WALKING FOR HEALTH AND LONGER LIFE !!!

Aiming for 10,000 steps? Here's your new target

Analysis by Dr. Joseph MercolaFact Checked

• June 21, 2019
 
• Available in: English 

  • Español

 

Visit the Mercola Video Library

STORY AT-A-GLANCE 

• According to the World Health Organization, inactivity is the fourth biggest killer of adults worldwide, responsible for 5.1% to 12.5% (average 9%) of premature deaths, and walking more could go a long way toward reducing this risk
• The recommendation to walk at least 10,000 steps a day is not based on science; it came from a Japanese marketing campaign launched in 1965 to promote the Manpo-kei pedometer, a brand name that translates to “10,000 steps meter” 
• Research aimed at determining just how many steps you need to take to lower your risk of early death suggests older individuals can get away with as few as 4,400 steps a day
• Compared to women who averaged 2,718 steps a day, women who walked 4,363 steps per day were 41% less likely to die in the next four years, and taking 5,905 steps was associated with a 46% lower mortality risk. Women who took 8,442 steps were 58% less likely to die in the next four years, but additional analysis revealed benefits maxed out around 7,500 steps per day
• Higher intensities were also associated with lower risks of mortality. However, after adjustments for the number of steps taken each day, this correlation more or less vanished

Most adults spend 10 hours or more each day sitting, and research1,2 shows this level of inactivity cannot be counteracted with a workout at the end of the day. To maintain health, you really need mild but near-continuous movement throughout your waking hours. 

One strategy that has been shown to have a positive impact is simply to stand up more. Increasing your daily walking is another key strategy that pays significant dividends, both short term and long term. 

According to the World Health Organization, inactivity is the fourth biggest killer of adults worldwide, responsible for 5.1% to 12.5% (average 9%) of premature deaths,3,4 and walking more could go a long way toward reducing this risk. But just how long do your treks need to be? A common recommendation is 10,000 steps a day, but where did that number come from?

The obscure origins of the 10,000 step recommendation 

If you wear a fitness tracker, there's a good chance you're counting your steps. There's also a good chance that your daily goal is to reach 10,000 — the magic number that seemed to appear out of thin air. That number does have an origin, but it didn't come from health studies or scientific research.

The idea of walking at least 10,000 steps a day actually comes from a Japanese marketing campaign by the Yamasa Clock and Instrument Company, launched in 1965 to promote its Manpo-kei pedometer, a brand name that translates to "10,000 steps meter."5

Companies in the United States adopted the idea more recently to help promote their own fitness trackers. So, if the number 10,000 wasn't scientifically determined, how many steps should you actually aim for each day? Researcher I-Min Lee of Brigham and Women's Hospital set out to find the answer.

How many steps a day do you need for health and longevity?

Lee and her colleagues designed a study6,7,8,9,10 that included 18,289 women from the Women's Health Study aged between 62 to 101 with a mean age of 72, who agreed to wear an accelerometer during waking hours for seven days.

Of these, 16,741 wore the devices as instructed and returned them for data analysis. Data included total number of steps per day, as well as several measures of intensity. The main outcome measure was all-cause mortality. The study, published online in May 2019 in JAMA Internal Medicine, showed that, compared to women who took an average of 2,718 steps:11

• Women who took 4,363 steps [median count] per day were 41% less likely to die in the next four years
• Women who took 5,905 steps 46% less likely to die in the next four years
• Women who took 8,442 steps were 58% less likely to die in the next four years

At first glance, it appears more is better, but it turns out there is a Goldilocks zone after all. Additional analysis revealed benefits maxed out around 7,500 steps per day. In other words, the benefits progressively increased between approximately 4,400 and 7,500 steps, at which point they leveled off.

Step count matters more than intensity for the elderly 

Higher intensities were also associated with lower risks of mortality. However, after adjustments for the number of steps taken each day, this correlation more or less vanished. As concluded by the authors:12

"Among older women, as few as approximately 4400 steps/d was significantly related to lower mortality rates compared with approximately 2700 steps/d. 

With more steps per day, mortality rates progressively decreased before leveling at approximately 7500 steps/d. Stepping intensity was not clearly related to lower mortality rates after accounting for total steps per day."

Limitations of the study, which could have influenced results, include the accuracy of the step count (step trackers are not foolproof), and the fact that the researchers did not take into account other types of movement or exercise, such as gardening.

It also did not look at any other potential benefits beyond mortality rates, nor is it clear if the results will apply equally to men and younger individuals. Additional research would need to be done to clarify those questions. 

Many studies confirm walking boosts health and longevity 

While it's easy to say that something is better than nothing when it comes to staying active, research does show there's typically a minimum level of activity required before you notice any discernible difference. Most studies also show that more activity is better than less — up to a point.

In other words, it's important to get the dosage right (although this dosage does vary between studies and can be hard to pin down). Several previous studies have confirmed various measures of walking impart valuable health benefits and protect against many of the most common killers. For example: 

Research13 published January 2018 in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine found that as little as 120 minutes of walking per week may reduce mortality risk in older adults, compared to inactivity. Meeting or doubling the activity guidelines of 150 minutes of moderate activity per week in the form of walking lowered all-cause mortality by 20%. According to the authors, "Walking was most strongly associated with respiratory disease mortality followed by cardiovascular disease mortality and then cancer mortality."

Another 2018 study14 in the British Journal of Sports Medicine, which included 50,225 walkers in the U.K., found walking pace is associated with premature mortality risk, but whether this is independent of the total activity volume remains unclear. Compared to slow walking, walking at a self-reported average pace was associated with a 20% (on average) reduced risk of all-cause mortality and a 24% reduced risk of cardiovascular disease mortality. A brisk pace reduced all-cause mortality by 24% and cardiovascular disease mortality by 21%.

Research15,16 published in 2012 found brisk walking improved life expectancy regardless of body weight. According to the authors: "A physical activity level … equivalent to brisk walking for up to 75 min/wk, was associated with a gain of 1.8 y in life expectancy relative to no leisure time activity. Higher levels of physical activity were associated with greater gains in life expectancy, with a gain of 4.5 y at the highest level … equivalent to brisk walking for 450+ min/wk.  Substantial gains were also observed in each BMI group. In joint analyses, being active … and normal weight (BMI 18.5–24.9) was associated with a gain of 7.2 y of life compared to being inactive and obese (BMI 35.0+)."

Smokers may also increase their life span by nearly four years by engaging in physical activity such as walking, according to data presented at the World Congress of Cardiology in 2012. Former smokers who kept up their physical activity increased their life expectancy by 5.6 years on average, reducing their all-cause mortality risk by 43%, Medical News Today reported.17 Smokers who were physically active were also 55% more likely to quit smoking than those who remained inactive, and 43% less likely to relapse once they quit.  A Norwegian study18 published in 2015 also showed that regular exercise is as important as quitting smoking if you want to reduce your mortality risk. About 5,738 older men were followed for up to 12 years in this study, and those who got 30 minutes of exercise — even if all they did was light walking — six days a week, reduced their risk of death by approximately 40%. Compared to those who were sedentary, those getting moderate to vigorous activity lived about five years longer. Getting less than one hour of light activity per week had no effect on mortality in this study, again highlighting the importance of getting the "dosage" right if you want to live longer.

A 2003 study19 found that, compared to inactive individuals, adults with Type 2 diabetes who walked at least two hours per week had a 39% lower risk of death and a 34% lower risk of death from cardiovascular disease. Walking for three to four hours each week had the greatest effect, lowering all-cause mortality by 64%.  According to the authors, "Walking was associated with lower mortality across a diverse spectrum of adults with diabetes. One death per year may be preventable for every 61 people who could be persuaded to walk at least 2 h/wk." Similarly, other studies have also confirmed walking improves glycemic and blood pressure control in those with Type 2 diabetes,20 and lowers diabetics' risk of death from cardiovascular disease.21

Another group of patients known to benefit from walking are those with obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). In one study, COPD patients who walked 2 miles a day or more cut their chances of hospitalization from a severe episode by about half.22,23

Research24 published in 2014 found daily walking reduced the risk of stroke in men over the age of 60 in a more or less dose-dependent manner, independent of walking pace. Compared to those who walked three hours or less per week, men who walked four to seven hours each week had an 11% lower risk of stroke. Walking eight to 14 hours lowered stroke risk by 37%; walking 15 to 21 hours lowered the risk by 32% and walking more than 22 hours lowered it by 64%.

Walking can be a high-intensity activity 

Walking can also be an excellent entry into higher intensity training, regardless of your age and fitness level, as demonstrated by Japanese research25,26 showing a combination of gentle strolling and fast walking provides greater fitness benefits than walking at a steady pace.

The walking program they developed for Japanese seniors consisted of repeated intervals of three minutes of fast walking followed by three minutes of slow strolling. Completing five sets of these intervals, totaling 30 minutes of walking, at least three times a week, led to significant improvements in aerobic fitness, leg strength and blood pressure.

While many studies suggest distance is the No. 1 factor determining health benefits such as longevity, there's ample evidence27 showing intensity does play a role, and can boost benefits, at least to some degree. At bare minimum, higher intensity activities are more effective, timewise, allowing you to reap similar benefits as longer, slower workouts in a shorter amount of time. 

Everyone can benefit from standing and walking more each day

It's important to recognize that chronic sitting is an independent risk factor for chronic disease and early death, even if you exercise,28,29 and significantly raises your risk of several lethal conditions.30 As noted in a June 2018 study31,32 in the American Journal of Epidemiology:

"[P]rolonged leisure-time sitting (≥6 vs. <3 hours per day) was associated with higher risk of mortality from all causes, cardiovascular disease … cancer, diabetes, kidney disease, suicide, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, pneumonitis due to solids and liquids, liver, peptic ulcer and other digestive disease, Parkinson disease, Alzheimer disease, nervous disorders, and musculoskeletal disorders."

And, while recent research33 refutes findings suggesting chronic sitting is right on par with smokingin terms of mortality risk, it's quite clear it's a significant (and modifiable) risk factor for chronic ill health and early death, just as smoking is.

According to Dr. James Levine, codirector of Obesity Solutions at Mayo Clinic in Phoenix and Arizona State University, you need at least 10 minutes of movement for every hour you sit down.

Research presented at the Canadian Cardiovascular Congress in 2018 showed patients with heart disease need to interrupt their sitting every 20 minutes to perform some form of physical activity for seven minutes. In a press release by the European Society of Cardiology, study author Dr Ailar Ramadi, faculty of rehabilitation medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada said:34

"There is a lot of evidence now that sitting for long periods is bad for health. Our study suggests that during each hour of sitting time, heart patients should take three breaks which add up to 21 minutes of light physical activity. This will expend 770 kcal a day, an amount associated with a lower risk of premature death."

Earlier findings, presented at the EuroPRevent 2016 meeting, found that, compared to inactivity, getting just 15 minutes of physical activity per day was associated with a 22% lower risk of death in the elderly.35

Taking 10,000 to 15,000 steps a day is probably a good idea

According to research36,37 published in the journal Nature in 2017, American adults take on average 4,774 steps daily. The worldwide average was found to be 4,961 steps a day, based on data collected from accelerometry readings from 717,527 individuals' smartphones. Hong Kong residents came in on top, with an average of 6,880 steps a day.

Considering the poor health of Americans, it seems this average step count simply isn't cutting it. If it did, it should somehow be reflected in other disease and obesity statistics. So, while there may not be a scientific basis for the 10,000 to 15,000 step-a-day recommendation, I believe it's still a good one. 

A 2004 study38 assessing physical activity levels and health outcomes in an Amish community found men took an average of 18,425 steps per day and women an average 14,196 steps. Interestingly, 25% of the men and 27% of the women were still overweight, and 9% of the women were obese, showing physical activity is not a foolproof way to ensure a healthy weight.

As a general rule, I recommend limiting your sitting to less than three hours a day, and to make it a point to walk more every day. I also recommend walking in addition to any other fitness routine you may have. And, while seniors may benefit from as little as 4,400 steps, as demonstrated in the featured JAMA Internal Medicine study,39 chances are younger individuals need far more. 

5G --- NOT GOOD NEWS!!!

The 5G War — Technology Versus Humanity

Written by Dr. Joseph MercolaFact Checked

• June 05, 2019


• • Español

  

Visit the Mercola Video Library

Exposure to electromagnetic field (EMF) and radiofrequency (RF) radiation is an ever-growing health risk in the modern world. The Cellular Phone Task Force website1 has a long list of governments and organizations that have issued warnings or banned wireless technologies of various kinds and under various circumstances, starting in 1993. 

A long list of organizations representing doctors and scientists are also among them, including an appeal for protection from nonionizing EMF exposure by more than 230 international EMF scientists to the United Nations in 2015, which notes that:2

"Numerous recent scientific publications have shown that EMF affects living organisms at levels well below most international and national guidelines. 

Effects include increased cancer risk, cellular stress, increase in harmful free radicals, genetic damages, structural and functional changes of the reproductive system,3,4,5 learning and memory deficits, neurological disorders, and negative impacts on general well-being in humans. Damage goes well beyond the human race, as there is growing evidence of harmful effects to both plant and animal life." 

A call for a moratorium on 5G specifically was issued in September 2017 by more than 180 scientists and doctors from 35 countries,6,7 "until potential hazards for human health and the environment have been fully investigated by scientists independent from industry," noting that "RF-EMF has been proven to be harmful for humans and the environment," and that "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."

In an article8 on the Environmental Health Trust's website, Ronald Powell, Ph.D., a retired Harvard scientist of applied physics, notes "there is NO SAFE WAY to implement 5G in our communities; rather there are only 'bad ways' and 'worse ways,'" and rather than argue about who should have control over its deployment, we should focus on preventing its employment altogether.

Health Concerns Over 5G Abound

Wall Street analyst Sunil Rajgopal recently warned mounting health concerns may delay the implementation of 5G, Fortune magazine reports.9 Some countries have already taken steps to slow 5G deployment due to health risks, Rajgopal notes. The question is, can it be stopped? 

5G testing was recently halted in Brussels, Belgium,10 and Switzerland is delaying its 5G rollout in order to create a system to monitor radiation.11 Syracuse, New York, is also attempting to set up some safeguards and has "negotiated the right to conduct on-demand safety inspections of 5G antennas," to allay public concerns.12 According to Forbes:13

"In New Hampshire, lawmakers are considering establishing a commission to study the health impacts of 5G networks. And Mill Valley, Calif., near San Francisco, last year banned new 5G wireless cells."

Many other areas, however, have chosen to trust the Federal Communications Commission and the wireless industry trade association, CTIA, which has created a "Cellphone Health Facts" website citing research showing no risk. However, if you believe the FCC is assessing health risks, you'd be wrong. 

At a recent senate commerce hearing (above), the FCC admitted that no 5G safety studies have been conducted or funded by the agency or the telecom industry, and that none are planned.14,15 In a speech given at the National Press Club in June 2016, Tom Wheeler, former FCC chairman and prior head of the wireless industry lobbying group, made the agency's stance clear when he said:16

"Stay out of the way of technological development. Unlike some countries, we do not believe we should spend the next couple of years studying … Turning innovators loose is far preferable to letting committees and regulators define the future. We won't wait for the standards ... "

In light of the more than 2,000 studies showing a wide range of biological harm from EMFs, assurances from the FCC and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration that wireless radiation exposures, including 5G, is safe, seem disingenuous at best. As noted in a recent Counterpunch article:17

"Telecom lobbyists assure us that guidelines already in place are adequate to protect the public. Those safety guidelines, however, are based on a 1996 study of how much a cell phone heated the head of an adult-sized plastic mannequin. This is problematic, for at least three reasons:

• living organisms consist of highly complex and interdependent cells and tissue, not plastic.
• those being exposed to radiofrequency radiation include fetuses, children, plants, and wildlife – not just adult male humans.
• the frequencies used in the mannequin study were far lower than the exposures associated with 5G."

What Level of EMF Can Humans Withstand?  

EMF exposure at many biological impacting frequencies, such as those that run cellphones and Wi-Fi, has increased about 1 quintillion times over the past 100 years.18,19 Unfortunately, EMF exposure is so widespread these days, it's virtually impossible to conduct controlled population studies anymore, as no population is truly unexposed or unaffected. This lack of a control group makes it very difficult to determine what the real-world effects are. 

That said, one controlled exposure study has been done, revealing it's nowhere near as harmless as people think. At the beginning of the 20th century, there were two populations in the United States — rural and urban. Urban areas were by and large electrified, while rural areas were not electrified until around 1950. 

Dr. Sam Milham, an epidemiologist, painstakingly analyzed mortality statistics between these two populations over time, clearly showing there was a wide difference in mortality from heart disease, cancer and diabetes between these two groups. Then, as rural areas became electrified, the two curves merged. 

Today, we not only live and work in electrified surroundings, we're also surrounded by microwaves from wireless technologies. Soon, 5G may be added to the mix, making exposures all the more complex and potentially harmful. As noted by Counterpunch:20

"5G radiofrequency (RF) radiation uses a 'cocktail' of three types of radiation, ranging from relatively low-energy radio waves, microwave radiation with far more energy, and millimeter waves with vastly more energy … 

The extremely high frequencies in 5G are where the biggest danger lies. While 4G frequencies go as high as 6 GHz, 5G exposes biological life to pulsed signals in the 30 GHz to 100 GHz range. The general public has never before been exposed to such high frequencies for long periods of time."

Health Concerns Linked to 5G Exposure

The added concern 5G brings is the addition of the millimeter wave (MMW). This bandwidth, which runs from 30 gigahertz (GHz) to 300GHz,21 is known to penetrate up to 2 millimeters into human skin tissue,22,23 causing a burning sensation.

This is precisely why MMW was chosen for use in crowd control weapons (Active Denial Systems) by the U.S. Department of Defense.24 MMW is also used in so-called "naked body scanners" at airports.25

Research has shown sweat ducts in human skin act as receptors or antennae for 5G radiation, drawing the radiation into the body,26,27,28,29,30 thereby causing a rise in temperature. This in part helps explain the painful effect. As noted by Dr. Yael Stein — who has studied 5G MMW technology and its interaction with the human body — in a 2016 letter to the Federal Communications Commission:31

"Computer simulations have demonstrated that sweat glands concentrate sub-terahertz waves in human skin. Humans could sense these waves as heat. The use of sub-terahertz (millimeter wave) communications technology (cellphones, Wi-Fi, antennas) could cause humans to percept physical pain via nociceptors.

Potentially, if 5G Wi-Fi is spread in the public domain we may expect more of the health effects currently seen with RF/ microwave frequencies including many more cases of hypersensitivity (EHS), as well as many new complaints of physical pain and a yet unknown variety of neurologic disturbances.

It will be possible to show a causal relationship between G5 technology and these specific health effects. The affected individuals may be eligible for compensation."

MMW has also been linked to:32,33,34,35,36

• Eye problems such as lens opacity in rats, which is linked to the production of cataracts,37 and eye damage in rabbits38,39
• Impacted heart rate variability, an indicator of stress, in rats40,41,42 and heart rate changes (arrhythmias) in frogs43,44
• Pain45
• Suppressed immune function46
• Depressed growth and increased antibiotic resistance in bacteria47

As noted in a recent Gaia.com article:48

"Many scientists understand that the electromagnetic radiation leaking through the doors of our microwave ovens are carcinogenic, and therefore, can cause cancer. Most of these scientists also believe that these waves are mutagenic, meaning they change the DNA structure of living beings.49

The launch of 5G will be similar to turning on your microwave, opening its door, and leaving it on for the rest of your life. There's good reason why hundreds of scientists are taking action against the wireless industry." 

Understanding EMFs' Mechanisms of Harm

As explained in my 2017 interview with Martin Pall, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus of biochemistry and basic medical sciences at Washington State University, the primary danger of EMFs in general is that it causes excess oxidative stress that results in mitochondrial dysfunction.

According to Pall's research,50,51,52,53 radiofrequency microwave radiation such as that from your cellphone and wireless router activates the voltage-gated calcium channels (VGCCs) located in the outer membrane of your cells. 

According to Pall, VGCCs are 7.2 million times more sensitive to microwave radiation than the charged particles inside and outside our cells, which means the safety standards for this exposure are off by a factor of 7.2 million. 

Low-frequency microwave radiation opens your VGCCs, thereby allowing an abnormal influx of calcium ions into the cell, which in turn activates nitric oxide (NO) and superoxide which react nearly instantaneously to form peroxynitrite54 that then causes carbonate free radicals, which are one of the most damaging reactive nitrogen species known and thought to be a root cause for many of today's chronic diseases. 

For an in-depth understanding of peroxynitrites and the harm they inflict, see "Nitric Oxide and Peroxynitrite in Health and Disease"55 — a 140-page free access paper with 1,500 references written by Dr. Pal Pacher, Joseph Beckman and Dr. Lucas Liaudet. 

One of its most significant hazards of peroxynitrite is that it damages DNA. The European REFLEX study published in 2004 revealed the nonthermal effects of 2G and 3G radiation are actually very similar to the effects of X-rays in terms of the genetic damage they cause.56

Your body has the capacity to repair that damage through a family of 17 different enzymes collectively called poly ADP ribose polymerases (PARP). However, while PARP work well, they require NAD+ for fuel and when they run out of NAD+ they stop repairing your DNA.

This in turn can lead to premature cell death, since 100 to 150 NAD+ molecules are needed to repair a single DNA strand break. NAD+ is central to maintaining cellular and mitochondrial health, so the fact that PARP consumes NAD+ to counteract EMF damage is an important concern. 

Cancer Is Not the Primary Health Risk of EMF 

The voltage in your body appears to play a significant role in health and disease. Your body's production of electricity allows your cells to communicate and perform basic biological functions necessary for your survival. However, your body is designed to operate at very specific levels and frequencies.

It seems logical that being surrounded by man-made EMFs that are 1 quintillion times higher than the natural EMF environment of the Earth may interfere with your DNA's ability to receive and transmit biological signals. 

While the controversy over EMF damage has centered around whether or not it can cause cancer, especially brain tumors, this actually isn't your greatest concern. Since the damage is strongly linked to activation of your VGCCs, it stands to reason that areas where VGCCs are the densest would be most vulnerable to damage.

As it happens, the highest density of VGCCs are found in your nervous system, your brain, the pacemaker in your heart and in male testes. As a result, EMFs are likely to contribute to neurological and neuropsychiatric57 problems, heart and reproductive problems.

This includes but is not limited to cardiac arrhythmias, anxiety, depression, autism, Alzheimer's and infertility. Indeed, this is what researchers keep finding, and all of these health problems are far more prevalent and kill more people than brain cancer.

What's more, seeing how many are already struggling with electromagnetic hypersensitivity, saturating cities and suburban areas with MMW radiation will undoubtedly make the problem more widespread, and make life unbearable for those already feeling the effects of wireless radiation.

Most Recent Media Ploy to Detract From 5G Concerns: Blame the Russians

In a recent Medium article,58 Devra Davis, Ph.D. — a well-respected and credentialed researcher on the dangers of cellphone radiation — highlights a recent media trend: Write off scientists warning about 5G dangers as "untethered alarmists … linked to Russian propaganda." 

"Could it be a coincidence that following on the heels of the NY Times story, the Wall Street Journal and the UK Telegraph have echoed the same smear of guilt by association," she writes,59 adding:

"These otherwise credible media sources ignore the substantial body of science pinpointing hazards of wireless radiation and 5G detailed in independent journalistic investigations that have appeared extensively in media throughout Europe and been covered by major networks …

Could the failure to report these critical 5G issues and correct misleading information regarding health effects of wireless and 5G in the New York Times have anything to do with the their new joint venture with Verizon in 5G journalism, or the fact that the Times board of directors includes officials from Facebook, Verizon, Media Lab, and other stalwarts of the telecom industry, while Carlos Slim, head of some of the largest telecom firms in the world, has downsized and now owns just 15 percent of its stock?"

Davis also points out a clear difference between American and Russian scientific expertise with regard to EMF:

"The history of research on the environmental and public health impacts of radio frequency microwave radiation ('wireless radiation') reveals some uneasy parallels with that of tobacco. 

In the 1950s and 1960s, scientists who showed the harmful impacts of tobacco found themselves struggling for serious attention and financial support. The validity of their views was only accepted after the toll of sickness and death had become undeniable. 

For health impacts from wireless radiation, a similar pattern is emerging. Each time a U.S. government agency produced positive findings, research on health impacts was defunded. 

The Office of Naval Research, the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, and the Environmental Protection Agency all once had vibrant research programs documenting dangers of wireless radiation. All found their programs scrapped, reflecting pressure from those who sought to suppress this work.

Russian's 50 years of research on electromagnetic radiation since the Cold War has led to their clear understanding that this exposure does have biological effects. The Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection issued a 2011 Resolution60recommending persons under 18 not use a cell phone."

Brain Cancer Risk Is Likely Real

While heart disease, dementia and infertility overshadow the risk of brain cancer, the possibility of cancer still remains, and may be a far more significant concern for young children who are growing up surrounded by wireless technologies than we realize. 

The fact is, we won't know for sure whether in utero and early cellphone use will increase brain cancer rates until a decade or two from now when today's youths have grown up. Mounting research suggests cellphone radiation certainly influences your risk, and there are a number of compelling anecdotal reports that are hard to ignore. 

In her article,61 Davis mentions Robert C. Kane, a senior telecom engineer "had willingly served as a guinea pig for Motorola and other companies developing new wireless technologies in the 1980s."

He developed a type of malignant brain cancer the National Toxicology Program later confirmed was a side effect of cellphone radiation exposure (see video above). The NTPs results were published in 2018. Before his death in 2002, Kane published the book, "Cellphone Radiation — Russian Roulette,"62 in which he stated that:63

"Never in human history has there been such a practice as we now encounter with the marketing and distributing of products hostile to the human biological system by an industry with foreknowledge of those effects."

FCC Is a Captured Agency That Cannot Be Trusted

Davis also highlights another crucial problem, namely the fact that the FCC has been captured by the telecom industry, which in turn has perfected the disinformation strategies employed by the tobacco industry before it. She writes:64

"… [I]n 2015 a Harvard expose tracked the revolving door between the FCC and the telecom industry and concluded that the FCC is a captured agency and that 'Consumer safety, health, and privacy, along with consumer wallets, have all been overlooked, sacrificed, or raided due to unchecked industry influence.'"

The book in question is "Captured Agency: How the Federal Communications Commission Is Dominated by the Industries It Presumably Regulates," written by investigative journalist Norm Alster.65

As just one example, before his role as FCC chairman, Wheeler headed up the CTIA, which is the lobbying group for the wireless industry, which explains his commentary on 5G and why the FCC doesn't believe in studying its health risks and "won't wait for the standards." 

The book also shows how the telecom industry is manipulating public opinion by undermining the credibility of scientists that speak of dangers, cutting funds for research, publishing manipulated studies showing no harm and claiming "scientific consensus" of no harm when no such consensus actually exists. Naturally, the telecom industry also spends millions of dollars lobbying the FCC on issues that might impact its bottom line.66

5G Threatens Weather Prediction

Interestingly, aside from potential health ramifications, a global 5G network will also threaten our ability to predict weather which, in addition to putting civilians at risk will also jeopardize the Navy.67According to a recent paper68 in the journal Nature, widespread 5G coverage will prevent satellites from detecting changes in water vapor, which is how meteorologists predict weather changes and storms. 

Davis quotes69 Stephen English, meteorologist at the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts: "This is the first time we've seen a threat to what I'd call the crown jewels of our frequencies  — the ones that we absolutely must defend come what may." 

Alas, the FCC ignores such concerns and, according to Davis, "weather experts within the U.S. government are being muzzled." In a recent letter to the FCC, Sens. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., urge the agency to rein in the expansion of wireless communications in the 24 GHz band for this reason.70

Educate Yourself About the Health Risks of 5G and Protect Your Family From Harm 

I am currently writing a book on EMF dangers, which will be a comprehensive resource on current technologies. In the meantime, to learn more about 5G and help educate others, you can download a two-page 5G fact sheet71 from the Environmental Health Trust. On their website, you can also access a long list of published scientific studies showing cause for concern.72

To reduce your EMF exposure, read through the suggestions below and implement as many of them as possible. Additional guidance and solutions for mitigating electric and magnetic fields can also be found at the end of "Healthy Wiring Practices,"73 a document created by building biologist Oram Miller, whom I've interviewed on this topic. 

Nighttime remediation

Use Stetzer or Greenwave filters to remove voltage transients from your electricity and use meters to confirm that they are in a safe range.

Use a battery-powered alarm clock, ideally one without any light. I use a talking clock for the visually impaired.74

Consider moving your baby's bed into your room instead of using a wireless baby monitor. Alternatively, use a hard-wired monitor.

If you must use Wi-Fi, shut it off when not in use, especially at night when you are sleeping. Ideally, work toward hardwiring your house so you can eliminate Wi-Fi altogether. It's important to realize that if you have a Wi-Fi router, you have a cellphone tower inside your home. Ideally, you'd eliminate your Wi-Fi and simply use a wired Ethernet connection.  If you absolutely must have a router, you can place it inside a shielded bag when not in use. You can find shielded items online, or make your own using Swiss Shield fabric. If you have a notebook without any Ethernet ports, a USB Ethernet adapter will allow you to connect to the internet with a wired connection.

For more extensive shielding, you can consider painting your bedroom walls and ceiling with special shielding paint, which will block RF from outside sources, such as cell towers, smart meters and radio/TV towers. Windows can be covered with metal window screen or film. For your bed, consider a shielding bed canopy.

Daytime strategies to reduce unnecessary EMF exposure

To reduce EMF exposure during the daytime, consider using Stetzer filters to decrease the level of dirty electricity or electromagnetic interference being generated. You can also take these with you to work or when you travel. This may be the single best strategy to reduce the damage from EMF exposure since it appears that most of it is generated by the frequencies that the filters remove.

Connect your desktop computer to the internet via a wired Ethernet connection and be sure to put your desktop in airplane mode. Also avoid wireless keyboards, trackballs, mice, game systems, printers and portable house phones. Opt for the wired versions.

Avoid carrying your cellphone on your body unless in airplane mode and never sleep with it in your bedroom unless it is in airplane mode. Even in airplane mode it can emit signals, which is why I put my phone in a Faraday bag.75 They are really inexpensive and only $10 for two of them. I tested them and they are highly effective at blocking radiation.

When using your cellphone, use the speaker phone and hold the phone at least 3 feet away from you. Seek to radically decrease your time on the cellphone. I typically use my cellphone less than 30 minutes a month, and mostly when traveling. Instead, use VoIP software phones that you can use while connected to the internet via a wired connection, or better yet, use a landline telephone.

General household remediation

If you still use a microwave oven, consider replacing it with a steam convection oven, which will heat your food as quickly and far more safely.

Avoid using "smart" appliances and thermostats that depend on wireless signaling. This would include all new "smart" TVs. They are called smart because they emit a Wi-Fi signal and, unlike your computer, you cannot shut the Wi-Fi signal off. Consider using a large computer monitor as your TV instead, as they don't emit Wi-Fi.

Replace CFL bulbs with incandescent bulbs. Ideally remove all fluorescent lights from your house. Not only do they emit unhealthy light, but more importantly, they will actually transfer current to your body just being close to the bulbs.

Dimmer switches are another source of dirty electricity, so consider installing regular on/off switches rather than dimmer switches.

Refuse smart meters as long as you can, or add a shield to an existing smart meter, some of which have been shown to reduce radiation by 98 to 99 percent.76

BIG TECH AND TRADE WAR!

From The Economist - May 25 - 2019

Big Tech and the trade war ——

Circuit breaker

The tech cold war is turning red-hot. That is a danger to investors and consumers—and to America

When trade talks between America and China fell apart on May 10th, the effect on financial markets was muted. Most firms and investors are betting on a long struggle between the superpowers but not a sudden crisis or a financial panic. As the conflict over the tech industry escalates, however, that assumption looks suspect. On May 15th America's Commerce Department said that companies would need a special licence to deal with Huawei, China's hardware giant, which it deemed a threat to American interests (it later said the order would not take full effect for 90 days). Fears that other Chinese tech firms will be blacklisted have caused their shares to tumble. A chain reaction is under way as a giant industry braces for a violent shock.

The hawks in the White House may believe that isolating the ' tech industry will slow China's long-term development and that isolation is a good negotiating tactic, since China has more to lose in the short term than America does. In fact the brutal fallout from a full-blown tech war would rapidly be felt by financial markets as well as by America's allies and the world's consumers. In the long run it may even make China self-sufficient.

The tech confrontation began in earnest in April 2018, when America blacklisted ZTE, a Chinese hardware firm, for breaching sanctions on Iran and North Korea and then lying about it. Unable to buy American semiconductors and other components, or to deal with Western banks, ZTE almost collapsed (President Donald Trump reversed the ban). Since then the scope of American actions has broadened and the burden of proof fallen. The Huawei ban comes after a campaign to stop American allies from using its 5G gear. Further bans are likely. According to the New York Times, the blacklisted firms will include Hikvision, which makes systems used for surveillance of the beleaguered Uighur minority in Xinjiang. Suppliers and customers are cutting these firms off. Google and Arm, a British chip-design firm, have both said they will limit supplies to Huawei. Telecoms firms in Britain and Japan have said they will stop selling some Huawei phones.

The confrontation is a reminder of America's awesome power. By stopping foreign firms from using its intellectual property and financial system, it can put them out of business. The White House is also right that the bill for a tech war will at first be asymmetric. American firms will lose perhaps $10bn a year of licensing revenue for chips and components. But much of China's hardware-manufacturing industry depends on American components that cannot easily be sourced from elsewhere or produced at home. Huawei carries only 80 days of inventory and has 188,000 staff. A hiatus in the trade of tech goods would cause huge job losses in China's coastal cities.

Tech is not like the other industries, such as steel and soyabeans, that obsess the White House's trade warriors. The supply chain is so complex that it more closely resembles the interconnected global financial system before the crisis of 2007-08. Tech hardware firms around the world, which mostly depend on pro-duction in China, have a total market value of $5trn. Apple, which makes a fifth of its profits in China, could find itself banned or its products boycotted; its cash-rich balance-sheet could survive the shock, but its shares would slump. Hundreds of smaller suppliers with rickety finances could go bust.

The ripple effect would hurt America's allies in Asia, because they host factories that supply China's tech-manufacturing hubs and are home to companies that operate in China. In October 2017, for example, components for smartphones accounted for over 16% of exports in Malaysia and Singapore and over 33% in Taiwan. Two Taiwanese giants, TSMC (which makes chips) and Foxconn (which assembles devices), straddle the fault line of the tech cold war, having production and customers in both America and China. The same is true of South Korea's champion, Samsung. America's allies face an impossible test of loyalty.

Consumers will suffer, too. Until now, the cost of the trade war has been masked, because tariffs are paid by producers who absorb their cost or pass it on stealthily to consumers. Now the bill could become visible. Huawei has sold 300m handsets outside China in the past five years. Their buyers may soon find that their phones no longer work properly. And just imagine if Americans were suddenly unable to buy Chinese-made iPhones.

The cost of a rupture means that both sides are likely to back down. Yet the battle will hasten the race to develop an indigenous capacity to supply every vital technology in China—and in every aspiring power, including India. America's hold over the digital economy lets it enforce its will. But by unleashing its power so clumsily, it will hasten the end of its own dominance. ■

GLOBAL WARMING AND WAR!

From The Economist - May 25 2019

Climate of fear

How to think about global warming and war

They are linked—and that is worrying

Did climate change cause the war in Syria? Or the genocide in Darfur? Obviously, that is not the whole story. Suppose Syria's despot, Bashar al-Assad, or Sudan's former tyrant, Omar al-Bashir, were to find themselves on trial in The Hague and tried to blame their country's carnage on global warming. Such a risible defence would flop. No conflict occurs without leaders to give orders and soldiers to pull triggers. No atrocities are committed unless human beings choose to commit them.

Nonetheless, future-gazers are right to warn that global warming has made some wars more likely than they would otherwise have been, and will make others more so in the future. It is never possible to pinpoint a specific war and say that it would not have happened in the absence of climate change, just as it is impossible to say that a particular flood or typhoon was caused by it. Rather, climate change is causing environmental upheaval that destabilises regions and raises the risk of bloodshed.

Some worry that the Arctic will be a flashpoint. As the ice cap shrinks, nato and Russia bolster their military presence there. China is building a nuclear-powered icebreaker. At the Arctic Council on May 6th Mike Pompeo, America's secretary of state, downplayed climate change but waxed indignant about Russia's "aggressive behaviour" in reopening military bases in the region. If the North-West Passage opens to shipping or enough valuable minerals are found beneath Arctic waters, expect a tussle between great powers for polar pre-eminence.

But none of that is likely to lead to war. Nuclear-armed states are wisely wary of provoking each other too much. The bigger danger of climate-induced conflict lies farther south, in hotter, drier zones, and involves mostly civil wars in poor countries, not international ones.

Some things are clear. Accumulating greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are increasing the frequency and intensity of extreme droughts and floods in some regions. Seasonal rains and monsoons are becoming more variable and less predictable. As one area grows parched, its inhabitants encroach on land traditionally farmed or used for grazing by others. Disputes erupt, some of which are already turning violent, especially in the Sahel, a huge strip of Africa below the Sahara. Environmental stress plays a role in deadly conflicts in Burkina Faso, Chad, Cameroon, Mali, Niger, northern Nigeria and South Sudan, not to mention non-Sahelian states such as Yemen. As global temperatures continue to rise and the weather becomes more erratic, such conflicts could grow more common. Several other factors tend to foment war, including poverty, stagnation and bad government. Ethnic differences, religious zealotry and the availability of minerals to loot are often assumed to increase the risk, but they typically do so only in countries that are too poor, stagnant and ill-governed to keep violence in check. The good news is that, as poverty has receded worldwide, the proportion of humankind who die in wars and civil strife has fallen sharply, from nearly four per 100,000 each year in the 1980s to less than one in the past decade. The bad news is that climate-related disruption is likely to get worse. And if it leads to more conflicts, it can start a vicious cycle, since war makes regions poorer, and poverty fosters future wars.

Climate-induced war is one more reason for governments to take global warming seriously. However, as Australia showed on May 18th, when it elected a coal-cuddling conservative government, voters are not yet willing to pay much to avert planetary peril. Cheaper ways to reduce emissions are urgently needed, along with incentives to remove carbon from the atmosphere.

Alas, none of this-will help end conflicts today or prevent them in the short term. For that, poor countries need the help of the rich to build early-warning systems and pay for peacekeepers. Outsiders should also impose sanctions on warmongers and offer aid for governments that sincerely seek to rebuild themselves after wars, thereby reducing the risk of a relapse. For every dollar spent on such intervention, roughly $10 of harm can be averted, estimates Paul Dunne of the University of Cape Town. This is good value for money, and fits well with efforts by America, France and others to curb jihadism in Africa.

Since climate change will make some areas uninhabitable, people will leave them. Not many will move to rich countries-starving farmers cannot afford such a costly journey. Many more will move to towns or cities in their own country. It makes no sense to try to stop or discourage such migration, as many governments do. Moving is a rational way to adapt to a changing environment. Better for governments to manage the influx, building roads and schools to accommodate the newcomers. If people cannot act globally in a global emergency they will have to make do with acting locally. ■

WHILE MY WEBSITE IS DOWN!

FOR  THOSE  OF  YOU  WHO  USE  MY  RELIGIOUS  WEBSITE [keithhunt.com]

MY  SERVER  IS  DOWN  AT  PRESENT  FOR  MAINTENANCE  WORK.

NO  IDEA  WHEN  THEY  WILL  BE  IN  SERVICE  AGAIN,   BUT  HOPING  IT  WILL  BE  SOON.

SO  FOR  NOW  ENJOY  TIME  WITH  MY  BLOG---- ALL  KINDS  OF  TOPICS  COVERED  ON  MY  BLOG  WITH  OVER  2,000  ARTICLES.

Keith Hunt