February 20th, 2022 • 3h 25m
Shownotes
Every new episode of No Agenda is accompanied by a comprehensive list of shownotes curated by Adam while preparing for the show. Clips played by the hosts during the show can also be found here.
Ivermectin etc
Climate Change
Maryland to outlaw propane to the home by 2040
email from my propane company asking to contact our state Senate
to oppose MD State Bill 528. It calls for banning propane and natural gas
like they are doing in Europe. And by 2040, so not that far out in the
future. The progressive liberal influences of DC and Baltimore spill into
the rest of MD and we just get screwed.
5G
Evidence for a connection between coronavirus disease-19 and exposure to radiofrequency radiation from wireless communications including 5G - PMC
There is a substantial overlap in pathobiology between COVID-19 and WCR exposure. The evidence presented here indicates that mechanisms involved in the clinical progression of COVID-19 could also be generated, according to experimental data, by WCR exposure. Therefore, we propose a link between adverse bioeffects of WCR exposure from wireless devices and COVID-19.
Specifically, evidence presented here supports a premise that WCR and, in particular, 5G, which involves densification of 4G, may have exacerbated the COVID-19 pandemic by weakening host immunity and increasing SARS-CoV-2 virulence by (1) causing morphologic changes in erythrocytes including echinocyte and rouleaux formation that may be contributing to hypercoagulation; (2) impairing microcirculation and reducing erythrocyte and hemoglobin levels exacerbating hypoxia; (3) amplifying immune dysfunction, including immunosuppression, autoimmunity, and hyperinflammation; (4) increasing cellular oxidative stress and the production of free radicals exacerbating vascular injury and organ damage; (5) increasing intracellular Ca2+ essential for viral entry, replication, and release, in addition to promoting pro-inflammatory pathways; and (6) worsening heart arrhythmias and cardiac disorders.
WCR exposure is a widespread, yet often neglected, environmental stressor that can produce a wide range of adverse bioeffects. For decades, independent research scientists worldwide have emphasized the health risks and cumulative damage caused by WCR [42,45]. The evidence presented here is consistent with a large body of established research. Healthcare workers and policymakers should consider WCR a potentially toxic environmental stressor. Methods for reducing WCR exposure should be provided to all patients and the general population.
Russia
Finland beats Russia in Olympic hockey. Forget the meeting in Helsinki next week
DEW
Truckers
Great Reset BBB
Spotify
STORIES
Australian Police Confirm Use of LRAD Sonic Weapon at Protest Against COVID-19 Vaccine Mandates
Sun, 20 Feb 2022 16:34
Australian Capital Territory (ACT) Policing have confirmed the use of a Long Range Acoustic Device (LRAD)'--often regarded as a sonic weapon'--at the massive protest against vaccine mandates in Canberra on Feb. 12, despite the Australian Federal Police (AFP) commissioner describing the crowd as ''well behaved.''
''ACT Policing has deployed several types of loudspeakers and amplification devices to quickly and effectively convey voice messages to large, and often loud, crowds of people during the recent protest activity in Canberra,'' an ACT Policing spokesperson said in a statement to The Epoch Times on Feb. 16.
''The [LRADs] were only used to convey spoken-word messages. The 'alert' function was not used.''
LRADs, also known as acoustic weapons or sound cannons, are used to project very loud sounds over long distances. While the voice function can be helpful to communicate in loud settings, the device's most dangerous setting, the alert function, can cause brain damage, permanent hearing loss, tinnitus (ringing in the ears), dizziness, and disorientation.
A fact sheet by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) says the technology is used for crowd control by emitting loud and painful levels of noise that may lead to significant harm to the ears.
The LRADs work by using hundreds of transducers to create a highly concentrated and amplified sound that can be narrowed to focus on specific targeted areas. Similar devices were used by the U.S. military in Iraq in 2004.
Photos and videos circulating on social media show the LRADs positioned at the front of Parliament House facing towards the location of tens of thousands of protesters, made up of individuals and families with children, on the lawns opposite.
Protest attendees have since taken to social media to complain about symptoms they say are a result of the LRADs. However, The Epoch Times has not been able to independently verify these claims.
Protesters against vaccine mandates gather on the lawn of Parliament House in Canberra, Australia, on Feb. 12, 2022. (Tracey Nearmy/Getty Images)Earlier in the week, during a Senate estimates hearing on Feb. 14, senators Alex Antic and Malcolm Roberts sought confirmation from AFP Commissioner Reece Kershaw about whether the sonic weapons were present and deployed at the protests.
Responding to Roberts, Kershaw said: ''That would be something that is with our police methodology which we would have to look at some type of public interest immunity claim, Senator.''
Roberts responded: ''Surely it's in the public interest to know whether or not they were there without delving too much into it?''
''I'd have to '... If I could take that on notice, I'd have to get advice,'' Kershaw said.
Australian Senator Alex Antic holds up an image of a long range acoustic device that was circulating on social media at a Senate estimates hearing in Canberra, Australia, on Feb. 14, 2022. (Screenshot by The Epoch Times)Later, Antic, who appeared virtually, held up a photo of the LRADs taken outside parliament in a bid to secure confirmation.
Committee chair Sen. Sarah Henderson politely interjected to inform Antic that Kershaw had already taken the question on notice from Roberts.
''With the benefit of having that photograph which tends to confirm it, we still can't confirm that that device was there on the day?'' Antic said.
''Yeah, I think to be proper '... I'd like to take that on notice,'' Kershaw said.
Protesters against vaccine mandates gather on the lawn of Parliament House in Canberra, Australia, on Feb. 12, 2022. (Tracey Nearmy/Getty Images)Antic noted that police only arrested three people out of the tens of thousands (the actual crowd size is disputed) compared to far smaller protests by other groups held at the same location where arrest numbers were higher.
Police Commissioner Kershaw agreed with Antic's characterisation of the Feb. 12 protests as ''mostly peaceful.''
''Overall the crowd were well-behaved and you probably saw there was '... children and families who were involved,'' Kershaw said.
''Pretty well behaved. A lot of poor attitudes though, but there's no offence for that. So police did cop a fair bit of abuse, but again, it didn't cross into the criminal threshold.''
The anti-vaccine mandates protest was attended by Australians from all walks of life and made up of people who were both vaccinated and unvaccinated but are against the state government mandates.
One federal MP said it was the biggest protest he'd seen in Canberra in his 11 years as a parliamentarian. Meanwhile, Police Commissioner Kershaw told the Senate estimates hearing that it was the largest protest the police had seen since the 1980s.
Follow
Caden Pearson is a writer and editor based Cairns, Australia, with a background in screenwriting and documentary. Contact him on caden.pearson@epochtimes.com.au
Dr. Francis Collins Resurfaces as Biden's Science Adviser After Retiring amid Scandal
Sun, 20 Feb 2022 16:34
Dr. Francis Collins has rejoined President Biden's team as a ''science adviser'' after retiring late last year from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) amid scandal.
Collins will rejoin Biden's team following Dr. Eric Lander's resignation as ''science adviser'' after ''bullying his colleagues'' in violations of the White House's workplace policy,'' the New York Times reported. After the revelations came to light, Lander promptly apologized and subsequently resigned.
Dr. Eric Lander (AP Photo/Matt Slocum, File)
Collins' recurring proximity to the White House perhaps speaks to how much administrative state knowledge Collins possesses after working as the NHI for 12 years.
Collins, 71, retired in early October from the NIH amid a political scandal. Just after his retirement, molecular biologist Richard H. Ebright published a letter from the NIH showing that the NIH's grant money funded gain of function research in communist China's Wuhan lab. Breitbart News reported:
Ebright tweeted that in the letter, the NIH ''corrects untruthful assertions by NIH Director Collins and NIAID Director Fauci that NIH had not funded gain-of-function research in Wuhan.''
Furthermore, Ebright noted that the NIH's letter appeared to show that EcoHealth Alliance violated the Terms and Conditions of the NIH grant.
The NIH said ''out of an abundance of caution and as an additional layer of oversight, language was included in the terms and conditions of the grant award to EcoHealth that outlined criteria for a secondary review, such as a requirement that the grantee report immediately a one log increase in growth.''
The NIH received the relevant documents in 2018 and reviewed the documents in 2020 and again in 2021.
The NIH''specifically, Collins, Fauci, and Tabak''lied to Congress, lied to the press, and lied to the public. Knowingly. Willfully. Brazenly.
'-- Richard H. Ebright (@R_H_Ebright) October 20, 2021
Members of Congress were quick to point to the alleged wrongdoing overseen by Collins and Dr. Anthony Fauci. '''I told you so' doesn't even begin to cover it here,'' Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) said.
''Fauci knew. He should be investigated and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law,'' Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) said.
''To call this a bombshell is an understatement. Dr. Fauci and others claimed under oath the NIH didn't fund gain of research function in the Wuhan Lab. Now the obvious is confirmed: they did,'' former Trump chief of staff Mark Meadows tweeted.
Fauci hearings have dismissed the NIH's alleged funding of the Wuhan lab in Senate hearings.
''Senator Paul, with all due respect, you are entirely and completely incorrect that the NIH has not never and does not now fund gain-of-function research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology,'' Fauci told Sen. Paul in May. ''I totally resent the lie you are now propagating.''
Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) questions Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, about gain of function research during a Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee hearing (JIM LO SCALZO/POOL/AFP via Getty Images and J. Scott Applewhite/POOL/AFP via Getty Images).
Since Collins has resigned, the NIH has acknowledged that the agency's ''support for virus-enhancing research adds more heat to the ongoing debate over whether a lab leak could have sparked the pandemic,'' Vanity Fair reported about the scandal:
On Wednesday, the NIH sent a letter to members of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce that acknowledged two facts. One was that EcoHealth Alliance, a New York City''based nonprofit that partners with far-flung laboratories to research and prevent the outbreak of emerging diseases, did indeed enhance a bat coronavirus to become potentially more infectious to humans, which the NIH letter described as an ''unexpected result'' of the research it funded that was carried out in partnership with the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The second was that EcoHealth Alliance violated the terms of its grant conditions stipulating that it had to report if its research increased the viral growth of a pathogen by tenfold.
The NIH based these disclosures on a research progress report that EcoHealth Alliance sent to the agency in August, roughly two years after it was supposed to. An NIH spokesperson told Vanity Fair that Dr. Fauci was ''entirely truthful in his statements to Congress,'' and that he did not have the progress report that detailed the controversial research at the time he testified in July. But EcoHealth Alliance appeared to contradict that claim, and said in a statement: ''These data were reported as soon as we were made aware, in our year four report in April 2018.''
Follow Wendell Huseb¸ on Twitter and Gettr @WendellHuseb¸.
Fed Scandal Bigger Than Watergate?
Sun, 20 Feb 2022 16:31
These are turbulent times not unlike the 1970s. Supply shortages, rampant inflation, domestic upheaval, foreign affairs fiascos. But some inane desire for ''continuity'' at Fed Chair is not worth sacrificing every principle for which America stands.
The Biden administration chose to reward corruption at the highest level of government by renominating Jerome H. Powell to Chair of the Federal Reserve Board. Next week, the U.S. Senate wants to rush a vote to bless corruption and confirm Powell in that powerful role. But reinstalling Powell as Fed Chair, after he presided over and is directly implicated in the biggest government official stock trading scandal ever, will be a permanent stain on American history '-- a national disgrace from which our country and its real economy will never recover.
Fed Chair Powell '-- who is supposed to serve in the public interest and avoid even the appearance of conflicts '-- traded millions in personal stocks and bonds while obstructing required public disclosures about those trades for years. Yet, the information that has slipped out is damning. It shows Powell made trades *DURING* the restricted blackout period for pivotal Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) meetings. This is a shocking revelation and constitutes grave and inexcusable misconduct by a high-ranking U.S. government official.
Moreover, Powell directed policy decisions that directly advantaged his personal bond holdings despite longstanding federal conflicts of interest law, 18 U.S.C. § 208. And then he apparently told a brazen lie about it to the press by suggesting the Office of Government Ethics (OGE) said his holdings posed no conflict. FOIA requests confirm that OGE provided no such guidance in writing.
Set aside the fact Powell presided over the massive Fed trading scandal. His personal actions plainly bar him from serving in any government position of trust, much less the extremely powerful role of Fed Chair. Why hasn't the media reported any of this? It seems most financial journalist are some combination of: (1) totally delusional, (2) under gag orders from superiors, or (3) complicit when it comes to systemic corruption at the Federal Reserve and Wall Street. Since mainstream media has failed our country, we are compelled to do what we can to help the cause of smaller outlets like Revolving Door Project and Wall Street on Parade in exposing the truth.
Powell Consistently Obstructs Disclosure of Most Trade Dates but Even His Deficient Filings Show Illicit Trades During Restricted Fed Blackout Period
Since being nominated to a seat on the Fed Board in 2012, Powell has been required to publicly disclose the amount ranges and specific dates (''month, day, year'') for personal trade transactions on OGE Form 278e.1 He has materially failed to comply with the required disclosures. Instead of providing specific dates for the majority of his transactions, Powell improperly groups trades of like securities behind the phrase ''Multiple'' on every OGE form he has filed.
Ex-Fed Regional Bank President Robert Kaplan '-- who retired early in disgrace after getting caught trading millions and even trying to time the market with S&P futures '-- employed the same scheme to obstruct public disclosure of trade dates. Journalists who have pursued long overdue disclosure of trade details have been stonewalled to date.2 Even demands for trading details by sitting members of the Senate Banking Committee that oversees the Fed have been ignored by Chair Powell for months.3
The limited information we actually have still paints a deeply disturbing picture. For example, take Powell's disclosure for 2015 - a pivotal year when the Fed was considering policy normalization after the GFC. Powell recorded _57_ separate transaction entries.4 But 34 of the entries obstruct disclosure of dates through use of the ''Multiple'' artifice. That means Powell must have executed more than NINETY (90) separate trades in just one year, all while sitting on the Fed Board with unfettered access to highly material non-public financial information.
Worse still, a significant number of trades were executed during the restricted blackout period leading up to and through the final day of FOMC meetings. Ironically, when the trading scandal broke, a Fed PR spokesperson touted that Fed officials like Powell are subject to stricter restrictions like no trading during the FOMC blackout period '-- ''10 days ahead of policy meetings through midnight of the final meeting day.''5 Yet, Powell had at least 6 sales transactions and 1 purchase on April 29, 2015 '-- the day of the final FOMC meeting.6 He also made 2 purchases on December 11, 2015 '-- 3 days before the FOMC's December 15-16, 2015 meetings.
How do we know Powell wasn't using ''Multiple'' to hide disclosure of far more transactions during the restricted blackout period? We're only scratching the surface, and this is just a single year of Powell's long tenure. Moreover, Powell's illicit trades were not isolated to 2016, it continues unchecked through the present.
Again Powell made 5 securities trades on December 11, 2019 '-- the day of the final FOMC meeting over which he presided as Fed Chair.7 This all may be a bit unbelievable, but the sources are publicly available and footnoted below. The size or success of Powell's trades are irrelevant to whether Powell violated requirements.
Experts agree the problem with all this is Fed officials (and especially the Fed Chair) ''have material nonpublic information all the time'' '-- in fact it's ''the most important information that you can make the most money on in the quickest period of time.''8 While the Fed has touted new forthcoming trading rules that are more restrictive, one of the few existing restraints on Fed officials is the financial trading blackout around FOMC meetings. Powell could not even abide by that.
Powell's trades during the pandemic have also drawn at least some scrutiny. Indeed, Powell sold between $1-5 million in stock in October 2020 just prior to a significant market downturn.9 See Robert Kuttner's piece in the American Prospect (https://prospect.org/economy/powell-sold-more-than-million-dollars-of-stock-as-market-was-tanking/). Mr. Kuttner suggests a possible saving grace is that ''[n]one of Powell's sales happened during the blackout periods for 2020.'' Of course, as you now realize, there is no way to verify that statement due to Powell's obstruction.
President Biden and some Senators just want us to ignore these habitual violations and take Powell's word for it that he didn't trade on material non-public information. Now see, that's a problem for us. Because not only did Powell make at least a dozen trades during the blackout period while also obstructing disclosure of the majority of his trade dates, he also seems to be covering up another major conflict.
Powell Failed to Recuse Himself from Matters Directly Impacting His Municipal Bond Holdings and Then Apparently Lied to Reporters About It
Federal conflicts of interest statute 18 U.S.C. § 208 has been on the books for decades. ''Under 18 U.S.C. § 208, an employee is prohibited from participating personally and substantially in any particular matter in which the employee knows they have a financial interest directly and predictably affected by the matter'...''10 The statute applies to all types of financial interests, including municipal bonds where the matter ''would have a direct and predictable effect on the value of municipal bonds or, in rare cases, the financial stability of the issuer...''
In March 2020, Fed Chair Powell made the unprecedented decision to intervene in the municipal bond market and purchase municipal bonds and ETFs directly as part of its ''kitchen sink'' response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Fed had never made such a move, even during the depths of the Great Financial Crisis. The Fed's intervention rapidly ''propped up'' the muni market and then some. The Fed spurred muni borrowing to a 10-year high and drove ''riskier issuers'' into the market.11
Fed Chair Powell actively bought and sold both specific muni bonds and actively-managed muni funds leading up to his unprecedented decision. The widely-distributed financial magazine Barron's even wrote an article touting Powell's moves as a potential trading strategy in 2019.12 The Fed even purchased one of the specific Illinois muni bonds also held by Powell's trust.13
One of the few financial journalists left with some backbone is Steve Liesman at CNBC. At the September 2021 FOMC press conference, Mr. Liesman questioned Powell about the propriety of owning the same assets the Fed decided to buy.14 Instead of responding forthrightly about deciding to act despite his conflict due to emergency circumstances, Powell tried to cover up the nature of his conflict and made matters far worse.
Powell responded to CNBC's Liesman: "I personally owned municipal securities for many, many years, and in 2019, I froze that...the lore was that the Fed would never buy municipal securities...and I reversed that." Powell did not "freeze" his muni trading in 2019 before the Fed decision. As reported by the Revolving Door Project, Powell "neglected to mention that he'd personally purchased shares [in 2020] in several actively-managed municipal bond funds [from Goldman Sachs]."15
Powell then dug himself deeper and asserted that he had "checked with the Office of Government Ethics '... who looked at it carefully and said that I didn't have a conflict." This broad, unsupported assertion is astonishing. Powell is suggesting that OGE undertook a careful analysis of whether his muni holdings posed a 18 U.S.C. § 208 conflict when directing Fed policy on the unprecedent muni intervention. And Powell asserts that OGE said he had no conflict.
Well, thankfully there is something called the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) that helps the public to verify such a statement. And the Revolving Door Project used FOIA requests to do just that.16 The results are shocking as they yielded zero written communications or documents to support Powell's assertion:
So what did OGE really think or say? Well, in December 2021, Powell signed a new Ethics Agreement that requires him to dump all of his muni bond holdings.17 And in it, OGE clearly believes that Powell's muni holdings pose a potential 12 U.S.C. § 208 conflict.
Suffice to say, Powell should have obtained an express waiver or recused himself from all decisions relating to his muni bonds back in 2020 and allowed others on the Board to direct policy. Failing that, he should have just owned the fact that he mistakenly violated 18 U.S.C. § 208 due to emergency circumstances. We find it implausible that the Fed Chair didn't brazenly lie about non-existent guidance from the Office of Government Ethics. Powell has utterly betrayed the public's trust in this whole episode, and the press has failed to call him out on it.
Powell Directed Massive QE Purchases and Bailouts Despite Major Conflicts
Maybe it'd be easier to look past these grave personal transgressions if Powell's entire net worth and career wasn't riddled with massive conflicts. For example, despite owning millions in the investment firm's proprietary equity funds, Powell awarded Wall Street behemoth BlackRock with large no-bid contracts to run trillions in 'Quantitative Easing' purchases that have doubled the Fed's balance sheet to around $9 trillion!18
Back in 2020, many industry participants cried foul and rightfully so: '''It is truly outrageous,' said one asset management executive, who declined to speak on the record due to BlackRock's influence on Wall Street. 'BlackRock will be managing a fund and deciding if they want to use taxpayer money to purchase ETFs they manage. There's probably another 100-200 managers who could do this, but BlackRock was chosen [in a no-bid contest].'''19
And BlackRock decided to do just that - directing the largest Fed purchases into its own proprietary securities funds.20 Jeanna Smialek of the NY Times questioned Powell about the BlackRock arrangement, Powell holding several private calls with BlackRock's CEO Larry Fink, and how potential conflicts of interest were handled.21
This is yet another serious breach. The BlackRock Invesment Management Agreement of course provides for an ethical wall at Ex. G.22 As it recognizes, ''certain BlackRock senior executives may sit atop of the information barrier between the FMA Group and the rest of BlackRock.'' One such individual would be CEO Larry Fink. ''In virtually all cases, persons who are 'above the wall' are precluded from having any involvement in advising the client in connection with the particular transaction.''23 So ''exchanging information'' and ''checking in'' on the arrangement regularly with someone who sits above the ethical wall is very wrong.
Despite his massive personal financial conflicts, Chair Powell has acted with impunity to advantage the Wall Street firms managing his investment fund holdings both before and after the pandemic. Indeed, in late 2019, prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, Powell directed the Fed to engage in an unprecedented emergency repo program that provided nearly $20 TRILLION in cumulative loans to Wall Street, including ~$3.7 trillion to Japan's Nomura Securities and ~$1.4 trillion to Germany's Deutsche Bank trading arms. Industry experts have opined that the program was in direct violation of the Dodd-Frank Act.24
The emergency repo program was not broad based, but rather appears to have been directed as aid to ''failing financial firms'' overly exposed to risky derivatives. Of course, one of the select major recipients of loans was Goldman Sachs at $1.67 trillion. And yes, Powell also owns millions in Goldman Sachs proprietary equity funds.
To date, there's been a virtual media blackout on the 2019 repo bailouts, just like on Powell's trading and disclosure violations.
Middle and Working Class Americans Cannot Afford Four More Years of Fed Chair Powell
What's the end result of having a Fed Chair as conflicted as Powell? The vast majority of Americans, who own little to no stocks propped up by Fed bailouts and rent or carry a sizable mortgage on their homes, are being destroyed by skyrocketing inflation after shouldering the real burden of a lengthy pandemic. The Bureau of Labor Statistics currently estimates consumer inflation to be 7%. In reality, it's more than double that.25 And worse still for housing inflation '-- the most heavily weighted metric which BLS has the gall to suggest is less than 4% year over year. You'd have to be living under a rock to believe that and perhaps that's all most Americans will be able to afford soon.
On the other hand, Wall Street and the wealthiest Americans suffered less than a month of down days on the stock market and bask in record wealth inequality. Powell is guided in all his actions not only by his fealty to Wall Street cronies, but also by truly outrageous personal financial conflicts and violations. Powell has tried very hard to cover this up before his confirmation hearing. Sadly, there's no Woodward and Bernstein of the day to shed light on the truth.
So the task falls to us ordinary Americans. We need to get the word out far and wide. Please do your part on every social media outlet (Twitter, Reddit, Tik Tok etc.), tell your friends, write and call your Senators, even consider joining a peaceable in-person demonstration to say NO to 4 more years of Jay Powell as Fed Chair!
Study suggests attractive people have stronger immune systems
Sun, 20 Feb 2022 16:29
Figure 1. Interaction between natural killer cell cytotoxicity and target sex on attractiveness ratings. Note: NK, natural killer; β, standardized beta coefficient (standard error). **p '¤ 0.01; *p '¤ 0.05; ' p '¤ 0.10. Credit: DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2021.2476
A team of researchers at Texas Christian University has found that people perceived as more attractive by others tend to have a stronger immune system. In their study, published in Proceedings of the Royal Society B, the group asked volunteers to rate the level of attractiveness of people in pictures.
In most human societies, some people are deemed more or less attractive than others. In this new effort, the researchers wondered why this is the case. They theorized that it likely has evolutionary roots. And because most evolutionary traits can be tied to reproductive success, they further theorized that people who seem attractive to others may be better reproductive partners because they are healthier than average. To find out if this might be the case, they first recruited 159 male and female volunteers and photographed each without any makeup and with a neutral facial expression. They then performed blood tests on the participants to provide the researchers with an indication of overall health'--in this case, the strength of their immune systems, by measuring white blood cell levels that combat diseases. The researchers then asked 492 other male and female volunteers to rate people of the opposite gender in the photographs on their attractiveness.
The researchers found that those judging the attractiveness of others based on nothing but a single photograph found those people with stronger immune systems to be more attractive, despite not knowing anything about their immune systems'--they were somehow able to see it in the faces they were looking at.
The researchers also found that the female volunteers, on average, saw those males with higher levels of NK cells in their plasma as more attractive. Such cells target and kill bacteria. Interestingly, the reverse was not true for males looking at females'--they found those with lower NK levels to be more attractive. The researchers suggest this is because women with lower NK levels tend to have higher estrogen levels.
Notably, the volunteers were asked to judge the attractiveness of the people in the photographs, not to judge how pretty or handsome they were. A person can be seen as attractive to others even if not perceived as better-than-average-looking.
More information: Summer Mengelkoch et al, More than just a pretty face? The relationship between immune function and perceived facial attractiveness, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences (2022). DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2021.2476
Journal information: Proceedings of the Royal Society B
(C) 2022 Science X Network
Joel Martin Rubin - Wikipedia
Sun, 20 Feb 2022 16:27
Joel Rubin (born 1971) is an American politician and media commentator on domestic political and Middle East affairs. Rubin is the Vice Mayor of the Town of Chevy Chase, Maryland and served as a senior Obama Administration State Department official.[1] He also was in charge of Jewish outreach for Bernie Sanders' 2020 presidential campaign.[2][3]
Media [ edit ] Rubin appears as a political commentator on American networks such as MSNBC[4] and Fox News; and on international networks such as i24, China Global Television Network, and Al-Jazeera. He also writes political and national security commentary for Axios,[5] The Forward,[6] Washington Jewish Week,[7] and The Hill.[8]
Rubin was a surrogate for the 2012 Barack Obama presidential campaign; an advocate for the Iran nuclear deal as the Policy Director for Ploughshares Fund; and as a commentator on the 2012 Benghazi attack. Following the 2018 Pittsburgh synagogue shooting at his hometown synagogue, Tree of Life '' Or L'Simcha Congregation, Joel appeared on Fox News and MSNBC to discuss the attack, later commenting as well on the rise of antisemitism in America after the 2019 Poway synagogue shooting. Rubin frequently comments on foreign policy & congressional politics for networks such as Fox News, MSNBC, BBC, Al Jazeera.
Joel has also appeared in Jewish magazines for his political work.[9]
Career [ edit ] Rubin served in the Peace Corps in Costa Rica. He has worked for three U.S. government agencies in both Republican and Democratic Administrations '' the Department of Energy, USAID, and State Department. In January 2015, when he served in the State Department as the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Legislative Affairs in the Obama administration, he was an official government witness and testified to the House Select Committee on Benghazi. Earlier, Rubin worked on Capitol Hill as a legislative assistant to US Senators Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) and Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.).
Rubin was the founding Political Director of J Street, a liberal pro-Israel advocacy organization dedicated to promoting Israeli-Palestinian peace;[10] and as a founding board member of the Jewish Democratic Council of America, established in 2017 in the wake of the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia.
Rubin ran for Congress in 2016 in Maryland's 8th congressional district,[11] in what was the most expensive Congressional primary in American history at the time.[12] In 2018 he ran in the Democratic primary for the Maryland House of Delegates.[13]
Honors and awards [ edit ] In 2008 Rubin was awarded the 'Congressional Staffer of the Year' award from the Military Officers Association of America. Rubin was also awarded the State Department's Superior Honor Award in 2005.
Personal life [ edit ] Rubin holds a BA in Politics from Brandeis University and a MS in Public Policy and Management, with a Minor in Business Administration, from Carnegie Mellon University's Heinz College. He lives in Chevy Chase, Maryland.
References [ edit ]
LEAKED RCMP MESSAGES: ''Time for the protesters to hear our jackboots on the ground'' - Rebel News
Sun, 20 Feb 2022 16:20
E-transfer (Canada): [email protected] - password RebelNews if required
Cheques made out to Rebel News:Rebel News Network Ltd.PO Box 61056 Eglinton/Dufferin ROToronto, ON M6E 5B2
Crypto
In what appear to be authentic screenshots of the RCMP Musical Ride team currently in Ottawa to assist in the crackdown on peaceful protesters in the capital city, members brag about using brutal force.
Over the last 24 hours in Ottawa, police have deployed pepper spray and canisters on demonstrators, arrested dozens and trampled two people with horses.
Rebel News' Alexa Lavoie was brutally struck with a baton, shot at close range with a pepper canister which then broke, burning her face and eyes.
In the chat, RCMP Musical Ride member, Andrew Nixon sends a picture of a pint of beer hoping for his chance to abuse protesters:
''Don't kick all of them out until next weeks group gets our turn''
Member Robin Thibault remarks about accommodations police are being given in Ottawa:
''Nice Downtown in Chateau Laurier"
Nixon jokes about police brutality:
''Time for the protesters to hear our jackboots on the ground''
After being admonished for his remarks, Nixon mocks the protesters:
''okay we can give out free hugs and unicorn stickers''
A member named Marca laughs off the prior night trampling of two demonstrators, one of which had a mobility scooter.
''"just watched the horse video - that is awesome''
''we should practice that manoeuvre''
Rebel News has not yet been able to authenticate these texts but will reach out to RCMP communications for comment.
To support Alexa Lavoie in her lawsuit against the police, please visit www.StandWithAlexa.com.
Apple's Chinese success tied to $275B deal spearheaded by Tim Cook: report (NASDAQ:AAPL) | Seeking Alpha
Sun, 20 Feb 2022 15:53
To ensure this doesn't happen in the future, please enable Javascript and cookies in your browser.
Is this happening to you frequently? Please
report it on our feedback forum.If you have an ad-blocker enabled you may be blocked from proceeding. Please disable your ad-blocker and refresh.
California's Green-Energy Subsidies Spur a Gold Rush in Cow Manure - WSJ
Sun, 20 Feb 2022 15:26
A lucrative state incentive to make natural gas from dairy waste is attracting companies from Amazon to Chevron
By
Phred Dvorak Photographs by Jennifer Emerling for The Wall Street Journal
Feb. 19, 2022 9:00 am ETClean Energy Fuels Corp., a major distributor of natural gas made from waste, found a way to boost its earnings by millions of dollars, virtually overnight.
All it had to do was switch the main biofuel it supplies to power cars and trucks in California'--currently a type of natural gas produced with methane emissions from garbage'--to a chemically identical gas produced from the manure of cows.
California's...
Advertisement - Scroll to Continue
Clean Energy Fuels Corp. , a major distributor of natural gas made from waste, found a way to boost its earnings by millions of dollars, virtually overnight.
All it had to do was switch the main biofuel it supplies to power cars and trucks in California'--currently a type of natural gas produced with methane emissions from garbage'--to a chemically identical gas produced from the manure of cows.
California's clean-fuels grading system gives cow-poop gas a much better score'--and much higher subsidies'--than landfill gas. So that simple substitution could net Clean Energy an additional $70 million in earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization by 2026, the company estimates.
Together with European energy giants BP PLC and TotalEnergies SE , Clean Energy is pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into gas production on dairy farms to milk that advantage. A host of developers, financiers and carbon-conscious corporations, from Chevron Corp. to Amazon.com Inc., are looking to buy or produce the fuel as well.
''It is like magic,'' said Andrew Littlefair, Clean Energy's president and chief executive, of the projected earnings boost.
Advertisement - Scroll to Continue
The surging interest in dairy renewable natural gas, as it is called, shows how incentives can spur action to address the emissions linked to climate change'--and sometimes unintended consequences as well. Until a few years ago, the gas, which is interchangeable with conventional natural gas and can replace dirtier fuels like diesel, was a niche product that was too expensive to make commercially.
Now, California's generous subsidies have prompted what some observers are dubbing a manure gold rush. One developer said he showed up at a dairy only to discover that the farmer had gotten more than 10 pitches for business tie-ups already. Others said competition for business has gotten so heated that some developers are promising to pay farmers a fixed amount per cow'--a risky setup if the price of the California credits plummets.
Driving the boom is California's Low-Carbon Fuel Standard. The standard requires companies that sell transportation fuels in the state to lower their products' carbon intensity'--the carbon dioxide emitted during manufacture, distribution and consumption. Companies that exceed the carbon-intensity maximums have to buy offset credits, each of which represents a metric ton of emissions. Those with low-scoring fuels generate credits, whose price goes up and down depending on demand.
Advertisement - Scroll to Continue
The lowest carbon-intensity scores go to fuels that keep warming gases out of the air'--particularly methane, a greenhouse gas that can be 84 times more potent in trapping heat than carbon dioxide, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the scientific group that helps the United Nations evaluate the state of research on the issue.
Other waste sources such as landfills produce methane, too. But California already requires landfills to curb methane emissions while farms don't have to, and thus they emit more. So capturing the methane from decomposing manure at dairies to make truck fuel cuts net emissions a lot, and reaps some of the best scores of all.
U.S. regulators haven't generally imposed controls on methane emissions from livestock, since they are tough to implement and politically sensitive.
California Bioenergy LLC, which develops projects to make energy out of manure, in 2016 received the first provisional carbon-intensity score'--around negative 270'--for a dairy-gas facility. Diesel by comparison has an average carbon-intensity score of more than 100. CalBio, as it is known, now has 41 dairy-gas projects in operation and another 60-odd projects in development.
Its latest project to go online is the 1,500-cow Rib-Arrow Dairy in central California, where manure is now flushed from the floor of the stalls into a covered lagoon, called a digester, so the methane can be collected for processing rather than released into the air. That raw biogas, which is around 60% methane and the remainder mostly carbon dioxide, is piped to a central facility that collects gas from a cluster of dairies in the area and purifies it for injection into the local utility's pipeline.
Advertisement - Scroll to Continue
David Ribeiro, a third-generation co-owner of Rib-Arrow, said he had been approached by digester salesmen before, but that adding the gas sales to the environmental benefits finally made everything economically feasible: ''We're like, 'Wow, this makes sense.'''
There are 116 such facilities currently operating in the U.S.'--more than half of which went online last year'--and another 121 planned or in construction, according to the Coalition for Renewable Natural Gas, a nonprofit that promotes gas made from waste. Analysts say thousands more dairies could support such plants, which can reduce foul odors in addition to capturing emissions.
The market is likely to remain small compared with the U.S.'s overall appetite for natural gas in homes, businesses and transport. Even in an optimistic scenario, biogas from manure would supply only around 3% of today's demand by 2040, according to a 2019 study commissioned by the American Gas Foundation.
Still, money is pouring in from big companies looking to lower their carbon footprints quickly'--as well as entrepreneurs smelling a business opportunity. Clean Energy said it is working on more than a billion dollars worth of deals through its dairy-gas joint ventures with BP and Total, and that it hopes to channel more than $2 billion in investment by 2026.
Advertisement - Scroll to Continue
California-based Chevron has committed around $500 million to develop renewable natural-gas supply, starting with dairies. A Chevron investor presentation in September showed plans for a national network of as many as ''190,000 milking cow equivalents'' and forecast double-digit returns. Amazon has inked a deal with Clean Energy to buy biogas for its massive trucking fleet; it declined to comment.
More than half of California's methane is released from dairy and livestock manure, and by cow burps. The state has vowed to lower greenhouse gas emissions by 40% compared with 1990 levels by 2030, and it is focusing on methane reductions in particular. It is also targeting a 20% reduction in the carbon intensity of its transportation fuel relative to 2010, and has so far managed to cut it by more than 7%.
''From our perspective, the program is working to drive private investment'' to accomplish the state's environmental goals, said Matthew Botill, the division chief at California's Air Resources Board who oversees the state's low-carbon fuel standard and other climate change programs.
California officials said the program doesn't cost the state money because its market-based mechanism results in producers and consumers of higher-carbon fuels effectively paying the incentives to the producers and consumers of low-carbon fuels.
Oregon and the Canadian province of British Columbia are implementing similar fuel standards, and a number of other states are considering them, too. The federal government issues its own, less-lucrative, subsidies for low-carbon fuels.
California's aggressive incentive system is producing some odd results. One dairy that was already using digesters to collect methane and produce electricity from its manure'--the 35,000-cow Threemile Canyon Farms in Oregon'--got a relatively high carbon-intensity score of negative 189 when it shifted to making gas for California, since it had fewer emissions to reduce.
''The manure management practices on the farm were so good'...that they were penalized a bit,'' said Ben Vitale, CEO of Resilient Infrastructure Group, which owns Threemile's gas plant.
Financiers at Cresta Fund Management, a Texas-based private-equity fund that has two renewable natural gas producers in its portfolio, said they have seen an increasing number of entrepreneurs with little experience in the area trying to raise money for dairy-gas projects.
''We had some authors pitch us,'' said John Skrinar, Cresta's director of sustainable investments. ''The reality is, it's a lot more complicated than just show up, put a swimming pool in the ground, shovel a bunch of cow manure into it, and make a fortune.''
Write to Phred Dvorak at phred.dvorak@wsj.com
The Queen tests positive for Covid - BBC News
Sun, 20 Feb 2022 12:39
By Dulcie LeeBBC News
Image source, Getty Images
The Queen has tested positive for Covid, Buckingham Palace has said.
The monarch is experiencing "mild cold-like symptoms" but expects to continue "light duties" at Windsor over the coming week, the palace said.
"She will continue to receive medical attention and will follow all the appropriate guidelines," it added in a statement.
The Queen, 95, had been in contact with her eldest son and heir, the Prince of Wales, who tested positive last week.
It is understood a number of people have tested positive at Windsor Castle, where the Queen resides.
The announcement comes weeks after the Queen became the UK's longest reigning monarch, reaching her Platinum Jubilee of 70 years on 6 February.
She carried out her first major public engagement for more than three months on the eve of her Jubilee, meeting charity workers at Sandringham House.
The Queen had her first vaccine in January 2021 and is believed to have had all her follow-up jabs after that.
BBC royal correspondent Nicholas Witchell said had been taking life "rather more easily" since spending a night in hospital for medical checks in October last year.
On Tuesday, the Queen attended her first official engagement since coming into contact with Prince Charles, holding a virtual meeting with two new ambassadors to the UK.
Prince Charles's wife, the Duchess of Cornwall, tested positive for the virus last weeks, days after her husband.
It was the first time the duchess had caught Covid, and the second time for Prince Charles.
The Royal Household has its own physicians, and the Queen's is Sir Huw Thomas, a consultant at St Mary's Hospital in London and professor of gastrointestinal genetics at Imperial College London.
He is "head of the medical household", which is part of the Royal Household looking after the health of the family.
Evidence for a connection between coronavirus disease-19 and exposure to radiofrequency radiation from wireless communications including 5G - PMC
Sun, 20 Feb 2022 12:25
Beverly Rubik, Robert R. Brown
Corresponding author: Beverly Rubik College of Integrative Medicine & Health Sciences, Saybrook University, Pasadena CA; Institute for Frontier Science, Oakland, CA, USA
Handeling editor:
Michal Heger
Department of Pharmaceutics, Utrecht University, the Netherlands Department of Pharmaceutics, Jiaxing University Medical College, Zhejiang, China
Review timeline:
Received: 10 March, 2021
Editorial decision: 12 May, 2021
Revision received: 11 June, 2021
Editorial decision: 28 June, 2021
Revision received: 28 July, 2021
Editorial decision: 03 August, 2021
Revision received: 25 August, 2021
Editorial decision: 25 August, 2021
Published online: 29 September, 2021
1st Editorial decision:
11-June-2021
Ref.: Ms. No. JCTRes-D-21-00034
Evidence for a Connection between COVID-19 and Exposure to Radiofrequency Radiation from Wireless Telecommunications Including Microwaves and Millimeter WavesOriginal Research Paper Journal of Clinical and Translational Research
Dear Dr. Rubik,
Reviewers have now commented on your paper. You will see that they are advising that you revise your manuscript. If you are prepared to undertake the work required, I would be pleased to reconsider my decision.
For your guidance, reviewers' comments are appended below.
If you decide to revise the work, please submit a list of changes or a rebuttal against each point which is being raised when you submit the revised manuscript. Also, please ensure that the track changes function is switched on when implementing the revisions. This enables the reviewers to rapidly verify all changes made.
Your revision is due by Jun 11, 2021.
To submit a revision, go to https://www.editorialmanager.com/jctres/ and log in as an Author. You will see a menu item call Submission Needing Revision. You will find your submission record there.
Yours sincerely
Michal Heger
Editor-in-Chief
Journal of Clinical and Translational Research
Reviewers' comments:
Reviewer #1: General comments
The author has considered very important and actual issue putting forward the question whether 5G mobile communication may contribute to the Covid-19 pandemia. To answer this question the author considers several effects in common between Covid patients and RF effects. These effects are summarized in the Table and described in the text referring to over 250 papers retrieved by the author from MEDLINE. However, this consideration has some limitations, which make the conclusions of the author rather immature.
First, the author compares the data on Covid patiens with the data on RF effects, which were obtained in vitro, animal, and human studies. As far as author has considered only about 250 papers from more than 30000 published papers on RF effects, it seems to be reasonable to retrieve for comparison mostly human RF studies.
Second, there is significant number of RF studies where no effects mentioned in the Table were observed. The author considers the RF effects in general, regardless dependences on frequencies, intensities and other key parameters, which were shown to be critical for the RF effects and have been most comprehensively reviewed in the IARC monograph (IARC 2013). Indeed, the author acknowledges these complicated dependences in the Discussion. Nevertheless, statement is made ''that RFR and, in particular, 5G, which involves densification of 4G, has exacerbated the COVID-19 pandemic by weakening host immunity and increasing SARS-CoV-2 virulence''. However, this statement would demand consideration of RF effects at signals (i.e. frequency, modulation,'...) and intensities as users of 5G are exposed to. As far as 5G is in focus, technical description of 5G signals is needed and studies of effects of RF signals with the same or similar characteristics should be retrieved and reviewed.
In conclusion, while the effects of RF and changes observed in Covid patients seem to overlap at some specific conditions of exposure, and given that the RF effects depend on number of physical and biological variables, more stringent retrieval of RF studies is needed to discuss possible connection of 5G exposure and Covid pandemia. Otherwise, this connection should be significantly down played and the text should be revised accordingly.
Specific comment
The author referred to the ICNIRP 2009 guidelines, which are outdated as far as ICNIRP has recently updated them. It should also be stated that in contrary to the ICNIRP thermally based guidelines, other international bodies such as EMF Working Group of the European Academy of Environmental Medicine has suggested much lower guidelines taking into account no-thermal RF effects reported in multiple studies (Belyaev, Dean et al. 2016).
Belyaev, I., A. Dean, H. Eger, G. Hubmann, R. Jandrisovits, M. Kern, M. Kundi, H. Moshammer, P. Lercher, K. Muller, G. Oberfeld, P. Ohnsorge, P. Pelzmann, C. Scheingraber and R. Thill (2016). ''EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2016 for the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of EMF-related health problems and illnesses.'' Rev Environ Health 31(3): 363-397.
IARC (2013). IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans. Non-ionizing Radiation, Part 2: Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields Lyon, France, IARC Press.
Reviewer #3: This is a well-researched paper, with valuable insights into adverse effects from non-ionizing athermal radiation. However, the authors need to sharpen their language to clarify what has been demonstrated, and have the conclusions be fully reflective of what the data have shown. For example, on p.9 they state: ''This evidence presented here does not claim causation.'' Yet, on p.10 they state: ''We conclude that RFR and, in particular, 5G, which involves densification of 4G, has exacerbated the COVID-19 pandemic by'.....''. Later in the same paragraph, they state: ''In short, wireless communication radiation is a ubiquitous environmental stressor, and evidence presented here suggests that it is a contributing factor in the COVID-19 pandemic.''
It appears to me they have shown the following type of relationships, as stated on p.7: ''In summary, oxidative stress is a major component in the pathophysiology of COVID-19 as well as in cellular damage caused by RFR exposure. Similar effects are observed in both that are caused by increased free radical formation and glutathione deficiency.'' Also, as stated on p.8: ''In short, COVID-19 can lead to immune dysregulation as well as cytokine storm. By comparison, exposure to low-level RFR as observed in animal studies can also compromise the immune system, with chronic daily exposure producing immunosuppression or immune dysregulation including hyperactivation.''
They have shown quite convincingly that RFR produces a number of damaging bioeffects, and many of these damaging bioeffects are seen in COVID-19 patients. That constitutes a potential indirect linkage between RFR and COVID-19, and laboratory tests will be required to show whether a direct linkage exists. It seems to me that's how their results need to be presented. The concepts behind the discipline of Literature-Related Discovery would strengthen the arguments for these types of linkages. Minor wording changes are all that are required in order to eliminate any confusion on what has been demonstrated.
Additionally, the authors need to sharpen their usage of the term COVID-19. It is a disease, and is not causing anything, as the authors imply. It is associated with a number of abnormal biomarkers, and this distinction needs to be delineated.
Reviewer #4: This manuscript is totally lacking in scientific value. The statement ''This is the first scientific paper documenting a link between RFR emitted by wireless communication devices and COVID-19'' is simply false. There is simply no evidence presented in this manuscript to support this conclusion. The report that there are common factors involved in COVID infection and RFR radiation does not in any way indicate a connection between the two diseases. Oxidative stress and immune system disfunction are characteristic of many diseases. The morphologic changes in red blood cells with RFR is not well documented, reported only in a meeting proceeding and a non-peer reviewed publication. Calcium is involved in every aspect of normal physiology and disease. Commonality of factors does not prove anything. You correctly state ''This evidence presented here does not claim causation.'' In that case why waste the effort to write the manuscript?
Reviewer #5: General Comment
The paper has a realistic basis but needs major revision
Specific Comments
Page 2, left column, last paragraph: Provide references for the technical information regarding 5G
Right column, 2nd line, explain ''gone live''.
The term ''wireless radiation'' is not correct. Radiation is always wireless'... Change to Wireless Communications radiation, or RF radiation or microwave radiation.
The document by Payeras 2020 is not official. I understand the difficulty of formally publishing this, but should be referred to with reservation. Moreover, it is one author not two I think. The link in the reference does not work or it is inactivated. Provide another link to this document. Similar reservation for the Tsiang and Havas manuscript which is also not published yet. Any other references connecting Covid with 5G?
Right column last paragraph, explain ''areas of consolidation'', and CT scans (explain the initials).
Page 3, left, lines 33-34: ''cell phone antennas, base stations, Wi-Fi, and cell phones'' correct to ''mobile telephony base antennas, Wi-Fi, and mobile phones'', explain Wi-Fi.
Right column, line 6, Should it be ''100 times below'' or ''more than 1000 times below'' 1 mW/cm2 ? Even western EMF-bioeffects literature shows adverse effects below 1 μW/cm2. For example cite: Magras and Xenos 1997 [RF Radiation-Induced Changes in the Prenatal Development of Mice. Bioelectromagnetics 18:455-461]. Provide references in this paragraph, and for the first two sentences of next paragraph (Russian research)
Lines 46-48: ''at non-thermal power densities (< 5 mW/cm2) and with particular emphasis on low power densities (<1mW/cm2)''. Above 1 mW/cm2 there can be thermal effects for frequencies 1-2 GHz. This is a very high power density. Change to: ''at non-thermal power densities (< 1 mW/cm2)''.
Use identical category tittles in the text (pages 5-9) and in Table 1.
Explain ALL names with initials throughout the manuscript first time met (SARS, COVID, Wi-Fi, LTE, ROS, ACE-2, ARDS, ICU, etc.)
Page 5, left, first paragraph. Rubik 2014 does not look like a peer reviewed paper. Please refer only to peer review publications, specifically for scientific findings.
Page 7, right, lines 3-5. Delete the last sentence ''Similar effects are observed in both that are caused by increased free radical formation and glutathione deficiency''.
Line 11. Explain ''spike protein''.
In the effects on immune system cite and discuss the reviews by Szmigielski (2013) [Reaction of the immune system to low-level RF/MW exposures. Science of the Total Environment 454-455 (2013) 393-400], and Johansson 2009 [Disturbance of the immune system by electromagnetic fields-A potentially underlying cause for cellular damage and tissue repair reduction which could lead to disease and impairment. Pathophysioloy. 16(2-3):157-77].
Page 8, left, lines 45-49. Pall (2013) made an observation that calcium channels play a major role in EMF bioeffects. A very similar observation was made long before by Walleczek (1992) [Electromagnetic field effects on cells of the immune system: The role of calcium Signaling. FASEB J, 6, 3177-85]. These were both review studies, not mechanisms. The mechanism for ion channel gating by EMFs is published by Panagopoulos et al (2002) [Mechanism of action of electromagnetic fields on cells. Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications, 298(1), 95-102], and refers not only to calcium but to all cation channels. Please cite and discuss these studies as well.
Same paragraph ''viruses hijack calcium channels and increase intracellular Ca2+ (Chen et al., 2019)''. Ion channels are ion-specific by means of ion radius. Thus calcium channels would not allow larger molecules to pass through them such as viruses. Therefore the claim by Chen et al 2019 is likely impossible. This should be thoroughly searched and discussed.
Right column, line 9. Explain ''second messenger''
Page 9, left, first paragraph. Explain ''plaque instability''.
Lines 26-27, ''Potekhina et al. (1992) found that certain frequencies (55 GHz; 73 GHz) caused pronounced arrhythmia''. There are no physiological GHz frequencies in any living organism. All living functions are connected with ELF frequencies. It is thus unlikely that the GHz frequencies caused these effects. Instead the effects were most likely induced by the ELF pulsations. Similarly in Havas et al (2010). RF studies should report whether the field is pulsed/modulated or continuous wave. Most RF exposures contain ELF pulsing and/or modulation. This includes 2G-3G-4G and 5G as well. Please search the issue and revise accordingly.
Right column, lines 29-31, ''The bioeffects of RFR exposure are typically nonlinear rather than exhibiting the familiar linear dose-response effects from biochemical.'' This is not true generally. The sporadic existence of ''windows'' does not render all effects non-linear. Effects depending on intensity or exposure time most usually are dose-dependent, and even close to linear. This should be revised.
Page 10, left, lines 16-17, ''However, these guidelines were established in 1996''. Provide reference.
Reviewer #6: Xu et al reported that in Feb. 2020, the cases fatality rate was much lower in Zhejiang province and other provinces were much lower than it was in Wuhan. (Xiao-Wei Xu, physician1, Xiao-Xin Wu, physician1, Xian-Gao Jiang, physician2, Kai-Jin Xu, physician1, Ling-Jun Ying, physician3, Chun-Lian Ma, physician4, Shi-Bo Li, physician5, Hua-Ying Wang, physician6, Sheng Zhang, physician7, Hai-Nv Gao, professor8, Ji-Fang Sheng, professor1, Hong-Liu Cai, physician1, Yun-Qing Qiu, professor1, Lan-Juan Li, professor1. Clinical findings in a group of patients infected with the 2019 novel coronavirus (SARS-Cov-2) outside of Wuhan, China: retrospective case series. BMJ 2020; 368 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m606).
The following citation should be used along with the Pakhomov et al citation with regard to millimeter wave effects: Betskii OV, Lebedeva NN. 2004 Low-intensity millimeter waves in biology and medicine. In:, Clinical Application of Bioelectromagnetic Medicine, Marcel Decker, New York, 2004, pp. 30-61. https://gabrielecripezzi.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/d75d92b7fb8f4d13ae5461e26afa62e87e60.pdf
On p.5, there is place which states (5G RFR) - this is confusing since 5G is not radiofrequency.
The author should state in several places in the paper, that the findings are suggestive of a link between EMF exposure and the severity of COVID-19 infections but none of these findings are considered to be proof of such a linkage.
The Sen et al, citation has an error in it. It should read NF-kB. and that is a Greek letter kappa. There may also be an error in the text.
The other thing I would suggest is that the author should make a suggestion or two about how the remaining uncertainty here might be resolved. I would make two suggestions that might help:
There could be one or more studies to determine whether some COVID-19 patients admitted to the hospital could be shielded in either Faraday cage or a shielded canopy could be put over the bed. These could lower exposures and hospitals are high EMF environments such with high powered Wi-Fi systems, many wireless communication devices and thousands of electronic devices, producing large amounts of dirty electricity. I know that hospitals have high levels of dirty electricity, having measured levels myself. The question being, whether such shielding would lower mortality rates and/or shorten times to patient release.
Another approach would be to measure home and working environments for EMF levels comparing patients with similar risk factor exposure but different severity of illness.
Reviewer #8: This paper delves into a facet of CoVid-19 and the evolving use of the widespread release of 5G into the environment, and the relationship between the two. This relationship has rarely been studied in the literature. That alone seems to make this paper relatively significant. It also provides evidence that the Precautionary Principle would call for more study before continuing the widespread deployment of 5G towers across the world, as well as the release of satellites that are envisioned to surround the planet. While bringing Internet access to the world's population seems to be a good thing (in providing information to the societies that lack it now), we need to consider the Law of Unintended Consequences. The plans are for 5G to blanket the world, leaving no place without this new exposure to this Microwave and Milliwave radiation, and potentially effecting all life on earth, with the exception of beings that live in lead-lined shelters, or Faraday cages. Based on this paper alone, it indicates the need for further studies, before this is widely deployed. Especially when we are still learning about the effects of the CoVid-19 pandemic itself. The emerging understanding of how CoVid-19 has been linked to coagulation disorders, and to the hypoxic effect on the lung function of oxygenation absorption and release, via the red cells, adds additional urgency to the situation. As does the information on free radical creation causing havoc to Biological systems, the problems that either CoVid Or 5 G-type RFR can have on the heart, and especially how either can effect the immune system, and the paper points out that that could make a lot of illnesses deadlier. And all of these have never been fully tested together, but usually apart, by impartial researchers.
As this paper has reviewed the literature on the effects of RFR RadioFrequency Radiation, and considering how most studies in the past, looked at the heating effects of such radiation, and then said that if the RFR did not effect heating of biological tissue, it was labeled as safe. But as this paper shows, there is multiple evidence that there are adverse effects on tissue systems and their physiology, that have nothing to do with the heating effects of RFR. These low power high frequency effects have been collated, reviewed, and well documented in this paper, in a clearly collected and tabular form, making it easy to compare the RFR research, and the emerging data from the effects of the CoVid-19 virus. And by documenting the similarity of the recognized RFR effects on biological systems, then when these are clearly shown to be similar effects that are being discovered with the ever-changing documented effects of the CoVid-19 pandemic, the paper makes a strong case for a halt that is needed at this point in the pandemic, to step back and really investigate the nature and gravity of these effects, when combined, before further RFR 5 G potentially blankets the world.
As the paper points out in the discussion, while the connections and the evidence that both RFR and CoVid-19 attack similar biological systems and physiologies, the paper has not proven causation, but they clearly have proven the point that further, independent research is needed, and soon. Given that CoVid-19 has shown the ability to mutate, and future pandemics are predicted, this might be one ''bright side'' to this pandemic, in that it forces us to do this research, before it is too late. If indeed, all of the systems effected by CoVid-19 are also potentially weakened or effected by RFR like the upcoming wave of 5G (or 6 G, etc.) that is planned for the future, we have a chance to do the research that is needed to make our future safer, but to not do this research, and hide our heads in the sand, and ignore this paper, and its implications, then future generations may not look back kindly on our ''rush to get faster internet to everyone.'' Instead, we may do much more damage than when people thought that Radium watches that glow in the dark were ''cool,'' or that it was ''cool'' to use the Xray machines in shoe stores to see if your shoes fit the feet, by a live Xray that showed your foot skeleton in the shoe, while the Xray device was near the gonads. One wonders how many people died of those ''cool'' technologies, from cancer or other illnesses, before their dangers were finally recognized and removed from the market. How does the saying go: ''Those who refuse to learn from the mistakes of the past, are condemned to repeat them,'' only this time it may be on a world-wide scale? So I highly recommend that this paper be accepted for publication, so that it can stimulate much more research that must be done in this area. Reviewer #9: Dear Editor,
I completed review process of the manuscript numbered as ''JCTRes-D-21-00034_reviewer''. Although the ideas put forward by the authors are not negligible, they are open issues to criticism. Because there is no scientific study that clearly reveals the relationship between RFRs, especially 5G and SARS-CoV-2. The authors have tried to make a good review, but the ideas they put forward show that only RFRs and SARS-CoV-2 have similar effects. Unfortunately, there is no scientific data about whether these similarities create a synergistic effect or not. So I suggest the authors change the title such as ''Similarities in the effects of RFRs and SARS-CoV-2: Could there be a synergistic effect?'' The decision is yours, dear editor. In summary, the article can be printed, but the title is very ambitious! On the other hand, I suggest to the authors to read the articles given below to find some hints for the topic of the manuscript.
Sincerely
Recommendation for Table 1 in page 4; Table 1 is not sufficient as the authors stated. Fort this reason, the authors have to present charasteristics of RFRs and name of the references. Therefore the table should be more informative for the readers for evaluation of the situation.
Barlas SB, Adalier N, Dasdag O, Dasdag S, Evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 with a biophysical perspective. Biotechnology & Biotechnological Equipment. 35:1, 392-406, 2021. DOI: 10.1080/13102818.2021.1885997
Dasdag S, Akdag MZ, Celik MS (2008), Bioelectrical parameters of people exposed to radiofrequency in workplace and houses provided to workers. Biotechnology & Biotechnological Equipment. 22: 3: 859-863.
Alkis ME, Akdag MZ, Dasdag S, Eects of Low-Intensity Microwave Radiation on Oxidant-Antioxidant Parameters and DNA Damage in the Liver of Rats. 2020 Bioelectromagnetics. 42:76'--85, 2021. DOI:10.1002/bem.22315
Dasdag S, Balci K, Celik MS, Batun S, Kaplan A, Bolaman Z, Tekes S, Akdag Z (1992), Neurologic and biochemical findings and CD4 / CD8 ratio in people occupationally exposed to RF and microwave. Biotechnol. & Biotechnol. Eq. 6 / 4, 37 -39.
Yilmaz F, Dasdag S, Akdag MZ, Kilinc N (2008).Whole body exposure of radiation emitted from 900 MHz mobile phones does not seem to affect the levels of anti-apoptotic BCL-2 protein. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine. 27: 1; 65-72.
Dasdag S, Akdag MZ, Ulukaya E (2009), Effects of Mobile Phone Exposure on Apoptotic Glial Cells and Status of Oxidative Stress in Rat Brain. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine. 28: 4; 342-354.
Dasdag S, Bilgin HM, Akdag MZ, et al. (2008), Effect of Long Term Mobile Phone Exposure on Oxidative and Antioxidative Process and Nitric Oxide in Rats. Biotechnology & Biotechnological Equipment. 22: 4; 992-997
Alkis ME, Bilgin HM, Akpolat V, Dasdag S, Yegin K, Yavas MC, Akdag MZ, Effect of 900-, 1800-, and 2100-MHz radiofrequency radiation on DNA and oxidative stress in brain. Electromagn Biol Med. 38(1): 32-47, 2019.
Akdag M, Dasdag S, Canturk F, Akdag MZ, Exposure to non-ionizing electromagnetic fields emitted from mobile phones induced DNA damage in human ear canal hair follicle cells. Electromagn Biol Med. 2018, 37 (2): 66-75. https://doi.org/10.1080/15368378.2018.1463246
Bektas H, Dasdag S, Effect of Radiofrequencies Emitted from Mobile Phones and Wi-FÄ° on Pregnancy. Journal of International Dental and Medical Research. 10(3): 1084-1095, 2017
Bektas H, Dasdag S, Bektas S, Comparison of effects of 2.4 GHz Wi-Fi and mobile exposure on human placenta and cord Blood. Biotechnology & Biotechnological Equipment. 2020, VOL. 34 (1): 154-162, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1080/13102818.2020.1725639
Reviewer #10: - Background section. Page 1, lines 49-52. '''...that will dramatically increase the population's wireless radiation exposure both inside structures and outdoors''.
Please cite evidence (referenced studies) supporting this hypothesis by specific models and/or real-time measurements.
- Background section. Page 1. ''During the first wave in the United States, COVID-19 attributed cases and deaths were higher in states with 5G infrastructure compared with states that did not yet have this technology (Tsiang and Havas, manuscript submitted)''. Unpublished/not available data should not be considered as citation.
- Overview on covid-19 (page 2). In consideration of the main aim of the review, this paragraph can be significantly shortened.
- Authors should better describe the main technical characteristics of the 5G infrastructures (i.e, small cells, MIMO, multiple frequencies etc.), briefly listing the main technical differences with the previous radiofrequency networks.
- Table 1. Authors should indicate in the table the most relevant and specific reference(s) for each listed point.
- Table 1. it is not clear if the cited effects (''RFR exposure bioeffects'') have been generically linked with high frequency electromagnetic fields or, specifically, with 5G frequencies.
Authors should include in the ''RFR exposure bioeffects'' listed in this table the frequency, the level (i.e., power density) and the period of exposure linked with each of the cited effects. Authors should also specify the type of study (i.e., in vitro, animal or human study).
- Authors should report the average level of RFR exposure measured in at least some geographical areas implementing 5G infrastructure. A comparison of the ''real-life'' level of exposure with the RFR exposure levels generating the majority of bioeffects described in the paper is needed.
- Several bioeffects described by authors are generated by levels of exposure significantly higher than those generally recorded in urban areas. Authors should include in the paper a new table listing the bioeffects potentially linked with covid-19 and observed in the presence of levels of environmental exposure comparable with those recorded in the most exposed urban areas.
- Authors should report and comment previous studies, if available, linking RFR exposure with viral diseases different from Covid-19.
- Authors discuss evidence deriving from exposure to cell phones to support possible effects of environmental exposure to 5G. However, exposure to cell phones or to 5G infrastructure (i.e., base stations, MIMO antennas, devices etc.) may significantly differ in terms of SAR and are not fully comparable.
- The majority of the bio-effects described by Authors could also be, at least theoretically, attributed to pre-existing radiofrequency exposure, in particular in highly exposed geographical areas. Furthermore, in the short-medium term, in exposed areas the level of RFR exposure can be assumed to be constant. On the other hand, covid-19 incidence, morbidity and mortality significantly varied during the last year. The lack of a parallel trend should limit the hypothesis of a direct link between 5G exposure and covid-19 clinical and epidemiological aspects.
- The majority of the bio-effects described by Authors could also be attributed to other sources of environmental pollution and, in particular, to air pollution. The effect of this and other relevant confounders in urban areas characterized by high population density is not discussed by Authors.
- According to some evidence, children can be particularly vulnerable to RFR effects. However, the pediatric age seems to be the less involved, at least in terms of clinical manifestation, by the covid-19 pandemic. How Authors could explain this different outcome in different age classes equally exposed to RFR?
- Page 9, discussion section. ''The evidence indicates that RFR may weaken the host, exacerbate COVID-19 disease, and thereby worsen the pandemic''. In the opinion of this reviewer, the reported evidence only indicate that mechanisms possibly involved in the clinical progression of SARS-CoV-2 could be also generated, according to experimental data, by RFR exposure. It is still under debate, however, if these biological effects can be present in the case of frequencies and levels of RFR exposure commonly found in the urban areas where 5G networks have been implemented.
- Point of strength and limitations of the review performed by authors should be clearly stated.
Reviewer #11: In this work authors summarize current state of knowledge about the harmful effects of Radiofrequency radiation (RFR), with special focus on those that could possibly enhance the possibility of being infected by COVID-19.
This review is a nice mix of very recent publications (last 5 years) and some classic papers mainly from Soviet Union and United States, showing, that knowledge about harmful effects of RFR have been extensively studied already few decades ago, what is very important mainly because of the number of conspiracy theories available of the Internet about 5G RFR. Call for the scientific evaluation of this exposure type is more than proper. Otherwise we will be wittnesses of very big population study, that will reveal the truth in the future times.
I do not have any big questions rather some comments:
1) In the Introduction part authors cite quite few review articles. I would suggest citation of the few of the best experimental articles considering this type of deleterious effect (e.g. oxidative stress, reproductive damage), since the number of the reviews considering RFR is relatively high, but actual experimental studies that strongly supports the conclusion of reviews are sometimes hard to find or other times not so conclusive.
2) Authors stated that oxidative stress induced by RFR may exacerbate the seriousness of COVID -19 disease. I agree that induction of oxidative stress is the most common harmful effect observed after exposure to RFR, targeting mostly the cells with the high level of metabolism, like sperm cells. But in a lot of studies induction of ROS after exposure is not higher than 50% of control values and some studies have even seen adaptation to the radiation with increased exposure time on the cellular level.
3) Authors suggest that 5G introduction in the cities that have been hit with the COVID-19 very hard in the first wave could lead to the increased mortality and number of cases. Since there are some connections, this could be also explaine by the fact that Northern Italy is the region with the highest percentage of elderly people that often have other comorbidities like diabetes and hypertension that significntly increase the probability of serious condition, next the precautions in the Italy have not been sufficient what is more likely the cause of such strong hit by COVID than 5G. To the New York, that is one of the crowdest cities in the world and social distancing have not been established soon enough.
4) Other argument is that in the second wave midlle europe (Czech, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia) have been hit very hard with COVID and 5G is still not introduced in this countries (maybe only capital cities, but certainly not smaller cities and villages, that had been hit even harder). So I think overally, mobility of people, meeting of families during holidays and inproper precautions have much larger effect on the pandemia than RFR exposure. But on the other hand I agree that RFR could add some stress to individuals already weakened by the COVID.
5) Authors should also focus on the fact that lot of experimental studies did not provide any evidence of harmful effect of RFR (and not all of them are industry financed and ordered). Other problem with experimental evidence of harmful effects is the reproducibility of the observed effects and replicability of the studies, that are often performed with questionable devices, under not precisely characterized exposure conditions.
Despite this comments bit of article provide nice review of the RFR effects on the human beings supported by the number of peer-reviewed studies and also overview of COVID- 19 disease, that is very valuable and worth publishing after applying some of the comments to the manuscript.
Reviewer #12 (editor-in-chief): SO THESE SUGGESTIONS ARE MANDATORY TO ADDRESS
1) Please contextualize the narrative to centers/regions of outbreak where 5G is not prevalent, such as rural India, beyond the premise that correlation is not causation. Cite regions that had a 5G rollout but were not hit by the pandemic, and please provide explanations for such exemptions.
2) What is the average power density (mW/cm2) of 5G RFR in Wuhan, and how does this compare to the cities that have harbored 5G but with low manifestation of COVID-19?
3) Your paper is hypothetical, so please remain in this hypothetical framework throughout the manuscript. Phrases such as ''This is the first scientific paper documenting a link between RFR emitted by wireless communication devices and COVID-19'' are unwarranted. Although your paper provides argumentation in favor of this hypothesis, it does not establish a link (cause-effect) between 5G and the incidence of COVID-19. Please nuance this statement and other similar statements in the text.
4) Please unify all units of power density throughout the manuscript to conform to the standard unit used in the US (mW/cm2). The text is inconsistent with the nomenclature, where sometimes the unit is abbreviated while in other instances the unit is written out. It is advisable to consistently abbreviate to mW/cm2. That makes it easier for the readers to contextualize research results with the upheld norm for RFR exposure.
5) Please include a paragraph where you attempt to introduce gaps/flaws in your hypotheses. One of the main ingredients of such a paragraph would be to point out to readers that in many studies the power densities used to study biological effects exceeded the maximum level of 1 mW/cm2. Note all other aspects of the setup and execution of cited experimental studies that deviate from the manner in which 5G RFR is reduced to practice in Wuhan and elsewhere. Such a paragraph helps put the narrative into complete perspective.
Author's response
Reviewers' comments:
Reviewer #1: General comments
The author has considered very important and actual issue putting forward the question whether 5G mobile communication may contribute to the Covid-19 pandemia. To answer this question the author considers several effects in common between Covid patients and RF effects. These effects are summarized in the Table and described in the text referring to over 250 papers retrieved by the author from MEDLINE. However, this consideration has some limitations, which make the conclusions of the author rather immature.
First, the author compares the data on Covid patiens with the data on RF effects, which were obtained in vitro, animal, and human studies. As far as author has considered only about 250 papers from more than 30000 published papers on RF effects, it seems to be reasonable to retrieve for comparison mostly human RF studies.
Second, there is significant number of RF studies where no effects mentioned in the Table were observed. The author considers the RF effects in general, regardless dependences on frequencies, intensities and other key parameters, which were shown to be critical for the RF effects and have been most comprehensively reviewed in the IARC monograph (IARC 2013). Indeed, the author acknowledges these complicated dependences in the Discussion. Nevertheless, statement is made ''that RFR and, in particular, 5G, which involves densification of 4G, has exacerbated the COVID-19 pandemic by weakening host immunity and increasing SARS-CoV-2 virulence''. However, this statement would demand consideration of RF effects at signals (i.e. frequency, modulation,'...) and intensities as users of 5G are exposed to. As far as 5G is in focus, technical description of 5G signals is needed and studies of effects of RF signals with the same or similar characteristics should be retrieved and reviewed.
In conclusion, while the effects of RF and changes observed in Covid patients seem to overlap at some specific conditions of exposure, and given that the RF effects depend on number of physical and biological variables, more stringent retrieval of RF studies is needed to discuss possible connection of 5G exposure and Covid pandemia. Otherwise, this connection should be significantly down played and the text should be revised accordingly.
Thank you for your observations. Regarding your first point, it is true that there are perhaps 30,000 or even more scientific papers documenting the bioeffects of RFR on living systems. In choosing studies to review and reference for our paper, we discovered that controlled RFR exposure studies on human subjects alone were insufficient for this review, as most of them, in English, were conducted as short-term studies. In this paper, we are concerned mainly on long-term health effects from chronic RFR exposure. Because there are very few long-term studies on humans, aside from occupational studies, which we did include in our literature review, it was essential that we expand our literature search to include controlled, mostly long-term animal and cell studies.
Regarding your second point, there are indeed a significant number of RFR exposure studies where no observed effects listed in our Table were found. We pointed out in the paper that the published literature not only contains some reports with contradictory results, but a bias is clearly evident in that studies conducted or sponsored by the industry generally tend to conclude negative results, while studies conducted by independent scientists, in general, tend to uncover adverse bioeffects. This bias was reported in a systematic review [Huss, A., M. Egger, K. Hug, K. Huwiler-Muntener, M. Roosli. 2007. Source of funding and results of studies of health effects of mobile phone use: systematic review of experimental studies. Environmental Health Perspectives, 115 (1): 14. DOI: 10.1289/ehp.9149]. We had already cited and discussed this paper and its ramifications in our Discussion Section. It is because of this documented bias that we did not make a systematic effort to include negative studies in our paper. Instead, we sought research papers that supported our hypothesis.
Next, reviewer #1 wrote, ''The author considers the RF effects in general, regardless of dependences on frequencies, intensities and other key parameters, which were shown to be critical for the RF effects and have been most comprehensively reviewed in the IARC monograph (IARC 2013).''
In the draft of our paper that you reviewed, we stated the following in our Methods Section regarding our selection of papers for review: ''This included the world literature in English and Russian reports translated to English, on RFR from 600 MHz '' 90 GHz, the spectrum of wireless communication radiation (2G '' 5G inclusive), with particular emphasis on non-thermal, low power densities (< 1 mW/cm2) and long term exposures.''
Reviewer #1 wrote, ''As far as 5G is in focus, technical description of 5G signals is needed and studies of effects of RF signals with the same or similar characteristics should be retrieved and reviewed.''
As we mentioned above, we selected papers testing exposure to frequencies from 600 MHz '' 90 GHz, which comprise the spectrum of wireless communication radiation from 2G to 5G, inclusive. We provided a more technical description of 5G on page 2, as follows, and cited the official technical document on 5G.
''5G is a protocol that will use high frequency bands of the electromagnetic spectrum in the vast radiofrequency range from 600 MHz to nearly 100 GHz, which includes millimeter waves (>20 GHz), in addition to the currently used 3G (third generation) and 4G (fourth generation) long term evolution (LTE) microwave bands. 5G frequency spectrum allocations differ from country to country. Focused pulsed beams of radiation will emit from new base stations and phased array antennas placed close to buildings whenever persons access the 5G network. Because these high frequencies are strongly absorbed by the atmosphere and especially during rain, a transmitter's range is limited to 300 meters. Therefore 5G involves base stations and antennas much more closely spaced than previous generations, plus satellites in orbit that will emit 5G bands globally to create a wireless worldwide web. The system requires significant densification of 4G as well as new 5G antennas that may dramatically increase the population's wireless communications radiation exposure both inside structures and outdoors. In addition, up to 100,000 emitting satellites are planned to be launched into orbit. This infrastructure will significantly alter the world's electromagnetic environment to unprecedented levels and may cause unknown consequences to the entire biosphere, including humans. The new infrastructure will service the new 5G devices, including 5G mobile phones, routers, computers, tablets, self-driving vehicles, machine-to-machine communications, and the Internet of Things (IoT).
The global industry standard for 5G is set by the 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP), which is an umbrella term for several organizations developing standard protocols for mobile telecommunications. The 5G standard specifies all key aspects of the technology, including frequency spectrum allocation, beam-forming, beam steering, multiplexing MIMO (multiple in, multiple out) schemes to nearly simultaneously serve a large number of devices within a cell as well as modulation schemes among many others. The latest finalized 5G standard, Release 16, is codified in the 3GPP published Technical Report TR 21.916 and may be downloaded from the 3GPP server at https://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/archive/21_series/21.916/ (3GGP, 2020).''
We had already pointed out in the Discussion Section that no health or safety studies have been published specifically on 5G signals in the manner in which people will experience them in the real world: 5 to 10 frequency bands of 5G, along with 5 to 10 frequency bands of 4G, which are necessary for 5G to work. We included a statement about the lack of controlled studies on health effects from real-world wireless communication exposures in our Discussion Section, and we also strongly recommended that such studies need to be done.
We ''downplayed'' our statements on the connection between RFR exposure bioeffects and COVID-19, as you request, throughout the manuscript. We re-wrote our conclusion to state, ''There is a substantial overlap in pathobiology between COVID-19 and RFR exposure. The evidence presented here indicates that mechanisms involved in the clinical progression of COVID-19 could also be generated, according to experimental data, by RFR exposure. We propose a link between adverse bioeffects of RFR exposure from wireless communication devices and COVID-19.''
Specific comment
The author referred to the ICNIRP 2009 guidelines, which are outdated as far as ICNIRP has recently updated them. It should also be stated that in contrary to the ICNIRP thermally based guidelines, other international bodies such as EMF Working Group of the European Academy of Environmental Medicine has suggested much lower guidelines taking into account no-thermal RF effects reported in multiple studies (Belyaev, Dean et al. 2016).
Belyaev, I., A. Dean, H. Eger, G. Hubmann, R. Jandrisovits, M. Kern, M. Kundi, H. Moshammer, P. Lercher, K. Muller, G. Oberfeld, P. Ohnsorge, P. Pelzmann, C. Scheingraber and R. Thill (2016). ''EUROPAEM EMF Guideline 2016 for the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of EMF-related health problems and illnesses.'' Rev Environ Health 31(3): 363-397.
IARC (2013). IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans. Non-ionizing Radiation, Part 2: Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields Lyon, France, IARC Press.
Thank you for this helpful comment. We appreciate learning from you that ICNIRP updated the RFR exposure guidelines in 2020. We removed our old citation and reference and updated our citation and reference as follows:
International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), 2020. Guidelines for Limiting Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields (100 kHz to 300 GHz), Health Physics: May 2020 '' 118(5): 483-524.
doi: 10.1097/HP.0000000000001210
We are also grateful to learn from you that there are other international bodies working to reduce the exposure guidelines. We have added the following sentence to the Discussion Section of our paper and utilized the reference (Belyaev, 2016) that you provided; thank you.
''Recently other international bodies such as the EMF Working Group of the European Academy of Environmental Medicine, have proposed much lower guidelines, taking into account non-thermal bioeffects from RFR exposure reported in multiple sources (Belyaev et al., 2016).''
Reviewer #3: This is a well-researched paper, with valuable insights into adverse effects from non-ionizing athermal radiation. However, the authors need to sharpen their language to clarify what has been demonstrated, and have the conclusions be fully reflective of what the data have shown. For example, on p.9 they state: ''This evidence presented here does not claim causation.'' Yet, on p.10 they state: ''We conclude that RFR and, in particular, 5G, which involves densification of 4G, has exacerbated the COVID-19 pandemic by'.....''. Later in the same paragraph, they state: ''In short, wireless communication radiation is a ubiquitous environmental stressor, and evidence presented here suggests that it is a contributing factor in the COVID-19 pandemic.''
We have modified the text on page 9 as follows:
''This evidence presented here suggests a link between EMF exposure and the severity of COVID-19 infection, but none of these observations are considered to be proof of such a linkage. Specifically, the evidence does not confirm causation.''
Additionally, our Conclusion Section has been changed as follows:
''There is a substantial overlap in pathobiology between COVID-19 and RFR exposure. The evidence presented here indicates that mechanisms involved in the clinical progression of COVID-19 could also be generated, according to experimental data, by RFR exposure. We propose a link between adverse bioeffects of RFR exposure from wireless communication devices and COVID-19.''
It appears to me they have shown the following type of relationships, as stated on p.7: ''In summary, oxidative stress is a major component in the pathophysiology of COVID-19 as well as in cellular damage caused by RFR exposure. Similar effects are observed in both that are caused by increased free radical formation and glutathione deficiency.'' Also, as stated on p.8: ''In short, COVID-19 can lead to immune dysregulation as well as cytokine storm. By comparison, exposure to low-level RFR as observed in animal studies can also compromise the immune system, with chronic daily exposure producing immunosuppression or immune dysregulation including hyperactivation.''
They have shown quite convincingly that RFR produces a number of damaging bioeffects, and many of these damaging bioeffects are seen in COVID-19 patients. That constitutes a potential indirect linkage between RFR and COVID-19, and laboratory tests will be required to show whether a direct linkage exists. It seems to me that's how their results need to be presented. The concepts behind the discipline of Literature-Related Discovery would strengthen the arguments for these types of linkages. Minor wording changes are all that are required in order to eliminate any confusion on what has been demonstrated.
Thank you for pointing out that the discipline of Literature-Related Discovery is relevant to our approach. We added the following to the Methods Section:
''Our approach is akin to Literature-Related Discovery, in which two concepts that have heretofore not been linked are explored in literature searches to look for linkage(s) in order to produce novel, interesting, plausible, and intelligible knowledge, i.e., potential discovery (Kostoff et al., 2007).''
Reference: Kostoff RN, Block JA, Solka JL, Briggs MB, Rushenberg RL, Stump JA, Johnson D, Lyons TJ, Wyatt JR. 2007. Literature-Related Discovery: A Review. Report to the Office of Naval Research, 2007, pp. 1-58. https://ia801006.us.archive.org/4/items/DTIC_ADA473643/DTIC_ADA473643.pdf
Additionally, the authors need to sharpen their usage of the term COVID-19. It is a disease, and is not causing anything, as the authors imply. It is associated with a number of abnormal biomarkers, and this distinction needs to be delineated.
Reviewer #4: This manuscript is totally lacking in scientific value. The statement ''This is the first scientific paper documenting a link between RFR emitted by wireless communication devices and COVID-19'' is simply false. There is simply no evidence presented in this manuscript to support this conclusion. The report that there are common factors involved in COVID infection and RFR radiation does not in any way indicate a connection between the two diseases. Oxidative stress and immune system disfunction are characteristic of many diseases. The morphologic changes in red blood cells with RFR is not well documented, reported only in a meeting proceeding and a non-peer reviewed publication. Calcium is involved in every aspect of normal physiology and disease. Commonality of factors does not prove anything. You correctly state ''This evidence presented here does not claim causation.'' In that case why waste the effort to write the manuscript?
The claim that this paper is ''totally lacking in scientific value'' is contrary to nine other reviews of this paper, that indicate that the paper is dealing with a ''very important'' issue; ''has a realistic basis;'' and is ''studying a relationship that has rarely been studied in the literature'...which makes the paper significant.'' These are a sample of the positive remarks made by the other reviewers, who also provided constructive criticism that we implemented to improve the paper.
We removed the sentence from the paper, ''This is the first scientific paper documenting a link between RFR emitted by wireless communication devices and COVID-19.''
While we appreciate that you would prefer all references to be peer-reviewed, we would like to cite certain important papers that have not been peer-reviewed. At this critical time during the pandemic, many manuscripts that are not peer-reviewed are being cited in professional journal papers on COVID-19 to help experts bring forth knowledge as quickly as possible to facilitate an end to human suffering and death. In this particular case, we maintain that it is appropriate to cite the work of morphological changes in red blood cells that relate to blood clotting, especially since SARS-CoV-2 and its spike protein have been shown to be thrombogenic and can directly bind to ACE2 receptors on platelets (Zhang et al., 2020). Even when isolated, the spike protein has been shown to cause endothelial injury (Lei et al., 2021).
We modified the paragraph on the blood changes associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection to read as follows:
''Endothelial damage may occur from spike protein engagement with ACE2 receptors lining the blood vessels, even when isolated and removed from its vital RNA (Lei et al., 2021). Rouleaux formation, particularly in the setting of underlying endothelial damage, can clog the microcirculation, impeding oxygen transport, contributing to hypoxia, and increasing the risk of thrombosis (Wagner et al., 2013).
Thrombogenesis associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection may also be caused by direct binding of the virus to ACE2 receptors on platelets (Zhang et al., 2020).''
Furthermore, this particular research on morphological changes in red blood cells due to cell phone radiation exposure was conducted by one of us (Rubik) who has 25+ years of experience in live blood microscopy. So, although the morphological changes in red blood cells are not as well supported in this paper as we would like, we hope to plant seeds for future research to explore this phenomenon.
Therefore, we modified the paragraph as follows:
''Although not peer reviewed, one of us (Rubik) investigated the effect of 4G LTE (fourth generation long-term evolution) mobile phone radiation on the peripheral blood of ten human subjects each of whom had been exposed to cell phone radiation for two consecutive 45 minute intervals (Rubik, 2014). Two types of effects were observed: initially increased stickiness of peripheral red blood cells with rouleaux formation and subsequently formation of echinocytes (spiky red blood cells.) Red blood cell clumping and aggregation are known to be actively involved in blood clotting (Wager et al., 2013). The prevalence of such blood changes upon exposure to RFR in the human population has not yet been determined. Larger controlled studies should be performed to further investigate this phenomenon.''
As we wrote in the manuscript, according to the CDC, the epidemiological triad '' the agent (virus in this case), the health of the host, and the environment, is a useful model to explain how an environmental cofactor may contribute to any disease. We point out that environmental toxins in general, and RFR in particular, may have exacerbated the pandemic and have not been sufficiently explored or addressed. From our extensive knowledge of the literature on the adverse health effects of wireless communication radiation, we saw similarities and possible connections between the adverse health effects from RFR and COVID-19 manifestations that we discuss in this manuscript. We certainly agree with you that ''immune system dysfunction and oxidative stress are nonspecific conditions and characteristic of many diseases.'' However, we do not believe this diminishes our argument, that because these disease states are both encountered with COVID-19 as well as with chronic wireless communication radiation exposure, it is possible that the bioeffects related to chronic exposure to wireless communication radiation may have exacerbated the disease COVID-19. We hope that our manuscript will facilitate further research, and that it might also encourage consideration of environmental factors and public health measures to help mitigate the pandemic and protect human health.
Reviewer #5: General Comment
The paper has a realistic basis but needs major revision
Specific Comments
Page 2, left column, last paragraph: Provide references for the technical information regarding 5G
We provided more technical detail on 5G, including the official technical document specifying 5G as our reference (3GPP, 2020). We re-wrote and expanded upon 5G on page 2 as follows:
''5G is a protocol that will use high frequency bands of the electromagnetic spectrum in the vast radiofrequency range from 600 MHz to nearly 100 GHz, which includes millimeter waves (>20 GHz), in addition to the currently used 3G (third generation) and 4G (fourth generation) long term evolution (LTE) microwave bands. 5G frequency spectrum allocations differ from country to country. Focused pulsed beams of radiation will emit from new base stations and phased array antennas placed close to buildings whenever persons access the 5G network. Because these high frequencies are strongly absorbed by the atmosphere and especially during rain, a transmitter's range is limited to 300 meters. Therefore 5G involves base stations and antennas much more closely spaced than previous generations, plus satellites in orbit that will emit 5G bands globally to create a wireless worldwide web. The system requires significant densification of 4G as well as new 5G antennas that may dramatically increase the population's wireless communications radiation exposure both inside structures and outdoors. In addition, up to 100,000 emitting satellites are planned to be launched into orbit. This infrastructure will significantly alter the world's electromagnetic environment to unprecedented levels and may cause unknown consequences to the entire biosphere, including humans. The new infrastructure will service the new 5G devices, including 5G mobile phones, routers, computers, tablets, self-driving vehicles, machine-to-machine communications, and the Internet of Things (IoT).
The global industry standard for 5G is set by the 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP), which is an umbrella term for several organizations developing standard protocols for mobile telecommunications. The 5G standard specifies all key aspects of the technology, including frequency spectrum allocation, beam-forming, beam steering, multiplexing MIMO (multiple in, multiple out) schemes to nearly simultaneously serve a large number of devices within a cell as well as modulation schemes among many others. The latest finalized 5G standard, Release 16, is codified in the 3GPP published Technical Report TR 21.916 and may be downloaded from the 3GPP server at https://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/archive/21_series/21.916/ (3GGP, 2020).''
Reference: 3GPP (Third Generation Partnership Project, 2020. Technical Report TR 21.916, V1.0.0. (2020-12), pages 1-149. https://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/archive/21_series/21.916/
2. Right column, 2nd line, explain ''gone live''.
The term ''gone live'' has been clarified as follows, thank you.
''COVID-19 began in Wuhan, China in December 2019, shortly after city-wide 5G had ''gone live'', i.e. become a fully operational system, on October 31, 2019.''
3. The term ''wireless radiation'' is not correct. Radiation is always wireless'... Change to Wireless Communications radiation, or RF radiation or microwave radiation.
We changed it throughout the document and title of the manuscript to ''wireless communication radiation,'' thank you.
4. The document by Payeras 2020 is not official. I understand the difficulty of formally publishing this, but should be referred to with reservation. Moreover, it is one author not two I think. The link in the reference does not work or it is inactivated. Provide another link to this document. Similar reservation for the Tsiang and Havas manuscript which is also not published yet. Any other references connecting Covid with 5G?
We removed the old text and reference from Payeras (2020) whose link no longer works. We found a new link to his updated and expanded paper posted online here: Bartomeu Payeras i Cifre is indeed a single author as you indicate. We now refer to his updated and greatly expanded paper, which also has a revised title. http://www.untumbes.edu.pe/vcs/biblioteca/document/varioslibros/0567.%20Estudio%20sobre%20la%20asim%C3%A9trica%20distribuci%C3%B3n%20de%20casos%20de%20COVID-19%20y%20su%20relaci%C3%B3n%20con%20la%20tecnolog%C3%ADa%205G.pdf
This is a more extensive paper with 81 pages compared to the previous version that was 21 pages. Although it is not ''official'' or peer-reviewed, we prefer to include it, too, because it is relevant to our thesis. Moreover, we are dealing with a pandemic, and many COVID-19 researchers are citing non-peer-reviewed papers to present evidence as soon as it is available that might help us understand more and/or mitigate the pandemic. We have also stated in our revised manuscript that this paper is not peer-reviewed. In addition, we added a peer-reviewed publication from Mordachev (2020). The reference of Tsiang and Havas has now been published in a peer-reviewed journal. This paper analyzes and compares the incidence of COVID-19 as well as the mortality rates in the United States as well as in US cities with and without 5G. The updated citation and reference is included.
The text was modified as follows: ''During the first pandemic wave in the United States, COVID-19 attributed cases and deaths were statistically higher in states and major cities with 5G infrastructure as compared with states and cities that did not yet have this technology (Tsiang and Havas, 2021).''
5. Right column last paragraph, explain ''areas of consolidation'', and CT scans (explain the initials).
The word ''consolidation'' was removed and replaced with ''airspace opacification'' and the initials ''CT'' (computed tomography) have been explained accordingly, thank you.
''Massive oxidative damage to the lungs has been observed in areas of airspace opacification documented on chest radiographs and computed tomography (CT) scans in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia (Cecchini and Cecchini, 2020).''
6. Page 3, left, lines 33-34: ''cell phone antennas, base stations, Wi-Fi, and cell phones'' correct to ''mobile telephony base antennas, Wi-Fi, and mobile phones'', explain Wi-Fi.
The terms cell phone antennas, base stations, Wi-Fi, and cell phones have been changed accordingly and the term Wi-Fi explained accordingly, thank you. Wi-Fi is a trademarked name, and contrary to popular thought, it does not mean ''Wireless Fidelity.'' Instead, it refers to ''IEEE 802.11b Direct Sequence,'' (IEEE is Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers) type of local area network (LAN). Here is a website that explains it in detail: https://www.tanaza.com/tanazaclassic/blog/wi-fi-not-mean-wireless-fidelity/
Here is how we modified the text:
''Organisms are electrochemical beings, and low-level RFR from wireless communication devices, including mobile telephony base antennas, wireless network protocols utilized for the local networking of devices and internet access, trademarked as Wi-Fi (officially IEEE 802.11b Direct Sequence, where IEEE is Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers)by the Wi-Fi alliance, and mobile phones, among others, may disrupt regulation of numerous physiological functions.''
7. Right column, line 6, Should it be ''100 times below'' or ''more than 1000 times below'' 1 mW/cm2 ?
We changed it to 1000 times below 1 mW/cm2.
''The Soviet and Eastern European literature from 1960-70s demonstrates significant biological effects, even at exposure levels more than 1000 times below 1 mW/cm2, the current guideline for maximum public exposure in the US.''
Even western EMF-bioeffects literature shows adverse effects below 1 μW/cm2. For example cite: Magras and Xenos 1997 [RF Radiation-Induced Changes in the
Prenatal Development of Mice. Bioelectromagnetics 18:455-461]. Provide references in this paragraph, and for the first two sentences of next paragraph (Russian research)
We added the following to the manuscript in the section on the overview of health effects of RFR, which included the reference you provided (Magras and Xenos, 1997) as well as citations and references to reports by Adendano et al., 2012; Bucher and Eger, 2012; Navarro et al., 2003; and Hutter et al., 2006.
''Adverse bioeffects from EMF exposure levels below 0.001mW/cm2 have also been documented in the Western literature. Damage to human sperm viability including DNA fragmentation by internet-connected laptop computers at power densities from 0.0005 '' 0.001 mW/cm2 has been reported (Avendano et al., 2012). Chronic human exposure to 0.000006 to 0.00001 mW/cm2 produced significant changes in human stress hormones following a mobile phone base station installation (Bucher and Eger, 2012). Human exposures to cell phone radiation at 0.00001 '' 0.00005 mW/cm2 resulted in complaints of headache, neurological problems, sleep problems, and concentration problems, corresponding to ''microwave sickness'' (Navarro et al., 2003; Hutter et al., 2006). The effects of RFR on prenatal development in mice placed near a mobile phone ''antenna park'' exposed to power densities from 0.000168-0.001053 mW/cm2 showed a progressive decrease in the number of newborns and ended in irreversible infertility (Magras and Xenos 1997). However, most US research has been performed over short durations of weeks or less. There have been few long-term studies on animals or humans.''
We also added the following to the manuscript on the paragraph on Russian research:
''A wide variety of bioeffects from exposure to nonthermal levels of RWR were reported by Soviet research groups since the 1960s'....
Several notable Russian studies are as follows. Studies on E. coli bacteria cultures show power density windows for microwave resonance effects for 51.755 GHz stimulation of bacterial growth, observed at extremely low power densities of 10E-13mW/cm2 (Belyaev et al., 1996). Recent Russian studies confirm earlier results of Soviet research groups on the effects of 2.45 GHz at 0.5mW/cm2 on rats (30 days exposure for 7 hrs/day), with the formation of antibodies to the brain (autoimmune response) and stress reactions (Grigoriev et al., 2010). In a long-term (1 to 4 year) study on children who use mobile phones compared to a control group, functional changes, including greater fatigue, decreased voluntary attention, and weakening of semantic memory, among other adverse psychophysiological changes, were reported (Grigoriev, 2012). The key Russian research reports that underlie the scientific basis for Soviet and Russian RFR exposure guidelines to protect the public, which are much lower than in the US, have been summarized (Repacholi et al., 2012).''
These references on the Russian/Soviet papers have been added to the manuscript:
Y. Belyaev, V. S. Shcheglov, Y. D. Alipov, and V. A. Polunin, ''Resonance effect of millimeter waves in the power range from 10(-19) to 3 x 10(-3) W/cm2 on Escherichia coli cells at different concentrations,'' Bioelectromagnetics, vol. 17, pp. 312-321, 1996.
Grigoriev, Y.G., Grigoriev, O.A., Ivanov, A.A., Lyaginskaya, A.M., Merkulov, A.V., Shagina, N.B., Maltsev, V.N., L(C)vªque, P., Ulanova, A.M., Osipov, V.A. and Shafirkin, A.V., 2010. Confirmation studies of Soviet research on immunological effects of microwaves: Russian immunology results. Bioelectromagnetics, 31(8), pp.589-602.
Grigoriev, Y., 2012. Mobile communications and health of population: the risk assessment, social and ethical problems. The Environmentalist, 32(2), pp.193-200.
Repacholi, M., Grigoriev, Y., Buschmann, J. and Pioli, C., 2012. Scientific basis for the Soviet and Russian radiofrequency standards for the general public. Bioelectromagnetics, 33(8), pp.623-633.
8. Lines 46-48: ''at non-thermal power densities (< 5 mW/cm2) and with particular emphasis on low power densities (<1mW/cm2)''. Above 1 mW/cm2 there can be thermal effects for frequencies 1-2 GHz. This is a very high power density. Change to: ''at non-thermal power densities (< 1 mW/cm2)''.
We changed it to the following sentence:
''This included the world literature in English and Russian reports translated to English, on RFR from 600 MHz '' 90 GHz, the spectrum of wireless communication radiation (2G '' 5G inclusive), with particular emphasis on non-thermal, low power densities (< 1 mW/cm2) and long term exposures.''
9. Use identical category tittles in the text (pages 5-9) and in Table 1.
As per your request, we revised the text titles as follows:
''Effects on the Blood'' to ''Blood Changes''
''The Immune Response'' to ''Immune System Disruption and Activation''
''Intracellular Calcium Levels'' to ''Increased Intracellular Calcium''
''Heart Disease and Arrhythmias'' to ''Cardiac Effects''
10. Explain ALL names with initials throughout the manuscript first time met (SARS, COVID, Wi-Fi, LTE, ROS, ACE-2, ARDS, ICU, etc.)
Full names have been provided for all acronyms (abbreviations) when they first appear I the manuscript, as requested, thank you.
11. Page 5, left, first paragraph. Rubik 2014 does not look like a peer reviewed paper. Please refer only to peer review publications, specifically for scientific findings.
While we appreciate that you would prefer all references to be peer-reviewed, we would like to cite certain important papers that have not been peer-reviewed. At this critical time of the pandemic, many manuscripts that are not peer-reviewed are being cited in professional journal papers on COVID-19 to help experts bring forth knowledge as quickly as possible to facilitate an end to human suffering and death. In this particular case, we maintain that it is important to cite this paper on morphological changes in red blood cells from wireless communication radiation that relate to blood clotting, especially since SARS-CoV-2 and its spike protein have been shown to be thrombogenic [Grobbelaar, L.M., Venter, C., Vlok, M., Ngoepe, M., Laubscher, G.J., Lourens, P.J., Steenkamp, J., Kell, D.B. and Pretorius, E., 2021. SARS-CoV-2 spike protein S1 induces fibrin (ogen) resistant to fibrinolysis: Implications for microclot formation in COVID-19. medRxiv.]. Furthermore, this particular research on morphological changes in red blood cells from cell phone radiation exposure was conducted by one of us (Rubik) who has 25+ years of experience in live blood microscopy. So, although the morphological changes in red blood cells are not as well supported in this paper as we would like, we hope to plant seeds for future research to explore this phenomenon.
Therefore, we modified the paragraph as follows:
''RFR exposure can cause morphologic changes in blood readily seen via microscopic examination of live peripheral blood samples. In 2013, Havas observed erythrocyte aggregation including rouleaux (rolls of stacked red blood cells) in live peripheral blood samples following 10 minute human exposure to a 2.4 GHz cordless phone. Although not peer reviewed, one of us (Rubik) investigated the effect of 4G LTE (fourth generation, long-term evolution) mobile phone radiation on the peripheral blood of ten human subjects, each of whom had been exposed to cell phone radiation for two consecutive 45-minute intervals (Rubik, 2014). Two types of effects were observed: increased stickiness and clumping of red blood cells with rouleaux formation, and subsequent formation of echinocytes (spiky red blood cells). Red blood cell clumping and aggregation are known to be actively involved in blood clotting (Wagner et al., 2013). The prevalence of such blood changes upon exposure to RFR in the human population has not yet been determined. Larger controlled studies should be performed to further investigate this phenomenon.''
12. Page 7, right, lines 3-5. Delete the last sentence ''Similar effects are observed in both that are caused by increased free radical formation and glutathione deficiency''.
Sentence deleted as requested, thank you.
13. Line 11. Explain ''spike protein''.
Explanation for the term spike protein provided accordingly as requested as shown here:
''Once the virus gains access to a host cell via one of its spike proteins, which are the multiple protuberances projecting from the viral envelope that bind to ACE-2 receptors, it converts the cell into a virus self replicating machine.''
14. In the effects on immune system cite and discuss the reviews by Szmigielski (2013) [Reaction of the immune system to low-level RF/MW exposures. Science of the Total Environment 454-455 (2013) 393-400], and Johansson 2009 [Disturbance of the immune system by electromagnetic fields-A potentially underlying cause for cellular damage and tissue repair reduction which could lead to disease and impairment. Pathophysioloy. 16(2-3):157-77].
We appreciate these references. We added the following paragraph to the section on Immune System Disruption and Activation, and we added both references to the Reference Section.
''In 2009, Johansson conducted a literature review, which included the 2007 Bioinitiative Report. He concluded that EMF exposure, including RFR, can disturb the immune system and cause allergic and inflammatory responses at exposure levels significantly less than current national and international safety limits and raise the risk for systemic disease. A review conducted by Szmigielski in 2013 concluded that weak RF/microwave fields, such as those emitted by mobile phones, can affect various immune functions both in vitro and in vivo. Although the bioeffects have been somewhat inconsistent, most research studies document alterations in the number and activity of immune cells from RF exposure. In general, short term exposures to weak microwave radiation may temporarily stimulate an innate or adaptive immune response, but prolonged irradiation inhibits those same functions.''
15. Page 8, left, lines 45-49. Pall (2013) made an observation that calcium channels play a major role in EMF bioeffects. A very similar observation was made long before by Walleczek (1992) [Electromagnetic field effects on cells of the immune system: The role of calcium Signaling. FASEB J, 6, 3177-85]. These were both review studies, not mechanisms. The mechanism for ion channel gating by EMFs is published by Panagopoulos et al (2002) [Mechanism of action of electromagnetic fields on cells. Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications, 298(1), 95-102], and refers not only to calcium but to all cation channels. Please cite and discuss these studies as well.
Thank you for providing these references. The following text was added:
''In 1992, Walleczek first suggested that ELF (extremely low frequency) electromagnetic fields (<300 Hz) may be affecting membrane-mediated Ca2+ signaling and lead to increased intracellular Ca2+. The irregular gating of electrosensitive cell membrane ion channels by coherent, pulsed, oscillating electromagnetic fields was first presented by Panagopoulos, et al., in 2002. Pall combined these two observations to propose that low frequency RFR may be causing increased intracellular Ca2+ via the activation of voltage-gated calcium channels (Pall, 2013).
16. Same paragraph ''viruses hijack calcium channels and increase intracellular Ca2+ (Chen et al., 2019)''. Ion channels are ion-specific by means of ion radius. Thus calcium channels would not allow larger molecules to pass through them such as viruses. Therefore the claim by Chen et al 2019 is likely impossible. This should be thoroughly searched and discussed.
Thank you for pointing this out so that we can clarify the concept. As you surmised, viruses do not pass through calcium channels. In the case of most viruses, including SARS-CoV-2, the process of a virus entering a host cell is called ''viral endocytosis,'' which involves the initial binding of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein to the ACE2 receptor of host cells. The next steps involve a complex process leading to the viral penetration through the host cell plasma membrane into the cytosol [Mercer, J., Schelhaas, M. and Helenius, A. 2010. Virus entry by endocytosis. Annual review of biochemistry 79:803-833. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-biochem-060208-104626].
However, contrary to what you wrote, Chen's claim is upheld, because following endocytosis and viral takeover of the host cell, certain viral proteins, which are then manufactured in the host cell, manipulate calcium channels and increase intracellular Ca2+.
The text has been modified as follows:
''It has been reported that some viruses can manipulate voltage-gated calcium channels to increase intracellular Ca2+ thereby facilitating viral entry and replication (Chen et al. 2019). Research has shown that the interaction between a virus and voltage-gated calcium channels promote virus entry at the virus-host cell fusion step. Then, after the virus binds to its receptor on a host cell and enters the cell via endocytosis, the virus takes over the host cell to manufacture its components. Certain viral proteins then manipulate calcium channels, thereby increasing intracellular Ca2+, which facilitates further viral replication.''
17. Right column, line 9. Explain ''second messenger''
The term, ''second messenger,'' was explained as requested:
''Intracellular Ca2+ is a ubiquitous second messenger relaying signals received by cell surface receptors to effector proteins involved in numerous biochemical processes.''
18. Page 9, left, first paragraph. Explain ''plaque instability''.
The term plaque instability was explained as requested.
''Immune system activation along with alterations in the immune system may result in atherosclerotic plaque instability and vulnerability, i.e., presenting an increased risk for thrombus formation, and contributing to the development of acute coronary events and cardiovascular disease in COVID-19.''
19. Lines 26-27, ''Potekhina et al. (1992) found that certain frequencies (55 GHz; 73 GHz) caused pronounced arrhythmia''. There are no physiological GHz frequencies in any living organism. All living functions are connected with ELF frequencies. It is thus unlikely that the GHz frequencies caused these effects. Instead the effects were most likely induced by the ELF pulsations. Similarly in Havas et al (2010). RF studies should report whether the field is pulsed/modulated or continuous wave. Most RF exposures contain ELF pulsing and/or modulation. This includes 2G-3G-4G and 5G as well. Please search the issue and revise accordingly.
Water absorbs broadly in the GHz spectral region and also displays GHz resonant frequencies. Since living organisms consist of mostly water, organisms absorb GHz, too. Consider the fact that water absorbs 2.45 GHz, which is widely used in wireless communication routers and also in microwave ovens. Irradiation at water resonant frequencies, of which there are several in the GHz spectral region, may elicit bioeffects due to structural changes in the aqueous matrix of living cells. A paper reported that low-intensity electromagnetic radiation of 70.6 and 73 GHz affects E. coli bacterial growth and changes the properties of water. [Torgomyan H, Kalantaryan V, Trchounian A. Low intensity electromagnetic irradiation with 70.6 and 73 GHz frequencies affects Escherichia coli growth and changes water properties. 2011. Cell biochemistry and biophysics. 60(3):275-81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12013-010-9150-8 ] It is hypothesized that water affected by absorption of GHz radiation affects the hydration of protein molecules in organisms that may alter rates of biochemical reactions (Betskii and Lebedeva, 2004). Thus, continuous wave GHz radiation, by altering intracellular water structure and protein hydration, could subsequently change the biochemistry and physiology.
In addition, we have been careful to report pulse modulation and other wave parameters as reported in the literature. In the section where we describe the Havas (2010) study, we admit that we initially missed the 100 Hz pulse modulation, but we have now added it.
Please also see these two review papers, which we have cited and referenced in our manuscript, which summarize a substantial number of bioeffects of continuous wave as well as various types of modulated GHz radiation:
Pakhomov, A.G., Y. Akyel, O.N. Pakhomova, B.E. Stuck and M.R. Murphy. 1998. Review article: current state and implications of research on the biological effects of millimeter waves. Bioelectromagnetics, 19: 393-413. DOI:10.1002/(SICI)1521-186X(1998)19:7<393::AID-BEM1>3.0.CO;2-X
Betskii O.V. and Lebedeva, N.N. 2004. Low-intensity millimeter waves in biology and medicine. In: Clinical Application of Bioelectromagnetic Medicine, Marcel Decker, New York, pp. 30-61. https://gabrielecripezzicom/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/d75d92b7fb8f4d13ae5461e26afa62e87e60.pdf
Thank you for drawing our attention to these references: (Potekhina et al., 1992; Havas et al., 2010). The text has been modified as follows:
''Potekhina et al. (1992) found that certain frequencies (55 GHz; 73 GHz) caused pronounced arrhythmia. Although the nature of the primary response to millimeter waves and consequent events are poorly understood, a possible role for receptor structures and neural pathways in the development of continuous millimeter wave-induced arrhythmia has been proposed (Pakhomov et al., 1998).''
''Havas et al. (2010) reported that human subjects in a controlled, double-blinded study were hyper-reactive when exposed to 2.45 GHz, digitally pulsed (100 Hz) microwave radiation, developing either an arrhythmia or tachycardia and up-regulation of the sympathetic nervous system, which is associated with the stress response.''
20. Right column, lines 29-31, ''The bioeffects of RFR exposure are typically nonlinear rather than exhibiting the familiar linear dose-response effects from biochemical.'' This is not true generally. The sporadic existence of ''windows'' does not render all effects non-linear. Effects depending on intensity or exposure time most usually are dose-dependent, and even close to linear. This should be revised.
Thank you for drawing our attention to this matter. We have revised the text as follows:
''RFR bioeffects depend upon specific values of wave parameters including frequency, power density, exposure time and modulation characteristics, as well as the cumulative history of exposure. Similar to ionizing radiation, the bioeffects of RFR exposure should be subdivided into deterministic, i.e. dose dependent effects, and stochastic effects that are seemingly random. Importantly, RFR bioeffects can also involve ''response windows'' of specific parameters whereby extremely low level fields can have disproportionally detrimental effects (Blackman, et al., 1989).''
21. Page 10, left, lines 16-17, ''However, these guidelines were established in 1996''. Provide reference.
We provided a citation and reference to the original FCC document as follows:
Federal Communications Commission (FCC), 1996. Guidelines for evaluating the environmental effects of radiofrequency radiation. FCC96-326; ET Docket No. 93-62. https://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Orders/1996/fcc96326.pdf
Reviewer #6: Xu et al reported that in Feb. 2020, the cases fatality rate was much lower in Zhejiang province and other provinces were much lower than it was in Wuhan. (Xiao-Wei Xu, physician1, Xiao-Xin Wu, physician1, Xian-Gao Jiang, physician2, Kai-Jin Xu, physician1, Ling-Jun Ying, physician3, Chun-Lian Ma, physician4, Shi-Bo Li, physician5, Hua-Ying Wang, physician6, Sheng Zhang, physician7, Hai-Nv Gao, professor8, Ji-Fang Sheng, professor1, Hong-Liu Cai, physician1, Yun-Qing Qiu, professor1, Lan-Juan Li, professor1. Clinical findings in a group of patients infected with the 2019 novel coronavirus (SARS-Cov-2) outside of Wuhan, China: retrospective case series. BMJ 2020; 368 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m606 ).
We read this paper (Xu, 2020), and then we searched online to determine whether 5G was implemented in Zhejiang province by late 2019. We found that Zhejiang province had partial installation of 5G in 2019, at least in major cities such as Hangzhou, Wenzhou, and Ningbo. Moreover, only a small number of cases were used in this retrospective study whose reference you provided, which may not accurately reflect the actual number of cases and fatality rates in these provinces. Due to this, we maintain that it would be inappropriate for us to utilize these findings or this reference in our manuscript. Thus, we did not make any modifications to our paper based on this information.
The following citation should be used along with the Pakhomov et al citation with regard to millimeter wave effects: Betskii OV, Lebedeva NN. 2004 Low-intensity millimeter waves in biology and medicine. In: Clinical Application of Bioelectromagnetic Medicine, Marcel Decker, New York, 2004, pp. 30-61. https://gabrielecripezzi.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/d75d92b7fb8f4d13ae5461e26afa62e87e60.pdf
Thank you for providing this additional citation and reference. It has been added accordingly as shown here in the manuscript text, in the last sentence of the section, Overview on Bioeffects of Radiofrequency Radiation (RFR) Exposure:
''Two comprehensive reviews on the bioeffects of millimeter waves report that even short-term exposures produce marked bioeffects (Pakhomov et al., 1998; Betskii & Lebedeva, 2004).''
On p.5, there is place which states (5G RFR) - this is confusing since 5G is not radiofrequency.
Thank you for making this observation. (5G RFR) has been removed from the sentence on page 5.
The author should state in several places in the paper, that the findings are suggestive of a link between EMF exposure and the severity of COVID-19 infections but none of these findings are considered to be proof of such a linkage.
Thank you for this recommendation. We included this text in the Discussion Section:
''This evidence suggests that RFR may have worsened the COVID-19 pandemic by weakening the host and exacerbating COVID-19 disease. However, none of the observations discussed here have proven this linkage. Specifically, the evidence does not confirm causation.''
The Sen et al, citation has an error in it. It should read NF-kB. and that is a Greek letter kappa. There may also be an error in the text.
These corrections have been made accordingly in the manuscript text, table, and reference.
The other thing I would suggest is that the author should make a suggestion or two about how the remaining uncertainty here might be resolved. I would make two suggestions that might help:
There could be one or more studies to determine whether some COVID-19 patients admitted to the hospital could be shielded in either Faraday cage or a shielded canopy could be put over the bed. These could lower exposures and hospitals are high EMF environments such with high powered Wi-Fi systems, many wireless communication devices and thousands of electronic devices, producing large amounts of dirty electricity. I know that hospitals have high levels of dirty electricity, having measured levels myself. The question being, whether such shielding would lower mortality rates and/or shorten times to patient release.
In consideration of your proposed study utilizing RFR shielding of COVID-19 patients, we think it is impractical and potentially dangerous to patients, and therefore, unlikely to be carried out in hospitals. Please know that wireless monitoring of patients in hospitals is now routine, such that shielding patients would not permit this critical real-time online patient monitoring. It is therefore unlikely that an Institutional Review Board would approve of placing shielding around a patient or placing a patient in a Faraday cage where they could not be easily monitored for any potentially dangerous physiological changes. Thus, we did not add this proposed study to our Discussion Section of the manuscript.
Another approach would be to measure home and working environments for EMF levels comparing patients with similar risk factor exposure but different severity of illness.
We have now proposed two future studies in the Discussion Section:
''The question of causation could be investigated in future studies. For example, a clinical study could be conducted in COVID-19 patient populations with similar risk factors, to measure the RFR daily dose in COVID-19 patients and look for a correlation with disease severity and progression over time. As wireless device frequencies may differ, and the power densities of RFR fluctuate constantly at a given location, this study would require patients to wear personal microwave dosimeters (monitoring badges). In addition, controlled laboratory studies could be conducted on animals, e.g., humanized mice infected with SARS-CoV-2, in which groups of animals exposed to minimal RFR (control group) as well as medium and high power densities of RFR could be compared for COVID-19 disease severity and progression.''
Reviewer #8: This paper delves into a facet of CoVid-19 and the evolving use of the widespread release of 5G into the environment, and the relationship between the two. This relationship has rarely been
studied in the literature. That alone seems to make this paper relatively significant. It also provides evidence that the Precautionary Principle would call for more study before continuing the
widespread deployment of 5G towers across the world, as well as the release of satellites that are envisioned to surround the planet. While bringing Internet access to the world's population seems
to be a good thing (in providing information to the societies that lack it now), we need to consider the Law of Unintended Consequences. The plans are for 5G to blanket the world, leaving no place
without this new exposure to this Microwave and Milliwave radiation, and potentially effecting all life on earth, with the exception of beings that live in lead-lined shelters, or Faraday cages. Based
on this paper alone, it indicates the need for further studies, before this is widely deployed. Especially when we are still learning about the effects of the CoVid-19 pandemic itself. The emerging
understanding of how CoVid-19 has been linked to coagulation disorders, and to the hypoxic effect on the lung function of oxygenation absorption and release, via the red cells, adds additional
urgency to the situation. As does the information on free radical creation causing havoc to Biological systems, the problems that either CoVid Or 5 G-type RFR can have on the heart, and especially
how either can effect the immune system, and the paper points out that that could make a lot of illnesses deadlier. And all of these have never been fully tested together, but usually apart, by
impartial researchers.
As this paper has reviewed the literature on the effects of RFR RadioFrequency Radiation, and considering how most studies in the past, looked at the heating effects of such radiation, and
then said that if the RFR did not effect heating of biological tissue, it was labeled as safe. But as this paper shows, there is multiple evidence that there are adverse effects on tissue systems and
their physiology, that have nothing to do with the heating effects of RFR. These low power high frequency effects have been collated, reviewed, and well documented in this paper, in a clearly
collected and tabular form, making it easy to compare the RFR research, and the emerging data from the effects of the CoVid-19 virus. And by documenting the similarity of the recognized RFR
effects on biological systems, then when these are clearly shown to be similar effects that are being discovered with the ever-changing documented effects of the CoVid-19 pandemic, the paper
makes a strong case for a halt that is needed at this point in the pandemic, to step back and really investigate the nature and gravity of these effects, when combined, before further RFR 5 G
potentially blankets the world.
As the paper points out in the discussion, while the connections and the evidence that both RFR and CoVid-19 attack similar biological systems and physiologies, the paper has not proven
causation, but they clearly have proven the point that further, independent research is needed, and soon. Given that CoVid-19 has shown the ability to mutate, and future pandemics are predicted,
this might be one ''bright side'' to this pandemic, in that it forces us to do this research, before it is too late. If indeed, all of the systems effected by CoVid-19 are also potentially weakened or
effected by RFR like the upcoming wave of 5G (or 6 G, etc.) that is planned for the future, we have a chance to do the research that is needed to make our future safer, but to not do this research,
and hide our heads in the sand, and ignore this paper, and its implications, then future generations may not look back kindly on our ''rush to get faster internet to everyone.'' Instead, we may do
much more damage than when people thought that Radium watches that glow in the dark were ''cool,'' or that it was ''cool'' to use the Xray machines in shoe stores to see if your shoes fit the feet,
by a live Xray that showed your foot skeleton in the shoe, while the Xray device was near the gonads. One wonders how many people died of those ''cool'' technologies, from cancer or other
illnesses, before their dangers were finally recognized and removed from the market.
How does the saying go: ''Those who refuse to learn from the mistakes of the past, are condemned to repeat them,'' only this time it may be on a world-wide scale? So I highly recommend that
this paper be accepted for publication, so that it can stimulate much more research that must be done in this area.
We thank you for your review, support, and encouragement.
Reviewer #9: Dear Editor,
I completed review process of the manuscript numbered as ''JCTRes-D-21-00034_reviewer''. Although the ideas put forward by the authors are not negligible, they are open issues to criticism. Because there is no scientific study that clearly reveals the relationship between RFRs, especially 5G and SARS-CoV-2. The authors have tried to make a good review, but the ideas they put forward show that only RFRs and SARS-CoV-2 have similar effects. Unfortunately, there is no scientific data about whether these similarities create a synergistic effect or not. So I suggest the authors change the title such as ''Similarities in the effects of RFRs and SARS-CoV-2: Could there be a synergistic effect?''
We prefer not to change the title to your suggested title, because your use of the word, ''synergistic'' implies a specific type of relationship that goes beyond a possible connection. ''Synergy'' is defined as the interaction of two or more agents or forces so that their combined effect is greater than the sum of their individual effects . We are not addressing the question of possible synergy in this paper. Instead, we are merely investigating the intersection of bioeffects of radiofrequency radiation exposure and COVID-19 manifestations.
However, we have changed our paper title, eliminating the word ''telecommunications'' and substituting the word, ''communications,'' which is more general and inclusive. Our new title is, ''Evidence for a Connection between COVID-19 and Exposure to Radiofrequency Radiation from Wireless Communications Including Microwaves and Millimeter Waves.'' We also have an alternative title, if the Editor prefers, ''A Proposed Connection between COVID-19 and Exposure to Radiofrequency Radiation from Wireless Communications Including Microwaves and Millimeter Waves.''
The decision is yours, dear editor. In summary, the article can be printed, but the title is very ambitious! On the other hand, I suggest to the authors to read the articles given below to find some hints for the topic of the manuscript.
Sincerely
Recommendation for Table 1 in page 4; Table 1 is not sufficient as the authors stated. Fort this reason, the authors have to present characteristics of RFRs and name of the references. Therefore, the table should be more informative for the readers for evaluation of the situation.
Thank you for this impressive reference list, which we have investigated.
Our table was meant to be only a visual summary for the reader, not a comprehensive list with details and references. However, we changed the subheadings on the bioeffects in the text to reiterate the table subheadings. In this way, the reader is referred to particular sections of the text to obtain details regarding RFR exposure parameters and literature citations. We have also added a sentence to the table legend indicating how the reader can find this supportive information as follows:
''Supportive evidence including study details and citations are provided in the paper under each subject heading, i.e., Blood Changes, Oxidative Stress, etc.''
Barlas SB, Adalier N, Dasdag O, Dasdag S, Evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 with a biophysical perspective. Biotechnology & Biotechnological Equipment. 35:1, 392-406, 2021. DOI: 10.1080/13102818.2021.1885997
Dasdag S, Akdag MZ, Celik MS (2008), Bioelectrical parameters of people exposed to radiofrequency in workplace and houses provided to workers. Biotechnology & Biotechnological Equipment. 22: 3: 859-863.
Alkis ME, Akdag MZ, Dasdag S, Eects of Low-Intensity Microwave Radiation on Oxidant-Antioxidant Parameters and DNA Damage in the Liver of Rats. 2020 Bioelectromagnetics. 42:76'--85, 2021. DOI:10.1002/bem.22315
Dasdag S, Balci K, Celik MS, Batun S, Kaplan A, Bolaman Z, Tekes S, Akdag Z (1992), Neurologic and biochemical findings and CD4 / CD8 ratio in people occupationally exposed to RF and microwave. Biotechnol. & Biotechnol. Eq. 6 / 4, 37 -39.
Yilmaz F, Dasdag S, Akdag MZ, Kilinc N (2008).Whole body exposure of radiation emitted from 900 MHz mobile phones does not seem to affect the levels of anti-apoptotic BCL-2 protein. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine. 27: 1; 65-72.
Dasdag S, Akdag MZ, Ulukaya E (2009), Effects of Mobile Phone Exposure on Apoptotic Glial Cells and Status of Oxidative Stress in Rat Brain. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine. 28: 4; 342-354.
Dasdag S, Bilgin HM, Akdag MZ, et al. (2008), Effect of Long Term Mobile Phone Exposure on Oxidative and Antioxidative Process and Nitric Oxide in Rats. Biotechnology & Biotechnological Equipment. 22: 4; 992-997
Alkis ME, Bilgin HM, Akpolat V, Dasdag S, Yegin K, Yavas MC, Akdag MZ, Effect of 900-, 1800-, and 2100-MHz radiofrequency radiation on DNA and oxidative stress in brain. Electromagn Biol Med. 38(1): 32-47, 2019.
Akdag M, Dasdag S, Canturk F, Akdag MZ, Exposure to non-ionizing electromagnetic fields emitted from mobile phones induced DNA damage in human ear canal hair follicle cells. Electromagn Biol Med. 2018, 37 (2): 66-75. https://doi.org/10.1080/15368378.2018.1463246
Bektas H, Dasdag S, Effect of Radiofrequencies Emitted from Mobile Phones and Wi-FÄ° on Pregnancy. Journal of International Dental and Medical Research. 10(3): 1084-1095, 2017
Bektas H, Dasdag S, Bektas S, Comparison of effects of 2.4 GHz Wi-Fi and mobile exposure on human placenta and cord Blood. Biotechnology & Biotechnological Equipment. 2020, VOL. 34 (1): 154-162, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1080/13102818.2020.1725639
We have modified our manuscript to include summaries of the following papers from your list which are relevant for our paper:
(1) Alkis, M.E., Akdag, M.Z. and Dasdag, S., 2021. Effects of low-intensity microwave radiation on oxidant-antioxidant parameters and DNA damage in the liver of rats. Bioelectromagnetics, 42(1), pp.76-85. DOI:10.1002/bem.22315;
(2) Dasdag, S., Bilgin, H.M., Akdag, M.Z., Celik, H. and Aksen, F., 2008. Effect of long term mobile phone exposure on oxidative-antioxidative processes and nitric oxide in rats. Biotechnology & Biotechnological Equipment, 22(4), pp.992-997. https://doi.org/10.1080/13102818.2008.10817595
We added short summaries of these two papers to the section on Oxidative Stress:
''In a long-term controlled study on rats exposed to 900 MHz (mobile phone frequency) at 0.0782 mW/cm2 for 2 hrs/day for 10 months, there was a significant increase in malondialdehyde (MDA) and total oxidant status (TOS) over controls (Dasdag et al., 2008). In another long-term controlled study on rats exposed to two mobile phone frequencies, 1800 MHz and 2100 MHz, at power densities 0.04 -0.127 mW/cm2 for 2 hours/day over 7 months, significant alterations in oxidant-antioxidant parameters, DNA strand breaks, and oxidative DNA damage were found (Alkis et al., 2021).''
Reviewer #10: - Background section. Page 1, lines 49-52. '''...that will dramatically increase the population's wireless radiation exposure both inside structures and outdoors''.
Please cite evidence (referenced studies) supporting this hypothesis by specific models and/or real-time measurements.
We could not find specific models, nor are real-time measurements available, so we decided instead to modify this sentence such that it remains hypothetical. However, with densification of 4G infrastructure along with the placement of new 5G antennas approximately every 300 meters, and 42,000 5G emitting satellites, it is logical to hypothesize that the population will experience increased wireless communication radiation exposure. Here is our modified sentence:
''The system requires significant densification of 4G as well as new 5G antennas that may dramatically increase the population's wireless communications radiation exposure both inside structures and outdoors.''
- Background section. Page 1. ''During the first wave in the United States, COVID-19 attributed cases and deaths were higher in states with 5G infrastructure compared with states that did not yet have this technology (Tsiang and Havas, manuscript submitted)''. Unpublished/not available data should not be considered as citation.
We agree, and we included this paper because we expected it to be published during the review process and it has, in fact, been published in a peer reviewed journal since our submission. The full reference, now added to our reference list in the manuscript, is:
''Tsiang, A. and Havas, M. 2021. COVID-19 Attributed Cases and Deaths are Statistically Higher in States and Counties with 5th Generation Millimeter Wave Wireless Telecommunications in the United States. Medical Research Archives 9(4): 1-32. DOI: 10.18103/mra.v9i4.2371''
- Overview on covid-19 (page 2). In consideration of the main aim of the review, this paragraph can be significantly shortened.
Our overview on COVID-19 is quite short at approximately ½ page. We think it provides a good background for readers in need, so we prefer not to shorten it.
- Authors should better describe the main technical characteristics of the 5G infrastructures (i.e, small cells, MIMO, multiple frequencies etc.), briefly listing the main technical differences with the previous radiofrequency networks.
We provided a reference to the official document specifying 5G (3GPP, 2020). In addition, we re-wrote and expanded upon 5G on page 2 as follows:
''5G is a protocol that will use high frequency bands of the electromagnetic spectrum in the vast radiofrequency range from 600 MHz to nearly 100 GHz, which includes millimeter waves (>20 GHz), in addition to the currently used 3G (third generation) and 4G (fourth generation) long term evolution (LTE) microwave bands. 5G frequency spectrum allocations differ from country to country. Focused pulsed beams of radiation will emit from new base stations and phased array antennas placed close to buildings whenever persons access the 5G network. Because these high frequencies are strongly absorbed by the atmosphere and especially during rain, a transmitter's range is limited to 300 meters. Therefore 5G involves base stations and antennas much more closely spaced than previous generations, plus satellites in orbit that will emit 5G bands globally to create a wireless worldwide web. The system requires significant densification of 4G as well as new 5G antennas that may dramatically increase the population's wireless communications radiation exposure both inside structures and outdoors. Approximately 100,000 emitting satellites are planned to be launched into orbit. This infrastructure will significantly alter the world's electromagnetic environment to unprecedented levels and may cause unknown consequences to the entire biosphere, including humans. The new infrastructure will service the new 5G devices, including 5G mobile phones, routers, computers, tablets, self-driving vehicles, machine-to-machine communications, and the Internet of Things (IoT).
The global industry standard for 5G is set by the 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP), which is an umbrella term for several organizations developing standard protocols for mobile telecommunications. The 5G standard specifies all key aspects of the technology, including frequency spectrum allocation, beam-forming, beam steering, multiplexing MIMO (multiple in, multiple out) schemes to nearly simultaneously serve a large number of devices within a cell as well as modulation schemes among many others. The latest finalized 5G standard, Release 16, is codified in the 3GPP published Technical Report TR 21.916 and may be downloaded from the 3GPP server at https://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/archive/21_series/21.916/ (3GGP, 2020).''
Reference: 3GPP (Third Generation Partnership Project, 2020. Technical Report TR 21.916, V1.0.0. (2020-12), pages 1-149. https://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/archive/21_series/21.916/
- Table 1. Authors should indicate in the table the most relevant and specific reference(s) for each listed point.
Rather than modify the Table, which is meant to be only a summary to assist the reader, we changed the text subheadings on bioeffects to be identical to the Table subheadings. We added this sentence in the Table legend to direct the reader to those text sections for the evidence and citations:''Supportive evidence including study details and citations are provided in the paper under each subject heading, i.e., Blood Changes, Oxidative Stress, etc.''
- Table 1. it is not clear if the cited effects (''RFR exposure bioeffects'') have been generically linked with high frequency electromagnetic fields or, specifically, with 5G frequencies.
Authors should include in the ''RFR exposure bioeffects'' listed in this table the frequency, the level (i.e., power density) and the period of exposure linked with each of the cited effects. Authors should also specify the type of study (i.e., in vitro, animal or human study).
As previously stated in our Methods Section, all studies reviewed in this paper involve exposures to RFR in the range from 600 MHz '' 90 GHz, the spectrum of wireless communication radiation, from 2G '' 5G inclusive. The detailed information on exposure parameters and types of studies is given in each section of the text with the same headings as in the Table, i.e., Blood Changes, Oxidative Stress, etc.
- Authors should report the average level of RFR exposure measured in at least some geographical areas implementing 5G infrastructure. A comparison of the ''real-life'' level of exposure with the RFR exposure levels generating the majority of bioeffects described in the paper is needed.
We inserted the following text in the manuscript in the section on the Overview on Bioeffects of RFR Exposure:
''By comparison to the exposure levels employed in these studies, we measured the ambient level of RFR from 100 MHz '' 8 GHz in downtown San Francisco, California in December, 2020, and found an average power density of 0.0002 mW/cm2. This is approximately 2x10E10 times above the natural background.''
- Several bioeffects described by authors are generated by levels of exposure significantly higher than those generally recorded in urban areas. Authors should include in the paper a new table listing the bioeffects potentially linked with covid-19 and observed in the presence of levels of environmental exposure comparable with those recorded in the most exposed urban areas.
Such data on the average power density of 5G (or 4G) in various geographical locations are unavailable, neither shown in the scientific literature, nor published by cities or other governments. Little is known about population exposure from real-world radiofrequency radiation sources as we previously wrote in our Discussion Section. It is also very difficult to accurately quantify the average power density at a given location. Moreover, the average power density varies greatly, depending upon the specific location, time, averaging interval, frequency, and modulation scheme. For a specific municipality it depends on the antenna density, what network protocols are used, as, for example, 2G, 3G, 4G, 5G, Wi-Fi (IEEE 802.11b Direct Sequence), WiMAX (Worldwide Interoperability for Microwave Access), DECT (Digital European Cordless Telecommunications), RADAR (Radio Detection and Ranging), and what the legal limits are for public exposure in the particular jurisdiction. RFR (radiofrequency radiation) from ubiquitous radiowave transmitters, including antennas, base stations, smart meters, mobile phones, routers, satellites, and other wireless devices currently in use superimposes and yields an additive average power density at a given location that typically fluctuates greatly over time. Using a consumer grade radiofrequency power meter to measure ambient levels from 100 MHz '' 8 GHz in downtown San Francisco, California, recently we found an average power density of 0.0002 mW/cm2, which is approximately 1 billion times greater than the natural background. However, our RF meter was insensitive to 5G frequencies above 8 GHz.
We added the following paragraph to the Discussion Section:
''Another shortcoming of this study is that we do not have access to experimental data on 5G exposures. In fact, little is known about population exposure from real-world RFR, which includes exposure to RFR infrastructure and the plethora of RFR emitting devices. In relation to this, it is difficult to accurately quantify the average power density at a given location, which varies greatly, depending upon the time, specific location, averaging interval, frequency, and modulation scheme. For a specific municipality it depends on the antenna density, what network protocols are used, as, for example, 2G, 3G, 4G, 5G, Wi-Fi, WiMAX (Worldwide Interoperability for Microwave Access), DECT (Digital European Cordless Telecommunications), and RADAR (Radio Detection and Ranging). RFR from ubiquitous radiowave transmitters, including antennas, base stations, smart meters, mobile phones, routers, satellites, and other wireless devices currently in use, superimposes and yields an additive average power density at a given location that typically fluctuates greatly over time. No experimental studies on adverse health effects or safety issues of 5G have been reported, and none are currently planned by the industry, although this is sorely needed.''
- Authors should report and comment previous studies, if available, linking RFR exposure with viral diseases different from Covid-19.
We searched the scientific and medical literature, but we did not find any studies on RFR exposure linked to other viral diseases.
- Authors discuss evidence deriving from exposure to cell phones to support possible effects of environmental exposure to 5G. However, exposure to cell phones or to 5G infrastructure (i.e., base stations, MIMO antennas, devices etc.) may significantly differ in terms of SAR and are not fully comparable.
We discussed evidence not only from exposure to cell phone radiation, but also from exposure to Wi-Fi in this paper. We agree that exposure to 5G infrastructure (i.e., base stations, MIMO antennas, etc.) may significantly differ in terms of SAR and are not fully comparable. We had previously pointed out in our Discussion Section that data on bioeffects from real world 5G emissions was seriously lacking.
We added additional material discussing evidence from exposure to cell or mobile phones, which appears on page 4:
''Chronic human exposure to 0.000006 to 0.00001 mW/cm2 produced significant changes in human stress hormones following a mobile phone base station installation (Bucher and Eger, 2012). Human exposures to cell phone radiation at 0.00001 '' 0.00005 mW/cm2 resulted in complaints of headache, neurological problems, sleep problems, and concentration problems, corresponding to 'microwave sickness' (Navarro et al., 2003; Hutter et al., 2006).''
And in another paragraph on page 4 we added this:
''In a long-term (1 - 4 year) study on children who use mobile phones compared to a control group, functional changes, including greater fatigue, decreased voluntary attention, and weakening of semantic memory, among other adverse psychophysiological changes, were reported (Grigoriev, 2012).''
On page 9, we added this:
''A review conducted by Szmigielski in 2013 concluded that weak RF/microwave fields, including those emitted by mobile phones, can affect various immune functions both in vitro and in vivo.''
- The majority of the bio-effects described by Authors could also be, at least theoretically, attributed to pre-existing radiofrequency exposure, in particular in highly exposed geographical areas. Furthermore, in the short-medium term, in exposed areas the level of RFR exposure can be assumed to be constant. On the other hand, covid-19 incidence, morbidity and mortality significantly varied during the last year. The lack of a parallel trend should limit the hypothesis of a direct link between 5G exposure and covid-19 clinical and epidemiological aspects.
The total radiofrequency radiation exposure is due to radiation from a combination of wireless infrastructure (4G and 5G antennas, base stations, smart meters) as well as wireless communication products in the homes, schools, and workplaces. We disagree with your assumption that in exposed regions the level of RFR exposure can be assumed to be constant last year, especially since the installation of 5G was being implemented in many locations throughout the world in 2020. Thus, in 2020, we expected the level of RFR exposure to increase in these locations.
- The majority of the bio-effects described by Authors could also be attributed to other sources of environmental pollution and, in particular, to air pollution. The effect of this and other relevant confounders in urban areas characterized by high population density is not discussed by Authors.
It is possible that air pollution is another potential contributing environmental factor in the pandemic, although it is not a subject relevant to our thesis, such that we do not address it in depth in our paper. Nonetheless, we added the following sentence to the Discussion Section:
''Air pollution, particularly PM 2.5 microparticulates, likely increased symptoms in patients with COVID-19 lung disease (Fiasca et al., 2020).''
Reference: Fiasca F., Minelli M., Maio D., Minelli M., Vergallo I., Necozione S., Mattei A. 2020. Associations between COVID-19 Incidence Rates and the Exposure to PM2.5 and NO2: A Nationwide Observational Study in Italy. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 17(24):9318. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17249318
- According to some evidence, children can be particularly vulnerable to RFR effects. However, the pediatric age seems to be the less involved, at least in terms of clinical manifestation, by the covid-19 pandemic. How Authors could explain this different outcome in different age classes equally exposed to RFR?
Children are less vulnerable than adults to the SARS-CoV-2 virus because they have fewer ACE2 receptors. Elderly adults have the most ACE2 receptors, i.e., more ''targets'' for the virus to enter their cells, and are thus more vulnerable to the virus. Both the very young and the very old populations are the most vulnerable to adverse effects from RFR exposure. Even so, the question of age-related exposure to wireless communication radiation in relation to the pandemic goes beyond the scope of our paper.
- Page 9, discussion section. ''The evidence indicates that RFR may weaken the host, exacerbate COVID-19 disease, and thereby worsen the pandemic''. In the opinion of this reviewer, the reported evidence only indicate that mechanisms possibly involved in the clinical progression of SARS-CoV-2 could be also generated, according to experimental data, by RFR exposure. It is still under debate, however, if these biological effects can be present in the case of frequencies and levels of RFR exposure commonly found in the urban areas where 5G networks have been implemented.
- Point of strength and limitations of the review performed by authors should be clearly stated.
We added this sentence to the Conclusion Section:
''The evidence presented here indicates that mechanisms involved in the clinical progression of COVID-19 could also be generated, according to experimental data, by RFR exposure.''
We have rewritten our Discussion Section and point out more clearly the strengths and limitations of our review, as follows:
''A major strength of this study is that the evidence rests on a large body of scientific literature reported by many scientists worldwide and over several decades--experimental evidence of adverse bioeffects of RFR exposure at nonthermal levels on humans, animals, and cells. The Bioinitiative Report (Sage and Carpenter, 2012) and updated in 2020, summarizes hundreds of peer-reviewed scientific papers documenting evidence of nonthermal effects from exposures less than or equal to 1mW/cm2. Even so, some laboratory studies on the adverse health effects of RFR have sometimes utilized power densities exceeding 1mW/cm2. In this paper, almost all of the studies that we reviewed included experimental data at power densities less than or equal to 1mW/cm2.
A potential criticism of this study is that adverse bioeffects from nonthermal exposures are not yet universally accepted in science and are not considered when establishing public health policy in many nations. Decades ago, Russians and Eastern Europeans compiled considerable data on nonthermal bioeffects, and subsequently set guidelines at lower RFR exposure limits than the US and Canada, i.e., below levels where nonthermal effects are observed. However, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC, a US government entity) and ICNIRP (International Commission for Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection) guidelines operate on thermal limits based on outdated data from decades ago, allowing the public to be exposed to considerably higher RFR power densities. Regarding 5G, the telecommunication industry claims that it is safe because it complies with current RFR exposure guidelines of the FCC and ICNIRP. These guidelines were established in 1996 (Federal Communications Commission, 1996), are antiquated, and are not safety standards. Thus, there are no universally accepted safety standards for wireless communication radiation exposure. Recently international bodies such as the EMF Working Group of the European Academy of Environmental Medicine, have proposed much lower guidelines, taking into account nonthermal bioeffects from RFR exposure in multiple sources (Belyaev et al., 2016).
Another weakness of this study is that some of the bioeffects from RFR exposure are inconsistently reported in the literature. Replicated studies are often not true replications. Small differences in method, including unreported details such as prior history of exposure by the organisms, non-uniform body exposure, and other variables can lead to inadvertent inconsistency. Moreover, not surprisingly, industry-sponsored studies tend to show less adverse bioeffects than studies conducted by independent researchers, suggesting industry bias (Huss et al., 2007). Some experimental studies that are not industry-sponsored have also shown no evidence of harmful effects of RFR exposure. It is noteworthy, however, that studies employing real-life RFR exposures from commercially available devices have shown high consistency in revealing adverse effects (Panagopoulos, 2019).
RFR bioeffects depend upon specific values of wave parameters including frequency, power density, exposure time, and modulation characteristics, as well as the cumulative history of exposure. Similar to ionizing radiation, the bioeffects of RFR exposure can be subdivided into deterministic, i.e., dose dependent effects and stochastic effects that are seemingly random. Importantly, RFR bioeffects can also involve ''response windows'' of specific parameters whereby extremely low level fields can have disproportionally detrimental effects (Blackman et al., 1989). This nonlinearity of RFR bioeffects can result in biphasic responses such as immune suppression from one range of parameters, and immune hyperactivation from another range of parameters, leading to variations that may appear inconsistent.
In gathering papers and examining existing data for this study, we looked for outcomes providing evidence to support a proposed connection between the bioeffects of RFR exposure and COVID-19. We did not make an attempt to weigh the evidence. The RFR exposure literature is extensive and currently contains over 30,000 research reports dating back several decades. Inconsistencies in nomenclature, reporting of details, and cataloging of keywords make it difficult to navigate the literature.
Another shortcoming of this study is that we do not have access to experimental data on 5G exposures. In fact, little is known about population exposure from real-world RFR, which includes exposure to RFR infrastructure and the plethora of RFR emitting devices. In relation to this, it is difficult to accurately quantify the average power density at a given location, which varies greatly, depending upon the time, specific location, averaging interval, frequency, and modulation scheme. For a specific municipality it depends on the antenna density, what network protocols are used, as, for example, 2G, 3G, 4G, 5G, Wi-Fi, WiMAX (Worldwide Interoperability for Microwave Access), DECT (Digital European Cordless Telecommunications), and RADAR (Radio Detection and Ranging). RFR from ubiquitous radiowave transmitters, including antennas, base stations, smart meters, mobile phones, routers, satellites, and other wireless devices currently in use, superimposes and yields an additive average power density at a given location that typically fluctuates greatly over time. No experimental studies on adverse health effects or safety issues of 5G have been reported, and none are currently planned by the industry, although this is sorely needed.''
Reviewer #11: In this work authors summarize current state of knowledge about the harmful effects of Radiofrequency radiation (RFR), with special focus on those that could possibly enhance the possibility of being infected by COVID-19.
This review is a nice mix of very recent publications (last 5 years) and some classic papers mainly from Soviet Union and United States, showing, that knowledge about harmful effects of RFR have been extensively studied already few decades ago, what is very important mainly because of the number of conspiracy theories available of the Internet about 5G RFR. Call for the scientific evaluation of this exposure type is more than proper. Otherwise we will be wittnesses of very big population study, that will reveal the truth in the future times.
I do not have any big questions rather some comments:
1) In the Introduction part authors cite quite few review articles. I would suggest citation of the few of the best experimental articles considering this type of deleterious effect (e.g. oxidative stress, reproductive damage), since the number of the reviews considering RFR is relatively high, but actual experimental studies that strongly supports the conclusion of reviews are sometimes hard to find or other times not so conclusive.
We already selected the best experimental articles, including review articles, to support our purported thesis that adverse effects to RFR exposure intersect with COVID-19 manifestations.
2) Authors stated that oxidative stress induced by RFR may exacerbate the seriousness of COVID -19 disease. I agree that induction of oxidative stress is the most common harmful effect observed after exposure to RFR, targeting mostly the cells with the high level of metabolism, like sperm cells. But in a lot of studies induction of ROS after exposure is not higher than 50% of control values and some studies have even seen adaptation to the radiation with increased exposure time on the cellular level.
It is certainly true that not all studies designed to test for oxidative stress following exposure to RFR show positive results. However, a very large number of studies do show positive results. As we already stated in our earlier paper draft in the section, Oxidative Stress, ''Among 100 currently available peer-reviewed studies investigating oxidative effects of low-intensity RFR, 93 studies confirmed that RFR induces oxidative effects in biological systems (Yakymenko et al., 2015).'' Moreover, we have added summaries of two more studies on long-term exposure (7 '' 10 months) of rats to mobile phone radiation frequencies that show statistically significantly greater oxidative stress levels over controls:
''In a controlled study on rats exposed to 900 MHz (mobile cell phone frequency) at 0.0782 mW/cm2 for 2 hrs/day for 10 months, there was a significant increase in malondialdehyde (MDA) and total oxidant status (TOS) over controls (Dasdag et al., 2008). In another controlled study on rats exposed to two mobile phone frequencies, 1800 MHz and 2100 MHz, at power densities 0.04 -0.127 mW/cm2 for 2 hours/day over 7 months, significant alterations in oxidant-antioxidant parameters, DNA strand breaks, and oxidative DNA damage were found (Alkis et al., 2021).''
3) Authors suggest that 5G introduction in the cities that have been hit with the COVID-19 very hard in the first wave could lead to the increased mortality and number of cases. Since there are some connections, this could be also explaine by the fact that Northern Italy is the region with the highest percentage of elderly people that often have other comorbidities like diabetes and hypertension that significntly increase the probability of serious condition, next the precautions in the Italy have not been sufficient what is more likely the cause of such strong hit by COVID than 5G. To the New York, that is one of the crowdest cities in the world and social distancing have not been established soon enough.
We agree with you and have added the following text to in our Discussion Section to address these points; thank you:
''We recognize that many factors have influenced the pandemic's course. Before restrictions were imposed, travel patterns facilitated the seeding of the virus, causing early rapid global spread. Population density, higher mean population age, and socioeconomic factors certainly influenced early viral spread. Air pollution, particularly PM 2.5 microparticulates, likely increased symptoms in patients with COVID-19 lung disease (Fiasca, et al. 2020). In this paper, we postulate that RFR, by potentially weakening the host immune systems of large populations, among other bioeffects that we discussed, has possibly contributed to the early spread and severity of COVID-19.''
In addition, we would also like to respond to you with this paragraph, although we did not include it in our paper. Community public health response to the pandemic dramatically influenced the spread and intensity of COVID-19 once it became established within a community. Individual risk factors such as old age, hypertension, diabetes, and obesity put patient populations at greater risk for severe disease. Detailing the complex pathophysiology of each condition with COVID-19 is beyond the scope of this paper. Obesity, for example, a significant recognized risk factor, may be so in part perhaps because adipose cells contain a high level of ACE-2 receptors (Al-Benna, 2020). In addition, patients with morbid obesity may have restricted lung tidal volumes, exacerbating the clinical effect of lung disease caused by Sars-CoV-2.
4) Other argument is that in the second wave midlle europe (Czech, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia) have been hit very hard with COVID and 5G is still not introduced in this countries (maybe only capital cities, but certainly not smaller cities and villages, that had been hit even harder). So I think overally, mobility of people, meeting of families during holidays and inproper precautions have much larger effect on the pandemia than RFR exposure. But on the other hand I agree that RFR
could add some stress to individuals already weakened by the COVID.
We agree with you and have added the following text to the Discussion Section:
''Once an agent becomes established in a community, its virulence increases (Hoyt et al., 2020). This premise can be applied to the COVID-19 pandemic. We surmise that ''hot spots'' of the disease that initially spread around the world were perhaps seeded by air travel, which in some areas was associated with 5G implementation. However, once the disease became established in those communities, it was able to spread more easily to neighboring regions where populations were less exposed to RFR. Second and third waves of the pandemic disseminated widely throughout communities with and without RFR, as would be expected.''
5) Authors should also focus on the fact that lot of experimental studies did not provide any evidence of harmful effect of RFR (and not all of them are industry financed and ordered). Other problem with experimental evidence of harmful effects is the reproducibility of the observed effects and replicability of the studies, that are often performed with questionable devices, under not precisely characterized exposure conditions.
Thank you for bringing this to our attention.
We have now included this paragraph in the Discussion Section:
''Another weakness of this study is that some of the bioeffects from RFR exposure are inconsistently reported in the literature. Replicated studies are often not true replications. Small differences in method, including unreported details such as prior history of exposure by the organisms, non-uniform body exposure, and other variables can lead to inadvertent inconsistency. Moreover, not surprisingly, industry-sponsored studies tend to show less adverse bioeffects than studies conducted by independent researchers, suggesting industry bias (Huss et al., 2007). Some experimental studies that are not industry-sponsored have also shown no evidence of harmful effects of RFR exposure.''
Despite this comments bit of article provide nice review of the RFR effects on the human beings supported by the number of peer-reviewed studies and also overview of COVID- 19 disease, that is very valuable and worth publishing after applying some of the comments to the manuscript.
Reviewer #12 (editor-in-chief): SO THESE SUGGESTIONS ARE MANDATORY TO ADDRESS
1) Please contextualize the narrative to centers/regions of outbreak where 5G is not prevalent, such as rural India, beyond the premise that correlation is not causation. Cite regions that had a 5G rollout but were not hit by the pandemic, and please provide explanations for such exemptions.
Worldwide maps illustrating the similarity of COVID-19 and RFR distribution during the early phase of the pandemic are stunning, suggesting a relationship as shown in these two maps from WIGLE.net and the Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Research Center from December 2019 and April 7, 2020, respectively.
However, when considering only 5G networks, the correlation is less striking (Tsiang & Havas, 2021). This would be expected as 5G represents a relatively small subset of the global RFR emission in late 2019 and early 2020. Early on in the pandemic, there were active 5G networks in Thailand and Indonesia, where the reported number of COVID-19 cases in the early phase of the pandemic was minimal. In addition, the proliferation of 5G networks in Finland, which began in June 2019, was not associated with an increased incidence of COVID-19 infections. Assuming accurate data reporting by these countries, other factors, such as overall better general health of the population compared to other regions, and environmental cofactors may have provided protection to these populations. For example, less international air travel in these regions compared to other regions with greater incidence of the disease could be a factor that provided greater protection to such regions with 5G.
However, once an agent becomes established in a communal reservoir, its virulence increases (Hoyt, et al., 2020). This premise can be applied to the COVID-19 pandemic. We surmise that ''hot spots'' of the disease that initially spread around the world were perhaps seeded by air travel, but were then more easily spread in regions of increased RFR exposure, which in some areas was associated with 5G implementation. However, once the disease became well established in those communities, it was able to more easily spread to neighboring regions where populations were less exposed to RFR environmental toxicity. This may explain why the disease incidence in India was initially localized to Delhi, but then dispersed throughout the country over time. In addition, further waves of the pandemic disseminated more virulent variants widely throughout communities around the world with and without RF radiation, as would be expected.
2)What is the average power density (mW/cm2) of 5G RFR in Wuhan, and how does this compare to the cities that have harbored 5G but with low manifestation of COVID-19?
Such data on 5G (or 4G) are unavailable to us, neither shown in the scientific literature, nor published by cities or other governments. Little is known about population exposure from real world radiofrequency radiation sources. It is also very difficult to accurately quantify the average power density at a given location. Moreover, the average power density varies greatly, depending upon the specific location, time, averaging interval, frequency, and modulation scheme. For a specific municipality it depends on the antenna density, what network protocols are used, as, for example, 2G, 3G, 4G, 5G, Wi-Fi (IEEE 802.11b Direct Sequence), WiMAX (Worldwide Interoperability for Microwave Access), DECT (Digital European Cordless Telecommunications), RADAR (Radio Detection and Ranging), and what the legal limits are for public exposure in the particular jurisdiction. RFR (radiofrequency radiation) from ubiquitous radiowave transmitters, including antennas, base stations, smart meters, mobile phones, routers, satellites, and other wireless devices currently in use superimposes and yields an additive average power density at a given location that typically fluctuates greatly over time. Using a radiofrequency power meter to measure ambient levels from 100 MHz '' 8 GHz in downtown San Francisco, California, recently we found an average power density of 0.0002 mW/cm2, which is approximately 2x10E10 times greater than the natural background.
The increasing radiofrequency power density has spawned a new application: harvesting this ambient wireless communication energy for practical use (Hassani et al., 2019). [Hassani, S.E. et al., 2019. Overview on 5G radio frequency energy harvesting. Advances in Science, Technology, and Engineering Systems 4(4): 328-346.] The burgeoning industry of radio frequency energy harvesting from such ambient levels to power the Internet of Things (IoT) and body-worn devices attests to today's high level of electromagnetic pollution.
5G is the most complex network protocol to date as it spans a vast spectral range from 600MHz to over 90GHz in half a dozen bands. The specific band frequencies and bandwidth allocations vary from country to country, as does the active usage of the various bands. Moreover, different network providers operate on different bands and on different frequencies within a band, depending on their spectrum purchase from the domestic regulatory body. So, the parameters of wavelength and bandwidth from location to location are different.
Wuhan is unique in that it was among the first cities in the world to offer citywide 5G service starting on October 31, 2019, with purportedly 10,000 antennas reaching approximately 8 million citizens. The average distance between antennas was approximately 1,000 feet, meaning that every citizen was no farther than 500 feet from the nearest 5G antenna in the Wuhan metropolitan region. In other urban centers around the world where 5G had been partially installed by late 2019, the area of 5G coverage was typically limited to only certain neighborhoods. However, the aggressive 5G rollout during 2020 has most certainly increased 5G coverage dramatically.
Regarding studies that would provide some data underlying your question, both of us (Rubik and Brown) are independently engaged in an international research project to measure the average and maximum power densities of wireless communication radiation from 100 MHz to 8 GHz, thus covering all above-mentioned networks, including the 5G low- and mid-bands, but not the high 5G bands of 24 GHz and above. Measurement of 24 GHz and above requires highly specialized research-grade equipment that costs several tens of thousands of USD, and has consequently been unaffordable for surveyance to most researchers and cities.
Finally, in relation to the RFR power density and COVID mortality, the Mordachev study that we discuss in the manuscript does show a relationship, but it is not specific to 5G.
3) Your paper is hypothetical, so please remain in this hypothetical framework throughout the manuscript. Phrases such as ''This is the first scientific paper documenting a link between RFR emitted by wireless communication devices and COVID-19'' are unwarranted. Although your paper provides argumentation in favor of this hypothesis, it does not establish a link (cause-effect) between 5G and the incidence of COVID-19. Please nuance this statement and other similar statements in the text.
We deleted this sentence, ''This is the first scientific paper documenting a link between RFR emitted by wireless communication devices and COVID-19,'' from the manuscript.
We have also rephrased other statements less definitively throughout the document as you request, in the Abstract, Discussion Section, and Conclusion Section. Moreover, our Discussion and Conclusion Sections have been vastly rewritten to reflect a hypothetical framework for the paper.
4) Please unify all units of power density throughout the manuscript to conform to the standard unit used in the US (mW/cm2). The text is inconsistent with the nomenclature, where sometimes the unit is abbreviated while in other instances the unit is written out. It is advisable to consistently abbreviate to mW/cm2. That makes it easier for the readers to contextualize research results with the upheld norm for RFR exposure.
Thank you for pointing out these inconsistencies. All standard units referring to power density have been converted to mW/cm2, as requested.
5) Please include a paragraph where you attempt to introduce gaps/flaws in your hypotheses. One of the main ingredients of such a paragraph would be to point out to readers that in many studies the power densities used to study biological effects exceeded the maximum level of 1 mW/cm2. Note all other aspects of the setup and execution of cited experimental studies that deviate from the manner in which 5G RFR is reduced to practice in Wuhan and elsewhere. Such a paragraph helps put the narrative into complete perspective.
Proving causation of a pandemic's severity or spread to a fluctuating environmental agent such as RFR is unrealistic, perhaps impossible. However, we knew this from the onset, and we only attempted to look for correlations in bioeffects that suggest RFR exposure may be a contributing factor in the pandemic.
Laboratory studies on animals and cell cultures, designed to prove RFR bioeffects, have sometimes utilized power densities exceeding real world exposure, above 1 mW/cm2; for example, up to 15 mW/cm2 (Huang AT, Mold NG. 1980. Immunologic and hematopoietic alterations by 2,450-MHz electromagnetic radiation. Bioelectromagnetics 1:77''87. However, it must be said that the literature on non-thermal radiofrequency radiation effects from exposures at or less than 1 mW/cm2 is extensive. The Bioinitiative Report ( https://bioinitiative.org/research-summaries ) written in 2012 by 14 scientists, public health, and policy experts, and updated in 2020, summarizes hundreds of peer-reviewed scientific papers documenting evidence of non-thermal effects from exposures less than or equal to 1mW/cm2.
In order to limit the number of variables, controlled scientific studies typically look for bioeffects from a constant source of RFR and thus do not account for the superposition of fields from multiple emitters with different modulations and variable power densities that constitute the ever-changing fields in the 5G real world, from numerous RFR emitting devices: antennas, base stations, smart meters, wireless routers, 5G satellites, mobile phones, cordless phones and their bases, computers, tablets, Bluetooth devices, and other wireless devices. Controlled scientific studies are typically short-term and often involve animals or cell cultures as targets rather than humans. It is unclear whether such results can be extrapolated to humans in the 5G real world and over the long term.
We acknowledge in reviewing the literature since the initial phase of the pandemic, the declaration that a country, state or city has 5G doesn't translate into 5G exposure to the entire population of that locality. The Wuhan city-wide 5G service that began October 31, 2019 may be a notable exception. During 2019-2020 in most instances, only small sections of each city equipped with some 5G actually had 5G antennas or base stations installed, and an unknown number of people had 5G wireless devices. Therefore, only those inhabitants that travelled into 5G regions and those who worked with 5G devices were exposed to the more intense 5G network. Even within a single household, exposure to RFR can vary dramatically depending upon a person's relative distance to wireless routers, tablets, smart meters, mobile phones, Bluetooth devices, and other wireless products. In most communities, there are no concrete measurements available that would predict harmful effects from ambient RFR. Exposure to different frequency bands, power densities, and modulations of RFR varies from one person to another and from day to day. This variability in RFR parameters and the variability of the host's health status on a daily basis may affect the host's susceptibility to disease. The inability to control all of the variables in scientific studies to demonstrate a bioeffect (or its reproducibility) doesn't translate into, 'there is no effect here'.
We have now included several paragraphs in the Discussion Section indicating the strengths and weaknesses (potential criticisms) of the paper, as follows:
''A major strength of this paper is that the evidence rests on a large body of scientific literature reported by many scientists worldwide and over several decades--experimental evidence of adverse bioeffects of RFR exposure at nonthermal levels on humans, animals, and cells. The Bioinitiative Report (Sage and Carpenter, 2012) and updated in 2020, summarizes hundreds of peer-reviewed scientific papers documenting evidence of nonthermal effects from exposures less than or equal to 1mW/cm2. Even so, some laboratory studies on the adverse health effects of RFR have sometimes utilized power densities exceeding 1mW/cm2. In this paper, almost all of the studies that we reviewed included experimental data at power densities less than or equal to 1mW/cm2.
A potential criticism of this paper is that adverse bioeffects from nonthermal exposures are not yet universally accepted in science and are not considered when establishing public health policy in many nations. Decades ago, Russians and Eastern Europeans compiled considerable data on nonthermal bioeffects, and subsequently set guidelines at lower RFR exposure limits than the US and Canada, i.e., below levels where nonthermal effects are observed. However, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC, a US government entity) and ICNIRP (International Commission for Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection) guidelines operate on thermal limits based on outdated data from decades ago, allowing the public to be exposed to considerably higher RFR power densities. Regarding 5G, the telecommunication industry claims that it is safe because it complies with current RFR exposure guidelines of the FCC and ICNIRP. These guidelines were established in 1996 (Federal Communications Commission, 1996), are antiquated, and are not safety standards. Thus, there are no universally accepted safety standards for wireless communication radiation exposure. Recently international bodies such as the EMF Working Group of the European Academy of Environmental Medicine, have proposed much lower guidelines, taking into account nonthermal bioeffects from RFR exposure in multiple sources (Belyaev et al., 2016).
Another weakness of this paper is that some of the bioeffects from RFR exposure are inconsistently reported in the literature. Replicated studies are often not true replications. Small differences in method, including unreported details such as prior history of exposure by the organisms, non-uniform body exposure, and other variables can lead to inadvertent inconsistency. Moreover, not surprisingly, industry-sponsored studies tend to show less adverse bioeffects than studies conducted by independent researchers, suggesting industry bias (Huss et al., 2007). Some experimental studies that are not industry-sponsored have also shown no evidence of harmful effects of RFR exposure. It is noteworthy, however, that studies employing real-life RFR exposures from commercially available devices have shown high consistency in revealing adverse effects (Panagopoulos, 2019).
RFR bioeffects depend upon specific values of wave parameters including frequency, power density, exposure time, and modulation characteristics, as well as the cumulative history of exposure. Similar to ionizing radiation, the bioeffects of RFR exposure can be subdivided into deterministic, i.e., dose dependent effects and stochastic effects that are seemingly random. Importantly, RFR bioeffects can also involve ''response windows'' of specific parameters whereby extremely low level fields can have disproportionally detrimental effects (Blackman et al., 1989). This nonlinearity of RFR bioeffects can result in biphasic responses such as immune suppression from one range of parameters, and immune hyperactivation from another range of parameters, leading to variations that may appear inconsistent.
In gathering reports and examining existing data for this paper, we looked for outcomes providing evidence to support a proposed connection between the bioeffects of RFR exposure and COVID-19. We did not make an attempt to weigh the evidence. The RFR exposure literature is extensive and currently contains over 30,000 research reports dating back several decades. Inconsistencies in nomenclature, reporting of details, and cataloging of keywords make it difficult to navigate the literature.
Another shortcoming of this paper is that we do not have access to experimental data on 5G exposures. In fact, little is known about population exposure from real-world RFR, which includes exposure to RFR infrastructure and the plethora of RFR emitting devices. In relation to this, it is difficult to accurately quantify the average power density at a given location, which varies greatly, depending upon the time, specific location, time-averaging interval, frequency, and modulation scheme. For a specific municipality it depends on the antenna density, which network protocols are used, as, for example, 2G, 3G, 4G, 5G, Wi-Fi, WiMAX (Worldwide Interoperability for Microwave Access), DECT (Digital European Cordless Telecommunications), and RADAR (Radio Detection and Ranging). There is also RFR from ubiquitous radiowave transmitters, including antennas, base stations, smart meters, mobile phones, routers, satellites, and other wireless devices currently in use. All of these signals superimpose to yield the total average power density at a given location that typically fluctuates greatly over time. No experimental studies on adverse health effects or safety issues of 5G have been reported, and none are currently planned by the industry, although this is sorely needed.''
2nd editorial decision
28-Jul-2021
Ref.: Ms. No. JCTRes-D-21-00034R1
Evidence for a Connection between COVID-19 and Exposure to Radiofrequency Radiation from Wireless Communications Including Microwaves and Millimeter Waves
Journal of Clinical and Translational Research
Dear Dr. Rubik,
Reviewers have now commented on your paper. You will see that they are advising that you revise your manuscript. If you are prepared to undertake the work required, I would be pleased to reconsider my decision.
For your guidance, reviewers' comments are appended below.
If you decide to revise the work, please submit a list of changes or a rebuttal against each point which is being raised when you submit the revised manuscript. Also, please ensure that the track changes function is switched on when implementing the revisions. This enables the reviewers to rapidly verify all changes made.
Your revision is due by Jul 28, 2021.
To submit a revision, go to https://www.editorialmanager.com/jctres/ and log in as an Author. You will see a menu item call Submission Needing Revision. You will find your submission record there.
Yours sincerely
Michal Heger
Editor-in-Chief
Journal of Clinical and Translational Research
Reviewers' comments:
Reviewer #1: The authors have sufficiently addressed my comments in their response and revised manuscript. I would recommend paper for publishing after minor corrections.
It came to my attention that the authors have included references to the publications, which were not peer - reviewed. These references should be omitted to comply with generally accepted standards of scientific publications. Otherwise this paper will not be considered as meeting the accepted standards for scientific publication.
I have also noticed the evident incorrectness in the title. As far as millimeter waves is a part of microwaves, which are in turn a part of radiofrequency band, the title should be changed to ''Evidence for a Connection between COVID-19 and Exposure to Radiofrequency Radiation from Wireless
Communications Including Millimeter Waves''
Finally this is one more comprehensive review of non-thermal effects of millimeter waves, which show their dependence on variety of physical and biological variables, to be cited in this paper [1]. These dependencies are of critical issue as they account for why some studies on millimeter waves biological effects were not replicated.
[1] I.Y. Belyaev, V.S. Shcheglov, E.D. Alipov, V.D. Ushalov, Nonthermal effects of extremely high-frequency microwaves on chromatin conformation in cells in vitro - Dependence on physical, physiological, and genetic factors, IEEE Transactions on Microwave Theory and Techniques, 48 (2000) 2172-2179.
Reviewer #3: The authors have responded adequately to my comments, and I recommend publication without reservations. Making changes as suggested by the Editor-in-Chief would also improve the cpontent and structure of the document.
Reviewer #8: I stand by my prior review, which is on file with you. I have read the author's response to all the reviewers, and I think that the author has understood the suggestions of these reviewers, and has incorporated their suggested changes, where possible, to make the paper even clearer and better. The author clearly states when a suggested edit was beyond the scope of the paper in a few instances, but she included enough references for people to check out themselves, regarding additional data or studies, or made it clear that such studies have not been done, as far as she knows, but should be done by researchers in the future.
So again, I feel that this paper has made its point, that further research on 5G and the non-thermic effects on the body's physiology, need to be studied further and more comprehensively, before 5G is implemented worldwide to blanket the earth, and then makes any future research difficult to do, since soon it will already be in widespread use, and will serve to inhibit most controlled studies, that would then require large faraday shielding cages. And since she clearly shows that this micro and milli-radiation and frequencies, may have additive effects with illnesses such as CoVid and other diseases that effect the tissues (such as lung and blood vessels) and their physiology (such as membrane changes that effect oxygen exchange and CO2 release, or effect the coagulation system, among others), that seems to demand that further scientific controlled studies be done before corporations launch a massive change in the environment that effects micro and macrobiotic organisms, plants, animals, and humans, and changes the Biosphere forever. So I highly support that this paper be published as soon as possible, so that its thesis can be studied and be debated by a much wider scientific audience, and further testing and research can be done, to further investigate these findings and projections for our survival in our collective future
Reviewer #10: - Page 2, introduction section, last paragraph. ''Here we present the evidence suggesting that RFR has been a contributing factor exacerbating COVID-19.''
This is still an unconfirmed hypothesis. The sentence should be reformulated.
- Page 3. Lines 31-33. ''Therefore 5G requires base stations and antennas to be much more closely spaced than previous generations''.
It is also true that 5G base stations usually have a lower power than previous generations. This point should be commented by authors.
- introduction section: ''The new system therefore requires significant densification of 4G infrastructure as well as new 5G antennas that may dramatically increase the population's
wireless communications radiation exposure both inside structures and outdoors.''
Some evidence from Switzerland ( doi.org/10.3390/app11083592 ), Sweden (doi:10.3390/app10155280 ), South Korea (doi.org/10.1002/bem.22345), UK (https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0021/214644/emf-test-summary-010321.pdf ) show that the real impact of 5G base stations in urban areas is very limited. How can authors support the hypothesis of a ''dramatic increase'' in the radiation exposure?
- Table 1. Authors should include in the ''RFR exposure bioeffects'' listed in this table the frequency and the level (i.e., power density) of exposure linked with each of the cited effects. Authors should also specify if these exposures are below or above the international limits. This information is only partially reported in the text (results section), and is of critical importance.
- As authors confirmed, ''both the very young and the very old populations are the most vulnerable to adverse effects from RFR exposure''. However, since RFR exposure in children is the same than in elderly, this evidence is not in line with epidemiologic data showing divergent COVID-19-related risk in children and in aged people, nor with the hypothesis formulated by authors about the role of RFR in COVID-19 pandemic. Authors should discuss this contradiction.
Reviewer #11: Authors have responded to all of my questions and notes. Now I support the manuscript for the publication.
There is additional documentation related to this decision letter. To access the file(s), please click the link below. You may also login to the system and click the 'View Attachments' link in the Action column.
Author's response
Reviewers' comments:
Reviewer #1: The authors have sufficiently addressed my comments in their response and revised manuscript. I would recommend paper for publishing after minor corrections.
It came to my attention that the authors have included references to the publications, which were not peer - reviewed. These references should be omitted to comply with generally accepted standards of scientific publications. Otherwise this paper will not be considered as meeting the accepted standards for scientific publication.
While we appreciate that you would prefer all references to be peer-reviewed, we would like to cite two important papers that have not been peer-reviewed. Many non-peer-reviewed manuscripts have been cited in professional journal papers during the COVID-19 pandemic to help experts bring forth knowledge as quickly as possible. We believe it is fully appropriate to cite research on morphological changes in red blood cells that relate to blood clotting, since SARS-CoV-2 and its spike protein have been shown to be thrombogenic (cause blood clotting in the body) and can directly bind to ACE2 receptors on platelets (Zhang et al., 2020). Even when isolated, the spike protein has been shown to cause endothelial injury (Lei et al., 2021) that can lead to clotting. In addition, we find it fully appropriate to cite a paper investigating the implementation of 5G infrastructure in relation to the initial spread of COVID-19 worldwide. These are the only 2 instances of non-peer-reviewed papers among over 130 citations and references in our review paper. We maintain that they are essential to our thesis. Moreover, we have pointed out in our manuscript that these two papers have not yet been published in peer-reviewed journals, so readers can exercise critical discernment.
I have also noticed the evident incorrectness in the title. As far as millimeter waves is a part of microwaves, which are in turn a part of radiofrequency band, the title should be changed to ''Evidence for a Connection between COVID-19 and Exposure to Radiofrequency Radiation from Wireless Communications Including Millimeter Waves''
We have had several requests to change our paper title for various reasons from reviewers. Our last title was, ''Evidence for a Connection between COVID-19 and Exposure to Radiofrequency Radiation from Wireless Communications Including Microwaves and Millimeter Waves'' We specified ''microwaves and millimeter waves'' because we believe the medical professionals that read this journal are likely to be unfamiliar with conventional physics or engineering nomenclature of the radiofrequency spectrum. We wanted to be certain that readers understood that both microwaves and millimeter waves would be discussed. Based on a different reviewer's recommendation, we propose the following title for the paper, ''Evidence for a Connection between COVID-19 and Exposure to Radiation from Wireless Communications Including 5G''
Finally this is one more comprehensive review of non-thermal effects of millimeter waves, which show their dependence on variety of physical and biological variables, to be cited in this paper [1]. These dependencies are of critical issue as they account for why some studies on millimeter waves biological effects were not replicated. [1] I.Y. Belyaev, V.S. Shcheglov, E.D. Alipov, V.D. Ushalov, Nonthermal effects of extremely high-frequency microwaves on chromatin conformation in cells in vitro - Dependence on physical, physiological, and genetic factors, IEEE Transactions on Microwave Theory and Techniques, 48 (2000) 2172-2179. Thank you for this reference. We have augmented the discussion section of the manuscript as follows, cited this paper, and included the reference:
''RFR bioeffects depend upon specific values of wave parameters including frequency; power density; polarization; exposure duration; modulation characteristics; as well as cumulative history of exposure and background levels of electromagnetic, electric and magnetic fields. In laboratory studies, bioeffects observed also depend upon genetic parameters and physiological parameters such as oxygen concentration (Belyaev et al., 2000). The reproducibility of bioeffects of RFR exposure has sometimes been difficult due to failure to report and/or control all of these parameters.'' Reviewer #3: The authors have responded adequately to my comments, and I recommend publication without reservations. Making changes as suggested by the Editor-in-Chief would also improve the cpontent and structure of the document.
Thank you. We also made all changes as recommended by the Editor-in-Chief in our revision following the first peer-review. Reviewer #8: I stand by my prior review, which is on file with you. I have read the author's response to all the reviewers, and I think that the author has understood the suggestions of these reviewers, and has incorporated their suggested changes, where possible, to make the paper even clearer and better. The author clearly states when a suggested edit was beyond the scope of the paper in a few instances, but she included enough references for people to check out themselves, regarding additional data or studies, or made it clear that such studies have not been done, as far as she knows, but should be done by researchers in the future. So again, I feel that this paper has made its point, that further research on 5G and the non-thermic effects on the body's physiology, need to be studied further and more comprehensively, before 5G is implemented worldwide to blanket the earth, and then makes any future research difficult to do, since soon it will already be in widespread use, and will serve to inhibit most controlled studies, that would then require large faraday shielding cages. And since she clearly shows that this micro and milli-radiation and frequencies, may have additive effects with illnesses such as CoVid and other diseases that effect the tissues (such as lung and blood vessels) and their physiology (such as membrane changes that effect oxygen exchange and CO2 release, or effect the coagulation system, among others), that seems to demand that further scientific controlled studies be done before corporations launch a massive change in the environment that effects micro and macrobiotic organisms, plants, animals, and humans, and changes the Biosphere forever. So I highly support that this paper be published as soon as possible, so that its thesis can be studied and be debated by a much wider scientific audience, and further testing and research can be done, to further investigate these findings and projections for our survival in our collective future
Thank you.
Reviewer #10: - Page 2, introduction section, last paragraph. ''Here we present the evidence suggesting that RFR has been a contributing factor exacerbating COVID-19.'' This is still an unconfirmed hypothesis. The sentence should be reformulated.
This sentence has been removed. The new sentence inserted is, ''We explore the scientific evidence suggesting a possible relationship between COVID-19 and radiofrequency radiation including 5G (fifth generation) of wireless communication technology, henceforth referred to as RFR.'' - Page 3. Lines 31-33. ''Therefore 5G requires base stations and antennas to be much more closely spaced than previous generations''.
It is also true that 5G base stations usually have a lower power than previous generations. This point should be commented by authors.
The operating power of a base station is only one of several parameters determining the actual radiation exposure at a certain location. The directional concentration of RF energy in sector antennas, typically used in 4G base stations, and the highly collimated pencil beam generated by phased array antennas used in 5G greatly increase the so-called equivalent isotropically radiated power (EIRP) and effective radiated power (ERP). ERIP and ERP are much more relevant for estimates of human exposure and user equipment (UE) receiver performance alike.
An accurate determination of a base station's radiated RF power at a certain location is only possible through well-defined measurement protocols, such as the FCC Publication No. 4121721, with specialized and calibrated equipment. Because the power varies from moment to moment, a meaningful measurement must be made continuously and be capable of detecting fast pulses in the microsecond range to determine peak power density, integrate all registered power to derive an average power density and then calculate the peak-to-average power ratio (PAPR) to determine FCC compliance. Furthermore, because the received power varies from location to location due to obstacles in the propagation path and anisotropy in the antenna's radiation pattern, these measurements must be performed at all locations of interest. Such measurements are expensive and impractical and are typically only being performed to settle legal compliance issues.
For practical purposes estimates are produced that offer a rough guidance. These estimates must consider a complex array of determining parameters, such as federally regulated transmitter power limitations, which in turn are determined by the authorized frequency and the EIRP and ERP reflecting the actual gain (directionality) of the particular antenna in use. Additional complicating factors are the allotted bandwidth and the PAPR. As a rule of thumb, the power density from one transmitter at a given location is proportional to EIRP, ERP, PAPR, bandwidth, number of polarizations (horizontal, vertical, circular, etc.), data rate (increases with ever more complex modulation schemes, which require higher received power to function reliably), carrier aggregation (a technique to increase data rate, akin to allocate more bandwidth or operate several channels simultaneously) and inversely proportional to the distance from the base station. Power densities from other transmitters, be they neighboring base stations or the myriad of nearby user equipment (UE) transmitters, superimpose linearly and are additive.
A comparison between 4G and 5G networks must at a minimum take into account the allocated spectrum, allotted bandwidth, permitted EIRP/ERP/PAPR, base station densification and service capacity, a measure of the density of UE transmitters (5G is planned to simultaneously serve up to 1,000-times as many UEs as 4G).
4G and 5G Spectrum and Bandwidth in the US
For spectrum allocation the FCC follows the guidelines of the 3rd Generation Partnership Project2 (3GPP), an umbrella term for a number of standards organizations for developing protocols for wireless communication, including 4G and 5G.
For 4G the 3GPP Technical Specification 36.101 version 17.1.0 released 01-09-20213 lists in Table 5.5-1 the Long Term Evolution (LTE) Operating Bands. 4G bands use microwaves in the range of 617-2,369 MHz with an aggregated base station bandwidth of 414 MHz.
5G uses millimeter-waves in addition to microwaves. The 3GPP is publishing separate specifications for each frequency range designated as Frequency Range 1 (FR 1) and Frequency Range 2 (FR 2). For the 410-7,125 MHz FR 1 used for 5G the 3GPP Technical Specification 38.101-1 version 17.1.0 released 04-13-20214 lists in Table 5.2-1 the New Radio (NR) Operating Bands in FR1 with an aggregated base station bandwidth of 1,471 MHz. For the 24,250-52,600 MHz FR 2 used for 5G the 3GPP Technical Specification 38.104 version 17.1.0 released 04-08-20215 lists in Table 5.2-2 the NR Operating Bands in FR2 with an aggregated base station bandwidth of 3,850 MHz. Together, 5G bands are used in the range of 617-40,000 MHz with an aggregated base station bandwidth of 5,321 MHz.
The above referenced bandwidth allocations are confirmed by a statement on the FCC website under the heading ''America's 5G Future'' that in the 5G high-band (24 '' 47 GHz) ''the FCC is releasing almost 5 gigahertz of 5G spectrum into the market'--more than all other flexible use bands combined'' and in the 5G mid-band '''...we will make more than 600 megahertz available for 5G deployments''. The rollout of 5G has resulted in a 10-fold increase in allocated bandwidth for cellular base stations and user equipment alike.
4G and 5G ERIP, ERP and PAPR Levels in the US.
The FCC legally permitted ERP levels for Cellular Radiotelephone Service are listed in Article 47 of the United States Code (U.S.C.), Section ...22.913 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)6.The average maximum ERP is limited to 500W per channel or 400W/MHz per sector where a sector is typically 120º. With many channels and dozens of MHz of bandwidth per band the legal limit of the total radiated power from a base station can reach into tens of kW. However, the FCC website states on its Consumer Guide page entitled ''Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Fields: Guidelines for Cellular Antenna Sites'' that '''...the majority of cellular or PCS cell sites in urban and suburban areas operate at an ERP of 100 watts per channel or less''. Therefore, the telecommunication industry could increase the ERP approximately 5-fold and still operate within legal limits.
It is important to note that Section ...22.913 regulates only the radiofrequency emission characteristics of a transmitter and does not distinguish between 4G and 5G, which are only different signal transmission protocols.
The 4G and 5G ERIP, ERP and PAPR levels will increase because the touted increase in data throughput for both, 4G and 5G, is in part achieved through ever more complex modulations schemes such as quadrature phase-shift keying (QPSK) and quadrature amplitude modulation (QAM). To achieve higher data throughput QAM can be set to a larger constellation size to increase spectral efficiency. The constellation size is given by the number of constellation points, each of which represents a specific combination of amplitude and phase of the carrier wave. Currently 4G uses QPSK, 16QAM and 64QAM while 5G will additionally use 256QAM and beyond. Electronic noise is the limiting factor to the highest achievable modulation order, which is why the signal strength must be increased to provide a higher signal-to-noise ratio (SNR). However, as the density of UEs increases, so does the man-made noise (to be distinguished from electronic noise), which degrades the SNR due to interference and the ERIP, ERP and PAPR must be further increased. The push to deliver ever more data throughput and serve ever more UEs increases the ERIP, ERP and PAPR levels.
Base station densification and service capacity
A key governing body of the global wireless industry is the International Telecommunication Union (ITU). It is a specialized agency of the United Nations that promotes the shared global use of the radio spectrum. In 2017 the ITU published the report7 ''Minimum Requirements Related to Technical Performance for IMT-2020 Radio Interface(s)'' outlining a 1,000-fold capacity increase. The report stipulates a minimum connection density requirement of 1,000,000 devices per km2. If all devices were evenly distributed in a plane, this calculates to an average density of one wireless device per meter2. 5G small cells using millimeter-waves will have to be placed at most 300m apart as the signal is heavily absorbed by the atmosphere and humidity. Such a small cell covers approximately 70,000m2 and must therefore be able to serve 70,000 devices simultaneously. To achieve such a vast capacity, 5G employs several highly sophisticated schemes, such as massive multiple-input/multiple-output (MIMO), beam forming and beam steering. To implement these schemes, 5G deploys active phased array antennas containing tens, hundreds, even up to 1,000 individual antenna elements, each driven by precisely-controlled transmitter circuitry in very specific power and phase relations. To serve a user, a highly collimated pencil beam is created, dynamically steered toward her device and tracked with it in real time.
We maintain that discussion on this topic that delves into 5G engineering standards, which specify details of the communication protocol, is quite technical and beyond the scope of our manuscript. There are organizations that develop 5G standards containing protocol details including the IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) and ICNIRP (International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection), and we have previously cited and referred to them in the manuscript.
References
1FCC Draft Laboratory Division Publication, Guidelines for Determining the Effective Radiated Power (ERP) and Equivalent Isotropically Radiated Power (EIRP) of a RF Transmitting System. FCC Publication Number 412172, publication date: 08/07/2015.
2The 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) unites seven telecommunications standard development organizations (ARIB, ATIS, CCSA, ETSI, TSDSI, TTA, TTC), known as ''Organizational Partners'' and provides their members with a stable environment to produce the Reports and Specifications that define 3GPP technologies.
33rd Generation Partnership Project, Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access (E-UTRA); User Equipment (UE) radio transmission and reception. Technical Specification 36.101 v17.1.0, released 04-08-2021.
43rd Generation Partnership Project, NR; User Equipment (UE) radio transmission and reception; Part 1: Range 1 Standalone. Technical Specification 38.101-1 v17.1.0, released 04-13-2021.
53rd Generation Partnership Project, NR; Base Station (BS) radio transmission and reception. Technical Specification 38.104 v17.1.0, released 04-08-2021.
6Electronic Code of Federal Regulation, Effective Radiated Power Levels. Title 47 U.S.C., Chapter I, Subchapter B, Part 22, Subpart H, ...22.913. Published at https://www.ecfr.gov/
7International Telecommunication Union, Minimum Requirements Related to Technical Performance for IMT-2020 Radio Interface(s). Report ITU-R M.2410-0, November 2017.
8Mobile & Wireless Forum website: https://www.mwfai.org/about.cfm
- introduction section: ''The new system therefore requires significant densification of 4G infrastructure as well as new 5G antennas that may dramatically increase the population's wireless communications radiation exposure both inside structures and outdoors.'' Some evidence from Switzerland ( doi.org/10.3390/app11083592 ), Sweden (doi:10.3390/app10155280 ), South Korea (doi.org/10.1002/bem.22345), UK (https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0021/214644/emf-test-summary-010321.pdf ) show that the real impact of 5G base stations in urban areas is very limited. How can authors support the hypothesis of a ''dramatic increase'' in the radiation exposure?
The hypothesis of ''dramatic increase'' in radiation exposure is supported by the rationale and sources provided in the above rebuttal statement. The reviewer cited four publications all showing that the real impact of 5G base stations in urban areas is very limited. Here each publication will be addressed individually.
Aertz, et al., In Situ Assessment of 5G NR Massive MIMO Base Station
Exposure in a Commercial Network in Bern, Switzerland
There are several concerns regarding the validity of this publication and its conclusions.
1) The research independence appears questionable. While the authors claim no conflict of interest they acknowledged that ''this work was supported by the Mobile & Wireless Forum (MWF)''. Member companies of the MWF include the largest corporations in the telecommunication industry, such as Apple, Cisco, Ericsson, Huawei, Intel, LG, Motorola, Qualcomm, Samsung, SONY and TCT Mobile. According to its website8, the Mobile & Wireless Forum was established in 1998 and its ''regulatory activities are focused on developing and presenting the views of the mobile industry to regulatory agencies and authorities in a globally coordinated manner.'' MWF appears to act as a political lobbying firm for the telecommunications industry.
2) The authors studied only one 5G frequency at 3.6 GHz within the n78 band (3.3 '' 3.8 GHz). Since 5G will use nearly a dozen frequency bands when fully deployed, the measurements are not representative for the near future.
3) 3.6 GHz is part of the low 5G frequency range FR1 and is in the microwave range, not the millimeter-wave range. The vast 5G speed increases touted by the industry can only be realized in the approximately 10-times higher frequencies of the FR 2 frequency range between 24 '' 43 GHz.
4) The authors chose Switzerland for their measurements. However, Switzerland has one of the most stringent legal limits with regard to public exposure to RF radiation as these limits are based on the precautionary principle. For example, while Switzerland limits the power density to 10 µW/cm2, the US and most other countries around the world permit levels of 450 µW/cm2 or even higher. Selecting Switzerland as a test country does therefore result in measurements that are too low to be useful for global representation.
5) Instead of using the industry standard 6 minutes and 30 minutes time averaging intervals, the authors opted to use only 30 second intervals for ''convenience''. The authors claim they found this much reduced interval sufficiently representative but do not produce supportive data.
6) In the abstract the authors state that the maximum exposure level extrapolated to 200 W antenna input power reaches 4.9 V/m, or 0.6% of the ICNIRP reference level. However, the ICNIRP level is 61 V/m and 4.9 V/m is 8%. Therefore, the authors understate the 5G contributing factor to the overall exposure by more than 10-fold.
7) On page 8 the authors correctly quote the ICNIRP power density reference level to 10W/m2, which is equivalent to 61V/m. However, they then state that their extrapolated maximum field levels reached 0.6 V/m. They say that this value amounts to less than 0.01% of the ICNIRP level, when it is 1%. They miscalculated it by 100-fold as 0.6V/m is approximately 1% of 61V/m. The fact that this easily discernible error, of orders of magnitude, was missed by the peer review process is disconcerting.
Colombi, et al., Analysis of the Actual Power and EMF Exposure from
Base Stations in a Commercial 5G Network
There are several concerns regarding the validity of this publication and its conclusions.
1) The research is not independent. While the authors claim no conflict of interest they also acknowledge that ''this research received no external funding'', meaning that all funding was provided by Ericsson, one of the largest telecommunication equipment manufacturers in the world. These statements are contradictory.
2) The authors studied only one 5G frequency band, the n78 band spanning 3.3 '' 3.8 GHz. Since 5G will use nearly a dozen frequency bands when fully deployed, the measurements provided are not representative for the near future.
3) This study focused on the spatial power distribution from 5G base stations using beamforming techniques. Instead of measuring exposure levels at a certain location, which would measure the actual exposure of a 5G user, the authors employed an Ericsson Network Manager (software) to directly access information on the 5G base station operation. This setup allowed the analysis of the spatial distribution of the base station transmitting power in a three-dimensional space within the scan range of the antenna. It is not clear why direct exposure levels were not measured at representative user locations, which would yield real-world data. Beamforming requires an active user in order to have a signal sent from a 5G base station.
4) Measurements were averaged over the entire range of an antenna panel covering essentially 180º of azimuth angle. The authors then anchor their main arguments to a simplistic equation to calculate, not measure, the average exposure level in equation (1): ERIPact = Gave * Pave
where ERIPact is the calculated ''actual'' ERIP, Gave is the time-averaged gain and Pave is the total, cell-wide, time-averaged transmit power. The ERIP calculated from the product of two time-averaged parameters cannot reflect true temporal exposure patterns and makes it impossible to determine the important peak-to-average power ratio.
5) In the discussion section the authors offer a puzzling and speculative logic to argue against a substantial ERIP increase with the expected increase in 5G users and their vastly increased data demand. While the authors acknowledge that ''Pave is directly related to the amount of downlink traffic'', they argue that Gave will drop as '''...more users will result in an even larger spread of the energy over the antenna scan range, which will contribute to a reduction of Gave'...'', largely compensating for the increased Pave in equation (1) and ''therefore, ERIPact is likely not to increase substantially when increasing the number of users.'' This reasoning is stunningly inaccurate, as an increase in both the number of users and data demand will both contribute to a substantial increase in ERIP and thus increased levels of public exposure.
Selmaoui, et al., Exposure of South Korean Population to 5G Mobile Phone Networks (3.4-3.8 GHz)
This publication has several weaknesses that make an accurate estimation of the true exposure of the South Korean public to the newly rolled out 5G network difficult or impossible.
1) Measurements published in this paper were taken in November 2019, only 6 months after the 5G network was brought online for the public. The authors could not determine the degree of network usage and had to qualify their conclusions by stating that ''it is likely that the 5G network was not being used to its maximum and the number of subscribers was relatively low''. But since the number of users and their transmitted data rate are key metrics to determine user exposure levels, the publication does not permit a quantitative estimation of the ERIP contribution from 5G base stations.
2) The authors studied only one 5G frequency band, the n78 band spanning 3.4 '' 3.8 GHz. Since 5G will use nearly a dozen frequency bands when fully deployed, the measurements are not representative for the near future.
3) The author's main conclusion is that the 5G network contributes only 15% to the total telecommunications emission. However, they acknowledge that measurements taken in the vicinity of a base station yielded 12 V/m and 21 V/m for the antenna's baseline and maximum power, respectively. But this amounts to 20% and 34% of the maximum field strength permitted by ICNIRP. And given that 2G, 3G and 4G networks typically operate well below the maximum permitted ICNIRP levels, these measured levels appear comparable and might even be significantly higher than the existing telecommunication emissions combined. Without more accurate measurements the reader may conclude that the 5G network has the potential to double the public's exposure levels, contrary to the seemingly low contribution of 15% quoted by the authors.
Ofcom, Electromagnetic Field (EMF) measurements near 5G mobile phone base stations, Summary of results. Technical Report '' Version 3, March 2021.
1) The impartiality of the Office of Communication (Ofcom) is questionable. Ofcom is the government-approved regulatory and competition authority for the broadcasting and telecommunications industries of the UK. Recently Ofcom has been marred by the Martin Bashir scandal involving the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC). During the scandal it was revealed that more than half of its board members had links to the BBC, a corporation Ofcom is supposed to regulate. While not specifically linked to the telecommunications industry, Ofcom's pro-industry bias must be considered.
2) For several of the measurements the authors had to choose areas of less than typical user density because of COVID-19 restrictions. These measurements skewed the results toward lower than normal exposure levels.
3) The authors studied only one 5G frequency band, the n78 band spanning 3.41 '' 3.68 GHz. Since 5G will use nearly a dozen frequency bands when fully deployed, the measurements are not representative for the near future.
4) The biggest shortcoming of this study is the failure of the authors to create realistic scenarios of users actually using the 5G network. 5G base stations mainly emit their signals on demand when UEs request service. Since the authors did not create a UE service demand at the measurement location, their probe largely registered radiation not emitted from the 5G base stations. The very small signals attributed to 5G emission likely reflects only radiation scattered from reflecting objects (buildings, trees, etc.) of side lobes of a formed beam serving a UE at a location separate from the monitored location. Because of this shortcoming, the quoted test results for 5G base stations are meaningless.
5) The authors did not indicate the distance of their sensor from a base station. Since the ERIP changes greatly as a function of distance, the data cannot properly be judged as being a realistic and representative mix of near and far distances, the way typical users would be represented.
- Table 1. Authors should include in the ''RFR exposure bioeffects'' listed in this table the frequency and the level (i.e., power density) of exposure linked with each of the cited effects. Authors should also specify if these exposures are below or above the international limits. This information is only partially reported in the text (results section), and is of critical importance.
We created Table 1 to be a visual summary for the reader rather than a comprehensive compilation of data with references. In addition, following our first peer review, we changed the subheadings on the bioeffects in the text to match the Table 1 subheadings. The reader is thus guided to particular sections of the manuscript text to obtain details regarding RFR exposure parameters and literature citations. Since the manuscript has already been changed to be hypothetical, we maintain that this is sufficient.
- As authors confirmed, ''both the very young and the very old populations are the most vulnerable to adverse effects from RFR exposure''. However, since RFR exposure in children is the same than in elderly, this evidence is not in line with epidemiologic data showing divergent COVID-19-related risk in children and in aged people, nor with the hypothesis formulated by authors about the role of RFR in COVID-19 pandemic. Authors should discuss this contradiction.
Children are less vulnerable than adults to the SARS-CoV-2 virus because they have fewer ACE2 receptors, as we explained in our first rebuttal to another reviewer. Elderly adults have the most ACE2 receptors, i.e., more ''targets'' for the virus to enter their cells, and are thus more vulnerable to the virus. Both the very young and the very old populations are the most vulnerable to adverse effects from RFR exposure. Even so, the question of age-related exposure to wireless communication radiation in relation to the pandemic goes beyond the scope of our manuscript.
Reviewer #11: Authors have responded to all of my questions and notes. Now I support the manuscript for the publication.
Thank you.
{There is additional documentation related to this decision letter. To access the file(s), please click the link below. You may also login to the system and click the 'View Attachments' link in the Action column.}
Review of the paper titled ''Evidence for a Connection between COVID-19 and Exposure to Radiofrequency Radiation from Wireless Telecommunications Including Microwaves and Millimeter Waves''
General Comment
The paper is significantly improved. Certain points need to be further refined
Specific Comments
1. The title is not accurate. Mm waves are the highest frequency part of microwaves, and microwaves are the highest frequency part of the wider RF band. Thus they are not different to be named separately. Moreover wireless communications do not emit only RF but ELF as well and the effects are mainly due to the ELFs. The title must be changed to: ''Evidence for a Connection between COVID-19 and Exposure to Radiation from Wireless Communications'' (at the end of the title the authors may add ''including 5G''). For the same reasons, I suggest RFR should be replaced in most places throughout the paper by wireless communications radiation.
As you suggest, we changed the title to, ''Evidence for a Connection between COVID-19 and Exposure to Radiation from Wireless Communications including 5G.''
We defined RFR (radiofrequency radiation) explicitly in our manuscript to mean ''wireless communications radiation,'' and not the entire radiofrequency spectrum. Furthermore, numerous research reports studying the bioeffects of exposure to this part of the electromagnetic spectrum'--the wireless communications spectrum--also refer to it as RFR, so this use of nomenclature and abbreviation ''RFR'' is consistent with other scientific literature on exposure bioeffects.
2. The technical description of 5G should include the frequencies of the ELF pulsations which play by far the most important role in the bioeffects. It would be important if the authors were able to collect information regarding this. If they are unable to find such information it must be reported, (that in spite of their search they found no information regarding the ELF pulsations, although this is an important part of this type of radiation).
ELF pulsations are not part of the 5G protocols per se; rather they may be considered a 'side effect'. Although ELF frequencies are not deliberately designed into the 5G (or 4G) communication protocol and its modulation scheme, polling communications devices use ELF pulsations. For example, the ubiquitous Wi-Fi and DECT (cordless phones) devices each use polling as the basis of their communication protocol. In electronic communication, 'polling' is the periodic checking of a device by other devices to see what state they are in, usually to see whether they are still connected or want to communicate.
One of us (Rubik) measured the radiation pattern of a Wi-Fi router, shown in Fig.1 , and a DECT base station, shown in Fig.2 . The left-hand oscillograms were recorded during idle states and the right-hand ones during user/caller activity. Wi-Fi polls devices within its range at a rate of 10Hz, whereas DECT base stations poll their satellite phones at a rate of 50Hz.
Wi-Fi radiation pulse pattern. No user activity during ''Idle''.
DECT radiation pulse pattern. No phone call during ''Idle''.
4G and 5G per se do not use polling. Rather, they are asynchronous, which is more akin to event-driven mode. However, even asynchronous complex signals will generally have a slew of frequency components. Any ELF manifesting from the complex 5G signals, if present, will result from the superposition of waves from numerous phenomena: 5G's digital modulation, fast-sweeping steered beams, and the rapid multiplexing of a base station's radiation to quasi-simultaneously serve multiple users. Therefore, only careful measurement of 5G installations and active user devices would reveal any resulting ELF signals.
In relation to this question, there is scientific data indicating that pulsed RFR is much more detrimental to biological organisms than continuous-wave (CW) radiation, which the reviewer clearly understands.
The study of non-thermal effects from pulsed versus CW RFR is difficult because of a number of confounding effects from engineering variables, such as frequency, power density, modulation type, pulse rate, pulse rate variation, exposure time, and background or stray electric, magnetic, and electromagnetic levels. Research is further complicated due to individual organisms' genetics, physiology, prior history of exposure, and resilience to RFR. Below we discuss several key papers on this topic.
Pakhomov and Murphy Paper: Review of Russian Research
Historically the former Soviet Union has conducted much more in-depth research in this field than Western industrialized countries. Pakhomov and Murphy, two researchers with military backgrounds, published a seminal paper comprehensively reviewing some 1,200 research reports1. While a great number of specific effects were reported, the brief summary discerns the following trends:
the studies emphasized RF-induced changes in the nervous system function.
Many studies convincingly demonstrated significant bioeffects of pulsed microwaves.
Modulation was often the determining factor in substantial differences between pulsed and CW radiation at comparable time-averaged intensities.
Many bioeffects from low-intensity pulsed microwaves reported clearly pathogenic effects.
The specific mechanisms of interaction are not well understood.
Belyaev Paper: Researched CW and Pulsed RFR, Summarized Details on Pulsed RFR
An in-depth study of non-thermal CW and pulsed RFR was presented by I. Belyaev2. This paper provides an overview of the complex effects of such radiation on various physical and biological parameters. Besides the well-known dependencies on carrier frequency and modulation, the compiled data suggest also dependencies on polarization, intermittence and coherence time of exposure, static magnetic fields, electromagnetic stray fields, genotype, gender, physiological and individual traits, and cell density during exposure. Belyaev offered more detailed findings in his summary, as follows:
biological effect dependence on frequency within specific frequency windows of ''resonance-type''
narrowing of the frequency windows with decreasing intensity
dependence on modulation and polarization
sigmoid dependence on intensity within specific intensity windows including super-low power density comparable to intensities from base stations
thresholds in intensity and exposure time (coherence time)
dependence on duration of exposure and post-exposure time dependence on cell density that suggests cell-to-cell interaction during exposure
dependence on physiological conditions during exposure, such as stage of cell growth, concentration of oxygen and divalent ions, and activity of radicals
dependence on genotype, cell type, and cell line
gender, age, and individual differences
the presence of electromagnetic stray fields during exposure
Semin et al. Paper: Power Level Window Effects and Resonance Effects
Semin5 studied the effect of weak RFR on the stability of DNA's secondary structure in vitro. Samples were exposed to microwave radiation consisting of 25 ms pulses, 1-6 Hz repetition rate and 0.4-0.7 mW/cm2 peak power. The experiments established that irradiation at 3 or 4 Hz and 0.6 mW/cm2 peak power clearly increased the accumulated damage to the DNA's secondary structure (P<0.00001). However, changing the pulse repetition rate to 1, 5, or 6 Hz, as well as changing the peak power to 0.4 or 0.7 mW/cm2, eliminated the effect entirely. Thus, the effect occurred only within narrow ''windows'' of the peak intensities and modulation frequencies.
Franzen Air Force Report3: Physics of Pulsed Microwaves Impinging on Organic Tissue, Brillouin Precursors.
This author investigated the propagation of a 1 GHz wave train of 10 ns duration by Fourier integral transform after impinging on a dielectric media, such as bio-tissue. The study confirmed the creation of so-called Brillouin precursors, which are secondary bursts of energy generated when a microwave pulse of fast rise time enters tissue. Importantly, the Brillouin precursor microwave energy experiences much less absorption than the primary microwave radiation, which is absorbed exponentially. As a result, microwave radiation with fast pulses, such as in digital cellular radiation, travels much deeper into the body than predicted by conventional models. This effect becomes more pronounced with higher frequencies and with faster pulse rise times, both of which are typically proportional to the transmitted data rate. Therefore, the argument that 5G millimeter wave radiation is absorbed within two millimeters of the skin is false.
Albanese, et al.4, showed similar Brillouin precursor generation from periodically pulsed microwave radiation.
Extremely Low Frequency (ELF) Components of Digital Cellular Microwave Radiation
Biological tissue is mostly comprised of water. As such, the tissue presents a lossy dielectric medium for impinging microwave radiation. The complicated waveform of a digitally modulated mobile phone signal can mathematically be viewed as the linear superposition of a myriad of sine waves with varying frequencies and amplitudes, called Fourier analysis. When a wave comprised of different frequency components propagates through a lossy dielectric medium, it experiences dispersion, and the wave decomposes into its Fourier components. (In optics this is the familiar separation of white light into its constituent rainbow of colors.) As a result, numerous frequencies are impacting biological tissue when a modulated microwave is absorbed.
Thus, a complex 5G signal interacting with biological tissue may yield Fourier frequency components in the ELF region. This is the net result of the carrier's digital modulation in combination with fast-sweeping steered beams and the rapid multiplexing of a base station's RF energy to quasi-simultaneously serve multiple users.
Summary and Conclusion
The following was added to the manuscript in the section, Overview on Bioeffects of Radiofrequency Radiation (RFR) Exposure. References 1-4 shown here were also cited and added to the Reference Section.
''Pulsed RFR exhibit substantially differentbioeffects, both qualitatively and quantitatively (generally more pronounced)compared to continuous waves at similar time-averaged power densities. (Pakhomov and Murphy, 2011; Belyaev, 2010; Franzen, 1999; Albanese et al., 1989) The specific interaction mechanisms are not well understood.''
References
1A. Pakhomov and M. Murphy, A Comprehensive Review of the Research on Biological Effects of Pulsed Radiofrequency Radiation in Russia and the Former Soviet Union. DOI: 10.1007/987-1-4615-4203-2_7, July 2011.
2I. Belyaev, Dependence of non-thermal biological effects of microwaves on physical and biological variables: implications for reproducibility and safety standards. European Journal of Oncology '' Library Non-Thermal Effects and Mechanisms of Interaction Between Electromangnetic Fieldds and Living Matter, Vol. 5: 187-218 (2010). An ICEMS Monograph. L. Giuliani and M. Soffritti. Bologna, Italy, Ramazzini Institute. Available at:
http://www.icems.eu/papers.htm?f=/c/a/2009/12/15/MNHJ1B49KH.DTL
3J. Franzen, Wideband Pulse Propagation in Linear Dispersive Bio-Dielectrics Using Fourier Transforms. United States Air Force Research Laboratory, Report No. AFRL-HE-BR-TR-1999-0149, February 1999.
4R. Albanese, J.Penn and R. Medina, ''Short-rise-time Microwave Pulse Propagation Through Dispersive Biological Media,'' J. Opt. Soc. Am. A, vol.6, no.9, pp 1441-1446 (1989)
5Semin, Iu. A., Shvartsburg, L. K., and Dubovik, B. V., Changes in the secondary structure of DNA under the influence of an external low-intensity electromagnetic field, Radiats Biol Radioecol, 35/1: 36-41 (1995).
2. Describe in a few words the '' areas of airspace opacification '... in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia''
The airspace opacities in COVID-19 pneumonia have been characterized as being multi-focal and appearing similar to ground glass, i.e., they are abnormally aerated areas of lung that are not completely filled with fluid or inflammatory exudates and so one can partially see through them.
3. For power densities significantly smaller than 1mW/cm2 (as in descriptions of Magras and Xenos 1997 and others, change the unit to μW/cm2. For example, change 0.0005 '' 0.001 mW/cm2 to 0.5-1 μW/cm2. The antenna park in the Magras and Xenos study was not for mobile telephony antennas. Such antennas are not placed in antenna parks but everywhere. Please check and correct. Also check e-13 mW/cm2 (Belyaev et al., 1996)
The Editor-in-Chief requested that we use mW/cm2 as the unit of power density throughout the manuscript in the first revision that we already made.
We removed ''mobile phone'' in connection with the antenna park in our discussion on the Magras and Xenos study.
We changed the value to 10-13, which we checked, and this is correct (Belyaev et al., 1996).
5. Page 8, left, lines 45-49. In the description of Walleczek (1992) and anywhere else, correct ELF from (<300 Hz) to (<3000 Hz). Even though most ELFs of anthropogenic EMFs are indeed <300 Hz, the correct upper limit of this band is 3000 Hz.
We changed it to <3000 Hz.
6. ''The irregular gating of electrosensitive cell membrane ion channels by coherent, pulsed, oscillating electromagnetic fields was first presented by Panagopoulos, et al., in 2002''. Please describe more accurately: ''The mechanism of irregular gating of voltage-gated ion channels in cell membranes by polarized and coherent, oscillating electric or magnetic fields was first presented by Panagopoulos, et al., in 2000 and 2002'', and add also the citation [Panagopoulos DJ, Messini N, Karabarbounis A, Filippetis AL, and Margaritis LH, (2000): A Mechanism for Action of Oscillating Electric Fields on Cells, Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications, 272(3), 634-640.]
We changed this sentence accordingly and added the citation and reference that you provided: ''The mechanism of irregular gating of voltage-gated ion channels in cell membranes by polarized and coherent, oscillating electric or magnetic fields was first presented in 2000 and 2002 (Panagopoulos et al., 2000; 2002).''
7. It is not accurate to write: ''Pall combined these two observations to propose that low frequency RFR may be causing increased intracellular Ca2+ via the activation of voltage-gated calcium channels (Pall, 2013)''.
Pall did not ''propose'' something that was proposed long ago by others. Moreover you cannot say he ''combined the observations'' since he did not refer to Panagopoulos et al in his paper. Therefore it is accurate to write: ''Pall (2013) in his review of EMF-induced bioeffect studies combined with use of calcium channel blockers, observed/noted that calcium channels play a major role in EMF bioeffects''.
We revised these sentences as follows: ''Pall (2013) in his review of RFR-induced bioeffects combined with use of calcium channel blockers noted that voltage-gated calcium channels play a major role in RFR bioeffects. Increased intracellular Ca+2 results from the activation of voltage-gated calcium channels, and this may be one of the primary mechanisms of action of RFR on organisms.''
8. ''Research has shown that the interaction between a virus and voltage-gated calcium channels promote virus entry at the virus-host cell fusion step. Thus'....''. Provide reference.
We added this citation (Chen et al., 2019) to the manuscript where this sentence appeared. The reference was already in our Reference Section:
Chen, X., R. Cao R and W., Zhong W. 2019. Host Calcium Channels and Pumps in Viral Infections. Cells, 9 (1): 94. DOI:10.3390/cells9010094
9. The ''Potekhina et al. (1992) whole study cannot be found. Without reading the whole paper one cannot conclude whether the described effects were due to the GHz frequency or to ELF pulsations. Does the document state clearly that no modulation or pulsation of the GHz field was present? It is unlikely that any microwave EMF does not contain such components, even in the form of on/off for energy saving reasons. Referring to microwave exposure studies without knowing this information might be very misleading.
The Potekhina et al. (1992) paper is available online only in Russian. Pakhomov et al., 1998, who wrote a review of bioeffects and reviewed the Russian paper, indicated no modulations were used, and we had already cited and provided a reference to this review paper, too. Recently the Potekhina et al. paper was reviewed by Pall (2021), who also reviewed a number of other studies published in Russian. It was clear from both Pakhomov's and Pall's reviews that the Potekhina et al. study involved unmodulated millimeter waves. Moreover, we were able to translate the Russian paper of Potekhina et al. using Google Translate, and we determined that this statement is accurate. We added Pall's 2021 citation and reference to the manuscript.
We modified the sentence summarizing the Potekhina et al. study, adding the word ''unmodulated'': ''Since then many other researchers have concluded that RFR exposure can affect the cardiovascular system. Potekhina et al. (1992) found that certain unmodulated frequencies (55 GHz; 73 GHz) caused pronounced arrhythmia.''
We also added the following sentence at the end of the section on cardiac effects:
''Pall's recent review suggests that millimeter waves may act directly on the pacemaker cells of the sinoatrial node of the heart to change the beat frequency, which may underlie arrhythmias and other heart problems (Pall, 2021).''
Pall M.L. 2021. Millimeter wave and microwave frequency radiation produce deeply penetrating effects: the biology and the physics. Rev Environmental Health, May 26, 2021: 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1515/reveh-2020-0165
The absorption of microwaves by water molecules is no different than the absorption of infrared (heat). The heating effect of microwaves is their only established effect. If a non-thermal mechanism of microwaves exists, it is to be discovered. Now some papers report ''non-thermal effects of microwaves'' without addressing the issue whether the effects were indeed due to the ''microwaves'' or to the inevitably co-existing ELFs. This may be very misleading.
We believe that the statement, ''The absorption of microwaves by water molecules is no different than the absorption of heat,'' is too simplistic. It may apply to pure water, but not to living organisms where the structure and dynamics of intracellular water is intimately connected with the structure and dynamics of biomolecules. Although the heating effect of microwaves is considered by some as their only established bioeffect, numerous researchers have found nonthermal bioeffects of exposure at lower power densities. This is a main thesis of our manuscript, and we have cited and discussed numerous research reports on nonthermal bioeffects. Consider that organisms are approximately 70% water. Moreover, water absorbs broadly in the GHz spectral region and also displays GHz resonant frequencies. Irradiation at water resonant frequencies, of which there are several in the GHz spectral region, including 2.45 GHz, a Wi-Fi router frequency (pulse-modulated at 10 Hz), may elicit bioeffects due to changes in hydration of biomolecules. The dynamics of water in the hydration layer around proteins and other biomolecules play a crucial role in biomolecular structure and function. In fact, dielectric spectroscopy at GHz frequencies is used to investigate the dynamics and structure of hydration water of biomolecules. Consider also that a paper reported that low-intensity radiation of 70.6 and 73 GHz affects E. coli bacterial growth and changes the properties of water, which we discussed in our previously revised manuscript draft [Torgomyan H, Kalantaryan V, Trchounian A. Low intensity electromagnetic irradiation with 70.6 and 73 GHz frequencies affects Escherichia coli growth and changes water properties. 2011. Cell biochemistry and biophysics. 60(3):275-81]. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12013-010-9150-8 ] It is hypothesized that intracellular water thus affected by absorption of GHz radiation affects the hydration of protein molecules in organisms that may alter protein structure and rates of biochemical reactions (Betskii and Lebedeva, 2004).
Thus, continuous wave GHz radiation at low power densities, by making subtle changes in intracellular water structure and protein hydration, could subsequently alter biochemistry and physiology and lead to a variety of bioeffects.
In addition, let us clarify that we stated the RFR signal modulations for the data discussed in our manuscript.
A careful look in the Pakhomov et al 1998 review paper shows that at least in some of the reviewed studies ELFs were present. Yet, this is not reflected in the title or the abstract of the paper. For example, in page 3 they write: ''The Fourier spectrum of these oscillations included two strong peaks, at 5.25 and 46.8 Hz, and these peaks did not change during at least 2 h of experimentation''. Yet, the study is described as investigating mm wave effects'... In most of the studies reviewed in this paper, information on possible existence of ELFs is lacking. Thus, their presence is not excluded. The reported in abstract ''10 mW/cm2 and less'' power density for the reviewed studies is huge, and it is unlikely that thermal effects (which start from ~0.1 mW/cm2) were absent. In the Betskii and Lebedeva 2004 review, such information is lacking throughout the whole paper. It is reported that many of the studies were performed by use of a ''wideband oscillator with an electric tuning of oscillation frequency developed and brought into lot production in the U.S.S.R.''. It is unlikely that this oscillator did not include on/off pulsations, even only for energy saving reasons. When we refer to such studies, knowledge on microwave electronics provided by specialized physicists/engineers is necessary in order to prevent misleading conclusions. Since this information is lacking we cannot conclude that the reported non-thermal effects were due to the microwave frequencies. I suggest such issues should be carefully investigated before statements are made which can possibly be very misleading.
Thus, revise accordingly.
Once again, for the reports that we reviewed in this manuscript, we stated the signal modulations, if any, which were used and reported. We are aware that especially in the early studies, decades ago, the signal parameters were not always fully reported. We also wrote the following revised statement mentioning the role of modulation, among other parameters, in our Discussion Section:
''RFR bioeffects depend upon specific values of wave parameters including frequency; power density; polarization; exposure duration;
modulation characteristics; as well as the cumulative history of exposure and background levels of electromagnetic, electric and magnetic fields. In laboratory studies, bioeffects observed also depend upon genetic parameters and physiological parameters such as oxygen concentration (Belyaev et al., 2000). The reproducibility of bioeffects of RFR exposure has sometimes been difficult due to failure to report and/or control all of these parameters.''
However, as we wrote in other responses in this Second Rebuttal, there is evidence for nonthermal bioeffects of continuous microwaves, unmodulated, for example, on water and the hydration of biomolecules that can subsequently affect their structure and function, and lead to microwave bioeffects, as well as evidence for cardiac arrhythmias due to exposure to continuous millimeter waves.
10. ''Saili et al., (2015) found that exposure to Wi-Fi (2.45 GHz)'....''. Please report that Wi-Fi radiation includes 10 Hz pulsations (see Table 3, Belyaev et al, 2016).
Yes; 10 Hz is the polling frequency of Wi-Fi routers. Earlier in this Second Rebuttal we defined polling frequency. We changed this sentence accordingly: ''Saili et al., (2015) found that exposure to Wi-Fi (2.45 GHz pulsed at 10 Hz) affects heart rhythm, blood pressure, and the efficacy of catecholamines on the cardiovascular system, indicating that RFR can act directly and/or indirectly on the cardiovascular system.''
11. Page 11, DECT is Digitally Enhanced Cordless Telecommunications. Please check and correct.
Thank you; we changed this sentence accordingly.
3rd editorial decision
03-Aug-2021
Ref.: Ms. No. JCTRes-D-21-00034R2
Evidence for a Connection between COVID-19 and Exposure to Radiofrequency Radiation from Wireless Communications Including 5G
Journal of Clinical and Translational Research
Dear Dr. Rubik,
Reviewers have now commented on your paper. You will see that they are advising that you revise your manuscript. If you are prepared to undertake the work required, I would be pleased to reconsider my decision.
For your guidance, reviewers' comments are appended below.
If you decide to revise the work, please submit a list of changes or a rebuttal against each point which is being raised when you submit the revised manuscript. Also, please ensure that the track changes function is switched on when implementing the revisions. This enables the reviewers to rapidly verify all changes made.
Your revision is due by Sep 02, 2021.
To submit a revision, go to https://www.editorialmanager.com/jctres/ and log in as an Author. You will see a menu item call Submission Needing Revision. You will find your submission record there.
Yours sincerely
Michal Heger
Editor-in-Chief
Journal of Clinical and Translational Research
Reviewers' comments:
Reviewer #1: The authors have sufficiently addressed my comments and I would recommend the paper for publishing.
In my opinion, comprehensive reviewing the issue of 5G exposure in response of authors to the Reviewer 10 deserves to be published in a separate paper.
Reviewer #5: Review of the revised paper titled ''Evidence for a Connection between COVID-19 and Exposure to Radiofrequency Radiation from Wireless Communications Including 5G''
Comments on 2nd revision
Although the authors are clearly no experts on the physical parameters of these radiation types, for reasons unknown and despite my repeating comments, they insist on calling this complex radiation ''RFR''. This is misinformation. The whole technique of multiplexing (different tasks from different users accommodated simultaneously by 2G/3G/4G/5G antennas) is based on ELF pulsations. Moreover there is no microwave generator that is not turned on and off for energy saving reasons and this represents additional pulsations. Thus, it is not only the periodic checking of a device by base antennas ('polling'), but several more types of ELF pulsations, plus ELF/VLF modulation, plus random variability of the signal mainly in the ULF (0-3 Hz) band. The authors completely ignored the wi-fi pulsations before my comments. Now they provided recordings from wi-fi and DECT which (of course) show nothing but pulsations. The carrier RF wave is within those pulses. It is exactly the same with any form of modern digital wireless communications. The DECT pulsations are not known to be 50 Hz but 100 Hz and 200 Hz (see Pedersen 1997). Since the authors claim that there are no ''per se'' pulsations in 4G, 5G, why don't they take similar recordings from corresponding cell phones to see whether there are pulsations or not, plus intense ULF/ELF/VLF variability of the signals. These types of radiation do not exist without pulsations/ELF components (see Pirard and Vatovez for recordings of such signals). A continuous wave RF signal alone has no applications, in other words, it is useless. It is the modulation/pulsations that make it perform its task to convey information. The information is ALWAYS within the ELF modulation which is ALWAYS combined with pulsations in digital telecom signals. Therefore the experiments in the Russian studies that the authors repeatedly refer to, obviously, for unknown reasons, they have not reported the ELF components which existed, otherwise they tested signals which have no applications. In other words these studies are of dubious quality which we cannot know for sure since the originals are in Russian and most of the available information is from reviews of other Russian scientists. The authors should not refer to studies that are not fully available in English, like Potekhina et al. (1992) and others. There is a huge amount of work in the western world having tested the bioactivity of the RF and ELF parameters of complex RF signals which is much more reliable than the mistranslated Russian studies. Most (if not all) of these studies have shown that the ELF pulsations/modulation are by far the bioactive factor and not the (non-modulated) carrier RF signals alone (Blackman et al 1980; Frei et al 1988; Huber et al 2002). Moreover there have been series of replication studies on Russian reports which have reported inability to reproduce the reported effects of non-modulated microwave/mm wave signals (one example is Furia et al 1986).
The authors must replace ''Radiofrequency Radiation'' (RFR) by ''Radiation from Wireless Communications'' throughout their paper, otherwise their paper is misleading. On the one hand they speak of a possible connection between the pandemic and the extreme levels of the telecom signals which may be important for public health protection, and on the other hand they give a false impression that the adverse effects are due to the RF carrier, pulling away the attention from the true bioactive components which are the ELFs.
Most studies reviewed by Pall 2013 are ELF studies. Still the authors describe his review as referring to ''RFR''. It seems that the authors do not see anything else but RFR.
Now the authors referred to Pall (2021). This is a deeply flawed paper as described in Panagopoulos (2021). I suggest they exclude it completely otherwise they must also refer to the criticism on this paper. Referring to a paper which is officially criticized by a peer-reviewed letter to the editor, without referring to the criticism is inappropriate.
In conclusion, I insist that the authors revise their paper addressing every point I reported in my previous comments, plus the above points. Otherwise their paper is misleading and I cannot suggest acceptance. Of course it is for the editor to decide.
References Blackman CF., Benane SG, Elder JA, House DE, Lampe JA, and Faulk JM, (1980): ''Induction of calcium - ion efflux from brain tissue by radiofrequency radiation: Effect of sample number and modulation frequency on the power - density window''. Bioelectromagnetics, 1, 35 - 43.
Frei M., Jauchem J, Heinmets F, (1988): Physiological Effects of 2.8 GHz Radio-Frequency Radiation: A Comparison of Pulsed and Continuous-Wave Radiation, Journal of Microwave Power and Electromagnetic Energy, 23, 2.
Furia L, Hill DW, and Gandhi OP, (1986): Effect of Millimeter Wave Irradiation on Growth of Saccaromyces Cerevisiae'', IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, 33, 993-999.
Huber R, Treyer V, Borbely AA, Schuderer J, Gottselig JM, Landolt HP, Werth E, Berthold T, Kuster N, Buck A, Achermann P. (2002): Electromagnetic fields, such as those from mobile phones, alter regional cerebral blood flow and sleep and waking EEG. J Sleep Res. 11(4):289-95.
Panagopoulos DJ, (2021): Comments on Pall's ''Millimeter (MM) wave and microwave frequency radiation produce deeply penetrating effects: the biology and the physics'', Rev Environ Health, doi: 10.1515/REVEH-2021-0090. Online ahead of print.
Pedersen GF, (1997): Amplitude modulated RF fields stemming from a GSM/DCS-1800 phone, Wireless Networks 3, 489-498
Pirard W, and Vatovez B, Study of Pulsed Character of Radiation Emitted by Wireless Telecommunication Systems, Institut scientifique de service public, Li¨ge, Belgium. (available in: https://www.issep.be/wp-content/uploads/7IWSBEEMF_B-Vatovez_W-Pirard.pdf )
Reviewer #10: No further comment.
There is additional documentation related to this decision letter. To access the file(s), please click the link below. You may also login to the system and click the 'View Attachments' link in the Action column.
Author's response
Reviewers' Comments
Review of the revised paper titled ''Evidence for a Connection between COVID-19 and Exposure to Radiofrequency Radiation from Wireless Communications Including 5G''
Comments on 2nd revision
Although the authors are clearly no experts on the physical parameters of these radiation types, for reasons unknown and despite my repeating comments, they insist on calling this complex radiation ''RFR''. This is misinformation. The whole technique of multiplexing (different tasks from different users accommodated simultaneously by 2G/3G/4G/5G antennas) is based on ELF pulsations. Moreover there is no microwave generator that is not turned on and off for energy saving reasons and this represents additional pulsations. Thus, it is not only the periodic checking of a device by base antennas ('polling'), but several more types of ELF pulsations, plus ELF/VLF modulation, plus random variability of the signal mainly in the ULF (0-3 Hz) band. The authors completely ignored the wi-fi pulsations before my comments. Now they provided recordings from wi-fi and DECT which (of course) show nothing but pulsations. The carrier RF wave is within those pulses. It is exactly the same with any form of modern digital wireless communications. The DECT pulsations are not known to be 50 Hz but 100 Hz and 200 Hz (see Pedersen 1997).
We greatly appreciate the reviewer's constructive criticism, and we will address all of the remaining issues in this Third Rebuttal.
The oscillogram that we showed in Figure 2 of the Second Rebuttal depicted the actual measurement of a DECT 6.0 base station showing 50 Hz pulses. In response to the reviewer's critique of the pulsation rate that we found, we repeated the measurement using a different DECT phone base, because the original DECT phone base that we had tested was no longer available to us. This time we used a Uniden DECT 6.0 base, model no. DECT 1588, manufactured in 2008. The pulsation rate was indeed 100 Hz, as the reviewer stated is the DECT pulsation rate. We are puzzled as to why we originally measured 50 Hz with the previous DECT phone base.
Since the authors claim that there are no ''per se'' pulsations in 4G, 5G, why don't they take similar recordings from corresponding cell phones to see whether there are pulsations or not, plus intense ULF/ELF/VLF variability of the signals. These types of radiation do not exist without pulsations/ELF components (see Pirard and Vatovez for recordings of such signals). A continuous wave RF signal alone has no applications, in other words, it is useless. It is the modulation/pulsations that make it perform its task to convey information. The information is ALWAYS within the ELF modulation which is ALWAYS combined with pulsations in digital telecom signals.
The reviewer wrote, ''The authors claim that there are no 'per se' pulsations in 4G, 5G.'' Please let us clarify our viewpoint and understanding. Previously the reviewer requested a ''technical description of 5G (that) should include the frequencies of the ELF pulsations which play by far the most important role in the bioeffects''.However, after investigating the standards documentation on 5G, we found no mention of these ELF in the 5G protocol . In other words, ELF pulsations or other modulations are apparently not part of the 5G protocol itself, or else this may be proprietary and not in the public domain. Nonetheless, we fully agree with the reviewer that the information in wireless communications radiation is carried by pulsing or other modulations. The various multiplexing schemes employed in telecommunication signalling give rise to ELF components, even though the carrier frequency may be in the GHz range.
We added the following material to the manuscript that starts at the bottom of page 3 - 4.
'''...organisms lack the ability to adapt to heightened levels of unnatural radiation of wireless communications technology with digital modulations that include short intense pulses (bursts).''
The following was added to the manuscript on page 4, along with 4 new references added to the manuscript for these citations (Lin-Liu and Adey, 1982; Penafiel et al., 1997; Huber et al. 2002; Panagopoulos, 2021).
''All types of wireless communications employ ELFs in the modulation of the radiofrequency carrier signals, typically pulses to increase the capacity of information transmitted. This combination of radiofrequency radiation with ELF modulation(s), is generally more bioactive, as it is surmised that organisms cannot readily adapt to such rapidly changing wave forms (Lin-Liu & Adey, 1982; Penafiel et al., 1997; Huber et al., 2002; Panagopoulos et al., 2002). Therefore, the presence of ELF components of radiofrequency waves from pulsing or other modulations must be considered in studies on the bioeffects of wireless communications radiation. Unfortunately, the reporting of such modulations has been unreliable, especially in older studies (Panagopoulos, 2021).''
Therefore the experiments in the Russian studies that the authors repeatedly refer to, obviously, for unknown reasons, they have not reported the ELF components which existed, otherwise they tested signals which have no applications. In other words these studies are of dubious quality which we cannot know for sure since the originals are in Russian and most of the available information is from reviews of other Russian scientists. The authors should not refer to studies that are not fully available in English, like Potekhina et al. (1992) and others.
We removed this reference, Potekhina et al. (1992), and this sentence from the manuscript that was previously on page 10:
''Potekhina et al. (1992) found that certain unmodulated frequencies (55 GHz; 73 GHz) caused pronounced arrhythmia.''
There is a huge amount of work in the western world having tested the bioactivity of the RF and ELF parameters of complex RF signals which is much more reliable than the mistranslated Russian studies. Most (if not all) of these studies have shown that the ELF pulsations/modulation are by far the bioactive factor and not the (non-modulated) carrier RF signals alone (Blackman et al 1980; Frei et al 1988; Huber et al 2002). Moreover there have been series of replication studies on Russian reports which have reported inability to reproduce the reported effects of non-modulated microwave/mm wave signals (one example is Furia et al 1986).
We understand that studies on the bioeffects of invariant signals (continuous radiofrequency waves) are not equivalent to studies on bioeffects of modulated wireless communication radiation. We agree with you about the failure in some early Russian reports to reveal these important modulation parameters.
On page 4, we included this sentence in the paragraph where we discuss ELF modulations:
''Unfortunately, the reporting of such (ELF) modulations has been unreliable, especially in older studies (Panagopoulos, 2021).''
On page 13 in the Discussion Section, we added this paragraph, because it points to the complexity of real world wireless communications signals, even from a single wireless device, and the Panagopoulos, 2016 reference was also added:
''Finally, there is an inherent complexity to the WCR (Wireless communications radiation) that makes it very difficult to fully characterize wireless signals in the real world that may be associated with adverse bioeffects. Real world digital communication signals, even from single wireless devices, have highly variable signals: variable power density, frequency, modulation, phase, and other parameters changing constantly and unpredictably each moment, as associated with the short, rapid pulsations used in digital wireless communication (Panagopoulos et al., 2016). For example, in using a mobile phone during a typical phone conversation, the intensity of emitted radiation varies significantly each moment depending on signal reception, number of subscribers sharing the frequency band, location within the wireless infrastructure, presence of objects and metallic surfaces, ''speaking'' versus ''non-speaking'' mode, among others. Such variations may reach 100% of the average signal intensity. The carrier radiofrequency constantly changes between different values within the available frequency band. The greater the amount of information (text, speech, internet, video, etc.), the more complex the communication signals become. Therefore, we cannot estimate accurately the values of these signal parameters including ELF components or predict their variability over time. Thus, studies on the bioeffects of wireless communications radiation in the laboratory can only be representative of real world exposures (Panagopoulos et al., 2016).''
The following discussion goes beyond the scope of our manuscript, but we wish to mention it here, since we enjoyed reading the references provided by the reviewer and thinking about possible mechanisms of action.
Since modulations including short intense pulsations are involved in wireless communications radiation, one hypothesis for a mechanism is that organisms act as dispersive and lossy media for this radiation. As a result, the impinging complex waveform may decompose into its various frequency components and thus partially demodulate the signals, such that ELF may emerge and act as a key bioactive component (Pirard and Vatovez, 2012, page 27) (NB: this reference was provided by the reviewer). An alternative hypothesis, also proposed by Pirard and Vatovez, is that there is a ''cumulated influence of all the (frequency) components because the human body could possibly not be able to discriminate within the spectrum of the signal,so that the effects of the envelope shape (e.g. pulsed variations of the amplitude) would need to be defined (Pirard and Vatovez, 2012, page 27). Further research is needed to test comparatively these hypotheses.
If organisms can indeed demodulate wireless communication radiation signals such that bioeffects may be due to component frequencies, the rapid digitally pulsed waves of wireless communications radiation would yield numerous Fourier frequency components. The faster the rise and fall times of a ''pulse,'' the greater the number of Fourier frequency components. These would include a large number of ELF component waves that may be bioactive.
This discussion on the possible mechanisms of action of the bioeffects goes beyond the scope of our manuscript, so we did not add any material on this topic. Nonetheless, the interested reader will find it here in the Peer Review section of the publication.
The authors must replace ''Radiofrequency Radiation'' (RFR) by ''Radiation from Wireless Communications'' throughout their paper, otherwise their paper is misleading. On the one hand they speak of a possible connection between the pandemic and the extreme levels of the telecom signals which may be important for public health protection, and on the other hand they give a false impression that the adverse effects are due to the RF carrier, pulling away the attention from the true bioactive components which are the ELFs.
We are aware that each scientific and engineering discipline has a different language and jargon to describe physical phenomena. Engineers, among others, might find it misleading to call it ''RFR'' (radiofrequency radiation). Our paper aimed for JTCR is interdisciplinary and largely for a medical audience. As we explained in our Second Rebuttal, the health and medical science literature has typically utilized ''RFR'' or simply ''RF'' as an ''umbrella'' term for wireless communications radiation. Nonetheless, we changed our terminology throughout the manuscript, where appropriate, removing the term ''RFR'' and substituting ''WCR'' (wireless communications radiation). Here is the revised paragraph on page 2 where we first introduce the new terminology, and softened the language a bit, adding the words, ''possible,'' ''may be'' and ''potentially,'' which renders the thesis of our manuscript more hypothetical: ''We explore the scientific evidence suggesting a possible relationship between COVID-19 and radiofrequency radiation related to wireless communications technology including 5G (fifth generation of wireless communication technology), henceforth referred to as WCR (wireless communications radiation). WCR has already been recognized as a form of environmental pollution and physiological stressor (Balmori, 2009). Assessing the potentially detrimental health effects of WCR may be crucial to develop an effective, rational public health policy that may help expedite eradication of the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, because we are on the verge of worldwide 5G deployment, it is critical to consider the possible damaging health effects of WCR before the public is potentially harmed.''
Most studies reviewed by Pall 2013 are ELF studies. Still the authors describe his review as referring to ''RFR''. It seems that the authors do not see anything else but RFR.
We acknowledge that most studies reviewed by Pall (2013) involve ELF. However, fourteen of the 116 references in Pall's 2013 review involve radiofrequency, microwave, and millimeter wave bioeffects.
We modified the manuscript on page 10 accordingly: ''CCBs also block the increase of intracellular Ca2+ caused by WCR (wireless communications radiation) exposure as well as exposure to other electromagnetic fields (Pall, 2013).''
Now the authors referred to Pall (2021). This is a deeply flawed paper as described in Panagopoulos (2021). I suggest they exclude it completely otherwise they must also refer to the criticism on this paper. Referring to a paper which is officially criticized by a peer-reviewed letter to the editor, without referring to the criticism is inappropriate.
Thank you for this information. We were previously unaware of the Panagopoulos (2021) critique. We have removed all citations to Pall (2021) and also removed the reference from our manuscript.
In conclusion, I insist that the authors revise their paper addressing every point I reported in my previous comments, plus the above points. Otherwise their paper is misleading and I cannot suggest acceptance. Of course it is for the editor to decide.
We also added more detailed information to this paragraph in the manuscript about 5G (number of phased array antennas, 64 - 256 and performance up to 10x that of 4G) that appears on page 2, as follows:
''The 5G standard specifies all key aspects of the technology, including frequency spectrum allocation, beam-forming, beam steering, multiplexing MIMO (multiple in, multiple out) schemes, as well as modulation schemes, among others. 5G will utilize from 64 to 256 antennas at short distances to serve virtually simultaneously a large number of devices within a cell. The latest finalized 5G standard, Release 16, is codified in the 3GPP published Technical Report TR 21.916 and may be downloaded from the 3GPP server at https://www.3gpp.org/specifications. Engineers claim that 5G will offer performance up to 10 times that of current 4G networks (Lin, 2020).''
We have addressed every point of the reviewer in three rebuttals. Should we inadvertently have missed a point, please inform us, and we shall correct it accordingly. We appreciate the reviewer's critique, especially the reference to relevant papers and acknowledge the significant effort it must have taken.
References:
Huber R, Treyer V, Borbely AA, Schuderer J, Gottselig JM, Landolt HP, Werth E, Berthold T, Kuster N, Buck A, Achermann P. (2002): Electromagnetic fields, such as those from mobile phones, alter regional cerebral blood flow and sleep and waking EEG. J Sleep Res. 11(4):289-95.
Lin, J.C. 2020. 5G Communications Technology and Coronavirus Disease. IEEE Microwave 21(9): 16-19.
Lin-Liu, S., and Adey, W.R. (1982). Low frequency amplitude modulated microwave fields change calcium efflux rates from synaptosomes. Bioelectromagnetics, 3(3), 309''322.
Panagopoulos DJ, (2021): Comments on Pall's ''Millimeter (MM) wave and microwave frequency radiation produce deeply penetrating effects: the biology and the physics'', Rev Environ Health. doi: 10.1515/REVEH-2021-0090. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 34246201
Panagopoulos, D.J., Cammaerts, M.C., Favre, D., & Balmori, A. (2016) Comments on environmental impact of radiofrequency fields from mobile phone base stations, Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology, 46:9, 885-903. DOI: 10.1080/10643389.2016.1182107
Panagopoulos, D.J., Karabarbounis, A., and Margaritis, L.H. (2002). Mechanism for action of electromagnetic fields on cells. Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications, 298 (1), 95''102.
Penafiel, L.M., Litovitz, T., Krause, D., Desta, A., and Mullins, M.J. (1997). Role of modulation on the effect of microwaves on ornithine decarboxylase activity in L929 cells. Bioelectromagnetics, 18(2), 132''141.
Pirard, W., and Vatovez, B. 2012. Study of Pulsed Character of Radiation Emitted by Wireless Telecommunication Systems, Institut scientifique de service public, Li¨ge, Belgium. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Workshop on Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields 8-12 October, 2012: 1-27. https://www.issep.be/wp-content/uploads/7IWSBEEMF_B-Vatovez_W-Pirard.pdf
References
Blackman CF., Benane SG, Elder JA, House DE, Lampe JA, and Faulk JM, (1980): ''Induction of calcium - ion efflux from brain tissue by radiofrequency radiation: Effect of sample number and modulation frequency on the power - density window''. Bioelectromagnetics, 1, 35 - 43.
Frei.
Furia L, Hill DW, and Gandhi OP, (1986): Effect of Millimeter Wave Irradiation on Growth of Saccaromyces Cerevisiae'', IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, 33, 993-999.
Huber R, Treyer V, Borbely AA, Schuderer J, Gottselig JM, Landolt HP, Werth E, Berthold T, Kuster N, Buck A, Achermann P. (2002): Electromagnetic fields, such as those from mobile phones, alter regional cerebral blood flow and sleep and waking EEG. J Sleep Res. 11(4):289-95.
Panagopoulos DJ, (2021): Comments on Pall's ''Millimeter (MM) wave and microwave frequency radiation produce deeply penetrating effects: the biology and the physics'', Rev Environ Health, doi: 10.1515/REVEH-2021-0090. Online ahead of print.
Pedersen GF, (1997): Amplitude modulated RF fields stemming from a GSM/DCS-1800 phone, Wireless Networks 3, 489''498
Pirard W, and Vatovez B, Study of Pulsed Character of Radiation Emitted by Wireless Telecommunication Systems, Institut scientifique de service public, Li¨ge, Belgium. (available in: https://www.issep.be/wp-content/uploads/7IWSBEEMF_B-Vatovez_W-Pirard.pdf)
4th editorial decision
25-Aug-2021
Ref.: Ms. No. JCTRes-D-21-00034R3
Evidence for a Connection between COVID-19 and Exposure to Radiofrequency Radiation from Wireless Communications Including 5G
Journal of Clinical and Translational Research
Dear authors,
I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been accepted for publication in the Journal of Clinical and Translational Research.
You will receive the proofs of your article shortly, which we kindly ask you to thoroughly review for any errors.
Thank you for submitting your work to JCTR.
Kindest regards,
Michal Heger
Editor-in-Chief
Journal of Clinical and Translational Research
Comments from the editors and reviewers:
payloads for rss
Sat, 19 Feb 2022 23:02
Adam Curry: payloadhttp://radio.weblogs.com/0001014/categories/payload/Adam Currys rss enclosure test channelen-usCopyright 2004 Adam CurrySun, 27 Jun 2004 16:23:38 GMThttp://backend.userland.com/rssRadio UserLand v8.0.9b2adam@curry.comadam@curry.comrssUpdates 12350461960collaborative audio booksAbout a week and a half ago I stumbled onto AKMA's brilliant <a href="http://akma.disseminary.org/archives/001253.html">idea</a> to create an audio-book version of Lawrence Lessig's new book "<a href="http://free-culture.org/index.html">Free Culture</a>". Bloggers quickly signed up to the collaborative by claiming chapters to read in the posting's comments.I arrived a bit late to the party, so I didn't get to read a chapter, although there is plenty of room for alternative voices and reads, but that's for later.I'm a big believer in audio books and 'read' this way frequently. I just finished Dan Brown's '<a href="http://www.audible.com/adbl/store/product.jsp?BV_SessionID=@@@@1955256185.1081010988@@@@&BV_EngineID=cccjadcldmjggkecefecegedfhfdgfi.0&uniqueKey=1081011004352&productID=BK_RAND_000266">The DaVinci Code</a>' in about 2 week's time of travelling to my morning radio show whilst listeing in the car. I use my iPod and the <a href="http://www.thinkdifferentstore.com/product_info.php?products_id=250">iTrip</a>, a snap-on fm-transmitter, so I can enjoy the reading on my car's stereo. It's also much safer.I listen to lots of stuff on my iPod besides music and audio books. There are <a href="http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/lydon/specialRssFeed">interviews</a> and archives of old radio shows. There's even an <a href="http://radio.weblogs.com/0001014/categories/dailyAudioBible/rss.xml">audio bible</a>.Downloading these files and getting them onto my iPod was a tedious task. Clicking and waiting for hundreds of megabytes to be transferred just doesn't cut the mustard. Not at least, from a broadcaster's perspective. I believe there is a market for subscription based audio and video. As long as it requires no intervention from the user other than clicking the play button for instantaneous playback.That's where <a href="http://www.thetwowayweb.com/payloadsforrss">rss enclosures</a> come in. The concept results in a subscribable service that delivers new content to your news aggregator. Additional <a href="http://www.blognewsnetwork.com/members/0000001/2003/08/31.html#a4390">'glue'</a> gets it onto the desired playback system automatically.This is how I receive a new verse from the bible every day on my iPod. It's always there for me in the morning when I take my iPod from it's dock. No intervention required on my part. The same process can be created with video files that are sent to a TiVo.Today I created an <a href="http://radio.weblogs.com/0001014/categories/freeCulture/rss.xml">rss feed</a> for the Free Culture audio-book project. Subscribing to it with an <a href="http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/directory/5/aggregators/enclosureawareAggregators">enclosure aware aggregator</a> will download all the files you need to assemble the audio book.A logical followup to this project would be more <i>multiple reader</i> audio books. These could be delivered in <i>one go</i> as with the Free Culture feed, or they could be by subscription, where a new chapter is delivered daily. Regardless of your reading pace, the content will always be there when you are ready for it, not the other way around.Ofcourse non of this would have been possible without Lessig's gracious Creative Commons <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/1.0/">license</a>.This brings me to the <a href="http://www.gutenberg.net/find.php">Project Gutenberg</a>. A collaborative project that catalogues the texts of books that are old enough to qualify as a part of the <a href="http://www.gutenberg.net/faq/C-8.shtml">public domain</a>. <a href="http://www.gutenberg.net/faq/C-10.shtml">Most</a> are 100 years old, but there are many extremely recognizable <a href="http://www.gutenberg.net/cgi-bin/search/t9.cgi?subject=Children's%20literature">titles</a> and <a href="http://www.gutenberg.net/cgi-bin/search/t9.cgi?author=mark+twain&title=&whole=yes&browse=25">authors</a>. Many are classics that can still be enjoyed by new audiences today, as they have for decades. I was pleasantly surprised to find that the Tom Swift <a href="http://www.gutenberg.net/cgi-bin/search/t9.cgi">series</a>, which i read a a kid, are now in the public domain.The Free Culture audio-book experiment showed me how quickly and efficiently this type of content can be produced, I am certain the model can be replicated with content from Project Gutenberg and hope to discuss this concept with others at <a href="http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/bloggerCon/">BloggerCon II</a>.http://radio.weblogs.com/0001014/categories/payload/2004/04/03.html#a5477Sat, 03 Apr 2004 17:34:19 GMToperation iraqi convertible"It appears to be fornecation in a convertible sir." Another awesome <a href="http://live.curry.com/mpg/OH-58D-JRTC-Fun.avi">video</a> shot from an attack helicopter.http://radio.weblogs.com/0001014/categories/payload/2004/03/15.html#a5370Mon, 15 Mar 2004 09:41:11 GMTrss enclosures growing<img src="http://www.blognewsnetwork.com/members/0000001/images/2004/03/14/enclosureDL.jpg" align="right" border=0>Andrew Cochran interviewed Dave Winer last year at a conference. A lot of the conversation is about "rss", specifically <a href="http://www.thetwowayweb.com/payloadsforrss">enclosures</a>. Fun to see this 22 meg file had already downloaded and was sitting there waiting for me in my iPod when I awoke. Marcus wrote a <a href="http://radio.weblogs.com/0001014/2003/10/20.html#a4644">script</a> for me last year that takes an rss enclosure that ends with .mp3 and automagically adds it to a special iPod playlist once it's been downloaded.I've also been testing <a href="http://grumet.net/weblog/archives/2004/03/11/000692.html">Andrew's</a> BitTorrent glue. Works as advertised!http://radio.weblogs.com/0001014/categories/payload/2004/03/14.html#a5361Sun, 14 Mar 2004 09:17:43 GMTjourney to marsA beautiful quicktime movie of the Spirit's journey to mars.http://radio.weblogs.com/0001014/categories/payload/2004/01/17.html#a5091Sat, 17 Jan 2004 18:45:49 GMTare they crooked?I <a href="http://feeds.scripting.com/viewSharedFeeds?source=1c7f1d6278d9daf402e5c6f5f7eee8e0&op=View">see</a> there's a few folks subscribed to my payload channel. An enclosure for y'all today.http://radio.weblogs.com/0001014/categories/payload/2004/01/04.html#a5022Sun, 04 Jan 2004 18:09:27 GMTToday is Sinterklaas in the Netherlands. Although the country celebrates Christmas and giftgiving on the 25th, this tradition looks similar, but has a totally <a href="http://www-astro.physics.ox.ac.uk/~erik/sint/sint.html#explanation">different</a> background. Sinterklaas was indeed a real guy: St. Nikolaus and he really was a bishop and he became famous as an infant because he allegedly stopped drinking his mothers breast milk when it was time to fast.... The story goes that when he was a bishop he once saved three young women from their dismal life of prostitution by tossing gold coins through their window, which landed in their shoes. Today the tradition of children placing their (wooden) shoes by the window to receive treats and gifts is clearly related to the legend. Not quite sure about the White horse, the headquarters in Spain or the politically incorrect 'Black Piets" that are his helpers.And in 2003 we've even got a <a href="http://www.boomchicago.nl/images/zwarte_rap_1.wmv">rap video</a> for SInt.http://radio.weblogs.com/0001014/categories/payload/2003/12/05.html#a4879Fri, 05 Dec 2003 07:48:54 GMTeuropean anthemKewl, I just found the <a href="http://europa.eu.int/abc/symbols/anthem/index_en.htm">European Anthem</a>. No words [intenionally], but quite a familiar <a href="http://europa.eu.int/abc/symbols/anthem/sounds/anthem-96kbps.mp3">piece</a> of music.http://radio.weblogs.com/0001014/categories/payload/2003/12/03.html#a4871Wed, 03 Dec 2003 08:45:11 GMTexnodes for sale<a href="http://euro.weblogs.com/members/0000002/">Marcus</a> turned me onto the <a href="http://loci.cs.utk.edu/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=35">IBPvo</a> project that uses <a href="http://www.syllabus.com/news_issue.asp?id=153&IssueDate=10/30/2003">LoRS</a>. Without a doubt something big media companies will want to take a look at. Currently you can set a 'vcr' to record any television program, and download it super fast from distributed nodes. I can't get access to the system because it is intended for scholastic and research purposes only and I guess I don't qualify. I was hoping to figure out a way to attach an exnode (that's the file (200kb) you receive in the mail when your recorded program is ready for watching) as an enclosure in an RSS feed. I <a href="http://www.blognewsnetwork.com/members/0000001/2003/11/15.html#a4777">will pay</a> for access to such a system/service/feed. Feel free to send me any exnodes you have layin' around :)The more I play around with this system, the more perfect it seems for RSS enclosures. When you store a file, it has a <i>lease</i> of 1 day before it is purged from the system. More than enough time for an aggregator to download the file and store a local copy. Self cleansing distribution and storage!I've attached an exnode of an mp3 if anyone wants to give the system a try.http://radio.weblogs.com/0001014/categories/payload/2003/11/23.html#a4822Sun, 23 Nov 2003 14:03:16 GMTenclosures problem in radioI just noticed the "Radio Userland" has a problem with long filenames when downloading enclosures. It looks like the downloads occur, but can't be written to the designated enclosures folder. This results in RU attempting to [re]download massive numbers of files each time you restart. Has anyone else encountered this?http://radio.weblogs.com/0001014/categories/payload/2003/11/20.html#a4810Thu, 20 Nov 2003 09:29:55 GMTmore video for your rss aggregator"Scripting News": Good thing the convention is in the summer or else you might have to suffer through Kerry playing hockey. (ReRoute: Enclosed in this RSS <a href="http://archive.scripting.com/rss/2003/11/18">feed</a>.)btw, my <a href="http://www.blognewsnetwork.com/members/0000001/2003/11/15.html#a4777">request</a> for video enclosures of Leno and Letterman is starting to shape up. I'm getting them in, but not yet via rss enclosures. <i>still digging</i>.http://radio.weblogs.com/0001014/categories/payload/2003/11/19.html#a4798Wed, 19 Nov 2003 07:56:01 GMTpayment for payloadsYesterday dave <a href="http://archive.scripting.com/2003/11/13#When:5:33:37PM">added</a> a 35Mb quicktime video to his rss feed that automagically popped up ready to play on my machine this morning. I will pay <i>anyone</i> who is willing to set up a similar rss feed with daily enclosures of Letterman and/or Leno's tv show for my private viewing pleasure. If you have a TiVo, it probably can be a completely automated process, including my paypal payment to you.http://radio.weblogs.com/0001014/categories/payload/2003/11/15.html#a4777Sat, 15 Nov 2003 09:44:31 GMTkewl app (windows)What is <a href="http://lionhardt.com/ee/">Enclosure Extractor</a>?http://radio.weblogs.com/0001014/categories/payload/2003/11/02.html#a4708Sun, 02 Nov 2003 08:53:14 GMTRSS2iPodMac users can use this <a href="http://radio.weblogs.com/0001014/gems/iPod.zip">folder applescript</a> to automagically update your iPod with any new mp3's that are downloaded to your "Radio UserLand" enclosures folder from <a href="http://www.thetwowayweb.com/payloadsforrss">enclosure aware</a> "rss" feeds. To install: replace "<i>Adam's Curry's iPod"</i> with the name of your iPod and attach the script to your Enclosures folder (located in your Radio UserLand application folder) using the <i>Attach Script To Folder</i> script, located in your <i>/Library/Scripts/Folder Actions/</i> folder. You can test this script by subscribing to the <a href="http://radio.weblogs.com/0001014/categories/syncpod/rss.xml">syncPod channel</a>, which delivers a new mp3 every day.<i>Update</i>: Hmmm, it seems the script only works when the first enclosure is downloaded. Any scripting guru's out there want to help with this script so it transfers <i>all</i> enclosures?http://radio.weblogs.com/0001014/categories/payload/2003/10/12.html#a4604Sun, 12 Oct 2003 10:11:34 GMTenclosure support updatedRadio UserLand <a href="http://jake.userland.com/2003/10/09.html#a873">Update</a>: The RSS enclosures prefs page now includes a setting for choosing where to save downloaded enclosures.http://radio.weblogs.com/0001014/categories/payload/2003/10/11.html#a4592Sat, 11 Oct 2003 10:45:47 GMTsyncPod channel updateThe syncPod channel has bene updated with a new mp3. This feed is intended to stimulate the <a href="http://www.blognewsnetwork.com/members/0000001/2003/10/05.html#a4556">development</a> of "rss" <a href="http://www.thetwowayweb.com/payloadsforrss">enclosure</a> applications. <i>Subscribe</i> <a href="http://radio.weblogs.com/0001014/categories/syncpod/rss.xml"><img src="http://cloud.datashed.net/static/images/xml.gif" align="bottom"></a>http://radio.weblogs.com/0001014/categories/payload/2003/10/06.html#a4561Mon, 06 Oct 2003 11:46:39 GMTenclosuresSjoerd <a href="http://w3future.com/weblog/2003/10/04.xml#a259">experiences</a> rss enclosures and offers alternatives.http://radio.weblogs.com/0001014/categories/payload/2003/10/04.html#a4548Sat, 04 Oct 2003 14:18:34 GMTenclosuresI'm longing for "rss" enclosures in "manila". Chris Lydon is posting some <a href="http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/lydon/2003/09/12#a314">great inerviews</a>, his syndicated feed would be perfect for developers to use to help integrate <a href="http://www.thetwowayweb.com/payloadsforrss">enclosures</a> into their <a href="http://www.hebig.org/blogs/archives/main/000877.php">aggregators.</a>Once you use an aggregator that knows what to do with enclosures, you'll never want to look back! Your aggregator shows a new media-file is available and when you click the link, the file plays instantaneously. No waiting, since your aggregator downloaded the file prior to announcing it ,in order to deliver an awesome time-shift experience.http://radio.weblogs.com/0001014/categories/payload/2003/09/13.html#a4462Sat, 13 Sep 2003 13:57:37 GMTjohnny cashes in<a href="http://www.blognewsnetwork.com/members/0000001/images/2003/09/13/johnnyCash.jpg"><img src="http://www.blognewsnetwork.com/members/0000001/images/2003/09/13/johnnyCash.jpg" align="right" border=0></a> Johnny Cash <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/030912/241/595mx.html&e=1&ncid=1750">passed away</a> yesterday at 71. I scanned my iTunes library and have one of my favourite man in black songs blasting away this morning. The uncensored version of <a href="http://www.blognewsnetwork.com/members/0000001/mpg/boyNamedSue.mp3">Boy named Sue</a> is attached to this post as an enclosure.http://radio.weblogs.com/0001014/categories/payload/2003/09/13.html#a4459Sat, 13 Sep 2003 12:16:21 GMTdutch 747 captainWe take our soccer <a href="http://www.blognewsnetwork.com/members/0000001/mpg/YourCaptainSpeaking.mov">seriously</a> here in holland. "rss" subsbribers with an enclosure aware aggregtor will automagically recieve the attached file.http://radio.weblogs.com/0001014/categories/payload/2003/09/03.html#a4417Wed, 03 Sep 2003 14:54:48 GMTipod rss parserI'm even more excited about the <a href="http://blognewsnetwork.com/members/0000001/2003/08/31.html#a4382">thought</a> I had earlier. After downloading the <a href="http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/blogs/audio/lydonInterviewsThroughAugust.zip">zip</a> file I loaded <a href="http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/blogs/audio/lydonInterviewsThroughAugust.zip">Christopher Lydon's</a> interviews into my ipod. <i>Bing</i>. This is powerful stuff, now the dots need to be connected.I'm looking for an application (or glue for several existing apps) that will parse an rss feed for enclosures and load them into a new playlist on my [docked] ipod.<i>Update</i>: <a href="http://www.fondantfancies.com/shrook/">Shrook</a> can export rss feeds to my ipod. No support for enclosures..yet.http://radio.weblogs.com/0001014/categories/payload/2003/08/31.html#a4390Sun, 31 Aug 2003 14:39:33 GMThappy sunday tuneThere's something about <a href="http://www.mojones.nl/">Mo Jones</a> that makes my smile when I hear their tunes. These guys are from holland, recorded theor album in their attic on Pro-Tools and recently kicked ass at the <a href="http://www.northseajazz.nl/index.en.html">North Sea Jazz Festival</a>. If you're using an <a href="http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/directory/5/aggregators/enclosureawareAggregators">enclosure aware aggregator</a>, you'll automagically receive the <a href="http://www.blognewsnetwork.com/members/0000001/mpg/HowTheWindBlows.mp3">mp3</a> of How The Wind Blows.http://radio.weblogs.com/0001014/categories/payload/2003/08/24.html#a4359Sun, 24 Aug 2003 12:59:27 GMTfixing email<a href="http://www.blognewsnetwork.com/members/0000001/stories/2003/08/22/emailIsDeadRSSrulez.html">Essay</a>: Email is dead, long live email!<ul><li><i>"I'm quite pleased that most of the recent email problems stem mostly from Microsoft's free email client. This is where we get to sneak rss into the email jet-wash.</i>"</li></ul>http://radio.weblogs.com/0001014/categories/payload/2003/08/22.html#a4343Fri, 22 Aug 2003 11:30:01 GMTnew jazz thingVincent Outlaw is <a href="http://ksds-fm.org/newjazzthing/2003/08/16.html#a1061">working</a> on blogging NPR with audio enclosures.http://radio.weblogs.com/0001014/categories/payload/2003/08/16.html#a4312Sat, 16 Aug 2003 21:26:19 GMTmatrixXP<a name="ld192ab763f5fae294773df5598324a59"><a href="http://www.marbatono.com/orangedungarees/">Orange dungarees</a> is always good for a spoof vid of something. Today they point to an excellend spoof: <a href="http://www.matrixxp2.de/MATRIX_engl_DSL.mov">MatrixXP</a> [quicktime movie] <a href="http://live.curry.com/2003/07/15#ld192ab763f5fae294773df5598324a59" title="Permanent link to this item in archive."><img src="http://www.scripting.com/images/2001/09/20/sharpPermaLink3.gif" height="9" width="6" border="0"></a><br>http://radio.weblogs.com/0001014/categories/payload/2003/07/15.html#a4119Tue, 15 Jul 2003 08:21:36 GMTk2blogCafé Gerinka is using konspire to post an audioblog [<a href="http://localhost:8085/keyAdd1055739069_D40FF5211A?channel=Adam+Curry's+kast+Test+Channel&keyFilePath=caught_receiver_keys%2F6784_1055760114_529420151%2Ekey&keySourceURL=/catcher1055739070_D40FF5211A">subscribe</a>]http://radio.weblogs.com/0001014/categories/payload/2003/06/16.html#a3872Mon, 16 Jun 2003 10:43:09 GMT
Inside Facebook's $10 Billion Breakup With Advertisers - WSJ
Sat, 19 Feb 2022 06:05
Privacy features prompt e-commerce businesses to slash ad spending; 'Apple has changed the game'
Feb. 18, 2022 11:00 am ETFacebook was long one of the surest bets in digital advertising. No longer.
Martha Krueger, who runs a gift-basket business called Giften Market, used to spend her entire advertising budget on Meta Platforms Inc.'s Facebook and Instagram. She picked up a new customer for every $14 she spent.
When Apple Inc. introduced a privacy feature for...
Advertisement - Scroll to Continue
Facebook was long one of the surest bets in digital advertising. No longer.
Martha Krueger, who runs a gift-basket business called Giften Market, used to spend her entire advertising budget on Meta Platforms Inc.'s Facebook and Instagram. She picked up a new customer for every $14 she spent.
When Apple Inc. introduced a privacy feature for mobile devices last year that restricts user tracking, she said, her costs to acquire such customers rose 10-fold. In October, she shifted her whole ad budget to search ads on Alphabet Inc.'s Google.
Lots of other companies that depend on e-commerce sales, including makers of nutritional powders, eyebrow stencils and toilet sprays, are taking a look at their bottom lines and deciding the same thing. They are slashing their spending on Facebook and Instagram and sending their ad money to Google, Amazon.com Inc., Snap Inc. and other platforms, according to ad buyers and e-commerce companies.
The privacy change is hitting the heart of Meta's business: its ability to target ads at users with precision and prove to marketers that the ads generate sales. Earlier this month, Meta said it expects a roughly $10 billion hit to sales this year as the result of the Apple change, which requires apps to ask users for permission to track their activity and share it.
Advertisement - Scroll to Continue
''It kind of feels like the end of an era with Facebook's targeting ability,'' said Ms. Krueger.
Google this week unveiled its own proposal to curtail tracking of users across apps on Android devices, potentially exacerbating Meta's challenges.
''Facebook has known for some time that they operated at the whim of the platforms on which consumers access their app,'' said Ari Paparo, an advertising-technology executive who sold his company to Comcast Corp. ''And now those platforms are changing the rules, and there's little they can do about it.''
Advertisement - Scroll to Continue
Meta has said that macroeconomic forces including inflation and supply-chain disruption also are putting pressure on ad spending. But the privacy push appears to be the biggest threat to the social-media giant's once ironclad grip on ad spending by small online businesses and e-commerce companies.
Investor fears about the fallout from Apple's change are one of the reasons that Meta's market value has dropped by more than $300 billion since the recent earnings report.
Facebook has been trying to blunt the effects of the Apple changes, and some analysts are optimistic that Meta will contain the damage and that its business could begin to rebound in the second half of 2022.
Advertisement - Scroll to Continue
Meta said in a written statement that it has more than 10 million advertisers. ''Apple's harmful policy is making it harder and more expensive for businesses of all sizes to reach their customers,'' it said. ''We believe Facebook and Instagram remain the best platforms for businesses to grow and connect with people, and we'll always keep working to improve performance and measurement.''
Meta has been working to show advertisers that ads on Facebook and Instagram are driving more sales than its analytics show. And the company is developing new technology it hopes will give marketers nearly as much information about ad performance as they had before Apple's changes.
Meta also has appealed to users to opt into device tracking. But data from app analytics provider Flurry shows that only 18% of U.S. users are choosing to do so across all apps. Meta has rolled out more e-commerce features within Facebook and Instagram so that more transactions happen within its own ecosystem.
Apple's change could be the most disruptive innovation Meta ever faces, said analyst Daniel Newman of Futurum Research, which focuses on digital technology. ''Facebook has built its empire on the ability to acquire intimate details about user behavior across the internet,'' he said. ''Apple has changed the game.''
Advertisement - Scroll to Continue
Meta's big investment in the metaverse is an attempt to create a future in which it is not beholden to other device-makers, some ad industry executives said.
Meta has been critical of Apple's move, saying it would hurt not only its revenue, but also small-business advertisers and app makers, and that Apple has created a false trade-off between personalized services and privacy.
Inside Meta, some employees saw Apple's change, and Google's move in the same direction, as efforts to damage Meta's business, according to a former employee of Meta's ad-product division familiar with internal discussions.
On Meta's Feb. 2 earnings call, Chief Financial Officer David Wehner criticized Apple and Google for contributing to its ad business's struggles and suggested that Apple's changes had benefited Google. He noted that Google pays billions of dollars to Apple annually to be the default search engine on iPhones. Meta has struck a more positive tone about Google's proposal to limit tracking, which isn't expected to go into effect for at least two years.
Brows by Bossy, an eyebrow stencil maker, used to spend up to $7,000 a day on Facebook ads. As Apple's changes rolled out, ad prices ''started increasing, tracking was clearly not accurate any longer and the performance decreased,'' said Amanda Siebert, co-founder of the e-commerce company. She said the company slashed its Facebook spending by about 80% and shifted money elsewhere, including to Amazon search ads.
Ath Sport, a company that makes and sells nutritional supplements for athletes, used to acquire a new customer for every $40 it spent on Facebook and Instagram ads. In summer 2021, that cost doubled, said Ath Sport owner Stuart Kam. Ath Sport cut its spending on Facebook ads and started spending 60% of its total marketing budget on Google search ads, which were more effective, he said. As companies like his spend more on Google, he said, the prices to advertise there are rising.
Advertising industry executives said marketers began to think more about moving money away from Facebook back in the summer of 2020, before Apple's change. In the aftermath of the George Floyd murder, some brands temporarily boycotted Facebook over concerns about hate speech and faulty information on the platform. The ad executives said that was an inflection point for many companies who felt they had become too reliant on Facebook.
''It was a learning for everyone to understand that things could change. You have to have a backup plan and you have to diversify,'' said Kate Black, vice president of social strategy at Horizon Next, an ad firm that works with e-commerce companies.
The Apple change was a tipping point. Ms. Black said the majority of her firm's clients have begun to shift 10% to 15% of their Facebook spending to other platforms such as TikTok.
Clients are saying ''let's test and learn and see what we can do on other social platforms,'' she said. ''In terms of reach and scale, Meta is still the biggest player in the space and will definitely continue to be for many years to come, but others are definitely growing.''
Toilet-spray maker -Pourri, which has relied heavily on Meta during the pandemic to generate e-commerce sales, said during the second half of 2021 that its return on its ad spending on Facebook began to decline as ad prices increased.
While Facebook and Instagram still account for the majority of -Pourri's ad spending, the Apple changes have caused the company to start ''looking into new advertising channels,'' said Suzy Batiz, -Pourri's founder and chief executive. The company said it is seeking to shift about 30% of its ad dollars from Meta to diversify its spending. It already has begun to move some of its Facebook spending to TikTok, Amazon search ads and digital ad offerings from retailers such as Walmart Inc. -Pourri spends roughly $10 million a year on digital advertising.
Facebook's disclosure after its recent quarter that its number of users had declined for the first time is worrisome for advertisers, said Diana DiGuido, chief client officer of Tinuiti, a digital-marketing agency that works with consumer-products and e-commerce companies.
Ms. DiGuido said some of her clients want to test TikTok and Snap more robustly to see whether they can reduce their spending on Facebook without hurting their businesses.
The data squeeze from Apple's privacy measure has affected all digital ad players to some degree, but other companies have been more insulated from the impact than Facebook. Snap has relied on less data from across the web to target ads, and therefore it doesn't have as much work to do to compensate for the lost data, said Nii Ahene, Tinuiti's chief strategy officer.
Snap posted a net profit of $22.6 million in the most recent quarter, after sales rose 42% from the year-ago period. Snap said earlier this month that its ad business has begun to recover from the Apple changes faster than it anticipated.
Google serves up search ads to a user based on the keywords they enter. That differs from Facebook's effort to match ads to users based on its data and the targeting choices made by advertisers. Meta's chief financial officer said on the recent earnings call that he believed Google was somewhat shielded from the Apple change because it does a lot of business based on searches in desktop browsers, which weren't affected.
That difference helped Google attract ad spending from e-commerce businesses, said digital-ad consultant Eric Seufert. Google's search-ad revenue increased 36% in the fourth quarter from the year-earlier period, to $43.3 billion.
Rivals have been working to snatch ad dollars away from Facebook, ad buyers said. Snap, Pinterest and TikTok increased incentives they offer to companies that make a significant commitment, such as free credits to use toward future ad buys. TikTok and Snap have tried to help brands repurpose Facebook ads so they work better on their platforms, the ad buyers said.
TikTok has benefited from having lower ad pricing than Facebook, though the increased interest in the platform among advertisers might change that, said Mr. Ahene of Tinuiti.
Just as Apple's changes made it harder to measure the effectiveness of Facebook ads on iPhones, Google's proposal could do the same when it comes to Facebook ads delivered to Android users.
Google said it would give the industry substantial notice before ending its current system. The long timeline will give the ad industry time to prepare.
Meta is navigating an unprecedented challenge to its advertising business, but not an unsolvable one, said Emad Hasan, former head of business marketing operations and analytics at Facebook and CEO of Retina AI, which helps brands target customers on social media. He said Meta can build new ad tools to find new ways to show marketers that their ads are performing well. ''Facebook knows that its way of measurement will have to change,'' he said.
Women's handbag brand Hammitt worked with Measured Inc., a company that uses statistical modeling to estimate how well Facebook ads are performing. The official rates reported by Facebook are abysmal, said Hammitt founder Tony Drockton, but Measured's reports showed Hammitt's Facebook ads are nearly as effective as they were before the privacy changes took effect.
As a result, Hammitt reduced its Facebook ad spending only slightly, from 50% of its total ad budget to 43%. Hammitt's total dollars spent on Facebook actually increased because the company boosted its overall ad budget.
Facebook has said it has been undercounting how effectively its ads have worked for advertisers, and that it has recently made progress in solving the problem.
Facebook's longer-term challenge is to shore up its ability to efficiently target ads at users. Rebuilding targeting systems with less data ''will be a several year process,'' said analyst Michael Nathanson. ''Nevertheless, we are encouraged by the strides Facebook is making on measurement, and believe this will feed into their targeting efforts longer-term.''
Write to Suzanne Vranica at suzanne.vranica@wsj.com, Patience Haggin at patience.haggin@wsj.com and Salvador Rodriguez at salvador.rodriguez@wsj.com
Google News - Inside Facebook's $10 Billion Breakup With Advertisers
Calling Out 'Emperor' Larry Fink - WSJ
Sat, 19 Feb 2022 06:00
Charlie Munger says what many CEOs think but decline to say.
When you're 98 years old you can say things others can't, so bravo to Charlie Munger for daring to speak an important but too muffled truth about today's financial markets. ''We have a new bunch of emperors, and they're the people who vote the shares in the index funds,'' Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway partner said Wednesday. ''I think the world of Larry Fink, but I'm not sure I want him to be my emperor.'' Many CEOs no doubt privately agree.
As Americans have poured savings into exchange-traded and mutual funds, index providers...
Advertisement - Scroll to Continue
When you're 98 years old you can say things others can't, so bravo to Charlie Munger for daring to speak an important but too muffled truth about today's financial markets. ''We have a new bunch of emperors, and they're the people who vote the shares in the index funds,'' Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway partner said Wednesday. ''I think the world of Larry Fink, but I'm not sure I want him to be my emperor.'' Many CEOs no doubt privately agree.
As Americans have poured savings into exchange-traded and mutual funds, index providers have become the de facto largest shareholders of public companies. Assets under management by Mr. Fink's company, BlackRock , have doubled to $10 trillion since 2016.
Asset managers, including BlackRock, Vanguard and Fidelity, mostly invest their customers' money in broad baskets of stocks that track an index like the S&P 500. Index funds make sense for most retail investors who lack the time and information to actively trade stocks. But lately these so-called passive index providers have themselves become activists, and not in a good way.
Rather than push companies to pursue higher returns, they're trying to impose their political agenda on corporate America. CEOs and corporate boards can find themselves on the wrong end of a shareholder vote if they refuse to accommodate BlackRock's policy preferences on climate and ''stakeholder capitalism.'' Hail, Caesar, er, Larry.
Two years ago Mr. Fink wrote a letter to CEOs threatening to vote against corporate managers if they didn't follow environmental, social and governance (ESG) disclosures prescribed by the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board. That Michael Bloomberg -backed outfit wants companies to report minutia from how much plastic they use to sales from sugary beverages.
Advertisement - Scroll to Continue
In his annual letter this year, Mr. Fink did have some nice words about capitalism, which has been very, very good to him. But he also lectured CEOs that ''employees are increasingly looking to their employer as the most trusted, competent, and ethical source of information,'' and ''stakeholders'' including employees, customers, communities, and regulators ''need to know where we stand on the societal issues intrinsic to our companies' long-term success.''
Mr. Fink will also tell you what stand to take on those issues. He and his allies have become major swing votes in proxy board battles and shareholder resolutions. Climate-focused activist fund Engine No. 1 held only 0.02% of ExxonMobil shares, but it nonetheless managed to oust three board members last summer with the support of the Emperors' club.
''Many savvy governance observers were paying close attention to how Exxon's top three investors'--Vanguard, BlackRock, and State Street, in that order'--voted,'' a Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance article noted. ''The Big Three, which own roughly twenty percent of the S&P 500's outstanding shares, had made significant climate commitments over the past several years.''
Berkshire Hathaway makes selective investments in companies, and with great success over decades. So Mr. Munger may have a philosophical investing difference with index funds. But that doesn't mean he's wrong about BlackRock's market power, which Mr. Fink is using for political purposes. We hope Mr. Munger's comments trigger a larger debate about the Emperor and his commands.
podcast:social | podcastsocial.org
Fri, 18 Feb 2022 19:28
The year is 2022.
Podcasters no longer publish their new episodes into a social void. Instead, they can receive feedback and comments from listeners for every episode they publish, on a social platform they choose.
Podcast listeners can use their existing podcast playback app to also easily publish ratings, feedback, and discussions about each episode they listen to, right on the episode screen. These comments are not locked within a single app, but are available for display in many other podcast playback apps.
Podcast apps and hosting companies can offer innovative solutions to listeners and podcasters, built on top of the open protocol-based standards that make this possible.
In short, via a new podcast RSS feed tag called
<podcast:socialInteract>defined by the podcast namespace initiative.
It's a small tag to include, but has implications for everyone involved in the podcasting ecosystem, so here's an attempt to tell the story from multiple points of view:
Podcasters Listeners Apps Hosts Volunteers Podcasters!You are able to tell the world: Here is the official link to the social media post where comments should go for your new episode.
The url can either point to a post on the Fediverse, or an url to a Tweet. Your show might already post to social media after publishing a new episode, this is just a way to declare it in structured way. Declare it using an item-level (episode-level) tag in your RSS feed. Example If you can't easily modify your podcast's feed directly, you should ask your hosting company to add support for this tag in their CMS.
You are always in control of where the conversation will take place. Podcast apps will use this root post link as the source of truth about where to look for comments for this episode.
If you choose to post on a Fediverse-compatible platform like Mastodon, Pleroma, or Castopod, you have a variety of options around moderation.
Use a free account on an existing open server like mastodon.social if you like their terms of use, and trust the moderators to do a good job. Use an account on a server that gives you moderation access, perhaps a server run by a small network of shows or a group of friends. Use an account on a server you either run or pay for yourself (for example, on masto.host ) for ultimate flexibility on moderating incoming comments, users, or entire servers. Listeners!Once your podcast app is updated to support podcast comments, you'll be able to view ratings, comments, and discussions for each episode right underneath the player view, without leaving your podcast app.
These comments will be coming in from many different apps, not just the app you're using. The comments will be hosted by the podcaster's platform of choice, perhaps including an additional level of moderation applied on their side. Your app can also provide an additional level of filtering, allowing you to possibly hide and upvote/downvote content. Some podcast apps will go the extra mile and allow you to send ratings, comments, and discussions as well, right from the app.
The app may choose to use your existing profile information on the app itself as your identity when posting a comment, in order to make the experience as frictionless as possible. Your comment might be moderated by the destination platform/server specified by the podcaster, and your app might also apply its own filtering. If the podcaster chooses Twitter as their platform, you'll of course need a Twitter account to post. If the podcaster chooses a Fediverse-compatible platform, you may be able to also send comments from a separate Fediverse account you already have. Apps!You can get started today by implementing support for the <podcast:socialInteract> tag.
If you rely on the Podcast Index for your feed data, we provide a similar API to read this new tag for a given episode, since the Podcast Index doesn't parse it yet.
Our API is also useful to apps that don't use the Podcast Index, since it allows apps to create root comment posts (hosted on volunteer server instances, important to boostrapping the feature) if one of your users is ready to reply to any episode.
The two API calls that make up our API have similar naming conventions and behavior to the Podcast Index API, since we hope to have them eventually added there, once they have the development time.
To display comments in your app:
Call Get Social Interacts to find the current official podcaster post (if one exists), or the existing volunteer post. If a root post exists, iterate the thread using the ActivityPub Client-To-Server (c2s) API for Fediverse posts (for example using threadcap in a JavaScript environment), or using the Twitter API if the root post is a tweet. If no post exists, display a No comments yet message in your UI for this episode. When one of your users is ready to comment:
If a root post does not yet exist for this episode, call Add Social Interact to automatically provision a new volunteer root post. For a Fediverse root post: implement the ActivityPub Server-To-Server (s2s) API to create a local ActivityPub Actor for your user, a local copy of your user's comment, and federate a copy over to the root post url as a reply (or use something like the Minipub microservice to do this for you). For a Twitter post, use the Twitter API to walk your user through their OAuth 2.0 authentication flow, and posting under their own Twitter identity. Remember to always call Get Social Interacts, even after creating a provisional volunteer root post, since any post declared by the podcaster in the future should be displayed more prominently than a volunteer post, in the unlikely case that both exist.
Podcast hosting companies!Since you help the majority of podcasters manage their podcast's feed, you are in the best position to make it as easy as possible for them to specify their official social media post.
Add a new field in the existing content management system you already provide to your podcasters, allowing them to specify a url to their comment post, and generate the <podcast:socialInteract> tag in their feed automatically under the hood.
Since podcasters already trust you to manage their podcast's public presence, you may want to consider providing a Fediverse-compatible service yourself, and automatically creating a new comment post for each new episode. This would be similar to the service you already provide of a default webpage for each episode, giving your customers one less thing to manage themselves.
Volunteers!You want to help get podcast comments going, but don't know exactly where to start?
We maintain a service that creates a single provisional root comment post for any episode, using a pool of underlying Mastodon-compatible servers hosted by volunteers, in order to give apps and listeners something to work with (see the bootstrapping section below).
If you want to host or pay for a Mastodon-compatible server to help in this effort, email xxxx%podcastsocial.org to find out how to add it to our pool.
Basically we just need a moderator user account on a server we can count on staying online during this provisional period, thanks!
With every new feature proposed in the open podcasting ecosystem, there is a ''chicken and egg'' problem, a period of time in which:
Apps are hesitant to start implementing the feature before most podcast platforms support it. Podcast platforms are hesitant to start implementing the feature before most podcast apps support it. This problem is especially pronounced for this new podcast comments feature, since not only do both podcasters need to add the new info to their feeds and apps need to support the feature, but crucially, listeners need to see and provide real comments before the value of the feature becomes visible at all.
We can give app developers a provisional root comment post for any given podcast episode today, so the app's users can interact with any episode, before all podcasters update their feeds to include an official location themselves.
We do this by managing a pool of Fediverse-compatible servers, run by volunteers, and distributing these new posts between them.
Apps can both find and create these provisional root comment posts using the podcastsocial.org API, which contains only two API calls, and should be familiar to the apps that already work with the PodcastIndex.org API.
Apps can call Get Social Interacts to find the current official podcaster post (if one exists), or the existing volunteer post. If an app has a user ready to comment, it can call Add Social Interact to automatically provision one. If you want to host or pay for a Mastodon-compatible server to help in this effort, email xxxx%podcastsocial.org to find out how to add it to our pool, thanks!
podcastsocial.org API documentation '·
MDM Resource Library | CISA
Fri, 18 Feb 2022 15:40
This library provides voluntary resources that individuals; State, local, tribal and territorial (SLTT) governments; the private sector; academia; and others can use to understand the threat of malicious information activities and includes actions to mitigate associated risks from mis-, dis-, and malinformation (MDM) and foreign influence activities
January 27, 2022: Today, the Election Infrastructure Government Coordinating Council (GCC) and the Subsector Coordinating Council's (SCC) Joint Mis/Disinformation Working Group released the Rumor Control Page Start-Up Guide and the MDM Planning and Incident Response Guide for Election Officials as voluntary tools to assist State and local election officials prepare for and respond to risks of MDM.
Download/share the Rumor Control Page Start-Up Guide for direction on how and when to develop a rumor control webpage to dispel specific MDM narratives through transparent and authoritative information.Download/share the MDM Planning and Incident Response Guide for Election Officials to understand how to recognize, prepare for, and respond to MDM threats that may impact the ability to conduct elections.CISA Insights: COVID-19 Disinformation Activity: False and misleading information related to the coronavirus (COVID-19) are a significant challenge. This CISA Insight provides an overview of coronavirus disinformation and steps that can be taken to reduce the risk of sharing inaccurate information with your friends and family.
CISA Insights: COVID-19 Disinformation Activity
COVID-19 Disinformation Toolkit: A Toolkit'-- including talking points, FAQs, outreach graphics, and poster'--designed to help SLTT officials bring awareness to misinformation, disinformation, and conspiracy theories appearing online related to COVID-19's origin, scale, government response, prevention and treatment. Each product was designed to be tailored with local government websites and logos.
COVID-19 Disinformation Toolkit
Disinformation Stops With You: A set of infographics that provides an overview of mis-, dis-, and malinformation and five ways in which individuals can help to stop the foreign influence operations: recognizing the risk, questioning the source, investigating the issue, thinking before you link, and talking to your circle.
Disinformation Stops With You
Recognize the Risk
Question the Source
Investigate the Issue
Think Before You Link
Talk to Your Circle
Foreign Influence Taxonomy: Overview of terms used to describe different kinds of foreign influence activities for the purpose of undermining the interests of the United States and its allies.
Foreign Influence Taxonomy
Graphic Novel - Bug Bytes: Part of the Resilience series, Bug Bytes demonstrates how threat actors use social media and other communication platforms to spread inaccurate information for the sole purpose of planting doubt in the minds of targeted audiences to steer their opinion.
Readers follow protagonist Ava, a graduate, who uses her wits and journalism skills to uncover a disinformation campaign set to damage Fifth Generation (5G) critical communications infrastructure in the United States.
Bug Bytes graphic novel
Bug Bytes script
Bug Bytes trailer
Graphic Novel - Real Fake: Part of the Resilience series, Real Fake demonstrates how threat actors capitalize on political and social issues (especially around election cycles) to stealthily plant doubt in the minds of targeted audiences and steer their opinion.
Readers follow protagonists Rachel and Andre as they discover that a command center in Russia is using a network of troll farms to spread false narratives about elections to American voters. With the elections coming up, Rachel and Andre follow the trail of synthetic media and stop the cyber assailants from causing chaos, confusion, and division.
Real Fake graphic novel
Real Fake script
Real Fake trailer
Mis-, Dis-, and Malinformation Planning and Incident Response Guide for Election Officials: Developed by the Election Infrastructure Subsector's Government Coordinating Council (GCC) and Subsector Coordinating Council's (SCC) Mis/Disinformation Working Group, this guide explains how to recognize, prepare for, and respond to MDM threats that may impact the ability to conduct elections.
MDM Planning and Incident Response Guide for Election OfficialsRumor Control Page Start-Up Guide: Developed by the Election Infrastructure Subsector's Government Coordinating Council (GCC) and Subsector Coordinating Council's (SCC) Mis/Disinformation Working Group, this is a guide for election officials on how and when to develop a rumor control webpage to dispel specific MDM narratives through transparent and authoritative information.
Rumor Control Page Start-Up Guide Social Media Bots Overview: An infographic that provides an overview of social media bots and how they can be used by adversaries to conduct malign activities.
Social Media Bots Overview
Tools of Disinformation: Inauthentic Content: A flyer (available in English and Spanish) that highlights the tactics used by disinformation campaigns such as manipulating audio and videos, conducting forgeries, and developing proxy websites in order to undermine public confidence and sow confusion.
Tools of Disinformation: Inauthentic Content
War on Pineapple: Understanding Foreign Interference in 5 Steps: This infographic, with a tongue-in-cheek approach to putting pineapple on pizza, looks at how foreign adversaries conduct malign information operations to inflame hot button issues in the United States.
War on Pineapple: Understanding Foreign Interference in 5 Steps
For additional MDM information, please contact CISA's MDM team: CFITF@cisa.dhs.gov
ALL VIDEOS
VIDEO - Charlie Munger Expects Index Funds to Change the World'--and Not in a Good Way - WSJ
Sun, 20 Feb 2022 16:32
Warren Buffett's business partner says passive funds like those run by BlackRock wield too much power
Charlie Munger doesn't think Larry Fink should be running the world.
Mr. Munger, the billionaire vice chairman of Berkshire Hathaway Inc. and Warren Buffett's business partner, said the rise of index funds like those run by Mr. Fink's BlackRock Inc. has resulted in an ''enormous transfer'' of the power to sway corporate decision making. That shift will ''change the world,'' he said, and not for the better.
''We...
Advertisement - Scroll to Continue
Charlie Munger doesn't think Larry Fink should be running the world.
Mr. Munger, the billionaire vice chairman of Berkshire Hathaway Inc. and Warren Buffett's business partner, said the rise of index funds like those run by Mr. Fink's BlackRock Inc. has resulted in an ''enormous transfer'' of the power to sway corporate decision making. That shift will ''change the world,'' he said, and not for the better.
''We have a new bunch of emperors, and they're the people who vote the shares in the index funds,'' Mr. Munger, 98 years old, said at the annual meeting of Daily Journal Corp. , a publishing company he has chaired since the 1970s. ''I think the world of Larry Fink, but I'm not sure I want him to be my emperor.''
BlackRock and Vanguard Inc. are two of the biggest managers of passive investment funds, which track indexes instead of trying to beat the market by picking specific stocks.
The funds have become the default investing option for small investors and large pension funds alike, delivering better returns than many active funds during the market's decadelong rally. The shift has boosted passive funds' share of the total ownership base'--and corresponding voting power'--at many public companies.
The surging popularity of index funds has made their managers the biggest investors in most large stocks. The firms, including BlackRock, have sought to wield that power in ways that have at times made corporate executives uncomfortable. Investment managers have had more sway over important company decisions, including takeovers, the fates of executives and plans for long-term sustainability.
Advertisement - Scroll to Continue
Mr. Fink is an advocate of stakeholder capitalism, the idea that companies have societal obligations that extend beyond maximizing value for shareholders.
''Capitalism has the power to shape society and act as a powerful catalyst for change,'' Mr. Fink said in his annual letter to shareholders last month.
Mr. Fink has said the company is committed to a future where all investors have the option to vote their shares. BlackRock in October began allowing certain institutional investors to cast votes tied to their holdings.
Advertisement - Scroll to Continue
BlackRock reported assets under management of more than $10 trillion in the fourth quarter of 2021, a record high. Passive funds manage more than two-thirds of those assets.
Mr. Munger's comments at the meeting were livestreamed by Yahoo Finance.
Write to Orla McCaffrey at orla.mccaffrey@wsj.com
VIDEO - NBC Caught Pushing Neo-Nazi Propaganda w/Aaron Mate' - YouTube
VIDEO - Bill Gates: Covid risks have reduced but another pandemic will come
Sun, 20 Feb 2022 15:58
Bill Gates said Friday that the risks of severe disease from Covid-19 have "dramatically reduced" but another pandemic is all but certain.
Speaking to CNBC's Hadley Gamble at Germany's annual Munich Security Conference, Gates, co-chair of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, said that a potential new pandemic would likely stem from a different pathogen to that of the coronavirus family.
But he added that advances in medical technology should help the world do a better job of fighting it '-- if investments are made now.
"We'll have another pandemic. It will be a different pathogen next time," Gates said.
Two years into the coronavirus pandemic, Gates said the worst effects have faded as huge swathes of the global population have gained some level of immunity. Its severity has also waned with the latest omicron variant.
However, Gates said that in many places that was due to virus itself, which creates a level of immunity, and has "done a better job of getting out to the world population than we have with vaccines."
"The chance of severe disease, which is mainly associated with being elderly and having obesity or diabetes, those risks are now dramatically reduced because of that infection exposure," he said.
Gates said it was already "too late" to reach the World Health Organization's goal to vaccinate 70% of the global population by mid-2022. Currently 61.9% of the world population has received at least one dose of a Covid-19 vaccine.
He added that the world should move faster in the future to develop and distribute vaccines, calling on governments to invest now.
"Next time we should try and make it, instead of two years, we should make it more like six months," Gates said, adding that standardized platforms, including messenger RNA (mRNA) technology, would make that possible.
"The cost of being ready for the next pandemic is not that large. It's not like climate change. If we're rational, yes, the next time we'll catch it early."
Gates, through the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, has partnered with the U.K.'s Wellcome Trust to donate $300 million to the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, which helped form the Covax program to deliver vaccines to low- and middle-income countries.
The CEPI is aiming to raise $3.5 billion in an effort cut the time required to develop a new vaccine to just 100 days.
VIDEO - Burning ship full of $250M in luxury cars adrift in mid-Atlantic | Rush Hour - YouTube
VIDEO - Ukraine: Olaf Scholz says West must keep Russia guessing on sanctions
Sun, 20 Feb 2022 15:24
German Chancellor Olaf Scholz on Saturday rejected calls from Ukraine's president to sanction Russia now, saying that Moscow should not be sure "exactly" how the West will respond to a potential invasion.
Speaking to CNBC's Hadley Gamble at Germany's annual Munich Security Conference, Scholz said that Western allies were "well prepared" to sanction Russia '-- and quickly '-- if it were to invade Ukraine. But he said that such measures should remain a last resort in the hopes finding of a peaceful resolution to ongoing tensions.
"It's better to say we do it then, instead of doing it now, because we want to avoid the situation," he said, referring to imposing potential sanctions on Russia. "We want to go in the direction where peace is having a chance."
Russia has repeatedly denied that it is planning an invasion of Ukraine, but multiple Western officials said this week that the country is actively increasing its military presence on its border.
Scholz would not clarify what sanctions Russia might be hit with if it were to invade Ukraine. Rather, he said that Moscow ought to know "approximately" and not "exactly" the repercussions it would face.
The Russian government cannot be really sure exactly what we'll do.
Olaf Scholz
German chancellor
This contrasts with other Western leaders who have made specific remarks about how Russia could be hurt economically, most notably through energy sanctions.
"My view is that it makes no sense to make them public. It is good for what we expect to get that the Russian government cannot be really sure exactly what we'll do," he said.
"They will know approximately what we're talking about, but they will not know it exactly."
His comments come after Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on Saturday reiterated his calls for sanctions now, saying the West should stop its "appeasement" policy toward Russia.
"We have a right '-- a right to demand a shift from a policy of appeasement to one ensuring security and peace," Zelensky said at the Munich Security Conference.
"There is no such thing as 'this is not my war' in the 21st century. This is not about the war in Ukraine, this is about the war in Europe."
Russia launches ballistic and cruise missilesIn a show of its military prowess, Russia on Saturday launched ballistic and cruise missiles as part of a "planned exercise of the strategic deterrence forces."
President Joe Biden said Friday that the United States believes Russian President Vladimir Putin may carry out an attack on Ukraine "in the coming days."
"We have reason to believe the Russian forces are planning and intend to attack Ukraine in the coming week, in the coming days," Biden said Friday in remarks at the White House, noting that any such attack would likely target Ukraine's capital, Kyiv.
Service members of the Ukrainian Air Assault Forces take part in tactical drills at a training ground in an unknown location in Ukraine, in this handout picture released February 18, 2022.
Press Service of the Ukrainian Air Assault Forces | via Reuters
It comes after U.S. intelligence agencies said Moscow had added around 7,000 troops to Ukraine's border this week, taking its total estimated military presence to around 150,000. Russian forces have also been posted in Belarus, an ally that lies to the north of Ukraine.
Earlier this week, the Russian government claimed that it had started to return some of its troops to their bases. However, Ukraine's president and Western officials urged caution over taking Moscow's claim at face value.
Ukraine and Western allies have warned that Russia may create a "false flag" event '-- in which it would stage a real or simulated attack on its own forces '-- to create an excuse to invade Ukraine.
'--CNBC's Natasha Turak contributed to this report.
VIDEO - The chip shortage is so bad GM dropped heated seats in winter
Sun, 20 Feb 2022 15:22
General Motors had to temporarily drop heated seats as an option on vehicles in response to the chip shortage. But the largest U.S. automaker is not alone. The move is another sign of how automakers are having to respond to a crisis that has been cratering dealer inventory, spiking prices and delaying orders.
While GM does have a proposed remedy in place '-- a retrofit option will be available for owners later in 2022 '-- there really is no discernible end of the chip shortage in sight. There has been talk of trying to spur more domestic semiconductor production, but that will take years and billions of dollars to get off the ground.
Watch the video to learn more.
VIDEO - Denied Ability to Discuss Orders Of Klaus Schwab..WTF - YouTube
VIDEO - 19 Austin police officers indicted in George Floyd protests from 2020 - YouTube
VIDEO - Kamala Harris Looks Totally Out of Place at Munich Meetings - Ukrainian President Zelensky Calls Out Joe Biden, "Someone Is Lying!" (VDEO)
Sun, 20 Feb 2022 13:18
Ukrainian President Zelensky met with Kamala Harris today in Germany. While Kamala looked totally out of place, Zelensky called Joe Biden's bluff.Kamala Harris was totally out of place today on the world stage. Everyone knows it. The Conservative Treehouse reported:
The fiasco of U.S manipulation in Ukraine continues as the Biden administration dispatch Kamala Harris to play the role of a grown-up at the Munich conference. She failed'...
'...The baseline remains the same, and at the end of the meeting between Harris and Zelenskyy, the Ukrainian president delivered remarks to call the bluff of Joe Biden (video also below). The words ''someone is lying'' lead off his speech.
TRENDING: "Everyone is at Risk for Blood Clots!" - CDC and Pfizer Issue Urgent Warnings on Blood Clots Even in "The Healthiest Athletes"
President Zelenskyy emphasized the geopolitical farce when he said to the world if the United States, and as an extension NATO, is so certain that Russia is about to invade and destroy Ukraine sovereignty, then why are they waiting to trigger deterrent sanctions?
Underneath the true answer to that question is the crux of the issue. All of these events within Ukraine are being manipulated by the U.S. State Department and the U.S. intelligence apparatus, just as the events of 2014 in Ukraine were done before.
The article goes on to point out Harris's performance today:
President Zelenskyy has to pretend the words from Harris are accurate, while simultaneously knowing she is a totally clueless pawn, a tool of the people behind Biden who sent her specifically in an effort to improve the way she is viewed by U.S. voters. The team behind Biden are trying to rebrand Kamala Harris as a serious person, but her stupidity is so evident we cannot hear a word she is saying.
Here is Zelensky's speech, with his comment on ''someone is lying'' at the very beginning.
Zelensky: '' Europe is longing for peace. The world is saying it doesn't want any war. While Russia is saying she doesn't want to intervene. Someone here is lying.''
VIDEO - Gregario Ivini"Fringe"itivitch on Twitter: "@backtolife_2022 @Medieval_Bops @adamcurry" / Twitter
Fri, 18 Feb 2022 21:59
Gregario Ivini"Fringe"itivitch : @backtolife_2022 @Medieval_Bops @adamcurry
Fri Feb 18 21:53:51 +0000 2022
