significant impact on populations. Thus the NTP study served to renew the debate about the potential harmful effects of cellphones on human health. Not only that, it caused a significant shift in the American Cancer Society's understanding of radiation and cancer, and sparked them to state that our ignorance of RFR's impact on human health could be compared to our previous obliviousness to the connection between smoking and lung cancer.
        Other animal research worldwide illustrates how microwave radiation in general and MMW's in particular can damage the eyes and immune system, cell growth rate, even bacterial resistance. An experiment at the Medical Research Institute of Kanazawa Medical University showed that 60GHz millimeter-wave antennas produce thermal injuries in rabbit eyes, with thermal effects reaching below the eye's surface. This study, meanwhile, suggests low-level MMW's caused lens opacity''a precursor to cataracts''in rats' eyes. A Chinese study demonstrated that eight hours' of microwave radiation damaged rabbits' lens epithelial cells. A Pakistani study concluded that exposure to mobile phone EMF prevented chicken embryo retinal cells from properly differentiating.
        This Russian study revealed that exposing healthy mice to low-intensity, extremely high-frequency electromagnetic radiation severely compromised their immune systems. And a 2016 Armenian study concluded that low-intensity MMW's not only depressed the growth of E. coli and other bacteria, but also changed certain properties and activity levels of the cells. The same Armenian study noted that MMW interaction with bacteria could lead to antibiotic resistance''distressing news, considering immunity to bacteria is already compromised due to the overuse of antibiotics.
        Again, if these findings translate to humans, our rampant cellphone use would likely cause profound, adverse health effects; an increase in MMW's as more bandwidth is introduced could further complicate the matter. But what's also important to note here is that 5G technologies will not only have a profound impact on human health, but on the health of all living organisms it touches, including plants, as we shall see.
        5G harms the planet, tooEqually disturbing, 5G technology puts environmental health at risk in a number of ways. First, MMWs may pose a serious threat to plant health. This 2010 study showed that the leaves of aspen seedlings exposed to RFR exhibited symptoms of necrosis, while another Armenian study suggested low-intensity MMW's cause ''peroxidase isoenzyme spectrum changes''''basically a stress response that damages cells''in wheat shoots. Plant irradiation is bad news for the planet's flora, but it's bad news for us, too: it could contaminate our food supply.
        Second, the 5G infrastructure would pose a threat to our planet's atmosphere. Network implementation will require the deployment of many, short-lifespan satellites via suborbital rockets propelled by hydrocarbon rocket engines. According to this 2010 California study, launching too many of these babies will vomit enough black carbon into the atmosphere to pollute global atmospheric conditions, affecting distribution of ozone and temperature. Worse, solid-state rocket exhaust contains chlorine, an ozone-destroying chemical. How can any government seriously concerned about climate change allow for this?
        Third, 5G will potentially threaten natural ecosystems. According to several reports over the last two decades''some of which are summarized here''low-level, non-ionizing microwave radiation affects bird and bee health. It drives birds from their nests and causes plume deterioration, locomotion problems, reduced survivorship and death. And bee populations suffer from reduced egg-laying abilities of queen bees and smaller colony sizes. More evidence of ecosystem disruption comes from this 2012 meta-study, which indicates that 593 of 919 research studies suggest that RFR adversely affects plants, animals and humans.
        It bears repeating: 5G is bad news for all living creatures and the planet we share.
        Beware the propaganda delugeDespite being fully aware of all these unsettling results, threats and concerns, the US corporatocracy continues to maintain a gung-ho attitude about 5G. The Mobile Now Act was passed in 2016, and many US states have since gone ahead with 5G plans. The telecom industry's biggest players have basically co-opted government powers to enforce their 5G agenda, with companies like AT&T and Qualcomm having begun live testing. And despite research showing serious threats to humans and the planet, the FCC Chairman announced intentions to open low-, mid- and high-frequency spectrums, without even mentioning a single word about the dangers.
        They're going to sell this to us as 'faster browsing speeds' '' but the truth is, you'll barely even notice the difference. They're going to call anyone who protests against 5G a 'Luddite' or 'technophobe'. But why such a willingness to embrace another new technology '' even though it carries serious risks and brings spurious benefits? Why not heed the lessons learned from killer products like asbestos, tobacco and leaded gasoline?
        Because a tiny percentage of people will gain an awful lot of money, is one reason. And because companies and governments will be given unprecedented amounts of power over civilians is the other.
        All isn't doom and gloom, though. At least one US politician is maintaining some level-headedness: in October, California Governor Jerry Brown stopped legislation that would have allowed the telecom industry to inundate the state with mini-towers. Brown's bold actions have permitted localities a say in where and how many cell towers are placed.
        The state of Hawaii has stopped 5G and smart meters by collectively threatening to charge every person who installed such meters with liability for any health problems residents may suffer. Moreover, 180 scientists have started a petition to warn of 5G potential health effects. Maybe these actions will afford more time for additional studies and data collection. Just as importantly, maybe they'll cause other politicians and figureheads to reflect on what they've been pushing for.
        Take actionIn the meantime, we as individuals must do everything we can to protect ourselves. Here's what you can do:
        Understand EMFs and their behaviours. Get a good quality radiation detector to know whether or not you're near high levels of EMFs.Protect yourself with an EMF Shield to mark and protect you from hotspots. Try a patented product that neutralizes the harmful effects of mobile phones and other EMF emitting devices on humans.Whenever possible, limit your exposure: use an anti-radiation headset or speaker mode while talking on a cellphone.Refuse to use 5G phones and devices. Full stop. And discourage those you know from doing so.Refuse to buy anything 'smart' '' 'smart' appliances, 'smart' heaters, etc.Some believe that carrying shungite crystals can offer some protection from radiationNo matter what, do NOT get a smart meter '' these put high levels of 5G radiation right in your homeJoin the growing numbers of dissenters. Get active with them here.Do as the Hawaiians have done and threaten smart meter and 5G tech installers with liability. You can learn how to do that here.Spread the word! Please share this article with everyone you knowEven if the policy drivers and governments aren't doing their due diligence, at least we can say we're doing ours.
        Sources
        http://www.cellphonecancer.com/the-looming-health-risks-of-5g-technology/
        https://www.electricsense.com/12399/5g-radiation-dangers/
        http://thehill.com/opinion/technology/357591-public-health-is-littered-with-examples-where-economic-interests-trumped
        http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-cellphone-5g-health-20160808-snap-story.html
        https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/how-might-cellphone-signals-cause-cancer
        https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/major-u-s-study-links-cellphone-exposure-to-cancer-in-rats
        http://www.saferemr.com/2016/05/national-toxicology-progam-finds-cell.html
        This site uses affiliate links with brands we trust, and if you make a purchase using a link, we may receive a commission.
        Did you enjoy this post? Want to show your gratitude? Please support us on Patreon!
        Become a Patron
        This site uses affiliate links with brands we trust, and if you make a purchase using a link, we may receive a commission.
      Here's how 5G is going to change your life | South China Morning Post
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Sat, 19 Jan 2019 22:27
        5G was the buzzword at the Mobile World Congress, the biggest annual conference and exhibition for the mobile industry, held this week in Barcelona, Spain.
        Companies plastered the venue halls with prominent slogans, from ''5G is now'', ''Leading 5G innovation'' and ''Network towards 5G'' to ''5G is happening faster than we expected''.
        Those catchphrases about the next generation of ultra-fast wireless technology may mean little to most people outside the mobile industry.
        Yet 5G is what will enable a lot of the science fiction-like technologies being talked about today, such as autonomous cars and smart cities.
        How fast is fast?
        On a 5G network, a connected car travelling at 100 kilometres per hour (62 miles per hour) will have moved just 2.8 centimetres, or little more than inch, from the time it detects an obstacle to when it activates the brakes, according to estimates by Huawei Technologies.
        That could be the difference between life and death.
        Today's 4G networks are unsuitable for the quick response times needed in autonomous driving.
        Smartphone users will be able to send ultra-high 4k resolution video within a few seconds. Bandwidth-hungry video games, augmented and virtual reality technologies will be seamless, offering a more immersive experience.
        A 5G network will be able to support the increasing number of connected devices around the world, from fitness-tracking watches to internet-linked television and computer systems that run a city's traffic lights.
        How soon will 5G be rolled out?
        The first commercial 5G networks should start coming online from 2020, according to the International Telecommunications Union.
        Many mobile network operators are conducting 5G trials in cities from Tokyo, Seoul, Hong Kong and Yinchuan in northwestern China to San Francisco in the United States and Frankfurt in Germany.
        Will the roads be filled with self-driving cars once 5G is rolled out?
        Not quite.
        Autonomous cars and other mobility services require more support infrastructure than your smartphone.
        Self-driving cars require sensors, artificial intelligence and roadside base stations for connectivity to allow vehicles to ''talk'' to each other and avoid collisions or hit pedestrians.
        These equipment may need to be deployed at the street level on lamp posts or traffic lights.
        When can I buy 5G smartphones?
        One of the first 5G smartphones is expected to be launched in the second half of this year by Huawei, China's biggest smartphone brand.
        The release of a range of 5G smartphones that can also work on existing 4G networks is widely expected later next year, after the standards are set and spectrum is allocated.
        About 1 billion people globally are likely to use 5G mobile services within five years, leading to US$12.3 trillion in worldwide economic output by the mid-2030s, according to estimates from Ericsson and IHS Markit.
      China's Global Control of 5G Could Be a Cyber Pearl Harbor for US
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Sat, 19 Jan 2019 22:25
        WASHINGTON'--China is determined to control fifth-generation wireless technology (5G) networks, posing a threat to American telecommunication firms and raising national-security concerns. To win the next-generation mobile race, the U.S. government has to act fast, an expert warns.
        Cyberspace is considered the fifth strategic domain of warfare, along with land, sea, air, and space. And the Chinese are on the verge of dominating this domain. The Chinese government is heavily investing in 5G networks and significant state subsidies are part of the communist regime's comprehensive industrial blueprint to beat competition and cement global dominance in the 5G race.
        Declan Ganley, an Irish telecommunications entrepreneur and founder of Rivada Networks, likens China's threat to Pearl Harbor. Seventy-seven years ago, the Japanese attacked the U.S. naval base at Pearl Harbor in Hawaii, drawing the United States into World War II.
        ''We're at one of those moments in history where you need to know what's right in front of you,'' he said.
        On a Sunday morning before the Japanese assault, U.S. Army radar operators actually did spot a large number of fast-approaching aircraft, Ganley explained. However, they decided it was some U.S. B-17 planes that were due in from the mainland and ignored them.
        Similarly, Americans today don't realize what's on the screen coming at them, he said. ''It's hiding in plain sight now, and to defeat it, you have to act now.''
        Washington has barred China's two largest telecommunications equipment makers, Huawei and ZTE, from selling network equipment in the U.S. market, citing national-security risks. It also has sought to deter foreign allies from buying 5G services from Chinese companies.
        The Chinese government and telecom operators, however, are working hard to be at the forefront of equipment production for this new technology. According to the consulting firm Deloitte, China has exceeded the United States in mobile technology spending.
        ''Looking forward, China's five-year economic plan specifies $400 billion in 5G-related investment,'' a Deloitte report said, adding that China's strategy is creating a ''5G tsunami'' and making it harder for America to catch up.
        New EraFifth-generation technology marks the beginning of a new era in the wireless industry. It will replace the fourth-generation mobile (4G) network. It has the potential to change our lives by greatly increasing data speeds and transforming the internet. It also enables widespread device connectivity through the internet of things.
        The new technology is not just for phones. Industrial machines, farming equipment, cars, and many other devices will be using 5G technology in the future as well.
        ''It's going to touch every aspect of our lives. And this domain is the cyber domain,'' Ganley said.
        ''That's where the Pearl Harbors of the future will take place. And whoever dominates the architecture of 5G has got enormous strategic security and, frankly, economic advantage.''
        5G and subsequent technologies are expected to bring trillions in economic benefits. Faster data transmission and more reliable connectivity may improve productivity growth across the economy.
        It's a ''technology shift that has the potential to add at least between 0.75 and over 1 percent to GDP of any given country in any given year,'' Ganley said. ''That's a big economic shift.''
        Chinese StrategyInternational 5G standards will be set by 2019 and large-scale commercial deployment is expected by 2020. U.S. and Chinese companies are engaged in a fierce competition to secure first-mover advantage in the race.
        Beijing has recognized 5G's enormous economic advantages and identified it as a national priority in its blueprint ''Made in China 2025.'' Hence, the Chinese regime supports the efforts of its mobile carriers and equipment manufacturers.
        Presently, U.S. firms such as Qualcomm, Intel, Cisco, Amazon, and Google are global leaders in next-generation network development. China's state-led policies, however, weaken America's competitiveness.
        According to Ganley, Beijing has spotted an opportunity to dominate the cyber domain globally. To build 5G networks, China has been using mobile carriers around the world as its Trojan horses that do the lobbying for the Chinese, he said.
        ''It's a brilliant plan, and it has almost worked,'' he said.
        The mobile carriers want Chinese technology because it is cheaper and subsidized by the Chinese government. They aren't bothered by the strategic concerns, he explained.
        The recent arrest of Huawei Chief Financial Officer Meng Wanzhou by Canadian authorities, however, creates a big challenge for the Chinese. Governments around the world consider the company an important tool for China's communist regime.
        ''Can Huawei be trusted to deliver vital national infrastructure in any given country around the world given the top-down nature of the Chinese Communist Party and the way that it operates? And I think that question answers itself,'' Ganley said.
        To win the 5G competition, the United States has to fix the vulnerabilities in the mobile business model that the Chinese have been exploiting for years, according to Ganley. The companies write massive upfront checks to governments for spectrum, and that affects their financial ability to compete with Chinese companies, he argues.
        Western governments need to change their business model by creating wholesale markets for capacity, similar to the electricity industry where the government still owns the spectrum, he explained.
        ''If you do that, you can destroy the Chinese advantage,'' he said.
        Follow Emel on Twitter: @mlakan
      The War For The World's 5G Future
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Sat, 19 Jan 2019 21:06
        The "hidden hand" controlling the future of 5g communication network systems.
        Today America is locked in a struggle for high-tech supremacy with China. The battlefields range from lasers, hypersonic weaponry, and advanced unmanned systems for the military, to artificial intelligence, robotics, quantum computers and even driverless cars in the civilian sector. One is transparently clear: whoever wins this struggle will become the dominant superpower in the 21st century; and one of the most decisive contests will be over 5G wireless.
        Fifth-generation or 5G technology is much more than the future of global telecommunications, offering more bandwidth than anyone ever imagined (think of downloading entire movies in a few seconds) and enough to make the Internet of Things a daily reality. The rollout of 5G also demands billions of dollars to install the fiber-optic networks needed for these high-capacity systems, and billions more to operate them. Which companies and which countries design and invest in this new infrastructure, will have a hefty say in not only how 5-G transmits information, but also how others are to access the system. If it's China, the results could be bad not only for American and European companies used to dominating telecommunications, but for freedom itself.
        On October 4 Vice-President Mike Pence spoke at the Hudson Institute and warned, ''Through the 'Made in China 2025' plan, the [Chinese] Communist Party has set its sights on controlling 90 percent of the world's most advanced industries, including robotics, biotechnology, and artificial intelligence, '' including 5-G; as part of Beijing's plan to emerge as the dominant superpower in the 21st century.
        The same day Pence spoke, Bloomberg broke a story regarding a California-based company called Supermicro, where Chinese subcontractors have been stealthily installing back doors in mother boards for advanced hardware systems for years. It's a sobering warning of what can happen if China's telecom giants, who operate at the behest of the Chinese military-intelligence-complex, dominate the future of 5G.
        That dominance already happening. As noted, 5G relies on fiber-optic networks which are very expensive to install and require an infrastructure investment of tens of billions of dollars. Here comes China, offering to build and install those networks at bargain prices, with workers and engineers eager to help. This allows bidders in government auctions of bandwidth for 5Gs to overbid, knowing that Chinese vendors will not only build the networks for bargain prices.
        The result is a growing number of countries who are adopting or at least rolling out Chinese versions of 5G while the US fails to act. To date at least one telecom operator in 48 countries has an agreement or has announced testing of gear made by Chinese IT giant Huawei, which has notorious ties to China's military and intelligence agencies. Ten countries have announced deals to starting using Huawei gear in their 5G networks, including the UK, Portugal, Italy, Mexico, the Philippines, and most recently, Saudi Arabia.
        In Italy's case, the government conducted their 5G spectrum auction and raised a surprising $7.6 billion. The reason was bidders were willing to overbid knowing that not only would Chinese contractors build the network cheaply, but they could get Chinese financing to complete the deal. In short order Huawei emerged as the clear winner, working with Italian mobile operator TIM and broadband provider Fastweb. On September 25 Italy's deputy prime minister ''cut the ribbon'' for TIM and Fastweb's first 5G base station for commercial use, featuring Huawei's end-to-end (E2E) 5G equipment.
        What happened with Italy could well happen with Britain, where Huawei has secured three contracts to build 5-G ''test'' networks. Another American ally in Europe, Germany, could be next.
        It is worth remembering that controlling how data is moving through these expanded broadband networks, as Huawei's E2E equipment does, makes it a relatively easy step to controlling what gets moved'--and to whom. The Supermicro story suggests that one unwanted destination might be China's spy agencies. And if 5G really is the key to development of the Internet of Things, that development could well be held hostage to the priorities of Chinese companies as well as those companies' hardware, and to their ultimate masters in Beijing'--with fewer and fewer countries able to escape their grasp.
        Given the Chinese success in spreading their 5G technology, there may be very little time to get the rest of the world to shift direction. Right now only the US and Australia have an outright ban on using Huawei (Canada still has not joined the ban). By the time the World Mobile Congress meets in late February, it may be already too late.
        Fortunately, there is still time for the US to make its move. It can end the current impasse on 5G standards and practices which has stalled out further technical and commercial developments, and it can mobilize our domestic telecoms'--AT&T, T-Mobile, Verizon, and the like'--to rally behind a new plan on how to divide 5G bandwidth so that it can made affordable and accessible without relying on Chinese sub-contractors to provide the price break. Otherwise our telecoms will face the same unpalatable choice our allies are currently facing: either jump on the China bandwagon or get left behind.
        Time is short; but the agenda is clear. The US needs to put pressure on allies, including the EU, and our own telecoms, to come up with a better plan for building 5G'--before the future of wireless carries a single brutally simple message: ''Made in China.''
      The signatories '' 5G Appeal 5G Appeal
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Sat, 19 Jan 2019 21:04
        Signatories to Scientists' 5G Appeal
        Note: The endorsements are personal and not necessarily supported by the affiliated universities or organizations.
        Signatories by January 17, 2019: 218
        EU and European Nations
        ARGENTINA
        Medardo Avila Vazquez, MD, Pediatrician and Neonatologist, Professor, Chair of Pediatric ClinicFaculty of Medical Sciences, National University of Cordoba
        Chair of Pediatrics of the Faculty of Medical Sciences of the National University of Cordoba,
        AUSTRIAGerd Oberfeld, MD, Public Health Officer, Salzburg
        BELGIUM
        Marie-Claire Cammaerts, Dr, retired, Free University of Brussels, Bruxelles
        Andr(C) Vander Vorst, Prof. em. Belgium
        BULGARIA
        Marko Markov, Professor Emeritus, Ph.D. in biophysics, Sofia University, Research international
        CYPRUS
        Stella Canna Michaelidou, Dr, Chemist Expert on Environment, Health and Food Safety, President of the Cyprus National Committee on Environment and Children's Health
        FINLAND
        Marjukka Hagstr¶m, LL.M, M.Soc.Sc., Senior researcher, The Finnish Electrosensitivity Foundation, Turku
        Osmo H¤nninen, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Physiology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Eastern Finland; Editor-In-Chief, Pathophysiology, Kuopio
        Juhani Lehtonen, MD. Physician, Specialist in internal medicin, Vora
        Georgiy Ostroumov, PhD (in the field of RF EMF), independent researcher
        Marjo Valonen, M.D., Medical Director, Astris Medical, Helsinki
        FRANCE
        Marc Arazi, MD, Physician (Whistleblower on Phonegate international scandal), Nogent-sur-Marne
        Dominique Belpomme, MD, MSc, Full Professor in Medical Oncology; Director of ECERI, Paris University, Paris & European Cancer and Environment Research Institute, Brussels
        Philippe Irigaray, PhD, Scientific Director, Association for Research on Treatment against Cancer (ARTAC), Paris; European Cancer and Environment Research Institute (ECERI), Brussels
        Vincent Lauer, Ing. ECP, Independent Researcher, La Chapelle sur Erdre
        Annie J Sasco, MD, DrPH, Former Director of Research, French National Institute of Healthand Medical Research, Former Chief of Epidemiology for Cancer Prevention at the International Agency for Research on Cancer and Former Acting Chief of Program for Cancer Control, World Health Organization, Bordeaux
        GERMANY
        Franz Adlkofer, MD, Professor, Pandora-Foundation for Independent Research
        Christine Aschermann, MD (retired) member of the Kompetenzinitiative e.V., Leutkirch
        Mario Babilon, Dr. rer. nat., Professor, Baden-Wuerttemberg Cooperative State University Stuttgart
        Wolf Bergmann, Dr. med., Kompetenzinitiative zum Schutz von Mensch, Umwelt und Demokratie e.V., Freiburg
        Rainer Frentzel-Beyme, MD, Professor emeritus, University of Bremen.
        Helmut Breunig, Diploma degree in forestry, Specialty: Radio frequency injuries on trees around phone masts, Osterode am Harz
        Klaus Buchner, Dr. rer. nat., Professor, MEP '' Member of the European Parliament, Kompetenzinitiative zum Schutz von Mensch, Umwelt und Demokratie e.V., M¼nchen
        Horst Eger, Dr. med., rztlicher Qualit¤tszirkel ''Elektromagnetische Felder in der Medizin '' Diagnostik, Therapie, Umwelt'', Naila
        Karl Hecht, Dr, Professor of pathophysiology and neurophysiology (Emeritus of the Medical center Charite), Berlin
        Peter Hensinger, MA, diagnose-funk, consumer protection organisation, Stuttgart
        Markus Kern, Dr. med., Kompetenzinitiative zum Schutz von Mensch, Umwelt und Demokratie e.V., Kempten
        Florian M. K¶nig, Dr.Sc. Man. Dir. & Science Header of the Company/Institute ''Florian K¶nig Enterprises GmbH''
        Andrea Leute, Dr. med., rzteinitiative Mobilfunk Allg¤u-Bodensee-Oberschwaben, 'berlingen
        Martin Lion, Dr. med., Allgemeinmedizin '' Hom¶opathie, Ulm
        Peter Ludwig, Dr. phil., Kompetenzinitiative zum Schutz von Mensch, Umwelt und Demokratie e.V., Saarbr¼cken
        Willi Mast, Dr., Arzt f¼r Allgemeinmedizin und Innere Medizin, Gelsenkirchen
        Joachim Mutter, Dr. med., Paracelsus Clinic / Switzerland, Kompetenzinitiative zum Schutz von Mensch, Umwelt und Demokratie e.V., Murg
        Gertraud Teuchert-Noodt, Dr., Professorin der Neurobiologie i.R., Universit¤t Bielefeld
        Peter Ohnsorge, Dr. med., European Academy for Environmental Medicine
        Karl Richter, Dr. phil., Professor, Kompetenzinitiative zum Schutz von Mensch, Umwelt und Demokratie e.V., St. Ingbert
        Claus Scheingraber, Dr. med. dent., German Working Group Electro-Biology, Brunnthal,
        Cornelia Waldmann-Selsam, Dr.med., Competence Initiative for the Protection of Humanity Environment and Democracy e.V., Bamberg
        Werner Thiede, Dr. theol., Professor, Pfarrer der Evangelisch-Lutherischen Landeskirche in Bayern und Publizist, Neuhausen
        Helmut Wagner, Dr. med., Ophthalmologist, Stuttgart
        Harald Walach, Professor, PhD in psychology, PhD in theory and history of science, Change Health Science Institute, Berlin; affiliation: Witten-Herdecke University, Poznan Medical University, Poland
        Ulrich Warnke, Dr.rer.nat., Academic Superior Council (retired) University of Saarland
        Isabel Wilke, Diplom-Biologin, Editor ElektrosmogReport, Kassel/Berlin
        Roland Wolff, Dipl.-Phys., Medical Physicist, Bremen
        Ortwin Zais, PhD (Dr. med.), European Academy for Environmental Medicine
        GREECE
        Christos Georgiou, PhD, Member, Scientific Secretariat of ICEMS; Professor of Biochemistry, Biology Department, University of Patras, Patras
        Theodore P. Metsis, PhD, Electrical, Mechanical, Environmental Engineer, Consultant, Athens
        ITALY
        Domenico Agrusta, Medicine and surgery, specialist in dentistry (Odontostomatologia) selfemployed, Member of ISDE, Taranto
        Fernanda Amicarelli, Full Professor in Applied Biology, Department of Life, Health and Environmental Sciences, University of L'Aquila, L'Aquila
        Fiorella Belpoggi, Dr., Director, Research Department, Ramazzini Institute, Bologna
        Sergio Bernasconi, Full Professor of Pediatrics, former Director, Pediatric Department, Editor emeritus: Italian Journal of Pediatrics, University of Parma
        Dr Franco Berrino, MD, PhD, former Director, Department of Preventive and Predictive Medicine, Istitutonazionale dei Tumori, Milan
        Ernesto Burgio, MD, Pediatrician, ECERI '' European Cancer and Environment Research Institute (Bruxelles)
        Paolo Cardigno, MD, Medicine and Surgery, Specialist in Preventive Medicine, Parma
        Dr Franco Cherubini, Degree in medicine and surgery, Self-employed, Vetralla
        Dott. Agostino Di Ciaula, President of Scientific Committee, Italian Society of Doctors for the Environment '' ISDE Italy, Arezzo
        Dott. Andrea Cormano, MD, Italian Society of Doctors for the Environment '' ISDE, Benevento
        Ugo Corrieri, Degree in medicine and surgery at Universit Cattolica del S. Cuore, Teacher at Scuola Romana di Psicoterapia Familiare, President of ISDE-Doctors for the Environment in Grosseto, Coordinator of ISDE-Doctors for the Environment for Central Italy, Grosseto Rome
        Dr Patrizia Difonte, Physician, Surgeon, General practitioner and occupational medicine, Ass. Italiana Elettrosensibili, Lonate Pozzolo (Varese)
        Anna Maria Falasconi, Medical Doctor, Primary Care Pediatrician, National Health System, Rome
        Dott. Filippo Maria di Fava, Laurea in Medicina e Chirurgia, Libero professionista, Roma
        Dr. Mario Frusi, MD, medico, Cuneo
        Dr. Stefano Gallozzi, Astrophysician and technologist at the INAF Italian National Astrophysical Institute in the Observatory, President of the Comitato di Tutela e Salvaguardia dell'Ambiente in Monte Porzio Catone (ONLUS association), Rome
        Dott. Roberto Gava, Pharmacologist and Toxicologist, ISDE, Padua
        Teresa Pia Anna Maria Del Gaudio, Degree in Medicine and Surgery, specialist in pediatr. Medical Manager, ASL Salerno, Roccagloriosa (SA), Italy
        Valerio Gennaro, MD, PhD, Head ,Liguria Mesothelioma Registry (COR Liguria), UO Clinical Epidemiology (IST Nord '' CBA); IRCCS Policlinico Ospedale San Martino National Cancer Research Institute (IST), Genoa
        Patrizia Gentilini, Degree in Medicine ( specialization in Oncology and Hematology). ISDE (International Society Doctor's for Environment), FORLI'
        Livio Giuliani, PhD, Professor, Universit dell'Abruzzo '' Corso di Laurea in Fisiatria, Chieti
        Anna Guzzardo, General practitioner, ASP Palermo, Villafrati (PA)
        Angelo Levis, PhD. Professor, Biologist, University of Padua
        Roberto Lucchini, MD, Professor of Occupational Medicine, University of Brescia
        Salvatore Magaz¹,PhD, Full Professor of Experimental Physics, Dipartimento di Scienze Matematiche e Informatiche, Scienze Fisiche e Scienze della Terra, Universit di Messina
        Fiorenzo Marinelli, PhD, Institute of Molecular Genetics (IGM), National Research Council (CNR), Member of the International Commission for Electromagnetic Safety (ICEMS), Bologna,
        Antonio Maria Pasciuto, Degree in Medicine and Surgery, Specialist in Internal Medicine, President of ASSIMAS (Associazione Italiana Medicina Ambiente e Salute), Rome
        Dott. Carlo Ratti, MD, Ordine dei Medici della SPEZIA, Genova
        Ruggero Ridolfi, MD, Oncologist Endocrinologist, ISDE, Forl¬-Cesena,
        Dr. Med. Sandro Rinaldi, Laurea in medicina e chirurgia; specializzazione in Allergologia, specializzazione in Ematologia. Medico di medicina generale convenzionato con l'Azienda Sanitaria di Bolzano, Terlano (BZ)
        Massimo Melelli Roia, MD, Italian Society of Doctors for the Environment '' ISDE, Perugia
        Dott. Roberto Romizi, President, Italian Society of Doctors for the Environment '' ISDE, Arezzo
        Dott.ssa Ida Santellocco, MD, Medico chirurgo, Pediatria, medico chirurgo '' pediatra, Roma
        Massimo Scalia, Coordinator of the Bioelectromagnetism Section of CIRPS (Interuniversity Research Center for Sustainable Development)
        Alessandro Solerio, Degree in Medicine and Surgery, Self-employed, homeopath, Sanremo
        Giancarlo Spadanuda, PhD, Professor of Electronics Engineering and EMF Emissions, Special Consultant Against Electrosmog for the Supreme Court and several courts in Italy, Reggio, Calabria, Italy
        Franco Verzella, MD, physician, practice dedicated to autistic children, Bologna,
        Myriam Zucca, Dr. ssa, Medical Director, Dermatology, Cagliari University Hospital, Sardinia
        MALTA
        Pierre Mallia, MD PhD CBiol MPhil MA(Law) DipICGP MMCFD MRCP FRCGP, Professor of Family Medicine, Bioethics & Patients' Rights; Chairperson National Health Ethics Committee, Dept. of Health Coordinator Bioethics Research Programme, Univ. of Malta; President, Malta College of Family Doctors
        NETHERLANDS
        Gerrit-Jan Gerritsma, MD, Lelystad
        Hugo Schooneveld, PhD, Retired Associate professor (Wageningen Agricultural University), Advisor to the Dutch EHS Foundation, former president of 'Stichting elektrohypersensitivity', Wageningen
        PORTUGAL
        Margarida Silva Ph.D. Professor, Portuguese Catholic University, Porto
        Paulo Vale, PhD, Auxiliary Researcher, Sea and Marine Resources Department, The Portuguese Sea and Atmosphere Institute, Lisbon
        SLOVAKIA
        Igor Belyaev, PhD, Dr.Sc, Associate Professor, Cancer Research Institute, BMC SAS, Bratislava
        Jan Jakus, MD, PhD, DSc., Professor, Jessenius Faculty of Medicine, Comenius University, Martin
        Ladislav Janousek, PhD, Professor, Department of Electromagnetic and Biomedical Engineering
        Faculty of Electrical Engineering, University of Zilina, Å½ilina
        Michal Teplan, PhD, Institute of Measurement Science, Slovak academy of sciences, Bratislava
        SPAIN
        Alfonso Balmori, BSc, Master in Environmental Education, Biologist. Junta de Castilla y Le"n, Valladolid
        Jos(C) Luis Bardasano, PhD, Biologist and Physician, Prof. of Medical Bioelectomagnetism, Department of Medicine and Medical Specialties, School of Medicine, University of Alcal. Alcal de Henares, Madrid
        Pilar Mu±oz-Calero, MD, President of the Fundaci"n Alborada, Co-director of the Chair of Pathology and Environment, Faculty of Medicine, Universidad Complutense de Madrid (UCM), Madrid
        Miguel Lopez-Lazaro, PhD, Associate Professor, Department of Pharmacology, Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Seville
        Mar­a Elena L"pez Mart­n, MD, PhD, Associate Professor of Human Anatomy, School of Medicine, University of Santiago de Compostela (USC)
        Enrique A. Navarro, PhD, Professor, University of Valencia, Valencia
        Claudio G"mez-Perretta, MD, PhD, Chief of Section, Hospital Universitario La Fe, Valencia
        Ceferino Maestu Unturbe, Ph.D, Prof., Director of the Bioelectromagnetism Laboratory of the Centre for Biomedical Technology (CTB), Polytechnic University of Madrid (UPM).
        SWEDEN
        Mikko Ahonen, PhD, researcher, Sundsvall
        Michael Carlberg, MSc, Department of Oncology, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University Hospital, –rebro
        Mikael Eriksson, MD, PhD, Associate Professor, Department of Oncology, Skane University, Hospital, Lund
        Lennart Hardell, MD, PhD, retired Associate Professor, Department of Oncology University Hospiatal, –rebro. Present: The Environment and Research Foundation, –rebro, Sweden
        Lena Hedendahl, MD, Independent Environment and Health Research, Lule¥
        Olle Johansson, Associate Professor, Experimental Dermatology Unit, Department of Neuroscience, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm
        Gunilla Ladberg, PhD, Member of the Board of the Swedish association V¥gbrytaren, Liding¶
        Leif G. Salford, MD, PhD, Senior Professor of Neurosurgery, Director of the Rausing Laboratory for Translational NeuroOncology, Lund University, Lund
        Elsy-Britt Schildt, MD, PhD, Senior Consultant, Department of Oncology and Radiation, County Hospital, Kalmar
        Fredrik S¶derqvist, PhD, Epidemiologist, Centre for Clinical Research, Uppsala University, V¤ster¥s
        UK
        Erica Mallery-Blythe, MD, BMBS, Founder of PHIRE (Physicians' Health Initiative for Radiation and Environment) Trustee Radiation Research Trust, Medical Advisor ORSAA (Oceana Radiofrequency Advisory Association), Medical Advisor ES-UK, Soton
        David Gee, Visiting Fellow, Institute of Environment, Health and Societies, Brunel University, London
        Andrew Goldsworthy, BSc, PhD, Lecturer in Biology (retired), Imperial College London, Monmouth
        Isaac Jamieson, PhD, DIC, RIBA, Dip AAS, BSc(Hons) Arch., Biosustainable Design, Aberdeen, UK International Expert, Thammasat University, Pathumthani, Thailand.
        Alasdair Philips, BSc, DAgE, Professional engineer, Powerwatch
        Syed Ghulam Sarwar Shah, MBBS, MA, MSc, PhD , Post-Doctoral Research Fellow, Department of Occupational Health, Guy's and St. Thomas' NHS Trust; Honorary Research Fellow, Department of Clinical Sciences, Brunel University, London
        Sarah Starkey, PhD, Independent Neuroscience and Environmental Health Research
        Andrew Tresidder, MD, MBBS, MRCGP, Somerset
        Other Nations
        ARMENIA
        Sinerik Ayrapetyan, PhD, Professor, Life Sciences International Postgraduate Educational Center, UNESCO Chair in Life Sciences, Yerevan, Head of Research Council and Chairholder of UNESCO Chair
        AUSTRALIA
        Priyanka Bandara, PhD, Environmental Health Consultant, Castle Hill/Sydney, NSW
        Katherine Georgouras, OAM, DDM, FACD, Professor of Dermatology, (semiretired) ,Kenthurst NSW
        Ray Kearney OAM, PhD, Honorary Assoc. Professor (retired), Department of Medicine, University of Sydney
        Don Maisch, PhD, Independent researcher, author of ''The Procrustean Approach'', Lindisfarne, Tasmania
        Murray May, PhD, Independent Environmental Health researcher, Canberra
        Elena Pirogova, PhD, Associate Professor, Biomed Eng, BEng (Hons) Chem En, Discipline of Electrical and Biomedical Engineering, School of Engineering, RMIT University
        Charles Teo, AM, MBBS, Professor, Neurosurgeon, Prince of Wales Private Hospital, Randwick, NSW, Sydney
        Steve Weller, BSc, Founding member of ORSAA, Brisbane
        BRAZIL
        Orlando Furtado Vieira Filho, PhD, Professor, Cellular & Molecular Biology, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul
        Claudio Enrique Fernndez-Rodr­guez, PhD, MSEE, Professor, Federal Institute of Rio Grande do Sul, IFRS, Canoas
        Alvaro Augusto A. de Salles, PhD, Full Professor, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, UFRGS, Porto Alegre
        Francisco de Assis Ferreira Tejo (retired) D.Sc., Professor, Grupo de Eletromagnetismo Computacional e Bioeletromagnetismo, Electrical Engineering Dept, Universidade Federal de Campina Grande
        CANADA
        Luc Boucher, Ph.D. Biomed. Eng., B. Eng. Physics, Polytechnique Montreal
        Frank Clegg, CEO, Canadians for Safe Technology (C4ST); Former President of Microsoft Canada
        Magda Havas, Associate Professor, Trent University, Canada
        Paul H(C)roux, PhD, Occupational Health Program Director, Department of Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Occupational Health, McGill University Medicine, Montreal, PQ
        Anthony B. Miller, MD, FRCP, Professor Emeritus, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto,
        Malcolm Paterson, PhD, Director, Research Initiatives, BC Cancer Agency Sindi Ahluwalia Hawkins Centre for the Southern Interior, Kelowna, BC
        Michael A. Persinger, PhD, Professor, Biomolecular Sciences, Behavioural Neuroscience and Human Studies, Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ontario
        Stoyan Sarg Sargoytchev, Diploma Engineer and PhD in Physics, Retired from York University, Toronto
        H(C)l¨ne Vadeboncoeur, M.Sc, Ph.D. Childbirth researcher (retired), Qc, Canada
        CHINA
        Wenjun Sun, PhD, Professor, Bioelectromagnetics Key Laboratory, Zhejiang University, School of Medicine, Hangzhou
        Minglian Wang, M.M. , PhD, Associate Professor, College of Life Science & Bioengineering, Beijing University of Technology (BJUT), Beijing
        COLOMBIA
        Carlos Sosa, MD, University of Antioquia, Medell­n
        EGYPT
        Nasr Radwan, Prof. Dr., Cairo University, Faculty of Science, Cairo
        INDIA
        Ganesh Chandra Jagetia, Professor, Just retired from Department of Zoology, Mizoram University, Aizawl, Udaipur
        Ashish Mehta, MD, Spinal and Neurological Surgeon, Mumbai
        Girish Kumar, Professor, Electrical Engineering Department I.I.T. Bombay, Powai, Mumbai
        Sareesh Naduvil Narayanan, PhD, Assistant Professor, Department of Physiology, RAK College of Medical Sciences, RAK Medical & Health Sciences University, Ras Al Khaimah, UAE
        Praveen Kumaar Saxenaa, MBBS, DMRD, FCMT, Dr Managing Director, Hyderabad
        S. Sharma, PhD, Head, Scientist '' G & Sr. DDG, Div. of Reproductive Biology, Maternal & Child Health and Chief Project Coordinator '' EMF Health Project India, Indian Council of Medical Research, Ansari Nagar, New Delhi
        IRAN
        Amirnader Emami Razavi, PhD, Executive Manager and Principal Investigator of Iran, National Tumor Bank, Cancer Institute of Iran, Tehran University of Medical Sciences
        Dr. Masood Sepehrimanesh, PhD, Assistant Professor, Gastrointestinal and Liver Disease Research Center, Guilan Universtiy of Medical Sciences, Rasht
        ISRAEL
        Iris Atzmon, MPH, Epidemiology, University of Haifa, Author of ''The Cellular, not what you thought!'', Haifa
        Michael Peleg, M.Sc., Radio Communications Engineer and Researcher, Technion, Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa
        Elihu D Richter, MD MPH, Professor, Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Hebrew University-Hadassah School of Public Health and Community Medicine, Jerusalem
        Yael Stein, MD, Hebrew University '' Hadassah Medical Center, Jerusalem
        Danny Wolf, MD, Pediatrician, Clialit Health Services Raziel, Netanya Herzelia
        JAPAN
        Hidetake Miyata, PhD, Associate professor, Department of Physics. Tohoku University
        JORDAN
        Mohammed Saleh Al Salameh, PhD, Professor, Department of Electrical Engineering, University of Science & Technology, Irbid
        KOREA (South)
        Kiwon Song, PhD, Professor, Department of Biochemistry, Yonsei University, Seoul
        Young Hwan Ahn, MD PhD, Professor, Department of Neurosurgery, Ajou Univeristy School of Medicine, Suwon
        NEW ZEALAND
        Damian Wojcik, MD, MBChB, Medical director/ Northland Environmental health Clinic, Whangare, Northland
        Mary Redmayne, PhD, Independent Researcher, Consultant and Educator in Environmental Health (Transmitting Technology)
        NIGERIA
        Aneyo Idowu Ayisat, M.Sc., Lecturer, Environmental Biology Unit, Biological Science Department, Yaba College of Technology, Yaba, Lagos
        NORWAY
        Einar Flydal, cand.polit. & Master of Telecom Strategy, retired senior adviser Telenor Research and Development, Oslo,
        OMAN
        Dr Najam Siddiqi, MBBS, PhD, Associate Professor of Anatomy, Oman Medical College, Sohar
        POLAND
        Tomasz Winnicki, Ph.D., D.Sc., professor, Karkonosze College, Rector-Senior (former President)University School of Applied Sciences in Kalisz (PWSZ)
        Karolina M. ZieliÅska-Dabkowska, Asst. Prof. Dr., Co-founder & Co-director of GUT LightLab, Gdansk University of Technology (GUT), Gdansk
        RUSSIAN FEDERATION
        Yury Grigoriev, Professor, M. Dr Sci., Federal. Medical Biophysical Center, Moscow
        Maxim V. Trushin, PhD, Associate Professor, Kazan Federal University, Kazan
        SWITZERLAND
        Daniel Favre, Dr. phil., Biologist, Independent Researcher, Brent
        Peter Meier, MD, Facharzt f¼r Innere Medizin FMH, M.Sc. Pr¤ventivmedizin, Mitglied der European Academy for Environmental Medicine, Sissach
        Michaela Gl¶ckler, MD., Dr. h.c., Pediatrician, Head of the Medical Section of the Goetheanum/Dornach
        TURKEY
        Osman Cerezci, Professor Dr., Dept. Electrical-Electronics Engineering, Sakarya University, AdapazarÄ±
        Suleyman Dasdag, PhD, Prof. Dr., Biophysics Department, Medical School, Istanbul Medeniyet University, Uskudar, Istanbul
        Onur Elmas, MD, PhD, Faculty of Medicine, Dept. Of Physiology, Mugla Sitki Kocman University, Mugla
        Ayse Inhan Garip, Assoc. Prof., School of Medicine, Biophysics Dept., Marmara Univ., Istanbul
        Suleyman Kaplan, PhD, Professor, President of Turkish Society for Stereology, Board member of Journal Chemical Neuroanatomy (Elsevier), Board member of Journal of Microscopy and Ultrastructure (Elsevier), Department of Histology and Embryology, Ondokuz MayÄ±s University, Samsun
        Fulya Kunter, Assistant Professor Dr., Dept. Electrical-Electronics Engineering, Marmara University, Istanbul
        Selim Åžeker, Professor Dr., Department of Electrical-Electronics Engineering, Bogazici University
        Bahriye Sirav Aral, PhD, Ass. Professor, Gazi University Faculty of Medicine, Dept of Biophysics, Ankara
        Nesrin Seyhan, Prof. Dr., Gazi University, Medical Faculty, Founder Head, Biophysics Department, Founding Director, Gazi Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection Centre (GNRK), Ankara
        UKRAINE
        Olexandr Tsybulin, PhD, Department of Biophysics, Bila Tserkva National Agrarian University
        Igor Yakymenko, Prof. Dr, Department of Biochemistry and Environmental Control National University of Food Technologies, Kyiv
        USADavid O. Carpenter, MD, Director, Institute for Health and the Environment, A Collaborating Centre of the World Health Organization, University at Albany, Rensselaer, NY
        Richard H. Conrad, Ph.D. Biochemist, EMF Research and Consulting, Hawaii
        Barry Castleman, ScD, Environmental Consultant, Garrett Park, MD
        Devra Davis, PhD, MPH, Visiting Prof. Medicine, Hebrew University, Hadassah Medical Center & Ondokuz Mayis University, Medical School (Turkey); Pres., Environmental Health Trust, Teton Village, WY
        Paul Doyon, MA, MAT, EMRS, Independent Researcher, Doyon Independent Research, CA
        Arthur Firstenberg, B.A., EMF researcher and author, president Cellular Phone Task Force, New York
        Beatrice A. Golomb, MD, PhD, Professor of Medicine, University of California, San Diego, CA
        Gunnar Heuser M.D., PhD, F. A.C.P., Emeritus at Cedars Sinai Medical Center, Formally Assistant Clinical Professor of Medicine at UCLA, El Dorado Hills, CA
        Edward M. Huff, Ph.D., MA, BS. NASA Senior Scientist (Ret.), Sunnyvale, CA
        Peter F. Infante, DrPH, Managing Member, Peter F. Infante Consulting, LLC, VA
        Toril H. Jelter, MD, MDI Wellness Center, CA
        Heidi Junger, PhD, postgraduate researcher (biology, zoology, Mag.rer.nat, Dr.rer.nat.), San Diego, CA
        Elizabeth Kelley, MA, Electromagnetic Safety Alliance, Tucson, AZ
        Henry Lai, PhD, Professor Emeritus, University of Washington, Seattle, WA
        Blake Levitt, medical/science journalist, former New York Times contributor, EMF researcher and author
        Andrew A Marino, PhD, JD, Professor, Department of Neurology (ret.), LSU Medical School, Shreveport, LA
        Trevor G Marshall, ME, PhD, Director, Autoimmunity Research Foundation, CA
        Ronald Melnick, PhD, Senior Toxicologist, (Retired RF-section leader) US National Toxicology Program, National Institute of Environmental Health Science
        Lloyd Morgan, Senior Research Fellow, Environmental Health Trust, Board Member, International EMF Alliance (IEMFA), CA
        M. J. Mortazavi, PhD, Professor of Medical Physics, Visiting Scientist, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA
        Joel M. Moskowitz, PhD, Director, Center for Family and Community Health, School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, CA
        Martin Pall, BA, PhD, Professor Emeritus (Biochemistry and basic medicine), Pullman, WA
        Jerry L. Phillips, PhD, Exec. Director, Excel Centers, Professor Attendant, Department of Chemistry & Biochemistry, University of Colorado, Colorado Springs, CO
        Camilla R. G. Rees, MBA, Health Researcher, Author ,''The Wireless Elephant in the Room''' CEO, Wide Angle Health, Sr. Policy Advisor, National Institute for Science, Law & Public Policy, NY
        Elizabeth Rovere, MA, MTS, PsyD, Faculty and Board Member, Nalanda Institute Consulting Clinical Psychologist, New School University, New York, NY, Dean's Council, Harvard Divinity School, Cambridge
        Beverly Rubik, Ph.D., President/founder, Institute for Frontier Science, Oakland, California
        Cindy Sage, MA, Sage Associates, Co-Editor, BioInitiative Reports, Santa Barbara, CA
        Eugene Sobel, PhD, Professor (Retired), University of Southern California School of Medicine, CA
        John G. West, MD, Director of Surgery, Breastlink, CA
        Cindy Russell, MD, Founding Member, Physicians for Safe Technology, CA.
        Wei-Ching Lee, MD, California Medical Association Delegate of Los Angeles county
      Physicians for Safe Technology | 5G ''Mobile'' Communications
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Sat, 19 Jan 2019 21:02
        5G and The Internet of Things:A Real Need for Speed or a Predictable Dilemma?The telecommunications industry is actively promoting and marketing 5G (or 5th Generation) Technology and the Internet of Things with glossy ads and reassuring television commercials. They promise that 5G will bring enhanced communications, jobs, and an economic boost to our cities and our nation. Researchers, physicists, biologists and physicians argue, however, that there are health, safety, environmental, privacy, security and energy use issues that have not been addressed before the widespread rollout. These scientists predict a biological, environmental as well as societal disruption resulting from this technology that will be difficult or impossible to reverse. In addition, widespread state and federal legislation to streamline deployment of 5G by removing local control on placement and fees cities can charge, will actually cause economic decline in cities with lost revenue and increased liability for harm from cell antenna, as this is an exemption wireless providers have in their insurance policies. The far-reaching Telecommunications Act of 1996 helps businesses roll out wireless and simultaneously dismisses health or environmental concerns.
        Headlines 5G and Cell PhonesThe inconvenient truth about cancer and mobile phones: We dismiss claims about mobiles being bad for our health '' but is that because studies showing a link to cancer have been cast into doubt by the industry? Mark Hertzgaard and Mark Dowie. The Guardian. July 14, 2018. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jul/14/mobile-phones-cancer-inconvenient-truthsWhy public health experts are worried about 5G, the next generation of cell network. Nicole Karlis. Salon. Dec 4, 2018.https://www.salon.com/2018/12/03/why-public-health-experts-are-worried-about-5g-the-next-generation-of-cell-network/Resistance to 5G: Roadblock to a High Tech Future or Warning of a Serious Health Risk? Conan Milner. Nov 9, 2018. https://www.theepochtimes.com/resistance-to-5g-roadblock-to-a-high-tech-future-or-warning-of-a-serious-health-risk_2705116.htmlRadiation Causes Cancer in Rats. What About Humans?An update on the science and how big telecoms emit a deadly smog of radiation. Richard Maxwell, PhD and Toby Miller, PhD. Oct 09, 2018. Psychology Today. https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/greening-the-media/201810/radiation-causes-cancer-in-rats-what-about-humansHow Big Wireless Made Us Think That Cell Phones Are Safe: A Special Investigation. March 29, 2018. The Nation. The disinformation campaign'--and massive radiation increase'--behind the 5G rollout.How Big WirelessMade Us Think That Cell Phones Are Safe. FRIGHTENING FREQUENCIES: THE DANGERS OF 5G & WHAT YOU CAN DO ABOUT THEM. Eluxe Magazine. May 2018. https://eluxemagazine.com/magazine/dangers-of-5g/Questions Raised About 5G Health Risks Months Before Sacramento Launches Service. CBS Sacramento. May 29, 2018. https://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2018/05/29/questions-raised-about-5g-health-risks-months-before-sacramento-launches-service/Radiation From Cell Phones, WiFi, are Hurting the Birds and the Bees; 5G May Make it Worse. Newsweek. Dana Dovey. 5/19/2018. Radiation from Cell Phones ;5GCybersecurity Agency Warns Of 'Extremely Dangerous' Risks Of 5G Technology. March 30, 2018. Eurasia Review. Cybersecurity Agency Warns'... Cost Of Ineffective And Uncoordinated Action On Cyber-risks Continues To Rise. Governments and businesses must act urgently to build cyber resilience as cyber-risks and the cost of inaction continue to rise. March 6, 2018. Bloomberg. Cost of ineffective and Uncoordinated Action on Cyber-risks Continues to Rise'... CPSC asks: How dangerous is the internet of things? The US Consumer Product Safety Commission is investigating the safety of internet-connected devices. March 28, 2018.CSPS asks: How'...Verizon project in Palo Alto highlights challenges in scaling small cells. June 16, 2017. Verizon Project in Palo AltoSonus and Palo Alto Networks Team Up For Mobile Security. April 22, 2017. Songs offers Palo Alto Networks with Mobile Security Ericsson wants STA for supersecret 5G tests before Verizon board meeting. January 27, 2017. Ericsson on Supersecret 5G Testing5G ''Mobile'' Technology Requires an Army of Fixed AntennasFar from being mobile, this technology will depend on thousands of fixed ''small cell'' antennae throughout cities and residential neighborhoods, about 300 meters (~1000 feet) apart. In order to function, these short wavelength radiofrquencies (6-100 Gigahertz or GHz) will be pulsing at billions of times a second (1GHz=1 Billion cycles /sec) and will be continuously emitting radiation 24 hours a day. In a addition, a newer technology which is used in the military for early warning missile radar systems, PAVE PAWS, is incorporated into these systems called phased arrays, where by more powerful built in ''beam steering'' arrays scan back and forth from tower to device and from device to tower for easier connection with an individual's movement, similar to the missile systems. Phased arrays are also used in AM and FM radio broadcast stations and proposed for automotive radar sensing. The cell phones will operate with higher power and shielding for electrical interference but no apparent shielding for the user. There has been no premarket testing for health or environmental harm. Cities across the globe are now conducting trials for 5G before full commercial rollout expected in 2018/2019. A Smart Cities Council Smart Cities Council is promoting this technology worldwide. Plug and Play Technologies, which ''brings together the best startups and the worlds largest corporations'', also promotes this untested but innovative technology. Video- The Connected Era
        Sacramento Leads the Way with 6 Antennas Already Installed and San Jose Smart City Initiative Close Behind5G Signals the Skin Through Sweat Glands Although 5G only penetrates the outer layers of skin, elements in the skin can act as a mini antennas radiating the RF frequencies deeper into the body and signaling the nervous, endocrine and immune system with broad adverse effects. There has been no pre market testing of 5G. It is assumed safe if it does not burn the skin. Like prior 2G, 3G and 4G networks, they are considered dangerous only if they heat the body. FCC guidelines are only based on heat. There has been no consideration for adverse biological effects found at non thermal levels in a multitude of studies on 2G, 3G or 4G. In addition, 5G technology has a disturbing data gap with regards to research on human or environmental safety, that is even admitted by industry. No studies done, no harm seen.
        Scientists and Physicians Call for a Moratorium on 5GScientists and physicians on the other hand have called for a moratorium on 5G with a 5G Appeal. They feel there is substantial evidence of adverse public health and environmental effects, along with the uncontested fact that there is little research on health or environmental effects of 5G technology, although research indicates there area adverse effects on skin and eyes. Similar to other toxins we are exposed to there is no premarket or post market testing.
        Dr. Martin Pall has complied a remarkable compendium on 5G scientific information and highlights the lack of appropriate agencies to consider robust research on biological effects of wireless technologies.The online book is here- 5G: Great risk for EU, U.S. and International Health! Compelling Evidence for Eight Distinct Types of Great Harm Caused by Electromagnetic Field (EMF) Exposures and the Mechanism that Causes Them
        Fiberoptic and Wires: A Safer, Faster, More Private AlternativeReports indicate that fiberoptic or cable delivery of broadband is 10 times faster than wireless and offers added benefits of privacy, security, significantly lower energy use (mitigates climate change) as well as safety for people and the environment. Other cities such as Chattanooga Tennessee have developed a fiberoptic broadband system fiberoptic broadband system with one gigabit per second over the EPB fiber network. Unfortunately, big wireless companies such as Verizon and AT&T wish to remove all barriers to their dominant business model and thus have sued cities for unfair competition, even though cites are provided broadband equality to all. Companies are going around that by allowing all service providers to use the fiberoptic for fast service. A concise and important publication which helps cities navigate the laws to provide faster, cheaper, safer and more equitable broadband service- Reinventing Wires: The Future of Landlines and Networks- is here.
        See also:PST Broadband Expansion5G Scientific Literature Cell Towers and City HallNew Legislation Cell TowersReinventing Wires: The Future of Landlines and NetworksWhat is 5G and IoT? Here is the Info5G Fiberoptic to the Home: The Smarter Option Over WirelessThere is growing concern, despite industry ads, that 5G is overrated and that the expense will not match profit margin. There is also closer scrutiny of the 5G rollout with the knowledge that underground fiberoptic networks are much more reliable than wireless networks in a fire or for emergencies.
        The exceptional publication Reinventing Wires: The Future of Landlines and Networks reviews the advantages of fiberoptic networks and why cities and municipalities are developing cable networks for local and rural areas. Community Owned Open Access MuniNetworks are the fastest growing and safer alternative to 5G antennas. Utility poles overloaded with cell antenna equipment from multiple carriers were responsible for fires in Malibu in 2007, costing about $100 million in fines. This is a more common occurrence with severe weather changes and aging poles.
        Advantages of Fiberoptic to the premises (FTTP):Fiberoptic networks are much less susceptible to congestion due to each household having a dedicated linkUnderground FTTP are less susceptible to damage from fires which are becoming more frequent.Fiberoptic To The Premises (FTTP) is not subject to terrain variability, such as trees and hills, thus is the best and most equitable method for delivery of broadband internet.Fiberoptic has faster speed, less energy use and more privacy and security than with wireless systemsFiberoptic does not emit harmful radio frequency radiation, which has been shown to harm humans,Open Access Fiberoptic systems are a win-win for industry and cities.5G Moratorium Called for by Scientists Due to Human and Environmental Threats5G: International Society of Doctors Environmental Appeal 2018
        The International Society of Doctors for the Environment states in their 5 G Appeal for a moratorium on 5G ''We believe it should be unethical to ignore the available evidence waiting a possible ''a posteriori'' demonstration of health damages in the presence of a present and potentially manageable risk for public health'.....Thus, in the respect of the precautionary principle and of the WHO principle ''health in all policies'', we believe suitable the request of a standstill for the ''5G experimentations'' throughout Europe until an adequate and active involvement of public institutions operating in the field of environmental health (health ministry, environmental ministry, national environmental and health agencies) will be effectively planned.''
        International 5G Appeal: Scientists and Doctors Warn of Potential Serious Health Effects''We the undersigned scientists and doctors recommend a moratorium on the roll-out of the fifth generation, 5G, for telecommunication until potential hazards for human health and the environment have been fully investigated by scientists independent from industry. 5G will substantially increase exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) on top of the 2G, 3G, 4G, Wi-Fi, etc. for telecommunications already in place. RF-EMF has been proven to be harmful for humans and the environment.'' 5G Appeal
        Newly Published Scientific Articles on 5G and Public Health5G: Great risk for EU, U.S. and International Health! Compelling Evidence for Eight Distinct Types of Great Harm Caused by Electromagnetic Field (EMF) Exposures and the Mechanism that Causes Them. Martin Pall PhD. 2018. Book published online with scientific references.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29655646Wi-Fi is an important threat to human health. (2018). Martin L Pall. Environmental Research. Volume 164. July 2018. Pages 405-416. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935118300355Towards 5G communication systems: Are there health implications? (2018) Di Ciaula A. Int J Hyg Environ Health. 2018 Apr;221(3):367-375. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/294026965G wireless telecommunications expansion: Public health and environmental implications. (2018) Russell CL. Environmental Research. 2018 Apr 11. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29655646Towards 5G communication systems: Are there health implications? (2018) Di Ciaula A. Int J Hyg Environ Health. 2018 Apr;221(3):367-375. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29402696Shearwood McClelland, III, MD and Jerry J. Jaboin, MD, PhD, Open Letter Regarding 5G and Need for Physician InvolvementDepartment of Radiation Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland Oregon- On 5G Technology. ''The impending rollout of fifth-generation (5G) Wi-Fi in mobile phones, augmenting the current fourth-generation (4G) technology toward making global interconnectivity between devices a reality, has been touted as a significant improvement of speed compared to current and previous wireless signaling (1) . Less well explored are the potential consequences associated with this need for speed: namely, the substantial increase in biologic exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields from the 1900-2100 MHz associated with 4G to the 3500 MHz estimated median bandwidth of 5G (2) While studies of human lymphocytes have indicated no impact of short-term (30-minute) 900 MHz exposure on DNA integrity, animal studies have demonstrated that longterm exposure to 900-1800 MHz via second-generation mobile phone radiation (48 min/d for 30-180 days) induces hippocampal damage'...
        What is the role of the medical community (particularly radiation oncology) in this arena? Are we to remain silent while focusing only on optimizing care of our immediate patients, or do we have a responsibility to utilize our clinical knowledge of radiation safety and efficacy to aid in preventing corporate profit from being the primary determinant of acceptable radiation exposure from wireless networks?'' Dr. McClelland and Dr. Jaboin Open Letter 5G-2018. International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology and Physics, Volume 101, No. 5, 2018 Pg 1274.
        5G Information Fact Sheets for PrintingEnvironmental Health Trust has created information sheets on 5G and Small Cells that have valuable information and can be shared with policy makers, community leaders and others.
        5G and Small Cells- WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW -Color Print Version
        5G and Small Cells- WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW- in Black and White Print Version
        Scientific letters on health risks from physicians and researchers on small cells.
        SaferEMR also has information on 5G ''SaferEMR 5G Moratorium and Appeal
        5G Wireless Technology: Millimeter Wave Health Effects SaferEMR.com on Millimeter Wave TechnologyShould the Internet Really Be Everything? What's Not So Smart About Out Smart Tech Future. Alison Main. Paleo Magazine Dec/Jan 2018. Should the Internet Be Everything?Santa Clara County Medical Association Article- A 5G Wireless Future
        5G Wireless Future: Will it Give us A Smart Nation or Contribute to an Unhealthy One? 2017 SCCMA Bulletin
        Review Articles Regarding HarmRadiation From Cell Phones, Wi Fi are Hurting the Birds and the Bees; 5G May Make it Worse. 5/19/18 Newsweek5G: Great Risk for EU, U.S., and International Health. Compelling Evidence of Eight Distinct Types of Harm Cause by Electromagnetic Field (EMF) Exposures and the Mechanism that Causes Them.5G From Blankets to Bullets: Phased ArraysA 5G Wireless Future-Will it Give Us a Smart Nation or Contribute to an Unhealthy One? SCCMA Bulletin June, 2017A 5G Wireless Future: Will it Contribute to an Unhealthy One? PDF with References5G Wireless Technology: Millimeter Wave Health EffectsWhat's Not So Smart About Our Smart Tech Future?Senator Patrick Colbeck Discusses the Health Risks of Wireless Technology and 5G Expansion, March 15, 2018
        Technology Business PerspectiveHere is a Technology Industry Review of their plans for the Internet of Things, Virtual Reality, self driving cars and more. Continue to scroll down for information regarding health and safety concerns.
        Industry Describes Fixed Wireless Systems Development
        In a Wireless 2020 Business Conference, Moderator of RCR Wireless News opens discussion of current plans for fixed wireless access by companies in the the initial development phase of 5G technology. They point out that this wireless system is not really mobile but depends on thousands of fixed antenna for use. Cost becomes an issue for this proposed widespread technology. They discuss different bands and characteristics for use. An interesting business perspective which does not include health or environmental effects. March 2017.
        5G Wireless Technology: Cutting Through the Hype
        Dr. Joel Moskowitz (SaferEMR.com) discusses the hype and realities of the ''Global Race to 5G'' which industry states will be 100 times faster and connect with 100 times more device in 5G Wireless Technology: Cutting Through the Hype. He also discusses the EMF Scientist Appeal to the WHO to urge reevaluation of safety standards for 2G,3G and 4G technology as well as a 5G Moratorium Appeal. Scientists and Doctors call for 5G Moratorium.
        5G Technology: Potential Risks To Human Health: Excerpts From Scientific Conference, Israel, January 2017.
        Physicist Dr. Paul Ben-Ishai discusses his research on 5G technology and how millimeter wavelengths affect human skin and sweat glands preferentially and act as helical antennas from 75 to 100 Gigahertz millimeter wavelengths.What Cities are Testing 5G in 2018?Many major cities have installed 5G test sites. There is testing for reliability of communications however no testing is performed for health or safety. They expect commercial rollout later in 2018. In the tests listed below, the 5G millimeter frequencies range from 3GHz to about 27 GHz.
        United StatesSacramento -The First City to Have 5G- Questions Raised About 5G Health Risks Months Before Sacramento Launches Service. May 29, 2018. CBS Local. https://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2018/05/29/questions-raised-about-5g-health-risks-months-before-sacramento-launches-service The City of Sacramento partnered with Verizon to offer 5G. A spokesperson told CBS13 the City of Sacramento currently has six active 5G sites- all are on SMUD utility poles:
        1731 E Street1619 E Street421 14TH Street2330 Q Street2019 21ST Street801 16TH StreetSacramento will soon initiate testing in residencies for 5G. Editor's Corner'--How the city of Sacramento got to 5G, and what it means for the rest of the U.S. April 2, 2018 FierceWireless. https://www.fiercewireless.com/tech/editor-s-corner-how-city-sacramento-got-to-5g-and-what-it-means-for-rest-u-s
        How Smart is San Jose? Silicon Valley's Biggest City Tries to Catch Up with the Digital Future. July 26, 2018. Metro Silicon Valley. Lauren Hepler. https://www.sanjoseinside.com/2018/07/26/how-smart-is-san-jose-silicon-valleys-biggest-city-tries-to-catch-up-with-the-digital-future/
        San Jose Smart City Initiative: San Jose picks three companies to make street lights 'smart,' set groundwork for 5G. Silicon Valley Business Journal. June 15, 2018. https://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2018/06/15/san-jose-picks-three-companies-to-make-street.html
        San Jose Smart City Vision. Offering Game changing technology and data-driven decision making. Office of Mayor Sam Liccardo. https://www.sanjoseca.gov/index.aspx?nid=5289
        San Jose Smart Cities and Service Improvement Committee Meetings Held Quarterly. Smart City Improvement Workplan. http://www.sanjoseca.gov/index.aspx?NID=5730
        Dallas, Waco, Atlanta- AT&T Measuring Gigabit Download Speeds Using Millimeter Wave Spectrum in 5G Tests. April 11, 2018. https://www.radiomagonline.com/trends/at-t-measuring-gigabit-download-speeds-using-millimeter-wave-spectrum-in-5g-tests
        Verizon Will Light Up Fixed 5G in 3 Markets in 2018. Nov 30, 2017 https://www.sdxcentral.com/articles/news/verizon-will-light-fixed-5g-3-5-markets-2018/2017/11/. 2018 Cites with 5G
        Verizon Testing super Fast 5G Internet With Customers in 11 Cities. Feb 22, 2017. http://fortune.com/2017/02/22/verizon-testing-5g-11-cities/. Verizon Plans 5G in 11 Cities in America
        Washington D.C. 5G Testing -Washington D.C- 5G Permit Washington DC-OET Special Temporary Authority Report
        New Jersey- 5G Testing- New Jersey''5G Permit NJ-FCC FORM 442
        WorldParis''Orange Starts 5G Testing in Paris: After successful trials in Romania, Orange begins testing 5G use cases in its home country. July 19, 2018. https://www.computerweekly.com/news/252445178/Orange-starts-5G-tests-in-Paris
        Melbourne- NBN Co To Run 5G Tests in Melbourne: Future fixed Wireless Enhancement. Ericsson. April 10, 2018. https://www.itnews.com.au/news/nbn-co-to-run-5g-tests-in-melbourne-488643
        Manilla, Philippines- Smart posts speeds of 14.97 Gbps in latest 5G tests. June 27, 2018. https://www.rappler.com/technology/news/205721-smart-5g-tests-philippines-june-2018
        Africa- MTN Takes Its 5G Tests Outdoors. May 9, 2018. http://www.connectingafrica.com/author.asp?section_id=530&doc_id=742935
        Canada and New Zealand announce major 5G tests, but national service remains years off. March 19, 2018. https://venturebeat.com/2018/03/19/canada-and-new-zealand-announce-major-5g-tests-but-national-service-remains-years-off/
        Testimony against 5G cell towersActress Ali McGraw testifies against 5G cell tower bill in Santa Fe, New Mexico.
        News Articles 5G5G Testing and Conformance Bring New Challenges. June 20, 2018. EE TimesNot in my backyard: Are cell towers coming to your neighborhood? Now that we know Charlotte will be one of just a dozen cities to get 5G from AT&T later this year, lightning-fast cell service likely isn't the only thing we're getting. WCNC. Nate Morabito. July 30, 2018
      5G Radiation Dangers - 11 Reasons To Be Concerned _ ElectricSense.pdf
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Sat, 19 Jan 2019 21:00
        5/30/20185G Radiation Dangers - 11 Reasons To Be Concerned | ElectricSensehttps://www.electricsense.com/12399/5g-radiation-dangers/1/4The Dangers Of 5G '' 1 1 Reasons To Be ConcernedThe USA is currently leading the way on 5G. At the June 2016 press conference where the FederalCommunications Commission' s (FCC) head Tom Wheeler announced the opening up of low , mid and highspectrum's. There was no mention of health ef fects whatsoever. But the dangers are real.Thousands of studies link low-level wireless radio frequencyradiation exposures to a long list of adverse biological ef fects,including:DNA single and double strand breaksoxidative damagedisruption of cell metabolismincreased blood brain barrier permeabilitymelatonin reductiondisruption to brain glucose metabolismgeneration of stress proteinsLet's not also forget that in 201 1 the World HealthOrganization (WHO) classified radio frequency radiation as apossible 2B carcinogen.More recently the $25 million National T oxicology Program concluded that radio frequency radiation of thetype currently used by cell phones can cause cancer.But where does 5G fit into all this? Given that 5G is set to utilize frequencies above and below existingfrequency bands 5G sits in the middle of all this. But the tendency (it varies from country to country) is for 5Gto utilize the higher frequency bands. Which brings it' s own particular concerns. Here is my review of thestudies done to date '' 11 reasons to be concerned.#1 '' A D EN SER S O UP O F E LE C TR O SM OGWe're going to be bombarded by really high frequencies at low , short-range intensities creating a yetmore complicated denser soup of electrosmog '' as this diagram shows.
        5/30/20185G Radiation Dangers - 11 Reasons To Be Concerned | ElectricSensehttps://www.electricsense.com/12399/5g-radiation-dangers/2/4Source: Latest on 5G Spectrum '' EMFields Ltd.To work with the higher range MMW in 5G, the antennas required are smaller . Some experts are talkingabout as small as 3mm by 3mm. The low intensity is for efficiency and to deal with signal disruption fromnatural and man-made obstacles.#2 '' E FFE C TS O N T H E S K INThe biggest concern is how these new wavelengths will affect the skin. The human body has betweentwo million to four million sweat ducts. Dr . Ben-Ishai of Hebrew University, Israel explains that our sweatducts act like ''an array of helical antennas when exposed to these wavelengths,'' meaning that we becomemore conductive. A recent New Y ork study which experimented with 60GHz waves stated that ''the analysesof penetration depth show that more than 90% of the transmitted power is absorbed in the epidermis anddermis layer.''The effects of MMWs as studied by Dr. Y ael Stein of Hebrew University is said to also cause humansphysical pain as our nociceptors flare up in recognition of the wave as a damaging stimuli. So we're lookingat possibilities of many skin diseases and cancer as well as physical pain to our skin.#3 '' E FFE C TS O N T H E E YESA 1994 study found that low level millimeter microwave radiation produced lens opacity in rats, which islinked to the production of cataracts.An experiment conducted by the Medical Research Institute of Kanazawa Medical University found that60GHz ''millimeter -wave antennas can cause thermal injuries of varying types of levels. The thermal effectsinduced by millimeterwaves can apparently penetrate below the surface of the eye.''
        5/30/20185G Radiation Dangers - 11 Reasons To Be Concerned | ElectricSensehttps://www.electricsense.com/12399/5g-radiation-dangers/3/4A 2003 Chinese study has also found damage to the lens epithelial cells of rabbits after 8 hours of exposureto microwave radiation and a 2009 study conducted by the College of Physicians and Surgeons in Pakistanconclude that EMFs emitted by a mobile phone cause derangement of chicken embryo retinal dif ferentiation.#4 '' E FFE C TS O N T H E H EA R TA 1992 Russian study found that frequencies in the range 53-78GHz (that which 5G proposes to use)impacted the heart rate variability (an indicator of stress) in rats. Another Russian study on frogs who' s skinwas exposed to MMWs found heart rate changes (arrhythmias).#5 '' IM MUNE S YSTE M E FFE C TSA 2002 Russian study examined the ef fects of 42HGz microwave radiation exposure on the blood of healthymice. It was concluded that ''the whole-body exposure of healthy mice to low-intensity EHF EMR has aprofound effect on the indices of nonspecific immunity''.#6 '' E FFE C TS O N C ELL G RO W TH R ATE SA 2016 Armenian study observed MMWs at low intensity , mirroring the future environment brought about by5G. Their study conducted on E-coli and other bacteria stated that the waves had depressed their growth aswell as ''changing properties and activity'' of the cells. The concern is that it would do the same to humancells.#7 '' E FFE C TS O N B ACTE R IA R ESIS TA NCEThe very same Armenian study also suggested that MMWs ef fects are mainly on water, cell plasmamembrane and genome too. They had found that MMW' s interaction with bacteria altered their sensitivity to''different biologically active chemicals, including antibiotics.'' More specifically, the combination of MMW andantibiotics showed that it may be leading to antibiotic resistance in bacteria.This groundbreaking finding could have a magnum ef fect on the health of human beings as the bandwidth isrolled out nationwide. The concern is that we develop a lower resistance to bacteria as our cells becomemore vulnerable '' and we become more vulnerable.#8 '' E FFE C TS O N P LA NT H EA LT HOne of the features of 5G is that the MMW is particularly susceptible to being absorbed by plants and rain.Humans and animals alike consume plants as a food source. The ef fects MMW has on plants could leave uswith food that's not safe to consume.Think GMOs on steroids. The water that falls from the sky onto these plants will also be irradiated. A 2010study on aspen seedlings showed that the exposure to radio frequencies led to the leaves showing necrosissymptoms.
        5/30/20185G Radiation Dangers - 11 Reasons To Be Concerned | ElectricSensehttps://www.electricsense.com/12399/5g-radiation-dangers/4/4Source: https://www .hindawi.com/journals/ijfr/2010/83627Another Armenian study found that MMWs of low intensity ''invoke(s) peroxidase isoenzyme spectrumchanges of wheat shoots.'' Peroxidase is a stress protein existing in plants. Indications are that 5G will beparticularly harmful to plants '' perhaps more so than to humans.#9 '' E FFE C TS O N T H E A TM OSPH ER E A ND D EPLE TIO N O F F O SS IL F U ELSImplementation of the 5G global wireless network requires the launching of rockets to deploy satellites for5G. These satellites have a short lifespan which would require a lot more deployment than what we'recurrently seeing. A new type of hydrocarbon rocket engine expected to power a fleet of suborbital rocketswould emit black carbon which ''could cause potentially significant changes in the global atmosphericcirculation and distributions of ozone and temperature'' according to a 2010 Californian study. Solid staterocket exhaust contains chlorine which also destroys the ozone.The effects on the ozone are thought to be worse than current day CFC exposure.Google's Project Loon is said to bring Internet to rural and hard-to-access areas by using helium balloons.But these balloons only have a 10-month lifespan. W e're looking at a lot of helium being used here, morethan what we can possibly have on Earth?#10 '' D IS R UPTIO N O F T H E N ATU RAL E C O SYSTE MSince the year 2000, there have been reports of birds abandoning their nests as well as health issues like''plumage deterioration, locomotion problems, reduced survivorship and death,'' says researcher AlfonsoBalmori. Bird species that are af fected by these low levels, non-ionizing microwave radiation are the HouseSparrows, Rock Doves, White Storks, Collared Doves and Magpies, among others.But it's not just the birds. The declining bee population is also said to be linked to this non-ionizing EMFradiation. It reduces the egg-laying abilities of the queen leading to a decline in colony strength.
    Ministry of Truthiness
      Facebook should treat the cause, not the symptoms, of journalism's plight - Columbia Journalism Review
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Sun, 20 Jan 2019 12:36
        Facebook's pop-up installation in Bryant Park in Manhattan. Photo: Sam ThielmanAt some point over the past year, anyone connected with journalism, its present woes, or concerns over its future probably found themselves in a room with a Facebook executive. If you were high enough up in the media food chain, you got an audience with ''Sheryl and Mark.'' Everyone else was matched with someone further down the company's food chain. In both cases, the intent was the same: a listening tour to pave the way for Facebook to put more money towards journalism.
        This week we saw what the outcome of Facebook's tour looks like: $100 million a year over the next three years for reporting projects and business model development, effectively matching Google's own $300 million pledge towards journalism almost a year ago. In fact the initiatives are so similar they even share a grantee, Report For America, which is addressing the deficit in local reporting by placing journalists in newsrooms around the country.
        Two years ago I argued that what journalism in America needed from technology companies more than anything else was a significant transfer of wealth, and to use a large endowment fund to rethink support for and development of civic media. So are the individual and collective efforts of large Silicon Valley companies to fund newsrooms since then what journalism needs?
        READ: A German investigative team teaches us about algorithmic accountability
        In response to Facebook's announcement this week, UK journalist James Ball argued in CJR that not only was it wrong for technology companies to fund journalism, it was also unnecessary for them to be paying reparations to an industry which had been too slow and arrogant to save itself. ''The intention behind these proposals for tech intervention is good,'' Ball writes. ''But the journalism industry needs to accept that there is no injustice in much of the revenue we lost.'' Ball contends that the arguments about how to hold technology companies to account and how to sustain ongoing financial support to newsrooms ought to be kept apart.
        Yet the argument that technology companies should be separate from journalism, however ethically right, is increasingly theoretical. In practice, that horse has not just bolted from the stable, it has run the Kentucky Derby and returned to the yard puffing and sweating. While the $300 million from Facebook and Google are small amounts compared to their yearly revenue, the two tech mega-firms still dominate user time spent with digital media, and the attendant data collection. All recommendations, both internal and external, that platform companies have implemented over the past couple of turbulent years have pointed to the companies becoming more like editorial companies and news organizations, rather than less. The promises from both YouTube and Facebook to hire more moderators and tighten practices around moderation of content are the most public manifestation of this. But it extends further, to opening up of its advertising archive around political ads and training journalists in fact checking in the Middle East and North Africa via the Facebook Journalism Project.
        The willingness to develop a higher standard for user-generated content is now universal among technology platforms that promote its creation and recirculation. No technology company is saying they will employ fewer ways of editing and moderating speech and other material that flows through their networks. In a report released by the Reuters Institute after Facebook's announcement about funding journalism, academic Timothy Garton Ash urges much greater integration with journalism or its constituent parts than we have seen before. Although not framed as such, the report urges Facebook to become a far more editorial organization. It suggests the company should replicate efforts to provide greater journalistic resources for fact-checking elections along the lines of the Verificado Project in Mexico, which was directly funded by both the Facebook Journalism Project and the Google Digital News Initiative in many more countries. Separately, the report argues that the company would benefit from tightening and describing its moderation practices more closely, that it should hire an external board of advisers on what are essentially publishing judgments, and that the company needs both more transparency and a more frequent exchange with investigative journalists and academics.
        ICYMI: Pushed Even Further: US Newsrooms View Mobile Alerts as a Standalone Platform
        Absent from both the Reuters Institute report's suggestions and from Facebook's current journalism funding scheme is the one thing journalism actually needs: a guarantee that the conditions on the platform will benefit those producing high-quality reporting, which would obviate the need for sudden cash infusions. This simple pledge might be implicit in the myriad changes that Facebook is making to its own products and business models but it is not yet explicit. If it were to make and uphold this pledge in a meaningful way, reflected by the revenues of reporting organizations, this would be far more effective than fringe funding.
        I haven't backed away from the idea of a long term endowment for journalism, particularly for local journalism, funded by those who both have the money and directly benefit from a better information environment. But in the meantime, the funding being advanced by tech companies will be wasted unless those companies both individually and collectively make themselves more hospitable to good journalism.
        Has America ever needed a media watchdog more than now? Help us by joining CJR today. Emily Bell is Director at the Tow Center for Digital Journalism at Columbia Journalism School.
    DRC / Ebola
      DRC Ebola outbreak: The worrying new developments, explained - Vox
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Sun, 20 Jan 2019 13:34
        At least 680 people have been infected with the Ebola virus in the Democratic Republic of Congo. It's the second-largest Ebola outbreak in history, with 414 deaths so far, and the first Ebola outbreak in an active war zone, DRC's eastern North Kivu and Ituri provinces.
        But it could get worse: Health officials this week are concerned that Ebola appears to be spreading in the direction of Goma, a major population center in DRC.
        Just this week, DRC's health ministry confirmed four cases of the deadly virus in Kayina, a town in North Kivu, where fighting among rebel and militia groups has repeatedly interrupted the painstaking work of health workers who are responding to the outbreak.
        Kayina happens to be halfway between Butembo, currently one of the outbreak's most worrisome hotspots, and Goma, where a million people live.
        So far, the outbreak has not affected DRC's biggest cities. But Ebola in Kayina ''raises the alarm'' for Ebola reaching Goma, Peter Salama, the head of the new Health Emergencies Program at the World Health Organization, told Vox on Friday.
        Goma is a major transportation hub, with roads and highways that lead to Rwanda. ''These are crossroad cities and market towns,'' Salama added. People there are constantly on the move doing business, and also because of the insecurity in North Kivu. Ebola in Goma is a nightmare scenario WHO and DRC's health ministry are scrambling to prevent.
        Together, they've deployed a rapid response team, including a vaccination team, to Kayina. And if the virus moves on to Goma, Salama says Ebola responders are ready. They've already mobilized teams there, set up a lab, and prepared health centers where sick people can be cared for in isolation.
        But as Ebola expert Laurie Garrett wrote in Foreign Policy this week, Ebola in Goma could also trigger a rare global public health emergency declaration by WHO, escalating the severity of an already dangerous outbreak.
        An Ebola vaccine has been no match for DRC's social and political chaos WHO When Ebola strikes, it's like the worst and most humiliating flu you could imagine. People get the sweats, along with body aches and pains. Then they start vomiting and having uncontrollable diarrhea. They experience dehydration. These symptoms can appear anywhere between two and 21 days after exposure to the virus. Sometimes patients go into shock. In rare cases, they bleed.
        The virus is spread through direct contact with the bodily fluids, like vomit, urine, or blood, of someone who is already sick and has symptoms. The sicker people get, and the closer to the death, the more contagious they become. (That's why caring for the very ill and attending funerals are especially dangerous.)
        Because we have no cure for Ebola, health workers use traditional public health measures: finding, treating, and isolating the sick, and breaking the chains of transmission so the virus stops spreading.
        They mount vigorous public health awareness campaigns to remind people to wash their hands; that touching and kissing friends and neighbors is a potential health risk; and that burial practices need to be modified to minimize the risk of Ebola spreading at funerals.
        They also employ a strategy called ''contact tracing'': finding all the contacts of people who are sick, and following up with them for 21 days '-- the period during which Ebola incubates.
        In this outbreak, there's also an additional tool: an effective experimental vaccine. Since the outbreak was declared in August, more than 61,000 people have been vaccinated. But while the vaccine has tempered Ebola's spread, it hasn't overcome the social and political chaos in DRC, which has been called the world's most neglected crisis.
        ''The brutality of the conflict is shocking,'' Jan Egeland, head of the Norwegian Refugee Council, told the Thomson Reuters Foundation, ''the national and international neglect outrageous.''
        Presidential elections have ''ratcheted up'' the tension in an already tense situationOn December 30, after years of delays, voters went to the polls to elect a new president. In the days leading up to the election, tensions in North Kivu ''ratcheted up,'' Salama said. Protesters stormed Doctors Without Borders treatment centers in Beni, a recent outbreak hotspot, shutting them down for several days.
        In January, the country's electoral commission announced interim election results suggesting opposition leader Felix Tshisekedi had likely won the election. But leaked data and external analyses show there are irregularities with the voter count that point toward election fraud.
        ''All the outside observers '-- the African Union, the European Union, the Catholic Church '-- say the results of the election have been rigged,'' and the people actually voted in Martin Fayalu for president, said Severine Autesserre, a political science professor at Barnard College, and author of the book The Trouble with the Congo. When the final results are announced in the coming days, more protests and riots are likely to follow.
        But though the political instability isn't making the Ebola response any easier, the war in Congo's eastern provinces is a far bigger challenge. The 25-year-long conflict has displaced more than a million people, and made the already dangerous work of an Ebola response even more deadly, Autesserre said.
        Between August and November, Beni had experienced more than 20 violent attacks, which put the outbreak response there on pause for days at a time. That meant cases had gone uncounted, and Ebola continued to spread.
        But there's also some more encouraging news, according to Salama: The outbreak of more than 200 people in Beni, a North Kivu town marred by decades of violence, has been brought under control.
        ''Many people would have been extremely skeptical that the outbreak in Beni could be controlled as quickly given force of infection we were seeing in November and December, and the fact that we've had nothing but volatility and insecurity since then,'' Salama said. ''But the fact that Beni has had only one confirmed case in two weeks is giving us a lot of hope and optimism.''
        As of Friday, the two biggest hotspots in the outbreak were Butembo, with 51 cases, and a neighboring city, Katwa, with 119 cases. But the outbreak is geographically dispersed. There are active Ebola cases in 12 of the country's ''health zones,'' the districts around which the DRC's health system is organized. Because of the insecurity and difficulty reaching people, only 30 to 40 percent are coming from known contact lists, Salama said. That means the virus might already be in places no one's discovered yet.
      Goma - Wikipedia
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Sun, 20 Jan 2019 13:36
        Place in North Kivu, Democratic Republic of the Congo
        Goma is the capital of North Kivu province in the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo. It is located on the northern shore of Lake Kivu, next to the Rwandan city of Gisenyi. The lake and the two cities are in the Albertine Rift, the western branch of the East African Rift system. Goma lies only 13''18 km (8.1''11.2 mi) south of the active Nyiragongo Volcano. The recent history of Goma has been dominated by the volcano and the Rwandan Genocide of 1994, which in turn fuelled the First and Second Congo Wars. The aftermath of these events was still having effects on the city and its surroundings in 2010. The city was captured by rebels of the March 23 Movement during the M23 rebellion in late 2012, but has since been retaken by government forces.
        History [ edit ] Goma at the centre of the refugee crisis [ edit ] The Rwandan Genocide of 1994 was perpetrated by the provisional Rwandan government on the Tutsi population and Hutu moderates. In response the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF), formed by Tutsi refugees in Uganda, which already controlled large areas of northern Rwanda following its 1990 invasion and the ongoing Civil War, overthrew the Hutu government in Kigali and forced it out. One of the many UN missions attempted to provide a safe zone in the volatile situation and provided safe passage for the refugees, however they were French. From June 13 to July 14, 1994, 10,000 to 12,000 refugees per day crossed the border into Goma. The massive influx created a severe humanitarian crisis[2], as there was an acute lack of shelter, food and water. However, the Za¯rean government took it upon itself to garner attention for the situation. Shortly after the arrival of nearly one million refugees [3], a deadly cholera outbreak claimed thousands of lives in the Hutu refugee camps around Goma. RPF aligned forces, mainly actors in the conflict, crossed the border and in acts of revenge also claimed several lives.
        Goma in the First Congo War [ edit ] Hutu militias and members of the Hutu provisional government were among the refugees, and they set up operations from the camps around Goma attacking ethnic Tutsis in the Kivus and Rwandan government forces at the border. For political reasons the Kinshasa government of the then Zaire led by Joseph Mobutu did not prevent the attacks, and so the Rwandan government and its Ugandan allies threw their support behind the Alliance of Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Zaire, a rebel movement led by Laurent Kabila against Mobutu. Rwandan forces stormed the camps at Goma, resulting in thousands of additional deaths, and with their help and that of Uganda, Kabila went on to overthrow Mobutu's regime in the First Congo War, which ended in 1997.
        Goma in the Second Congo War [ edit ] Within a year Kabila had quarrelled with his former allies, and in 1998 the Rwandan government backed a Goma-based rebel movement against Kabila, the Congolese Rally for Democracy (RCD, sometimes called RCD-Goma) made of Banyamulenge people, related to the Tutsis. They captured Bukavu and other towns, and the Second Congo War began. The Goma refugee camps, in which the Hutu had created a militia called the FDLR (Democratic Force for the Liberation of Rwanda), were again attacked by Rwandan government forces and the RCD.
        The Second Congo War was unprecedented in Africa for the loss of civilian life in massacres and atrocities. By 2003 the Banyamulenge had become tired of the war and friction emerged between them and Rwanda. In 2002 and 2003 a fragile negotiated peace emerged between the many sides involved in the war.
        Conflict since the end of the war [ edit ] Aerial view of Goma, October 2010
        There have been numerous outbreaks of violence since 2003. The Hutu FDLR remains in the forests and mountains north and west of Goma, carrying out attacks on the Rwandan border and on the Banyamulenge. The Congolese defence forces are unable or unwilling to stop them, and as a consequence Rwanda continues to support Banymulenge rebels such as the RCD and General Nkunda, and to carry out incursions into North Kivu in pursuit of the FDLR.[4]
        View of houses in Goma, 2014
        In September 2007 large-scale fighting threatened to break out again as the 8,000-strong militia of General Nkunda, based around Rutshuru, broke away from integration with the Congolese army and began attacking them in the town of Masisi north-west of Goma. MONUC (United Nations Mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo) began airlifting Congolese troops into Goma and transferring them by helicopter from Goma International Airport to Masisi.[4]
        On October 27, 2008, the Battle of Goma broke out in the city between the Congolese army, supported by MONUC, and Nkunda's CNDP rebels; 200,000 refugees fled the town.[5]On 3 November 2012 there was a clash between Congolese and Rwandan troops on the border just north of Goma. Goma was later seized by the M23 movement on November 20, 2012.[6] "Tens of thousands" of civilians fled the area.[7]
        Politics [ edit ] See also: List of governors of North Kivu [fr] provinceGoma is represented in the National Assembly by six deputies:
        D(C)sir(C) Konde (ARC)Jason Luneno (UNC)Butondo Muhindo (MSR)Naasson Kubuya Ndoole (COFEDEC)Elvis Mutiri (ADR)Dieudonn(C) Kambale (UDECF)List of mayors [ edit ] Francois-Xavier Nzabara Masetsa, circa 1994? ?Roger Rachid Tumbala, circa 2009? [1][chronology citation needed ]Jean Busanga Malihaseme, 2011-? [8]Kubuya Ndoole Naso, 2012-? [9]Dieudonn(C) Malere, 2015''present[10]Volcanic activity around Goma [ edit ] The Great Rift Valley is being pulled apart, leading to earthquakes and the formation of volcanoes in the area.
        2002 Eruption of Nyiragongo [ edit ] Computer image of Nyiragongo volcano generated from satellite photographs, showing the Goma-Gisenyi conurbation on the lake shore in the foreground. In the background, left, is the
        Nyamuragira volcano. Note that the vertical scale has been exaggerated.
        In January 2002, Nyiragongo erupted, sending a stream of lava 200 metres (219 yd) to one kilometre (1,100 yards) wide and up to two metres (6½ ft) deep through the center of the city as far as the lake shore. Agencies monitoring the volcano were able to give a warning and most of the population of Goma evacuated to Gisenyi. The lava destroyed 40% of the city (more than 4,500 houses and buildings). There were some fatalities caused by the lava and by emissions of carbon dioxide, which causes asphyxiation. The lava also covered over the northern 1 km of the 3-kilometre (9,800 ft) runway of Goma International Airport, isolating the terminal and apron which were at that end.[11] The lava can easily be seen in satellite photographs,[12] and aircraft can be seen using the 2-km (6,500-ft) southern section of the runway which is clear of lava.
        In 2005, volcanic activity again threatened the city.
        Currently the scientists at Goma are monitoring Nyiragongo.
        The threat posed by Lake Kivu [ edit ] Lake Kivu is one of three lakes in Africa identified as having huge quantities of dissolved gas held at pressure in its depths. Two of the others, Lake Monoun and Lake Nyos, experienced a limnic eruption or 'lake overturn', a catastrophic release of suffocating carbon dioxide probably triggered by landslides. Lake Nyos overturn was particularly lethal, killing nearly two thousand people in the area around the lake. Kivu is 2,000 times bigger than Lake Nyos and also contains dissolved methane as an additional hazard - though concentration of carbon dioxide is much lower than in Lake Nyos.[13] Nearly two million people, including the population of Goma, live in the vicinity of Lake Kivu and could be in danger from a limnic eruption triggered by one of the nearby volcanoes and the earthquakes associated with them.[14]
        The phenomena known locally as 'mazuku' has killed children even more recently.[15]
        Transport [ edit ] Goma International Airport provides domestic flights and, as of 2016, one international flight. The city lies on the Rwandan border and neighboring Gisenyi is connected to Kigali, the Rwandan capital, by road and regular buses travel between these cities in under four hours. Goma is connected to Bukavu by ferries, to Butembo, Beni, Bunia and Kisangani either by domestic flights or by road, and regular buses travel from Goma to these cities. It takes one to two days of travel,(by bus) to arrive in those cities. Security concerns on this road {Grand Nord Adventure} is more and more arranged since 2016 by local authorities.
        Climate [ edit ] K¶ppen-Geiger climate classification system classifies its climate as a tropical savanna climate (Aw).[16]
        Climate data for GomaMonthJanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDecYearAverage high °C (°F)25.6(78.1)25.7(78.3)25.7(78.3)25.4(77.7)25.3(77.5)25.3(77.5)25.2(77.4)25.8(78.4)25.9(78.6)25.7(78.3)25.3(77.5)25.4(77.7)25.5(77.9)Daily mean °C (°F)20(68)20.1(68.2)20.1(68.2)20(68)19.9(67.8)19.4(66.9)19.7(67.5)19.8(67.6)19.8(67.6)19.9(67.8)19.7(67.5)19.9(67.8)19.9(67.7)Average low °C (°F)14.4(57.9)14.6(58.3)14.6(58.3)14.7(58.5)14.6(58.3)13.6(56.5)13.1(55.6)13.9(57.0)14(57)14.2(57.6)14.1(57.4)14.4(57.9)14.2(57.5)Average precipitation mm (inches)94(3.7)84(3.3)117(4.6)119(4.7)108(4.3)55(2.2)29(1.1)70(2.8)117(4.6)143(5.6)138(5.4)118(4.6)1,192(46.9)Average rainy days161619221886815202219189Mean daily sunshine hours5555567555555Source #1: Climate-Data.org, altitude: 1531 m [16]Source #2: Weather2Travel for rainy days and sunshine[17]Other features of Goma [ edit ] The city centre is only 1 km (0.6 mi) from the Rwandan border and 3.5 km (2.2 mi) from the centre of Gisenyi.After being closed to international travel since the 2002 eruption of the volcano, the Goma International Airport now accepts commercial charter flights and also a passenger line travels from Nairobi to Goma.Goma has four or five lakeside wharves totaling about 130 m, the longest being about 80 m.Virunga National Park, home to endangered mountain gorillas, lies north of the city.National Road No. 2 connect Goma to Bukavu and Kisangani but in August 2007 had not been reopened after the damage caused by the wars and lack of maintenance.Goma was once known for its nightlife, but this is no longer the case due to the conflict.As of 2014, an art gallery had opened, featuring local woodcarving, painting, and puppets.[18]Goma hosts a Catholic priest seminar Redemptoris Mater run by the Neocatechumenal Way.[19]The roads in Goma were in poor repair for about 2 decades, and also many roads were heavily damaged from the recent volcanic lava flow disasters. Many roads are being rebuilt as of 2011, primarily by Chinese contractors and the city is being renovated either by public or private contractors.In March 16, 2013 United Nations Volunteers and the MONUSCO organised a Tshukudu race in Goma.[20]See also [ edit ] Lake KivuINNOSS'BFC MwangazaTwinning between the city of Goma and the town of Woluwe Saint-Pierre, Belgium.[21][22] More: List of twin towns and sister cities in EuropeReferences [ edit ] ^ "Goma: M23 rebels capture DR Congo city". BBC News. 20 November 2012. Archived from the original on 21 November 2012 . Retrieved 18 November 2012 . ^ Healers Without Borders, Radio Netherlands Archives, February 15, 1995 ^ The Long Wait, Radio Netherlands Archives, November 13, 1995 ^ a b "Fear of fresh conflict in Congo as renegade general turns guns on government forces." Chris McGreal, The Guardian, Monday September 3, 2007. Retrieved 3 September 2007. ^ "U.N. says recent Congo fighting uproots 200,000". CNN. 2008-10-27. Archived from the original on October 29, 2008 . Retrieved 2008-10-28 . ^ "Congolese rebels seize Goma, take airport." Melanie Goubyrukmini Callimachi, "Bloomberg BusinessWeek", Tuesday November 20, 2012. Retrieved 20 November 2012. ^ Pete Jones; Jerome Delay (23 November 2012). "Congo Violence: Tens of Thousands of Civilians Flee Goma". Huffington Post . Retrieved 23 November 2012 . ^ "Adolphe Lumanu Nomme Un Nouveau Maire La Tªte La Ville De Goma Au Nord-Kivu", Lecongolais.cd [no] (in French), 30 September 2011 ^ "RDC : le maire de Goma accuse le M23 de causer l'ins(C)curit(C) dans la p(C)riph(C)rie de sa ville", Radiookapi.net (in French), DR Congo, 27 January 2013 ^ "Dieudonn(C) Malere nomm(C) maire de Goma", Radiookapi.net (in French), 30 August 2015 ^ "Cooperative Observations at Nyiragongo Volcano in D.R. of Congo". Earthquake Research Institute, University of Tokyo. Retrieved 3 September 2007. ^ Google Earth has high resolution photographs showing the affected part of the airport at coordinates -1.658, 29.237. Retrieved 3 September 2007. ^ Halbwachs; et al. (2002-03-09). "Investigations in Lake Kivu(East Central Africa) after the Nyiragongo Eruption of January 2002: Specific study of the impact of the sub-water lava inflow on the lake stability" (PDF) . Solidarities. Archived from the original on 2008-08-17 . Retrieved 2008-08-17 . CS1 maint: BOT: original-url status unknown (link) ^ "Killer Lakes". BBC Two, Thursday 4 April 2002. Summarised at www.bbc.co.uk. ^ "NOVA - Transcripts - Volcano Under the City - PBS". www.pbs.org . Retrieved 10 April 2018 . ^ a b "Climate: Goma - Climate graph, Temperature graph, Climate table". Climate-Data.org . Retrieved 4 November 2013 . ^ "Goma Climate and Weather Averages, Congo-Kinshasa". Weather2Travel . Retrieved 4 November 2013 . ^ "Helping artists in the middle of conflict". Deutsche Welle. 2014-04-28 . Retrieved 2014-04-29 . ^ "Seminar Redemptoris Mater in Goma". Vicariatus Urbis. 2014-04-28 . Retrieved 2016-12-21 . ^ "Defeated Congo rebels surrender". Reuters / Gulf Times. 2013-03-16 . Retrieved 2014-04-29 . ^ "Inauguration du nouveau btiment de l'(C)tat civil de la mairie de Goma". wordpress.com. 9 June 2013 . Retrieved 10 April 2018 . ^ "Citizenship - Funding opportunities 2013 - Action1 - Measure 1.1 Town Twinning citizens meetings - EACEA". eacea.ec.europa.eu . Retrieved 10 April 2018 . External links [ edit ] Wikimedia Commons has media related to Goma. Goma travel guide from WikivoyageTom Casadevall of the United States Geological Survey; "The 1994 Rwandan Refugee Crisis: Cultural Awareness in Managing Natural Disasters" (1h28m streaming video). Lecture given at University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign on vulcanology around GomaJordhus-Lier, David: Life and Death in the Great Lakes Region. The NIBR International Blog, 15.02.2010. Coordinates: 1°41'²S 29°14'²E >> / >> 1.683°S 29.233°E >> / -1.683; 29.233
      Congo signs over mining millions to company owned by president's friend | Global Witness
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Sun, 20 Jan 2019 13:37
        Dan Gertler's business confirms deal but challenges valuation as Global Witness goes to press
        Global Witness today reveals that the state mining company in Democratic Republic of Congo last year signed over royalty rights in its most lucrative mining project, owned and operated by giant London-listed commodities trader Glencore, to an offshore company belonging to a friend of the president. The contract does not explain what, if anything, Congo's state mining company received in compensation for handing over these rights, and neither Gecamines nor the offshore company involved has provided a full explanation.
        Global Witness estimates that the royalties could generate as much as $880m '' more than Congo's annual health spending. Typically royalties like this are for the benefit of the population. This is especially vital in Congo, which ranks near the bottom of the UN Human Development Index and has one of the lowest rates of GDP per capita in the world.
        Under the terms of the agreement, dated January 2015, the royalties due to state mining company Gecamines from Glencore's KCC copper project in southeast Congo were assigned to an anonymous Cayman Islands company called Africa Horizons Investment Limited. Africa Horizons is part of Dan Gertler's Fleurette Group. Gertler is an Israeli billionaire mining magnate and close friend of Congolese President Joseph Kabila. He was the Congo partner of US hedge fund Och-Ziff in deals for which it was charged by US authorities for foreign corruption, eventually paying out over $400m in a settlement. Gertler has been linked to several other suspicious mining deals in Congo, some of which involved Glencore.
        ''It's troubling that the state miner Gecamines has signed away rights to potentially huge flows of cash that should go towards building Congo's future. It's even worse that it has handed them to this unknown, anonymous company belonging to an individual with a track record of suspicious deals,'' said Pete Jones, campaigner at Global Witness. ''The state mining company should be trying to make money for the Congolese people, but here it is signing away its rights to potentially huge royalties.''
        ''The contract we have seen provides no reason for Gecamines giving away these royalties. Neither Gecamines nor Gertler's representatives have told us whether Gecamines received any payment in return. It is imperative that Gecamines and Gertler explain what is behind this agreement. If they can't show that this is a good deal for Congo, there should be an investigation into what's really behind the agreement,'' said Jones.
        A spokesperson for Gertler's holding company, Fleurette, from Powerscourt public relations firm did not comment after having been granted extra time to respond to questions from Global Witness.
        As Global Witness went to press it became aware of a statement from Fleurette via Powerscourt that said the agreement between Africa Horizons and Gecamines ends in early 2019, and that this information is ''publicly available''. Powerscourt did not respond to requests to provide this information or explain where it could be located. Fleurette also said the valuation of the royalties was ''entirely wrong'' and said it had made a ''considerable loss'' on the deal.
        Glencore confirmed the transaction to Global Witness, asserting that Gecamines had ''sold its rights to certain royalties'' from its subsidiary KCC to Africa Horizon. It added that KCC was not involved in the original discussions and had subsequently ''acted in accordance with the instructions it received from Gecamines'' after having taken ''reasonable measures'' to check out the validity of the sale. Gecamines representatives did not respond to emailed questions and a phone call from Global Witness.
        At the time of the deal, KCC was Congo's third-largest copper mine by production volume and its largest tax contributor, according to statistics published by the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI). EITI reported that KCC paid royalties totalling over $63m to Gecamines in 2014, but now any such payments will go to Africa Horizons. The document seen by Global Witness suggests that royalty payments were made from KCC to Africa Horizons beginning 9 July 2014 under a separate earlier agreement. Gertler's representatives did not say how much had been transferred to date in royalties under the agreement.
        Congo is in the midst of an escalating political crisis. Kabila is obliged by the constitution to step down when his second term ends in December, but elections have been postponed and the opposition has accused Kabila of clinging to power. Riots against Kabila's government have led to the deaths of at least 80 civilians in two major protests in January 2015 and September 2016, according to Human Rights Watch. Global Witness warned in May that off-the-books sales of natural resource rights could be used to finance a political campaign.
        Update: On 17th November 2016 Global Witness published a response to a Fleurette Group statement.
    Agenda 2030
      'Blockbuster' storm heads east, could drop 40 inches of snow. Then an Arctic blast will freeze 200 million
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Thu, 17 Jan 2019 23:17
        After hammering California with rain and snow, a 'blockbuster' winter storm is taking aim on the East, where as much as 40 inches of snow could fall over the weekend. Road travel may become "impossible" due to the heavy snow; flight delays and cancellations are also likely.
        After the storm heads offshore on Sunday, the intense cold will be the main weather story as bitterly cold air straight from the Arctic will roar in, bringing below-freezing temperatures to 200 million Americans.
        As for the storm, "freezing rain, heavy snow and heavy rain are expected through the central and eastern U.S. over the next few days," the National Weather Service warned.
        On Friday, the heaviest snow will hit South Dakota, Nebraska, Minnesota, Kansas, Missouri and Iowa, AccuWeather said.
        Then, the storm will wind up and roar into the Northeast and New England on Saturday and Sunday, where the heaviest snow will fall.
        AccuWeather said 40 inches is possible in parts of northern New England, while close to 30 inches of snow may fall on parts of central and northern New York state and the northern tier of Pennsylvania. Snowfall rates could reach 2-3 inches per hour.
        The storm "will be a blockbuster in terms of impact and dangerous conditions," said AccuWeather meteorologist Alex Sosnowski.
        (C) Provided by USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Satellite Information Network, Inc. Anibal Maceira, of Hagerstown, Md., cleans snow off the roof of his car Monday morning, Jan. 14, 2019, after a winter storm brought about six inches of snow to the Tri-State area over the weekend. Snowfall of 12-24 inches is likely to be more common in the heaviest band from the storm, AccuWeather forecasts. But blowing and drifting at the height and conclusion of the storm could cause the snow depth to vary by several feet.
        "Plows are not likely to be able to keep up," Sosnowski warned. "As the storm strengthens, winds will cause major blowing and drifting of snow."
        "Those who are on the road through the heart of the snow and ice area will be at risk for becoming stranded for many hours," Sosnowski said, adding that they "may have to face temperatures plummeting to dangerously low levels."
        The combination of winds and heavy snow could lead to numerous power outages, particularly in the heaviest snow swath in the interior Northeast, according to the Weather Channel.
        Boston should finally see its first inch of snow of the winter season.
        More: More snow! Airlines waive change fees as new storms approach
        More: Series of storms to pummel California with rain, snow, wind
        More: California mudslides shut down Pacific Coast Highway
        The Weather Channel warned that a thin band of sleet and freezing rain is also possible in parts of the Ohio Valley eastward into the mid-Atlantic states.
        The Weather Channel has named the storm Winter Storm Harper. No other private weather company, nor the National Weather Service, is using that name.
        Following the storm, the coldest air of the season will roar across nearly the entire eastern half of the country by Monday: Some 200 million people will wake up to below-freezing temperatures on Monday morning, as far south as Florida, according to weather.us meteorologist Ryan Maue. Maue added that some 85 percent of the Lower 48 states will see temperatures at or below freezing.
        A "flash freeze" could develop late Sunday, causing any standing water to quickly freeze, creating dangerous and slippery conditions.
        Lows will be below zero in the upper Midwest and northern Plains with wind chills approaching 40 degrees below zero. Although the cold blast is expected to only last a day or two in most spots, it will likely mark the beginning of what is expected to be a cold end to January east of the Rockies, the Weather Channel said.
        In fact, forecasters say the brutal, punishing stretch of intense cold should last well into February. The cold is partly due to the fracturing of the polar vortex earlier this month, which has slowly pushed unspeakably frigid air from the Arctic into the United States.
        Western woesOn Thursday, California dealt with heavy rainfall, mountain snow and flooding that threatened to trigger mudslides in areas previously scarred by devastating wildfires.
        In Northern California, trees and power lines toppled in some areas deluged by up to five inches of rain in recent days. The scenic Pacific Coast Highway was closed overnight near Big Sur due to mudslides and flooding.
        Start the day smarter: Get USA TODAY's Daily Briefing in your inbox
        In Southern California, the San Bernardino County Fire Department said 19 vehicles crashed and 35 people suffered "minor to modest injuries" in a crash in fog near mountainous Cajon Pass.
        ''This is a life-threatening situation,'' the weather service said of the storm's rampage.
        Areas under evacuation orders included parts of fire-scarred Malibu, where all public schools were closed Thursday. Several vital canyon roads in the area were closed due to rock fall danger.
        Three feet of snow or more were forecast high in the Sierra Nevada, where blizzard warnings were in effect deep into Thursday, the weather service said.
        At least five deaths have been reported during the week of stormy weather.
        Precipitation in California will begin to wind down by Thursday night and into Friday morning as the storm heads east.
        Contributing: The Associated Press
        This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: 'Blockbuster' storm heads east, could drop 40 inches of snow. Then an Arctic blast will freeze 200 million
      If Progressive Democrats Care So Much About The Climate, Why Are They Trying to Kill Nuclear Power?
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Fri, 18 Jan 2019 13:46
        Democratic Party mega-donor and energy investor Tom Steyer, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cruz, and Sen. Bernie SandersWikipedia
        Since taking office earlier this month, Congressperson Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-New York) has captured the public imagination with her proposal for a ''Green New Deal'' to create millions of good jobs while accelerating the transition to clean energy.
        Now, a debate has broken out among environmentalists and Democrats over whether a Green New Deal will include or exclude nuclear energy.
        Ocasio-Cortez, 29, says ''It's not something that we've just ruled out'' while her colleague and Green New Deal supporter, Chellie Pingree, 63, (D-Maine), says ''I think on nuclear energy, we all have a general resistance to it,'' and pointed to the 2011 accident in Fukushima, Japan, and nuclear waste.
        Pingree is not alone. Progressive heavyweights like Sen. Bernie Sanders , 77, (I-VT) and Sen. Ed Markey , 72, (D-MA), are vehemently anti-nuclear and have supported closing nuclear plants in their home states.
        They are backed by Democratic mega-donors like Tom Steyer, 61, who made his fortune investing in coal, natural gas, and renewables, and financed a failed effort to close a large nuclear plant in Arizona.
        Indeed, from Illinois and New York to South Korea and Taiwan to France and Germany , progressive politicians ostensibly committed to aggressive action on climate change have sought to shut down nuclear plants, which would be replaced almost entirely by fossil fuels.
        What gives? Are nuclear plants really so dangerous? Or is something else going on?
        The Truth About Nuclear Danger
        A decade ago, when I was rethinking my views about nuclear energy , I read the United Nations scientific reports on Chernobyl and was shocked.
        As an anti-nuclear activist, I had been told that the accident had killed one million people .
        But scientists reporting to the U.N. found that a total of 28 people who responded to the accident died from acute radiation syndrome within a few months, and concluded that around 160 people will eventually die from thyroid cancer over their lifetimes.
        That's it. There was no increase in any other cancer rates '-- including among the firefighters and ''liquidators'' who cleaned up the accident.
        Living in a big city is more dangerous than cleaning up ChernobylEP
        Contrast that to the normal operation of fossil fuel energy sources, which kill 4.2 million people per year, according to the World Health Organization .
        As a result, nuclear is the safest way to make reliable electricity. In fact, the climate scientist James Hansen finds nuclear plants have actually saved 1.8 million lives to date by preventing the pollution from the burning of fossil fuels.
        What about Fukushima? According to the World Health Organization, ''even in locations within Fukushima prefecture, the predicted risks remain low and no observable increases in cancer above natural variation in baseline rates are anticipated.''
        In other words, the second worst nuclear disaster in history will have no impact on cancer rates even in the area where the accident occurred.
        Does this mean there's no chance that trace quantities of radiant particulate matter will harm anyone? Of course not. It simply means that whatever harm is caused will pale against all of the other things that cause cancer, from diet and air pollution to genetics and old age.
        Meanwhile, the stress, interrupted medical care, and suicide from the panicky and unnecessary evacuation of Fukushima killed 2,000 people .
        That tragedy led independent radiation scientists to conclude that ''the evacuation was a mistake.'' Says Philip Thomas of the University of Bristol, ''We would have recommended that nobody be evacuated.''
        What about the waste? I used to think that nuclear waste was a green liquid that occasionally leaked, largely because I got my information from ''The Simpsons.''
        In reality, the nuclear waste everyone worries about are used fuel rods, which are neither liquid nor green, and never hurt anyone. All of the used fuel from U.S. nuclear plants can fit on a football field stacked just 50 foot high.
        Solar panels produce 300 times more waste for the amount of energy created than do nuclear plants, according to simple calculations done by Mark Nelson and Jemin Desai of Environmental Progress.
        And, at the end of their life, solar panels are usually destined for landfills, often in poor nations , where workers and residents are at risk of exposure to the panels' dangerously toxic heavy metals.
        Wind and solar generate energy for just a fraction of the year which is why, when nuclear plants are shut down, they are mostly replaced with fossil fuels, something even some anti-nuclear groups are starting to acknowledge .
        Why, then, are Democratic members of Congress like Rep. Pingree, who support a Green New Deal, squeamish about nuclear energy? And why does it seem like Baby Boomers are so much more anxious than Millennials like Ocasio-Cortez?
        The Climate Bomb
        In the 1950s and 60s, Democratic politicians were mostly pro-nuclear energy. In fact, men like Sen. Al Gore Sr. and California Gov. Edmund Brown Sr. felt the government wasn't doing enough to promote civilian nuclear energy.
        Was it the 1979 accident at Three Mile Island that turned liberal Baby Boomers against nuclear energy? That's the oft-repeated story '-- and it's wrong. The New Left, environmentalists, and Baby Boom liberals started turning against nuclear energy in the early 1960s.
        Various reasons were given but the underlying fear was the association with nuclear weapons.
        The invention of nuclear weapons created deep psychological stress and trauma. For the first time our history, Americans were threatened militarily by external enemies and could do nothing about it, given the revolutionary nature of nuclear weapons.
        In the 50s and 60s, Hollywood produced film after film about monsters, ants, and lizards made large from nuclear weapons radiation that the film's heroes '-- often scientists and the military '-- would, in the end, vanquish and kill.
        According to critic Susan Sontag , the films were a way for audiences to resolve, however temporarily, the psychological discomfort created by the bomb.
        Meanwhile, the U.S. government sponsored propaganda showing nuclear blasts and gave instructions on how to survive nuclear war that frightened the public, especially Baby Boomer children.
        Until the mid-1960s, schools taught children to "duck and cover" in case of nuclear war.US Civil Defense
        When Rep. Pingree was in kindergarten in the early 1960s, many American schools were still requiring children to practice ''duck and cover'' in case of nuclear war. And when she was seven years old, the world came closer than it ever has to nuclear war, during the 1962 Cuban Missile Scare.
        When psychologists interviewed young adults like Rep. Pingree in the 1970s, they found lasting memories of nuclear terror, including in their nightmares.
        ''Nuclear weapons had become almost inseparable in the minds of many young people from overwhelming death itself,'' notes Weart .
        Left and Right resolved their anxieties in different ways. American conservatives sought ''nuclear superiority'' over the Soviet Union, and missile defense, so we could supposedly fight and ''win'' a nuclear war. American liberals sought nuclear disarmament so we could supposedly eliminate the risk of nuclear war.
        Neither approach worked. It's impossible to ''win'' a full-scale nuclear war without suffering an unacceptably large death toll. Meanwhile, it proved impossible to ban nuclear weapons; warheads are too small and easy to hide. Even if humankind got rid of them all, any two nations that went to war would race to build a nuclear weapon and use it on the other.
        Frustrated by their inability to ban the bomb, progressives displaced their anxieties onto nuclear power plants, and sought to halt their construction in the 1970s and 1980s.
        In the 1970s, Amory Lovins and other environmentalists called for a ''soft energy path'' focused on radical reductions in energy consumption, renewable energies, and the decentralized use of fossil fuels, particularly coal, in order to move away from nuclear energy.
        Lovins in 1976 claimed that the ''unilateral adoption of a soft energy path by the United States can go a long way to control nuclear proliferation-perhaps to eliminate it entirely... the genie is not wholly out of the bottle yet '-- thousands of [nuclear] reactors are planned for a few decades hence, tens of thousands thereafter-and the cork sits unnoticed in our hands.''
        The anti-nuclear movement was hugely successful. It managed to kill or get cancelled half of the nuclear plants that utilities had planned to build. In their place, utilities built coal plants.
        The anxiety created by nuclear weapons didn't go away but died down with the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991. What emerged in its place was fear of climate change '-- a problem for which progressives already had an answer: radical reductions in energy consumption, renewables and the decentralized use of fossil fuels, particularly natural gas.
        Over the next two decades, progressive love for renewables grew as strong as progressive hatred of nuclear. The goal for Baby Boomers traumatized by the Bomb was nothing less than healing humankind's relationship with Nature.
        In the same way that grocery shoppers believed products marketed as ''natural'' were healthier than other products, progressive Democrats came to believe that products marketed as ''renewable'' were better for the environment.
        That turned out to be horrifyingly wrong. Solar farms require 450 times more land and nine times more materials (and thus mining and waste) as nuclear plants. Wind turbines may make a bat species go extinct and are a grave threat to migratory and raptor bird species.
        But, backed by fossil-renewable energy investors like Tom Steyer , and Wall Street tycoons that stand to profit from complex carbon trading schemes, environmental groups like NRDC and EDF work with Democratic politicians like Bernie Sanders to a fossil-renewables fuel mix to replace nuclear plants.
        Given who's paying for those efforts, it's not surprising that the spread of solar and wind is locking-in fossil fuels and raising electricity prices, which has made dealing with climate change harder, not easier.
        The Courage to Lead?
        Where does that leave Millennials like Rep. Ocasio-Cortez?
        The good news is that she is smart. She makes an effort to get the science right. She even won a prize for her microbiology research.
        And Ocasio-Cortez is courageous. She stood up to the Democratic Party elite and joined a protest in the office of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, 78.
        But will Ocasio-Cortez make an effort to learn the facts about nuclear and renewables?
        And will she be courageous enough to stand up to Democratic Party elders like Bernie Sanders and mega-donors like Tom Steyer?
        Only time will tell.
    Any Collusion
      Mueller Statement Disputes Report That Trump Directed Cohen to Lie - The New York Times
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Sat, 19 Jan 2019 17:31
        Image Michael D. Cohen, President Trump's longtime lawyer and fixer, was sentenced last month to three years in prison. Credit Credit Stephanie Keith for The New York Times WASHINGTON '-- The special counsel investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election disputed on Friday a report that said President Trump had directed Michael D. Cohen, his longtime lawyer and fixer, to lie to Congress about his role in negotiations to build a skyscraper in Moscow.
        The rare public statement by a spokesman for the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, challenged the facts of an article published by BuzzFeed News on Thursday saying that Mr. Cohen had told prosecutors about being pressured by the president before his congressional testimony.
        ''BuzzFeed's description of specific statements to the special counsel's office, and characterization of documents and testimony obtained by this office, regarding Michael Cohen's congressional testimony are not accurate,'' said the spokesman, Peter Carr.
        Before Mr. Carr's statement, the BuzzFeed report led to a flurry of reactions by senior members of Congress who said that the allegations, if true, could be grounds for initiating impeachment proceedings against Mr. Trump.
        The president himself responded on Twitter late Friday, calling the special counsel's statement ''a very sad day for journalism, but a great day for our Country!''
        A proven effort by Mr. Trump to pressure a witness to commit perjury would be one of the most damning revelations so far in the investigation into Russia's attempts to sabotage the 2016 presidential election and could be the cornerstone of a case that the president obstructed justice to keep investigators at bay.
        Both the White House and lawyers for Mr. Trump vigorously denied the BuzzFeed report even before the special counsel's office weighed in.
        ''Two words sum it up better than anything anybody else can say, and that is 'categorically false,''' the White House press secretary, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, told reporters on Friday.
        BuzzFeed News maintained that its report was accurate, its editor, Ben Smith, said after Mr. Mueller's office disputed the account. ''We stand by our reporting and the sources who informed it, and we urge the Special Counsel to make clear what he's disputing,'' Mr. Smith said on Twitter.
        The statement by Mr. Carr, the special counsel's spokesman, was unusual because it appeared to be the first time he had publicly challenged the facts of a news media account that had generated significant attention for its revelations about the president.
        The New York Times has not independently confirmed the BuzzFeed report. One person familiar with Mr. Cohen's testimony to the special counsel's prosecutors said that Mr. Cohen did not state that the president had pressured him to lie to Congress.
        Representative Adam B. Schiff, Democrat of California and chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said that his panel would investigate the BuzzFeed report and was ''already working to secure additional witness testimony and documents related to the Trump Tower Moscow deal and other investigative matters.''
        If true, Mr. Schiff said, the allegations ''would constitute both the subornation of perjury as well as obstruction of justice.''
        Representative Joaquin Castro of Texas, another Democratic member of the House Intelligence Committee, wrote in a tweet that ''if the @BuzzFeed story is true, President Trump must resign or be impeached.''
        Senator Mark Warner of Virginia, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, told reporters on Friday that the panel expected Mr. Cohen to be back to testify privately in early February.
        The report added another jolt to a chaotic week for the White House, which has had to fend off questions about recent revelations that F.B.I. counterintelligence agents began investigating Mr. Trump in 2017 and that Mr. Trump has tried to conceal the details from senior administration officials about his interactions with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia.
        In a December court filing, prosecutors working for Mr. Mueller described how Mr. Cohen had repeatedly lied to Congress both about the length of negotiations over the Trump Tower Moscow deal and about Mr. Trump's involvement in the project.
        Mr. Cohen had told lawmakers that the negotiations ended in January 2016 '-- before the first presidential primaries '-- and were never discussed extensively among executives of the Trump Organization. In fact, according to prosecutors, the discussions continued as late as June 2016, after Mr. Trump was the presumptive Republican presidential nominee.
        They also said Mr. Cohen discussed the progress of the Moscow project with Mr. Trump more frequently than he had told the committee and had briefed members of Mr. Trump's family about the negotiations.
        When he appeared in court to plead guilty to lying to Congress, Mr. Cohen said he had concealed his interactions with Russian officials and the fact that he asked Mr. Trump to travel to Russia to promote the deal because he wanted to support Mr. Trump's ''political messaging.''
        That day, Mr. Trump defended his role in the Trump Tower Moscow discussions, brushing aside concerns that he was advancing his business interests at the time he was hoping to become president. ''There was a good chance that I wouldn't have won, in which case I would have gotten back into the business, and why should I lose lots of opportunities?'' he told reporters.
        Mr. Cohen drafted his statement to Congress in August 2017 along with Steven Ryan, his lawyer at the time, according to people familiar with how the testimony was put together. Mr. Ryan was working with lawyers for the Trump family as part of a joint defense agreement.
        At least one of Mr. Trump's personal lawyers saw Mr. Cohen's congressional testimony before he delivered it in August and October 2017, according to people with knowledge of the discussions.
        Mr. Cohen initially repeated his false statements about the Moscow tower to prosecutors working for Mr. Mueller after he pleaded guilty in August to campaign finance violations and financial crimes. But he corrected himself during subsequent interviews and proved credible, the special counsel's office said in a December sentencing memo.
        Mr. Cohen said he initially lied because he did not want to contradict his congressional testimony, prosecutors said. Subsequently, he took care ''not to overstate his knowledge or the role of others in the conduct under investigation'' and provided ''useful information'' about his contacts with ''persons connected to the White House'' in 2017 and 2018, the special counsel's filing said.
        That truthfulness was a departure from Mr. Cohen's pattern of deception throughout his professional life, according to a separate sentencing memo by federal prosecutors in New York, filed at the same time as Mr. Mueller's. Driven by greed, they said, he ''repeatedly used his power and influence for deceptive ends.''
        Mr. Cohen was sentenced in December to three years in prison for lying to Congress, campaign finance violations and financial crimes. He said he took full responsibility for his crimes, but said he acted out of blind loyalty to Mr. Trump, who he said ''led me to choose a path of darkness over light.''
        During his nomination hearing this week to become attorney general, William P. Barr was asked if the president would have committed a crime if he had coached a witness to testify falsely '-- or not to testify at all.
        ''Yes,'' Mr. Barr said. ''Under an obstruction statute, yes.''
        A version of this article appears in print on
        , on Page
        A
        11
        of the New York edition
        with the headline:
        Mueller Disputes Report That Trump Directed Cohen to Lie
        . Order Reprints | Today's Paper | Subscribe
    AOC
      Progressive Group Ousts Cenk Uygur Over Past Sexist Writing | HuffPost
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Sat, 19 Jan 2019 14:11
        The Justice Democrats ousted Cenk Uygur, one of its founding board members and a creator of progressive online network The Young Turks, following the Thursday revelation that Uygur had authored sexist blogposts in the early 2000s.
        The left-leaning political organization, which Uygur and others established this year to support progressive primary challenges against Democratic incumbents in Congress, made the announcement Friday. The group also severed ties with David Koller, who co-founded The Young Turks with Uygur and served as Justice Democrats' treasurer. A 2004 blogpost in which Koller used degrading language about women he and Uygur met on a road-trip surfaced this week as well.
        ''The words and conduct in Mr. Uygur and Mr. Koller's posts degrade what it means to be a Justice Democrat,'' Justice Democrats executive director Saikat Chakrabarti said in a Friday evening statement announcing the board's decision to demand Uygur and Koller's resignations. ''We do not feel that Mr. Uygur is fit to lead or participate in an organization that truly believes women's issues and the issues of black and brown people are all of our issues.''
        The Justice Democrats board reached its decision to call for their departures after hearing Uygur's ''side of the story'' and consulting with the political candidates the group has endorsed, Chakrabarti said.
        The Young Turks did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the past writings.
        This week, The Wrap unearthed archived blogposts from Uygur's early days as a pundit and writer in which he repeatedly used objectifying language to describe women.
        ''Obviously, the genes of women are flawed,'' Uygur wrote in a 1999 post lamenting the inadequate amount of sex he was having while living in Miami, Florida. ''They are poorly designed creatures who do not want to have sex nearly as often as needed for the human race to get along peaceably and fruitfully.''
        In a 2002 entry in which Uygur described the ''rules of dating,'' he specified that ''there must be orgasm by the fifth date.'' And in a 2003 column, he described drunken revelry at Mardi Gras in New Orleans, Louisiana, where he ''kissed over 23 different women, saw and felt countless breasts.''
        In addition, a 2004 post by Koller described teenage girls that he and Uygur met near a gas station in Pennsylvania as '' whores in training, literally looking for boys to pick them up.''
        Uygur apologized profusely for his past writing, telling The Wrap in an interview that his comments were '' really insensitive and ignorant.''
        ''If you read that today, what I wrote 18 years ago, and you're offended by it, you're 100 percent right,'' the progressive pundit said. ''And anyone who is subjected to that material, I apologize to. And I deeply regret having written that stuff when I was a different guy.''
        Uygur also noted that at the time, he '' was still a conservative who thought that stuff was politically incorrect and edgy.
        ''When you read it now, it looks really, honestly, ugly. And it's very uncomfortable to read,'' he added.
        Koller declined to comment when reached by The Wrap, but Uygur insisted that what Koller wrote had been ''over-the-top satire'' and that they ''did not proposition underage women.''
        We are deeply disturbed by recent news regarding @cenkuygur & David Koller. Their language and conduct is horrifying and does not reflect our values at Justice Democrats. We would be hypocrites to not act immediately and ask for their resignation. Here is our official statement: pic.twitter.com/WYqawLtuGo
        '-- Justice Democrats (@justicedems) December 22, 2017Uygur's explicit comments about the physique of women in Miami continued through at least 2013, however, when he marveled on Twitter about the city's ''improbable breasts'' and ''improbable butts.'' He also declared Miami women ''outrageously, almost unacceptably, hot,'' but clarified in a subsequent tweet that the women were ''unacceptably hot,'' because he was married and they were therefore off-limits to him.
        Although Uygur and Koller were ousted for their words, rather than their actions, their swift departure from Justice Democrats occurs amid a wave of reckoning with sexual misconduct in the media and politics worlds that has not spared prominent figures on the progressive left.
        The Young Turks fired reporter Jordan Chariton in November after Chariton was accused of sexual assault by a former employee of his group Truth Against The Machine. Chariton maintains that the sexual encounter was consensual and is suing HuffPost, where an unpaid contributor first lodged the accusation, for $23.5 million. (HuffPost had removed the post after Chariton's public complaints.)
        Uygur explained the decision to fire Chariton during a November broadcast on The Young Turks, where he is a co-host of the channel's live evening show.
        ''Here's why we did it: to protect the people that work here and to make sure we have professional employment in place,'' he said.
    Yellow Jackets
      Gilets Jaunes: French 'flash-ball' row over riot-gun injuries - BBC News
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Sun, 20 Jan 2019 05:57
        Image copyright AFP Image caption Police have issued guidance this week to aim the LBD40 riot gun away from the head Appalling injuries caused by French police riot guns during the yellow-vest protests have triggered anger and calls for the weapon to be banned.
        The LBD launchers known by protesters as "flash-balls" have left 40 people severely wounded, reports say.
        One man emerged from a coma on Friday six days after being hit in the head.
        France's human rights chief has called for the weapon's use to be halted, but the government insists it is deployed only under very strict conditions.
        Since the "gilets-jaunes" protests began in November, 3,000 people have been injured or even maimed and thousands more arrested.
        Image copyright EPA Image caption French security forces have come under violent attack in recent weeks Peaceful rallies have sometimes ended in violence and vandalism and 1,000 police are among those wounded.
        Ten deaths have been linked to the unrest. Nine involved traffic accidents and an 80-year-old woman died after being hit in the face by a tear gas grenade while closing the shutters at her home.
        What are flash-balls?The LBD40 is described as a non-lethal weapon which in fact replaced the old "flash-ball" in France. But the old name is still widely used.
        It shoots 40mm (1.6in) rubber or foam pellets at a speed of up to 100m per second and is not meant to break the skin.
        However, some of the accounts of people hit by flash-balls have been shocking.
        How serious are the injuries?Volunteer firefighter Olivier B(C)ziade, 47, was shot in the temple by a riot gun during a protest on 12 January in Bordeaux. Video at the time caught him running from police and then collapsing in the street, his face covered in blood.
        He was taken to hospital, treated for a brain haemorrhage and left in an artificial coma, from which he emerged on Friday.
        Image copyright AFP Image caption Olivier B(C)ziade was critically wounded on 12 January in Bordeaux and only emerged from a coma on Friday He was one of five seriously wounded on that day alone.
        Many of those wounded have been young. One teenager called Lilian Lepage was hit in the face in Strasbourg on Saturday and suffered a broken jaw. His mother said he had been shopping in the city centre when a policeman fired at him.
        Two schoolboys were badly wounded by flash-ball pellets in separate protests last month.
        Campaigners say a dozen people have lost an eye, although the details have not been corroborated.
        A lawyer for some of the victims, ‰tienne Nol, said many had been maimed. He said police did not have sufficient training in use of the riot guns and many victims had been hit in the head.
        What do French authorities say?Earlier this week police made clear the riot gun would be used only where security forces faced violence or if they had no other means of defence. Only the torso and upper or lower limbs could be targeted.
        Interior Minister Laurent Nu±ez told the French Senate on Thursday that the use of force by police was always proportionate and under very strict and controlled conditions.
        "If the police hadn't used these means of defence perhaps some of them would have been lynched," he said.
        The European Court of Human Rights rejected a temporary ban on flash-balls last month, in a case brought by several people who said they had been hit by flash-balls.
    Uncle Don
      Seymour M. Hersh · The Vice President's Men · LRB 24 January 2019
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Fri, 18 Jan 2019 04:37
        When George H.W. Bush arrived in Washington as vice president in January 1981 he seemed little more than a sideshow to Ronald Reagan, the one-time leading man who had been overwhelmingly elected to the greatest stage in the world. Biography after inconclusive biography would be written about Reagan's two terms, as their authors tried to square the many gaps in his knowledge with his seemingly acute political instincts and the ease with which he appeared to handle the presidency. Bush was invariably written off as a cautious politician who followed the lead of his glamorous boss '' perhaps because he assumed that his reward would be a clear shot at the presidency in 1988. He would be the first former CIA director to make it to the top.
        There was another view of Bush: the one held by the military men and civilian professionals who worked for him on national security issues. Unlike the president, he knew what was going on and how to get things done. For them, Reagan was 'a dimwit' who didn't get it, or even try to get it. A former senior official of the Office of Management and Budget described the president to me as 'lazy, just lazy'. Reagan, the official explained, insisted on being presented with a three-line summary of significant budget decisions, and the OMB concluded that the easiest way to cope was to present him with three figures '' one very high, one very low and one in the middle, which Reagan invariably signed off on. I was later told that the process was known inside the White House as the 'Goldilocks option'. He was also bored by complicated intelligence estimates. Forever courteous and gracious, he would doodle during national security briefings or simply not listen. It would have been natural to turn instead to the director of the CIA, but this was William Casey, a former businessman and Nixon aide who had been controversially appointed by Reagan as the reward for managing his 1980 election campaign. As the intelligence professionals working with the executive saw it, Casey was reckless, uninformed, and said far too much to the press.
        Bush was different: he got it. At his direction, a team of military operatives was set up that bypassed the national security establishment '' including the CIA '' and wasn't answerable to congressional oversight. It was led by Vice-Admiral Arthur Moreau, a brilliant navy officer who would be known to those on the inside as 'M'. He had most recently been involved, as deputy chief of naval operations, in developing the US's new maritime strategy, aimed at restricting Soviet freedom of movement. In May 1983 he was promoted to assistant to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General John Vessey, and over the next couple of years he oversaw a secret team '' operating in part out of the office of Daniel Murphy, Bush's chief of staff '' which quietly conducted at least 35 covert operations against drug trafficking, terrorism and, most important, perceived Soviet expansionism in more than twenty countries, including Peru, Honduras, Guatemala, Brazil, Argentina, Libya, Senegal, Chad, Algeria, Tunisia, the Congo, Kenya, Egypt, Yemen, Syria, Hungary, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, Romania, Georgia and Vietnam.
        Moreau's small, off-the-record team, primarily made up of navy officers, was tasked with foreign operations deemed necessary by the vice president. The group's link to Bush was indirect. There were two go-betweens, known for their closeness to the vice president and their ability to keep secrets: Murphy, a retired admiral who had served as Bush's deputy director at the CIA; and, to a lesser extent, Donald Gregg, Bush's national security adviser and another veteran of CIA covert operations. Moreau's team mostly worked out of a room near the National Military Command Centre on the ground floor of the Pentagon. They could also unobtrusively man a desk or two, when necessary, in a corner of Murphy's office, which was near Bush's, in the Old Executive Office Building next to the White House.
        The Reagan administration had been rattled by a wave of Soviet expansionism and international aggression that had begun before the president took office. In 1979, even before their incursion into Afghanistan, the Soviets had taken over the old airbase at Cam Ranh Bay in the former South Vietnam, which had been extensively rebuilt and updated by the US during its losing war. It was a base heavy with symbolism for the American and British navies '' in December 1941, three days after Pearl Harbor, Japanese dive bombers operating from Cam Ranh sank two of Britain's premier battleships '' and the Soviet decision to expand there was seen by some senior admirals as an alarming affront. And a revolutionary increase in America's capacity to intercept and decode Soviet signal traffic in the year before Reagan came to power led to the discovery by analysts at the National Security Agency of a ring of Soviet sleeper agents inside the United States, many of them working in federal jobs with '' the Carter White House feared '' access to national security data.
        A former military officer who worked closely with Moreau recalled the early tensions that prompted Bush to increase the targeting of Soviet operations. Moreau's actions were aimed at limiting Soviet influence without provoking a confrontation. 'We saw the Russians sorting out their internal politics and expanding economically,' the officer recalled. 'Its military had become much more competent, with advances in technology, nuclear engineering and in space. They were feeling good about their planned economy and believed that their state control of education from cradle to grave was working, and it seemed as if the Russians were expanding everywhere. We were in descent; our post-Vietnam army was in shambles; morale was at rock bottom, and the American people had an anti-militarist attitude. There was a sense of general weakness, and the Russians were taking advantage of it. They had developed the MIRV' '' the multiple independently targetable re-entry vehicle, a missile carrying several nuclear warheads '' 'and were putting ICBMs on wheels and hardening nuclear silos. This was at the time when it became clear that the president was drifting, and was not an effective leader.'
        By 1983, it was plain to those who worked on national security for the White House that Reagan wouldn't or couldn't engage with intelligence or counterintelligence matters. Bush had emerged, by default and very much in private, as the most important decision-maker in America's intelligence world. 'He controlled the strings,' the officer said. 'We ran small, limited operations that were discreet, with a military chain of command. These were not long-term programmes. We thought we could redouble our efforts against the Soviets and nobody would interfere. And do it in such a way that no one could see what we were doing '' or realise that there was a masterplan. For example, the published stories about our Star Wars programme were replete with misinformation and forced the Russians to expose their sleeper agents inside the American government by ordering them to make a desperate attempt to find out what the US was doing. But we could not risk exposure of the administration's role and take the chance of another McCarthy period. So there were no prosecutions. We dried up and eliminated their access and left the spies withering on the vine.' Once identified, the Soviet sleepers who worked inside the federal bureaucracy were gradually dismissed or moved to less important jobs, in the hope that the low-key counterintelligence operation would mask the improvements in the US's capacity to read sensitive Soviet communications. 'Nobody on the Joint Chiefs of Staff ever believed we were going to build Star Wars,' the officer said, 'but if we could convince the Russians that we could survive a first strike, we win the game.' The aim of the game was to find a way to change the nuclear status quo of Mutual Assured Destruction, or seem to do so. 'We wanted the Russians to believe that we had removed the M from MAD.'
        In the beginning, the officer told me, 'there was a great fear that the Russians were ten feet tall. What we found was total incompetence.' Moreau's team were amazed to find how easy it was to reverse Soviet influence '' often with little more than generous offers of American dollars and American arms. Across the Third World '' in countries such as Chad, Senegal and C´te d'Ivoire '' the offer of advanced American electronics and communications equipment was also invaluable. 'The Russians simply were not liked abroad,' the officer said. 'They were boors with shoddy clothing and shoes made out of paper. Their weapons were inoperative. It was a Potemkin village. But every time we found total incompetence on the part of a Soviet mission, the American intelligence community would assume that it was Soviet ''deception''. The only problem was that it was not deception. We came to realise that the American intelligence community needed the threat from Russia to get their money. Those of us who were running the operations were also amazed that the American press was so incompetent. You could do this kind of stuff all over the world and nobody would ask any questions.'
        Congress, and the constitution, were at first no more of an obstacle to Bush and Moreau's covert operations than the press. The one member of Congress who knew what was going on was Dick Cheney, a close friend and confidant of Bush's from their days together in the Ford administration. In 1976, in the aftermath of the Church Committee's inquiry into CIA abuses, standing intelligence committees had been set up in both the Senate and the House, charged with holding the CIA and other intelligence agencies to account. But it was understood by all those involved in the vice president's secret team that these committees could be bypassed, even though the laws governing covert intelligence activities had been stiffened: there was now a legal requirement that all covert CIA and military intelligence operations had to be made known to the committees through a formal, written document known as a 'finding'. But there was a big loophole in the legislation, in the view of the vice president's men. 'There was no requirement for a finding for merely asking questions,' the officer said, 'and so we'd make routine requests for intelligence assessments from the CIA through the Joint Chiefs and the National Security Council. Our basic philosophy was that we were running military' '' not intelligence '' 'operations and therefore did not have to brief Congress. So we could legally operate without a finding.' He was describing an ingenious procedure for getting around the law: one that would be put into use again after 9/11, when Cheney, by then vice president, triggered the unending war on terror. 'The issue for Moreau was how do we take advantage of what the CIA has to offer '' its people, with their language skills and its networks and assets overseas,' the officer said. 'The disadvantage was if we used the CIA in an intelligence context, we had to get a finding. We decided to get around the law by using agency people in what we claimed was a ''liaison capacity''.' The next step was 'to attach the CIA operators to military units as liaison who were working for Moreau. Casey knew his CIA was being cut out and so he became more active where he could '' in Latin America.' As a precaution, the team prepared written findings when CIA men or information were being made use of '' but they were put 'in a safe', to be produced only if anyone in Congress found out what was going on.
        Moreau was contemptuous of Casey and 'thought the CIA was a crazy organisation that had no concern about the consequences of its covert actions', according to the officer. He remembered Moreau telling his subordinates on the secret staff: 'I'm accountable to the vice president and you motherfuckers are accountable to me. The agency is not accountable to anybody '' not the president, not Congress, not the American people. They will do whatever they want to support their mission, which is defined by them.' Cutting out the CIA leadership '' though using their resources where needed, partly through the good offices of Dan Murphy, who had many connections inside the agency '' was key to Moreau's operations. 'From the beginning our philosophy was no publicity,' the officer said. Enlisting the agency formally would involve findings, and relying on 'the CIA's knuckle-draggers' '' paramilitary units '' 'who were seen as too dumb and too incompetent. But by using only the military we inadvertently laid the groundwork for what we have now '' a Joint Special Operations Command essentially out of civilian control.'
        One of Moreau's confidants was Alfred Gray Jr, a marine who rose from enlisted private to general. He was someone who could be trusted to do the dirty jobs that were seen as inevitable in combating the spread of communism in the Third World. By the early 1980s, Gray was a two-star major general commanding a division of the marines; he would be made commandant of the Marine Corps in 1987. If there were people to hurt, he would get it done and leave no footprints. 'Gray was profane and tough as nails,' the officer said. 'He tells us: ''I can do that. We've got guys who can do stuff.'' And the marines are organised, unlike the navy. Whenever there are two marines together, one is senior to the other.' As the team's activity stepped up, the officer told me, they began compiling 'hit lists'. 'The CIA would provide us with lists of bad guys from the files of the Drug Enforcement Agency, the Justice Department and the National Security Agency, much of it focused on the drug war and anti-communist operations. A lot of it was in Mexico, Colombia, Peru, Ecuador and of course Nicaragua. We were doing the same thing then that the administration is doing now '' only now it's institutionalised with JSOC. Back then we used the marines and Delta Force, and there was no reason, as today, to say anything to the Joint Chiefs. Moreau's strategy was to act in advance to pre-empt terrorism. ''Why wait for it to take place?'''
        Moreau's activities have remained secret, and, as I learned while reporting on this aspect of history, those who knew of his activities at the time remain sceptical that they can be written about today. 'I'm aware of what you're referring to,' one senior defence official told me. 'And Art Moreau was just like ''M''. But you are working in an area that remains highly classified, and even today it may be too sensitive to reveal the rudiments of our intelligence networks. I doubt if any records still exist.'
        *
        Over the course of 1983, Moreau's team was given a target that would prove much tougher than the Soviets '' terrorism in the Middle East. Sixty-three American diplomats, intelligence experts and military personnel, along with civilian employees, were killed when the US embassy in Beirut was bombed in April 1983, and six months later 241 military personnel, most of them marines, were killed in an attack on a barracks at Beirut airport. The US embassy in Kuwait was bombed in December that year, and there was a wave of kidnappings of Westerners '' among them William Buckley, the CIA station chief in Beirut, who would die in captivity.
        A particular target was Muammar Gaddafi. 'By 1981 Gaddafi was beginning to get more and more bizarre,' the officer said. 'He was making a lot of moves into our hemisphere: selling air-to-surface missiles to Argentina, selling Hind attack helicopters to Nicaragua, supplying aid to Peru, supporting the government in Venezuela, and even dealing with the Popular Front in Palestine. He also closed the Gulf of Sidra to our 6th Fleet. We had to take care of Libya. Gaddafi was a primary military and oil threat, and he became a strategic target.'
        An assassination was planned, using Casey's CIA assets in Libya, the officer said, and because of the CIA's involvement the administration was required to inform the congressional leadership about aspects of the plan via a highly classified finding. This was promptly leaked by someone in Congress, so Moreau's team thought, and the operation called off '' allegedly. Moreau's people continued to support the Libyan opposition. In May 1984, the National Front for the Salvation of Libya, an opposition group that would later be clandestinely supported by the CIA, failed in an attempt on Gaddafi's life. Eight rebels were killed along with eighty government soldiers, according to published reports. Gaddafi responded by executing three members of the Muslim Brotherhood and arresting and torturing thousands of others. One of the Americans involved in the plot was Major-General Richard Secord, who had resigned from the air force in 1983 after being accused of improper dealings with a former CIA officer. Secord, who had a long career in special operations, pleaded guilty in 1989 to a felony count for lying to Congress about his role in the Iran-Contra affair, but never came close to spending a day in jail. His sentence of two years on probation was reversed the following year.
        Moreau's operations were described, indirectly, in The Reagan Imprint (2006) by John Arquilla, who teaches in the special operations programme at the United States Naval Postgraduate School. Arquilla wrote about a secret 1984 White House memorandum '' NSDD 138 '' that authorised 'sabotage, killing '... pre-emptive and retaliatory raids, deception and a significantly expanded [intelligence] collection programme, aimed at suspected radicals and people regarded as their sympathisers'. Arquilla reported that the memorandum (which wasn't declassified until 2009) triggered intense controversy inside the government, and the directive was never implemented in full. He added that Bush 'was initially cool to the idea as well, though he eventually warmed to it'.
        It seems likely, from the suggestive reference to Bush, that Arquilla knew more than he could write, or wanted to write. The officer remembered the bitter internal dispute over the memorandum, which was promulgated well after Moreau's team began its activities. 'The irony was, of course,' the officer said, 'that as we racked up some amazing successes, the administration took credit and defence and the agency each thought the other was responsible.'
        There were a few hints of Moreau's real authority in the early Reagan years. A 2010 US army history of the 1983 decision to invade the Caribbean island of Grenada includes a paper by Edgar Raines of the US Army Centre of Military History. It recounts a series of secret planning meetings in which Moreau, while junior to others present, 'was in many ways the most influential person in the room '... Moreau's ideas thus had a way of reaching the very highest echelon of government. It made him a force with which to reckon.' Raines notes that Moreau had managed to direct the most sensitive operational decision-making to the Special Situation Group, a committee of the most senior policymakers chaired by Bush. None of this was made public at the time.[*]
        A memorandum declassified in 2008, written in April 1984 by Richard Kerr, then deputy director of the CIA, noted that the agency's 'products' '' its intelligence reports and estimates '' were being cut off by Moreau and his team, and not reaching the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. 'I have the feeling,' Kerr wrote plaintively, 'that if we are going to get something past Admiral Moreau we will need to send it via the briefer with a note . . . asking that it be called to the attention of the chairman.' Moreau himself received the full range of CIA products. 'Admiral Moreau's interests,' Kerr added, 'are all subjects, worldwide.'
        Another hint came in Colin Powell's 1995 autobiography '' he was military aide to the secretary of defence, Caspar Weinberger, at the time of the Grenada invasion. Powell wrote that Moreau
        came to me one morning with an odd revelation. The secretary's office was not getting some of the most curious traffic that the NSA plucked out of the air. On his own hook, Art had decided to share this withheld material with me. What I read enraged me '... The content of the messages was startling enough, but what troubled me just as much was why the secretary's office should be cut out of the loop.
        Powell, who shared his boss's scepticism about the value of a war on terror, showed the intercepts to Weinberger. Weinberger '' equally furious '' asked where they had come from. 'I explained,' Powell wrote, 'that they were bootlegged to us by Admiral Moreau, who got them from the NSA.' 'And don't I control the National Security Agency?' Weinberger asked. There was no suggestion in Powell's book that either he or Weinberger challenged Moreau's access to intercepts deemed too sensitive for the secretary of defence.
        *
        'Bush was petrified that the president would say the wrong thing to outsiders about what was going on, and he was hanging around the Oval Office,' the officer said. 'You never knew whether the president might start talking about an operation in China or into Vietnam.'[' ] Reagan was kept out of trouble at important national security meetings by being given a script. 'My colleagues and I would write a talking paper for the president before meetings that resembled movie scripts, because the Old Man knew scripts as a reference. We were constantly updating the script, because if we made a dumb mistake, he would read it. We'd talk among ourselves about where to put the emphasis for certain words and phrases.' In Deadly Gambits, his 1984 study of arms control, Strobe Talbott showed what happened when Reagan didn't have a script. During a conversation about arms control with a group of congressmen, the president suddenly proclaimed: 'Land-based missiles have nuclear warheads, while bombers and submarines don't.' 'Even as he said these words,' Talbott wrote, 'his voice dropped and wavered, as though he had forgotten his lines and knew there was something not quite right about his attempt to improvise.'
        Casey was another source of tension, the officer said. He 'was going around giving the impression that he was a super spook, but nobody on the inside cared because he had no juice. We knew he was over the hill and living on his past glory with the OSS' '' the Office of Strategic Services, the CIA's wartime predecessor. He may have run Reagan's election campaign, he may have been controlling the US operation in Afghanistan, but the military men working with Moreau saw him as 'bizarre, unpredictable, out of control and dishonest'. Murphy made sure to be kept up to date on what Casey was up to. The CIA's director got his chance of glory in Nicaragua, whose Sandinista government was inordinately feared by Reagan and Casey as a dire threat to the United States. Casey was able to get his way because of a rare error of judgment by Moreau, who had brought Marine Lieutenant Oliver North onto the secret team. The Iran-Contra story, as seen from inside the Moreau operation, has little in common with the public record. Bush, known to his friends and aides as 'Poppy', was also worried about Nicaragua and Daniel Ortega, the Sandinista leader, and was instrumental in the decision to give clandestine American support to the Nicaraguan opposition force known as the Contras. Moreau's team inevitably became involved: a high-risk proposition for the group because Congress had passed an amendment barring the use of American funds for support of the Nicaraguan opposition. There was no question about Bush's part in what would become the Iran-Contra scandal. 'Dan Murphy and Poppy would sit down and work it out about the Contras,' the officer said. 'They saw Ortega as turning Nicaragua into a Russian puppet state. ''We can't have that. This is our turf. We have to protect Guatemala and Honduras and Panama.'' So I and my colleagues on Moreau's team wrote findings about covert actions going after Daniel Ortega.'
        But it was important to keep Casey out of the way, the officer said, in order 'to protect our real operations'. Unfortunately, the person charged with protecting the vice president's inside team was Ollie North, then on the staff of the National Security Council. 'We were in different parts of the White House' '' where conspiracy was a constant '' and 'North's job was to keep Moreau up to date on all NSC operations. North was a plant.' It became clear to the Moreau team that the CIA's Casey-led operations in support of the Contras were veering out of control. Casey had been busy illegally raising millions of dollars for the Contras from 'concerned' American citizens and foreign countries, including Saudi Arabia and Brunei, whose leaders were seeking favour with the White House. 'Moreau thought that Casey's actions in support of the Contras were stupid and a time bomb,' the officer said. 'What had begun as a quiet op designed by Moreau to influence public opinion inside Nicaragua was becoming a political football. So Moreau calls on his boy Ollie and tells him to get involved with the Contra issue and keep it from getting out of control. He picked the wrong guy. North was loyal and enthusiastic, but he was fucking dumb.' North saw a career path through keeping in with Casey '' but then the operation took a ludicrous turn after Buckley's kidnapping in Beirut in March 1984 by members of the group that would soon call itself Hizbullah.
        A plan developed to sell anti-tank and surface-to-air missiles to Iran, via the Israelis, in return for Iranian help in releasing Buckley and the other prisoners (the government of the Ayatollah Khomeini, who had overthrown the shah in 1979, was viewed with great hostility by the Reagan administration). Profits from the arms sales would then be used to finance support for the Nicaraguan opposition '' in direct violation of the congressional ban. 'Ollie brings in Dick Secord and Iranian dissidents and money people in Texas to the scheme, and it's gotten totally out of control,' the officer said. 'We're going nuts. If we don't manage this carefully, our whole structure will unravel. And so we' '' former members of Moreau's team who were still working for Bush '' 'leaked the story to the magazine in Lebanon.' He was referring to an article, published on 3 November 1986 by Ash-Shiraa magazine in Beirut, that described the arms for hostages agreement. He would not say how word was passed to the magazine, nor did he acknowledge that with this leak Moreau's group was acting with as much self-interest, and as little regard for the consequences, as Moreau had accused the CIA of doing. The officer explained that it was understood by all that the scandal would unravel in public very quickly, and Congress would get involved. 'Our goals were to protect the Moreau operation, to limit the vice president's possible exposure, and to convince the Reagan administration to limit Bill Casey's management of covert operations. It only took a match to light the fire. It was: ''Oh my god. We were paying ransom for the hostages '' to Iran.'''
        Moreau was gone by the end of 1985: at the recommendation of Bush, he had received his fourth star and was rewarded for his high-pressure double duty in the White House by being appointed commander of US naval forces in Europe and Nato forces in southern Europe. There was another factor: on 1 October 1985, Admiral William Crowe replaced John Vessey as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The formidable Crowe had been filled in, up to a point, on the clandestine operations inside the vice president's office. 'He got a whiff of what was going on,' the officer said. Crowe quickly disbanded Moreau's secret team and returned its officers to navy duty. There would be no undeclared operations on his watch. The roof could have fallen in the following November, when the Iran-Contra scandal became public. The congressional inquiry that followed focused on Reagan, and what he did and didn't know. Bush was mostly out of the line of fire, and so was Moreau. Casey, meanwhile, was diagnosed with a brain tumour in December 1986, and left office within days. He died five months later.
        If Casey had not taken ill, the officer assured me, 'he would have been the fall guy, and taken one for the Boss' '' the president. Bush, with his seemingly secure run for the presidency in 1988 under threat, flew into a panic about the burgeoning scandal. He had played a major role in the sure-to-fail scheme; a comprehensive inquiry might well discover the 35 or so earlier covert operations '' many of them successful '' that he and the Moreau group had conducted. The team's carefully prepared findings, none of which had been given to Congress, were destroyed, as were any other records of the extraordinary operations unit. Moreau suffered a major heart attack in December 1986, while on duty, and died soon afterwards at a military hospital in Naples.
        Secrecy, internal rivalries and illegality had doomed Moreau's project but, for all its flaws, there were some in the defence establishment who felt, as Moreau did, that extraordinary efforts were needed to combat international terrorism. 'How ironic it is,' a senior defence official told me, 'given all the interest now in waging covert warfare, that the very real opportunity to pre-empt al-Qaida, and launch a war decades before 9/11, was squandered by a mix of overzealous, sometimes misguided operators and bickering administration officials.'
        *
        In 1986, as the Iran-Contra scandal turned toxic, the immediate problem for Vice President Bush was political survival. Too many outsiders '' men like Oliver North '' knew too much. The vice president began keeping a diary '' with notable fake elements '' late in 1986, as the scandal was being investigated by the special prosecutor Lawrence Walsh. The diary wasn't turned over to Walsh's inquiry until after Bush's defeat in the 1992 presidential election, despite relevant subpoenas dating back to 1987. It begins with the sentence: 'This is November 1986, the beginning of what I hope will be an accurate diary, with at least five and maybe 15 minutes a day on observations about my run for the presidency in 1988.' But Bush was unable to restrain himself, repeatedly wondering whether North and his close associate on the National Security Council, Admiral John Poindexter, would 'do the right thing' when testifying before Congress. The 'right thing', of course, was for North and Poindexter to lie and not say what they knew about Bush's involvement. At one point, Bush refers to allegations in the media that he has not come clean on his part in the scandal, and adds: 'The implication being that I was some way linked in to the diversion of funds to the Contras or that I was running a secret war' '' which, of course, was precisely what he had been doing. Later, writing about the arms for hostage agreement, he says: 'I'm one of the few people that know fully the details, and there is a lot of flack and misinformation out there. It is not a subject we can talk about.'
        Bush's unconscious seemed to spin out of control again when he was summoned in December 1986 by the Tower Commission, a three-member investigating group put together by the White House in a failed attempt to head off the Walsh inquiry. 'The testimony before the Tower Commission, I think went well,' Bush wrote. 'I made several suggestions to them '... [and] they include no more operations by the NSC; CIA to conduct covert operations; formalise process of the NSC staff; clearly [no more] oral findings, and failure to follow up on these covert operations was wrong. Nobody had any dream that these kinds of things were going on.' He was once again describing what Moreau's group had been doing. The diary, had it been turned over earlier, as Bush's team of lawyers certainly understood, would have led to a great deal of further questioning, and possibly to an indictment.
        Walsh reluctantly ended his far from satisfactory inquiry in 1993. Convictions his staff won at trial were later overturned or suspended, as in North's case; others were pardoned by Bush before he left office. One of Walsh's last acts was to determine whether there was a case against Bush for his initial refusal to turn over the diary. He decided against it after concluding that there was little likelihood of a successful prosecution. The same general conclusion had been reached two years earlier, before the existence of the diary became known, by Christian Mixter, a senior attorney on Walsh's staff. While there was much evidence that Bush had attended most of the important meetings on Iran-Contra, Mixter wrote, his role as 'a secondary officer' to the president made him less likely to be criminally liable for the actions he took. Mixter's analysis was not made public until 2011.
        There is no evidence that Walsh or any of the lawyers on his staff found out about the existence of Moreau's special operations group, though it was clear to some that there was more to know. John Barrett, who now teaches at St John's University School of Law in New York, spent five years working for Walsh and came away, as he told me, with 'a very strong sense that the water was way deeper than we could see. And who knew what was below. I concluded that we were at the mercy of the executive branch.' He added that Archibald Cox, the Harvard law professor who was in charge of the Watergate investigation in 1973, had been able to turn for help to John Dean '' the White House counsel who testified in public about the presidential cover-up. Unlike Cox, 'we didn't have an intelligence insider.'
        The Washington press corps was equally in the dark. Scott Armstrong, a Washington journalist who spent years researching US policy on Iran, recalled a pleasant lunch he had long after the Iran-Contra inquiry with Don Gregg, Bush's national security adviser. The conversation inevitably turned to the Iran-Contra days and Armstrong told Gregg that he and other journalists had always been interested in his role. Gregg's answer, as Armstrong recalled it, was crude and mysterious: 'You guys [in the press] were always sniffing around my ass, and Dan Murphy passed right by you.'
    Big Pharma
      Burnout is making doctors want to kill themselves: report
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Thu, 17 Jan 2019 21:08
        Doctor burnout is becoming a huge problem, according to new research, which finds that nearly half of all physicians feel completely depleted, to the point where one in seven have contemplated suicide.
        The annual Medscape report, released Wednesday, finds that on average, 44 percent of the medical professionals your existence depends on report feeling stressed out to the point where they've considered leaving the field altogether.
        A higher percentage of these wiped-out life-savers are women, according to the survey of more than 15,000 doctors.
        ''It's alarming,'' says Brunilda Nazario, lead medical director at WebMD, which owns Medscape. ''These numbers haven't changed, and the problem just continues to be a trend, despite increasing programs to address wellness,'' such as ''nutrition and exercise programs, or more time off.''
        The reason for the scary numbers isn't what you would think: Most doctors say it's the level of paperwork and data input they've had to do since medical records went digital. Doctors end up spending about 45 minutes per patient visit on tasks like ''inputting data codes for the visit,'' Nazario says, leaving little face-to-face time with patients.
        ''[Doctors] are spending an enormous amount of time taking in data during physician-patient visits,'' she says. ''I know during my last visit for my physician, I think the doctor spent no more than two minutes looking at me. They were looking at a computer screen.''
        The result is scary: ''I dread coming to work,'' one neurologist says in the report.
        A family physician says the stress is taking a toll on her physically: ''I'm having recurrent miscarriages.''
        ''I'm drinking more and have become less active,'' an anesthesiologist says.
        Though most doctors say the depression doesn't affect their patient care, 35 percent say they find themselves getting exasperated with their patients, and 14 percent say they make errors they wouldn't normally make.
        Nazario says that while burnout is common among workers, for doctors, it can seem worse because all the schooling and training they've undergone can feel like a waste when most of their day is spent typing codes into their medical software.
        ''It's almost like being a cog in a wheel, where they're going through the motions of what's necessary, not necessarily using all the knowledge that she or he has gained in the years of training,'' Nazario says.
        And though it changes every year, in 2018, urologists reported the highest rate of burnout and depression (54 percent), followed closely by neurologists (53 percent).
        Nazario says she's not sure why urologists are this year's most burnt out, but that doctors who work longer hours tend to have higher levels of burnout, according to the survey.
        ''I don't think physicians blame the patients,'' she says. ''It's pretty clear that they feel this is a system-wide health care situation.''
        On the other hand, the doctors who were happiest on the job?
        Plastic surgeons.
    SJWBLMLGBBTQQIAAPK
      The $15 Minimum Wage Is Here. Why We Need $33 an Hour. - The New York Times
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Sat, 19 Jan 2019 23:05
        New York | The $15 Minimum Wage Is Here. Why We Need $33 an Hour.Big City
        Image Supporters of raising the minimum wage rallied in New York last November. Credit Credit Sam Hodgson for The New York Times [What you need to know to start the day: Get New York Today in your inbox.]
        Perhaps at no other time of the year is it clearer that elective self-denial is just another privilege of affluence. If you indulged in December without abatement, then you are likely to approach January with the intent to say no '-- to cheese, to craft beer, to Shake Shack, to cake doughnuts, to the braised short ribs you have perfected in an Instant Pot. You will stay home and make salads and eat undressed grains, and presumably the money you save will be spent on virtuous things.
        During these exercises in asceticism you may often feel hungry, but in most cases you will not think about hunger in any broader or meaningful sense. This is not (necessarily) because you are cold and indifferent to the misfortunes of others.
        Hunger as a defining symptom of poverty in the United States is rarely discussed, either at the level of engaged civilian conversation or as a political talking point. To do so would be to admit to a failure of democracy for which too many are to blame.
        According to government statistics, one in eight households in the United States is food insecure, meaning those households are unable to afford a consistent supply of nourishment throughout the year. In New York City, the number of people living with food insecurity has decreased during the past six years, but the figure is still higher '-- by 22 percent '-- than it was before the recession. In the Bronx, more than one-third of all children go hungry regularly.
        On Jan. 1, the new minimum wage, set at $15 an hour, went into effect in New York City, and most companies employing more than 10 people have to pay it. The increase, considered a crucial step in the fight against poverty, is the result of a hard-fought grass-roots organizing effort begun seven years ago and championed as a great victory by liberal politicians, even those who were initially not liberal enough to embrace it. But how much will the new standard do to alleviate some of the most punishing aspects of the city's affordability crisis?
        Last year, San Francisco and Seattle enacted a $15 minimum wage. Though both cities are also fantastically expensive, it is too soon to to draw any comparison to New York, which presents its own challenges. (What we do know from a study examining the experiment in Seattle is that as wages increased on the path to $15 an hour, experienced workers benefited most from higher pay at the expense of reduced opportunities for workers with less experience.)
        Buried under the relentless flood of news during the last months of 2018 was a report, sponsored in part by City Harvest, New York's largest supplier of food to pantries and hunger charities that suggested less-than-optimistic predictions for what a new wage standard might achieve. The authors of the report calculated a self-sufficiency standard, meant to determine how much income is now required to meet basic needs '-- housing, child care, food, transportation, health care '-- without help from public subsidies, for families of different sizes living in different parts of the city.
        The study found that more than two in five households in New York City lacked the income to cover necessities. And yet just a third of those households were considered poor by measures used by the federal government '-- measures typically used as qualifiers for certain kinds of public assistance and ones that do not account for family composition among many other variables.
        You begin to understand some of the animosity directed at Amazon around its impending move to Queens, for example, when you see how much money is actually required to live there already, before housing prices are destined to be driven up even further by the company's expansion. A single parent with two school-age children, for example would need to make nearly $69,427 a year, according to City Harvest's Self-Sufficiency calculator. That amounts to an hourly wage of just under $33.
        So to live comfortably enough in all but the most expensive quarters in Brooklyn, a two-parent family with two children would need to make about $70,000 a year, which would mean that each parent would need to earn just over $16 an hour. That figure accounts for the $433 the family would receive in child-related tax credits. All across the city, the cost of basic needs is rising faster for low-income families that conventional inflation metrics actually indicate. Also dispiriting is the fact that nearly a quarter of households that fall below the self-sufficiency standard include an adult with a bachelor's degree.
        What this tells us is that the arrival of a $15 hourly minimum wage cannot be considered the end of something. New York may be a city of self-invention, but it is not a city of self-sustenance. We are reminded of this every time we encounter the financial diary of a millennial '-- a new publishing subcategory '-- that breaks down expenses for rent and restaurants and Uber and so on and all too often reveals that a pair of parents in Greenwich, or Marin, or somewhere, is supplementing the meager salary of a fashion or media hopeful.
        In many, many cases, a $15 hourly wage will not bring a family, or even a single person, to an adequate living standard. That hardly means the fight was worthless; it just means the war is ongoing.
        Email bigcity@nytimes.com. Follow Ginia Bellafante on Twitter: @GiniaNYT
        A version of this article appears in print on
        , on Page
        MB
        3
        of the New York edition
        with the headline:
        How Far Will $15 an Hour Really Go?
        . Order Reprints | Today's Paper | Subscribe
    War on Weed
      Potential 2020 Presidential Candidate Michael Bloomberg Calls Marijuana Legalization 'Nonsensical' | Marijuana Moment
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Sat, 19 Jan 2019 14:58
        Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) announced last week that she will be seeking the Democratic Party's nomination for president in 2020. Here's a look at where the congresswoman, who received a B+ grade from NORML as well as an earlier endorsement from the advocacy group, stands on marijuana reform.
        Legislation And Policy ActionsGabbard has cosponsored a large number of cannabis-related bills during her time in Congress, and she was the lead sponsor of a measure to require the federal government to study the impact of state marijuana legalization.
        Gabbard signed onto far-reaching legislation to remove marijuana from the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) and withhold federal funds from states that disproportionately enforce cannabis laws.
        Other bills she's backed would shield medical marijuana states from federal interference, legalize industrial hemp, protect banks that service cannabis businesses, provide tax fairness for the cannabis industry, address various aspects of the federal-state marijuana policy gap, remove roadblocks to research and exempt CBD from the CSA.
        She was the lead Democratic cosponsor of a measure to federally deschedule marijuana.
        Gabbard, who served in a medical unit in the Hawaii Army National Guard, has also cosponsored several pieces of legislation aimed at expanding access to medical cannabis for veterans. That includes one bill that would block the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) from denying benefits to patients who use marijuana and another that would require the VA to survey patients and caregivers on cannabis use.
        She signed onto a House resolution last year that was meant to express the chamber's sentiment that the drug war has failed and apologize to ''individuals and communities that were victimized by this policy.'' She also cosponsored a separate resolution calling on states to ''address disparities in the cannabis marketplace participation and to address, reverse, and repair the most egregious effects of the war on drugs on communities of color, in particular to those who now hold criminal records for a substance that is now legal and regulated.''
        Quotes And Social Media PostsThere's no deficit of marijuana-related posts on Gabbard's Facebook and Twitter feeds, and her office has released numerous statements and press releases about the issue.
        After then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions rescinded Obama-era Justice Department guidance on cannabis enforcement priorities in early 2018, she posted an extensive thread about why the move ''will exacerbate an inhumane, ineffective system that tears families apart.
        Veterans suffering from invisible wounds like Post-Traumatic Stress and chronic pain, or with addiction to opioids, deserve our commitment to researching every possible treatment to help them, and Sessions is failing them.
        '-- Tulsi Gabbard (@TulsiGabbard) January 4, 2018
        Sessions' actions to protect the bottom lines of the for-profit private prison industry, and Big Pharma whose opioids and drugs flourish in part due to the marijuana prohibition, while trampling on states' rights and turning everyday Americans into criminals is an injustice.
        '-- Tulsi Gabbard (@TulsiGabbard) January 4, 2018
        States with medical marijuana have seen a correlating drop in opioid-related deaths. Sessions' decision will exacerbate an inhumane, ineffective system that tears families apart. We need criminal justice reform that reduces recidivism and the share of people that we lock up.
        '-- Tulsi Gabbard (@TulsiGabbard) January 4, 2018
        Later in the year, she turned her attention on Hawaii Gov. David Ige (D) after he vetoed legislation that would have made opioid misuse a qualifying condition for medical marijuana. Gabbard has repeatedly touted research demonstrating that legal access to cannabis can reduce opioid overdoses and prescriptions, potentially mitigating a national drug crisis.
        Gov Ige vetoed the bill saying people need to go thru bureaucratic red-tape & apply for approval from HI Dept of Health instead '' knowing DOH won't approve because they don't think there's evidence that medical marijuana can effectively help those suffering from opioid addiction.
        '-- Tulsi Gabbard (@TulsiGabbard) July 12, 2018
        ''With such a stark increase in prescription opioid use and dependence, heroin and synthetic drug overdose, and emergency room visits over the last decade, we must allow legal access to medical marijuana to help prevent opioid addiction and opioid-related deaths,'' Gabbard said in a press release. ''Understanding that people's lives are at stake, I urge Governor Ige to reconsider and sign this legislation into law now.''
        She also talked about the relationship between marijuana laws and opioid overdoses on Joe Rogan's podcast.
        ''There are states that have legalized, whether it's just medical or full legalization, there has proven to be a direct correlation to a drastic reduction in opioid-related deaths in those states where people have access,'' she said. ''If we know this, and every one of the leaders in this country are so concerned about this opioid epidemic, why hasn't this been brought forward?''
        As the opioid addiction epidemic continues to spread across the country, states that have legalized medical marijuana have seen addiction rates drop and opioid abuse deaths decrease by over 20%. 1/2
        '-- Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (@TulsiPress) November 28, 2017
        I'm calling on @HHSGov to allow medical marijuana to serve as an alternative pain management treatment to opioids to help curb the ongoing opioid epidemic. 2/2
        '-- Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (@TulsiPress) November 28, 2017
        In a 2017 interview with SFGate, the senator discussed legislation she cosponsored to remove marijuana from the CSA, saying that current federal cannabis policies ''have turned everyday Americans into criminals, torn families apart, and wasted huge amounts of taxpayer dollars to arrest, prosecute, and incarcerate people for nonviolent marijuana charges.''
        ''The reality is, whether or not any individual chooses to consume cannabis is irrelevant. The important question is, should we really be sending people to jail and turning them into criminals for using a substance that is far less dangerous and harmful than alcohol? The answer is no. The fiscal and social impacts of our current policy, are having devastating effects on individuals and our communities and are only perpetuating the problem.''
        Touting her Marijuana Data Collection Act on the House floor, Gabbard said ''federal policies should be based on actual science and fact, not misplaced stigma and outdated myths.''
        ''For decades, bad data and misinformation have fueled the failed War on Drugs that's wasted billions of taxpayer dollars incarcerating Americans for non-violent marijuana charges,'' she said. ''Our outdated marijuana policies have turned everyday Americans into criminals, strained our criminal justice system, cost taxpayers tremendously, and torn families apart'--all for a substance that's proven to be far less harmful and dangerous than alcohol.''
        Prior to the passage of the 2018 Farm Bill, which federally legalized industrial hemp, the senator spoke out in support of allowing farmers to cultivate the crop.
        Hemp is an incredibly versatile and environmentally restorative crop that has great potential '' to make things like clothing, paper, houses and more. We must eliminate the obstacles blocking farmers and innovators from pursuing these opportunities.https://t.co/vrSjce36Um
        '-- Tulsi Gabbard (@TulsiGabbard) October 14, 2018
        ''Our nation should empower our local farmers by allowing them to grow, cultivate and research industrial hemp that will create opportunity and strengthen our economy,'' she said in a press release. ''The DEA must honor and uphold the Congressional intent of federal legislation that allows states, like Hawai'i, to establish programs to research the benefits, cultivation, and market of industrial hemp.''
        Personal Experience With MarijuanaIt's not clear whether Gabbard has personal experience with marijuana besides meeting patients and veterans who've benefited from medical cannabis.
        Marijuana Under A Gabbard PresidencyGabbard's cosponsorship of a long list of cannabis reform bills and continual focus on the issue in public statements and social media posts indicate she would be an especially marijuana-friendly president if she were to earn the Democratic nomination and win the 2020 election.
        Where Presidential Candidate Kirsten Gillibrand Stands On Marijuana
        Photo element courtesy of Lorie Shaull.
        Marijuana Moment is made possible with support from readers. If you rely on our cannabis advocacy journalism to stay informed, please consider a monthly Patreon pledge.
    War on Guns
      Textual analysis of HR8, bill to "To require a background check for every firearm sale" - Volokh Conspiracy : Reason.com
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Sat, 19 Jan 2019 13:21
        This week, U.S. Rep. Mike Thompson (D-Calif.) introduced HR8. According to the title, the bill is "To require a background check for every firearm sale." The bill does that--and a great deal more.
        Summary
        HR8 requires that loans, gifts, and sales of firearms be processed by a gun store. The same fees, paperwork, and permanent record-keeping apply as to buying a new gun from the store. If you loan a gun to a friend without going to the gun store, the penalty is the same as for knowingly selling a gun to a convicted violent felon. Likewise, when the friend returns the gun, another trip to the gun store is necessary, upon pain of felony.
        A clever trick in HR8 effectively bans handguns for persons 18-to20.
        The bill has some narrow exemptions. The exemptions do not cover stalking victims. Also excluded are farming and ranching, sharing guns on almost all public and private lands, NS storing guns with friends while on vacation. The limited exemption for family excludes first cousins and in-laws. The minuscule exemption for self-defense excludes stalking victims.
        The bill authorizes unlimited fees to be imposed by regulation.
        Self-defense
        There is a partial exemption for immediate self-defense: "(D) a temporary transfer that is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm, if the possession by the transferee lasts only as long as immediately necessary to prevent the imminent death or great bodily harm".
        The narrowness of the self-defense exemption endangers domestic violence victims. For example, a former domestic partner threatens a woman and her children. An attack might come in the next hour, or the next month, or never. The victim and her children cannot know. Because the attack is uncertain'--and is certainly not "immediate"'--the woman cannot borrow a handgun from a neighbor for her defense. Many domestic violence victims do not have several hundred spare dollars so that they can buy their own gun.
        Handgun ban for young adults
        Since 1968, federal law has said that gun stores may not sell handguns to persons under 21. 18 U.S.C. § 922(c)(1). Congress has not chosen to prohibit persons aged 18-20 from acquiring handguns elsewhere. The large majority of states allow handgun possession by persons 18-20.
        Some legislators have forthrightly introduced bills to impose a ban on young adults. HR8 prohibits young adults from acquiring handguns, but does so with a clever subterfuge.
        HR8 requires almost all firearms sales and loans to be conducted by a federally-licensed dealer. Because federal law prohibits licensed dealers from transferring handguns to persons under 21 years, HR8 prevents young adults from acquiring handguns. This is a clever way to enact a handgun ban indirectly.
        HR8 would prohibit a 20-year-old woman who lives on her own from acquiring a handgun for self-defense in her home, such as by buying it from a relative or borrowing it from a friend.
        Although HR8 allows young adults to acquire handguns by parental gift, not all young adults who are living on their own receive parental largesse.
        Exorbitant fees may be imposed by regulation
        ''(3)(A) Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the Attorney General may implement this sub-section with regulations."
        ''(D) Regulations promulgated under this paragraph may not include any provision placing a cap on the fee licensees may charge to facilitate transfers in accordance with paragraph (1)."
        Regulators may set a minimum fee, but not "a cap on a fee." The Attorney General is allowed to require that every gun store charge a fee of $30, $50, $150, or more. Even a $20 fee can be a hard burden to a poor person.
        Farming and Ranching
        HR8 has a limited exemption for "hunting, trapping, or fishing"'--but not for ranching or farming.
        Firearms transfers at farms and ranches are part of routine operations. Some transfers might last a few hours, while others last for several weeks'--as when a ranch hand takes a gun to guard a flock night and day during calving season. Under HR8, the transfer is allowed only when the farmer or rancher stays in the hand's "presence." This is impractical; often the hand needs to do work in one location, and the farmer or rancher in another.
        Under HR8, for a farmer or rancher to lend a firearm to an employee, they both must travel to a gun store to process the transfer. When the employee returns the firearm, everyone must return again to the gun store.
        Because few farms and ranches are located near gun stores, the process typically requires hours of travel for the loan, and hours more for the return. This takes the farmer, the rancher, and their hands away from the farm or ranch during what may be the busiest period of the year, when everyone needs to work from sunup to sundown.
        Family members
        You can make a "a loan or bona fide gift" to some family members. In-laws and cousins are excluded.
        The family exemption vanishes if one family member pays the other in any way. If a brother trades an extra shotgun to his sister in exchange for her extra television, both of them have to go to a gun store. Their exchange will have all the fees and paperwork as if she were buying a gun from the store.
        Outlawing gun sharing on public and private property
        There is an exemption for sharing guns "(i) at a shooting range or in a shooting gallery or other area designated for the purpose of target shooting".
        Not everyone has access to a "designated" target range. In rural areas with low population density, the nearest designated range may be far away. In urban areas, the waiting lists for membership in a gun club may stretch out for years. Designated public ranges exist, but in many areas, there are few or none. Those that do exist may be a long ways away, or may be crowded, with long waiting times.
        Accordingly, Americans have always engage in target practice at informal ranges on public lands. Today, many of these lands are owned by the U.S. National Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, or a state or local equivalent.
        Private property may be also used, with the owner's consent. The general legal rule is that shooting is lawful anywhere in rural areas, except for specified sites, such near public roads. Of course one must always obey all safety rules, which includes ensuring that there is a safe backstop to the target, such as a mound of dirt.
        HR8 prohibits firearms sharing on public or private lands that have not been "designated for the purpose of target shooting."
        For example: you own a 120 acre farm. Your cousins and brother-in-law come for a visit, and they want to camp outside. You want to loan them your handgun for protection. This is forbidden by HR8. Under the bill, the family must travel to a gun store to process the loan and collect the fees. Later, when your relatives want to return your handgun, there must be another trip to gun store, with the same paperwork and fees.
        Under HR8, the returned of a loaned gun is treated the same as the purchase of a new gun.
        Museums
        There is no exemption for loaning firearms to a museum. After Washington State enacted a law similar to HR8, the law immediately caused problems for the Lynden Pioneer Museum, in Bellingham, which had a "WWII Pacific Theater" exhibit that included rifles.
        Safe storage discouraged
        Consider a person who will be away from home for an extended period: a member of the armed services being deployed overseas, a person going away to school, a person going on a long vacation, or a person evacuating her home due to a natural disaster. Such persons might wish to store firearms with a trusted neighbor or friend. This type of storage should be encouraged. Guns are less likely to be stolen by burglars, and then sold into the black market, if they are kept in an occupied home rather than left in a house that will be unoccupied.
        But under HR8, neighbor A can only store neighbor B's guns if both persons go to a gun store, fill out extensive paperwork for each and every gun to be stored, pay per-gun fees to the government and the gun store, and then repeat the process when the firearms are returned. As a result, many fewer people will go through all the trouble. So more guns will be left in unoccupied dwellings; they will be at greater risk of being stolen and thus of being supplied to the criminal black market. Discouraging safe storage is among the ways HR8 harms public safety.
        Note: This post is based in part on my article Background Checks for Firearms Sales and Loans: Law, History, and Policy, 53 Harvard Journal on Legislation 303 (2016).
    Surveillance Capital
      O.K., Google: How Much Money Have I Made for You Today? - The New York Times
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Sat, 19 Jan 2019 14:58
        Books of The Times
        Image Credit Credit Alessandra Montalto/The New York Times A friend of mine says that whenever he walks into someone's home he's tempted to yell out, ''Hey, Alexa,'' or ''O.K., Google,'' and order 50 pizzas, just to see if there's a device listening in on whatever gossip he planned to dish out next.
        Shoshana Zuboff would undoubtedly get the joke, but she probably wouldn't laugh. In ''The Age of Surveillance Capitalism,'' she warns against mistaking the soothing voice of a personal digital assistant for ''anything other than the exploitation of your needs.'' The clich(C) that ''if you're not paying for it, you're the product'' isn't alarming enough for her. She likens the big tech platforms to elephant poachers, and our personal data to ivory tusks. ''You are not the product,'' she says. ''You are the abandoned carcass.''
        O.K., Zuboff, tell me more. It's a testament to how extraordinarily intelligent her book is that by the time I was compared to an elephant carcass, I resisted the urge to toss it across the room. Zuboff, a professor emerita of Harvard Business School and the author of ''In the Age of the Smart Machine'' (1988), has a dramatic streak that could come off as simply grandiose if she didn't so painstakingly make her case. She says we're living through such ''a bold and unprecedented shift in capitalist methods'' that even as we encounter the occasional story about Facebook allowing its corporate clients to read users' private messages or the software in Google's Street View cars scraping unencrypted information from people's homes, the American public doesn't yet grasp the new dispensation in its entirety.
        So many people take care to calibrate their privacy settings just so, sharing certain things with friends and keeping other things hidden, while their data still gets collected and shared among apps for possible monetization now or later. Google and Facebook might not call to mind the belching smoke stacks and child laborers of the Industrial Revolution, but Zuboff argues that they're run by people who have turned out to be just as ruthless and profit-seeking as any Gilded Age tycoon. Instead of mining the natural landscape, surveillance capitalists extract their raw material from human experience.
        This business model emerged almost by accident. Zuboff describes how Google, in its early days, happened to keep a cache of data byproducts '-- spelling, click patterns, location '-- that were produced with each search. It was only after the dot-com bubble burst in 2000 that the company was forced to figure out how to do more than simply provide a free service to its users. It settled on selling advertising, but the advertising would be ''relevant'' and ''targeted,'' using all the detailed behavioral information Google had collected from users.
        Image Shoshana Zuboff Credit Michael D. Wilson ''This new market form declares that serving the genuine needs of people is less lucrative, and therefore less important, than selling predictions of their behavior,'' Zuboff writes. Whatever gauzy sentiments the new kinds of capitalists espouse (or even believe) about building community and democratizing knowledge get subordinated to the brute demands of economic survival '-- hence the relentless accumulation of additional data sources, and the ardent lobbying against government regulation.
        Surveillance capitalism has flourished precisely because it fulfills what Zuboff concedes are real needs and desires. Online platforms offer us ways to ''ease the complexities of our harried lives.'' In exchange for surveillance we get convenience, efficiency and social connection.
        Google comes in for plenty of criticism from Zuboff, but she is equally scathing about Facebook. (She calls Sheryl Sandberg, who worked at Google before becoming Facebook's chief operating officer, ''the 'Typhoid Mary' of surveillance capitalism.'') Facebook has learned how to manipulate empathy and attachment in order to increase engagement and make billions. In a document sent to advertisers in Australia and New Zealand, Facebook bragged of its ability to discern exactly when a young person could use a ''confidence boost.'' And then there are the Facebook scandals involving Cambridge Analytica and the Kremlin during the 2016 election, with their deployment of personality tests and viral memes; it's all fun and games until the host of ''The Apprentice'' becomes president.
        Surveillance capitalists like to depict themselves as more socially enlightened than their industrial predecessors, but in Zuboff's reckoning they ask for a lot while giving relatively little back. Their companies operate at ''hyperscale'': Despite their enormous market capitalization, Google and Facebook each employ far fewer workers than General Motors once did, even during the depths of the Great Depression. Citing the economic historian Karl Polanyi, Zuboff shows how postwar corporations were expected to offer some sort of communal reciprocity '-- hiring workers and hiking wages, sharing prosperity rather than hoarding it. The ascendancy of neoliberalism in the 1970s, she says, laid the groundwork for Silicon Valley to promote an extreme form of entrepreneurial capitalism, unencumbered by any substantive responsibility to the communities it purports to serve.
        Zuboff can get overheated with her metaphors; an extended passage with tech executives as Spanish conquistadors and the rest of us as indigenous peoples is frankly ridiculous, even if I can understand how Zuboff thought the phrase ''rivers of blood'' would get her urgency across. The system she minutely describes is scary enough (I now have a clearer picture of why the Pok(C)mon Go app, a real data gobbler, was offered for free) without dialing the volume up to 11.
        But then maybe my reflexive discomfort only indicates that I've become acclimated '-- or ''habituated,'' as Zuboff likes to say '-- to the world that surveillance capitalists have created. Absorbing Zuboff's methodical determination, the way she pieces together sundry examples into this comprehensive work of scholarship and synthesis, requires patience, but the rewards are considerable '-- a heightened sense of awareness, and a deeper appreciation of what's at stake. A business model that seeks growth by cataloging our ''every move, emotion, utterance and desire'' is too radical to be taken for granted. As Zuboff repeatedly says near the end of the book, ''It is not O.K.''
        A version of this article appears in print on
        , on Page
        C
        2
        of the New York edition
        with the headline:
        O.K., Google: What Was My Privacy Worth?
        . Order Reprints | Today's Paper | Subscribe
    Clips
      VIDEO - The exciting world of podcasts - YouTube
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Sun, 20 Jan 2019 16:33
      VIDEO - The Boris Johnson Phone-In: 14th January 2019 - YouTube
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Sun, 20 Jan 2019 15:50
      VIDEO - Great ad from a watch company counters Gillette's #MeToo crap - see the good in men! - Michael Smith News
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Sun, 20 Jan 2019 14:57
        17-03-92 Locals concerned the Accident and Death Fund was being used to buy property and office equipment with the funds they paid into the fund. 18-03-92 Boulder fund suspended 15-05-92 Bruce Wilson and Julia Gillard go to a meeting with the miners in Kalgoorlie 18-05-92 AWU announce it is taking over the fund at Boulder paper article 13-02-93 Contract of sale signed by Bruce Wilson 13-02-93 Purchase of 85 Kerr Street Fitzroy by Julia Gillard and B Wilson who attended the Auction 13-02-93 blewitt-getting-his-addres.html Purchase of 85 Kerr Street Fitzroy by Julia Gillard and Bruce Wilson who attended the Auction 15-02-93 Letter to Slater & Gordon about the 1/85 Kerr Street sale 15-02-93 Ralph Blewitt is appointed Western Australian Branch Secretary in the week 15 to 19 February 16-02-93 Olive Brosnan and Heidi chasing up the Power of Attorney - notes 17-02-93 Olive Brosnan makes this further note regarding Heidi, a sales person with the Real Estate firm GA Thomson. Note that Heidi returns the call and says that she will let Olive Brosnan have the original Power of Attorney (when she gets it?) and will need a certified copy in return 22-02-93 Slater and Gordon acknowledges that it has received the Contract of Sale, Section 32 Statement and the Power of Attorney from GA Thomson. 23-02-93 Olive Brosnan certifies Power of Attorney 3-03-93 A memo from Sylvia to Olive Brosnan about the application for the loan for Ralph Blewitt and the Kerr Street property 4-03-93 Letter/fax from Hewitt & Company stating Ralph Blewitt Wages Ref VB/CS 9-03-93 Memo to Olive Brosnan from Sylvia about the loan approval and the return of the chq for $500 from Ralph Blewitt's personal account 10-03-93 Letter from Slater & Gordon addressed to Ralph Blewitt explaining mortgage details Page 1, Page 2, Page 3 10-03-93 Memo Julia Gillard wants details of penalty interest rates 12-03-93 Memo to Julia Gillard from Olive Brosnan about penalty interest rates 17-03-93 Memo of fees for house - Bill of costs 18-03-93 Letter to Ralph Blewitt requesting Cheque for $67,772.30 18-03-93 The cheque for $67,772.30 22-03-93 Settlement date for Kerr Street purchase 23-03-93 Land Transfer document 31-03-94 Dawesville project costs Aug-Sept 94 Julia Gillard went on holidays while Bruce Wilson organised house renovations Aug-Sept 94 Interview with Slater & Gordon about the Renovations 6-02-95 New bank accounts for Construction Fund 17-02-95 AWU-FIME amalgamate (2 Victorian Branches) 12-04-95 Cheque from AWU WRAI account $46,550 27-04-95 Cheque for $15000 - $10 000 for K Spyridis and $5000 cash 30-06-95 AWU went back to central funding arrangements 25-07-95 Letter from Robert Smith (AWU) to Ian Cambridge and Steve Harrison about the unknown AWU bank accounts 27-07-95 Letter to the National Executives about the freezing of the accounts 2-08-95 Union National Finance committee meet to discuss what was going on start of investigations into the frozen accounts 4-08-95 Bob Smith wrote to Ian Cambridge to say the AWU was going to charge Bruce Wilson 10-08-95 Ian Cambridge visits QC Richard Kenzie from Maurice Blackburn for discussions to fix it (get union money back) 14-08-95 Internal Review into Julia Gillard's involvement of the AWU -WRA and she is put on restricted duties 14/15 Aug 95 Other Joint secretaries of the Unions paid out the signatories of the accounts - hand writing on the cheques Link 1 Link 2 16-08-95 Bruce Wilson redundancy cheque $55,204 17-08-95 Letter to stop the cheques Ian Cambridge 17/18 Aug 95 All accounts were closed bar 2 general and grants accounts and redundancies given out 18-08-95 Affidavit - Bill Ludwig - Bruce Wilson get sprung 11-09-95 Julia Gillard interviewed by Geoff Shaw, Peter Gordon and Nick Styant-Browne at Slater and Gordon - It's recorded and she goes on leave of Absence until May 96 (WA AWU-WRA not yet discovered by AWU yet) 31-01-96 Ian Cambridge addresses AWU Qld Branch meeting 3-04-96 Ian Cambridge talked with Commonwealth Bank - Diary entry - Discovery of Workplace Reform Association INC. WA branch 6-05-96 Discovery of Accounts in AWU name by Ian Cambridge letter from Commonwealth Bank 7-05-96 Fax from Com bank listing the accounts in the AWU name - for Ian Cambridge 1-06-96 Newspaper article about Joe Trio and the AWU fraud article from sometime in 1996 3-06-96 Ian Cambridge received bank records after the discussions with the bank back in April Ian Cambridge spoke to AWU Officials in Perth and they never heard of the Workplace Reform Association Inc. 5-07-96 Diary entry Ian Cambridge - spoke to Branch Official Russell Frearson about the $400,000 going through the account 31-07-96 Geoff Shaw Slater & Gordon General Manager gets Subpoena to supply all documents relating to purchase of 1/85 Kerr Street 13-08-96 Court proceeding where Geoff Shaw is to produce the documents from the Subpeona Link 1, Link 2 6-01-97 Memo from Investigating Detective Dave McAlpine about the AWU fraud 6-02-97 Memo to fraud squad from Theiss stating they hadn't been defrauded Link 1, Link 2, Link 3, Link 4 17-02-98 Memo fraud squad about Theiss - Ralph Blewitt said Theiss auditors required that the WRA needed to be Inc.
      VIDEO - Laura Loomer Storms the Stage at Women's March, Asks 'What About the Jews?'
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Sun, 20 Jan 2019 14:55
        Activist Laura Loomer made sure Saturday that attendees at this year's Women's March in New York City knew what was missing from the event.
        Loomer, who livestreamed herself on Instagram, made her way to the main stage and interrupted Agunda Okeyo, director of the Women's March New York City. She managed to get that far by telling security she was a media representative.
        One she reached the stage, she yelled into the mic, ''What about the Jews?''
        ''The Women's March does not represent Jewish people. The Women's March is the real Nazi march. The Women's March hates Jews,'' Loomer said.
        TRENDING: Trump Slams Pelosi for Being 'Controlled by the Radical Left'
        Laura Loomer rushes the #WomensMarch stage and screams ''The Women's March hates Jews!'' at the crowd, gets escorted off by police.(Thanks to @Rebell117 for the clip) pic.twitter.com/rViP5gjvCM
        '-- Nick Monroe (@nickmon1112) January 19, 2019
        She was then taken off the stage by security guards.
        ''The Women's March hates Jews! Linda Sarsour is a Jew-hater! Tamika Mallory is a Jew hater!'' she called out as she was taken away.
        Was Laura Loomer right to denounce the Women's March?Laura Loomer, who's Jewish, just rushed the stage at the #WomensMarch in #NYC, took the mic from the organizer, and screamed ''The Women's March hates Jews!''
        She was escorted off stage by police, spotted @BilldeBlasio in the crowd, and called him a ''Jew hater''.
        Epic.
        '-- Raheem Kassam (@RaheemKassam) January 19, 2019
        After she was removed, Okeyo said, ''This is not a negative day,'' according to Vox.
        ''What we're doing today is we're going to uplift each other and we're going to make sure we stay positive. I want to hear my Jewish family,'' she told the crowd.
        Loomer remained at the march for about 30 minutes while she commented on the event, the Washington Examiner reported.
        RELATED: Critics Slam Dem. Gov. for Focusing More on Orcas than Mental Health
        The New York City march included remarks by Democratic Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who said the only anti-Semitism to worry about was the anti-Semitism coming from the White House, according to CNN.
        ''I think that concerns of anti-Semitism with the current administration in the White House are absolutely valid and we need to make sure that we are protecting the Jewish community and all those that feel vulnerable in this moment,'' she said.
        However, Florida Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a former chair of the Democratic National Committee, was among the many Democrats who pulled back from embracing the march due to concerns over anti-Semitism.
        ''I cannot associate with the national march's leaders and principles, which refuse to completely repudiate anti-Semitism and all forms of bigotry,'' Wasserman Schultz said, according to The Hill. ''I cannot walk shoulder to shoulder with leaders who lock arms with outspoken peddlers of hate.''
        National Women's March leaders Bob Bland, Carmen Perez, Mallory and Sarsour have been under fire for their ties to Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan.
        By way of a response, New York City's march included several speakers who said there is unity between Jewish women and minorities.
        However, as an indication in the loss of unity since the first Women's March in 2017, New York City was host to two competing marches.
        We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.
      VIDEO - Petrol pipeline thieves cause deadly explosion in Mexico - YouTube
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Sun, 20 Jan 2019 14:05
      VIDEO - Many arrests as "Yellow Vests" protests continue - YouTube
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Sun, 20 Jan 2019 14:01
      VIDEO - DRC: Fayulu asks int'l community to reject Top Court ruling, declares himself legit president - YouTube
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Sun, 20 Jan 2019 13:52
      VIDEO - DOUGLAS RUSHKOFF - TEAM HUMAN - Part 1/2 | London Real - YouTube
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Sun, 20 Jan 2019 13:23
      VIDEO - Trump Offers Temporary Protections for 'Dreamers' in Exchange for Wall Funding - The New York Times
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Sun, 20 Jan 2019 12:46
        Video In a White House address, President Trump announced a plan that would provide temporary protection from deportation for some immigrants in exchange for $5.7 billion in funding for a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border. Credit Credit Tom Brenner for The New York Times WASHINGTON '-- President Trump, facing a growing public backlash over the partial government shutdown, shifted course on Saturday and offered Democrats a deal: temporary protections for roughly 700,000 young undocumented immigrants in exchange for $5.7 billion in funding for a wall along the southern border.
        But the proposal, which Mr. Trump unveiled in a 13-minute address from the White House, appeared dead on arrival in the Capitol. Speaker Nancy Pelosi rejected it even before Mr. Trump spoke, and Senator Chuck Schumer, the Democratic leader, denounced the offer as ''not a compromise but more hostage taking.''
        With the shutdown entering its fifth week and polls showing a majority of the public blaming Mr. Trump, the president's advisers have been searching for an exit strategy. Saturday's speech grew out of talks that Vice President Mike Pence and the president's son-in-law and senior adviser, Jared Kushner, have had in recent days with lawmakers including Senator Mitch McConnell, the majority leader.
        The proposal was Mr. Trump's first public offer to Democrats since the partial shutdown began nearly a month ago. It came after an acrimonious week of tit-for-tat politics, in which Ms. Pelosi told the president he could not deliver his State of the Union address in the Capitol until the shutdown was over, and the president retaliated by grounding a plane that was supposed to take Ms. Pelosi on a fact-finding mission to Afghanistan.
        In casting the plan as a compromise, the president sought to shift pressure to Democrats '-- who have repeatedly refused to give Mr. Trump any money for his border wall '-- to end the shutdown. But Democrats continued to insist they will not negotiate with Mr. Trump over border security until the government reopens.
        Over the course of his administration, Mr. Trump has repeatedly sought to curb both legal and illegal immigration. He has revoked Temporary Protected Status, or T.P.S., which offers crucial protections for immigrants, for people from some Latin American and African countries. And he has moved to rescind Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, an Obama-era program that shielded the young undocumented immigrants known as Dreamers from deportation.
        In the deal he outlined on Saturday, Mr. Trump offered to restore T.P.S. protection for 300,000 people, and said he would allow 700,000 Dreamers to keep their protections for three more years in exchange for $5.7 billion for a border barrier.
        ''That is our plan,'' Mr. Trump said. ''Border security, DACA, T.P.S. Many other things. Straightforward, fair, reasonable and common sense with lots of compromise.'' The proposal, Mr. Trump added, was intended to ''break the logjam and provide Congress with a path forward.''
        The speech was the second time during the shutdown that the president addressed the nation about the immigration crisis. But unlike his first address, a prime-time broadcast from the Oval Office that leaned heavily on dark messaging about the dangers of crime and illegal drugs flowing across the border, Mr. Trump seemed on Saturday to soften his tone.
        He paired the address with his first naturalization ceremony at the White House, a move intended to underscore the idea that he supports legal immigration. And his language was markedly different; instead of insisting on the ''big beautiful wall'' he promised during his 2016 campaign, Mr. Trump took care to use the word ''barrier'' as well '-- and seemed to pare back his vision for it.
        Calling the wall ''a powerful and beautifully designed see-through steel barrier on our southern border,'' Mr. Trump said: ''This is not a 2,000-mile concrete structure from sea to sea. These are steel barriers in high priority locations. Much of the border is already protected by natural barriers such as mountains and water.''
        Mr. Trump noted that he had adopted some Democratic proposals on border security. The president proposed $800 million for humanitarian assistance and $805 million for drug detection technology, in addition to funding for 2,750 more border agents and law enforcement officials and 75 new immigration judge teams.
        In her talking points, issued to Democrats, Ms. Pelosi said her party favored ''new drug, weapons and contraband scanning technology at official ports of entry,'' and ''filling the more than 3,000 vacancies for customs officers.'' Ms. Pelosi also intends to bring up legislation in the coming days that includes an additional $1 billion for border security, including $563 million for 75 new immigration judges and support staff.
        Even so, Democrats roundly criticized the president's plan. They were particularly incensed that Mr. Trump's offer extended protections to Dreamers and T.P.S. recipients that he himself revoked. And they said the deal was a nonstarter because it did not offer any permanent protections for Dreamers.
        ''I think it's simply more fake promises raising false hopes,'' Senator Richard Blumenthal, Democrat of Connecticut, said. ''It will fool few Americans because it's neither serious nor credible as a real remedy for Dreamers.''
        Some on the right also pushed back, describing the proposal as amnesty. James Carafano, a national security expert at the Heritage Foundation who worked on Mr. Trump's transition, was among the critics. ''Amnesty encourages further illegal immigration, incentivizes the tragedy of human trafficking and undermines our citizens' confidence in the rule of law,'' he said.
        Mr. Pence, briefing reporters after Mr. Trump's remarks, said the speech reflected a painstaking process of listening to lawmakers, including rank-and-file Democrats who made it clear they believed that protections for DACA and T.P.S. recipients must be included in a border security deal.
        And he pushed back forcefully against critics like Mr. Carafano who said the measure amounted to an unacceptable amnesty for undocumented immigrants.
        ''There is no pathway to citizenship in this proposal,'' Mr. Pence said.
        But that was one reason many Democrats considered it unacceptable. Other senior administration officials made it clear that part of Mr. Trump's strategy was to try to drive a wedge within the party between those who want to hold out for a much more generous solution and those who may feel enough political pressure to end the shutdown that they will feel obliged to support it.
        Noting that Tuesday is the deadline for the government to reopen in time to prevent federal employees from going a second consecutive pay period without a check, Mick Mulvaney, the acting chief of staff, said Senate Democrats had a tricky decision to make. He also noted that the president's ability to declare a national emergency was ''absolutely'' still a tool available to Mr. Trump to find funds to build the wall if a legislative agreement could not be reached.
        Now it will be up to Mr. McConnell to put legislation incorporating Mr. Trump's proposal on the Senate floor.
        Mr. McConnell '-- who has insisted he will not put any legislation on the floor unless the president will sign it '-- spoke to Mr. Trump, Mr. Kushner and Mr. Pence on Thursday night about finding a way forward.
        Mr. McConnell told the president that before he could bring up legislation on the Senate floor, he needed a ''public reassurance'' that Mr. Trump would sign it, one person close to the talks said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to describe sensitive discussions.
        The president's proposal ''strikes a fair compromise by incorporating priorities from both sides of the aisle,'' Mr. McConnell said in a statement after Mr. Trump's speech.
        If Mr. McConnell does indeed put a bill on the floor, as the president said he would, Senate Democrats will have to decide whether to block it or let it come up for a vote. Despite Democrats' vow to reject the measure, it could create an opening for negotiations between the two sides.
        The shutdown stalemate is creating increasing nervousness on Capitol Hill, especially among Republicans seeking re-election in Democratic-leaning states. One of them, Senator Susan Collins of Maine, is among only a handful of Republicans who have broken with the president and called for the government to reopen without a border security deal.
        On Saturday, she praised the president, saying she hoped that Mr. Trump's offer would ''lead to constructive debate that will end this impasse.''
        White House aides and allies of Mr. Trump said Saturday that Mr. Trump succeeded in ratcheting up the political pressure on Ms. Pelosi, especially if the Senate succeeded in passing a bill.
        ''The Democrats' talking points have been that the president is solely responsible for shutting down the government,'' Marc Short, the former White House legislative director, said. ''This puts more onus on them to come back and say why this proposal is insufficient.''
        But one reason Democrats are so leery of the deal is that they have been down this road with the president before. Last year, Mr. Trump and Mr. Schumer negotiated $25 billion in wall money for a pathway to citizenship for the Dreamers. But that deal fell apart when hard-line White House advisers persuaded the president to back away.
        The standoff over the shutdown, some former aides noted, was the first time Mr. Trump has had to engage in meaningful, high-stakes negotiations. But even that has come as a last resort, in what some have likened to negotiating out of desperation after failing to score political points.
        Julie Hirschfeld Davis contributed reporting.
        A version of this article appears in print on
        , on Page
        A
        1
        of the New York edition
        with the headline:
        President Offers Deal on 'Dreamers' to Secure a Wall
        . Order Reprints | Today's Paper | Subscribe
      VIDEO - 'WUT??' Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez questioned about anti-Semitism in Women's March leadership, QUICKLY deflects to Trump '' twitchy.com
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Sun, 20 Jan 2019 05:47
        We've reported many times before about the anti-Semitism in the ranks of the leadership of the national Women's March organization that's caused Dems like Debbie Wasserman Schultz and others to walk away from the group. At Saturday's Women's March in Washington, DC, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was asked about it, and watch how fast her answer '-- or something vaguely resembling an answer '-- pivoted to Donald Trump:
        WATCH: Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez addresses question about those with concerns about anti-Semitism within the Women's March groups. https://t.co/qxhHH5CLXR pic.twitter.com/0B90LAZ186
        '-- The Hill (@thehill) January 19, 2019
        Socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez refuses to address the anti-Semitism within the Women's March and instead claims that the Trump administration are the ones guilty of anti-Semitismpic.twitter.com/DNBE1Kl07Q
        '-- Ryan Saavedra (@RealSaavedra) January 20, 2019
        Wait, what?
        I literally didn't understand one word she said
        '-- Allie Beth Stuckey (@conservmillen) January 20, 2019
        All we know for sure is it was a fast attempt to project everything some Women's March leaders have shown themselves to be onto President Trump.
        @AOC do you not know that the President's son-in-law is Jewish?
        '-- Tammy Peterman (@TammyPeterman) January 20, 2019
        Trump is attcked for letting Jared Kushner and Ivanka have too much power, and he's also an anti-semite.
        I know we stopped teaching logic, but can we pretend to have logical consistency in our public discourse? https://t.co/ReULc9eAP2
        '-- Charlie Atwood (@CharlieAtwood3) January 20, 2019
        And AOC gave that answer while Linda Sarsour was being applauded at the same event for calling for a boycott of Israel.
        Q: ''what would you say to those who have concerns about anti-semitism within the women's march'' A: You're right, Trump is an anti-Semite! https://t.co/cPUwB2xggD
        '-- Jacob Dunklin (@YikYakob) January 19, 2019
        Didn't answer '...
        '-- eli (@elialjanati) January 19, 2019
        Dodging answers like'... pic.twitter.com/MVekKzg0ER
        '-- Sgt. Laughter' (@ilovemmasobad) January 20, 2019
        Wut??? That's a word salad of an answer.
        '-- Kristin (@kedarhower) January 20, 2019
        Trump is attcked for letting Jared Kushner and Ivanka have too much power, and he's also an anti-semite.
        I know we stopped teaching logic, but can we pretend to have logical consistency in our public discourse? https://t.co/ReULc9eAP2
        '-- Charlie Atwood (@CharlieAtwood3) January 20, 2019
        Simply amazing.
      VIDEO - OPUS 116 Pelosi CODEL Raw - YouTube
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Sun, 20 Jan 2019 05:27
      VIDEO - Adamowicz funeral: Poland bids farewell to Gdansk mayor | DW News - YouTube
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Sat, 19 Jan 2019 23:47
      VIDEO - Ronna McDaniel on Twitter: "The mainstream media has been biased against @realDonaldTrump since Day 1. And this is what putting bias before facts looks like.'... https://t.co/JtR1FWgJWV"
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Sat, 19 Jan 2019 23:02
        Welcome home! This timeline is where you'll spend most of your time, getting instant updates about what matters to you.
        Tweets not working for you? Hover over the profile pic and click the Following button to unfollow any account.
        Say a lot with a little When you see a Tweet you love, tap the heart '-- it lets the person who wrote it know you shared the love.
        Spread the word The fastest way to share someone else's Tweet with your followers is with a Retweet. Tap the icon to send it instantly.
        Join the conversation Add your thoughts about any Tweet with a Reply. Find a topic you're passionate about, and jump right in.
        Learn the latest Get instant insight into what people are talking about now.
        Get more of what you love Follow more accounts to get instant updates about topics you care about.
        Find what's happening See the latest conversations about any topic instantly.
        Never miss a Moment Catch up instantly on the best stories happening as they unfold.
      VIDEO - 5G service is coming '' and so are health concerns over the towers that support it - CBS News
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Sat, 19 Jan 2019 20:52
        The wireless industry is in a race to roll out 5G service . The network is supposed to be up to 100 times faster than current data speeds, but it requires cellphone tower equipment to be closer to users than before. Wireless companies in the U.S. say they'll have to install about 300,000 new antennas '' roughly equal to the total number of cell towers built over the past three decades. That's causing outrage and alarm in some neighborhoods, as antennas go up around homes.
        AT&T says it will try to use existing infrastructure, like street lights, to install the new antennae required for 5G service. CBS News At a lab in New York, Verizon invited CBS News' Tony Dokoupil to meet some of the entrepreneurs developing tools to run on the next generation of wireless technology. Jonathan Reeves, the CEO of Arvizio, said 5G service is extremely important to his company's mission. His product allows users in different locations to interact with 3D images projected through a lens.
        "Today, we can do this using Wi-Fi technology, and we can do it using landline technology. But of course you're then tied to particular locations. With 5G, now we can begin to extend this. So we can actually begin to start doing this on building sites. We can start doing it on the factory floor. So it really opens up a whole new world," Reeves said.
        But before that world can become reality, this one needs to change. 5G requires the installation of new equipment across the U.S. Every wireless company is working to build its own 5G network.
        Melissa Arnoldi, president of technology and operations for AT&T CBS News Melissa Arnoldi, who leads AT&T's efforts, said if it's not already in your neighborhood, it's coming.
        She said 5G uses high-frequency waves that support faster speeds but don't travel as far as current wireless frequencies. So instead of relying on large cellphone towers spread far apart, they need "small cell" sites that are much closer together.
        "We're going to use our existing infrastructure today. Whether it's light poles, whether it's street lights. So we're going to make sure that we don't make it obtrusive to our customers and to the citizens," Arnoldi said.
        Yet some don't share the enthusiasm.
        "The cell towers are called small cell towers, but they are not so small when they are in your front yard," said Donna Baron. She is protesting plans to convert light poles in her Montgomery County, Maryland, neighborhood into small cell sites.
        "This will cause cancer," Baron said. She was one of several people who raised health concerns about the radiation emitted by the equipment at a government hearing last month.
        Cell phone equipment does emit radiation but research on its health effects has been inconsistent. According to the National Cancer Institute, "A limited number of studies have shown some evidence of statistical association of cell phone use and brain tumor risks'... but most studies have found no association."
        Donna Baron CBS News If Baron loses the fight, she said she'll consider moving. Either way, she fears property values could plummet when 5G equipment pops up.
        "It could drop 20 percent," she said. "For that house, that house, that house. And then pretty soon you go around the curb and there's another cell tower. They're all through this neighborhood. So it's going to devastate the neighborhood."
        Arnoldi insists her workers are focused on safety, pointing out they live and work near this equipment, too. Although she doesn't have any 5G antennae in her neighborhood yet, she said it's coming soon and she's "absolutely" comfortable with that.
        Wireless carriers have announced plans to roll out 5G service to a handful of cities later this year. But to really take advantage, you'll need a 5G-enabled device, which probably won't be available until next year.
        (C) 2018 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.
      VIDEO - Twitter Destroys BuzzFeed After Mueller Dismisses Fake News on Cohen & Trump
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Sat, 19 Jan 2019 17:28
        Conservative Twitter has been in full gloat-mode after the Special Counsel team called a BuzzFeed report claiming Trump's former attorney Michael Cohen lied to Congress on his boss' orders ''not accurate.''
        Twitter has been set alight by a sudden twist in a BuzzFeed story that claimed to have proof that President Donald Trump directly instructed his former attorney, Michael Cohen, to lie before Congress on his plans to build a hotel in Moscow that would have seen him meeting Russian officials.
        After the ''bombshell'' was picked up (to a great extent uncritically) by the mainstream media, which floated impeachment through a legion of ever-ready pundits, the scoop was busted by the office of Special Counsel Robert Mueller himself.
        Today, Washington Post / MSNBC contributor @Eugene_Robinson described the Buzzfeed reporters as great reporters and called for POTUS to be impeached over the now debunked Buzzfeed story. #RIPJournalism
        '-- Arthur Schwartz (@ArthurSchwartz) January 19, 2019
        If Buzzfeed breaks it, doesn't that typically mean that NBC, CBS, ABC, the New York Times and the Washington Post didnt find it credible enough to run and passed on it?
        '-- Tim Young (@TimRunsHisMouth) January 18, 2019
        Mueller's spokesman, Peter Carr, said that the ''description of specific statements to the Special Counsel's Office, and characterization of documents and testimony obtained by this office, regarding Michael Cohen's Congressional testimony are not accurate.''
        Conservative political columnist Ann Coulter, Trump's son Donald Junior, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, and NRA spokesperson Dana Loesch all tore into BuzzFeed, along with thousands of less high-profile Trump supporters, getting the #RIPBuzzfeed hashtag going.
        Breaking Wind from CNN! Buzzfeed will change it's name to "Buzzard Feed" because it proudly stands by its discredited, un-sourced, and utterly laughable Fake News about @realDonaldTrump so even after rebuke by Mueller it eats dead, rotted flesh of the roadkill of their story.
        '-- Gov. Mike Huckabee (@GovMikeHuckabee) January 19, 2019
        Respectfully suggest ''BuzzFeed'' change its name to ''RoadKill''
        '-- Ann Coulter (@AnnCoulter) January 19, 2019
        If the media does not spend '-- minute for minute '-- the same amount of time on the death of the latest #FakeNews from @BuzzFeed (RIP) that they did speculating about ''IF IT'S TRUE ðŸ±!'' then they should quit even pretending to be unbiased. What a disgrace. #RIPbuzzfeed
        '-- Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) January 19, 2019
        After this I don't even know if I can trust Buzzfeed's cat listicles anymore
        '-- Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) January 19, 2019
        Facing a torrent of mockery and derision, BuzzFeed chose to stand by its claims. BuzzFeed Editor-in-Chief Ben Smith called on Mueller to clarify what exactly he had denied. ''We stand by our reporting and the sources who informed it,'' he tweeted.
        In response to the statement tonight from the Special Counsel's spokesman: We stand by our reporting and the sources who informed it, and we urge the Special Counsel to make clear what he's disputing.
        '-- Ben Smith (@BuzzFeedBen) January 19, 2019
        Some mainstream media, like the Washington Post and the New York Times, have been pouring cold water on the report (using unnamed sources of their own).
        MSNBC's Chris Matthews argued that the fact the report is inaccurate ''does not mean it is not true,'' while NBC's Ken Dilanian said Mueller denied only that part of the report that said he had obtained Trump organization documents supporting the allegations.
        Mueller: BuzzFeed article is not accurate.
        Chris Matthews: Not accurate doesn't mean it's not true.
        pic.twitter.com/5IpLhWoTV4
        '-- Breaking911 (@Breaking911) January 19, 2019
        Dilanian, however, later admitted that he ''was interpreting the pushback too narrowly.''
        Update: I now believe I was interpreting this pushback too narrowly. The statement is less than clear but it appears Mueller is refuting the entire premise of the Buzzfeed story, including the idea that Trump instructed Cohen to lie. https://t.co/6GyluFAXkz
        '-- Ken Dilanian (@KenDilanianNBC) January 19, 2019
        The Washington Post shared that sentiment, reporting that Mueller's statement ''aims to make clear that none of those statements in the story are accurate,'' while citing ''people familiar with the matter.''
        WaPo talked to ''people familiar with the matter'' who say that these are the specific claims in the BuzzFeed story that Mueller's office is disputing: https://t.co/vRvhE8XRnM pic.twitter.com/sMFedGLnP7
        '-- Peter Sterne (@petersterne) January 19, 2019
        The New York Times also debunked the story, citing a person familiar with Cohen's testimony, who told them that the disgraced former lawyer ''never implied the president had pressured him to lie to Congress.''
        New York Times throws a bit of cold water on BuzzFeed's explosive '-- and now seriously challenged '-- report that Trump instructed Michael Cohen to lie to Congress: https://t.co/9N7MiHs7et pic.twitter.com/7FJFT9D8fW
        '-- ErikWemple (@ErikWemple) January 19, 2019
        Trump has used the apparent fiasco by the publication to bring up ''the totally discredited'' Steele Dossier which BuzzFeed published in January 2017. ''A very sad day for journalism, but a great day for our Country!'' Trump tweeted.
        Remember it was Buzzfeed that released the totally discredited ''Dossier,'' paid for by Crooked Hillary Clinton and the Democrats (as opposition research), on which the entire Russian probe is based! A very sad day for journalism, but a great day for our Country!
        '-- Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 19, 2019
        While multiple outlets were busy distancing themselves from the red-faced BuzzFeed, lone voices from the anti-Trump resistance crowd, almost drowned out by the avalanche of mockery, jumped to its defense.
        There are literally tens of thousands of accurate articles out there about you . There is an inaccuracy in this article which is not specified we and you are immediately jumping on BuzzFeed and trying to discredit the entire media. Sickening
        '-- Brian Krassenstein (@krassenstein) January 19, 2019
        Some suggested that the zeal with which the mainstream media ganged up on BuzzFeed is a clumsy attempt to save face.
        currently watching the MSM saying that '' now '' they were ALL skeptical of the Buzzfeed fiasco. nope: most repeatedly used the phrase "bombshell," breathlessly, hopefully. Now they will bury those stories.
        '-- GregGutfeld (@greggutfeld) January 19, 2019
        Robert Mueller is now targeting Alex Jones, Dr. David Jones, Roger Stone, and Infowars in an attempt to remove president Trump from office. Roger joins Alex to break down the now leaked plan to ultimately put Hillary Clinton in office as president.
      VIDEO - UK Column News - 14th January 2019 - YouTube
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Sat, 19 Jan 2019 14:08
      VIDEO - Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez speech broke C-SPAN record - newsR
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Sat, 19 Jan 2019 14:04
        Friday, 18 January 2019 (2 days ago) Freshman Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., made C-SPAN history on Wednesday during her first speech on the floor of the House of Representatives. Credit: NowThis News - Published
        2 days ago < > Embed '–¶ Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Slams Shutdown During First House Floor Speech 03:36 Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez wasn't afraid to call out Trump during her first House floor speech. This video, "Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Slams Shutdown During First House Floor Speech", first appeared on nowthisnews.com. You Might LikeRecent related videos from verified sourcesAlexandria Ocasio-Cortez inaugural speech 03:54 But there&apos;s more. The inaugural address she delivered on the House floor Wednesday evening broke a C-SPAN record, becoming &quot;the most-watched Twitter video from the outlet of any.. Credit: Rumble - Published 14 hours ago
        Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Rips Trump 00:47 Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez rebuked President Donald Trump over the government shutdown in her first speech on the House floor. She claimed that the shutdown was not about Trump's demands for a.. Credit: Wochit - Published 2 days ago
        Tweets about thisC Hagstrom RT @cspan: First House Floor speech from Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC): 'The truth of this shutdown is that it's actually not about... 2 minutes ago
        Glenn Morgan Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez first House floor speech (C-SPAN) https://t.co/221k87LmIv via @YouTube 3 minutes ago
        MEMBER OF TRUMP REGIME SO THE ACTION THAT TRUMP IS TAKING IS UNAMERICAN?? WELL GET THIS THRU YOUR LIBERAL HEADS. WITHOUT A SECURE BORDER... https://t.co/qy6EP8HZxX 4 minutes ago
        stephanie anders Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's First House Speech Broke a C-SPAN Record https://t.co/jehErB2gGI 10 minutes ago
        Jill Davis Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's First House Speech Broke a C-SPAN Record. Here's What She Said - TIME https://t.co/XAxuYGThhj 11 minutes ago
        Allan Seymour RT @VernVerass: Brilliant speech by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez:A stunning rebuke to the great wrong being committed upon essential service p... 12 minutes ago
        David Silva GO @AOC!!! Tell them like it is!!https://t.co/zbG9htRBo7 13 minutes ago
        Roberto Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez lambasts US government shutdown in first House speech ' video https://t.co/RG9AdLlIzv 18 minutes ago
        Other recent news in Politics
      VIDEO - Alex Jones To Release The Secrets of Bird Box - YouTube
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Sat, 19 Jan 2019 07:42
      VIDEO - We Believe : The Best WOMEN Can Be | Gillette Parody - YouTube
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Fri, 18 Jan 2019 16:19
      VIDEO - LGBTQ Statement by Tulsi Gabbard - YouTube
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Fri, 18 Jan 2019 05:42
      VIDEO - Chris Christie Reveals Why Donald Trump Wears Such Long Ties | HuffPost
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Fri, 18 Jan 2019 05:13
        Former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie may have revealed a huge secret about Donald Trump.
        No, not about Russian collusion, silly, but why the president wears such long ties.
        For some reason, Trump likes to wear his ties down to his fly. The bizarre sartorial choice has inspired both Twitter parody pages and speculation among experts as to the reasoning.
        University of Massachusetts psychology professor Susan Krauss Whitbourne once speculated Trump used the long ties to either call attention to his genitalia or take the focus away from his gut.
        ASSOCIATED PRESS
        Turns out it may be the latter, according to Christie's upcoming book, Let Me Finish.
        According to an advanced copy given to The Guardian, the former governor of New Jersey said Trump told him on multiple occasions wearing a long tie would make him look thinner.
        The paper said the first time came in 2005 when Trump said ''you gotta look better to be able to win'' in politics.
        In 2016, Trump reminded him about his theory that a longer tie would make him look thinner.
        Fashion experts don't agree. GQ said a man's tie should fall no further than the middle of his waistband or his belt.
        London-based tailor Jack Stammers thinks the president's tie theory is backfiring.
        ''I would say he's got it wrong,'' Stammers told ThisIsInsider.com. ''If anything it makes it look like his tie is too long, giving the impression of a short body.''
      VIDEO - SussexFriendsIsrael on Twitter: "WATCH! The PM on JC and antisemitism! "Before he became Leader nobody could have imagined that a party that had fought so hard against discrimination could become the banner under which racists & bigots - whose wor
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Thu, 17 Jan 2019 23:50
        Welcome home! This timeline is where you'll spend most of your time, getting instant updates about what matters to you.
        Tweets not working for you? Hover over the profile pic and click the Following button to unfollow any account.
        Say a lot with a little When you see a Tweet you love, tap the heart '-- it lets the person who wrote it know you shared the love.
        Spread the word The fastest way to share someone else's Tweet with your followers is with a Retweet. Tap the icon to send it instantly.
        Join the conversation Add your thoughts about any Tweet with a Reply. Find a topic you're passionate about, and jump right in.
        Learn the latest Get instant insight into what people are talking about now.
        Get more of what you love Follow more accounts to get instant updates about topics you care about.
        Find what's happening See the latest conversations about any topic instantly.
        Never miss a Moment Catch up instantly on the best stories happening as they unfold.
      VIDEO - Tom Elliott on Twitter: "Rep. Omar: "Lots of Americans" agree with me that Trump is blackmailing Sen. Graham over his homosexuality https://t.co/xPMAUHSLYE" / Twitter
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Thu, 17 Jan 2019 21:27
        Daniel Dale @ ddale8
        5h What is even haaappening? I was gonna share this clip when I thought your caption was accurate, then found it was inaccurate, then asked if I was missing another part of the interview, then you started accusing me of things, and now I'm never going to trust Grabien again. A+ work
        View conversation · Tom Elliott @ tomselliott
        5h Yes, Rep. Omar hasn't explicitly said Graham's sexuality is the blackmail being used against him. But as everyone in D.C. knows, this is the rumor circulated about Graham, so saying he's "compromised" achieves this purpose. No reason to give her a pass for dog whistling.
        View conversation · Tom Elliott @ tomselliott
        5h I presume all of the progressives tweeting at me that I shouldn't spell out the obvious implication she's making also hit the media every time Trump is accused of being ''racist'' for favoring tighter immigration?
        View conversation · Tom Elliott @ tomselliott
        4h Am looking forward to all of the progressives who are certain there's some non-sexuality related scandal she's referencing to report back on what they come up with. Not sure Ilhan Omar's irresponsible rhetoric is the hill you want to die on.
        View conversation · Tom Elliott @ tomselliott
        1h Rep. Omar stated matter-of-factly that Graham ''is compromised.'' As she's now denying trafficking in the rumor being spread by her progressive allies that ''serious sexual kink'' is involved in this apparent blackmail, I've contacted her office to find out what she did mean.
        View conversation ·
      VIDEO - (2) Paul Lee Ticks on Twitter: "BREAKING: Hackers, hack into Walt Disney's Hall of Presidents attraction and reprogram some of the Presidents to make obscene gestures directed toward the Donald Trump animatronic. (Check out Abe ;)) https://t.co/f6
        Link to Article
        Archived Version
        Thu, 17 Jan 2019 22:37
        Angel Winges @ ahwinges
        Jan 15 Replying to
        @PaulLeeTicks @ThatWitchUKnow OMG, children are watching that!!! What was the hacker thinking??!!
        View conversation · Paul Lee Ticks @ PaulLeeTicks
        Jan 15 Replying to
        @ahwinges @ThatWitchUKnow Hackers dont care, maaaaan.
        View conversation · Duane Gundrum @ DuaneGundrum
        Jan 15 Replying to
        @PaulLeeTicks Okay, it's funny, but it's also vandalism directed at a company that has been mostly wholesome throughout most of its history.
        View conversation · Paul Lee Ticks @ PaulLeeTicks
        Jan 15 Replying to
        @DuaneGundrum Psst Duane. Its soooo not real.
        View conversation · Michelle Smith @ smiffym1
        Jan 16 Replying to
        @PaulLeeTicks @snarkforce1 ''Hackers''...right. Well the 'hackers' are brilliant and deserve some sort of medal.
        View conversation · Paul Lee Ticks @ PaulLeeTicks
        Jan 16 Replying to
        @smiffym1 @snarkforce1 (Unfortunately for the 'hackers' - it's not REAL)
        View conversation · Rye Encoke @ rye_encoke
        2h Replying to
        @PaulLeeTicks clearly been photoshopped
        View conversation · Paul Lee Ticks @ PaulLeeTicks
        2h Replying to
        @rye_encoke No, reaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaally???
        View conversation ·
  Clips and Docs
    Art
    All Clips
      RT Millennial Tech Report-5G Wireless -2- How Much worse is AWESOME 5G.mp3
      RT Millennial Tech Report-5G Wireless -3- Doctor on the safety testing.mp3
      Alex Jones 5G Bird Box.mp3
      Theresa May calls out Jeremy Corbin as an anti-semite.mp3
      Jeremy Corbin laughed at 'Who Are You'.mp3
      Trump shutdown offer.mp3
      Pieczenik on Pelosi CODEL to Brussels.mp3
      ShutDown-food-banks-mac & cheese.mp3
      Weekend Breaking News Bombshell BuzzFeed Impeach montage.mp3
      CNN Panel-Pooper-Toobin-Seltzerwater on Buzzfeed Fuckup.mp3
      Buzzfeed with lanny davis on buzzfeed flub at end.mp3
      Comments of trumps mini speech PBS.mp3
      gigi ihrham daily show 2011.mp3
      iranian journalist jailed for no reason in USA DN.mp3
      jaime raskin 2 nixon PBS.mp3
      jaime raskin 3 more nixon.mp3
      jaime raskin 4 on cohen.mp3
  Transcript