note to eweb: 3

Dear Commissioners:

Thank you for your patience and persistence in reading these emails. This is the final part of a three-part comment on a change in EWEB’s smart meter policy. 

In the first part we looked at mechanisms of harm—radio frequency radiation and electromagnetic fields—and how the proposed policy change fails to address them. In the second part we looked at the experience of harm, the lack of a productive workflow for reporting harm, and reasons for why no impartial scientific process of evaluating harm has been conducted in the US. In this final part we will look at how social pressures prevent us from acknowledging harm or recognizing the big picture we are participating in, and what a constructive response might be.

First off: What are the social pressures here?

While people are capable of perceiving independently and making independent decisions about what we are perceiving, we tend to do these things in groups. We tend to perceive what those around us give attention and importance to, and stop there—ignoring everything else. We do this in order to cooperate. We also do this because groups determine our survival. If we offend and upset the people around us by perceiving independently, at our job or even in our family, it may put us at risk. The people we cooperate with may decide they no longer want to include us in their activities, and it is very, very difficult to survive as individuals alone. So we act politely, and only direct perception to topics or from angles that those around us seem to be comfortable with.

This helps us individuals feel safe but does not keep our community safe. New threats to group survival need to be identified—threats the group has never noticed, acknowledged, or responded to before. Somebody has to risk their membership in the group to help the group evolve, mature, and survive. In times of great change, this has to happen often. People of courage and clarity have to help those around us recognize the new threats that are endangering us, so that we can cooperate and respond successfully. I encourage you to be these people.

In this case, it is easy to go along with the perceptions of people around us regarding radiation. We cannot see it. We cannot smell it. Most of us can pretend it does not exist. Besides, we have been living in a rapidly intensifying radiation environment for the past twenty-five years, and corporate news has not reported on the dangers of this radiation with any urgency or consistency. It has downplayed dangers and cast doubt on scientists and doctors whose research verified harm, because this research might damage profits from radiation-emitting devices or encourage hesitancy about using them. A mountain of science showing that people, animals, and the environment are being harmed by radiation has been ignored or unfairly discredited. [The Bioinitiative Report summarizes this science, collected from worldwide sources.]

To step out of the guided fantasy we have been living in, our first task is to wipe our assumptions about the people we want to believe are informing and protecting us: Corporate news is not telling us everything we need to know and government regulators are not keeping us safe. As we discussed in Part 2, industries polluting the environment with radiation have made sure that government will not regulate them. The six corporations that control over 95% of news in the US are linked to them financially and cover up for them. Huge stories, like cancer clusters and bee die-offs around cel phone towers worldwide, have been successfully covered up for thirty years, to keep profits flowing to those who lie and kill.

To survive this information warfare, we need to discuss topics we might normally avoid. We need to call into question the reality we normally assume and refocus our group perception more discerningly and decisively. We need to update our reality maps and respond to threats to our community, to our health, and to our sanity that did not exist thirty years ago. And we need to develop workflows for discussing these things respectfully and constructively together, so that we choose paths that honor and empower all of us.

Talking about Smart Meters takes us into scary territory. If we admit that radiation might be harmful, and look at the evidence that it is, we might have to look at other areas of our lives where radiation is affecting us, and the sources of that radiation. Very few of us have personal or intimate relationships with our utility meter. We don’t keep it in our pocket, or in our bra, or press it against our head. We don’t check it dozens of times a day, depend on it to tell us what is happening, rely on it to connect us with our friends and family, or watch or listen to content on it that regulates us emotionally. Admitting that our Smart Meter might be dangerous opens the door to admitting that other things we use might be dangerous, and many of us are desperately avoiding the inner conflict that would create. 

That kind of sneaky conflict avoidance is playing out both inside us and all around us: There was no meaningful public discussion or decision-making about the placement of 5G small cells in residential neighborhoods in Eugene and other towns, and on utility poles throughout the county last year. It was done quietly on an undisclosed number of poles, allowing for overlapping coverage patterns, and along prioritized routes to support the operation of Smart Vehicles. Those who dug into the topic were told that EWEB would receive $1800 per month per pole for hosting these devices. If they were placed on thousands of poles, that would mean millions of dollars per month in new revenues. There was no public discussion or decision-making process about the risks and benefits of signing up for this new revenue stream, who would experience the risks, costs, and harms, or who would experience the benefits. Current policy is not being made transparently, democratically, or with community involvement in cost/benefit analysis.

This is the second wave of 5G installation, and it was no more transparent than the first. The first wave, of the big and mid-sized towers, occurred mostly during the 2020 lockdowns, when people were ordered to stay home, except on essential business. This happened nationwide in a coordinated plan. The towers were installed in thousands of towns and cities during a unique period when far fewer people were out and about, when far more important things seemed to be happening, so that fewer of us would notice or protest the towers going up.

In Northern Italy during this period, Luciano Gattinoni, a world expert on mechanical ventilation of human lungs, was a leader of the team dealing with the health crisis there. He made an interesting observation: Over half the people who showed up with low oxygen levels were breathing fine and showed no symptoms of respiratory infection. During a crisis believed to be caused by a respiratory virus, the majority of people affected showed none of the common symptoms caused by respiratory viruses. Something else was causing their difficulty breathing. 

A biologist at the University of Barcelona, Bartholomeu Payeras i Chifre, ran an in-depth statistical analysis of areas heavily affected by the pandemic worldwide. In all of them, 5G networks were installed. Only areas that had the networks installed got the concentration of cases characteristic of pandemics. Areas nearby, with no 5G, often had no cases or very few cases, even though their citizens had regular and frequent contact with people from affected areas. The regular transmission of disease between people having human contact was not happening. Illness and death seemed to be occurring due to radiation poisoning that was blocking the uptake of oxygen. Payeras calculated that the statistical fit between networks and cases was so tight, that the chance that their coexistence was just a coincidence was one in 790 million.

Coincidence theorists encourage us to believe that the only problem was a virus, but we should follow the science. We should follow the science even when finding it is blocked by manipulative and predatory corporations, that hide Gattinoni’s and Payeras’ research from us and block all discussion of it. The thorough corporate news blackout on negative stories about radiation-emitting technologies has been extended to social media platforms like YouTube and Facebook, where videos and posts about these technologies and their effects are blocked by algorithm, and to search engines like Google, where they are hidden from search results.

This became increasingly clear in late 2019 and early 2020. At first, videos and posts on radiation-related topics could be published, but were quickly identified and taken down by the platforms. Over a million videos were removed from YouTube in 2020 and over 20,000 podcasts were removed from and cancelled by Soundcloud. Then, as surveillance and censorship technologies improved, content offensive to the tech cartel was blocked before it could be published or posted. If one typed words or shared links that were not allowed, the platform refused to post them. A list of forbidden words, phrases, names, and topics was publicly available, and one could see what they were. “5G causes covid” was on that list. Mentioning that 5G can operate in the oxygen absorption band was also blocked. No one was allowed to speak or write about these things. Billions of posts and shares were blocked.

What is happening is far bigger than we are allowing ourselves to notice. It is possible that we have installed a system with secondary functions we do not know about, that are not for our benefit. How will we evaluate those functions, determine when they are being used, or deactivate them locally? How will we avoid being unconscious victims of technologies we do not understand or control? Currently, there is no way to do that. Once they are installed, other people, somewhere else, decide what functions are activated. 

Methodical safety testing of 5G networks never happened and is not happening now, and research demonstrating human harm from them is being ignored and suppressed. Instead, administrators are urgent to have these technologies up and running as quickly as possible, because they allow us to participate in Smart Cities, and the funding cycles associated with them. Smart Cities are assumed to be the next step in the evolution of environmentalism and living right with the Earth. Wipe those assumptions completely. Use a whole box of wet wipes if you have to. Nothing could be further from reality. 

Smart Cities are a feature of UN Agenda 21, a topic carefully covered in Rosa Koire’s _Behind the Green Mask_. Look up this beautiful, progressive lady and listen to her talk. She will sober you up in minutes. Her book summarizes how an unelected organization, funded by billionaires, that has been calling for global population reduction for decades, is telling us how to be green and pushing specific solutions on us that happen to kill people, plants, and animals at alarmingly high rates. By providing surveillance data from utilities and satellites, they help inventory and track all resources on Earth, all livestock, all crops, all water, all industry, all infrastructure, all energy, and all people, and put us under UN surveillance and control. Billionaires and their UN employees get to decide who gets to live, where we get to live, and how we get to live. It is the absolute end of local decision-making. Most of the US will be off-limits to human use, except to those with special privileges. Most of us will be forced to live in tiny, high-tech cities and corridors. The maps for this plan have been out for a decade. 

Being able to block our access to oxygen any time they want, through our power grid, is just part of the control program. All communities must install the technology that enables our remote control and contains our kill switch. No one can opt out. A person in an all-electric home, with an electric vehicle, whose ability to communicate and conduct transactions is tied to electronic devices, can be completely, immediately, and permanently shut down by unknown people thousands of miles away, at any time, and so can whole communities. That is what is at stake here: Our health, our choices, our freedom, and our lives.

I hope this has expanded your awareness about what is going on. I hope you will put on hold all plans to expand the Smart Grid, carefully examine the known effects of what you have already installed, and develop contingencies for the return to technologies known to be safe. I hope you will reevaluate what you are participating in, and welcome the public into a meaningful, moderated, productive process where we decide together what our priorities as a utility district are and should be. Every one of us is responsible for recognizing and doing what is right and important, even when it is difficult. I hope I have been a good example for you, and ignited you into greater integrity and passion.