There are NO STUDIES ABOUT SMART Meters

If you have a smart meter, please hear me, it is radiating.  Maybe not to the extreme that mine appears to be clearly set to, but it is a bioterrorism weapon.  It is the plan, not the bug in the system.

TALK about hiding in PLAIN SIGHT

PROTECT the CHILDREN – may not be as much radiation in your home, but they are children, bundle them up.

 

Bioterrorism

Bioterrorism is terrorism involving the intentional release or dissemination of biological agents. These agents include bacteria, viruses, insects, fungi, and/or toxins, and may be in a naturally occurring or a human-modified form, in much the same way as in biological warfare.

Nuclear Power Plants can serve TWO PURPOSES:

Nuclear power plants are not designed to enrich uranium for weapons. The purpose of a nuclear power plant is to generate electricity, not to produce weapons-grade uranium.

However, the technology used to enrich uranium for nuclear fuel can also be used to produce highly enriched uranium suitable for nuclear weapons.

 

 

 

My house is the blue dot. the orange marks are transformers.

 

 

 

 

 

 

“The truth about mobile phone and wireless radiation” — Dr Devra Davis

Radiation poisoning is the common name for what the US Center for Disease Control classifies as Acute Radiation Syndrome (ARS). The condition is caused by excessive exposure to ionized radiation, which can permanently affect the cells in the body.

Radiation damages your stomach and intestines, blood vessels, and bone marrow, which makes blood cells. Damage to bone marrow lowers the number of disease-fighting white blood cells in your body. As a result, most people who die from radiation sickness are killed by infections or internal bleeding.

Symptoms of Radiation Sickness

• Hair loss
• Nausea
• Vomiting
• Extreme tiredness (fatigue)
• Hearing loss
• Skin and scalp changes
• Headaches
• Trouble with memory and speech
• Seizures 

Some of these side effects can happen because radiation has caused the brain to swell.

Children are more susceptible to radiation injury because they have a higher rate of cellular proliferation. 

The New York Times says, “Experts hesitate to predict where the radiation will go. Once harmful radioactive elements are released into the outdoors, their travel patterns are as mercurial as the weather and as complicated as the food chains and biochemical pathways along which they move. 

The CDC tells us: The first symptoms of ARS are typically nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. These symptoms will start within minutes to days after the exposure, will last from minutes to up to several days, and may come and go.

 

Does Living Near High-Voltage Power Lines Cause Cancer?

Electromagnetic fields (EMF) of all frequencies represent one of the most common and fastest growing environmental influences, about which anxiety and speculation are spreading. All populations are now exposed to varying degrees of EMF, and the levels will continue to increase as technology advances. Electromagnetic radiation has been around since the birth of the universe; light is its most familiar form. Electric and magnetic fields are part of the spectrum of electromagnetic radiation which extends from static electric and magnetic fields, through radiofrequency and infrared radiation, to X-rays. 

 

 

 

 

 

There is great individual variation in how people respond to radiation and the process is not fully understood.

RF radiation is classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), as “possibly carcinogenic to humans.” This is based on the finding of a possible link in at least one study between cell phone use and a specific type of brain tumor. Because RF radiation is a possible carcinogen, and smart meters give off RF radiation, it is possible that smart meters could increase cancer risk. Still, it isn’t clear what risk, if any there might be from living in a home with a smart meter.

Power lines are surrounded by an electromagnetic field (EMF) that stretches in all directions. The US National Cancer Institute (NCI) describes electromagnetic fields as “invisible areas of energy (also called radiation) that are produced by electricity”. The NCI also explains that EMFs are produced by many things, like power lines, electrical wiring and household appliances like televisions and microwaves.

Electromagnetic fields combine electric fields and magnetic fields. 

 

 

 

Electric Fields	Magnetic Fields
Produced by voltage	Produced by current
The higher the voltage, the stronger the field	The greater the current, the stronger the field
Exists even when there is no current flowing	Strength of field varies with power consumption
Field can do work (the speed and direction of particles changes)	Field cannot do work (speed of particles remain constant)
Are perpendicular to the magnetic field	Are perpendicular to the electric field
Symbol is E	Symbol is B
Measured in volts per metre (V/m) or Newton/coulomb	Measured in tesla (T) (Newton × Second) /(Coulomb × Meter)
Measured using electrometer	Measured using magnetometer

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Did you know? 

Magnetic fields are more likely to penetrate the body than electric fields. Electrical fields are weakened by obstacles like walls. Because of this, magnetic fields are the part of electromagnetic fields (EMFs) that are often studied as a possible cause of cancer.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It would be nearly impossible to conduct a study to prove or disprove a link between living in a house with smart meters and cancer because people have so many sources of exposure to RF and the level of exposure from this source is so small.

Because the amount of RF radiation you could be exposed to from a smart meter is much less than what you could be exposed to from a cell phone, it is very unlikely that living in a house with a smart meter increases risk of cancer.

The World Health Organization has promised to conduct a formal assessment of the risks from RF exposure, but this report is not yet available.

 

 

Study of Humans Accidentally Exposed to Fallout Radiation

 

Beta and Gamma Radiation due to Fall-out from High-Yield Weapons,” known better as Project 4.1, was a medical study conducted by the U.S. of residents of the Marshall Islands. When the Castle Bravo nuclear test resulted in a yield larger than originally expected, the government instituted a top-secret study to “evaluate the severity of radiation injury” to those accidentally exposed. Though most sources agree the exposure was unintentional, many Marshallese believed Project 4.1 was planned before the Castle Bravo test. In all, 239 Marshallese were exposed to significant levels of radiation.

 

 

 

In the 1960s, researchers at the University of California used around 113 babies aged one to three months in various experiments to study changes in blood pressure and blood flow. In one of the experiments, 50 newborns were individually tied onto a circumcision board.

They were then tilted to a certain angle to make blood rush to their head so that their blood pressure could be examined.

 

 

 

 

After World War II, radioactive materials were tested on pregnant women. Medical researchers in America fed radioactive edibles to 829 pregnant women while working on their idea of radioactivity and chemical warfare after World War II.

The victims were told that they were given ‘energy drinks’ which would improve the health of their babies. Not only did the babies die from leukemia, but the mothers also experienced severe rashes and bruises, along with some cancerous diseases.

 

 

 

 

 

 

What Was The Manhattan Project?

The Manhattan Project was a program organized by the U.S. government to build an atomic bomb. The actual bomb was built at the Los Alamos laboratory which was headed by Robert J Oppenheimer.

The team included stellar names in physics from across the globe, that ended up in the construction of the two atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In 1939, Einstein’s letter to President Roosevelt worked to trigger the action, where he suspected that Hitler might be working on the construction of nuclear technology.

Initially, the primary goal of the Manhattan Project was research but eventually, it became a race to compete with Germany. On July 16, 1945, the USA was ready with its first atom bomb, called the Gadget. Later, the two atom bombs Little Boy and Fat Man were dropped on Japan.

 

It took the hands and brainpower of many very smart people to develop an atomic superweapon that would help the U.S. secure victory during World War II.

Some of the most important characters in this effort were the scientists of the Manhattan Project. Many scientists were involved in the production of each physical part needed to develop the atomic superweapon. The ones we will talk about today played the most vital roles.

J. Robert Oppenheimer

 

J. Robert Oppenheimer You likely recognize the name J. Robert Oppenheimer. He was one of the most famous scientists of the Manhattan Project. His vital role as a physicist in the Manhattan Project pushed the efforts to build the atomic bomb along, and he even came to be known as the “Father of the Atomic Bomb.”

He became the Director of Los Alamos in June 1942, where they mainly worked on nuclear fission. Less than three years after Oppenheimer was placed in charge of direct weapons development, the United States dropped two atomic bombs. Oppenheimer felt passionate about the security atomic bombs and nuclear power could bring, but felt that it was important to keep it organized through something like the United Nations, to keep from the inevitable nuclear arms race and future possible wars.

In his famous words, “Science is not everything, but science is very beautiful.”

Enrico Fermi

 

Enrico Fermi was an Italian (later Italian-American) scientist who also played a key role in the Manhattan Project.

He was also a physicist whose greatest contribution was the creation of the world’s first nuclear reactor, the Chicago Pile-1.

Fermi accomplished many things that had never been done before. He was awarded the 1938 Nobel Prize in Physics for his work on induced radioactivity by neutron bombardment as well as the discovery of transuranium elements.

With his colleagues, Fermi filed several patents related to the use of nuclear power, all of which were taken over by the US government. These significant contributions led to some of his peers’ ability to create other important inventions.

Ernest Lawrence

Ernest Lawrence was an American nuclear scientist, known for his work on uranium-isotope separation for the Manhattan Project. He also won a Nobel Prize in Physics in 1939 for his invention of the cyclotron, an important particle accelerator.

 

 

Leo Szilard

Leo Szilard A Hungarian-American physicist and inventor, Leo Szilard, conceived the nuclear chain reaction in 1933 and patented the idea of a nuclear fission reactor in 1934. When Szilard learned of nuclear fission which was discovered in Germany, he realized that uranium might be the element capable of sustaining a chain reaction.

This is when he got other scientists involved, borrowed funds from a fellow inventor, and set out to prove that a chain reaction might be possible. They proved this and more, but felt conflicted about their findings.

“We turned the switch and saw the flashes. We watched them for a little while and then we switched everything off and went home. That night, there was very little doubt in my mind that the world was headed for grief.”

He decided to write a letter to President Franklin D. Roosevelt warning him of Germany’s findings, sharing his own, and recommending funding the research on nuclear reactions, even nuclear weapons. This letter ultimately led to the creation of the Manhattan Project.

 

TIMELINE

World War I (28 July 1914 – 11 November 1918), often abbreviated as WWI, was one of the deadliest global conflicts in history.

 

Before 1930

• 1895 – Wilhelm Konrad Röntgen discovers X-rays at the University of Würzburg.
• 1896 – Henri Becquerel discovers that uranium emits radiation at the National Museum of Natural History in Paris.
• 1898 – J.J. Thomson observes the photoelectric effect.
• 1900 – Max Planck theorizes that matter can only absorb energy in fixed quanta.
• 1904 – Frederick Soddy first proposes a bomb powered by nuclear fission to the Royal Engineers.
• 1905 – Albert Einstein develops the theory of relativity equating energy and matter.
• 1911 – Ernest Rutherford discovers that the majority of the energy in an atom is contained in the nucleus through experiments at the University of Manchester.
• 1912 – J.J. Thomson discovers isotopes through experiments with neon.
• 1914 – H.G. Wells writes The World Set Free, a science fiction novel postulating a world war in 1956 pitting the United Kingdom and France against Germany and Austria-Hungary. Inspired by the research of Rutherford, Sir William Ramsay, and Frederick Soddy, the novel predicts the development of atomic weapons, and features a “carolinum”-based hand grenade that does not extinguish once detonated.
• 1920 – Rutherford postulates the existence of a neutral particle in the atomic nucleus at a Bakerian Lecture in London.
• 1924 – Writing for The Pall Mall Gazette, Winston Churchill speculates “Might a bomb no bigger than an orange be found to possess a secret power to destroy a whole block of buildings – nay to concentrate the force of a thousand tons of cordite and blast a township at a stroke?”
• 1932 – James Chadwick discovers the neutron, leading to experiments in which elements are bombarded with the new particle.
• 1933 – Leó Szilárd realizes the concept of the nuclear chain reaction, although no such reaction was known at the time. He invented the idea of an atomic bomb in 1933 while crossing a London street in Russell Square. He patented it in 1934. (British patent 630,726)

1933, the federal United States hypothecated all of the present and future properties, assets and labor of their “subjects,” the 14th Amendment U.S. citizen, to the Federal Reserve System.”

What is a 14th Amendment U.S. citizen?

The 14th Amendment was put in place during an extremely turbulent time just after the Civil War. It was supposedly passed to free the slaves. However, it made all Americans (“persons”) – who were at the time New Yorkers, Virginians, Pennsylvanians, etc – under the jurisdiction of a central Federal government for the first time. SOURCE: US Citizens Were Classified As Enemies of the State in 1933 – Stillness in the Storm

MEDIA RELEASE: THE PEOPLE ARE THE ENEMY

“Since March the 9th, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency. Under the powers delegated by these statutes, the President may: seize property; organize and control the means of production; seize commodities; assign military forces abroad; institute martial law; seize and control all transportation and communication; regulate the operation of private enterprise; restrict travel; and… control the lives of all American citizens” [from Senate Report 93-549]

This situation has continued absolutely uninterrupted since March 9, 1933. We have been in a state of declared national emergency for years without knowing it.

 

United States Gold Confiscation—1933 Labeled Executive Order 6102, President Franklin Roosevelt signed on a law on April 5, 1933 “forbidding the hoarding of gold coin, gold bullion, and gold certificates within the continental United States.”

1934 – Enrico Fermi conducts experiments in which he exposes uranium and thorium to neutrons to create distinct new substances. Although he is unaware at the time, he creates the first synthetic elements, the transuranium elements

1938 – Fermi is awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics for his achievements, and flees from Fascist Italy to the United States due to the racial laws ratified under pressure from Nazi Germany.^[5]

World War II or the Second World War, often abbreviated as WWII or WW2, was a global conflict that lasted from 1939 to 1945.

 

1939

 

August 2:

Albert Einstein signs the letter (Einstein–Szilárd letter), authored by physicist Leó Szilárd and addressed to President Franklin D. Roosevelt, advising him to fund research into the possibility of using nuclear fission as a weapon as Nazi Germany may also be conducting such research.

 

September 3: Great Britain and France declare war on Nazi Germany in response to its invasion of Poland, beginning World War II.

October 11: Economist Alexander Sachs meets with President Roosevelt and delivers the Einstein–Szilárd letter. Roosevelt authorizes the creation of the Advisory Committee on Uranium.

October 21: First meeting of the Advisory Committee on Uranium, headed by Lyman Briggs of the National Bureau of Standards; $6,000 is budgeted for neutron experiments.

 

1940

In 1940, Japan signed the Tripartite Pact with Germany and Italy, creating World War II’s Axis powers. While the United States had remained neutral in the war, it responded to Japan’s aggression in Asia with economic sanctions that caused severe shortages of natural resources that the Japanese needed for their war effort.

 

• March 2: John R. Dunning‘s team at Columbia University verifies Niels Bohr‘s hypothesis that uranium 235 is responsible for fission by slow neutrons.
• March: University of Birmingham-based scientists Otto Frisch and Rudolf Peierls author the Frisch–Peierls memorandum, calculate that an atomic bomb might need as little as 1 pound (0.45 kg) of enriched uranium to work. The memorandum is given to Mark Oliphant, who in turn hands it over to Sir Henry Tizard.
• April 10: MAUD Committee established by Tizard to investigate feasibility of an atomic bomb.
• May 21: George Kistiakowsky suggests using gaseous diffusion as a means of isotope separation.
• June 12: Roosevelt creates the National Defense Research Committee (NDRC) under Vannevar Bush, which absorbs the Uranium Committee.
• September 6: Bush tells Briggs that the NDRC will provide $40,000 for the uranium project.
• September – Belgian mining engineer Edgar Sengier orders that half of the uranium stock available from the Shinkolobwe mine in the Belgian Congo—about 1,050 tons—be secretly dispatched to New York by African Metals Corp., a commercial division of Union Minière.

In an attempt to prevent American interference in the Pacific war, Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, the US naval station in Hawaii, in a surprise attack on December 7, 1941.

On December 9, 1941—two days after the attack—US President Franklin D. Roosevelt addressed the American people on the radio. He said, in part:

 

The Marshalls, east of the Caroline Islands in the western Pacific Ocean, had been in Japanese hands since World War I. Occupied by the Japanese in 1914, they were made part of the “Japanese Mandated Islands” as determined by the League of Nations.

The Treaty of Versailles, which concluded the First World War, stipulated certain islands formerly controlled by Germany—including the Marshalls, the Carolines, and the Marianas (except Guam)—had to be ceded to the Japanese, though “overseen” by the League.

But the Japanese withdrew from the League in 1933 and began transforming the Mandated Islands into military bases. Non-Japanese, including Christian missionaries, were kept from the islands as naval and air bases—meant to threaten shipping lanes between Australia and Hawaii—were constructed.

 

1941

• February 25: Conclusive discovery of plutonium by Glenn Seaborg and Arthur Wahl at the University of California, Berkeley.
• May 17: A report by Arthur Compton and the National Academy of Sciences is issued which finds favorable the prospects of developing nuclear power production for military use.
• June 28: Roosevelt creates the Office of Scientific Research and Development (OSRD) under Vannevar Bush with the signing of Executive Order 8807. OSRD absorbs NDRC and the Uranium Committee. James B. Conant succeeds Bush as the head of NDRC.
• July 2: The MAUD Committee chooses James Chadwick to write the second (and final) draft of its report on the design and costs of developing a bomb.
• July 15: The MAUD Committee issues final detailed technical report on design and costs to develop a bomb. Advance copy sent to Vannevar Bush who decides to wait for official version before taking any action.^[23]
• August: Mark Oliphant travels to USA to urge development of a bomb rather than power production.
• 30 August 1941: Winston Churchill becomes the first national leader to approve a nuclear weapons programme: the project was named Tube Alloys
• September 3: British Chiefs of Staff Committee approve Tube Alloys.^[25]
• October 3: Official copy of MAUD Report (written by Chadwick) reaches Bush.
• October 9: Bush takes MAUD Report to Roosevelt, who approves Project to confirm MAUD’s findings. Roosevelt asks Bush to draft a letter so that the British government could be approached “at the top.
• December 6: Bush holds a meeting to organize an accelerated research project, still managed by Arthur Compton. Harold Urey is assigned to develop research into gaseous diffusion as a uranium enrichment method, while Ernest O. Lawrence is assigned to investigate electromagnetic separation methods which resulted in the invention of Calutron. Compton puts the case for plutonium before Bush and Conant.
• December 7: The Japanese attack Pearl Harbor. The United States and Great Britain issue a formal declaration of war against Japan the next day.
• December 11: The same day after Germany and Italy declare war on the United States, the United States declares war on Germany and Italy.

December 18: First meeting of the OSRD sponsored S-1 Section, dedicated to developing nuclear w

 

1942–1946 The Manhattan Project was a research and development project that produced the first atomic bombs during World War II. It was led by the United States with the support of the United Kingdom and Canada. 

1942

 

In 1942, the US government forcibly relocated over 100,000 Japanese-Americans to internment camps and held them for years. 

February 19, 1942 President Franklin Roosevelt issued Executive Order 9066, the directive that empowered federal authorities to remove Japanese Americans from their homes and place them in federal internment camps.

 

• January 19: Roosevelt formally authorizes the atomic bomb project.
• January 24: Compton decides to centralize plutonium work at the University of Chicago.
• June 19: S-1 Executive Committee is formed, consisting of Bush, Conant, Compton, Lawrence and Urey.
• June 25: S-1 Executive Committee selects Stone & Webster as primary contractor for construction at the Tennessee site.
• July–September: Physicist Robert Oppenheimer convenes a summer conference at the University of California, Berkeley to discuss the design of a fission bomb. Edward Teller brings up the possibility of a hydrogen bomb as a major point of discussion.
• July 30: Sir John Anderson urges Prime Minister Winston Churchill to pursue a joint project with the United States.
• August 13: The Manhattan Engineering District with James C. Marshall as District Engineer is established by the Chief of the United States Army Corps of Engineers, Major General Eugene Reybold, effective August 16.
• September 17: Major General Wilhelm D. Styer and Reybold order Colonel Leslie Groves to take over the project.
• September 23: Groves is promoted to brigadier general, and becomes director of the project. The Military Policy Committee, consisting of Bush (with Conant as his alternative), Styer and Rear Admiral William R. Purnell is created to oversee the project.
• September – Lieutenant Colonel Kenneth Nichols meets Edgar Sengier in the New York offices of Union Minière. Nichols has been ordered by General Groves to find uranium. Sengier’s answer has become history: “You can have the ore now. It is in New York, a thousand tons of it. I was waiting for your visit.” Nichols reaches an agreement with Sengier that an average of 400 tons of uranium oxide will begin shipping to the US from Shinkolobwe each month.
• September 26: The Manhattan Project is given permission to use the highest wartime priority rating by the War Production Board.
• September 29: Under Secretary of War Robert P. Patterson authorizes the Corps of Engineers to acquire 56,000 acres (23,000 ha) in Tennessee for Site X, which will become the Oak Ridge, Tennessee, laboratory and production site.
• October – 100 tons of Sengier’s uranium ore is sent to Canada for refining by Eldorado Mining and Refining in Port Hope, Ontario.
• October – A special detachment from United States Army Corps of Engineers arrives in the Belgian Congo to reopen the Shinkolobwe mine in the Belgian Congo. Work involves draining water from flooded workings, upgrading the plant machinery and constructing transportation facilities.
• October 19: Groves appoints Oppenheimer to coordinate the scientific research of the project at the Site Y laboratory.
• November – The first uranium oxide shipment leaves the Congolese port of Lobito (it will later change to Matadi because of better security). Only two shipments will ever be lost at sea. Aerodromes at Elizabethville and Leopoldville are expanded with US assistance. The OSS is employed to prevent ore smuggling to Nazi Germany.
• November 16: Groves and Oppenheimer visit Los Alamos, New Mexico and designate it as the location for Site Y.
• December 2: Chicago Pile-1, the first nuclear reactor goes critical at the University of Chicago under the leadership and design of Enrico Fermi, achieving a self-sustaining reaction just one month after construction was started.^[47]

During the Second World War, these islands, as well as others in the vicinity, became targets of Allied attacks. The U.S. Central Pacific Campaign began with the Gilbert Islands, south of the Mandated Islands; U.S. forces conquered the Gilberts in November 1943. Next on the agenda was Operation Flintlock, a plan to capture the Marshall Islands.

 

1943

• January 16: Groves approves development of the Hanford Site.
• February 9: Patterson approves acquisition of 400,000 acres (160,000 ha) at Hanford.
• February 18: Construction begins for Y-12, a massive electromagnetic separation plant for enriching uranium at Oak Ridge.
• April 1: Los Alamos laboratory is established.
• April 5–14: Robert Serber delivers introductory lectures at Los Alamos, later are compiled into The Los Alamos Primer
• April 20: The University of California becomes the formal business manager of the Los Alamos laboratory.
• Mid-1943: The S-1 Committee was eliminated by mid-1943, as it had been superseded by the Military Policy Committee.
• June 2: Construction begins of K-25, the gaseous diffusion plant.
• July: The president proclaims Los Alamos, Clinton Engineer Works (CEW) and Hanford Engineer Works (HEW) as military districts. The Governor of Tennessee Prentice Cooper was officially handed the proclamation making Oak Ridge a military district not subject to state control by a junior officer (a lieutenant) he tore it up and refused to see the MED District Engineer Lt-Col James C. Marshall. The new District Engineer Kenneth Nichols had to placate him.
• July 10: First sample of plutonium arrives at Los Alamos.
• August 10: Medical Section of the MED created, on 3 November Colonel Stafford Warren commissioned to head it.^[58]
• August 13: First drop test of gun-type fission weapon at Dahlgren Proving Ground under the direction of Norman F. Ramsey.
• August 13: Kenneth Nichols replaces Marshall as head of the Manhattan Engineer District.^[60] One of his first tasks as district engineer is to move the district headquarters to Oak Ridge, although its name did not change.
• August 19: Roosevelt and Churchill sign Quebec Agreement. Tube Alloys is merged with the Manhattan project.
• September 8: First meeting of the Combined Policy Committee, established by the Quebec Agreement to coordinate the efforts of the United States, United Kingdom and Canada. United States Secretary of War Henry Stimson, Bush and Conant are the American members; Field Marshal Sir John Dill and Colonel J. J. Llewellin are the British members, and C. D. Howe is the Canadian member.
• October 10: Construction begins for the first reactor at the Hanford Site.
• November 4: X-10 Graphite Reactor goes critical at Oak Ridge.
• December 3: The British Mission, 15 scientists including Rudolf Peierls, Franz Simon and Klaus Fuchs, arrives at Newport News, Virginia.

 

Adm. Raymond Spruance led the 5th Fleet from Pearl Harbor on January 22, 1944, to the Marshalls, with the goal of getting 53,000 assault troops ashore two islets: Roi and Namur. Meanwhile, using the Gilberts as an air base, American planes bombed the Japanese administrative and communications center for the Marshalls, which was located on Kwajalein, an atoll that was part of the Marshall cluster of atolls, islets and reefs.

By January 31,1944 Kwajalein was devastated. Repeated carrier- and land-based air raids destroyed every Japanese airplane on the Marshalls. By February 3, U.S. infantry overran Roi and Namur atolls.

The Marshalls were then effectively in American hands—with the loss of only 400 American lives.

1944 February 03 U.S. troops capture the Marshall Islands

American forces invade and take control of the Marshall Islands, long occupied by the Japanese and used by them as a base for military operations.

• January 11: A special group of the Theoretical Division is created at Los Alamos under Edward Teller to study implosion.
• March 11: Beta calutrons commence operation at Oak Ridge.
• April 5: At Los Alamos, Emilio Segrè receives the first sample of reactor-bred plutonium from Oak Ridge, and within ten days discovers that the spontaneous fission rate is too high for use in a gun-type fission weapon (because of Pu-240 isotope present as an impurity in the Pu-239).
• May 9: The world’s third reactor, LOPO, the first aqueous homogeneous reactor, and the first fueled by enriched uranium, goes critical at Los Alamos.
• July 4: Oppenheimer reveals Segrè’s final measurements to the Los Alamos staff, and the development of the gun-type plutonium weapon
• July 17: “Thin Man” is abandoned. Designing a workable implosion design (Fat Man) becomes the top priority of the laboratory, and design of the uranium gun-type weapon (Little Boy) continued.
• July 20: The Los Alamos organizational structure is completely changed to reflect the new priority.
• September 2: Two chemists are killed, and Arnold Kramish almost killed, after being sprayed with highly corrosive hydrofluoric acid while attempting to unclog a uranium enrichment device which is part of the pilot thermal diffusion plant at the Philadelphia Navy Yard.
• September 22: First RaLa test with a radioactive source performed at Los Alamos.
• September 26: The largest nuclear reactor, the B reactor, goes critical at the Hanford Site.
• Late November: Samuel Goudsmit, scientific head of the Alsos Mission, concludes, based on papers recovered in Strasbourg, that the Germans did not make substantial progress towards an atomic bomb or nuclear reactor, and that the programs were not even considered high priority.
• December 14: Definite evidence of achievable compression obtained in a RaLa test.
• December 17: 509th Composite Group formed under Colonel Paul W. Tibbets to deliver the bomb.

 

1945

• January: Brigadier General Thomas Farrell is named Groves’ deputy.
• January 7: First RaLa test using exploding-bridgewire detonators
• January 20: First stages of K-25 are charged with uranium hexafluoride gas.
• February 2: First Hanford plutonium arrives at Los Alamos.
• April 22: Alsos Mission captures German experimental nuclear reactor at Haigerloch.
• April 27: First meeting of the Target Committee.
• May 7: Nazi Germany formally surrenders to Allied powers, marking the end of World War II in Europe;100-ton test explosion at Alamogordo, New Mexico.
• May 10: Second meeting of the Target Committee, at Los Alamos.
• May 28: Third meeting which works to finalize the list of cities on which atomic bombs may be dropped: Kokura, Hiroshima, Niigata and Kyoto.
• May 30: Stimson drops Kyoto from the target list; it is replaced by Nagasaki.
• June 11: Metallurgical Laboratory scientists under James Franck issue the Franck Report arguing for a demonstration of the bomb before using it against civilian targets.
• July 16: the first nuclear explosion, the Trinity nuclear test of an implosion-style plutonium-based nuclear weapon known as the gadget at Alamogordo; USS Indianapolis sails for Tinian with Little Boy components on board.
• July 19: Oppenheimer recommends to Groves that gun-type design be abandoned and the uranium-235 used to make composite cores (but Little Boy was not abandoned).
• July 24: President Harry S. Truman discloses to Soviet leader Joseph Stalin that the United States has atomic weapons. Stalin feigns little surprise; he already knows this through espionage.
• July 25: General Carl Spaatz is ordered to bomb one of the targets: Hiroshima, Kokura, Niigata or Nagasaki as soon as weather permitted, some time after August 3.
• July 26: Potsdam Declaration is issued, threatening Japan with “prompt and utter destruction”.
• August 6: B-29 Enola Gay drops Little Boy, a gun-type uranium-235 weapon, on the city of Hiroshima, the primary target.
• August 9: B-29 Bockscar drops a Fat Man implosion-type plutonium weapon on the city of Nagasaki, the secondary target, as the primary, Kokura, is obscured by cloud and smoke.
• August 12: The Smyth Report is released to the public, giving the first technical history of the development of the first atomic bombs.
• August 13: Groves holds shipment of material for a third bomb, on his own authority as he could not reach Marshall or Stimson; as it would be a terrible mistake for us to send overseas the ingredients of another atomic bomb. A Fat Man bomb as enough U-235 for a second Little Boy bomb would not be available until December.
• August 14: Surrender of Japan to the Allied powers.^[98]
• August 21: Harry Daghlian, a physicist, receives a fatal dose (510 rems) of radiation from a criticality accident when he accidentally dropped a tungsten carbide brick onto a plutonium bomb core. He dies on September 15.
• September 4: Manhattan District orders shutdown of S-50 liquid thermal diffusion plant and the Y-12 Alpha plant.
• September 8: Manhattan Project survey group under Farrell arrives in Nagasaki.
• September 17: Survey group under Colonel Stafford L. Warren arrives in Nagasaki.
• September 22: Last Y-12 alpha track ceases operating.
• October 16: Oppenheimer resigns as director of Los Alamos, and is succeeded by Norris Bradbury the next day.

 

1946

August 6, 1945, 2:45 am: The Enola Gay, with a crew of 12, took off from the North Pacific island Tinian, which was 1,500 miles from Japan. The Enola Gay was headed for Hiroshima, Japan with an atomic bomb onboard.

3:00 am: Navy Captain William S. Parsons began arming the bomb, nicknamed Little Boy. This took approximately 15 minutes to accomplish.

8:15 am: The Enola Gay dropped Little Boy above Hiroshima, and it exploded 1,900 miles above the city. Eyewitnesses said that the city was clearly visible until the explosion, which clouded the city with smoke and fire. Nearly two-thirds of the city was destroyed with 60,000 of the 90,000 buildings within a 3-mile radius being demolished, but the mission was considered a success. Later, it would be reported that 70,000 people died that day, with another 70,000 people dying within 5 years from radiation poisoning.

• August 6: Bombing of Hiroshima
• August 9: Bombing of Nagasaki
• August 16: Lewis Strauss (who chairs the US Atomic Energy Commission when it is created) recommends to Secretary of Navy James Forrestal that a nuclear test be conducted against naval ships to demonstrate survivability
• August 27: Senator Brien McMahon proposes nuclear test against Japanese ships to demonstrate vulnerability
• October 27: US Fleet Admiral Ernest King proposes to use US surplus ships (80-100)

Although the end of the war was celebrated earlier already with people dancing in the streets, it was only officially over on September 2, 1945.

• January 11: President Truman appoints Vice Admiral William H.P. Blandy to chair Joint Task Force One to conduct tests
• January 24: UN Atomic Energy Commission established; Operation Crossroads announced
• March 7: 167 Bikini islanders relocated to Rongerik atoll
• March 28: Acheson Lilienthal report issued on international control of atomic energy
• June 14: Bernard Baruch delivers Baruch plan to UN Atomic Energy Commission while Congress authorizes Operation Crossroads
• July 1: Able 23-kiloton airburst detonation (158 meters above target)
• July 25: Baker 23-kiloton underwater detonation (90 feet below)
• August: 1 Atomic Energy Act signed by President Truman, placing nuclear weapons under civilian control.

Between 1946 and 1958, the US detonated 67 nuclear bombs on, in and above the Marshall Islands – vaporising whole islands, carving craters into its shallow lagoons and exiling hundreds of people from their homes.

 

1947 January 1: the Atomic Energy Act of 1946 (known as the McMahon Act) takes effect, and the Manhattan Project is officially turned over to the United States Atomic Energy Commission.

August 15: Manhattan District is abolished.

The United States and its allies were engaged in a Cold War nuclear arms race with the Soviet Union to build more advanced bombs from 1947 until 1991.

To help discourage Soviet communist expansion, the United States built more atomic weaponry. But in 1949, the Soviets tested their own atomic bomb, and the Cold War nuclear arms race was on. The United States responded in 1952 by testing the highly destructive hydrogen “superbomb,” and the Soviet Union followed suit in 1953.

 

 

1949 August 29 Soviets explode atomic bomb

At a remote test site at Semipalatinsk in Kazakhstan, the USSR successfully detonates its first atomic bomb, code name “First Lightning.” In order to measure the effects of the blast, the Soviet scientists constructed buildings, bridges, and other civilian structures in the vicinity of the bomb.

From 1949 to 1989, the Soviet Union conducted 456 nuclear tests here, 116 of them above-ground. (Surface testing was eventually banned in 1963.)

They also placed animals in cages nearby so that they could test the effects of nuclear radiation on human-like mammals. The atomic explosion, which at 20 kilotons was roughly equal to “Trinity,” the first U.S. atomic explosion, destroyed those structures and incinerated the animals.

On November 1, 1952, the United States successfully detonated “Mike,” the world’s first hydrogen bomb, on the Elugelab Atoll in the Pacific Marshall Islands

Three years later, on November 22, 1955, the Soviet Union detonated its first hydrogen bomb on the same principle of radiation implosion. Both superpowers were now in possession of the so-called “superbomb,” and the world lived under the threat of thermonuclear war for the first time in history.

Russia Nuclear Test Sites – The Polygon

The Semipalatinsk Test Site also known as “The Polygon”, was the primary testing venue for the Soviet Union’s nuclear weapons. It is located on the steppe in northeast Kazakhstan (then the former Kazakh SSR), south of the valley of the Irtysh River

**I have heard reports uncovered that villagers were INSTRUCTED to be outside their homes FOR FULL BLAST IMPACT

The wind is a huge factor, they let the wind spread out to other so called safe areas, made to look innocent.

Villagers have not been compensated fairly a new center to help them is impossibly far from them to access.

The site was selected in 1947 by Lavrentiy Beria, political head of the Soviet atomic bomb project (Beria falsely claimed the vast 18,000 km² steppe was “uninhabited”).

Gulag labor was employed to build the primitive test facilities, including the laboratory complex in the northeast corner on the southern bank of the Irtysh River. “

The first Soviet bomb test, Operation First Lightning (nicknamed Joe One by the Americans) was conducted in 1949 from a tower at the Semipalatinsk Test Site, scattering fallout on nearby villages (which Beria had neglected to evacuate).

The same area (“the experimental field”, a region 64 km (40 mi) west of Kurchatov city) was used for more than 100 subsequent above-ground weapons tests.

Health impacts

The full impact of radiation exposure was hidden for many years by Soviet authorities.

The site was officially closed by the President of the Kazakh Soviet Socialist Republic Nursultan Nazarbayev on 29 August 1991.

The Polygon

History of the test site

Studies conducted at Cambridge took blood samples from forty different families who lived in a district of Kazakhstan that were directly exposed at high levels to fallout from the Soviet bomb tests.

These studies concluded that individuals who had been exposed to the fallout between
1949 and 1956 had an approximate 80% increase of mutations in the Minisatellite regionsof their DNA.  The children of these individuals had 50% more mutations in their mini-satellite regions compared to their control counterparts.

Some health scientists are still not sure what the germline mutations mean for the individuals’ health, but there is increasing evidence these mutations may increase genetic predisposition to certain diseases such as cardiovascular diseases.

There has also been evidence that increased levels of DNA mutation rates are correlated with prolonged radiation exposure.

A longitudinal study conducted over a 40-year span found a correlation between radiation
fallout exposure and prevalence of solid tumors.

The most frequent sites for solid tumors were the esophagus, stomach, lungs, breasts, and liver.
These sites were found to have statistically significant increases in prevalence when compared to a control group. However some bodily sites had no significant difference in number: cervix uteri, kidney, rectum, and pancreas.

The study’s data suggests that there is a link between exposure length, and amount,
to overall and cancer mortality.

Nonetheless the relationship between the level
of radiation exposure and effect is still up for discussion.

 

 

 

Between 1946 and 1958, the United States detonated 67 nuclear bombs on, in and above the Marshall Islands — vaporizing whole islands, carving craters into its shallow lagoons and exiling hundreds of people from their homes.

The findings from the Marshall Islands suggest that radiation is either leaking from the waste site — which U.S. officials reject — or that authorities did not adequately clean up radiation left behind from past weapons testing, as some in the Marshall Islands claim.

The Marshall Islands are located in the Pacific Ocean. They lie right between Hawaii and Australia with absolutely no major land masses around. This stretch of islands seem to be peaceful, thriving, and clean if looked at from afar. But as you pass over, there is one island with an interesting structure built on it. It looks almost like a UFO that crashed from space, but it is actually just a giant concrete dome.

This dome can be found on Runit Island on the Enewetak Atoll. This stretch of islands is one of the most radiated pieces of land in the world.

Nuclear Testing in on the Bikini and Enewetak Atolls

During the period between 1948 and 1958, the United Stated conducted all sorts of nuclear tests in the northern parts of the Marshall Islands. Two groups of islands, in particular, were the targets: the Bikini and Enewetak Atolls.

The ten-year period in which this testing took place absolutely devastated all forms of life on these stretches of islands. In the Enewetak Atoll, there were 42 atmospheric nuclear weapons tests that took place in the near-surface environments of the atoll.

The Bikini Atoll took less of a hit; it had 14 tests run in that time.

Runit island alone experienced eight round surface tests, eight barge tests conducted from anchor points in the nearby lagoon and on the ocean reef, and one targeted airdrop.

These two Atolls alone during 1948 to 1958 accounted for more than 50% of the global fallout from 66 different nuclear tests.

 

     

 

 

 

 

   

Japanese internment camp on US soil

 

 

 

 

Some of the evacuated natives sit together on Rongerik Island, not yet aware that they would never be able to return to their home islands in the Bikini Atoll. USAAF image.

 

The Bikini inhabitants relocated several times, at some points literally starving because the alternative atolls and islands could not sustain them.

In 1968, President Lyndon Johnson declared the Bikini atoll fit for repopulation, based on an Atomic Energy Commission analysis.

That analysis tragically underestimated the radiation contamination by a factor of 100, so that residents who returned to the atoll wound up leaving by 1978.

In the Marshall Islands, locals have a nickname for the Runit Dome nuclear-waste site: They call it ‘The Tomb’.

The sealed pit contains more than 3.1 million cubic feet (87,800 cubic meters) of radioactive waste, which workers buried there as part of efforts to clean hazardous debris left behind after the US military detonated nuclear bombs on the land.

From 1977 to 1980, around 4,000 US servicemen were tasked with cleaning up the former nuclear testing site of Enewetak Atoll.

They scooped up the contaminated soil, along with other radioactive waste materials such as military equipment, concrete, and scrap metal.

It all went into the Runit Dome, which the servicemen then covered with concrete.

In total, the crater holds enough radioactive waste to fill 35 Olympic-sized swimming pools.

Most of that is irradiated soil carrying plutonium, an isotope that can cause lung cancer if inhaled.

Scientists don’t know if the dome’s radiation levels are harmful

Ken Buesseler, a marine radiochemist who is planning to sample the soil near the dome, recently told Insider that the concern about radiation levels could be overblown.

“There is cesium in everything you eat, plutonium in everything you eat and drink,” he said.

Residents of Enewetak Atoll would have to inhale the leaked plutonium, or be exposed to contaminated water through an abrasion, to experience adverse health consequences.

But scientists are still studying the effects of radiation exposure on the islands overall.

“You can’t taste or smell or touch or feel it,” Buesseler said. “So, it’s kind of this invisible thing that can harm you, and no one wants that.”

A Ticking Time Bomb: The Concrete Dome of Runit Island

AT Hall
March 10, 2018

Submitted as coursework for PH241, Stanford University, Winter 2018

The Marshall Islands are located in the Pacific Ocean. They lie right between Hawaii and Australia with absolutely no major land masses around. This stretch of islands seem to be peaceful, thriving, and clean if looked at from afar. But as you pass over, there is one island with an interesting structure built on it. It looks almost like a UFO that crashed from space, but it is actually just a giant concrete dome. This dome can be found on Runit Island on the Enewetak Atoll. This stretch of islands is one of the most radiated pieces of land in the world.

Nuclear Testing in on the Bikini and Enewetak Atolls

During the period between 1948 and 1958, the United Stated conducted all sorts of nuclear tests in the northern parts of the Marshall Islands. Two groups of islands, in particular, were the targets: the Bikini and Enewetak Atolls. The ten-year period in which this testing took place absolutely devastated all forms of life on these stretches of islands. In the Enewetak Atoll, there were 42 atmospheric nuclear weapons tests that took place in the near-surface environments of the atoll.

The Bikini Atoll took less of a hit; it had 14 tests run in that time. Runit island alone experienced eight round surface tests, eight barge tests conducted from anchor points in the nearby lagoon and on the ocean reef, and one targeted airdrop. These two Atolls alone during 1948 to 1958 accounted for more than 50% of the global fallout from 66 different nuclear tests. 

Runit Island

The Runit Island dome symbolizes all of the testing done in this area. It is an attempt to save the environment by putting away hazardous nuclear material.

Unfortunately, it is actually making the situation worse. In 1958, Runit Island was the sight of a “Quince” nuclear test and in 1979 when the United Stated went to clean up after the testing approximately “266 GBq of TRU activity (Pu-238 + Pu-239 + Pu-240 + Am-241 = TRU) contained in 8,200 m³ of soil was recovered from the…Quince zone.”

The island was eventually deemed uninhabitable. In 1979 the United States sent out a cleanup crew to contain the radioactive material. A concrete dome inches thick was constructed to house 111,000 cubic yards of radioactive material that accumulated through 12 years of tests.

One of the major problems of the construction was that the bottom was not sealed with concrete.

As a result, radioactive waste is slowly and continuously leaking into the ocean.

Conclusion

The United States devastated this pocket of islands with no regard to its ecosystem. It contaminated the waters and the land to the point that people can no longer live there safely. Runit Islands dome was an attempt at cleaning up the mess. Unfortunately, it is still hurting the environment.

Today, there are other concerns with the dome. Sea levels are rising, and if the dome gets covered, all of the nuclear waste will be exposed to the ocean. If this happens, who knows how far the effects will be felt. Something needs to be done in regard to the safety of this dome.

*********

© AT Hall. The author warrants that the work is the author’s own and that Stanford University provided no input other than typesetting and referencing guidelines. The author grants permission to copy, distribute and display this work in unaltered form, with attribution to the author, for noncommercial purposes only. All other rights, including commercial rights, are reserved to the author.

 

The Nuclear Waste Dome Built On The Marshall Islands Is Reportedly Leaking

The Marshall Islands dome, containing nuclear waste, is showing signs of breakage.  

From 1946 to 1980, the U.S. military conducted a total of 67 nuclear tests, subjecting the test areas to repeated blasts and nuclear debris, reports the Washington Post.

The Castle Bravo test was the U.S. government’s first hydrogen bomb weapon, and it was 1000 times more powerful than the atomic bomb in Hiroshima. Radioactive debris spread up to 7000 square miles away from the center of the bomb site.

Marshall Islands health minister testified, “Within hours, the atoll was covered with a fine, white, powder-like substance. No one knew it was radioactive fallout. The children played in the ‘snow.’ They ate it.”

The American government eventually moved the debris to Runit Island, and in 1980, a gigantic, 18-inch thick concrete dome was placed over it.

This was only meant to be a temporary solution. However, no further plans have been developed, and the dome remains extremely vulnerable.

One strong storm could break the dome, and release the toxic, lethal remnants of the U.S. nuclear testing.

During a recent press tour in the Pacific Islands on the topic of climate change, U.N. Secretary General António Guterres said:

“I’ve just been with the president of the Marshall Islands [Hilda Heine], who is very worried because there is a risk of leaking of radioactive materials that are contained in a kind of coffin in the area.

In 1983, the Marshall Islands gained the right to govern itself, by signing a compact of free association with the U.S. However, this also settled all issues related to nuclear testing, and left the burden of the dome to the islands.

A 2017 report by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation states that the materials include plutonium-239, one of the most toxic substances in the world, with a radioactive half life of 24,100 years.

The longevity of the substances, as well as the lack of the proper lining in the dome, are the main problems.

Michael Gerrard, chair of Columbia University’s Earth Institute, tells ABC: “The bottom of the dome is just what was left behind by the nuclear weapons explosion. It’s permeable soil. There was no effort to line it. And therefore, the seawater is inside the dome.”

As the Guardian reports, the Energy Department issued a report in 2013 admitting that radioactive material may have started to leak from the dome already, but the health risks were classified as low.

Today, it is obvious that the Marshall Islands government does not have the resources necessary to bolster the dome, which leaves it vulnerable.

A Marshallese official tells the Guardian, “It’s clear as day that the local government will neither have the expertise or funds to fix the problem if it needs a particular fix.”

The Runit Dome is chipping and cracking

Prior to the nuclear tests in the 1940s and 1950s, residents of Enewetak Atoll were exiled from their homes and relocated to nearby islands. Today, only three of the atoll’s 40 islands have been dubbed safe for human habitation. They are currently home to around 650 residents.

The island that hosts Runit Dome remains unoccupied.

In 2013, the US Department of Energy reported that radioactive materials could be leaking from the dome into the marine environment,

but said such an occurrence would “not necessarily lead to any significant change in the radiation dose delivered to the local resident population.”

 

For the past 40 years, the Marshall Islands has relied on financial assistance from its former colonizer, the United States, which carried out 67 nuclear tests on two Marshallese atolls in the dozen years after World War II.

The current 20-year treaty expires this year, and talks about a new deal were not going particularly well last year. Then the Marshalls’ government got Washington’s attention when several top officials refused to attend treaty negotiations running alongside a high-level Pacific summit at the White House in September unless the Biden administration agreed to a better deal.

The bargaining tactic worked: The administration dispatched high-level representatives to the Marshall Islands for further negotiations, where a newer and much larger agreement was reached.

The case of the Marshall Islands is emblematic of the increasingly fervent geopolitical competition in the Pacific as the United States and China jostle for influence.

The Biden administration has acknowledged that Pacific islands got “short shrift” as the United States focused its attention elsewhere. It is now rapidly trying to make up for lost time as China lavishes money and attention on many island nations in an attempt to grow influence across the Pacific and reap economic, diplomatic and military gains.

“We’re caught between two big powers like a girl two boys are fighting over,” said Peterson Jibas, a Marshallese senator and member of the country’s negotiating team.

This month, the Biden administration agreed to the outlines of a formal deal, pledging $700 million to the Marshall Islands’ national trust fund to help foster economic development, support nuclear victims and protect against climate change. It is also negotiating similar deals with two other Micronesian countries: the Federated States of Micronesia and Palau.

Joseph Yun, Biden’s special envoy in the negotiations, insisted in an interview with The Washington Post that a range of issues shaped his offer, including climate change and the Marshall Islands’ “steady” support of America. But, he admitted: “It’s no secret — China is a factor.”China’s growing reach is transforming a Pacific island chain

The new agreement gives Washington significant control over Marshallese foreign policy, a veto over foreign military use of Marshallese territory — which, with Palau and the Federated States of Micronesia, covers an expanse of ocean larger than the continental United States — and a long-term lease over the land used for a crucial American military base.

In return, the United States provides financial support and allows Marshallese citizens visa-free access to America.

The islands’ leaders have long complained that previous deals did not adequately compensate them for the damage done by American nuclear testing here.

Just two years after the United States took control of the Marshall Islands from Imperial Japan in 1944, it began testing its new nuclear weapons here, detonating the equivalent of 7,000 Hiroshima bombs on Bikini and Enewetak atolls by 1958, causing heightened cancer rates, miscarriages and resentment that lingered long after the fallout had cleared.

“They say communism is bad, but China didn’t drop 67 bombs on us,” said Jibas, who represents Bikini and remains suspicious of his country’s main financial contributor. “America is like a white rat with red eyes.”

Both Washington and Beijing understand the strategic importance of island nations like the Marshalls.

The United States gained control here only after thousands of Americans died during its brutal World War II campaign through Micronesia. Although the United States said at the time that it was liberating the Marshall Islands from Japanese colonizers, when the war ended it never left. Instead, it took over its governance, using it as a “buffer” against competitors like China and a home for military bases, local officials say.A more pragmatic Xi Jinping launches a global charm offensive for China

Even after Micronesian countries gained independence in the late 20th century, Washington maintained control through agreements like the one with the Marshall Islands.

The imbalance of power meant the Marshall Islands had previously struggled to press its case, Jibas said. “America is like an older brother. What do you do when he slaps you?”

Yet the frustration of people like Jibas co-exists alongside a degree of goodwill felt by others, born of the United States’ long presence in Micronesia. Many Marshallese routinely refer to America as “the mainland. In towns like Ebeye, development and jobs are sorely needed.

The Americans “are friendly people,” said Lillian Maika, who sat in a cozy home on the small island of Ebeye. Above her hung a photograph of her son, who was killed while serving in South Korea with the American military. While she says “too many” Marshallese are coaxed into the military out of a lack of other opportunities, she still appreciated that America “gives us work, plenty of money. We get what we need.”

That familiarity with America is matched by a general suspicion of China. Lucia Lomae, an elderly Marshallese woman who cradled her grandchild outside her home on the remote island of Enubirr, thought that “China is not good,” although she said she wasn’t sure why.

Ongoing poverty and a growing Chinese presence, however, mean familiarity alone is increasingly insufficient.

Beijing last year proposed a sweeping Pacific-wide economic and security agreement that would have led to increased trade and Chinese involvement in the training of regional police forces, among other things.U.S.-China economic ties continue to fray, despite Biden-Xi meeting

While Pacific nations rejected the deal during a regional summit, several nations expressed interest in a modified version. China has also notched significant wins with several individual Pacific nations.

Kiribati, which lies immediately south of the Marshall Islands, cut ties with Taiwan in favor of China in 2019, and signed as many as 10 agreements deepening relations during a visit by China’s foreign minister last May.

The Solomon Islands meanwhile signed a controversial agreement allowing it to invite China to deploy armed police and military personnel there, sparking fears China might construct a military base in the country. Solomon Islands officials have dismissed such concerns, but this has not assuaged Western fears.

At the same time, China has provided Kiribati and the Solomon Islands with significant aid and financing.

Hence the sudden American effort to pay more attention — and more financial aid — to the region. At the September White House summit, Biden promised an additional $810 million in aid for the Pacific generally.

“The security of America, quite frankly, and the world depends on your security and the security of the Pacific islands,” Biden said at the time.

But the United States’ fraught history also means Pacific officials treat such commitments carefully. Despite her significant victories, the Marshallese foreign minister remains cautious.

“If we take you as a friend, we expect you to act as a friend.

But the U.S. is a different matter.

They’re sneaky. They’re smart,” Kabua said.

Now the Marshall Islands is enjoying playing its stronger hand. In its most recent negotiations, “we were much more wary, we were less naïve, we put our foot down and made our demands,” Kabua said. “We found that this is how we operate with the U.S., and we found it to be effective.

 

 

 

Independent Science on the Effects of Wireless Radiation

on Human Health and the Environment

There are more than 1,000 scientific studies conducted by independent researchers from around the world concerning the biological effects of Radiofrequency (RF radiation). Here we present some of the most recent studies. 

 

Source   SCIENTIFIC STUDIES | Americans for Responsible Technology

 

Effects on Fetuses

1. Mobile Phone Use During Pregnancy: Which Association With Fetal Growth? Boileau, N., et al. Journal of Gynecology Obstetrics and Human Reproduction 49(8):101852. (2020). 
2. Mother’s Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields Before and During Pregnancy is Associated with Risk of Speech Problems in Offspring. Zarei, S., et al. Journal of Biomedical Physics and Engineering 9(1):61-68. (2019). 
3. Prenatal Exposure to Extremely Low Frequency Magnetic Field and Its Impact on Fetal Growth. Ren, Y., et al. Environmental Health 18(1):6. (2019).
4. Associations of Maternal Cell Phone Use During Pregnancy, Pregnancy Duration And Fetal Growth In Four Birth Cohorts. Tsarna, E., et al. American Journal of Epidemiology 188(7):1270-1280. (2019).
5. Effect of radiofrequency radiation on reproductive health. Singh, R., et al. Indian Journal of Medical Research 148(Suppl 1): S92–S99. (2018). 
6. The Effects of Radiofrequency Radiation on Mice Fetus Weight, Length and Tissues. Alimohammadi, I., et al. Data in Brief 19:2189-2194. (2018). 
7. Effects of Prenatal Exposure to WiFi Signal (2.45 GHz) on Postnatal Development and Behavior in Rat: Influence of Maternal Restraint. Othman, H., et al. Behavioral Brain Research 326:291-301. (2017). 
8. Exposure to Magnetic Field Non-Ionizing Radiation and the Risk of Miscarriage: A prospective Cohort Study. Li, D., et al. Scientific Reports 7(17541). (2017). 
9. Postnatal Development and Behavior Effects of In-Utero Exposure of Rats to Radiofrequency Waves Emitted From Conventional WiFi Devices. Othman, H., et al. Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology 52:239-247 (2017). 
10. Lasting Hepatotoxic Effects of Prenatal Mobile Phone Exposure. Yilmaz, A., et al. The Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine 30(11):1355-1359 (2017). 
11. Multiple Assessment Methods of Prenatal Exposure to Radio Frequency Radiation from Telecommunication in the Mothers and Children’s Environmental Health (MOCEH) Study. Choi, KH., et al. International Journal of Occupational Medicine and Environmental Health 29(6):959-972 (2016).
12. A Review on Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs) and the Reproductive System. Asghari, A., et al. Electronic Physician Journal 8(7):2655-2662. (2016). 
13. Genotoxicity Induced by Foetal and Infant Exposure to Magnetic Fields and Modulation of Ionising Radiation Effects. Udroiu, I., et al. PLoS One10(11):E0142259. (2015).
14. Oxidative Stress of Brain and Liver is Increased by Wi-Fi (2.45 GHz) Exposure of Rats During Pregnancy and the Development of Newborns. Çelik, Ö., et al. Journal of Chemical Neuroanatomy 75(Pt B):134-139. (2015). 
15. Neurodegenerative Changes and Apoptosis Induced by Intrauterine and Extrauterine Exposure of Radiofrequency Radiation. Güler, G., et al. Journal of Chemical Neuroanatomy 75(Pt B):128-133. (2015). 
16. Maternal Exposure to a Continuous 900-MHz Electromagnetic Field Provokes Neuronal Loss and Pathological Changes in Cerebellum of 32-Day-Old Female Rat Offspring. Odacı, E., et al. Journal of Chemical Neuroanatomy 75(Pt B):105-110. (2015). 
17. Different Periods of Intrauterine Exposure to Electromagnetic Field: Influence on Female Rats’ Fertility, Prenatal and Postnatal Development. Alchalabi, A., et al. Asian Pacific Journal of Reproduction 5(1):14-23. (2015). 
18. Use of Mobile Phone During Pregnancy and the Risk of Spontaneous Abortion. Mahmoudabadi, F., et al. Journal of Environmental Health Science and Engineering 13:34. (2015). 
19. Effects of Prenatal 900 MHz Electromagnetic Field Exposures on the Histology of Rat Kidney. Ulubay, M., et al. International Journal of Radiation Biology 91(1):35-41. (2015). 
20. The Effect of Exposure of Rats During Prenatal Period to Radiation Spreading from Mobile Phones on Renal Development. Bedir, R., et al. Renal Failure 37(2):305-9. (2015). 
21. Dosimetric Study of Fetal Exposure to Uniform Magnetic Fields at 50 Hz. Liorni, I., et al. Bioelectromagnetics 35(8):580-97 (2014).
22. Influence of Pregnancy Stage and Fetus Position on the Whole-Body and Local Exposure of the Fetus to RF-EMF. Varsier, N. et al. Physics in Medicine and Biology 59(17):4913-26. (2014). 
23. Autism-Relevant Social Abnormalities in Mice Exposed Perinatally to Extremely Low Frequency Electromagnetic Fields. Alsaeed, I., et al. International Journal of Developmental Neuroscience 37:58-64. (2014). 
24. Pyramidal Cell Loss in the Cornu Ammonis of 32-day-old Female Rats Following Exposure to a 900 Megahertz Electromagnetic Field During Prenatal Days 13–21. Bas, O., et al. NeuroQuantology 11(4):591-599. (2013). 
25. The Effects of 900 Megahertz Electromagnetic Field Applied in the Prenatal Period on Spinal Cord Morphology and Motor Behavior in Female Rat Pups. Odaci, E., et al. NeuroQuantology 11(4):573-581. (2013). 
26. The Effects of Prenatal Exposure to a 900 Megahertz Electromagnetic Field on Hippocampus Morphology and Learning Behavior in Rat Pups. İkinci, A., et al. NeuroQuantology 11(4):582-590. (2013)
27. Fetal Radiofrequency Radiation Exposure From 800-1900 MHz-Rated Cellular Telephones Affects Neurodevelopment and Behavior in Mice. Aldad, T., et al. Science Reports 2:312. (2012).
28. Cranial and Postcranial Skeletal Variations Induced in Mouse Embryos by Mobile Phone Radiation. Fragopoulou, AF., et al. Pathophysiology 17(3):169-77. (2010). 
29. Maternal Occupational Exposure to Extremely Low Frequency Magnetic Fields and the Risk of Brain Cancer in the Offspring. Li, P, et al. Cancer Causes & Control 20(6):945-55. (2009). 
30. Reproductive and Developmental Effects of EMF in Vertebrate Animal Models. Pourlis, A.F. Pathophysiology 16(2-3):179-89. (2009). 
31. Prenatal and Postnatal Exposure to Cell Phone Use and Behavioral Problems in Children. Divan, HA., et al. Epidemiology 19(4):523-29 (2008). 
32. Effects of Prenatal Exposure to a 900 MHz Electromagnetic Field on the Dentate Gyrus of Rats: A Stereological and Histopathological Study. Odaci, E., et al. Brain Research 1238:224–229. (2008).
33. Ultra High Frequency-Electromagnetic Field Irradiation During Pregnancy Leads to an Increase in Erythrocytes Micronuclei Incidence in Rat Offspring. Ferreira, A., et al. Life Sciences 80(1):43-50. (2006). 
34. 

​Effects on Children and Adolescents  

1. Development of health-based exposure limits for radiofrequency radiation from wireless devices using a benchmark dose approach. Uche, U., et al. Environmental Health, 20(84). (2021).
2. Electromagnetic Fields, Pulsed Radiofrequency Radiation, and Epigenetics: How Wireless Technologies May Affect Childhood Development. Sage, C. & Burgio, E. Child Development 89(1):129-136. (2017).
3. Prospective Cohort Analysis of Cellphone Use and Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties in Children. Sudan, M., et al. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 70(12):1207-1213. (2016).
4. Radiofrequency-electromagnetic Field Exposures in Kindergarten Children. Bhatt, C., et al. Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology. 27(5):497-504. (2016). 
5. Why Children Absorb More Microwave Radiation than Adults: The Consequences. Morgan, L., et al. Journal of Microscopy and Ultrastructure 2(4):196-204. (2014).
6. A Prospective Study of In-Utero Exposure to Magnetic Fields and the Risk of Childhood Obesity. Li, D., et al. Scientific Reports 2(540). (2012). 
7. Exposure to Extremely Low-Frequency Magnetic Fields and the Risk of Childhood Cancer: Update of the Epidemiological evidence. Schüz, J. Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology 107(3):339-42. (2011). 
8. Cell Phone Use and Behavioural Problems in Young Children. Divan, HA., et al. Journal of Epidemiol Community Health 66(6):524-9. (2010). 
9. Exposure to Radio-Frequency Electromagnetic Fields and Behavioral Problems in Bavarian Children and Adolescents. Thomas, S., et al. European Journal of Epidemiology 25(2):135-41. (2009). 
10. The Sensitivity of Children to Electromagnetic Fields. Kheifets, L., et al. Deventer Journal of Pediatrics 116(2):303-313. (2005). 

​

Brain Tumors

1. Simulation of The Incidence of Malignant Brain Tumors in Birth Cohorts That Started Using Mobile Phones When They First Became Popular in Japan. Sato, Y., et al. Bioelectromagnetics 40(3):143-149. (2019). 
2. National Toxicology Technical Report on Cell Phones and Cancer.Toxicology and Carcinogenesis Studies in Sprague Dawley (Hsd:Sprague Dawley SD) Rats Exposed to Whole-body Radio Frequency Radiation at a Frequency (900 Mhz) and Modulations (GSM and CDMA) Used by Cell Phones. National Toxicology Program TR595:1-466. (2018). 
3. Report of Final Results Regarding Brain and Heart Tumors in Sprague-Dawley Rats Exposed From Prenatal Life Unitl Natural Death to Mobile Phone Radiofrequency Field Representative of a 1.8 GHz GSM Base Station Environmental Emission. Falcioni, L, et al. Environmental Research 165:496-503. (2018). Summary: https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/whatwestudy/topics/cellphones/index.html 
4. Exposure to Cell Phone Radiofrequency Changes Corticotrophin Hormone Levels and Histology of The Brain and Adrenal Glands in Male Wistar Rat. Shahabi, S., et al. Iranian Journal of Basic Medical Sciences 21:1269-1274. (2018). 
5. Brain Tumours: Rise in Glioblastoma Multiforme Incidence in England 1995-2015 Suggests an Adverse Environmental or Lifestyle Factor. Philips, A., et al. Journal of Environmental and Public Health 2018(7910754). (2018). 
6. The 2100 MHz Radiofrequency Radiation of a 3G-Mobile Phone and the DNA Oxidative Damage in Brain. Sahin, D, et al. Journal of Chemical Neuroanatomy 75(Pt B):94-98. (2016). 
7. Mobile Phone and Cordless Phone Use and the Risk for Glioma – Analysis of Pooled Case-Control Studies in Sweden 1997-2003 and 2007-2009. Hardell, L. et al.  PathoPhysiology 22(1):1-13. (2015).
8. Mobile Phone Radiation Causes Brain Tumors and Should Be Classified as a Probable Human Carcinogen. Morgan, L., et al. International Journal of Oncology 46:1865-1871. (2015). 
9. Mobile Phone Use and Brain Tumours in the CERENAT Case-Control Study. Coureau, G., et al. Occupational & Environmental Medicine 71(7):514-22 (2014). 
10. Pooled Analysis of Case-Control Studies on Acoustic Neuroma Diagnosed 1997-2003 and 2007-2009 and Use of Mobile and Cordless Phones. Hardell, L., et al. International Journal of Oncology 43(4):1036-1044. (2013). 
11. Using the Hill Viewpoints from 1965 for Evaluating Strengths of Evidence of the Risk for Brain Tumors Associated with use of Mobile and Cordless Phones. Hardell, L., et al. Reviews on Environmental Health 28(2-3):97-106 .(2013). 
12. Use of Mobile Phones and Cordless Phones is Associated with Increased Risk for Glioma and Acoustic Neuroma. Hardell, L., Carlberg, M., et al. PathoPhysiology 20(2):85-110. (2013). 
13. Mobile Phones and Head Tumours: A Critical Analysis of Case-Control Epidemiological Studies. Levis, A.G., et al. Open Environmental Sciences 6(1):1-12. (2012). 
14. On the Association Between Glioma, Wireless Phones, Heredity and Ionising Radiation. Carlberg, M., et al. PathoPhysiology 19(4):243-252. (2012).
15. Mobile Phones and Head Tumours. The Discrepancies in Cause-Effect Relationships in the Epidemiological Studies – How Do They Arise? Levis, A.G., et al. Environmental Health 10:59. (2011). 
16. Indications of Possible Brain Tumour Risk in Mobile-Phone Studies: Should We Be Concerned? Cardis, E., et al. Occupational & Environmental Medicine 68:169-171. (2011).
17. Estimating the Risk of Brain Tumors from Cell Phone Use: Published Case-Control Studies. Morgan, LL. Pathophysiology 16(2-3):137-147. (2009). 
18. Cell Phones and Brain Tumors: A Review Including the Long-Term Epidemiologic Data. Khurana, V.G., et al. Surgical Neurology 72(3):205-14. (2009). 
19. Epidemiological Evidence for an Association Between Use of Wireless Phones and Tumor Diseases. Hardell, L., et al. PathoPhysiology 16(2-3):113-122. (2009). 
20. Mobile Phone, Cordless Phones and the Risk for Brain Tumours. Hardell, L., et al. International Journal of Oncology 35(1):5-17 (2009).
21. Histopathological Examinations of Rat Brains After Long-Term Exposure to GSM-900 Mobile Phone Radiation. Grafström, G., et al. Brain Research Bulletin 77(5):257-63. (2008). 
22. Mobile Phone Use and the Risk of Acoustic Neuroma. Lonn, S., et al. Epidemiology 15(6):653-659. (2004).

​

Parotid Gland Tumors 

1. Influence of Handheld Mobiles on Parotid: A Cohort Study. Ranjitha, G., et al. Journal of Indian Academy of Oral Medicine & Radiology 29:254-258. (2017). 
2. Does Cell Phone Use Increase the Chances of Parotid Gland Tumor Development? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. De Siqueira, EC., et al. Journal of Oral Pathology and Medicine 46(7) 480-483. (2017). 
3. Correlation Between Cellular Phone Use and Epithelial Parotid Gland Malignancies. Duan, Y., et al. International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 40(9):966-972. (2011).
4. Mobile Phones Use and Risk of Tumors: A Meta-Analysis. Myung, SK., et al. Journal of Clinical Oncology 27(33):5565-72. (2009).
5. Epidemiological Evidence for an Association Between use of Wireless Phones and Tumor Diseases. Hardell, L., et al. PathoPhysiology 16(2-3):113-122. (2009). 
6. Cell Phone Use and Risk of Benign and Malignant Parotid Gland Tumors – A Nationwide Case-Control Study. Sadetzki, S., et al. American Journal of Epidemiology 167(4):457-467. (2007).

​

Other Malignancies

1. Increased Generational Risk of Colon and Rectal Cancer in Recent Birth Cohorts under Age 40 – the Hypothetical Role of Radiofrequency Radiation from Cell Phones. Davis, D., et al. Annals of Gastroenterology and Digestive Disorders. 3(1):1-8. 2020.
2. The Carcinogenic Potential of Non-Ionizing Radiations: The Cases of S-50 Hz MF and 1.8 GHz GSM Radiofrequency Radiation. Soffritti, M., et al. Basic & Clinical Pharmacology & Toxicology I125(Suppl.3):58-69. (2019). 
3. National Toxicology Technical Report on Cell Phones and Cancer.Toxicology and Carcinogenesis Studies in Sprague Dawley (Hsd:Sprague Dawley SD) Rats Exposed to Whole-body Radio Frequency Radiation at a Frequency (900 Mhz) and Modulations (GSM and CDMA) Used by Cell Phones. National Toxicology Program TR595:1-466. (2018). Summary: https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/whatwestudy/topics/cellphones/index.html 
4. Tumor Promotion by Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields Below Exposure Limits for Humans. Lerchl, A., et al. Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications 459(4):585-590. (2015). 
5. Swedish Review Strengthen Grounds for Concluding that Radiation from Cellular and Cordless Phones is a Probable Human Carcinogen. Davis, DL., et al. Pathophysiology 20(2):123-129. (2013). 
6. Multifocal Breast Cancer in Young Women with Prolonged Contact Between Their Breasts and Their Cellular Phones. West, J., et al. Case Reports in Medicine 2013(354682). (2013). 
7. Case-Control study of the Use of Mobile and Cordless Phones and the Risk for Malignant Melanoma in the Head and Neck Region. Hardell, L., et al. Pathophysiology 18(4):325-333 (2011). 
8. Epidemiological Evidence for an Association Between Use of Wireless Phones and Tumor Diseases. Hardell, L., et al. PathoPhysiology 16(2-3):113-122. (2009). 
9. Study on Potential Effects of “902 MHz GSM-type Wireless Communication Signals” on DMBA-Induced Mammary Tumours in Sprague-Dawley Rats. Hruby, R., et al. Mutation Research 649(1-2):34-44. (2008). 

​

DNA Damage and Gene Expression Changes

1. National Toxicology Technical Report on Cell Phones and Cancer.Toxicology and Carcinogenesis Studies in Sprague Dawley (Hsd:Sprague Dawley SD) Rats Exposed to Whole-body Radio Frequency Radiation at a Frequency (900 Mhz) and Modulations (GSM and CDMA) Used by Cell Phones. National Toxicology Program TR595:1-466. (2018). Summary: https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/whatwestudy/topics/cellphones/index.html 
2. Impact of radiofrequency radiation on DNA damage and antioxidants in peripheral blood lymphocytes of humans residing in the vicinity of mobile phone base stations. Zothansiama, M., et al. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine 36(3):295-305. (2017). 
3. Microwaves from Mobile Phones Inhibit 53BP1 Focus Formation in Human Stem Cells More Strongly Than in Differentiated Cells: Possible Mechanistic Link to Cancer Risk. Markova, E., et al. Environmental Health Perspectives 118(3):394-399. (2010). 
4. Radiofrequency Radiation and Gene/Protein Expression: A Review. McNamee, JP., et al. Radiation Research 172(3):265-287. (2009). 
5. Evaluation of HSP70 Expression and DNA Damage in Cells of a Human Trophoblast Cell Line Exposed to 1.8GHz Amplitude-Modulated Radiofrequency Fields. Valbonesi, P., et al. Radiation Research 169(3):270-279. (2008). 
6. Gene and Protein Expression Following Exposure to Radiofrequency Fields from Mobile Phones. Vanderstraeten, J., et al. Environmental Health Perspectives 116(9):1131-5. (2008). 
7. Nonthermal Effects of RadioFrequency-Field Exposure on Calcium Dynamics in Stem Cell-derived Neuronal Cells: Elucidation of Calcium Pathways. Rao, V.S., et al. Radiation Research 169(3):319-329. (2008). 
8. Gene Expression Changes in the Skin of Rats Induced by Prolonged 35 GHz Millimeter-Wave Exposure. Millenbaugh, NJ., et al. Radiation Research 169(3):288-300. (2008). 
9. DNA Damage in Molt-4 T-lymphoblastoid Cells Exposed to Cellular Telephone Radiofrequency Fields in Vitro. Philips, J., et al. Bioelectrochemistry and Bioenergetics 45(1):103-110. (1998). 

​

Neurological/Cognitive Effects 

1. Early-Life Exposure to Pulsed LTE Radiofrequency Fields Causes Persistent Changes in Activity and Behavior in C57BL/6 J Mice. Broom, K., et al. Bio Electro Magnetics 40(7):498-511. (2019). 
2. Are Rises in Electro-Magnetic Field in The Human Environment, Interacting with Multiple Environmental Pollutions, The Tripping Point for Increases in Neurological Deaths in the Western World? Pritchard, C., et al. Medical Hypotheses 127: 76-83. (2019). 
3. Effect of 1800-2100 MHz Electromagnetic Radiation on Learning-Memory and Hippocampal Morphology in Swiss Albino Mice. Kishore, G., et al. Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research 12(2):14-17. (2019). 
4. Monitoring of BALB/C Strain Mice Health, Investigation of Behavior, Hematological Parameters Under the Effect of an Electromagnetic Field. Zymantiene, J., et al. Medycyna Weterynarjna 75(03):158-163. (2019). 
5. 2.45 GHz Microwave Radiation Impairs Learning, Memory, and Hippocampal Synaptic Plasticity in The Rat. Karimi, N., et al. Toxicology and Industrial Health 34(12):873-883. (2018). 
6. Mobile Phone distance From Head and Temperature Changes of Radio Frequency Waves on Brain Tissue. Forouharmajd, F., et al. International Journal of Preventative Medicine 9(1):61. (2018). 
7. A Prospective Cohort Study of Adolescents’ Memory Performance and Individual Brain Dose of Microwave Radiation from Wireless Communication. Foerster, M., et al. Environmental Health Perspectives 126(7). (2018). 
8. Electromagnetic Radiation 2450 MHz Exposure Causes Cognition Deficit with Mitochondrial Dysfunction and Activation of Intrinsic Pathway of Apoptosis in Rats. Gupta, S.K., et al. Journal of Biosciences 43(2) 263-276. (2018). 
9. The Effect of Wi-Fi Electromagnetic Waves in Unimodal and Multimodal Object Recognition Tasks in Male Rats. Hassanshahi, A., et al. Neurological Sciences 38(6):1069-1076. (2017).
10. Effects of Short and Long Term Electromagnetic Fields Exposure on the Human Hippocampus. Deniz, O.G., et al. Journal of Microscopy and Ultrastructure 5(4):191-197. (2017).
11. Effects of Long Term Exposure of 900-1800 MHz Radiation Emitted from 2G Mobile Phone on Mice Hippocampus – A Histomorphometric Study. Mugunthan, N., et al. Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research 10(8):AF01-6. (2016). 
12. Effect of Mobile Phone Radiation on Pentylenetetrazole-Induced Seizure Threshold in Mice. Kouchaki, E., et al. Iranian Journal of Basic Medical Sciences 19(7):800-3. (2016). 
13. Effects of 3 Hz and 60Hz Extremely Low Frequency Electromagnetic Fields on Anxiety-Like Behaviors, Memory Retention of Passive Avoidance and ElectroPhysiological Properties of Male Rats. Rostami, A., et al. Journal of Lasers in Medical Science 7(2):120-125. (2016).
14. Short-Term Memory in Mice is Affected by Mobile Phone Radiation. Ntzouni, MP., et al. PathoPhysiology 18(3):193-199. (2011). 
15. Use of Mobile Phones and Changes in Cognitive Function in Adolescents. Thomas, S., et al. Occupational Environmental Medicine 67(12):861-866. (2010)
16. Increased Blood-Brain Barrier Permeability in Mammalian Brain 7 Days After Exposure to the Radiation from a GSM-900 Mobile Phone. Nittby, H., et al. PathoPhysiology 16(2-3):103-12. (2009).
17. Effects of GSM 1800 MHz on Dendritic Development of Cultured Hippocampal Neurons. Ning, W., et al. Acta Pharmacoligica Sinica 28(12):1873-1880. (2007).
18. Neurological Effects of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Radiation. Lai, H. Advances in Electromagnetic Fields in Living Systems 1:27-80. (1994). 

​

​ Cardiovascular Effects​

1. Exposure to cell phones reduces heart rate variability in both normal-weight and obese normotensive medical students. Alassiri, M., et al. Explore (NY). 16(4):264-270. (2020). 
2. Assessment of electromagnetic fields, vibration and sound exposure effects from multiple transceiver mobile phones on oxidative stress levels in serum, brain and heart tissue. Usman, J.D., et al. Scientific African. 7(e00271). (2020). 
3. Aluminium foil dampened the adverse effect of 2100 MHz mobile phone-induced radiation on the blood parameters and myocardium in rats. Kalanjati, V.P., et al. Environmental Science and Pollution Research. 26(12):11686-11689. (2019). 
4. National Toxicology Technical Report on Cell Phones and Cancer.Toxicology and Carcinogenesis Studies in Sprague Dawley (Hsd:Sprague Dawley SD) Rats Exposed to Whole-body Radio Frequency Radiation at a Frequency (900 Mhz) and Modulations (GSM and CDMA) Use National Toxicology Program TR595:1-466. (2018). Summary: https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/whatwestudy/topics/cellphones/index.html 
5. Wi-Fi Is an Important Threat to Human Health. Pall, M. Environmental Research. 164:405-416. (2018). 
6. Report of final results regarding brain and heart tumors in Sprague-Dawley rats exposed from prenatal life until natural death to mobile phone radiofrequency field representative of a 1.8 GHz GSM base station environmental emission. Falcioni, L., et al. Environmental Research. 165:496-503. (2018). 
7. Cardiovascular disease: Time to identify emerging environmental risk factors. Bandara, P., et al. European Journal of Preventative Cardiology. 24(17):1819-1823. (2017). 
8. The effects of the duration of mobile phone use on heart rate variability parameters in healthy subjects. Ekici, B., et al. The Anatolian Journal of Cardiology. 16(11):833-838. (2016).
9. Effects of acute exposure to WIFI signals (2.45 GHz) on heart variability and blood pressure in Albinos rabbit. Saili, L., et al. Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology. 40(2):600-605. (2015). 
10. Electromagnetic fields promote severe and unique vascular calcification in an animal model of ectopic calcification. Shuvy, M., et al. Experimental and Toxicologic Pathology. 66(7):345-350. (2014). 
11. The effects of prenatal exposure to a 900-MHz electromagnetic field on the 21-day-old male rat heart. Türedi, S. et al. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine. 34(4):390-397. (2014).
12. Electromagnetic fields act via activation of voltage-gated calcium channels to produce beneficial or adverse effects. Pall, M.L. Journal of Cellular and Molecular Medicine. 17(8):958–965. (2013).
13. Electromagnetic fields produced by incubators influence heart rate variability in newborns. Bellieni, C.V., et al. Archives of Disease in Childhood – Fetal and Neonatal Edition. 93(4):F298-F301. (2008). 
14. Radiofrequency/microwave radiation biological effects and Safety standards: A review.  Bolen, S.M. Griffiss Air Force Base, New York: United States Air Force Materiel Command. 1-32. (1994). 
15. Biological Effects of Radio Frequency Radiation in Eurasian Communist Countries. Adams, R.L., et al. U.S. Medical Intelligence and Information Agency. 1-35. (1975).​​

Male Fertility

1. Long-Term Exposure to 4G Smartphone Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Radiation Diminished Male Reproductive Portential by Directly Disrupting Spck3-MMP2-BTB Axis in the Testes of Adult Rats. Yu, G., et al. Science of The Total Environment 698(133860). (2020). 
2. Radiations and Male Fertility. Kesari, K., et al. Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology 16(118). (2018). 
3. The Effect of 2.45 GHz Non-Ionizing Radiation on the Structure and Ultrastructure of The Testis in Juvenile Rats. Simaiova, V., et al. Histology and Histopathology 34(4):18049. (2018). 
4. Modulatory Effect of 900 MHz Radiation on Biochemical and Reproductive Parameters in Rats. Narayanan, SN., et al. Bratislava Medical Journal 119(9):581-587. (2018). 
5. Aloe Arborescens Juice Prevents EMF-Induced Oxidative Stress and Thus Protects from Pathophysiology in the Male Reproductive System In Vitro. Solek, P., et al. Environmental Research 166:141-149. (2018). 
6. Radiofrequency Radiation (900 MHz)-Induced DNA Damage and Cell Cycle Arrest in Testicular Germ Cells in Swiss Albino Mice. Pandey, N., et al. Toxicology and Industrial Health 33(4) 373-384. (2017). 
7. The Effects of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Radiation on Sperm Function. Houston, BJ., et al. Reproduction 152(6):R263-R276. (2016). 
8. Male Fertility and its Association with Occupational and Mobile Phone Tower Hazards: An Analytical Study. Al-Quzwini, O., et al. Middle East Fertility Society Journal 21(4):236-240. (2016). 
9. Sperm DNA Damage – The Effect of Stress and Everyday Life Factors. Radwan, M., et al. International Journal of Impotence Research 28(4):148-154. (2016).
10. Electromagnetic Radiation at 900 MHz Induces Sperm Apoptosis through bcl-2, bax and caspase-3 Signaling Pathways in Rats. Liu, Q., et al. Journal of Reproductive Health 12:65. (2015). 
11. Habits of Cell Phone usage and Sperm Quality – Does It Warrant Attention? Zilberlicht, A., et al. Reproductive BioMedicine Online 31(3):421-426. (2015). 
12. In Vitro Effect of Cell Phone Radiation on Motility, DNA Fragmentation and Clusterin Gene Expression in Human Sperm. Zalata, A., et al. International Journal of Fertility and Sterility 9(1):129-136. (2015). 
13. Extremely Low frequency Magnetic Fields Induce Spermatogenic Germ Cell Apoptosis: Possible Mechanism. Lee, S., et al. BioMed Research International 2014(567183). (2014). 
14. Effect of mobile telephones on sperm quality: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Adams, J., et al. Environment International 70:106-112. (2014). 
15. Effect of Electromagnetic Field Exposure on the Reproductive System. Gye, M., et al. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Reproductive Medicine 39(1):1-19. (2012). 
16. Effects of the Exposure of Mobile Phones on Male Reproduction: A Review of the Literature. La Vignera, S., et al. Journal of Andrology 33(3):350-356. (2012).
17. Use of Laptop Computers Connected to Internet Through Wi-Fi Decreases Human Sperm Motility and Increases Sperm DNA Fragmentation. Avendano, C., et al. Fertility and Sterility 97(1):39-45. (2012). 
18. Exposure to Magnetic fields and the Risk of Poor Sperm Quality. Li, D.K, et al. Journal of Reproductive Toxicology 29(1):86-92. (2010). 
19. Mobile Phone Radiation Induces Reactive Oxygen Species Production and DNA Damage in Human Spermatozoa In Vitro. De Luliis, G., et al. PLoS ONE 4(7). (2009).    
20. Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Radiation (Rf-EMR) from GSM Mobile Phones Induces Oxidative Stress and Reduces Sperm Motility in Rats. Mailankot, M., et al. Clinics (San Paulo) 64(6):561-5. (2009). 
21. Cell Phones: Modern Man’s Nemesis? Makker, K., et al. Reproductive BioMedicine Online 18(1):148-157. (2009). 
22. Indicative SAR Levels Due to an Active Mobile Phone in a Front Trouser Pocket in Proximity to Common Metallic Objects. Whittow, WG., et al. IEEE Xplore 149-152 (2008). 
23. Effect of Cell Phone Usage on Semen Analysis in Men Attending Infertility Clinic: An Observational Study. Agarwal, A., et al. Fertility and Sterility 89(1):124-128. (2008). 
24. Cell Phones and Male Infertility: Dissecting the Relationship. Deepinder, F., et al. Reproductive BioMedicine Online 15(3):266-270. (2007). 
25. Evaluation of the Effect of Using Mobile Phones on Male Fertility. Wdowiak, A., et al. Annals of Agricultural and Medicine 14(1):169-172. (2007).

​

Electromagnetic Sensitivity

1. Becoming Electro-Hypersensitive: A Replication Study. Dieudonne, M. Bioelectromagnetic 40:188-200. (2019). 
2. Functional Brain MRI in Patients Complaining of Electrohypersensitivity After Long Term Exposure to Electromagnectic Fields. Heuser, G. et al. Reviews on Environmental Health 32(3):291-299. (2017). 
3. “Hot Nano Spots” as an Interpretation of So-Called Non-Thermal Biological Mobile Phone Effects. Pfutzner, H. Journal of Electromagnetic Analysis and Applications 8(3):62-69. (2016). 
4. Analysis of the Genotoxic Effects of Mobile Phone Radiation Using Buccal Micronucleus Assay: A Comparative Evaluation. Banerjee, S., et al. Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research 10(3):ZC82-ZC85. (2016). 
5. Tinnitus and Cell Phones: The Role of Electromagnetic Radiofrequency Radiation. Medeiros, L., et al. Brazilian Journal of Otorhinolaryngology 82(1):97-104. (2016).
6. Microwave Frequency Electromagnetic Fields (EMFs) Produce Widespread Neuropsychiatric Effects Including Depression. Pall, M. Journal of Chemical Neuroanatomy. 7(Part B):43-51. (2016). 
7. Subjective Symptoms Related to GSM Radiation from Mobile Phone Base Stations: a Cross-Sectional Study. Gomez-Perretta, C., et al. BMJ Open 3(12). (2013). 
8. Green Communication- A Stipulation to Reduce Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity from Cellular Phones. Kumar, N., et al. Procedia Technology 4:682-686. (2012). 
9. Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity: Fact or Fiction? Genius, S. et al. Science of the Total Environment 414(1):103-112. (2012). 
10. Neurobehavioral Effects Among Inhabitants Around Mobile Phone Base Stations. Abdel-Rassoul, G., et al. NeuroToxicology 28(2):434-440. (2007). 
11. Electrohypersensitivity: Sate-Of-The-Art of A Functional Impairment. Johansson, O. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine 25(4): 245-258. (2006). 
12. Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity: Biological Effects of Dirty Electricity With Emphasis on Diabetes and Multiple Sclerosis. Havas, M. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine 25(4): 259-268. (2006). 
13. Establishing the Health Risks of Exposure to Radiofrequency Fields Requires Multidisciplinary Research. Hietanen, M. Scandinavian Journal of Work, the Environment, and Health 32(3):169-170. (2006). 
14. Hypersensitivity of Human Subjects to Environmental Electric and Magnetic Field Exposure: A Review of the Literature. Levallois, P. Environmental Health Perspectives 110(4):613-8. (2002). 
15. Electric Hypersensitivity and Neurophysiological Effects of Cellular Phones – Facts of Needless Anxiety. Harma, M. Scandinavian Journal of Work, the Environment and Health 26(2):85-86. (2000). 
16. Radiofrequency (RF) Sickness in the Lilienfeld Study: An Effect of Modulated Microwaves? Liakouris, A. Archives of Environmental Health: An International Journal.  53(3):236-238 (1998). 

​​

Implanted Medical Devices

1. Ad Hoc Electromagnetic Compatibility Testing of Non-Implantable Medical Devices and Radio Frequency Identification. Seidman S., et al. Biomedical Engineering Online 12:71. (2013). 
2. Electromagnetic Interference of Pacemakers. Lakshmanadoss, U., et al. Intech 229-252. (2011). 
3. Interference Between Mobile Phones and Pacemakers: A Look Inside. Censi, F., et al. Annali Dell’Istituto Superiore di Sanità 43(3):254-259. (2007). 
4. Electromagnetic Interference on Pacemakers. Erdogan, O. Indian Pacing and Electrophysiology Journal 2(3):74-78. (2002). 
5. Electromagnetic Interference in Patients with Implanted Cardioverter-Defibrillators and Implantable Loop Recorders. Sousa, M., et al. Indian Pacing and Electrophysiology Journal 2(3):79-84. (2002). 
6. Radiofrequency Interference with Medical Devices. A Technical Information Statement. IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Magazine 17(3):111-4. (1998). 
7. Cellular Telephones and Pacemakers: Urgent Call or Wrong Number? Ellenbogen, KA., et al. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 27(6):1478-9. (1996).

​

5G Effects

1. Millimeter (MM) wave and microwave frequency radiation produce deeply penetrating effects: the biology and the physics. Pall, M. Reviews on Environmental Health. 10.1515/reveh-2020-0165. (2021)
2. Model of Steady-state Temperature Rise in Multilayer Tissues Due to Narrow-beam Millimeter-wave Radiofrequency Field Exposure. Gajda, Gregory B., et al. Health Physics 117(3):254-266. (2019). 
3. Untargeted Metabolomics Unveil Alterations of Biomembranes Permeability in HumanHaCaT Keratinocytes Upon 60 HGz Millimeter-Wave Exposure. Pogam, Pierre., et al. Scientific Reports 9(9343).(2019). 
4. Ocular Response to Millimeter Wave Exposure Under Different Levels of Humidity. Kojima, M., et al. Journal of Infrared Milli Terahz Waves 40:574–584. (2019). 
5. Millimeter Wave Radiation Activates Leech Nociceptors via TRPV1-Like Receptor Sensitization. Romanenko, S., et al. Biophysical Journal 116(12):2331-2345. (2019). 
6. Systematic Derivation of Safety Limits for Time-Varying 5G Radiofrequency Exposure Based on Analytical Models and Thermal Dose. Neufeld, E., et al. Health Physics Society 115(6):705-711. (2018). 
7. Towards 5G Communication Systems: Are There Health Implications? Ciaula, AD. International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health 367-375. (2018). 
8. 5G Wireless Telecommunications Expansion: Public Health and Environmental Implications. Russell, C.L. Environmental Research 165:484-495. (2018). 
9. The Human Skin As A Sub-THz Receiver – Does 5G Pose a Danger To It or Not? Betzalel, N., et al. Environmental Research 163:208-216 (2018). 
10. The Modeling of the Absorbance of Sun-THz Radiation by Human Skin. Betzalel, N., et al. IEEE Transactions on Terahertz Science and Technology 7(5):521-528. (2017). 
11. Human Exposure to RF Fields in 5G Downlink. Nasim, I. et al. Georgia Southern University (2017). 
12. The Human body and Millimeter-Wave Wireless Communication Systems: Interactions and Implications. Wu, T., et al. IEEE International Conference on Communications (2015). 
13. State of Knowledge on Biological Effects at 40-60 GHz. Drean, Y., et al. Comptes Rendus Physique 14(5):402-411. (2013). 
14. Effects of millimeter waves radiation on cell membrane-A brief review. Ramundo-Orlando, Alfonsina. Journal of Infrared, Millimeter, and Terahertz Waves 31(12):1400-1411 (2010). 
15. Human Skin as Arrays of Helical Antennas in Millimeter and Submillimeter Wave Range. Feldman, Y., et al. The American Physical Society 100(12):128102. (2008). 

​

Wildlife and Plants

​​

    Wildlife

1. Increased aggression and reduced aversive learning in honey bees exposed to extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields. Shepherd, S., et al. PLoS ONE 14 (10):e0223614 (2019). 
2. Exposure of Insects to Radio-Frequency Electromagnetic Fields from 2 to 120 GHz. Theilens, A., et al. Scientific Reports. 8(3924):1-10. (2018).
3. Anthropogenic radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as an emerging threat to wildlife orientation. Balmori, A. Science of The Total Environment 518-519: 58-60 (2015). 
4. Magnetoreception in birds: the effect of radio-frequency fields. Wiltschko, R., et al. Journey of the Royal Society Interface. 12(103). (2015). 
5. Anthropogenic radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as an emerging threat to wildlife orientation. Alfonso, B. Science of The Total Environment. 518-519:58-60. (2015). 
6. Electrosmog and species conservation. Balmori, A. Science of the Total Environment 496: 314-316. (2014).
7. Drosophila oogenesis as a bio-marker responding to EMF sources. Margaritis, L, H., et al. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine 33(3):165-189. (2014). 
8. A review of the ecological effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF). Cucurachi, C., et al. Environment International 51:116-140. (2013). 
9. Ants can be used as bio-indicators to reveal biological effects of electromagnetic waves from some wireless apparatus. Cammaerts, MC., et al. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine 33(4):282-288. (2013). 
10. Exposure to cell phone radiations produces biochemical changes in worker honey bees. Kumar, N., et al. Toxicology International 18(1):70-72. (2011). 
11. Mobile phone-induced honeybee worker piping. Favre, D. et al. Apidologie. 42:270-279. (2011). 
12. Mobile phone mast effects on common frog (Rana temporaria) tadpoles: The City Turned inot a Laboratory. Balmori, A. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine 29(1-12):31-35. (2010). 
13. Changes in honeybee behaviour and biology under the influence of cellphone radiations. Sharma, V. P., et al. Current Science 98(10):1376–1378. (2010). 
14. Briefing Paper on the Need for Research into the Cumulative Impacts of Communication Towers on Migratory Birds and Other Wildlife in the United States. Division of Migratory Bird Management (DMBM), U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (2009). 
15. Electromagnetic pollution from phone masts. Effects on wildlife. Balmori, A. Pathophysiology 16(2-3):191-199. (2009). 
16. A possible effect of electromagnetic radiation from mobile phone base stations on the number of breeding house sparrows (Passer domesticus). Everaert, J., et al. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine. 26(1):63–72. (2007). 
17. Can Electromagnetic Exposure Cause a Change in Behaviour? Studying Possible Non-Thermal Influences on Honey Bees – An Approach within the Framework of Educational Informatics. Harst, W., et al. Acta Ststemica – IIAS International Journal. 6(1):1-6. (2006). 
18. Possible Effects of Electromagnetic Fields from Phone Masts on a Population of White Stork (Ciconia ciconia). Balmori, A. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine 24(2):109-119 (2005). 

​

   Plants

1. Lessons learned from the application of machine learning to studies on plant response to radio-frequency. Halgamuge MN, et al. Environmental Research 178(108634). (2019).
2. Exposure to 2100 MHz electromagnetic field radiations induces reactive oxygen species generation in Allium cepa roots. Shikha Chandel, et al. Journal of Microscopy and Ultrastructure 5(4):225-229. (2017). 
3. Weak radiofrequency radiation exposure from mobile phone radiation on plants. Halgamuge, M.N. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine 36(2):213-235. (2017). 
4. Exposure to 915 MHz radiation induces micronuclei in Vicia faba root tips. Gustavino, B., et al. Mutagenesis 31(2):187-92. (2016). 
5. Electromagnetic Fields Act Similarly in Plants as in Animals: Probable Activation of Calcium Channels via Their Voltage Sensor. Pall, M. Current Chemical Biology 10(1): 74-82. (2016). 
6. Radiofrequency Radiation Injures Trees Around Mobile Phone Base Stations. Waldmann-Selsam, C., et al. Science of The Total Environment. 572(1):554-569. (2016). 
7. Reduced growth of soybean seedlings after exposure to weak microwave radiation from GSM 900 mobile phone and base station. Halgamuge, MN., et al. Bio Electro Magnetics 36(2):87-95. (2015). 
8. Impacts of radio-frequency electromagnetic field (RF-EMF) from cell phone towers and wireless devices on biosystem and ecosystem? A review. Sivani, S., et al. Biology and Medicine 4(4):202-216. (2012). 
9. Adverse Influence of Radio Frequency Background on Trembling Aspen Seedlings. Haggerty, K. International Journal of Forestry Research 2010:836278. (2010). 
10. Microwave irradiation affects gene expression in plants. Vian, A., et al. Plant Signaling and Behavior. 1(2):67–70. (2006). 

​

Report, Articles and Reviews​

1. Effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna, Part 1 Rising EMF levels in the environment. Levitt, B.B., et al. Review on Environmental Health doi:10.1515/reveh-2021-0026 (2021).
2. Effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna, Part 2 impacts: how species interact with natural and man-made EMF. Levitt, B.B., et al. Review on Environmental Health. doi: 10.1515/reveh-2021-0050. (2021).
3. Effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields on flora and fauna, Part 3. Exposure standards, public policy, laws and future directions. Levitt, B.B., et al. Review on Environmental Health 10.1515/reveh-2021-0083. (2021).
4. Risks to Health and Well-Being From Radio-Frequency Radiation Emitted by Cell Phones and Other Wireless Devices. Miller, A., et al. Frontiers in Public Health 7(223). (2019). 
5. Commentary on The Utility of The National Toxicology Program Study on Cell Phone Radiofrequency Radiation Data for Assessing Human Health Risks Despite Unfounded Criticisms Aimed at Minimizing the Findings of Adverse Health Effects. Melnick, R. Environmental Research 168:1-6. (2019). 
6. Pathological Findings Observed in the Kidneys of Postnatal Male Rats Exposed to the 2100 MHz Electromagnetic Field. Bedir, R., et al. Archives of Medical Research 49(7):432-440. (2018).
7. Mobile-Phone Radiation-Induced Perturbation of gene-Expression Profiling, Redox Equilibrium and Sporadic-Apoptosis Control in the Ovary of Drosophila Melanogaster. Manta, A., et al. FLY 11(2):75-95. (2017). 
8. World Health Organization, Radiofrequency Radiation and Health – A Hard Nut to Crack (Review). Hardell, L. International Journal of Oncology 51:405-413 (2017). 
9. Evaluation of the Protective Role of Vitamin C on the Metabolic and Enxymatic Activities of the Liver in the Male Rats After Exposure to 2.45 GHz of Wi-Fi Routers. Shekoohi-Shooli, F., et al. Journal of Biomedical Physics and Engineering 6(3):157-164. (2016). 
10. Bees, Birds and Mankind: Destroying Nature by ‘Electrosmog’. Warnke, U. Competence Initiative for the Protection of Humanity, Environment and Democracy (2009). 
11. Biological Effects of Amplitude-Modulated Radiofrequency Radiation. Juutilainen, J., et al. Scandinavian Journal of Work, the Environment and Health 24(2):245-254 (1998).

 

How to Mirror sites online. Here is how it works: