Search Results for: 5g

Uncategorized

Let’s not forget 5G

In the current turmoil, we shouldn’t forget 5G. Below is a summary of the press release issued by the association Procès 5G France, followed by an article published at the time in special issue no. 5, « 5G, face au conte de fée, le compte des faits ».

Read more "
Uncategorized

Action to annul the 5G decree

Press release April 21, 2023

To facilitate the rollout of 5G and as announced in a press release by the Minister-President of the Walloon Region, Elio Di Rupo[note]the Walloon parliament voted a decree without a second thought[note] which further reduces the little protection citizens had against the deleterious effects of microwave radiation from cell phones. As an example of what this new « protection standard » allows, an operator wishing to install a 5G or other antenna on a new site could transmit at such a power that the neighboring population would be exposed to radiation ten times more intense than what was authorized under the previous standard.[note].

Scientists and doctors have been concerned about the effects of microwave radiation for over 60 years, as evidenced by a symposium held in Washington in 1957[note].

For over 20 years, there have been repeated national and international calls for the lowering of authorized emission power limits and the creation of regulatory bodies that are independent of industry and genuinely in the service of public health. Among many other appeals, more than 400 scientists and physicians signed the « 5G APPEAL » initiated in 2017 and through which they  » call for a moratorium on 5G deployment. 5G will significantly increase exposure to microwave radiation, which has been proven to be harmful to humans and the environment. « [note].

Very recently, nine experts on electromagnetic pollution from the Nordic countries published an article in the  » Annals of Clinical and Medical Case Reports  » in which they called for a halt to 5G deployment and a stricter regulatory framework on microwave radiation from wireless technologies.[note] They mention two of the very first studies on the impact of 5G. One of them showed that a 5G antenna has  » caused an extreme increase in microwave radiation in an apartment. Within a few days, the residents were suffering from the typical symptoms of microwave exposure: severe sleep disturbances, dizziness, skin problems, concentration difficulties, tinnitus, short-term memory problems, confusion, fatigue, a tendency to depression, heart and lung symptoms, heart palpitations and a feeling of heaviness in the chest. « .

Faced with the intellectual and moral indigence and contempt of the Walloon government and parliament[note] for the health of citizens and its denial of the ecological consequences of 5G deployment in terms of energy consumption, climate disruption and the extraction of non-renewable resources, the Collectif stop5G.be has mandated its lawyer to file an appeal to annul the decree.

Contact :Francis Leboutte, 04 388 39 19 — Colette Devillers, 02 772 86 80info@stop5G.be — www.stop5G.be

Read more "
Uncategorized

Public consultation on 5G in Brussels: democratic smoke and mirrors and a factory of ignorance

Photo:

PxHere

Environmental Impact Report[1] of the draft ordinance of the Brussels Region aiming to increase the protection limit against electromagnetic radiofrequency radiation (EMC-RF[2]) from 6 to 14.5 V/m implicitly considers that the deployment of 5G is inevitable and does not consider at any time the possibility of staying with the current situation (2G, 3G and 4G). Both the saturation of the current network and the rollout of 5G are considered inevitable, while the possibility of taking adequate measures to limit data traffic is not mentioned. The report (or its « non-technical summary ») presents a first major bias.
It is regrettable that an administration like Brussels Environment , which is supposed to be independent of the executive, publishes such a biased report, just like the establishment of the « 5G » citizens’ deliberative commission by this executive. As a reminder, this commission, composed of 15 deputies and 45 citizens chosen at random from the Brussels population, had to answer the question  » How do we want 5G to be implemented in the Brussels-Capital Region, taking into account the environment, health, economy, employment and technological aspects? « . From the outset, there was no room in this commission for citizens opposed to the deployment of 5G, who had no choice but to refuse to participate[3]. To claim to be based on the « recommendations » of this Commission, as is done in the report, is therefore inadmissible, whether it be for the recommendation « to adopt a strict emission standard (sic) of 14.5 V/m », the « environmental measures » to be taken, the « complementary or corrective measures », etc.
Climate change
On the vital issue of anthropogenic climate change, which we do not need to revisit in light of current events[4], the findings of Brussels Environment in the summary seem unbearably light: despite the observation of the  » the telecommunications sector is a major consumer of energy and emitter of greenhouse gases  » (page 9 of the summary) and, as everyone knows, despite the enormous efforts to be made to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the increase in energy consumption and greenhouse gas production related to the deployment of 5G is quietly envisaged, this aspect not even being mentioned in the conclusions of this summary (the majority of readers of the study will be content to read the summary which is still 18 pages long, the report being 90).
However, the conclusions of the report (page 86) are much more clear: « … although environmental provisions are included in the Ordinance, they will only slightly mitigate the significant increase in energy consumption and waste generation generated by the deployment of 5G compared to this deployment under the current ordinance (alternative 0), which is moreover in opposition to the Region’s climate and environmental objectives aimed at a reduction in GHG emissions and sustainable, sober, local and circular consumption « . Why didn’t you leave this sentence in the summary’s conclusions?
ICNIRP, an instrument for the lobby
With this report, Brussels Environment continues the democratic smoke and mirrors process initiated by the executive while at the same time disinforming and contributing to the factory of ignorance dear to the telecom lobby, in particular on the international protection standards, notably those of the ICNIRP (International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection), which would protect from the « only proven biological effect », namely the thermal effect[5]; there are many other « potential » biological and even health effects[6 ], but no study has shown a causal relationship (section 1.3.1.f of the summary, page 11).
In this respect, the report simply cites studies that support the theses of the ICNIRP and the telecom lobby and ignores all the others, in fact thousands of studies published over the last 50 years. For example, what the report says about genetic effects is particularly appalling and reaches the heights of misinformation:  » Reassuringly, the results show that the more scientifically serious a study is, the lower the observations of genetic damage  » (on these genotoxic effects, see below). A fortiori, the authors of the report cannot be relied upon to expose meta-analyses that show that the conclusions of studies on biological and health effects are a function of the mode of financing: for the most part, studies financed by industry do not show biological or health effects, unlike those financed by public funds or by organizations independent of industry This influence is not new: for 85 studies on the genotoxicity (DNA damage) of RF-EMCs published from 1990 to 2005, 43 studies showed an effect, 42 found none, a more or less equal distribution (which is not unusual in this type of comparison). On the other hand, what is remarkable is that 32 of the 35 studies funded by the cell phone industry lobby and the US Air Force show no effect; moreover, one of the three lobby-funded studies that did find an effect was almost not published (source:
www.microwavenews.com/RR.html
).[7]
Most countries in the world rely on the recommendations of the ICNIRP which is a private institution under German law created in 1992 by Michael Repacholi to best serve the needs of the telecom industry. It works like a closed club: its members decide who can enter and only those who defend the idea that if there are no thermal effects, there can be no health consequences are admitted. It does not apply any rules of transparency or independence, since on the contrary most of its past or present members are known for their links with the telecom industry.
ICNIRP’s close relationship with industry has long been documented in the following surveys and documents:

- ICNIRP: conflicts of interest, regulatory capture and 5G.
In June 2020, MEPs Klaus Buchner and Michèle Rivasi published a report on the independence of the ICNIRP, the main conclusion of which is that  » for truly independent scientific advice, we cannot and should not rely on ICNIRP. The European Commission and national governments of countries like Germany should stop funding ICNIRP ».
Information and report on Michèle Rivasi’s website :
michele-rivasi.eu/a‑la-une/icnirp-conflicts-interests-5g-and-regulatory-capture
.
— How much is safe? Aninvestigation byInvestigate Europe journalists:  » Scientists are sounding the alarm about the health risks caused by radiation from mobile technology. Unfounded, assure most radiation safety authorities. These take the advice of a small circle of insiders who reject alarming research and set safety limits « .
investigate-europe.eu/publications/how-much-is-safe
(January 2019).
— Self-referencing authorships behind the ICNIRP 2020 radiation protection guidelines.
 » …the ICNIRP 2020 guidelines do not meet the basic requirements of scientific quality and are therefore not suitable as a basis for setting exposure limits for RF-EMF for the protection of human health. With its thermal-only view, ICNIRP opposes the majority of research results… Therefore, the ICNIRP 2020 guidelines cannot provide a basis for good governance ».
By Else K. Nordhagen and Einar Flydal in the journal
Reviews on Environmental Health
in June 2022.
https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/reveh-2022–0037/html

- Aspects on the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) 2020 Guidelines on Radiofrequency Radiation.
 » The ICNIRP conclusion on cancer risks is, « In summary, no effect of radiofrequency EMFs on the induction or development of cancer has been proven. » This conclusion is not correct and is contradicted by the scientific evidence. Abundant and convincing evidence of increased cancer risks and other negative health effects is now available. The 2020 ICNIRP guidelines allow for exposure at levels known to be harmful. In the interest of public health, the ICNIRP 2020 guidelines should be immediately replaced by truly protective guidelines produced by independent scientists ».
By: Hardell L, Nilsson M, Koppel T, Carlberg M.
Published in Journal of Cancer Science and Clinical Therapeutics
doi:10.26502/jcsct.5079117
.
— Conflict of interest and bias in health advisory committees: the case of the WHO working group on electromagnetic fields (EMF). Don Maisch. Published in 2006 in the journal of the Australasian College of Nutritional and Environmental Medicine (ACNEM). Available in French upon request.https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Don-Maisch

Totally inadequate protection limits
 » Based on this threshold [ofadverse thermal effect]. and the precautionary principle, the ICNIRP recommends limiting the exposure of the population to radiation not exceeding 41.2 V/m. The current Brussels standard of 6 V/m is therefore 50 times
[8]
lower than the ICNIRP recommendation. The Brussels Region has one of the strictest standards in the world, stricter than in Flanders and Wallonia  » (abstract, page 8). In fact, this difference is very limited, of the same order as that between plague and cholera as explained below.
The ICNIRP recommended limit is 41.2 V/m (volt/meter) for the electric field strength of radiation with a frequency of 900 MHz (megahertz), which, when converted to power density, equals 4.5 W/m2 (watt/square meter).
The limits recommended by many independent experts for radio frequencies (RF) are far below those of the ICNIRP, by a factor of about 100,000, and thus also below those currently in force in Brussels (by a factor of 2000), in terms of power density. For example, the authors of the BioInitiative report[9 ] recommend a limit of about 5 μW/m2 (microwatt/m2 or 0.04 V/m) for the cumulative exposure of RF waves outside the home. For 2G, 3G and 4G, the European Academy of Environmental Medicine (EUROPAEM)[10] recommends 100 μW/m2 (0.2 V/m), but 10 times less during sleep and 100 times less for children and frail people (1 μW/m2, or 0.02 V/m). TheInstitut für Baubiologie[11] recommends similar values.
These limits may seem low, but they are not surprising when one considers that the values adopted by the ICNIRP represent a billion billion times the level of natural EMF at these frequencies (which means that the limits proposed by the independent experts are still more than a billion times higher than natural EMF).[12]
Moreover, to transport data, the EMFs used for telephony are modulated, which does not exist in nature and represents a little understood component of their toxicity, nevertheless important according to some studies
[13]
.
A flawed measurement procedure
The Brussels Region follows the ICNIRP recommendations for the calculation or measurement of RF-EMF: the intensity level of an EMF is averaged over 6 minutes (« RMS value »)[14] and does not account for instantaneous intensity peaks, which are the rule for mobile telephony and to which a « peak value » corresponds[15]. For the biological effects of EMF, it is these peak values that count; to illustrate this fundamental difference, let’s just say that if you were to undergo 100 needle sticks 1 mm deep in the heart (average value), you would not suffer any after-effects, whereas a single needle stick of 100 mm (peak value) could be fatal
The ratio of peak to RMS value in terms of power density is of the order of 25 for a 2G, 3G or 4G antenna, but is much larger, of the order of 1000, for a 5G antenna.[16] From this perspective, 5G could prove to be even more toxic than previous generations.
Why don’t the authors of the report mention this well-known subterfuge?[17]
Misinformed authors of the report?
Section 3.6 of the report(Human Health, page 39) is introduced by a preamble which states, among other things, that  » the state of the art presented below is therefore based essentially on the preliminary work carried out by the expert committee « .
It ends with this conclusion (page 41):  » For the frequencies currently used, the available data are the result of 20 to 30 years of research… In conclusion, the current state of knowledge does not make it possible to demonstrate any harmful effect, but does not make it possible either to conclude with a total absence of effect on health « .
For anyone who knows anything about the field, this excerpt from the report is shocking. On the one hand, the first data appeared after the end of World War II, almost 70 years ago, and on the other hand, the  » harmful effects  » have been widely demonstrated, all things that are easy to verify.
Regarding the date of the first studies on the toxicity of artificial RF EMFs, here are two documents that attest to their age. They show that the discovery of non-thermal « adverse effects » goes back nearly 70 years:
1. The report of a symposium on microwave risks held in 1957 in Washington: Proceedings of tri-service conference on biological hazards of microwave radiation, 15–16 july 1957. Pattishall, Evan G. George Washington Univ, 1958.https://archive.org/details/DTIC_AD0115603
2. More than 2000 Documents prior to 1972 on Bioeffects of Radio Frequency Radiation.
Glaser, Z.R. [U.S.] Naval Medical Research Institute, 1972.
A bibliography of over 2000 references on biological responses to radiofrequency radiation, published up to June 1971.
Dr. Magda Havas, PhD.https://magdahavas.com/from-zorys-archive/pick-of-the-week-1-more-than-2000-documents-prior-to-1972-on-bioeffects-of-radio-frequency-radiation/
Among many other studies produced over 30 years ago, there are those on the blood-brain barrier (BBB) and the immune system.
Effect on the blood-brain barrier (BBB)
The BBB is a special layer of cells that protects the brain by preventing toxins in the bloodstream from reaching it. The opening of this barrier can lead to developmental diseases of the nervous system, neurodegenerative diseases (Alzheimer’s, etc.) and the development of tumors in the brain.
In 1975, Allan Frey published the result of his research in the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences: exposure to low-intensity 1.9 GHz microwaves opens the BBB in rats. Subsequently, other peer-reviewed studies confirmed Frey’s findings, in particular those published by the team of Professor Leif G. Salford in the 1990s (Lund University). Leif G. Salford presented the results of his research and his concerns to the EU Parliament in 2000.
— Permeability of the blood-brain barrier induced by 915 MHz electromagnetic radiation, continuous wave and modulated at 8, 16, 50, and 200 Hz
Leif G. Salford et al. 1994.https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8012056/
— Cell Phone Health Risk ? Allan Frey. 2012.
Allan Frey revisits his 1975 study and explains how corrupt scientists discredited him while at the same time succeeding in reducing research on the health effects of electromagnetic radiation in the United States to a trickle: electrosmog.cluster.be/doc/sc/brain/Frey_Allan_Cell-Phone-Health-Risk_2012.pdf
— Nerve Cell Damage in Mammalian Brain after Exposure to Microwaves from GSM Mobile Phones
Leif G. Salford et al. 2003. Free access.https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/10.1289/ehp.6039
— Leif G. Salford’s presentation to the EU Parliament in 2000:
electrosmog.grappe.be/doc/sc/brain/Salford-Leif_Parliament-EU_2000.pdf

Immune system
From 1970 onwards, studies were conducted in the USSR on the effects of RF-EMF on the immune system of laboratory animals. Key findings include:
Chronic daily exposure of 100–500 μW/cm2 can induce irreversible biological pathological reactions.
50 μW/cm2 is the exposure threshold for adverse biological effects. These effects are not pathological, as the body can compensate, but in the long term the continuous compensation can lead to undesirable effects. For comparison, the ICNIRP limit at the frequencies considered (around 2 GHz) is close to 1000 μW/cm2.
This research has also shown the existence of a dose-dependent relationship in the effects of RF-EMF on the immune system.
Source: Evidence for Effects on Immune Function. BioInitiative Report, Section 8. https://bioinitiative.org
Genotoxic effects
In 1995, Henry Lai, professor of bioengineering at the University of Washington, and N.P. Singh published the first paper reporting DNA damage in the brain cells of rats exposed to radiation similar to that emitted by cell phones.[18]
In June 2022, the same Henry Lai made an inventory of studies on the genotoxic effects of very low frequency and radio frequency (RF) electromagnetic radiation. For RF, he identified a total of 423 studies, of which 291 (68%) showed genetic effects and 132 (32%) did not.[19]
The precautionary principle hijacked
Page 27 of the report:  » The threshold for biological effects has been identified at 4W/kg, or 292 V/m2, which corresponds to an exposure beyond which the thermal effect is harmful, because the body is no longer able to evacuate the heat properly. The ICNIRP has established maximum exposure guidelines based on the precautionary principle and only known and proven effects [i.e. the only thermal effect, all other effects being denied]. The precautionary principle implies that where there is uncertainty about the existence or extent of risks to human health and the environment, protective measures should be taken without waiting for the reality or seriousness of these risks to be fully demonstrated. Therefore, the ICNIRP applies a safety factor of 50 and recommends limiting the exposure of the population to radiation not exceeding 41.2 V/m. The current Brussels standard of 6 V/m is therefore 50 times lower than the ICNIRP recommendation « .
The authors of the report could not have defined the precautionary principle better, but they are staggeringly blind to all the scientific literature on the biological and health effects of RF-EMFs, which allows them to say, without shame perhaps, that the precautionary principle is well respected. They also refuse to listen to the appeals of scientists and doctors from all over the world, which have been multiplying over the last 20 years. For example, consider the call initiated in 2015 and signed in April 2020 by 253 EMF experts from 44 different countries; these scientists, all of whom have published peer-reviewed research on the biological and health effects of EMF, are calling for stricter exposure limits and for a review of the potential biological impacts of 4G and 5G telecommunications technologies on plants, animals, and humans (
emfscientist.org
). Another example is the international appeal launched in 2018 calling for a halt to the deployment of the 5G terrestrial and space network (
5gspaceappeal.org
) having gathered over 300,000 signatures from scientists (7,000+), engineers (14,000+), doctors (4,400+) and citizens.
Economic cost of 5G deployment
The increased energy consumption associated with the rollout of 5G will inevitably result in higher costs for mobile network users, especially given the current surge in electricity prices. This is obvious when you consider that, just for the operation of the 5G network, an increase in the country’s power consumption of around 2% is commonly accepted.
It’s to the point where the economic viability of 5G has been questioned by Orange France employees in a fortunately leaked internal document; they also challenge the rollout of 5G on the basis of its environmental consequences: www.stop5g.be/fr/doc/Orange_Pourquoi-stopper-la-5G_sept2020.pdf
Francis Leboutte
Spokesperson of the Collectif stop5G.be

The Collectif stop5G.be invites you to respond to the public survey,
see the Actions section of his website:www.stop5g.be/fr/#actions

___
[1]
https://environnement.brussels/thematiques/ondes-et-antennes/enquete-publique-projet-de-plan-regional-sur-lenvironnement-electromagnetique-bruxelles

[2] RF-EMF: radio frequency (or microwave) electromagnetic field (or radiation).
[3] See La 5G et la démocratie cosmétique, the letter from a citizen who refused to participate in this « fool’s game » on the website of the newspaper La Libre:
https://www.lalibre.be/debats/opinions/2021/04/01/la-5g-et-la-democratie-cosmetique-ESTTTZNHA5DIBK7ZIDXC5ELYNQ/

[4] Dramatic floods, gigantic forest fires and other disasters that are no longer natural given their frequency and size, acceleration of the decline in biodiversity, etc.
[5] The thermal effect: the heating of the tissues.
[6] In this section on the state of current human health (before 5G deployment), there is no mention of health effects, although cancer and other diseases are cited in the potential effects. The report itself is hardly more specific on this point (page 39).
[7] In a similar vein (cancer caused by very low frequency EMF), but more recent : Extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields and cancer: How source of funding affects results. David O. Carpenter. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2019.108688
[8 ] V/m (electric field strength) cannot be directly compared to W/m2 (electromagnetic field power density). It is necessary to convert the intensities into power densities and then compare the densities. Alternatively, since the power density varies as the square of the intensity, it is sufficient to take the square of the ratio of the intensities — (41.2/6) squared equals about 50.
[9] BioInitiative 2012. A Rationale for Biologically-based Exposure Standards for Low-Intensity Electromagnetic Radiation (Argument for low-level electromagnetic radiation protection standards based on biological effects). The BioInitiative report is the work of 29 independent scientists from 10 countries, all of whom are experts in the field (21 of whom have one or more PhDs and 10 of whom have one or more medical degrees). It provides a state of knowledge of the effects of electromagnetic fields (EMF) on humans and living organisms, based on several thousand scientific studies.

org
(2012. 1500 pages). Since 2012, it has gone through several updates.
The French translation of the report summary :
grappe.be/doc/BIR/BioInitiative_Resume-for-the-public_2014.pdf

[10] European Academy for Clinical Environmental Medicine,
europaem.eu/en

[11] Institute for Construction Biology,
baubiologie.de

[12] Planetary electromagnetic pollution: it is time to assess its impact. Priyanka Bandara, David O Carpenter. 2018.www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(18)30221–3/fulltext
[13] The roles of intensity, exposure duration, and modulation on the biological effects of radiofrequency radiation and exposure guidelines. Henry Lai & B. Blake Levitt. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1080/15368378.2022.2065683
[14] Root mean square: root mean square.
[15] Or « peak value » (PEAK).
[16] The Dark Side of 5G (David Bruno, 2022), page 45.
[17] For example, it is well known that the peak signal power of a DECT cordless phone base station can be up to 100 times higher than the average signal power.
[18] Acute low-intensity microwave exposure increases DNA single-strand breaks in rat brain cells. Henry Lai and N.P. Singh. 1995.https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7677797/
[19] Genetic Effects of Non-Ionizing EMF Abstracts (2022) Henry Lai. 2022.https://bioinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Genetic-Effects-of-Non-Ionizing-EMF-Abstracts-2022.pdf

Read more "

Special 5 — 5G

5G: a summary of technological imperialism

The technocracy intends to take absolute control of world affairs. Its will to control everything, to make everything profitable by extending the market to the smallest corners of human activities, reaches heights of excess. This thirst to conquer all the territories where a little humanity still tries to take refuge is expressed in a thousand ways, but there is a technology that materializes in an exemplary way this will of total domination: the fifth generation of standards for wireless telecommunications, the ubiquitous 5G, whose transmitting antennas could be installed everywhere.

We tell you, we tell you, we tell you again and again: you can’t wait for this 5G to arrive, because with it you will be able to download a movie to your smartphone in one or two seconds (which will take you an hour and a half to watch). No ? Does this mean that you are not yet a slave to the addiction of hyperconnected technologies? Don’t worry, we’ll do everything to make sure you succumb to this other epidemic…

The trouble with these people who want to remain deaf to the siren song of limitless techno-scientific progress is that they organize resistance that slows down the expansion of the neoliberal model. Thus, there are those electro-hypersensitive people who develop more or less severe symptoms and who are more and more numerous following the intensification of the omnipresent electromagnetic wave bath. The WHO calls these sufferers victims of  » idiopathic environmental intolerance attributed to electromagnetic fields  » (IEI-CEM). The important word is idiopathic, which means  » disease or symptom whose cause could not be attributed « . Even if they have real symptoms, we will say that it is probably not from 5G or other electromagnetic waves, that it is « in their head »… Hypochondriacs to be entrusted to shrinks. Our immune system, which is particularly precious in these pandemic times, will also be affected by the waves. And all the other oppositions to 5G for health reasons will be dismissed, with the same old technique of the sowers of doubt: the promoters of generalized hyperconnection have enough means to find the mercenary scientists who will discredit the studies showing the serious health dangers of an excess of electromagnetic waves. Even if hundreds of scientists sign petitions urging the application of the precautionary principle, nothing changes: the megamachine has launched its 5G offensive and, as with tobacco or asbestos, will do everything to hide the health damage that this « progress » will cause as long as possible.

But there are also those who do not want a model of society where humans will no longer be autonomous but directed, mothered, infantilized by algorithms and machines that will do everything for them. Those have understood that 5G is an indispensable tool for the extension of the society of total control and technocratic domination at the service of the powerful. The promoters of 5G will therefore do everything to discredit these people who are a little too lucid for their taste and they will not skimp on the means. These resisters will be called backward-looking, obscurantists, bio-conservatives. But because their arguments are rational and well argued, they are convincing more and more people who appreciate other values than the ever-increasing comfort of technology dependency. Our electro-magnetizing sorcerer’s apprentices therefore imagine a clever manipulation: we will make the opponents say what they do not say. So if they question the use of 5G to track everyone and, especially these days, potential Covid-19 virus carriers, the implication is that they are saying 5G is the cause of the epidemic. As they have the control of the dominant media, this lie will be widely spread and the good people will believe that these opponents are definitely wacky people who should not be listened to…

Despite this well-orchestrated strategy by the multinationals behind this adoration for 5G, the desired consensus is still not happening. So we also use the argument used by transhumanists:  » Okay, what we’re proposing isn’t very good, but if we don’t do it, the treacherous Chinese or the American billionaires of Silicon Valley will beat us to world domination and we’ll be left behind and become « digital colonies « . This argument is repeated by Dr. Strangelove Laurent Alexandre and by the « network sociologist » Manuel Castells who, last year, was already looking forward to the arrival of 5G, and proposed a great idea to face the « Chimerica »:  » And yet, the possibilities are immense. Why can’t we take advantage of 5G to develop the so-called welfare state in Europe? « (Le Soir, June 19, 2019). Without seeming to worry about it, he admitted later that the cocktail of waves will go  » until the maximum saturation « ! As many of our fellow citizens are not interested in adopting the authoritarian lifestyles of the Middle Kingdom or the every man for himself approach of Uncle Sam, this argument is not very convincing either. As for the hypothetical return to the welfare state, this is a sales pitch that is as demagogic as it is undesirable, given that this historical political form has also played its role in the advent of the industrial and bureaucratic civilization that we know and suffer.

This leaves cunning and force. Faced with a public opinion more and more reticent to the false discourse of the prophets of happiness by the submission to the techniques imposed without asking the opinion of the citizens, it is necessary to advance quickly. Advisory committees are therefore created to advise policy. They will be composed of scientific experts who, by chance, come mostly from the multinationals that promote 5G. And since politicians are rarely scientists, they will be easily fooled and will accept to give free rein to those who promise many jobs via the growth of new objects: autonomous electric cars, billions of connected objects which, thanks to the « indispensable » 5G, will free the stupid humans from all the somewhat concrete tasks they still have to perform. All will be kings… lazy.

Realizing that the more citizens are informed, the more they will reject 5G and its world, these proponents are trying to urgently apply the The shock strategy described by Naomi Klein: taking advantage of the disarray of populations during a crisis (here the pandemic in Covid-19) to surreptitiously advance their pawns. For example, the BIPT (Belgian Institute of Postal Services and Telecommunications) is trying to push through « interim » standards enabling 5G, when only a full government can do that. Similarly, Proximus wanted to launch quasi-5G « experiments » in 30 municipalities with some modification of 4G. Fortunately, Louvain-la-Neuve, followed by others, prohibited this fraudulent maneuver, making the indelicate telephone operator… of which the Belgian State is the majority shareholder. Unscrupulous companies dare to do anything, that’s how you can recognize them.

Faced with the capacity to amplify untruths through advertising and the media integrated into the technological system, the opponents of this tip of the iceberg of technological imperialism that is 5G have a voice that is hardly heard. They only have facts and arguments (scientific, political, ethical) to oppose the steamroller of false promises of the merchants of connected illusions who are only henchmen at the service of the most unbridled productivism. These are the facts that you will find detailed in the following pages.

Alain Adriaens and Bernard Legros

Read more "
Uncategorized

WITH THE 5G… ALL GUINEA PIGS?

On September 14, 2016, the European Commission launched its strategic plan for the deployment of fifth generation (5G) mobile telecommunications infrastructure and networks. The ambition was, thanks to a partnership between the Commission, Member States and industry, to make 5G operational in Europe by 2020 at the latest.

The timetable seems to have loosened up a bit in the meantime as, again according to the Commission, every country will have to have at least one city covered by 5G by 2020. In Belgium, the Brussels Region wants to be the best in the class. The Brussels government has signed a memorandum of understanding with the three mobile operators to establish a 5G network in a timely manner. Small problem: these same operators require that the exposure limits to electromagnetic waves be raised to allow the new network to operate. But what purpose can this new telecommunications network serve, when the current network (4G) is not yet fully present? The explanation is simple. The vision of the future widely shared by the European technocracy and industrial lobbies, and endorsed by a dazzled political class, demands that everything be done to promote the technological surge that guarantees economic growth.

In this case, it is to generalize the Internet of Things, to commercialize the autonomous car and to promote the permanent use of artificial intelligence. All this implies a quantitative and qualitative leap (given the new types of usage) in mobile telecommunications, hence 5G. Because 5G should allow speeds of 10 Gbits per second and a greatly reduced connection time. This last asset is essential for many connected objects, especially for autonomous cars. What is not mentioned at all is that this implies a greatly increased exposure to radio frequency radiation, since the radiation from 5G will be in addition to that from 2G, 3G, 4G, Wi-Fi, etc.

We also know that 5G uses millimeter waves (frequencies are higher than 6GHz). These waves have a lot of difficulty to cross solid obstacles. Clearly, the transmission, to be effective, requires the establishment of many antennas including inside shopping malls, hospitals and offices, especially in urban areas. We are talking about one antenna for every 10 to 12 houses, which means a generalized irradiation of all residents. It is important to specify that millimeter waves were until now reserved for military use. The reasons for this are certainly the difficult transmission in the presence of solid obstacles and in rainy weather. But also the fact that the effects on health have been little investigated. As noted by the International Society of Doctors for Environment[note], there is sufficient data currently available to suggest that there is a high probability of human health effects, particularly for the most vulnerable, i.e. children and pregnant women. For frequencies above 30GHz, exposure is likely to alter genes, stimulate cell proliferation and is capable of modifying the synthesis of proteins involved in inflammatory and immunological processes. Logically, this association of physicians believes that it is unethical to ignore these health risks and to subject populations to dangerous experiments. Last April, she asked that public institutions in charge of environmental health be actively involved in all decisions in this area.

« The data currently available are sufficient to believe in the high probability of human health effects »

This stance only reinforces the request for a moratorium sent in September 2017 to the European Commission by more than 170 scientists and physicians from 37 countries. Considering that the dangers of exposure to radio frequency electromagnetic fields are already demonstrated for exposure levels well below the limit values adopted in the European Union, these scientists express their  » serious concern  » about the permanent and universal increase in exposure to these electromagnetic fields resulting from 5G. They therefore call for a moratorium on its deployment until serious and independent health and environmental impact studies have been carried out prior to any marketing. This call was ignored by the European Commission. Obsessed with the economic growth prospects it claims to be able to expect from 5G, there is no question of it putting obstacles in the way of progress under the pretext of possible health inconveniences.

What about Belgium? The positions taken by the various political families leave little doubt as to their level of perception of the issues. On October 11, to the question asked by the editorial staff ofLa Libre Belgique:  » Should 5G be imposed on the territory of all municipalities ? « … the Francophone parties have been clear. All of them have declared themselves in favor of the principle of a generalized deployment, even if some of them do not appreciate the term « impose » and propose a consultation with the inhabitants and the communes (Défi, PTB and Ecolo).

The concern for public health is timidly evoked by the PS and the PTB, for whom it is necessary to study the impacts on health during or after its deployment (all guinea pigs). For Ecolo, 5G must replace all other technologies  » so as not to accumulate sources of electromagnetic radiation « . This impossible condition aims at solving a problem of cognitive dissonance: it is a question of not saying no to « progress », i.e. of saying yes, while refusing its inevitable damage.

So… Is it too late to refuse the guinea pig status that is once again being imposed on us?

To paraphrase a famous former minister, I would say:  » It’s not too late, but it’s time « . The 5G is presented as a new indispensable tool, they claim in chorus? I suggest asking policymakers two questions. Do you think that the autonomous car will solve the problems of traffic jams, air pollution and CO2 emissions and reduce the risks of accidents caused by traffic?

Do you think that connected objects meet the real needs and wishes of our fellow citizens? Personally, I have yet to meet anyone who has answered these two questions positively.

Paul Lannoye, President of the Grappe

Read more "

5G — REQUEST FOR INTERVIEW WITH MINISTER CELINE FREMAULT

Open letter to Minister Fremault, from whom we obviously expect nothing, instrument at the service of multinationals that she is. But this « nothing » is important, because it underlines the supreme disinterest of those who are supposed to represent us [note]; it must therefore be highlighted. We follow the « procedure » of requesting an interview. The first letter was sent on October 26 without any response; we are sending a second one today. If no answer: a new one will be sent in a week, then every two days, finally after 8 days, every day. Since we certainly don’t get any appointments for an interview, we will try other things.

Hello,

As an independent newspaper that has been publishing for more than 6 years in Belgium analyses and studies of general interest, we would like to meet Minister Fremault around the issue of 5G technology and her willingness to deploy it in the city of Brussels. 

Having dealt with the subject of electromagnetic waves and communication technologies for years, and having questioned many experts on the subject, we have some questions that seem essential to ask him. We think people need to know where the Minister stands on the dangers of this technology that we have highlighted and the answers she has to offer. 

We are confident that you will consider our request and are willing to meet with the Minister as soon as possible. 

Sincerely, Alexandre PenasseEditor-in-Chief of KAIROS

Read more "

NEW TECHNOLOGIES AND DIGITAL TRANSITION, THE TECHNOCRATIC ILLUSION IN THE LIGHT OF THE 5G

« The worst kind of catastrophism is not to announce catastrophes when one thinks they are coming, but to allow them to happen simply because one has not foreseen them and, even worse, because one has forbidden oneself to foresee them. This is why I would gladly classify as ‘catastrophists’ the countless authors who try to reassure the public, without questioning the world system, its dynamics and its evolution.François Partant, La ligne d’horizon, essay on post-development.

« If we want to prevent a global catastrophe, we must take radical action now, and really act this time. But I don’t think we’re ready to do that. I think we’re screwed.Stephen Emmott, 10 Billion.

« Our leaders are, in general, those who have best internalized the goals of the system and, therefore, are immune to arguments and evidence that might challenge it. »[note]Clive Hamilton, Requiem for the Human Race.

PREAMBLE

The multiple signals that nature sends us as well as the general state of life and the Earth that hosts it indicate that we are in a period characterized by an unprecedented risk of large-scale disappearance of the human species.  » After a decade of almost no concrete action, even under the most optimistic assumptions about the likelihood of the world taking the necessary steps, and even assuming there is nothing we « don’t know, » climate change with dramatic consequences is all but certain « [note]. The evidence is before our eyes: we are living through the sixth species extinction crisis and the first one caused by man, the previous one, the Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction, having been characterized by a massive disappearance of animals and plants, notably the dinosaurs, 66 million years ago;  » the Arctic coastline is retreating by 30 meters per year in areas such as the Laptev and Beaufort Seas. Greenland and Antarctica are currently losing nearly 475 billion tons of ice each year to the ocean (…) The melting of ice resulting from our activities is releasing significant amounts of methane into the Arctic Ocean « [note]; etc., etc.

 » A higher increase [de 2° de la température moyenne] eThis would entail the risk of catastrophic climate change leading to irreversible « points of no return », caused by phenomena such as the melting of the Greenland ice cap, the release of methane stored in the Arctic permafrost or the decline of the Amazon rainforest.[note]. However, all studies show that we will exceed 2°.  » It is very likely that the increase will be in the order of 4°C — and it is not excluded that it will reach 6°C. A rise of 4 to 6°C in global temperature would be dramatic. It would lead to a climate change out of control, capable of tipping the planet into a radically different state. The Earth would become a hell « [note].  » The figures show that even rapid and sustained global action is unlikely to prevent the Earth’s temperature from rising by at least 3°. The melting of the Greenland ice will lead to a rise in sea level of about 7 meters, dramatically redrawing the geography of the planet « [note]. The coral reef will soon be a distant memory, desertification is gaining ground everywhere, every day hundreds of hectares are deforested, species disappear forever.

At the social level, everything is the same, never has misery been so widespread: here, in the « North », in the households that survive; in our streets, with the homeless, left behind by globalization, who die alone while billions never pass through the state coffers, going directly to tax havens and while eight people own more than half of humanity. Further on, in countries that interest us only because they contain materials that allow the continuity of our ways of life « . We place dictators and other despots who will ensure our imports and, for those who would rebel and try to be independent, we will send them our troops in the name of human rights and other values of altruism.

THE RUSH TO GET AHEAD WHEN THERE IS AN EMERGENCY

Either, we know these figures, these facts, these images that the mass media passes to us with frequency, between two pages of advertisements, imposing this double schizophrenic dimension change/continuity, which ends up eroding our morale[note]. But while this knowledge should enjoin us to do everything to stop playing the game, turning off our TVs and recreating agoras everywhere to think about the future, in the context of a state of ecological emergency revealing much more relevance than the anti-terrorist gesticulations of governments, the technocrats assure us of the  » change in continuity[note] « , promising the energy transition and the digital revolution, which are supposed to free us from the burden of work and ensure better communication between people. As Clive Hamilton explains,  » The world’s best climate scientists are now raising the alarm to a deafening level, because the deadline for action has almost expired, and yet it is as if the signal is inaudible to the human ear.[note]

One of the miracles of this « transition » would be the 5G, a technology coming after the 4G and which will allow to reach speeds in term of mobile telecommunication of several gigabits of data per second. And like the wind, the rain and the tides, there will be no question of questioning, except in the usual form of the show, where everything is already written but where we are made to believe in the possibilities of influencing the plot of the story: the option of refusal is not foreseen, so everything will be done (with the help of advertising propaganda in the streets, on television, on the radio, in the newspapers) so that you will have the impression of wanting to, of expressing your deepest self when you ask for the 5G In September 2018, did not Qualcomm, an American company active in the field of mobile technology (Revenue 25.3 billion dollars[note]), display in Tout Bruxelles, on the media owned by the company JC Decaux, the message:  » 5G will create many jobs. And our job is to create 5G « . From then on, there is no need for real contradictory debates. Telephone operators, politicians, media, committee set up by the Brussels Minister of the Environment, all are committed to 5G, some with doubts, others with confidence, but all convinced of what must be achieved. Our national channel, the RTBF, infatuated with this arbitrary and illusory belief that  » one does not stop progress « , illustrating under the argument of necessity the injunction of the history which writes itself:  » But there is a timing to respect. The European Commission wants every member state (and this also applies to Belgium) to have 5G coverage in at least one city by 2020. And by 2025, all urban areas will have to have 5G coverage. Including major roads. We are really in the home stretch « [note], before the wall…

At this level, an alien landed on Earth would not be convinced by anything we just said, because we haven’t said anything about 5G yet. If he is lucid and sane, he must think that 5G is probably something great, an antidote in a way, a remedy that will allow us to get out of this situation. We do not dare to explain to him what this innovation will really bring to man, so close to nothing:  » With 5G, users should be able to download a high-definition movie in less than a second (a task that can take 10 minutes with 4G). And wireless engineers say these networks will also spur the development of other new technologies, such as autonomous vehicles, virtual reality and the Internet of Things « [note].

In short, we should always measure novelty by George Orwell’s question:  » Does this make me more or less human? If we can show all that this technology will take away from man, it is impossible to say what it will bring him, when a large part of him already has nothing, and which will make him more human, that is to say, capable of living fully in harmony with nature, of being satisfied with the minimum, of grasping and understanding what he lives, of getting closer to others without seeking to have more. What’s human about downloading a movie in less than a second?

GROWTH, AGAIN AND AGAIN

The one and only leitmotiv, always: growth, meaning more and more products from the exploitation of the land and people of the « South », coming by planes, trucks, supertankers : « The association between economic growth and progress is so deeply rooted in modes of thought — whether progressive or conservative, it is defended with such vigor, that it can only be based on a banal empirical link between increased material consumption and increased happiness of a country. »[note]. Dominique Leroy, head of the telephone operator Proximus (a public company listed on the stock exchange, with the State as the main shareholder), was she not already moving in this direction in 2015, when she was invited to Parliament for a  » hearing on the future policy of Proximus « , she came back with this litany of « delay »:

 » Europe is currently lagging behind America and Asia in terms of technological developments and the level of investment in ICT. The main reason for the decline [in digital revenue growth in Europe] is that legislation is too strict and hinders innovation « [note]. The argument is always the same: one compares oneself to the other and deduces that one must go faster[note]. Then, the causes of the delay are identified («  too strict standards  ») and pressure is applied (lobbying, media propaganda, distribution of various « advantages », setting up of committees endorsed by the governments…). In this process, economic necessity is the law:  » Although price levels are important, there is a need for continuous investment in the digital economy (…) Only by investing and innovating is it possible to generate growth.

Neither the common good nor the environment are ever invoked as higher principles[note]. And this is only logical, because one cannot ensure economic growth and the common good at the same time. The element that dominates everything is the principle of growth, and therefore profit, and the rest must necessarily follow:  » The deployment of 5G requires a densification of the network, which means that in concrete terms, additional antennas must be installed. We are no longer in the realm of proposals that will have to be weighed later in a democratic debate, but in that of order, where reality will only have to adapt:  » Innovation, especially the Internet-of-things, including mobility and cybersecurity, will radically change the telecom landscape. « The landscape is thought, it only remains to find the painters. However, it is necessary to persuade the subjects that the painters are busy only for them and constantly ensure the spectacle of the common good by resorting to the professionals of the communication:  » Proximus’ mission is to keep people permanently connected to the world so that they can live better and work smarter.

PREPARE THE SUBJECT

September 11, 2018:  » The strategic committee officially handed over the National Pact for Strategic Investments (NPSI) to Prime Minister Charles Michel on Tuesday, during a ceremony with great pomp and circumstance, organized in the renovated Museum of Africa in Tervuren[note]a plan that weighs 150 billion projects by 2030[note]. This strategic plan is mainly based on investments that are essential if Belgium wants to  » take the digital high-speed train  » (sic). On the subject of the strategic committee, Charles Michel will speak of  » a panel of non-political experts  » who will make  » concrete proposals to the various governments of the country « . The Prime Minister is playing the game of unity, where the common good is expressed from the outset, ignoring all the interests of employers:  » When we talk about energy transition or mobility, we are talking to the eleven million Belgians. Of course, it is for the good of all of us, but under no circumstances could we refuse it:  » New technologies, such as artificial intelligence and the Internet of Things, will radically change all facets of our lives and work, as well as society as a whole. The digital revolution is both a factor of disruption and an engine of growth for our economy »[note]. On the fact of  » to bring together private and public decision-makers « with of the budgets of the different entities of the country, with the approval of the parliaments, and of the private sector « , the son of Louis will not explain this brutal conversion of the private sector suddenly forgetting the return on investment, henceforth concerned only with the good of the  » 11 million Belgians « , is surprising to say the least.[note]

Five sectors will benefit from this « Eldorado »: mobility, energy, education, telecoms and health. Your well-being as the measure of all things, the media-political-patronial complex will do everything to convince you of this, starting by presenting you with all that we would lose if it did not take place:  » Without it, it would be a loss of prosperity of the order of 50 billion euros « . This will be « for the benefit of everyone, and first of all, of our citizens « [note], Charles Michel repeats, if we had not understood him. These citizens, who have been fed media propaganda for years, on the  » competitive lag « ,  » the risk of losing billions and unprecedented personal advantages « , will be ready to accept this « innovation », no longer perceiving what is proposed to them, and it is even better if they ask for it, as what is imposed on them. 

However, it is difficult to understand why, born of a desire for the common good, the strategic committee includes only employers: Michel Delbaere, who is the Chairman, is CEO of Crop’s (production and sale of vegetables, fruits and frozen meals) and former boss of Voka, but also, among other multiple functions, chairman of Sioen Industries; Dominique Leroy, CEO of Proximus; Marc Raisière, CEO of Belfius; Michèle Sioen, CEO of Sioen Industries (world market leader in coated technical textiles and high quality protective clothing.), former president of the Federation of Enterprises in Belgium (FEB), Dutch-speaking manager of the year 2017, incidentally involved in Luxleak; Baron Jean Stéphenne, well established in academic and political circles, like his other acolytes, former vice-president and general manager of the pharmaceutical multinational GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals, but also chairman of the board of Nanocyl, spin off of the universities of Liege and Namur, specialized in carbon nanotubes (batteries, cars, electronics…); Pieter Timmermans, administrator of the FEB. All of these individuals know each other, they meet the political decision-makers, being the ones who actually transmit the business interests to the politicians who transform them into political decisions, the voters still being convinced that they are the ones who decide. They will be there to convince you, like Marc Raisière, the banker, who will warn us, telling us  » If we don’t make these investments, it’s future generations who will be the victims, who will bear the consequences. »[note] All this  » is truly realistic, » says Dominique Leroy, CEO of Proximus, who is excited about the values of equality and justice. 

So « realistic », that the report of the committee of experts on 5G set up by the Brussels Minister of the Environment will conclude:  » A major obstacle to new installations is the opposition of a certain part of the public. It is therefore necessary to continue to inform and educate the public in an objective manner, and to dispassionate the debate as much as possible « . The members of the committee, who are supposed to make an impartial report aimed at protecting the population, will recommend  » de-fragmenting the debate « , to reduce « theopposition of a certain part of the public  » and to remove  » the brake on new installations « . The solution is to educate and inform us. We count on them.

WHO BENEFITS FROM THE CRIME?

If the public interest of technological innovations is never really questioned by those who have the responsibility to implement them, it is because the answers to these questions would reveal that, beyond the questions of health, equality or environment, the initiative of these projects emanates from minorities who alone will benefit from them: captains of industry and bosses of public enterprises, whose economic choices are put in place by zealous political servants who will derive from them, and sometimes their relatives, one day or another, a legal or hidden, but always illegitimate and indecent, advantage.

So who benefits from the deployment of technologies like 5G? Beyond all the technical considerations that are sold to us as progress, the real interest, the one that functions as the driving force, the objective of all things, remains the lure of gain. Without it, there is a high probability that no one would have heard of 5G, no scientific research would have been launched, no advertisements to « prepare » the subject. It is therefore obvious that those who hope to get richer will not advocate the precautionary principle, because they know that the environmental, social and health risks would be in contradiction with the best interests of finance. Those who will reap the benefits of growth also know that she has the entire political class with her, including the Ecolo party:  » Recognizing that the cult of growth was an immovable obstacle to climate action, environmentalists quickly capitulated and now claim that you can have the best of both worlds, namely both a healthy atmosphere and solid economic growth, and that in fact promoting renewable energy to replace fossil fuels could accelerate economic growth « [note]. The alliances between liberals and ecologists in the last Belgian municipal elections are further evidence of this. Indeed, there is no longer a green office without its energy transition manager or its digital advisor. And for those aware that the transition is a chimera but that it serves temporarily to ensure the growth of their capital, they will take care to protect themselves from the objects they promote for others, as the bosses of Silicon Valley put their children in Waldorf schools without screens or tablets. The zealots of 5G will thus live in areas decontaminated from waves, protecting themselves and their children from the pollution they encourage.

Thinking about the foundations at the source of all creation therefore brings a certain lucidity and avoids certain considerations at first: no need here to talk about the environment, health, common goods… it is enough to verify if the religion of growth took precedence over everything else from the start. If we manage to demonstrate this, the conclusion is self-evident: the desire for economic growth in a capitalist society, where enrichment is based on a process of exploitation, is never in harmony with respect for nature, social justice, the common good and the interests of all. The spirit of profit always benefits only a minority and cannot be reconciled with a concern for life. The following illustrates the true interests of 5G.

CREDIT FOR THE « SCIENCE

In Belgium, operators (Proximus, Orange, Telenet) and their shareholders « must » be able to count on technological deployment, so they necessarily need the State to relax « too strict standards » and subsequently ensure the implementation of the necessary infrastructure throughout the country. But this cannot be done, as has been shown, without feigning the parliamentary democratic process; preparing the population (selling them the product before it is there); but also bringing in the credit of science, which the use of scientific experts will provide. The Brussels Minister of Housing, Quality of Life, Environment and Energy, Céline Fremault, will therefore set up a committee of « independent » experts in 2015.

But let’s stop for a moment at the telecom operators, of which we will only describe Proximus, a « public » company listed on the stock exchange. Since January 2014, Dominique Leroy has been the Managing Director and Chair of its Executive Committee. Prior to this position, which earns him a whopping €936,903 (2017 figure, equivalent to €78,075.25/month), Dominique Leroy worked for Unilever for 24 years, serving on the Unilever Benelux Management Committee[note]. She is a member of the Board of Directors of BICS and Be-Mobile and Chair of the International Advisory Board of the Solvay Business School. She is an independent member of the Board of Directors of Lotus Bakeries and Ahold Delhaize. We know that the major parties share the directorships in the most important public companies: the National Lottery, the SNCB, Proximus, Vivaqua, not to mention the intermunicipal companies (Publifin being a perfect example). Stefaan De Clerck, who was a member of the Federal Parliament from 1990 to 2013, a minister on two occasions and mayor of the city of Kortrijk for 11 years, is now with Proximus[note]. This political experience was not in vain and helped him to enter the company, where he wears many hats: he chairs the Board of Directors, is chairman of the Joint Committee, the Pension Fund and Proximus Art ASBL, and is a director of the Proximus Foundation and ConnectImmo. He is also a member of the Orientation Council of Euronext, the Strategic Committee of FEB, the Board of Directors of Voka, the BBR (Benelux Business Roundtable), the Advisory Board of KPMG and a member of the Board of the Eurometropole Lille-Kortrijk-Tournai. Why would Stefaan De Clerck find it excessive to receive €270,000 in parliamentary allowances when he leaves the Parliament for Belgacom[note]. Wasn’t it Proximus that recently posted  » Make way for unlimited  » everywhere?

The former European Commissioner for Trade, Belgian Minister of Foreign Affairs (2004–2009), Deputy Prime Minister (2008–2009) and European Commissioner for International Cooperation, Humanitarian Aid and Crisis Response (2009–2010) are still on the Board, Karel De Gucht, who is also a professor at the VUB, President of the IES (Institute of European Studies), member of the Advisory Board of CVC Capital and sits on the Board of Directors of ArcelorMittal NV and Merit Capital NV. The others come from or have passed through the Belgian holding company Ackermans & van Haaren, are directors of Pairi Daiza, BSB and Guberna (Pierre Demuelenaere); Liquavista (a technology company specializing in the creation of screens) Philips, KPN, Kroymans Corporation BV, Tom Tom, etc. (Guido J.M. Demuynck); from Alcatel-Lucent, associate director of Qbic Fund (an inter-university fund that focuses on turning technological discoveries into sustainable business), Barco, Caliopa, a start-up specialized in silicon photonics (Martin De Prycker); McKinsey & Co, Cockerill-Sambre, ABX Logistics, Aviapartner, bpost, FN Herstal, Investsud (Laurent Levaux); Schneider Electric (a global specialist in energy management and automation), Colt Technology Services (one of the leading pan-European telecom providers), BT Global Services, McKinsey, where the current director of Proximus has specialized in technology and telecom growth strategy for large multinationals (Tanuja Randery); CEO of Act III Consultants (consulting firm dedicated to digital transformations), former CEO of Vivendi Universal Publishing, McKinsey, Darty Plc and Neopost SA, Board of Directors of The French-American Foundation, The Women’s Forum and IDATE (Agnès Touraine); Chief Financial Officer of Elia, APX-ENDEX Management Committee, Coopers & Lybrand, Contassur (Catherine Vandenborre); imec; Technology and Strategy Committee of ASML, specialist in nanotechnology (Luc Van den hove); GIMV, Sidmar (Arcelor-Mittal), Sunparks (division of Sunair), Greenbridge Incubator (Ghent University) and Scientific Investment Board (Brussels University), bpost, Five Financial Solutions (corporate finance), member of the advisory board of several high-tech start-ups (Paul Van de Perre); member of the budget committee, the remuneration committee, the council of regency of the National Bank of Belgium, chairman of the board of directors of bpost, director of Belgacom sa; director of Invest Mons-Borinage-Centre IMBC; member of the audit committee of FOREM, Chief Financial and Accounting Officer at bpost, member of the board of directors of Ethias DC, professor of management and financial analysis at the university of Mons-Hainaut (Martine Durez); the last one, Isabelle Santens, brings the « fashion » touch to the Board, being Managing Director of Andres NV, a Belgian fashion company designing, producing and distributing the women’s clothing brands Xandres, Xandres xLine and Hampton Bays[note].

This description is a bit long, but it is essential to understand who is in charge and who will make the decisions that will have a lasting impact on society and nature. Driven by this team of technophiles linked to multinationals, investment funds, universities, banks, public companies, etc., Dominique Leroy and Stefaan De Clerck will present their strategic vision at the « Hearing on the future policy of Proximus », in front of an enthusiastic audience of parliamentarians. These directors, chosen by the Council of Ministers to represent the different parties, will decide on the main orientations of Proximus with the main aim of not harming the shareholders. Thus, it is the Board of Directors that will decide on the dismissal of 2,000 jobs, while Minister Charles Michel will pretend to be surprised, having placed his cronies in the lair of the telecom operator, following the example of the other « major » parties. Indeed, with the indispensable support of the media, it is necessary to simulate astonishment in order to give the impression that all this is not carefully thought out and strategically organized by a political-financial elite that aims at the same objectives. The show, always[note].

In short, did you see in the panel of Proximus administrators, an individual capable of introducing even a single doubt as to the relevance of deploying 5G in Belgium? Isn’t there a clear conflict of interest, given that Proximus remains a public company? How can we ensure the common good when the boss of Proximus earns €936,000/year, Stefaan De Clerck €186,244 for attending eight meetings of the Board of Directors and eleven of the various Proximus committees, Karel De Gucht €72,000[note] when the directors’ fees at Telenet’s Board of Directors are around €3,500, with fixed remunerations of €45,000/year, €120,000 for the Chairman of the Board[note] ? ; that Yves Leterme, Patrick Dewael, Siegfried Bracke, to name but a few, charged Telenet for advice rendered, respectively €55,000, €82,000, €66,000[note]?; that at Orange, the CEO had earned in 2016, €1.55 million[note]? Can there still be a concern for the common good and a pre-eminence of the precautionary principle in such cases?

THE EXPERT COMMITTEE: THE RETURN OF IMPARTIALITY?

In front of this display of indecency, the recourse to scientific expertise was going to be able to bring elements and to decide on the decision to be taken. But that was without counting on the fact that we were once again dealing with the convinced before their time — to have to judge who was going to compose the jury…

It was on June 19, 2015 that the Brussels government, on the proposal of the cabinet of Minister Fremault, in charge of the environment, thus approved the composition of the committee of experts on non-ionizing radiation. Although the committee is composed of nine members from several fields (medical, scientific, economic and technological)[note], this diversity obscures the reality of a committee that is globally committed to the technological cause, some working in a sector that promotes 5G, others being directly linked to the operators that finance them. This temporary group, assigned the task of evaluating  » the impact on health of GSM antennas on a continuous basis « , would have to decide on the health protection standards for the inhabitants of Brussels as well.

 » In order to ensure a satisfactory protection of the inhabitants of Brussels in the long term, this committee of experts is essential to evaluate the effects of electromagnetic waves with regard to the evolution of technologies and scientific knowledge, economic imperatives and public health. « Céline Fremault, Minister of the Environment

THE COMPOSITION OF THE COMMITTEE

1. Three members with scientific expertise on the health and/or environmental effects of non-ionizing radiation:

- Isabelle Lagroye (IMS Bordeaux, Bioelectromagnetism) is French and a member of ICNIRP, the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, whose « mission is to protect the health and safety of the public.his expertise is an international reference and is used as a basis by many Western countries, including France, to define a threshold limit for exposure to waves.[note]. ICNIRP describes itself as an  » independent scientific commission to promote protection against non-ionizing radiation (NIR) for the benefit of the public and the environment « [note]. Nice declaration of intent, but it would not have been complicated for the Parliament and the Brussels Government to discover the past conflicts of interest of the one of its members. Isabelle Lagroye finances her research with money from France Telecom, Alcatel, Bouygues telecom[note]. More recently, we discover on the WHO website that it carries out studies financed by EDF. Isabelle Lagroye is also a member of the French Society of Radioprotection (SFRP),  » whose benefactors include Areva, GDF-Suez, IRSN and others.[note]which at the beginning was dedicated to propagating the idea that nuclear energy is safe, and now has a « non-ionizing radiation » branch, which continues the same propaganda work. 

- Luc Verschaeve (Institute of Public Health, Departement Biomedische Wetenschappen), is president of the Belgian BioElectroMagnetics Group (BBEMG), which under the tab « Independence and Scientific Integrity » notes, without humor:  » In scientific research, it is important to fight fraud and avoid conflicts of interest. This is all the more important when the research is subsidized by industry (sic). The best way to guarantee the quality of research and the integrity of researchers, even under performance pressure (sic), is to maintain an optimal research culture in which the observance of a strict ethical code is paramount « . And what could be more effective to counter this risk of scientific research serving those who pay for it, than to comply with the…  » code of ethics for scientific research in Belgium « , and to ensure that  » Researchers participating in BBEMG activities are committed to complete scientific honesty. The lobbies are trembling. Here we are reassured about the impartiality of BBEMG’s research, « the collaboration with Elia cannot exert any influence on it  » (…),  » the agreement clearly states that the researchers benefit at all times from a complete scientific freedom and that they are totally responsible for the results of their research.[note] Elia, the manager of the Belgian electricity transmission network, which represents a total of more than 8,600 km of lines and underground cables spread throughout the country and employs 1,300 people, certainly sees this code of ethics in a positive light, as it certainly puts the health and well-being of the population before its financial interests. Finally, this is perhaps not the opinion of the residents of Woluwé-Saint-Lambert who had mobilized against the dangers of electromagnetic emissions related to 150,000 volt trenches set up by Elia. The latter reproached the municipality for having accepted the organization of an information meeting where Elia presented Mr. Verschaeve as  » independent expert « , while they see him as « a this umpteenth warning protester who appears in the media or at conferences in order to discredit health warnings about radiation « .[note].

- Jacques Van Der Straeten does not seem to be the object of such conflicts of interest of a research supposedly at the service of the population while being financed by operators. This doctor, however, adopts the « intermediate » position, typical of the « false troublemaker » expert who, faced with the forward march of « inescapable » progress, advocates individual prudence, typical of our liberal societies: on the one hand, total laissez-faire to the multinationals that produce harmful objects, and on the other hand, individual choice of whether or not to protect oneself (as long as one can do so) from this harmfulness. This is the model of the cigarette pack and the morbid photos that accompany it, of this paradoxical double message in which we are sold poison while at the same time being invited to protect ourselves from it, if you like, a model that expresses the relationship of a State that no longer has a grip on social functioning, only there to guarantee a context that is conducive to investment and to add a few touches of palliative regulation to ward off the most visible effects and prevent total chaos that would contravene the interests of capital. So we let it go, then we’ll see:  » Since the use of GSM is currently widespread, an alternative to case-control type studies is the analysis of the evolution over time of the prevalence of brain tumors « [note]. This is called  » taking people for guinea pigs « [note].

2. Two members with scientific expertise in non-ionizing radiation properties:

- Yves Rolain (VUB, Wireless Communications), chairman of the committee set up by Fremault, is a member of IEEE,  » the world’s largest technical professional organization dedicated to advancing technology for the benefit of humanity « , including  » The main objective is to promote excellence and technological innovation for the benefit of humanity. The table of directors alone gives an idea of the motivations of those at the head of the organization[note]. The IEEE which will organize in October 2019, its 2nd forum on 5G (The 2019 IEEE 2nd 5G World Forum: « 5GWF’19 »), whose objective is to lead industrial, academic and research experts to exchange their visions as well as their advances on 5G. » So, as the IEEE headline reads, « Be part of the Global Collaboration Creating 5G for the Benefit of Society « [note]. The mass is said, the information on 5G on the site resembling more a marketing offer than the results of « independent research », some « articles » having missed their publication in a Proximus folder, such as  » Everything you need to know about 5G « [note]. Yves Rolain will receive an IEEE award in 2004, 2010, 2011, and 2012. But don’t think that this will erode its integrity…

Yet should we be surprised if in the 2016 report of the VUB’s Elec department, two projects that Yves Rolain is leading (one between 2014 and 2019, the other since 2005), we find in the « amount » box, the note « Confidential », while not even stipulating the donor organization?

- Véronique Beauvois (ULG, Applied and Computational electromagnetics), civil electrical engineer at ULiège, is also part of the BBEMG whose funder is Elia. An interview with her, published in a dissertation,[note] speaks volumes about the relationship between the two entities:

 » At the level of the BBEMG, how does it work?

- The BBEMG group is now funded by Elia. Projects are proposed to them and Elia may or may not accept to finance them. Once funding is awarded, researchers have the freedom to publish « .

She works at the Montefiore Institute, which is linked to a set of spin-off companies, which defines itself as  » a new company created from a research laboratory whose objective is to commercially develop a research result (a technology). In order to do this, the spin-off company is in principle linked to the university by means of a license agreement that establishes the conditions for the transfer of the technology from the laboratory to the company « [note]. It’s hard to be more clear.

These include:

- The Association of Engineers of Montefiore (AIM), where the University of Liege (Ulg) rubs shoulders with sponsors such as Engie Electrabel, Lampiris, Euresis, Schneider Electric[note], Siemens, Sonaca, Tractebel ;

- Ampacimon, which works on all continents to optimize the network, where we find again as partners, Elia but also Alstom (rail transport), Pôle Mecatech (grouping of nearly 250 industrial and academic actors involved in joint projects of mechanical engineering), Cigré (world organization in the field of high voltage electricity), etc. ;

- Taipro, designer of microsystems, with partners such as Technord (specialized in electrical engineering, integrating new technologies of industry 4.0 to « guarantee optimal productivity and flexibility of its customers’ industrial processes »), Guardis (information systems and computer security), Biion (automation and supervision of industrial processes in pharmaceuticals and biotechnologies), Safran (international high-tech group specialized in aeronautics) ;

- Blacklight Analytics, which links IT skills to energy systems, working in particular in the area of artificial intelligence.

There is no need to describe the other four  » university spin-off industries « , once we understand that research serves industry, which in turn rewards university researchers. It is obvious that research is oriented, that programs are based on the interests of industry. A ULB scientist we interviewed told us[note]:

- The university puts antennas on its roofs, and receives money to do so. She put wifi everywhere, in every auditorium and public place. Then to say that this technology is harmful, it cannot be done!

Kairos: Do you know that there is a contract between ULB and Huawei?

- Yes, I learned that. Mr. André Fauteux sent it to me, saying:  » You probably know it, Madam? — No « , I answered. It’s a contract to install 5G.

Kairos: Do you mean that the university can no longer say what it wants when it has economic interests with operators and producers of GSM?

- Yes, that’s exactly it. You can’t say that these things are harmful.

Kairos: Was that made clear to you?

Almost. The dean said to me, « There’s wifi here ma’am, and I don’t feel a thing, » implying: that’s what you should say too.

This pool of academic, industrial and political actors who are active in the field of high technology constitutes an indispensable guarantee for our governments who set themselves the sole objective of growth and unlimited accumulation of capital. Health, as well as nature, are never of any importance in the face of economic imperatives.

3. Two members with scientific expertise in micro- and macro-economic and social needs in mobile telecommunications:

We are here in the supra-social domain, where, after having received the reports they expected from the experts they had paid, the political relays,  » for the well-being of the population « , can act. 

- Laura Rebreanu, employer representative, member of the Chamber of Commerce and the Brussels Business Union, does not hide her enthusiasm for technology as an indispensable tool for the energy transition:  » To limit global warming to less than 2°C, the transition to a « low-carbon » society, limiting CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions, must be rapid and global. Smart meters are essential to achieve this. « [note] We’re saved! If we had known, as early as 1972, when the Meadows Report warned of the risks inherent in our model of society if we did not change course, that the solution was there, in front of us, in the smart meters.  » Resilient Enterprise « ,  » stop wasting « ,  » sustainable « ,  » urbanmobility »,  » co-creation « , the employer representative has perfectly adopted this vocabulary of the novlangue which ensures this  » change in the continuity  » where we give ourselves new words to make us believe that we are doing something else when we are continuing as before. Another particularity of this approach is that it is always about encouraging new technologies and good individual habits, while taking care not to implicate the largest companies responsible for plundering the planet.

- Walter Hecq, CEESE1/ULB, professor at the Solvay Brussels School of Economics and Management (SBS-EM), 75 years old, has been a member of all the commissions for decades, and participates in a few debates whose theme makes us wonder.[note]

4. Two members with scientific expertise in wireless communication technologies:

- Sophie Pollin (KUL, Telecommunications and Microwaves) did her PhD research at Imec (Institut de Micro-Électronique et Composants). After Santa Clara, Berkeley, she joined thewireless group at Imec in Leuven, where she is since 2012 assistant-professor. In her CV available on the Imec website, she writes:  » The Internet of Things promises more and more devices to connect. So we need solutions that fit perfectly with the density of nodes, that are intelligent, self-learning, heterogeneous. The complex field of wireless includes swarm networks, LTE cellular networks as well as future airborne mobile sensor networks. Lots of interesting challenges and opportunities together! « .[note] Sophie Pollin has undoubtedly crossed paths with Luc Van den Hove, President and CEO of Imec, who is also a member of the Proximus Board of Directors (see above). Let’s remember that Sophie Pollin is supposed to  » evaluate the effects of electromagnetic waves « , especially in terms of health, while she is an employee of a company whose leitmotiv is:  » The power of technology should not be underestimated. technology has the power to improve lives. That’s why we push the limits of technology « [note].

- David Erzeel works for the Belgian Institute for Postal Services and Telecommunications (BIPT), which regulates these two subjects. It was BIPT that on March 24, 2017 issued a press release that welcomed the fact that  » extended the rights of use of Broadband Belgium in the 3.5GHz frequency band for 5 years (…) 3.5GHz frequency band in question [qui] Is part of the 3.4–3.8GHz frequency band, designated by the European « Radio Spectrum Policy Group » in its opinion of November 9, 2016 as the main frequency band, together with the 700MHz and 26GHz frequency bands, to introduce 5G mobile technology in Europe « . No wonder then that  » BIPT should promote the introduction of 5G in Belgium. It is indeed about the interest of the consumer and the functioning of the internal market for electronic communications « [note]. The former president of BIPT, Luc Hindryckx, has become a lobbyist at ECTA (European Competitive Telecommunications Association), an organization associated with many operators. This is not an exception, as former BIPT leaders frequently borrowed revolving doors between the public and private sectors (Belgacom, FranceTelecom, KPN Orange, etc.). When you know that the top functions come and go from Proximus, Orange and the other big operators, you understand who BIPT works for.

What can we say to these beings devoid of selfish interests who do everything possible to ensure our future and that of all living beings, except  » thank you « ?

SCIENCE, THE SPEARHEAD OF CAPITALISM

Science and its academic temples have dedicated part of their activities to technological development, which is essential for the profit of multinationals and participates in the plundering of the planet. Among all the examples, Proximus, ULB (Université libre de Bruxelles) and VUB (Vrije universiteit van België) signed in Beijing in June 2015  » a technology agreement with Huawei « , Huawei which  » will provide the 5G infrastructure for the ‘campus of the future’ in Brussels « [note]. If it does not even seem contradictory to associate an operator and a multinational with supposedly independent universities, it is because the latter are no longer independent at all. In France, an example among others, the IMS, laboratory of the integration of the material to the system attached to the CNRS,  » is working to develop this « miracle » chip that should eventually fit on the head of a pin. A creation that is only made possible, however, thanks to a partnership between an IMS laboratory and microchip giant STMicroelectronics « [note]. It doesn’t matter that it takes  » about 72 liters of water to produce one of these small chips that power laptops, GPS, phones, iPads, TVs, cameras, microwaves and cars. In 2012, probably nearly 3 billion chips were produced. This represents nearly 200 billion liters of water. For semiconductor chips « [note].

The wish of Céline Frémault is therefore pious, when she delegates to her committee the task of evaluating electromagnetic waves  » with regard to the evolution of technologies and scientific knowledge, economic and public health imperatives « . It is a pure aporia to put  » economic imperatives  » and health issues in the same sentence: there is no health when competitiveness and growth are introduced. So it was not the Fremault committee’s assessment that would come to determine the deployment of 5G, but the decision already made by the multinationals to do so, supported by the political elites, that would determine the position of a scientific panel endorsing what to endorse. In short, Céline Fremault, like the others, is an executor. Technocracy thus dictates its choices to politicians who cannot, however, accept them without feigning the democratic process. The politician therefore sets up a committee of experts to give the illusion of an impartial decision, but chooses members who are already committed to the cause.

As early as 2010, the European Commission set its objectives in the « 2010 Digital Plan », which will lead to the definition of « the Digital Plan » in 2016. an action plan for 5G in Europe « , shamelessly titling its first paragraph  » the rapid deployment of 5G: a strategic opportunity for Europe « . It also states that already  » in 2013[note], the Commission launched a public-private partnership (PPP-5G) with €700 million in public funding, with the aim of ensuring the availability of 5G technology in Europe by 2020. However, research efforts alone will not be enough to ensure Europe’s leadership in 5G. Broader action is needed to make 5G and related services a reality, including the emergence of a European « home market » for 5G « . It was therefore already obvious that no public debate could take place, long before the declarations of intent to deploy 5G, and, above all, that no opposition could be heard.

While the press praises the  » undeniable advantages of 5G « , without ever expressing the slightest doubt, the political negotiations are carried out with surprising discretion. Is this surprising when we know that the media belong to large financial groups that have multiple and varied interests, especially in new technologies. Other authorities, however, point out the danger. In its resolution 1815 dated 2011, the European Parliament states in point 6:  » Waiting for sound scientific and clinical evidence before intervening to prevent well-known risks can result in very high health and economic costs, as in the case of asbestos, leaded gasoline or tobacco. » Nothing will do, the thing being economically too important, i.e.  » essential to ensure the continuity of the enrichment of the richest and a form of totalitarian control[note] « . It is obviously essential to let the game play itself out, since in a situation of deep crisis and metamorphosis of the capitalist system, the only possibility of ensuring its sustainability is to flee forward technologically. As a result, the « green » speeches and arguments in terms of social progress of decision-makers (politicians and employers alike) hide the windfall that technological transition represents.

FREMAULT COMMITTEE: CITING WORRISOME RESULTS TO BETTER SWEEP THEM AWAY

The report of the Fremault Committee illustrates this reality, where doubt only benefits the beneficiaries of the « economic imperative », offering an anthology of assertions/counter-assertions, where on the one hand they cite the « worrying » results of scientific research, to better not worry about them, and evacuate them:

-  » This decision was taken by the majority of experts concerned, based on several studies showing an increased risk of glioma in cell phone users. There is no certainty, however, and recent studies tend to show that the link between exposure and gliomas is decreasing rather than increasing « .

-  » For the time being, however, it is too early to make a definitive statement, given that many cancers take years to appear and that cell phone use is still too recent at this stage (sic). There is even less evidence for brain tumors or other head and neck cancers… The only study (sic) that looked at cell phones and brain tumors in children and adolescents showed no effect « .

-  » Studies of potentially genetic effects (which may be indirectly related to cancer) have not shown clear effects. Alarming effects have been reported, but only in studies whose quality may be questionable. There is also insufficient evidence for other potential effects that may have some link to cancer « .

-  » Immunological effects have been found, but to date, the biological relevance of these observations is unclear, however .

-  » Because we hold our cell phones to our heads, there is concern that the radiation reaching the skull may have harmful effects on the brain (not just cancer). There are indications of effects on brain activity, sleep, learning or memory but the effects are limited and at this point it is not at all clear that they have any real impact on health (…) but the results are not consistent and probably have no functional significance. This is also the case for children, where questionable results have been recorded. No disruption of the thermoregulatory mechanism has been demonstrated in adults or children. Nevertheless, it is necessary to continue the research « .

-  » Several critical evaluations of these studies come to the same conclusion, namely that a disruption of the blood-brain barrier by (among other things) cell phone frequencies is possible, but only when the intensity of the exposure is high and thermal effects occur. No disruption of the blood-brain barrier is observed with « normal » (sic) use of mobile communication devices and therefore « normal » exposure. Laboratory experiments have not revealed any neurological disorders such as Alzheimer’s disease, contrary to what some people claim. Some studies on the subject show on the contrary a protective effect (sic) « .

-  » Studies have found effects on reproduction and development. However, no serious effects were observed at the exposure levels of interest. No significant effect could be observed in mice that were permanently exposed to radiation from wireless communication systems over four generations. It is unlikely that there would be any effects on the fetus of mothers exposed during pregnancy because of the extremely low levels of exposure. There is no serious indication of effects on sperm quality « .

-  » Some non-specific symptoms, such as headaches, fatigue, dizziness and others are sometimes attributed to exposure to radio frequencies. It is thus mentioned « electromagnetic hypersensitivity ». Earlier studies (sic), which have been supplemented by more recent studies, lead to the conclusion that there is no evidence that exposure to electromagnetic fields from e.g. cell phones has a causal link with these symptoms. On the contrary, there are indications of a « nocebo » effect « .

Concluding that despite numerous studies, « the question ‘Is exposure to electromagnetic fields from wireless communication systems harmful to health? », yet the decision to deploy 5G seems self-evident. They are also preparing for the future, anticipating the future demands of the telecommunications industry, which will obviously move towards ever greater  » Relaxation of standards « :  » It should be noted that the proposed exposure limit does not mean that real risks are to be expected above this limit. « As in the case of nuclear energy, there is no risk when economic interests take precedence, even if we talk about situations we do not know about[note]. For the committee,  » there is no real scientific basis for such a strict standard. The goal has always been for the government to take into account not only the recommended values but also other considerations (e.g. economic) (sic), and therefore sets standards indicating the limit between acceptable and unacceptable levels of exposure (…) In view of current scientific knowledge, this relaxed standard does not seem unfair « .

The committee, which should rule on health risks, instead relies on a reality created by industrialists, advertisers and multinational telecoms companies, to warn of the inadequacy of infrastructure in the future:  » the growing use of smartphones and tablets is contributing to the increase in mobile data traffic (« data » in the broadest sense), and therefore to the increase in pressure on existing infrastructures, which are increasingly at risk of being under-capacity. Pointing out that  » the three drivers ofgrowth » are mobile data traffic, the introduction of tablets, laptops, smartphones and increasingly varied applications, the committee concludes that  » This evolution implies continuous upgrades of existing infrastructures and requires investments from the operators. 4G with « LTE capable » antennas are multi-band and operate in multi-frequency (…) is driving the global market and worth $4 billion in 2015 (ABI Research, 2015). It prefigures the arrival of 5G in 2020 with LTE‑B antennas « .

Did you say « committee of experts », many of whom are from the scientific world? Basically, they do the opposite of what we expect from scientists: they start from generalized behaviors (the massive use of mobile technologies) to conclude that they are a sign of society’s well-being[note]This is a generalization of the fact that a massive use is from the outset the proof of harmlessness (asbestos offering, at another level, a good counter-example). The committee raises the usual argument that no precautions should be taken in the deployment of new technologies because  » This would greatly slow down the development of the « smart city », which aims to improve the quality of life of city populations while contributing to a more efficient use of resources. The rest is the same, where it is explained that  » Economic studies show that each euro invested in broadband networks (fixed and mobile) generates €3 of GDP, and €1.5 of tax and social security revenues « , and that « it is not only a good idea to invest in broadband networks, but also a good investment for the future. It is therefore necessary to simplify the legislation and to reduce as much as possible the administrative steps and requirements « . For those who do not understand:  » The digital transition desired by the Brussels Government cannot be achieved without a favorable legal, fiscal and administrative framework « . Here, in every respect corresponding to « the regional policy statement (20 July 2014) « , which said it wanted to  » make Brussels a digital capital « ? 

At the end of the report, the committee’s suggestions are astounding. About the IBGE website, the committee will say:  » In order to avoid a climate of distrust of all radiation, it is important to communicate clearly. The committee believes that the website can play an important role in this regard. The committee feels that the website deserves a higher profile « .

He adds: « Wave propagation is an abstract matter. Electromagnetic waves have the disadvantage of not being observable by our senses, which makes the general public receptive to both information and misinformation. Information sources related to the Region are sometimes perceived as biased by the public and are therefore not valued. The committee believes that there is a need for scientifically correct but popularized communication that is (sic) unbiased and whose impartiality is also recognized by the general public. Suggestion: Provide an independent and honest channel of information for this technical subject « .

When you know where they are talking from, it’s pure cynicism.

AN UNWORKABLE MODEL

« Based on the data we currently have, the technology solution is anything but likely. »[note]

This model will eventually come to an end at the limits of the planet, but it remains unfeasible, even if those who want to implement it will push extractivism to its very limits, reviving mining activity in countries that had massively abandoned it, such as France. The reality of the finiteness of natural resources in particular, such as that of rare metals essential to new technologies, makes it necessary to recall a few facts.

In the myth of the energy transition, it all starts with the power that man obtains through the mastery of rare metals, as he had before with coal and then oil:  » Like demiurges, we have multiplied its uses in two areas that are essential pillars of the energy transition: technologies that we have called « green » and digital.[note]. If the premises of the energy transition date back to the 80s in Germany, it is in 2015 that the great coalition of 195 States was made, during the COP21 in Paris, leading to the Paris Agreement where the States expect to counter climate change and contain warming below two degrees,[note] by substituting green energy for fossil fuels. In his book, which is the result of a 6‑year investigation, Guillaume Pitron imagines a wise man, an imaginary figure, who would go to the podium of the COP21 and say these words:  » This transition is going to put at risk entire sectors of your economy, the most strategic ones. It will precipitate into distress hordes of redundant workers who will soon provoke social unrest and repudiate your democratic gains (…) The energy and digital transition will devastate the environment in unprecedented proportions. In the end, your efforts and the toll on the Earth to build this new civilization are so great that it is not even certain that you will succeed « , concluding,  » your power has blinded you to such an extent that you no longer know the humility of the sailor at the sight of the ocean, nor that of the mountaineer at the foot of the mountain. But the elements will always have the last word! « [note]. Guillaume Pitron underlines the most crucial questions, which none of the 196 delegations present asked themselves:  » How are we going to get these rare metals without which this treaty is useless? Will there be winners and losers in the new rare metals game, as there were once with coal and oil? At what cost to our economies, people and the environment will we manage to secure the supply « [note].

The author emphasizes the new dependency we will create for ourselves, even more dramatic than those we have created for ourselves previously:  » By wanting to emancipate ourselves from fossil fuels, by switching from an old order to a new world, we are in fact sinking into a new, even stronger dependence (…) We thought we were freeing ourselves from the shortages, tensions and crises created by our appetite for oil and coal; we are in the process of substituting them with a new world of shortages, tensions and new crises « [note].

In addition, there is the essential question of « clean here » based on « dirty there »: in graphite mines (a mining resource used in the manufacture of electric cars),  » Men and women, noses and mouths covered with simple masks, work in an atmosphere saturated with blackened particles and acid fumes. It’s hell « [note].  » This overview of the environmental impacts of rare metal extraction forces us, all of a sudden, to take a much more skeptical look at the manufacturing process of green technologies. Even before they are put into service, a solar panel, a wind turbine, an electric car or a low-energy lamp bear the original sin of their deplorable energy and environmental balance. We need to measure the ecological cost of the entire life cycle of greentech — a cost that has been precisely calculated « [note].

On the question of the impossibility of achieving this transition without massive consumption of energy and raw materials («  coal, oil, gas and nuclear power plants, wind farms, solar farms and smart grids — all infrastructure for which we will need rare metals  »), Guillaume Pitron has repeatedly tried to contact Jeremy Rifkin, the great theorist of the third industrial revolution and lauder of the energy transition, without success. And Guillaume Pitron’s explanation to this leak offers a more general meaning on the massive blindness and illusion of greentech, based on a major fact: the energy and digital transition has been thought out of the ground. Whatever its applications, each of them indeed  » proceeds first of all in a much more prosaic way from a crater cut in the ground (…) Basically, we are not solving the challenge of the impact of human activity on ecosystems, we are only moving it « [note].

TO ARTICULATE THE REFUSAL OF THE WORLD THAT IS BEING PREPARED FOR US AND THE FIGHT AGAINST INDECENT WEALTH

To place our hopes in politicians, to implore them to « make the right decisions », is to give them the power to impose their solutions by using the media tools they control and which they will use to make us believe that these solutions are the result of our demands and for our sole good. So is the digital transition, driven by multinationals and their servants. The 5G, symbol of this race ahead, promises us hell.

It is the captains of industry, those who set up their letter-box companies in Luxembourg, the bankers and other agioteurs that Prime Minister Charles Michel has charged in the name of the Government to think about a National Strategic Investment Pact, whose sponsors are none other than the bosses of Belfius, Proximus, Sioens Industries, the Federation of Enterprises in Belgium… who are the real architects of the  » prepare our country for the next decade. This will require them to  » make a series of urgent investments over the next few years. These investments will strengthen the economy, innovation and employment. We need this additional prosperity to continue to fund education, health care and social protection. Let’s all get to work to make this happen. Let’s build our future together. Because the future is ours! « .Certainly, it belongs to them alone, for the moment, who seek only one thing: to keep the power to revive growth in order to ensure their profits[note].

But it is the future of living species and nature, not that of an insatiable minority, imitated and supported by 10% of the population, that we care about. And to ensure this future, it will inevitably be necessary to move away from the imperative of economic growth and dare to make radical changes. We know what to reject and who to overthrow. Our survival is at this price.

Alexandre Penasse

Read more "
Uncategorized

IT IS URGENT TO STOP THE DEPLOYMENT OF 5G

The international appeal www.5gspaceappeal.org signed by 172,395 individuals and organizations from 204 nations and territories, dated November 6, 2019, is addressed today to the federal and regional governments of Belgium.Around the world this week, the 204 nations and territories will address the call to their respective governments.

The deployment of 5G, the5th generation of cell phone standards, on land and in space is underway or being prepared in many countries. Dozens of 5G telecommunication satellites have already been launched by U.S. companies.

This new reality will lead to unprecedented environmental change on a global scale. To implement the Internet of Things (IoT), the industry is planning to install millions of 5G antennas, one every 50 to 150 meters in urban areas[note], and to put tens of thousands of satellites into orbit. Forecasts indicate that there will be 20 billion connected objects (transmitters) in 2020, 30 billion in 2022 and many more thereafter[note]: up to one million objects per square kilometer could communicate.

Despite widespread denial, there is sufficient scientific evidence that the radio frequency (RF) electromagnetic fields (EMF)[note] used by wireless communication technologies already deployed are harmful to living things. More than 1,500 peer-reviewed scientific studies[note] provide clinical evidence as well as experimental evidence of DNA, cell and organ damage in a wide variety of plants and animals. Epidemiological data support the thesis that the origin of many diseases of modern civilization, such as cancer and Alzheimer’s disease, can be explained, at least in part, by electromagnetic pollution.

If the telecom industry’s plans for 5G come to fruition, no living thing will be able to escape permanent exposure to man-made RF radiation that is already proven to be toxic. The probable consequences of the proliferation of 5G satellites make us fear the worst: degradation of human health and ecosystems on a planetary scale, disruption of the ionosphere and magnetosphere leading to a change in the electromagnetic properties of the Earth, destruction of the ozone layer and an increase in the greenhouse effect due to the combustion of the fuels of the rockets carrying the satellites

The technical characteristics of 5G differ greatly from those of existing technologies and pose potentially greater health risks to living beings than those induced by previous generations (2G, 3G and 4G), not to mention the concentrated power of 5G beams, which could result in local and instantaneous exposures well above current exposures. To date, no assessment of the health and environmental impacts of 5G has been conducted. Its deployment is a large-scale experiment on living beings. Moreover, in a climate and social situation where the urgency would be to act together to ensure the future of humanity, a technological headlong rush with projects like 5G is the worst way to go.

We therefore ask the federal and regional governments of Belgium to stop the deployment of 5G on its territory. Given the existing scientific studies and the dozens of calls from the medical profession and experts in the field[note]the precautionary principle must take precedence. On the other hand, the Nuremberg Code forbids experiments on non-consenting humans.

We also ask our governments to intervene at the EU, the Council of Europe and the UN for a global ban on 5G satellites and, at the very least, on their emissions over the European continent and adjacent international waters.

Immediate action must be taken to protect all living beings in accordance with ethical imperatives and international conventions:

- Stop the deployment of 5G on Earth and in space in order to protect human beings, specifically fetuses, children, teenagers and pregnant women, as well as other living beings.

- Comply with the International Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) and Council of Europe Resolution 1815 on EMF by informing citizens, including teachers and physicians, about the health risks of radiation from wireless technologies and how they can reduce their exposure.

- Prefer and implement wired telecommunications networks instead of wireless. Promote the use of wired solutions wherever technically possible, especially in homes, workplaces and places where children, pregnant women and vulnerable people stay (day care centers, schools, hospitals.).

- Immediately establish — without industry involvement — international panels of independent scientists, free of conflicts of interest, who are experts in EMF and its health and environmental impact, and who will set new international safety standards for artificial EMF that take into account the biological effects of exposure on all living things, not just the thermal effects on humans.

- Immediately form — outside of industry participation — international panels of scientists with expertise in EMF, health, biology and atmospheric physics. They will develop a comprehensive regulatory framework to ensure that outer space is safe for human and non-human beings, taking into account artificial EMF, gases and black soot ejected from rocket engines, and space debris resulting from this activity. They will take the measure of the impacts on the ozone layer, global warming, the atmosphere and life on Earth. Space technology as well as terrestrial technology must be viable for adults, children, animals and plants.

Collective to stop the deployment of 5G

Contact:

Paul Lannoye (Grappe asbl), paul.lannoye@skynet.be, 081 44 53 64Francis Leboutte (Fin du nucléaire asbl), francis.leboutte@algo.be, 04 388 39 19Stéphanie D’Haenens (IEB asbl), stephanie.dhaenens@ieb.be, 02 801 14 93Wendy de Hemptine (ondes.brussels), ondes.brussels@gmail.comColette Devillers (AREHS), info@arehs.beAlexandre Penasse (Kairos), info@kairospresse.be

Read more "
Uncategorized

DENOUNCE THE 5G: RALLY IN BRUSSELS THIS SATURDAY, JANUARY 25

After the 4G, here they want to impose the 5, while elsewhere they are already talking about the 6. The technological steamroller continues unabated, but have we been asked for our opinion, have we been told what is going on behind the scenes[note].

Under false and fragile arguments (loading a movie in 2 seconds…) Faced with the challenges of our time (to perpetuate the human species), the project of a massive production of connected objects (billions) is hidden, but also an unprecedented possibility to control the population. Health? Not very important in the face of economic imperatives. This is not new: asbestos, tobacco, pesticides, air pollution… Social justice? No interest in the profits of a minority.

We will not let them do their business as usual anymore, let them hear it. Let’s recreate an agora, tell your neighbors, friends, family: we are not guinea pigs!

KAIROS, signatory of the call,
together with the Stop5G collective, invites you to a protest and information rally, this Saturday 25 January in Brussels. We are also forwarding again our November 14, 2019 release relaying a global movement denouncing 5G.

SATURDAY 25 JANUARY 2020, 1PM-4PM, CENTRAL STATION, BRUSSELS

In the framework of the world day of January 25 against the deployment of 5G (see

stop5ginternational.org

), the stop5G.be collective is organizing a protest and information rally (stand) in Brussels, Place de l’Albertine, next to the Central Station, from 1 to 4 pm.

Beforehand, an international appeal signed by nearly 200,000 people and organizations from 203 nations and territories was sent in November 2019 to the federal and regional governments of Belgium by the stop5G.be collective.

The official speeches aim to convince us that the only stake of 5G is to be part of the dominant group in the global economic competition thanks to this new telecommunication technology that will ensure a generalized interconnection everywhere and at any time.

However, beyond the fundamental problems of public health that governments choose to ignore, there are many questions about the future that this headlong rush towards the best of the waves is drawing: toxicity for living beings, growth in energy consumption, changes in work and employment, depletion of rare metal and water resources, low recycling rate of alloys, close surveillance of citizens and infringement of freedoms, international conflicts…

Even the industrial circles wonder about the economic feasibility of a deployment which requires enormous investments whose profitability is far from being ensured except if the public authorities contribute in a significant way…

Finally, it goes without saying that 5G technology, due to the limitless growth of data transfers, will lead to a significant increase in energy and resource consumption. As such, it runs counter to an environmentally responsible policy and the stated objectives of the European Union and the signatories of the COP21 agreement in 2015 in the fight against global warming.

More information on the event:
www.stop5g.be/fr

PRESS RELEASE OF THE COLLECTIVE FOR THE STOP OF THE DEPLOYMENT OF THE 5G

NOVEMBER 14, 2019

The collective stop5G.be was created on November 14, 2019 on the occasion of the delivery of the international petition to the Belgian ministers of the various levels of power whose competence it is. The primary objective of the collective is to stop the deployment of 5G, the 5th generation of cell phone standards. To date, the collective already gathers about ten ASBLs and associations of which you can
consult the list here
.

The international appeal
www.5gspaceappeal.org
signed by 172,395 individuals and organizations from 204 nations and territories, dated November 6, 2019, is addressed today to the federal and regional governments of Belgium. Around the world this week, the 204 nations and territories will address the call to their respective governments.

The deployment of 5G, the 5th generation of cell phone standards, on land and in space is underway or being prepared in many countries. Dozens of 5G telecommunication satellites have already been launched by U.S. companies.

This new reality will lead to unprecedented environmental change on a global scale. To implement the Internet of Things (IoT), the industry is planning to install millions of 5G antennas, one every 50 to 150 meters in urban areas[note], and to put tens of thousands of satellites into orbit. Forecasts indicate that there will be 20 billion connected objects (transmitters) in 2020, 30 billion in 2022 and many more thereafter[note]: up to one million objects per square kilometer could communicate.

Despite widespread denial, there is ample scientific evidence that radio frequency electromagnetic fields (EMFs)[iii] (RF) used by the wireless communication techniques already deployed, are harmful to living beings. More than 1,500 peer-reviewed scientific studies[note] provide clinical evidence as well as experimental evidence of DNA, cell and organ damage in a wide variety of plants and animals. Epidemiological data support the thesis that the origin of many diseases of modern civilization, such as cancer and Alzheimer’s disease, can be explained, at least in part, by electromagnetic pollution.

If the telecom industry’s plans for 5G come to fruition, no living thing will be able to escape permanent exposure to man-made RF radiation that is already proven to be toxic. The probable consequences of the proliferation of 5G satellites make us fear the worst: degradation of human health and ecosystems on a planetary scale, disruption of the ionosphere and magnetosphere leading to a change in the electromagnetic properties of the Earth, destruction of the ozone layer and an increase in the greenhouse effect due to the combustion of the fuels of the rockets carrying the satellites

The technical characteristics of 5G differ greatly from those of existing technologies and pose potentially greater health risks to living beings than those induced by previous generations (2G, 3G and 4G), not to mention the concentrated power of 5G beams, which could result in local and instantaneous exposures well above current exposures. To date, no assessment of the health and environmental impacts of 5G has been conducted. Its deployment is a large-scale experiment on living beings. Moreover, in a climate and social situation where the urgency would be to act together to ensure the future of humanity, a technological headlong rush with projects like 5G is the worst way to go.

We therefore ask the federal and regional governments of Belgium to stop the deployment of 5G on its territory. Given the existing scientific studies and the dozens of calls from the medical profession and experts in the field[note]the precautionary principle must take precedence. On the other hand, the Nuremberg Code forbids experiments on non-consenting humans.

We also ask our governments to intervene at the EU, the Council of Europe and the UN for a global ban on 5G satellites and, at the very least, on their emissions over the European continent and adjacent international waters.

Immediate action must be taken to protect all living beings in accordance with ethical imperatives and international conventions:

- Stop the deployment of 5G on Earth and in space to protect human beings, specifically fetuses, children, adolescents and pregnant women, as well as other living beings.

- Comply with the International Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) and Council of Europe Resolution 1815 on electromagnetic fields by informing citizens, including teachers and physicians, about the health risks of radiation from wireless technologies and how they can reduce their exposure.

- Prefer and implement wired telecommunications networks instead of wireless. Promote the use of wired solutions wherever technically possible, especially in homes, workplaces and places where children, pregnant women and vulnerable people stay (day care centers, schools, hospitals.).

- Immediately establish international panels of independent scientists, free of industry involvement, who are experts in electromagnetic fields and their health and environmental impacts, and who will develop new international safety standards for artificial electromagnetic fields that take into account the biological effects of exposure on all living things, not just the thermal effects on humans.

- Immediately form international groups of scientists with expertise in electromagnetic fields, health, biology and atmospheric physics, without industry involvement. They will develop a comprehensive regulatory framework to ensure that outer space is safe for human and non-human beings, taking into account artificial EMF, gases and black soot ejected from rocket engines, and space debris resulting from this activity. They will take the measure of the impacts on the ozone layer, global warming, the atmosphere and life on Earth. Space technology as well as terrestrial technology must be viable for adults, children, animals and plants.

Read more "
Uncategorized

We are at war with 5G

« Any fetishistic society is a society whose members follow rules which are the unconscious result of their own actions, but which present themselves as powers external and superior to men, and where the subject is only the simple executor of fetishistic laws. Anselm Jappe, The Autophagous Society[note].

The progressive deployment in the social space of technological innovations conceived by and for industry, which have economic, social, sanitary and ecological influences, and therefore an obvious impact on society and the living, has most often never been decided democratically. Let’s remember: voting for a candidate has never indicated a transfer of sovereignty and a tacit agreement not to consult us between two elections on essential issues. When they do not embarrass themselves with the usual circumlocutions, the journalists under orders reveal the reality of the facade democracy in which we live, like Yves Calvi who, during a « debate » on the reform of the pensions in France, stated:  » Why do we pretend there are choices to be made when there are not? « [note]. The French Prime Minister’s decision to use the 49.3 procedure will prove him right a few weeks later[note]. This is what is happening: the vote is a blank check, a pretext to do everything to satisfy the interests of industry and finance. Concerning the technological invasion of our lives, the political opposition is only on the surface, all parties agreeing more or less on the famous « transition », letting ICT invade the school, connected objects become widespread and waves amplify, without the people ever having been able to give their opinion about them[note].

However, these coups de force are necessarily disguised as benefits for the sole benefit of the individual and society[note], but those who have a financial interest in seeing it implemented are the same ones who have the channels to inform us[note]. In addition to not being able to decide collectively on what we want or do not want, we do not have widely available information that would allow us to build an opposition to what is being imposed on us. This strategy, which takes the form of a decision of the oligarchy, taken upstream of any democratic life in a context of privatization of information, is peculiar to our « liberal-democracies » which, in order to give us the illusion that we choose for ourselves what we have chosen, go through several phases which can overlap:

1. The technological choices that are proposed at a given moment have, even before being made public, been previously made in corporate boards of directors, business dinners and political meetings, international forums and other non-democratic supranational institutions such as the European Commission. What disturbs the established order does not reach the stage of media debate, but is suppressed by all sorts of pressures, before (it is not talked about at all) or after (it is talked about but little and badly). Transfers from the world of industry to politics and vice versa are the norm, wherever you are you remain in the service of the same people. One example among many: Luc Windmolders, director of the legal department at the operator Base, has left his position to become director of the strategic unit Digital Agenda, Telecoms and Post in the cabinet of Minister Alexander De Croo. It is therefore not surprising that the latter replied to us, when the stop5G.be collective called on the cabinet to request a meeting:  » We are not going to stop 5G. We are pursuing a policy that wants to stimulate the development of 5G as much as possible. If you want a meeting on the effects — in my opinion non-existent — of radiation, you should contact the competent authority. The federal government has no authority over radiation standards « . Luc Windmolders also worked for the Dutch telecom operator KPN and served on the Board of Directors of the European Telecom Industry Association ECTA, an international non-profit association registered with the Belgian Official Gazette. Wasn’t the former British Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, hired by Facebook to  » soften relations with the European authorities « [note]? Didn’t José Manuel Barroso go directly to Goldman Sachs after his function as President of the Commission? Didn’t Jean-Claude Juncker work to make Luxembourg a tax haven before taking over from Barrosso? Everything is the same: the political function, if one knows how to talk to the lobbies, but above all how to answer them, will act as a folding seat propelling towards the same companies that one will have helped by effectively reflecting the industrial pressure on the texts of laws and facilitating the decisions favorable to their business. 

2.
Lorsque certains choix industriels sont économiquement trop
importants pour les entreprises, c’est-à-dire qu’ils promettent
des marges de profit dont ils ne peuvent se passer dans un
environnement concurrentiel, ces choix ne doivent surtout pas faire
l’objet d’une contestation populaire qui risquerait de les voir
échouer. Le débat médiatique ne peut donc avoir lieu et les titres
de presse et de télévision sont performatifs, c’est-à-dire
qu’ils parlent déjà au présent de ce qui n’est pas encore là.
Télévisions, radios et journaux suivent et font exister dans la
réalité ce qui n’existe pas, préparant les esprits à
l’acceptation. Se crée alors naturellement dans la conscience du
sujet l’impression que la chose est en quelque sorte déjà
« implémentée ». 

Two
examples. The magazine Le Vif l’Express published in February
2020 a dossier on 5G, full page cover:  » 5G.
A revolution and fears « . The title inside
of the newspaper forgot the fears:  » How 5 G will
change our lives « . Cover illustration: a
large 5G in red, the letter and number filled with lines that
symbolizing a network; in the background the
Earth seen from space, and small icons representing a
computer, a game console controller, a headset
virtual… The title announces what is not yet there,
prophesies, and, by its mere utterance, generates an effect on the
consciousness, because we have to imagine that more people will see the
As those who will consult the file. Therefore, in the form of
inevitable future perspective, the cover fulfills a function
advertising. However, there is little fear that the one who
would dive into the reading of the latter, finds some arguments
that would allow him to oppose. Let’s stop more
at length on the introduction of the article, a kind of fairy tale
futuristic:  » In the distance, the broom of the cranes of the port,
entirely robotized, looks like a huge anthill
remote-controlled. The sound of a notification brings you out of your thoughts,
while your autonomous car takes you to the office. The agenda
of the morning is displayed on the windshield, next to the weather forecast.
To start, a teleconference with a Japanese partner.
The simultaneous translation app will make it easy for you to
exchanges. The weekend looks more fun: you promised
the son to attend a Real-Barça more real than life, since
the house, virtual reality helmets screwed on the head. A
VR 360″ ticket, it’s more expensive, but it’s worth it. A
At any time, you can switch from the gallery projection to the view
player, as if you were on the pitch. A new beep puts an end to
your dreams. A red and yellow drone of resuscitation goes at full speed
speed over the car, which later moves away
to let the ambulance pass. Still 8 minutes to go.
Just the time to check that everything is fine at home:
your Home Companion has finished vacuuming and has just
let the cat out « . 

The
life after the Corona?

We
could have expected the public service to have a function other than that of
spokesperson for Silicon Valley, but no.  » What will
our cities of tomorrow look like?
presenter of La Première (RTBF) this morning of January 20, 2020.
 » That’s the question we ask ourselves in this episode.
With the technology revolution, we often talk about the smart
city to meet the urban challenges of the future. We take you to
this week for a walk in the city, direction 2060, it’s
party « (Music, piano background, female voice that
tells the story of life in 2060)

 » He
is already 7:22 am, her connected bowl has just shaken, if she has not
not finish his breakfast in 2 minutes21 , the trip that took him to the
will have to be recalculated. It has already happened three
times since the beginning of the month, it’s getting to be a bit much and
it could take penalties. 7:24 a.m., she throws away the remains of
his cereal in a hole in the middle of the table, the food is
directly sucked into the ducts of the wastewater management system.
waste. A voice announces: « 56 grams ». It is
well, she hasn’t used her trash quota yet. 7:26 am, she
walks through the door, right on time. The bracelet she wears
has just vibrated, the journey has begun. She doesn’t know exactly what
vehicle will arrive, where it will pass, what route it will take, what
will be the means of transport: autonomous car for 4
suspended capsule that slides on a magnetic rail to allow the
25, train for 300…, there are several possible combinations. Not
need to make a special request for the trip, once
her encoded schedule at work, the system knows that she will have to
to be back by 8:00 am. Its path is constantly recalculated according to
of the thousands of other trips that are currently taking place in the
city, but once the itinerary is set, it is necessary to
hold. This is the best way to make the trips fast,
secure, and that there is always a place to sit. 7:26 a.m. is
a two-wheeler that arrives, with driver, it is rather rare, it
takes him to the train station, so it will be a train ride. 7:35 am, she
is sitting in the car, the trip is fast, fluid, calm. 7h56,
she passes the door of the command center, her bracelet vibrates,
signal that his presence at work is recorded. The door of the
office opens, the screens are there, everywhere on the walls, its
place is waiting for him. A whole day looking at the images of
surveillance cameras, crowds, travel, a day in the city
monitor that the city’s activity glides smoothly « .
A dream of a lifetime for this young girl, isn’t it? 

We
are on a Belgian public radio, which participates in its own way in the
collective madness.  » In order to understand what
is about, after this little walk in the future
that we prepare in the present, the journalist receives Carine
Basile, director of the Smart City Institute… sponsored by
Proximus, Total, Vinci Energies, the Walloon Region and Digital
Wallonia. On public radio, they don’t help you think, they help you
get used to the world they are preparing for us. 

These
two passages, strangely similar in their approach to the
the future and to think the world, have nothing to envy to Orwell or
Huxley. Looking into the future, these journalistic accounts
allow us to better understand one of the characteristics of the media
to continually pretend that they are only doing something for the benefit of the
to represent reality, to reflect it afterwards in some way
kind, even though they are the creators. They are nothing
other than those that give reality the representation
they want, and who have a monopoly on it, allowing the
self-fulfilling prophecy.

Pure
decision taken by journalists paradoxically lacking the necessary
time to get informed? December 27, Datanews,
magazine owned by Roularta, like Le
Vif,publishes
 » Groen
and Ecolo are selectively blind to scientific evidence.
Francis Leboutte their
send
a few days later an e‑mail and asks for a right of reply,
concerning in particular  » the
assertions of Mr. Vanhuffel about the pollution of electromagnetic waves
, their health impacts and the limits
of exposure « .
Editor-in-chief Kristof Van der Stadt replies:  » The
The right of reply is reserved for the parties directly involved.
That said, on the other hand, we are prepared to highlight the
views of stop5g.be.
What I propose is that you turn the text into an opinion at
name of stop5G.be, with references to relevant studies?
What do you think? « .
Let us pass the fact that those who contest have opinions, the others
these are facts, even if they are sponsored by the
operators. After much discussion and procrastination, the
editor plans to publish the article on 21
February, but on the 28th, a new turnaround:  » He
I must make a correction here. In the meantime we have
reviewed the opinion and finally decided to
not to publish it in this form, because after careful consideration
reflection, it does not meet the quality standards
(sic) that
we advocate. But on the other hand, we certainly do not want to
not to overlook the existence of organizations
such as Stop5G, which refutes the standards of ICNIRP, the
and the EU. What we propose to do is
to do is to summarize your point of view
and
to add it to the interview with an outreach expert that we
will publish one of these days. »

The exchanges will end on March 2 with Francis Leboutte’s response to editor Kristof Van der Stadt:  » In fact, I have been informed that on the very day of your reply, you have already published what you mention below in the Flemish version of Datanews where, with regard to the opinion of the stop5G.be collective and my article, you say hardly more, i.e. that my article « does not meet the qualitative standards that we advocate ». On the other hand, I note that the expert you interviewed, Eric van Rongen, is the President of the ICNIRP, the institution whose independence from industry and the validity of its opinions are widely disputed by the scientific world. But what are these qualitative standards? I doubt that you have applied them to the article of Mr. Vanhuffel published on December 27 and to which I had reacted, finding it particularly unobjective. On the other hand, you should know that my article is the reflection of what the founding members of the stop5G.be collective think, among whom there are 2 civil engineers as well as a doctor and a graduate in physical sciences; all of them have been studying the question of electromagnetic pollution for several years and even more than 10 years for two of them. It would not be easy for you to find such a concentration of competence in this field in Belgium « .

We
wonders what their « quality standards » are.
Probably those of  » managers
IT and end users in companies, public authorities
, education and IT associations « ,
and the  » target audience

from Data
News:
the
 » professionals
IT, i.e. CIOs, General managers, HR managers and
Finance »
7
.
What makes us say that we are wasting our time with these media, the
Groupe Roularta is part of the problem, not the solution. 

3.
Alors que les gens entendent parler de « ce
qui va arriver »,
les industriels créent conjointement les objets qui établiront une
sorte de lien de cause à effet. On parlait de 5G, mais pas des
objets qui en auront l’utilité, il faut donc créer ceux-ci. Les
smartphones, drones, consoles portables, caméras, robots…
« compatibles » avec la nouvelle technologie, deviennent
des « causes » qui demandent des « effets »,
et importent dans le corps social une véritable demande active.
D’une chose pour laquelle les gens n’avaient rien demandé, la
nouvelle technologie se mue en innovation générant de faux besoins,
qui avec le temps deviendront indispensables par l’effet d’un
choix politique, entraînant « de
tels bouleversements qu’essayer de s’en passer devient très
difficile8 »
(à l’instar par exemple de la voiture individuelle, de la carte de
banque ou, pas encore, mais ils s’y attellent, du smartphone).
Ainsi, ces faux besoins créés par le secteur publicitaire vont
escamoter l’origine de l’offre et de façon pernicieuse,
renverser son fondement profondément antidémocratique en quelque
chose qui répondrait à une demande collective. Dans ce subterfuge,
le mensonge est permanent. 

4.
Une fois le besoin créé, l’objet ne peut plus se penser de façon
systémique, c’est-à-dire être pris mentalement dans un contexte.
Que la 5G et tous les objets dont la nouvelle technologie accélérera
l’obsolescence (pour assurer la compatibilité) et augmentera la
production (infrastructure pour assurer la couverture triplée),
soient issus d’un esclavage moderne et d’un extractivisme
destructeur est secondaire dès lors que l’objet est peu ou prou
passé dans le domaine de l’addiction. On n’a jamais vu un
héroïnomane en manque philosopher sur la condition sociale des
cultivateurs de pavot.

5. If there is nevertheless a consequent protest, as the media and police forces have not managed to control information and bodies, old deceptions will have to be brought out, such as national sentiment (the spectre of « China » and « Huawei »… « Europe sets strict security rules for 5G », Le Soir, 30/01/20), in order to pretend that we are protecting the common good, whereas to speak of « national security » is already to pass a stage and tacitly accept the thing. This challenge will obviously not be covered by the media. If it does appear in the information organs of power, it will be at low hours and always in a caricatured form, without leaving time for argumentation, for a spectator already drowned daily by the  » technological necessity »
9
.

6. This media-political-industrial operation does not appear suddenly, but has been in operation for a long time. The individual often no longer has the capacity to grasp it, even though he or she has been subjected to media hype since childhood, in the public space and even in the private sphere, whose pernicious dissemination in people’s minds, in the absence of a large-scale counter-discourse, generates passivity and disinterest in politics, with consumerism offering a form of outlet for each person’s disengagement from the organization of his or her life. 

Table
round table at the European Parliament

It is
in this context that their « discussions » must be conceived.
The menu is already written, the dishes in the oven, and they pretend
a collective participation in their elaboration while they
will serve the food they have prepared on their own initiative.
The lobbies are omnipresent, seasoned and equipped with
effective corruption. At this level, the European Parliament no longer has
a lot to do with a body that would make decisions in the
the sense of the common good, but a body which, deprived of power
initiative, only examines texts proposed by the
Commission, content to superficially develop
technocratic decisions which they cannot say anything about
foundations and the societal orientation they provoke. The
industrial lobbies have their place in the European Parliament, they are
there at home. 

In
this closed and protected world of reality that is the Parliament
European
Bulgarian MP Ivo Hristov organizes the
December 10
2019
a
roundtable, entitled « 5G deployment in the EU -
opportunities and challenges ». The title does not express any
doubt and illustrates what we said earlier: the thing
is
« it is only a question of sparing the
sensitivities and to reassure the populace. The muffled atmosphere
of the room where the meeting takes place accentuates this illusion of being
a « chosen one »: warm, carpeted floor, sitting
in comfortable armchairs, surrounded by clean people on
the serious air, the calculated and affected humor of a
mutual recognition, a sign of credit and certainty. We pose
so questions to serious people who answer seriously;
they are measured and often explicitly reassure about the equal
importance they place on their fight (5G) and the
nature conservation. Since the environmentalists of
capitulated to capital and opened the way for the
green growth, nature is a business.  » In
sustainable development, there are the three P’s, one of the P’s is
profit, next to planet and people, so I have no
problem talking about profit in a sustainable development framework
, no problem with that « ,
said a multinational executive
10
.
Nature is cited in order to better dismiss it. This
is not a problem. 

Mother
nature is thus religiously summoned because its absence would be more
noisy than the mere mention of it: not saying anything could
suspicious, a possible sign of an unspoken problem, of a
avoidance that might instill doubt in some. From
Even so, it is good form to invite an opponent among the supporters.
On December 10, Paul Lannoye, the only one to play this role
refractory to 5G, supporting its argument with facts
on the common good. Carrying another voice in such an assembly,
it is thus involuntarily to serve them as instrument which offers the
proof of their openness. The other six? Samuel Stolston,
moderator, digital editor at Euractiv, expert in the
5G network; Jeremy Godfrey, director of regulatory affairs
for Electronic Communications (Berec), whose
function is to promote high-speed services,
to support a competitive digital economy, or
to enable 5G; Marc Vancoppenolle, head of
« government relations at Nokia Belgium, which
includes working with institutions and
shareholders to create a favourable political framework and a
regulatory environment favouring broadband investments
and digitalization; Lazlo Toth, Director of Policy
public at GSMA Europe, which represents the European arm of
the global mobile communications industry; Vladimir
Pulkov, head of Intelligent Communications Infrastructures R&D
Laboratory, in Sofia Tech Park, Bulgaria; George Oikonomou,
Engineer on the 5G team at VMware. It sounds like a joke. This
is not one of them. 

The work
is perfect, as when Samuel Stolton asks the
executive Marc Vancoppenolle, to explain how 5G will be used in the future.
provide citizens with easier access to services
public. Most of them are treated in private clinics which
shelters them from the reality of the health sector by
Belgium, France and elsewhere, they probably do not even suspect
not the ongoing catastrophe in public hospitals. 

Vladimir
Pulkov will explain that he is a telecom engineer and  » cannot
comment on health-related issues because he is
not an expert on the subject ‚ » but that  » we have
driving forces that are forcing us to implement 5G. The 5G
is in fact an opportunity, a chance to realize all the
things we need in the future. We are talking about smart
cities, artificial intelligence… Can we have
artificial intelligence without big data ? No.
Can we have big data without wireless communication?
No. We’re talking about augmented reality, where everyone goes
now « . To help recognize that everything
this is just a big show, I address a question to
Valdimir Pulkov, fervent believer : 

-
« Mr. Pulkov, quand vous parlez que les gens veulent
développer des smart cities, je crois qu’on est quand même
au Parlement européen, qui représente [est censé représenter]le peuple européen… Moi je n’ai pas envie de smart cities,
il y a plein de gens que je connais qui n’ont pas envie de smart
cities ; Je constate quand même que vous êtes 6, qu’il y
en a 5 qui représentent l’industrie. Quels sont vos intérêts Mr.
Pulkov pour dire que les gens veulent des smart cities, qui
vous a payé, qui a payé les autres. C’est quand même effarant de
voir quelqu’un qui bosse pour Nokia [Marc Vancoppenolle]venir nous expliquer ce que la 5G va nous apporter. J’aimerais que
vous vous expliquiez un peu là-dessus. Je vous vois plutôt comme un
apôtre du Progrès qui dit « la 5G viendra »…
Il ne manque plus qu’à mettre les mains en l’air ; mais je
pense qu’on est dans une période où l’urgence climatique,
sociale, demande d’autres réponses ».

The
moderator will ask Vladimir Pulkov to respond to the
question: 

-
« Non, je ne veux pas répondre sur ce point. Ok… J’ai
juste dit si… Je commente à nouveau : il y a des forces
motrices, si nous voulons des smart cities, nous devons le
faire ; vous ne voulez pas de smart cities, ok. Je suis
un ingénieur télécom, un chercheur dans le domaine des télécoms
et je pense, depuis plus de 30 années d’expérience,
qu’on a vu la 1G, 2G, 3G, 4G… Donc, mes attentes sont qu’il y
aura la 5G, parce qu’il y a des forces motrices pour cela. Comment
cela va-t-il être implémenté, dans quel sens, on doit le
considérer tous ensemble ». Amen. 

https://youtu.be/nZRkY4SGdTI

Parliament
5G, sky and satellites 

The
February 20, at the initiative of the European deputy Michèle
Rivasi, a second round table « 5G, sky and
satellites: radio spectrum pollution, how to share the
frequencies of our Global Common Space ». Guests:
Giles Robert, Director of the Centre-Ardenne Observatory, the only
and unique from where one can still see the starry sky correctly
in Belgium; Éric Allaix, from the meteorological organization
Philippe Achilleas, professor of public law at the University of
Paris (Paris-Sud, Panthéon-Sorbonne), specialist in relative law
space and telecommunications law. In addition
Branimir Stantachev, from the European Commission’s DG Connect. 

The
speech of the latter, responsible for the development and implementation of
implemented at the level of European wireless broadcasting policies
and broadband, is rooted, automated. A machine. Since 2008
at the European Commission, he started his career
professional in 1995 at the Vodafone Chair for Information Systems
University of Dresden in Germany. It has
then worked for Philips, Qimonda (manufacturer of
Munich) and Signalion (provider of solutions for the
manufacturers and operators of wireless infrastructure, Dresden). The
February 12–13, 2018, he is one of the speakers for the conference
on 5G, the list of sponsors of which leaves us with no doubt as to the
only to hear whose special envoy Branimir is. Logically,
from the private sector to the political authorities that will allow
to continue serving his former bosses. In the Parliament,
after three interventions which all, more or less, underline
the risks that would be involved in the deployment of 5G, I ask my
question to Branimir Stantachev: —  » You finish
earlier by saying that business is the cornerstone
the issue of 5G. I think you’ve said it all. Your
speech is frightening. You have the typical double talk of
industry, i.e. « we pay attention to the
health », but at the same time « we don’t care
completely ». It is important to remember who your
boss, it’s Thierry Lebreton [Thierry Breton, current
European Commissioner for the Internal Market] who comes from a
big Telecom company [entreprise de services numériques Atos], which was placed by Macron. I believe that the question
essential, and this video I’m making will be on,
is that popular sovereignty is no longer present at all.
You’ve just had three speeches here that speak to you
of a universal common landscape that will be destroyed [the sky
starry, intervention of Giles Robert], maybe it doesn’t
interest you that our children still see the stars;
of a major risk also in terms of preventions
meteorological [intervention d’Eric Allaix] Thus
that of a rational use of a common good which will not exist
not at all [Philippe Achilleas]and you continue, with your eyes
closed, to propose a model that most people don’t know about.
want more. In Switzerland, there is a huge coalition of people
who say no to 5G, in Belgium there are more and more of them…
So I ask you: what is your interest in
the common good and the people, to whom we will impose things that are
totally… at a time when we are living the sixth crisis
of extinction of species, that we risk that the human species
disappear in maybe less than 50 years, I have children 10 years old
and 6 years old and I don’t know not what they’re going to become, and
you’re throwing stuff at us that ultimately we don’t need,
what do you say to that? » 

After
this rather long question, Branimir Stantachev looks at me and says
asks, in English, if I can ask him again. He
had not put on his helmet. So he listened without understanding.

-
« Pourquoi Monsieur Stantachev ne met pas son casque ?
Pas possible ! Je vais donc recommencer la même chose ?
Donc je vous dis que vous tenez le double discours habituel de
l’industrie où à la fois vous nous dites que… [Branimir
Stantachev ne trouve pas la fréquence pour la langue de traduction].
Y’a un système qui bloque quand on pose des questions un peu
trop dérangeantes… ? Vous terminez tout à
l’heure votre allocution en disant que les affaires sont la pierre
angulaire de… (idem)… je crois que vous dites tout, je
rappelle qui est votre patron, Thierry Breton, qui vient d’une
grosse boîte de Télécom. Je crois qu’on pose la question
essentielle ici de la souveraineté populaire. Il y a trois personnes
qui viennent de parler et qui ont évoqué la destruction d’un
paysage commun universel, le fait que la prévention météorologique
qui permet de sauver des milliers de personnes risque d’être
totalement mise à mal et que le bien commun qu’est l’espace
risque… quand on envoie 42.000 satellites, on ne peut plus parler
d’utilisation rationnelle de l’espace. De plus en plus de gens se
prononcent contre la 5G. On vient de découvrir en Suisse que
beaucoup de gens sont malades, ont des troubles neurologiques, des
troubles du comportement, ne savent plus dormir… Il y a des
reportages qui sortent là-dessus. Vous continuez à nous imposer
quelque chose qu’au fait on ne veut pas. Je rappelle quand même
qu’on est dans une époque où on vit la 6èmecrise d’extinction des espèces – la dernière était celle du
Crétacé-Tertiaire, c’était les dinosaures qui ont disparu – on
sait maintenant qu’elle est causée par l’homme. Quand va-t-on
arrêter ce délire ? Je répète encore ce que j’ai dit, j’ai
des enfants de 10 ans et 6 ans, j’ai peur pour leur avenir.
Monsieur [une personne dans le public] disait tout à l’heure
qu’il y a d’autres solutions… La grande solution c’est
surtout celle de changer de paradigme. Je rajoute une chose, c’est
que j’ai été au forum de la 5G à Diamant [quartier de
Bruxelles], c’était introduit par une copine Commissaire de
Monsieur Breton [Miapetra Kumpula-Natri, voir plus bas], qui
remerciait dans la salle les lobbies, Nokia, Ericsson, etcetera, qui
avaient fait pression sur elle les dernières années… C’était
tout un monde qui était là, je n’ai vu aucun représentant du
peuple, peut-être quelques parlementaires… Quelle est votre
position par rapport à la souveraineté populaire ? On sait que
ce n’est que du business. Alors dites-le : « C’est
que du business, on s’en fout du peuple », mais c’est
que du business. Vous ne gagnez pas comme moi une somme
dérisoire, et vous n’êtes pas en train de lutter. Vous avez un
salaire énorme, comme tous les autres qui travaillent là-dedans.
Désolé, mais à la fin c’est tellement absurde… ».

He
will eventually « answer »: 

 » Thank you for expressing these concerns, of course we take them seriously, on the Commission’s side, not only looking at the economic side of things, but we also monitor the social impact and of course the impact on human health. I believe that in this respect the Commission has been consistent in monitoring and assessing the impact of electromagnetic waves on public health. We have a mechanism in place at the Commission, based on working with experts from specific committees. You may have heard of theScheer [comité scientifique qui dépend de la DG santé] and this committee which inherits another one in the past with another name and has already produced, I believe five opinions, on the impact of electromagnetic fields without any negative conclusion until now. Regarding the impact of 5 G, I think that 5 G is a « next generation » technology, basically uses the frequencies that are already harmonized? For mobile communications, these are not new frequencies, they are frequencies already in use and the electromagnetic impact of this use will be comparable to what it was before. Of course we have other frequencies that could be used, millimeter waves… which have however a very different propagation and other characteristics and there, we have carried out studies that show that there will be only a marginal impact of these frequencies in the general increase of the exposure to magnetic fields. We are also aware that, for example, international organizations such as the WHO or the International Agency for Research on Cancer also have their views on the impact of OEMs: they categorize them as possibly carcinogenic, which is the same category as, for example, eating pickles, eating vegetables preserved in vinegar, and it is a less dangerous category than, for example, the effect of drinking very hot coffee or even having a night shift. I think we should be very careful about assessments and these assessments on the impact of OEMs should be based on very deep evidence and research and that is what we have always done (…). 

The exchange is impossible. We live in other worlds. Only, his principles become reality. 

The
5G Forum

At
5G forum, this January 29, no need to bother with
« Dissidents », no need to pretend that we are debating:
here everyone agrees. We talk to act. We prepare the
field. We prophesy and anticipate the pitfalls that could occur
get in the way of the sacred path of 5G. More than 200 people
from 5 continents, Huawei, Nokia, Facebook, Ericsson badges,
Qualcomm…, and multiple telecom operators.
There is no simultaneous translation here, everyone speaks English. 

The
moderator of the first session is Amit Nagpal, from Aetha
Consulting, a consulting organization in the industry of
who advises many operators worldwide (KPN,
Orange, Türc Telecom…), but also has among its customers the
European Commission. The session to introduce the high mass
is entitled  » Where are we now? The first
experiences with 5G « summarized in his words in the
leaflet with the day’s lectures:  » The
5G is here. Around the world, commercial deployment has
started. We could start to see the first examples of
5G network to be implemented, and the first applications
cell phones become available (…) « . The first to
to speak is Pearse O’Donohue, Director at the Commission
of Futur Networks, DG Connect, a colleague from
Branimir Stantachev. 

Him
succeeds the Miapetra Kumpula-Natri Chair, Parliamentarian
representing Finland. As she takes the
to preach, she introduces her speech in a way that
surprising and uncomplicated, indicating who really runs the
Parliament and makes decisions on 5G matters: « I
see many of the major 5G players, which we have
really need to strengthen in Europe. And I am happy to see
many faces here, who put pressure on me (That was
lobbying me) during the last legislation in Parliament « No shame. No heretics in the audience
she thinks, she can shamelessly name what is. 

Miapetra Kumpula-Natri is right to thank the industry in the room on January 29. Included in the list of speakers of ECTA, the European Telecom Industry Association, the parliamentarian will talk a lot about the need to create the demand for 5G, while it is still almost non-existent in Europe. Their war strategy is now at the stage we described at the beginning of this text: provoke the link between cause (the generalization of objects requiring 5G) and effect (the demand for the infrastructure necessary to support the operation of these objects). 

https://youtu.be/ryJ17W0I5no

Transvestiting
the words without complex, she speaks of  » sovereignty
technological « ,
oxymoron if ever there was one, sovereignty being precisely what the
technology eradicates by developing. In Parliament,
Vladimir Pulkov and others spoke of a  » 5G-friendly
ecosystem. »
It doesn’t matter that these words are deeply antinomic
and arouse in the one who still has the capacity to think, a
feeling of dissonance, they are like priests who go out into the
lyrical flights of fancy where there is only the belief that
matters. They look like politicians: like them they adopt this
language that  » has
as its function to make lies credible and murder
respectable, and to give what is only wind an appearance
of consistency
11
« .
We want to ask them to stop their litanies, but their
words are only the witnesses of their acts in progress. We
will not be able to stop them if we remain on the symbolic ground,
they are winners: the media who have this monopoly of the
representation
of the real, belong to them, and they will make sure that these
repeat tirelessly what we must love and will participate in
our happiness. 

Come
then Frédéric Pujol, Head of Technology and Business Development
Radio and spectrum at Idate DigiWorld. Who is Idate DigiWord?
This is the firm that has been selected to carry out
the European 5G Observatory for the European Commission.
It thus prepares a quarterly report on the process of
5G deployment and announces on the front page of its website
that it is under the high patronage of the President of the Republic
French Emmanuel Macron. Frédéric Pujol realizes various
missions for the European Commission, mobile operators
Japanese and other private companies. The links are made, when
we know that Macron supported the candidacy of Thierry Breton as
European Commissioner for the Internal Market… Thierry Breton,
zealous servant of the industry, moved from the private sector (Director
Deputy General Manager then General Manager at Bull group,
CEO of Thomson, CEO of France Telecom, Chairman and CEO
of the Atos Group until 2019) to the public (Minister of the Economy
and Finance, then European Commissioner). 

The
technological messianism

Enjoying
for most of the fruits of their belief, power
and money, these apostles are affected by a form of madness which
prevents from apprehending the world and from grasping what is happening in it,
defending projects that provide them with a way of life that puts them at ease.
Sheltered from need and thought. They are full of this
certainty proper to the followers of the Progress, assured that they do not
can be wrong and that our only mistake would be the one
to lag behind the Chinese, South Koreans…
media, in this propagation of faith, follow and make exist in
representations which could still be refused. They
the world in which we live, do not forget that we have to
seeing only on rare occasions some incidental defects. 

This
are real religious speeches, masses with preachers
and the faithful. The proselytizers at the microphone come from Nokia, the
Korean 5G Forum, Icnirp, the Commission and the
European Parliament, and have their political and media relays.
Those who speak are moved by something that transcends the
determination: they believe and are sure of what they
believe. Their industrial diocese also offers them
living conditions that leave little room for doubt that, if it is
to make them freer, would imply a change of life
they don’t want to hire. However, they cannot cynically
declare that nature and health are not important to them,
so they have to say what they don’t do, while they do
what they don’t say. There is reason to consider the malaise
also in this double bind, these injunctions
paradoxical, perennial and structural messages, which reassure those
who want nothing to change, but are deeply concerned about
destabilizing for the others, permanently immersed in an atmosphere of
double discourse which they perceive the falsity, the head between
two headphones emitting paradoxical messages. 

But depending on the country, propaganda will not always be sufficient and more muscular methods will be preferred. HyeonWoo Lee, Vice Chairman of 5G Forum Korea, is candid in suggesting that the method is usual:  » In Korea, the government is very aggressive in promoting 5G. 

Here,
not yet need the army or the police to impose
technologies that have their source in the thirst for profit and
domination
12
.
The Coronavirus
the Institute’s shock strategy, the
Belgian Postal and Telecommunications Services (BIPT)
announcing in full confinement that « regarding
the introduction of the new 5G technology, BIPT proposes, in
the expectation of a political agreement between the federal government
and the federated entities, to grant provisional rights of use
.
While people are locked in their homes, BIPT is organizing this
is not a joke, a public consultation until April 21
on this subject. BIPT, we had already talked about it
13,
is the organization whose former president,
Luc Hindryckx, went to ECTA, and many others have
joins, or comes from, the telecom industry. 

We hope that the doubters will have understood that the issue goes far beyond 5G. It is no less than the future of humanity that is at stake. The choices to come will be decisive, and so will the rejections, of which 5G is naturally a part. The capitalism of disaster persists and signs, continues to plunder the non-West, under the pretext of « transition », ensuring this art of change in continuity of which it is master. If there is no massive resistance to this future that is being prepared for us, our entire relationship with the other and with the world risks being toppled into a dimension whose beginnings are already emerging, at the very moment when we should be returning to some fundamental values, in particular considering ourselves as a species that is part of a great whole, where nature and the other are no longer at our service, but in coexistence. It will be good for us, but also and above all for those whose way of life has justified and justifies the massacre, secular and daily. 

Find
meaning, that’s it. No ? 

Alexandre
Penasse

Read more "

5G in the European Parliament: when technophiles pretended to debate…

In the closed world of Parliament, protected from reality
December 10, 2019, the Bulgarian MP Ivo Hristov organizes
a roundtable discussion, entitled « 5G deployment in the EU — opportunities and
challenges ». Among the speakers, the only opponent of 5G is Paul
Lannoye, president of GRAPPE and columnist for KAIROS newspaper. The
four others? Samuel Stolston, moderator, « digital
editor » at Euractiv, expert in 5G network; Jeremy Godfrey,
Director of the European Regulators for Communications
(Berec), whose function is, among other things, to promote the
services, to support a digital economy, and to provide
competitive, or enabling 5G; Marc Vancoppenolle, head of
of government relations at Nokia Belgium; Lazlo Toth,
Director of Public Policy at GSMA Europe, which represents the
of the global mobile communications industry; Vladimir
Poulkov, head of Intelligent Communications Infrastructures
R&D Laboratory », in Sofia Tech Park, Bulgaria; George
Oikonomou, Engineer on the 5G team at VMware. It looks like a
joke, but it’s not a joke, but the most incredible thing is that we
still playing in this game of fools. 

We offer you here the answer of Vladimir Pulkov to the question of
journalist Alexandre Penasse, who perfectly illustrates the
religious fatality of their discourse, and the omerta around their interest in
defend these technologies that we did not ask for. 

More info on www.kairopresse.be

SUPPORT THE FREE PRESS, the only one that considers that you have the right
to receive fair, disinterested and essential information for
think this world, and change it — https://www.kairospresse.be/abonnement

Read more "
Uncategorized

5G or madness disguised as necessity*.

Preamble :
In the year 2020, this January 25, we give thanks, in his good grace,
the communal power of Brussels to authorize us a  » static demonstration
 » ; but  » a
ban on any means of amplification other than a
megaphone « . However, some
means of amplification, advertisers have had some, notably
Qualcomm, an American company active in the field of
mobile technology (revenues of $25.3 billion)
which, in September 2018, flooded Brussels with posters affixed
on media owned by JC Decaux, with the
message: « 5G will create
many jobs. And our job is to create 5G.
Huawei, on the other hand, displayed in all
Brussels during the May 2019 election campaigns :
« Vote for 5G. Voting is not only about
of the candidates, but also of the ideas ». 

Why
the stop5G.be collective ?

We
are gathered today for the international day against
5G, while the Belgian collective stop5G.be was born in the
continuation of the fight against smart meters, another
« innovation » that the political-industrial sphere wants
impose ourselves. 

In
September 2017, in an appeal to the European Union, over 180
scientists and physicians from 36 countries warned against the
dangers of 5G. In 2019, an international call, organized under
in the form of petitions signed by 172,395 individuals and organizations
of 204 countries and territories, is addressed to the federal government
and Belgian regional. The dog barks, the caravan passes. As the
Albert Camus said, the absurd is born of this confrontation between
the human call and the unreasonable silence of the world. We
are immersed in the absurd. 

If
we obviously believe that health is paramount in the fight
against 5G, we are convinced that focusing on this one
aspect is risky. Because the telecommunications industry and the
manufacturers of connected objects have an army of
scientists paid to get the results they want,
creating doubt propagated by the media at their service. Le Monde,
in September 2019 titled « 5G
appeal: why this petition on waves and health
is overly alarmist « .
Remember that Le Monde is owned by Xavier Niel, Matthieu Pigasse
and Daniel Kretinsky, multimillionaire businessmen who have
surely some interest in seeing 5G deployed… In the
political balance, economy and technology have more weight
than health, and the doubters do their work and we are
lead to a field where the two camps confront each other: those
who believe in it and those who do not. 

He
We must therefore also think upstream, at the source of the interests
behind 5G projects. At this level, more camps of those who
believe it or not, no more doubts:
5G is a project at the sole service of multinationals
who expect extraordinary financial gains in a world where
billions of objects would be connected — 5G would allow
also an unprecedented control of the populations. 

Should we
expect something from the political actors
? Recently, after
to have questioned the office of the Minister of the Agenda
Telecommunications and the Post Office, Philippe De
Backer, for a meeting regarding our concerns about the
5G, its director for the Digital Agenda strategic cell,
Telecoms and Post, Luc Windmolders, we
will answer:

 » We
not going to stop 5G. We are pursuing a policy that
wants to stimulate the development of 5G as much as possible. If you
would like a meeting on the effects — in my opinion non-existent -
radiation, you must contact the authority
competent. The federal government has no authority over
radiation standards « .

Who
is Luc Windmolders, to name but one? The
director of the minister’s strategic cell worked at
the Dutch telecommunications operator KPN and was,
for the past two years, Chief Legal
& Corporate Officer at BASE
Company. Luc Windmolders has also served on the board of
of the european industry association
of ECTA telecoms.

The
industries are pushing for a relaxation of standards, and
place men and women in key positions to do this
devoted to their cause. 

Can we
expect the mass media to
inform us?
A few months ago, when a journalist from Le Soirwas told
a discussion and exchange session on the subject of meters
of the so-called communicating and 5G, in April 2019, Michel de Muêlenaere,
journalist, will answer:  » Ras
the bowl of the anti-everything. You won’t stop progress « .
The dominant media that belong in Belgium to the most powerful families
richest people in the country love Progress — and 5G — because it
reports, and they have at their disposal journalists
reverent and obedient. 

The
RTBF, for its part, has been deploying considerable energy for
years to get us to accept 5G. One article among others,
of 2018, headlined  » Will Belgium
be ready for 5G? »
said : There is a timing to
respect. The European Commission wants each Member State (and
This also applies to Belgium) has a 5G coverage in,
at least one city for 2020. And in 2025, it will be all the
urban areas that will need to have 5G coverage. Including
the main roads. We are really in the last line
right ». 

But
the question is in fact more profound, philosophical :
what do we want for our future? It is almost certain
that a climate change with unpredictable consequences will have
place. While we should be completely overhauling our
paradigm, it is proposed that we continue to overconsume and
pollute, to replace our robust water, gas and electricity meters, and to
electricity by communicating meters or to transform
our cities into smart cities where everything will be connected. 

We
do not want it.

For
the stop5G.be collective

Alexandre
Penasse

*Speeches
at the
world day against 5G — 25 January 2020 — Brussels

More
info on : 

www.stop5g.be

See
also the article:  » New
technologies and digital transition, the technocratic illusion at
the light of 5G « , on
www.kairospresse.be

Read more "
Uncategorized

SPECIAL ISSUE ON 5G

For those of you who don’t subscribe to Kairos (as they will receive it in your mailbox), you can pre-order the next Kairos special issue on 5G. To receive it at the same time as the subscribers, payments are accepted until Wednesday, June 10. 

This special issue will also be distributed in bookstores (from June 19) and it will still be possible to order it later via commande@kairospresse.be.

IN SUMMARY:

- 5G: a summary
of technological imperialism 

- News & Events
technologies and digital transition: the illusion
technocratic in the light of 5G

- 5G, electrosmog
and health

- 5G and ecology

- 5G at the heart
of a China-US cold war?

- By way of
conclusion: the health alibi

Bank transfer of 8 € + shipping costs for Belgium 3€, total 11€ (17€ for France): 

Make payment to: Account owner: Kairos asbl Account number: 523–0806213-24 IBAN: BE81 5230 8062 1324 SWIFT: TRIOBEBB Bank: Triodos

INDICATE IN THE COMMUNICATION OF THE TRANSFER YOUR ADDRESS

Read more "
Uncategorized

About 5G, Sciensano misinforms citizens

Open letter from Paul Lannoye, President of the Grappe ASBL, Doctor in Physical Sciences and Honorary Member of the European Parliament for www.stop5G.be

A public institution charged with informing the citizens of our country about public health issues is expected to be based on facts and use scientifically valid arguments to support its statements. In the press release, published on June 8, under the responsibility of Ms. Ledent, it is easy to verify that this is not the case. Instead of properly informing, this text is a one-sided and totally biased plea for the deployment of 5G, presented in conclusion as an indispensable tool without which access to emergency services via the mobile telecommunications network would be endangered! 

This text is so poor that ignoring it seemed to me, at first, to be the most reasonable attitude. This was a mistake. Since then, the spokespersons of the telecommunications operators, widely relayed by the media, have brandished it as a guarantee of the relevance of their project. In addition, a Brussels parliamentarian used it as the basis for a defamatory and caricatured public intervention of the opposition to 5G. 

Let’s review some of the allegedly science-based claims that make up the bulk of Sciensano’s text. 

1. Health risks can be assessed on the basis of existing research conducted on frequencies comparable to those of 5G technology. I remind you that the frequency band allocated by BIPT last July 18 to 5 operators is from 3600 to 3800 MHz. To date, this frequency band has only been the subject of very few studies, as the ANSES, the French public body in charge of this issue, admits in a preliminary report[note]. As frequency is an important parameter in the qualification and quantification of the biological effects of electromagnetic radiation, it is unwise and scientifically unfounded to consider a priori that we know enough to accept their use without risk. 

2. Much more serious: it is incorrect to claim that the exposure limits applied in Belgium for radio frequencies already protect us from harmful effects on our health. These limits protect us from thermal effects, but not from biological effects that occur at much lower levels of exposure (from one thousand to one hundred thousand times). These biological effects, in case of regular, or even worse, permanent exposure, can lead to health damages especially for children and embryos. The abundant scientific literature revealing these serious health problems was the subject of an exhaustive meta-analysis in 2007 by a group of scientists, among the most respected specialists in bioelectromagnetism[note]. This meta-analysis was updated by this group in 2012 and regularly updated[note]. Several thousand publications have been added to the burden of high-frequency radiation; it is confirmed that the pulsed nature of cell phone radiation is an aggravating factor in the nuisance caused to living organisms. Well-identified health damages listed in the scientific literature are: 

Cellular DNA damage;Cellular stress;Alteration of gene expression;Infertility and impaired sperm quality;Sleep disruption;Heart problems, including tachycardia, arrhythmia and cardiac arrest;Neurological disorders, including depression and autism;Cancer.
The essential processes of the human organism are altered by the permanent stress caused by chronic exposure to electromagnetic radiation, resulting in disturbances of metabolic, immune and reproductive functions. The biological mechanism explaining these health problems was proposed by Martin Pall back in 2013[note] and endorsed by the scientific community over time. The 2019 report of the Belgian Superior Health Council endorses this explanation when it states that « non-ionizing pulsed microwave radiation acts via activation of voltage-dependent calcium channels, inducing biological impacts at non-thermal levels »[note]. It is important to draw attention to the fact that with 5G, we are entering an era where electromagnetic pollution will spare no one, knowing that the multiplication of antennas, base stations (their number would be increased by a factor of 5) and electronically scanned mini-antennas will be able to target smartphones and connected objects everywhere. 

3. Sciensano admits that « higher frequencies are considered essential for the optimal operation of the 5G network (e.g. 26 and 66 GHz). » The insistence on the shallow penetration of high frequency waves with wavelengths ranging from centimeters to millimeters suggests that the human organism would hardly be threatened, only the superficial layers of the skin and the eyes could suffer some possible effects. This overly reassuring presentation overlooks the particular sensitivity of certain superficial organs and the biological mechanisms that involve superficial cells in the overall functioning of the human being, mechanisms that are not yet fully understood.

A recent (2018) study published by Betzalal et al. showed that sweat glands in the upper layers of the skin act as antennae, significantly increasing the specific absorption of millimeter waves[note]. Another, also in 2018, reveals the appearance of temperature spikes in the skin of exposed individuals due to the millisecond bursts transmitted by wireless devices[note]. Sciensano’s experts admit that this is currently in the early stages of research, which is still ongoing. They state that in case of uncertainty about the safety for our health, the precautionary principle must be applied. This statement is relevant, but implies that there is no such uncertainty at all, which is incorrect. 

4. Finally, the claim that « there is no scientific explanation for why 5G radiation would have any effect on the spread of the coronavirus » and that this is fake news is a gross untruth. Several scientific studies show that while short-term exposure to radio frequency radiation strengthens the immune system, long-term exposure weakens it. The mechanism involved is well understood and has been the subject of several publications: microwave radiation opens the calcium channels in cell membranes (see refs. 4 and 5) and increases the concentration of free radicals. The ground is in fact made very favorable to the replication of viruses. It is therefore scientifically plausible that the spread of viral infections is accelerated by exposure to microwave radiation.

Like air pollution, electromagnetic pollution should be considered as a potential co-factor in the current pandemic, as suggested by several competent and respected scientists[note], as well as by several Members of the European Parliament in a priority question to the Commission in April 2020[note]. In conclusion, I would like to emphasize the nature of the scientific controversy that sees the supporters of the « thermal » paradigm, the ancients, and the defenders of the « biological » paradigm, whom I will call the moderns, confront each other. The « thermal » paradigm is the one originally adopted by scientists and engineers involved in the development of telecommunications technologies for military or civilian purposes. This paradigm is based on the implicit assumption that this development is necessary, knowing that any nuisances caused must be limited and as low as possible without hindering this development.

The ICNIRP (International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection) is a commission of experts from the world of engineers and physicists who have acquired this « thermal » paradigm and are close to the industrial world. His recommendations have been the basis of all legislation for the past 30 years and are the sole source of WHO and EU recommendations, despite the accumulation of scientific data confirming the obsolete nature of the « thermal » paradigm and the existence of health damage at exposure levels well below the thermal threshold. The ICNIRP is one expert committee among others. It is not independent, but linked to the industry. In any case, it is not an unquestionable scientific authority, as shown in a recent report by the MEPs Michèle Rivasi (biologist) and Klaus Buchner (physicist)[note].

The press release issued by the ICNIRP on March 11 dedicated to the presentation of the new guidelines for protection against non-ionizing radiation allowed its president, Dr. Van Rongen, to declare that the application of these guidelines will allow a deployment of 5G without any damage to health! In the middle of the debate on the 5G issue, this statement clearly has the sole objective of quickly and definitively closing this debate in favor of industrial interests and a societal choice imposed on populations at the expense of health. By basing his analysis on the ICNIRP recommendations alone, Sciensano is dangerously misleading and, more importantly, misinforming the public. This is what Test Achats has already done, as referenced by Sciensano, one wonders why.

Read more "
Uncategorized

Heaven, life, and 5G…

While the political authorities, subservient to the powers of money, want to impose 5G on us, destroying our planet to « download a movie in less than a second », we met Giles Robert, director of the Observatory Centre Ardenne, the last place in Belgium where we can still see the sky and its stars without light and atmospheric pollution obscuring it*. As Bernard Moitessier said in The Long Road: « If a merchant could turn off the stars so that his billboards could be seen better at night, perhaps he would do it. He was right. An interview with Alexandre Penasse, directed by Terangi Teuira.

For the long version of the interview: https://odysee.com/@Kairospresse:0/le-ciel,-la-vie,-et-la-5g…-(version:c

Read more "
Uncategorized

The 5G threat

https://player.vimeo.com/video/453264709

Those who want to have a tool for total control of the population intend to impose,  » at all costs « , the implementation of the 5G wireless communication network. On the website of our colleague for.press, Alain Adriaens was interviewed[note] and described the « world without humans » that 5G is preparing.

Alain Adriaens is also one of the contributors to the special issue of Kairos, « 5G: facing the fairy tale, counting the facts ». If you want more arguments and data to judge the serious danger of the imposition of this so-called  » disruptive  » technology, you can read the 40 pages of this file[note].

Read more "
Home

5G AT THE HEART OF A CHINA-US COLD WAR?

The opposition between the United States and China, presented as a legal and commercial battle, in reality masks a conflict for political and technological leadership driving economic growth. While we are witnessing the computerization of all areas of life[note], 5G technology promises to accelerate this digital takeover to disproportionate proportions.  » More than the general public, it concerns factories, ports, hospitals, highways … 5G aims to revolutionize our lives ‚ » said the business media Les Echos. A technology that is crucial for the economy of the future and for which propaganda is in full swing. Numerous press articles report on the different application modalities, the delays in Europe, the economic fallout… Its potential impact « for the economy » would be, according to the European Commission, €113 to 225 billion in benefits per year in 2025; for the European Union, more than a third would concern the automotive sector (with the new market for autonomous cars).  » 5G only in the test phase, Europe is lagging behind… in 2020 everything should accelerate, goal of the European Commission: to have in each European country a city connected to 5G[note] « . Two types of propaganda can be observed, the technological TINA(There is no alternative) and the Western propaganda against China, the new designated enemyof the United States.

 » Huawei is not as careful as we are about data protection ‚ » says a journalist in an Arte report, which targets the  » backdoors  » feared by the U.S. government and which would explain this trade war. However, the journalist will later rectify it, the first to have used this surveillance technology are the United States, as denounced by Edward Snowden. Ironically, media reports in Europe regularly convey the idea that the Chinese are not very careful about data security, while the scandal that led to the European RGDP directive came from the United States.

The stakes around 5G, personalized by the conflict around Huawei, are presented as crucial, because it is the first place in the economy of the future, with its lot of goods to produce and consume. An economy that has been in the works for a few years but is just waiting for 5G to roll out, and thus  » authorize uses that were previously limited or even impossible: increased robotization in industry, massive deployment of fleets of autonomous cars, development of « smart cities » that will optimize their energy and transportation networks, etc. Not to mention products and services that are still unknown « According to the newspaper La Croix[note]… 5G, far from being just a new generation of telephone network, actually implies a massive deployment of new equipment, from the antenna to the consumer’s smartphone, huge new pools of potential economic returns.

THE EMERGENCE OF CHINA AS A DIGITAL POWER

If China’s economic rise has been meteoric since it opened up to the global economy in the 1980s, its emergence as a leading technological power is perhaps even more impressive. Twenty years ago, China was still lagging far behind the so-called « developed » countries in terms of technology, especially the United States. The Internet only arrived in the country in 1994 and the first Chinese digital companies were only established at the end of that decade.

20 years later, China is now the United States’ main rival in some of the most advanced technological and economic sectors, often far ahead of the European Union[note]. There are several reasons for this success. They are beginning to be known but can be summarized quickly. First, the existence of a huge domestic market with Mandarin as a common language. Second, protectionist measures that have allowed some Chinese companies (especially in the digital sector) to grow sheltered from foreign competition. Finally, a proactive industrial policy has sought to move up the global value chain through targeted support for strategic sectors, or technology transfers imposed on foreign companies wishing to operate in the country.

THE TURN OF THE 2010S

These different elements have been present for a long time, but they will undergo a decisive reorientation and acceleration in the wake of the economic crisis of 2008. This has led to a decline in global demand, particularly from Western countries, which has prompted China to move even more quickly out of its role as the « workshop of the world » and at the same time to reassert itself as a leading economic and political power. Shortly after coming to power in 2013, the current President of the Republic, Xi Jinping, launched two large-scale plans that will translate this ambition both domestically and internationally: the « Made in China 2025 » plan and the « New Silk Roads[note] « .

The first aims to make China a world leader in a dozen strategic industrial sectors for the economy of the future (information technology, robotics, aerospace, etc.), notably through major investments in research and development. The second is a gigantic infrastructure plan designed to connect the Chinese economy even better with the various areas of extraction, production and consumption around the world, while promoting a Chinese-centric globalization that is more respectful of the interests of developing countries. In both cases, digital technologies play a key role in the projects supported, and Chinese technology companies take advantage of this to further strengthen their innovation capabilities as well as their economic and commercial power[note].

« THE « HUAWEI AFFAIR » AND THE SINO-AMERICAN « TRADE WAR

These companies include Huawei, which most of us know for its smartphones (the second best-selling smartphones in the world, ahead of Apple’s iPhone and behind the Korean Samsung), but which has also and above all become the leader in 5G networks. Indeed, not only is Huawei the company with the most patents currently declared in this field, but it also offers its products and services at a better price than most of its competitors. As a result, it is leading the race for global 5G deployment. This situation is intolerable for the United States for several reasons.

Commercial and security first. For the Americans, Huawei’s success is indeed emblematic of how China would have managed to rise to the top of the world economy through  » unfair  » economic and commercial practices. Officially, the U.S. decision to ban Huawei from government contracts and from all transactions with American companies was justified by the firm’s alleged spying practices, which would also jeopardize U.S. national security. Similarly, it is also Chinese « disloyalty » that has been denounced to justify the trade war launched by the United States against China in the wake of Donald Trump’s election. But while these arguments are partly true, they carefully fail to mention that the United States has not been left behind in terms of unfair practices and espionage, and that many American multinationals have been among the main winners of the Chinese development strategy…

A WAR OF HEGEMONY

These arguments thus serve mainly to mask the main reason behind the US economic offensive against China in general, and Huawei in particular: the geopolitical fear of the United States of seeing its status as a superpower threatened. The « trade war » between the two countries is thus part of a larger war of hegemony, in which the Americans are not so much trying to stop unfair practices as to curb the rise of an increasingly powerful rival. It is no coincidence that the main American recriminations against the

China were about the « Made in China 2025 » plan, nor if it was Huawei that was the object of the most virulent offensive. In both cases, we are talking about mastering technologies that are decisive for the economy and the army of tomorrow. 5G, for example, is seen as the key infrastructure for future digital developments, not least because it allows colossal amounts of data to be exchanged at a speed previously unheard of. Contrary to a widespread idea, its interest lies mainly in its industrial applications (commercial, but also military) and rather little in its advantages for the average consumer. So much so that a recent US National Security Council document considered that if China could dominate the telecommunication network industry,  » it would become the big winner politically, economically, and militarily « [note].

A « COLD WAR » THAT RECALLS ANOTHER ONE

In this context, it is difficult not to draw parallels between the current debates surrounding 5G and older debates concerning nuclear power. Indeed, in both cases, we find technologies whose proponents praise the unlimited promises, while minimizing the health and ecological risks, but also the geopolitical stakes. Nuclear developments were thus at the heart of the Cold War between the United States and the USSR (both as cause and consequence) with dramatic results for the world’s populations. Today, 5G appears to be one of the central issues in the new (digital) cold war that now pits the United States and China against each other, again with potentially catastrophic consequences for the rest of the planet. At the very least, this situation should push as many national and international actors as possible to defend a logic of  » digital non-alignment[note] « , which focuses in particular on the establishment of mechanisms and institutions for the democratic control of the main digital infrastructures. Ideally, it should contribute to questioning the relevance of technologies such as 5G, for which it appears more and more, like nuclear power, that the risks could far outweigh the benefits…

The exacerbated economic competition between China and the United States leads to a technological surge stimulated on both sides, updated by attempts to boost growth and all the associated nuisances. The general press, which participates greatly in the technological TINA, seems to accept it. At a time of global crisis, where economic, financial, social and health crises are added to the ecological crisis that pushes so many young people to demonstrate in the streets, the political and media perspectives on 5G rarely go in a direction of refusal of a technology presented as a solution for ecological problems. The Internet of Things, smart cities and « autonomous » cars are generally presented as tools to respond to the « climate emergency », while in reality these technologies generate extractivism and excessive pollution, as well as many other nuisances. Without waiting for a change in political and media positions, at the citizen level, other perspectives are possible, as Matthieu Amiech[note] pointed out in an interview with the website Reporterre.  » A crucial issue is the refusal of surveillance by drones, smartphones, facial recognition, which is being implemented in this period of containment decided by public authorities .

Robin Delobel and Cédric Leterme (researcher at GRESEA and CETRI)

Read more "
Home

5G, ELECTROSMOG AND HEALTH

Proponents of 5G, many of whom are in industry and politics, proclaim that if the WHO/ICNIRP EMF (electromagnetic field) exposure limits[note] are followed, there are no health effects to worry about. How were these boundaries established? It is necessary to go back to the 1980s when experiments were conducted to evaluate the  » immediate thermal effect  » of microwaves (MO) and radio frequencies (RF)[note] on living beings, the same one used in the well-known oven. It is the observation of the behavior of laboratory rats exposed to these radiations that was used as a criterion and to calculate these limits, which were thus conceived only to protect us from the heating and the burns caused by these waves.

To be satisfied with these limits is to ignore decades of scientific research showing the biological and health effects of microwaves, at levels far below those at which thermal effects are observed. This should come as no surprise when you consider that the billions of cells that make up the human body are the field of microcurrents of electrons, protons (H+ hydrogen ions) and other ions that are vital to its proper functioning. These currents are obviously disturbed by the electric and magnetic fields of the waves that surround us, hence the effects highlighted by thousands of studies of all types published in the best scientific journals with reading committees: studies in vitro on cells cultivated in the laboratory, studies in vivo laboratory animal studies, clinical volunteer studies and epidemiological studies (see for example the BioInitiative report discussed below). The list of certain or probable consequences is chilling: various cancers and tumors (brain, acoustic nerve, salivary glands, breast…), childhood leukemia, Alzheimer’s disease and other neurodegenerative diseases, autism, reduction of sperm quality, cataracts, opening of the blood-brain barrier, reduction of melatonin production, sleep disorders, depression, suicide, electrohypersensitivity (EHS), etc.

But the worst is undoubtedly the demonstrated impact on DNA and the irreversible consequences for future generations with the prospect of a diminished humanity[note]. Insurance companies are not wrong: none of them insure the risk of artificial EMFs, nor do cell phone and other smartphone manufacturers, who recommend keeping these devices at a certain distance from the body, thus protecting themselves from lawsuits that could be filed against them.

To be satisfied with the limits of the ICNIRP is to ignore the calls of scientists and doctors from all countries that have been multiplying for 20 years. One of the first of these was the Freiburg Appeal of 2002 signed by more than 1,000 physicians calling for, among other things,  » massive reductions in limit values, emission powers and radio wave loads ‚ » an appeal that was renewed in 2012(www.freiburger-appell-2012.info). By October 15, 2019, 252 EMC specialists from 43 different countries had signed an appeal to the UN, WHO, and EU, an appeal initiated in 2015. These scientists, all of whom have published peer-reviewed research on the biological and health effects of non-ionizing EMFs (RF), are calling for stricter exposure limits and asking that the potential biological impacts of 4G and 5G telecommunication technologies on plants, animals, and humans be re-examined (
www.emfscientist.org
).

The limits recommended by these experts in terms of prevention for RF are very much lower than those of the ICNIRP, by a factor of about 100,000, and thus also than those currently in force in Brussels (by a factor of 2,000). The authors of the BioInitiative report recommend a limit on the order of 5μW/m² (mi-crowatt/m² or 0.04V/m) for  » cumulative  » RF exposure outside the home. For 2G, 3G and 4G, the European Academy of Environmental Medicine (EUROPAEM) recommends 100μW/m2 (0.2V/m), but 10 times less during sleep and 100 times less for children (1μW/m2, or 0.02V/m). These limits may seem low, but it is less so when one considers that the values retained by the ICNIRP represent a billion billion times the level of natural EMF at these frequencies; moreover, the EMF used for telephony are modulated and pulsed, which does not exist in nature and represents an important component of their toxicity.

The new 5G phone standard uses the frequencies of previous standards, but will take a leap into the unknown by additionally using high-energy millimeter waves, which until now have mostly been used only by the weapons industry and weather satellites. As these waves are strongly attenuated by physical obstacles (walls, leaves, rain…), 5G will require the placement of a large number of antennas emitting at a high power level, about one every 100 meters, thus multiplying the probability of strong exposures, a probability further reinforced by the proliferation of connected objects, up to 1 million per km² (Internet of Things). Despite what science tells us about the biological and health effects of 2G and 3G, disregarding the precautionary principle, industry, the EU and a significant part of the political world are pushing for the immediate and indiscriminate installation of 5G, while almost no biomedical research has been devoted to it.

The speeches heard during the hearings of the Committee on the Economy in December 2019 in the Belgian Federal Parliament were mostly based on the denial of the health risk, which was based on the opinion of the ICNIRP, including in the head of Test Achats , which seems to have forgotten that its subscribers’ most valuable asset is their health, not the connected objects they should be consuming en masse. The ICNIRP is a private institution under German law which functions like a closed club, which does not seem to bother the WHO and all the authorities which refer to it: its members decide alone who can enter it and only those who defend the idea that if there are no thermal effects, there can be no health consequences. It does not apply any rules of transparency or independence, since on the contrary most of its members are known for their present or past links with the telecom industry (see the excellent investigation byInvestigate Europe journalists: www.investigate-europe.eu/publications/how-much-is-safe/).

As an example, let’s mention Bernard Veyret (now retired) and his typical profile of a researcher and scientist close to industry, in charge of giving advice in terms of public health: member of the ICNIRP, member of the French Society of Radiation Protection (SFRP, the French equivalent of the ICNIRP), director of a laboratory for EMF studies in France financed by Bouygues Telecom and member of the Scientific Council of Bouygues Telecom See an instructive interview of this eminent character : electrosmog.grappe.be/doc/lobby/ICNIRP/ (10 minutes).

The above section of this article was submitted to the editors of Datanews and the Vif for publication in reaction to a rather abstruse opinion[note] by Christian Vanhuffel, administrator of FITCE.be[note] (this opinion published in Datanews on December 27, 2019 was intended primarily as an ode to the ICNIRP theses). After it was accepted at first, after much prevarication, I finally received a refusal expressed in these terms by Kristof Van Der Stadt (email of February 28, 2020 with copy for other journalists: Vincent Genot, Marie Gathon, Pieterjan Vanleemputten, Michel X, Els Bellens and Kevin Vander Auwera): » I must make a correction here. In the meantime, we have reviewed the entire opinion and finally decided not to publish it in this form, because after careful consideration, it does not meet the qualitative standards we advocate… What we propose to do, therefore, is to summarize your view and add it to the interview with a radiation expert that we will publish one of these days « . Needless to say, the summary in question consisted of two empty sentences. On the other hand, the expert in question was none other than Eric van Rongen, the president of the ICNIRP, no doubt considering that one is never better served than by oneself[note]. I never got a response to my request for an explanation of these  » quality standards « .

This unwavering support for the 5Globby and the ICNIRP standards (endorsed by the WHO) is not an isolated case in the Belgian media, which regularly pass off the ICNIRP as an independent body, along with the idea that artificial EMFs pose no threat to our health. Two examples among others: La Libre Belgique of April 30 published an article entitled  » 5G: le « vrai du faux « ou comment sortir de la guerre de tranchées « , in which it was stated that  » [l’ICNIRP] is an independent organization that provides scientific opinions and advice « . These included the opinion that  » the research conducted so far shows that the radiation emitted by 5G was harmless to health  » and to quote Test Achats , which seems to have become the reference (sic) in the field, and which would have  » produced a clear and complete dossier on the subject  » (Test Achats/Santé headlined  » 5G Network — Don’t Panic  » and argued that  » the feeling of anxiety [est] unjustified because there is no convincing scientific evidence that waves are harmful  »). Reading the Test Purchases files on 5G is regularly recommended, including by the BIPT (Belgian Institute of Postal Services and Telecommunications) in its responses to requests for information on 5G. In  » Threats to 5G: associations mention health risks « , published by Trends-Tendances on April 30, the journalist Gilles Quoistiaux says the same thing, but even worse, he makes a scurrilous amalgam between citizen action (that of the collective stop5G. be), conspiracy theory and acts of vandalism on cell phone antennas.

WAVES AND IMMUNITY

After this interlude on the state of the Belgian media, let’s get down to some very serious stuff: what biomedical science tells us about the waves around us, in particular their effects on the immune system. The function of the immune system is to identify and eliminate foreign agents (viruses and other pests) and abnormal cells (such as cancer) before they affect our health. In short, it is one of the essential elements of defense of the body against aggressions that allow us to remain in good health[note].

It should not escape anyone that, for any individual, a healthy immune system is essential to react in the best possible way in case of contamination by the current coronavirus SARS-CoV‑2[note] This is all the more important in countries like Belgium and France where the current governments have not been able to put in place an effective health policy to limit the spread of the pandemic. Collectively, this is also a factor to be considered in terms of the spread of the pandemic and the risk of overloading or saturating the health care system. On the other hand, a fully functional immune system, because of its memory and learning capacity, should allow for better resistance to the 2nd and 3rd potential waves of a pandemic, both individually and collectively. It is therefore useful to ask this question: to what extent do environmental factors, and in particular electromagnetic pollution, affect the immune system?

Section 8 of the 2012 BioInitiative Report devotes over 70 pages to the effects of EMFs on the immune system based on over 100 scientific studies on the subject[note]. Before proceeding, it is useful to introduce this report and its authors in more detail. This 1,500-page report, subtitled  » The Case for Biological Effects-Based Low-Level Radiation Protection Standards The report, « EMF and the Environment », is the work of 29 independent scientists from 10 countries, all experts in the field (21 of them have one or more doctorates and 10 have one or more medical qualifications) and it presents a state of knowledge of the effect of EMF on humans and living organisms, based on several thousand scientific studies (EBF and RF)[note]. Among the authors is Martin Blank, Ph.D. in Physical Chemistry (Columbia University) and Ph.D. in Colloid Science (University of Cambridge), who has studied the health effects of EMF for over 30 years. And Paul Héroux, the current Director of the Occupational Health Program at the Faculty of Medicine of McGill University in Montreal, has a rare triple expertise in the physical sciences, electrical engineering and health sciences[note].

The first part of section 8 of the BioInitiative Report includes the conclusions of an article by Olle Johansson[note], professor at the Department of Neuroscience at the Karolinska Institute (Stockholm), which reviews a small number of scientific studies on the effects of EMF on the immune system. In his introduction, he begins by asking a question that many people ask or are asking themselves:  » Is biology compatible with ever-increasing EMF levels? Or, to put it in simpler terms: can we, as human beings, survive this plethora of radiation? Are we designed for a lifetime of exposure to these EMFs, 24 hours a day? Are we immune to these signals or are we in fact gambling with the future of our planet by putting all forms of life on Earth at stake? The answer seems to be: no, we are not designed for such EMF exposure loads. We are not immune. We are playing with our future « . He continues on the immune system:  » Very often it is said that the greatest threat from EMF exposure is cancer. However, this is not the scariest scenario. (…) Or, as this article indicates, imagine that our immune system, which tries to cope with the ever-increasing electromagnetic signals, can no longer do so! Is the immune system designed to deal with « allergens » that were previously non-existent but are now present in large numbers? Could it be that our immune system by extraordinary in the process of evolution has this capacity? Is this likely, even at a minimum? Of course not « .

The studies considered report significant immunological changes upon exposure to artificial EMF levels, often at low or very low (i.e., non-thermal) levels, in both humans and animals, with measurable physiological changes such as:

morphological alteration of immune cells;increased mast cells (indication of an allergic response);increased mast cell degranulation;a change in the viability of lymphocytes;a decrease in the number of NK cells;a decrease in the number of T lymphocytes[note].
It is therefore possible that continuous exposure to EMFs can lead to immune system dysfunction, chronic allergic reactions, inflammatory reactions and ultimately to deterioration of health. On the other hand, the involvement of the immune system is evident in various biological alterations present in people with electrohypersensitivity or electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS)[note].

Of particular interest is Part 2 of Section 8 of the BioInitiative report, page 458, which discusses studies conducted in 1971 and subsequent years in the former USSR, especially at the Kiev Institute of Public Health, studies that have remained unknown to the rest of the world, but which have resulted in the USSR adopting standards based on biological effects, so that EMF intensity limits are significantly lower there than in the United States and Western Europe. This being said, at the same time, in the United States and under the aegis of the army mainly, other types of studies had been carried out which should also have led to more rigorous standards, but the pressure and the interests of the military-industrial complex meant that only the thermal effect was finally taken into account to « protect » the public.

The general conclusion of the studies conducted in Kiev from 1971 to 1975 was that prolonged exposure to low-intensity RF-EMCs leads to autoallergic reactions. In one of these studies, guinea pigs, rats and rabbits exposed 7 hours a day for 30 days to an EMF of 50μW/cm² at 2.45 GHz had shown a maximum autoimmune response 15 days after the end of the exposure period (for information, the ICNIRP standard at this frequency is 987μW/cm²). Another important finding was the existence of a dose-response relationship in terms of the biological effects of RF-EMFs on the immune system, an essential criterion in demonstrating the effect of an agent in pharmacology.

More recently, other studies have reinforced the finding of the harmful effect of EMFs on the immune system, such as the one by El-Gohary and Said published in 2016 in the Canadian Journal of Physiology and Pharmacology[note]. The study investigated the effect of EMF from a cell phone on the immune system in rats and the possible protective role of vitamin D. After exposure to EMF for 1 hour per day for 1 month, there was a significant decrease in the levels of immunoglobulins (proteins with antibody function), total leukocytes, lymphocytes and other immunocompetent cells, with a reduction in effect when vitamin D was supplemented.

As for the other facets of the biological and health effects of EMFs (damage to DNA and the human genome, cancer, neurodegenerative diseases, etc., see above), the ICNIRP and the WHO voluntarily ignore most of the studies carried out on the effect of EMFs on the immune system and stick to standards based on the thermal effect, which in no way protect the population.

New biologically based standards that actually protect humans and other living species must be established, which probably means that in many contexts the protective limit will have to be set at zero EMF intensity.

Studies on the biological effects of 5G and in particular on its use of millimeter waves are almost non-existent. Its deployment is nevertheless afflicted with a certainty, denied by some despite the evidence: it will be accompanied by an undeniable growth of electromagnetic pollution, as evidenced by the insistent demand of operators[note] to increase the protection limit in Brussels from 6V/m to 14.5V/m initially, and to 41.2V/m thereafter. If 5G is deployed, this growth in pollution will then continue through the proliferation of connected objects that is one of the ultimate goals of 5G, and through the 50,000 satellites in the pipeline, some of which have already been launched.

Could it be that, miraculously, 5G has no biological and health effects on living beings, unlike previous generations of cell phone standards? Only the die-hard 5G lobbyists will answer in the affirmative, out of cynicism, greed or stupidity.

Francis Leboutte, civil engineer, founding member of the stop5G.becollective

Read more "
Home

5G? THE « MASTER BUYER

In March 2020, Test-Achats, an organization that publishes a magazine in which the quality of various consumer products is evaluated — without ever questioning the latter — published an article on 5G entitled « Dangerous, 5G? »[note]. The questioning was misleading: a true plea for this technology, denying the numerous scientific studies warning of its harmfulness and the multiple calls for a moratorium, Test-Achats reduced these doubts to « rumors [qui] have a knack for unjustly raising concern ». The reactions were not long in coming.

As a magazine whose business is based largely on the publication of testings on high-tech objects, Test-Achats was not well placed to give an impartial opinion. But it’s a long way from writing a propaganda text for 5G, which will be taken up by daily newspapers to support their position[note] or in the answers of certain ministers to concerned citizens[note].

Under its first title  » Here is why there is nothing to worry about « , Test-Achats argues that « after examining all the international scientific research « , there is nothing to worry about, developing in four points their argumentation[note], concluding with a paragraph entitled  » Still not reassured ? « . Thus, Test-Achats tacitly acknowledges its bias, because studies highlighting the dangers of 5G, there have been, as well as the major risk to biodiversity[note] that it represents. Also gone is the International Appeal against 5G. Would Test-Achats have some interest in not telling the truth. Some readers thought so.

Letter from a reader to Test-Achats

« We are considering unsubscribing as a result of the « 5G » article in the Health Test . 156, of an unheard-of lightness and suspicious, to say the least. Have you dug into the details of the possible direct and indirect links, past and present, with the world of operators, of Mrs. Dillen and, above all, of Guy Vandenbosch, to whom she refers with surprising caution, as well as of the KU Leuven in general (lobbying, private/public partnerships, etc.)? »

Their answer: tongue in cheek and blah blah blah

Dear subscriber, we take note of your reaction and certainly understand it. Please find below the response of our health test services following the reactions, publications and opinions generated by our article on 5G: « In some emblematic and often particularly complex issues, particularly those affecting public health, it is normal that there is debate. Our association has been rooted in democratic debate and contradiction for 60 years, but always on a scientific basis (especially in the areas of health and food, but also in domestic security or sustainability…). We understand, to a certain extent, that there are differing opinions and we recognize that we do not have the best knowledge on the subject, any more than our detractors do. A position in such a delicate matter is not set in stone, but, in accordance with our principles of independence and expertise, we must also avoid repeating what some people would like to hear. It must be developed in a coherent way. Of course, the sanitary crisis of this year 2020 makes things even more complicated and the attitude of one or the other operator wanting to force the dam irritates even more in a part of the public opinion. We understand that too. Contrary to what is claimed based on impressions and pretences, we have not chosen the side of technology or of the powerful lobbies that we have been facing ourselves on other grounds for many years. Our side is the protection of consumers and their health. Contrary to what some people say, we base ourselves on studies carried out at the international level, in particular by health authorities who have analyzed several thousand pages of literature and scientific studies, avoiding the cherry picking (using only the arguments that support your objective), which is more the work of our detractors. We also consulted external experts. It should be noted that this same approach is shared by many consumer organizations throughout Europe. In a very Manichean way, these detractors target those who do not think like them. If you don’t agree with us, you must be against us… The enemy being identified, their own cause is passed over in silence, making us forget the fundamentals: a public health objective, the role of public authorities in setting standards, the obligations of operators in terms of transparency and quality, the need to advance the democratic debate,

… And yet, we ask for nothing more than the guarantee of these fundamentals. So what fight for what cause with what weapons? And the enemy will be unmasked. You can also visit our website at www.testachats.be, where you will find much more information. Remaining at your disposal, please accept the assurance of our distinguished sentiments

Not convinced, the reader sends back :

I am surprised that there is no answer to the specific question I asked on 4/5/20. All I get is a standard answer of a general nature, rather conventional and boilerplate, on the issue of supporters/detractors…; disappointing. Some considerations on my part:

some of your detractors may be practicing cherry pickingBut it has become clear, thanks in particular to whistleblowers and journalists with an acute professional conscience, that the industries responsible for many years of terrible sanitary and environmental damage and millions of deaths worldwide (tobacco, asbestos, automobile, chemical, industrial junk food, …) have done, are doing and will do for a long time to come, without any scruples, even more: disregarding the precautionary principle, practicing the massivelobbying , instrumentalizing, manipulating, conditioning by advertising bombardments (including in the public service media), stipendiating (including some experts, political decision-makers, …), even outright lying (dieselgate, a.o.); then, what is the best: the possible cherry picking with the main objective of applying the health precautionary principle and therefore protecting health, or strategies like these with the main objective of creating and accumulating maximum profits? Are we really to believe that the operators who are the staunch and self-interested supporters of 5G would be the only ones to act in a way that is truly concerned with the health of citizens? Neither the universities (under-funded by the public authorities, e.g. in terms of research, and increasingly infiltrated by commercial operators and therefore dependent on them for their operations) nor associations such as yours are safe from the aforementioned actions…
as for the democratic fundamentals you are talking about — to be respected by your detractors and the industries/operators and commercials of all kinds … — It is precisely in many officially democratic regimes, based on these fundamentals, that the damage I am talking about above has been caused for a long time — even though some legal brakes in principle exist -… … because of the non-respect of elementary democratic principles and legal rules/standards by those responsible for this damage; and, too often, no real sanction is taken. It is in the heart of our Belgian democracy that a telecom operator can quietly decide to introduce 5G in several municipalities, under the nose of the political decision-makers, while the citizens are massively opposed to it (87%, unless I am mistaken). Will there be a strong reaction and/or sanction against this operator? I doubt it…In Belgium, but also in many other democratic countries, the trust of citizens in the political world is at its lowest (only 20% have confidence!) and their confidence in the traditional media and journalists is in sharp decline. This deserves a deep reflection, a.o. as to the reasons: would too much powerlessness/allegiance towards the actions of the « business world » (a.o.), be part of it?
Sincerely. Patrick Buyle

He did not get any answer…

AP

Read more "
Home

5G AND ECOLOGY

At the time of the climate demonstrations and the parties of all sides seem to agree, in the speeches, on a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the decisions taken by the politicians rather indicate a mad race towards always more growth, in particular technological. While some dare to believe in the ecological potential of 5G, it is in fact proving to be an anti-ecological abyss through the technological surge it brings.

WHAT KIND OF IMMATERIAL ARE WE TALKING ABOUT?

There is nothing virtual or immaterial about digital. It requires a whole infrastructure containing, among other things, terrestrial and submarine copper cables, gigantic data centers, wifi terminals (3G consumes 15 times more energy than wifi, 23 times more for 4G)… Each technology has its share of environmental disasters. The extraction of a few dozen rare metals requires the use of fossil fuels, the waste of huge quantities of water, the destruction of natural areas and the dumping of chemicals, not to mention the health and sociological damage to local populations. Digital technology is becoming the heart of the ecological catastrophe.  » Behind digital is extractivism and the revival of the global mining industry. In addition to traditional metals, whose exploitation is redoubled, new materials and rare earths, lithium, tungsten, germanium, etc., must be extracted on a massive and exponential scale. This extractive fever is causing a chain of ecological disasters that are occurring mainly far from consumers in the North.[note] « .

While the environmental impact of ICT[note] seems to be well known in environmentalist and activist circles, the propaganda of Green by IT, the « responsible » use of digital technology for « ecological » purposes, persists: optimization by digital tools and services would be factors of efficiency and sobriety. The ecological transition, as seen by the powers that be (state and industry), turns out to be an operation of greenwashing, making a few adjustments here and there, and externalizing more and more of the ecological costs of technology, made invisible by the relocation of industrial production (extraction, pollution, waste). This technological surge is done with contempt for the people, their health, the commons.

In Peru, the government is doing everything in its power to favor the multinational copper mining companies, while the population suffers from water shortages and the country is among those, along with Mexico and Chile, with the most mining conflicts. The rise of ICTs explains, according to Apoli Bertrand Kameni[note],  » the outbreak, frequency and continuation of political and armed conflicts in Africa  » over the past 30 years. The extraction of tantalum, germanium and cobalt in the Democratic Republic of the Congo is not the only reason for the conflicts that are taking place in the former Belgian colony.

MORE THAN ENTHUSIASTIC MEDIA

In 2020, digital technologies will account for more than 4% of the greenhouse gas emissions responsible for global warming. That’s twice as many as in 2007. This pollution comes from the operation of the Internet (data transport and storage, manufacturing and maintenance of the network infrastructure) and from the manufacturing of our computer equipment. The extraction of the minerals at the base of digital equipment and connected objects is destroying more and more every day entire ecosystems and the living conditions of the communities that live near the mining sites. The Internet, seen as a public good by some political leaders, is booming for uses that are far from essential. While video streaming represents 60% of data flows, the promises of 5G, far from being immaterial and therefore without impact, are leading us into an era of everything connected, concerning vehicles, watches, street furniture, surveillance cameras, but also livestock (when will human livestock?). This is already the case in some companies, and here too Covid-19 allows for certain applications that the worst repressive regimes have not even thought of.

Beyond the capitalism that pushes us to consumption, the ideology of innovation for innovation’s sake is promoted from morning to night by industrialists, the media and the political class. We need to move to the 5G network  » because we can « . We don’t know what for, but we definitely need it. For which uses and for which purposes, the question seems impossible to consider. To learn more about world affairs, reading the business media is very informative. The vaguely left-wing media is often one war behind, and when it comes to technology, industry is often several steps ahead. Just read, for example, this article fromUsine digitale :  » Covid-19: 5G rollout struggling in Europe, China and US ahead of schedule. Telecom experts are sounding the alarm about the significant backlog of 5G deployments in European states. While some decided to postpone the allocation of frequencies for better days, China and the United States continued to install infrastructure during the Covid-19 pandemic. This will support the recovery of their respective economies after the health crisis[note] « .

On the side of the alternative media[note], the confusion dominates:  » 5G crystallizes many of the fears associated with digital. Technology promises hyper-connectivity. It is also sold as a way to absorb the very strong growth of data, email, video, etc. traffic. However, many voices are beginning to speak out against this increase in traffic and are instead advocating digital sobriety, which is better suited to the ecological transition[note]. « This is the conclusion of a trendy media article in the style of the young and trendy ecologists. This conclusion could also be found in a generalist media because the famous ecological transition, towards which everyone would move hand in hand — industrialists, politicians and wise citizens -, turns out to be the unbeatable horizon, from the extreme left to the extreme right. However, this transition, which mixes climate, digital and ecology, proves to be completely complementary to the intrusive technologies and the nuisances they cause.  » It worries, but are we right to hate 5G?  » The title of the article alone sums up the content of the text. To make the arguments in favor of 5G serious, then to discredit those of the opponents and to finish with a conclusion that would suggest a criticism.

Beyond the multiple environmental nuisances — the « alternative » movements often forget this — ecology also consists in the search for autonomy. However, the shift we are witnessing in the period of the shock strategy allowed by the Covid-19 health crisis leads straight to more repression, population control and management through technological tools. What the capitalists dreamed of, the Covid-19 made possible. The collective Écran total and Ecologistas en Accion[note], noted in a common text, this global crisis raises the question of  » the dependence of people on an industrial supply system that is devastating the world and weakening our ability to concretely oppose social injustices. It is important to understand that computerization goes against these necessary empowerments: the digital system has become the keystone of big industry, of state bureaucracies, of all the administrative processes of our lives that obey the laws of profit and power. »

Robin Delobel

Read more "
Home

NEW TECHNOLOGIES AND DIGITAL TRANSITION, THE TECHNOCRATIC ILLUSION IN THE LIGHT OF THE 5G

PREAMBLE

The multiple signals that nature sends us as well as the general state of life and the Earth that hosts it indicate that we are in a period characterized by an unprecedented risk of extinction of the human species. The evidence is before our eyes: we are living through the sixth species extinction crisis and the first one caused by man, the previous one having been characterized by a massive extinction of animal and plant life, notably the dinosaurs, 66 million years ago.

 » A higher increase [de 2°C de la température moyenne] would entail the risk of catastrophic climate change leading most certainly to irreversible « points of no return », caused by phenomena such as the melting of the Greenland ice cap, the release of methane stored in the Arctic permafrost or the dieback of the Amazon rainforest[note] ». However, all studies show that we will exceed 2°C.  » It is very likely that the increase will be in the order of 4°C — and it is not excluded that it will reach 6°C. A rise of 4 to 6°C in global temperature would be dramatic. It would lead to a climate change out of control, capable of tipping the planet into a radically different state. The Earth would become a hell[note] ».  » The figures show that even rapid and sustained global action is unlikely to prevent the Earth’s temperature from rising by at least 3°C. The melting of the Greenland ice will lead to a rise in sea level of about 7 meters, dramatically redrawing the geography of the planet[note] ». The coral reef will soon be a distant memory, desertification is gaining ground everywhere, every day hundreds of hectares are deforested, species disappear forever.

At the social level, everything is the same, never has misery been so widespread: here, in the North, in the homes that survive or in our streets, with the homeless. Further afield, in countries that interest us only because they contain raw materials that allow the continuity of our  » non-negotiable  » lifestyles.

THE RUSH TO GET AHEAD WHEN THERE IS AN EMERGENCY

Either, we know these figures, facts and media images that end up eroding our morale. But while this knowledge should enjoin us to do everything to stop playing the game, turning off our TVs and recreating agoras everywhere to think about the future, in the context of a state of ecological emergency, the technocrats assure us the  » change in continuity « , promising the energy transition and the digital revolution, which are supposed to free us from the burden of work and ensure better communication between people. As Clive Hamilton explains,  » The world’s best climate scientists are now raising the alarm to a deafening level, because the deadline for action has almost expired, and yet it is as if the signal is inaudible to the human ear[note].

One of the miracles of this « transition » would be the 5G, a technology coming after the 4G and which will allow to reach speeds in term of mobile telecommunication of several gigabits of data per second. And like the wind, the rain and the tides, there will be no question of questioning it, except in the usual form of the show where everything is already written but where we are made to believe in the possibilities of influencing the plot of the story: the option of refusal not being foreseen, we will therefore do everything to make you feel that you want it. In September 2018, Qualcomm, an American company active in the field of mobile technology (turnover $25.3 billion[note]), did it not display the following message in Tout-Bruxelles, on the supports owned by the company JCDecaux:  » 5G will create many jobs. And our job is to create 5G « . From then on, there is no need for real contradictory debates. Telephone operators, politicians, media, committee set up by the Brussels Minister of the Environment, all are committed to 5G, some with doubts, others with confidence, but all convinced of what must be achieved. Our national channel, the RTBF, infatuated with the belief that  » you can’t stop progress « , illustrates under the argument of necessity the history that writes itself:  » But there is a timing to be respected. The European Commission wants every member state (and this also applies to Belgium) to have 5G coverage in at least one city by 2020. And by 2025, all urban areas will have to have 5G coverage. Including major roads. We are really in the home stretch[note] », before the wall…

At this level, we have not yet said anything about 5G. In view of the risks of the disappearance of our civilization, one could say to oneself that it is undoubtedly something formidable, an antidote, in a way, which will allow us to get out of it. What will this innovation really bring to mankind? We are close to nothingness:  » With 5G, users should be able to download a high-definition movie in less than a second (a task that can take 10 minutes with 4G). And wireless engineers say these networks will also spur the development of other new technologies, such as autonomous vehicles, virtual reality and the Internet of Things[note] ».

In short, we should always measure novelty by George Orwell’s question:  » Does this make me more or less human? If we can show all that this technology will take away from man, it is impossible to say what it will bring him and how it will make him more human, that is to say, capable of living fully in harmony with nature, of being satisfied with the minimum, of grasping and understanding what he lives, of getting closer to others without seeking to have more. What’s human about downloading a movie in less than a second?

GROWTH, AGAIN AND AGAIN

The only leitmotiv, growth, means more and more products from the exploitation of the land and the people of the « South », coming by planes, trucks, supertankers:  » The association between economic growth and progress is so deeply rooted in thinking — whether progressive or conservative, it is defended so vigorously, that it can only be based on a banal empirical link between increased material consumption and increased happiness of a country[note] ». Didn’t Dominique Leroy, former CEO of the telephone operator Proximus (a public company listed on the stock exchange, with the State as the main shareholder), go in this direction already in 2015, when she was invited to Parliament for a  » At the « hearing on the future Proximus policy « , she will come back with this litany of « delay »:

 » Europe is currently lagging behind America and Asia in terms of technological developments and the level of investment in ICT. This decrease [of the growth in Europe’s digital revenues] is mainly due to overly strict legislation, which hinders innovation[note]. The argument is always the same: one compares oneself to the other and deduces that one must go faster[note]. Then, the causes of the delay are identified («  too strict standards  ») and pressure is applied (lobbying, media propaganda, distribution of various « benefits », setting up of committees endorsed by governments). In this process, economic necessity is the law:  » Although price levels are important, there is a need for continuous investment in the digital economy (…) Only by investing and innovating is it possible to generate growth .

Neither the common good nor the environment are ever invoked as higher principles[note]. And this is only logical, because one cannot ensure economic growth and the common good at the same time. The element that dominates everything is the principle of growth, and therefore profit:  » The deployment of 5G requires a densification of the network, which means that in concrete terms, additional antennas must be installed . We are no longer in the realm of proposals that will have to be weighed later in a democratic debate, but in that of order, where reality will only have to adapt:

 » Innovation, especially the Internet of things (IOF), including mobility and cybersecurity, will radically change the telecom landscape.  » The landscape is thought out, all that remains is to find the painters. However, it is necessary to persuade the subjects that the painters are busy only for them and constantly ensure the spectacle of the common good by resorting to the professionals of the communication:  » Proximus’ mission is to keep people permanently connected to the world so that they can live better and work smarter .

PREPARE THE SUBJECT

September 11, 2018:  » The strategic committee officially handed over the National Pact for Strategic Investments (NPSI) to Prime Minister Charles Michel on Tuesday, during a ceremony with great pomp and circumstance, held in the renovated Museum of Africa in Tervuren [note]a plan that weighs 150 billion projects by 2030[note]. This strategic plan is mainly based on investments that are essential if Belgium wants to  » take the digital high-speed train  » (sic). On the subject of the strategic committee, Charles Michel will speak of  » a panel of non-political experts  » who will make  » concrete proposals to the various governments of the country « . He plays the game of unity, where the common good would be expressed from the outset, overshadowing all the employers’ interests:  » When we talk about energy transition or mobility, we are talking to the 11 million Belgians « . Of course, it is for the good of all of us, but under no circumstances could we refuse it:  » New technologies, such as artificial intelligence and the Internet of Things, will radically change all facets of our lives and work, as well as society as a whole. The digital revolution is both a factor of disruption and an engine of growth for our economy[note] ». On the fact of  » to bring together private and public decision-makers « with of the budgets of the different entities of the country, with the approval of the parliaments and the private sector « , the son of Louis will not explain this brutal conversion of the private sector, suddenly oblivious of the return on investment, henceforth concerned only with the good of the  » 11 million Belgians « . An astonishing conversion, to say the least…[note]

Five sectors will benefit from this « Eldorado »: mobility, energy, education, telecoms and health. Your well-being as the measure of all things, the media-political-patronal complex will do everything to convince you of this, starting by presenting you with all that we would lose if it did not take place:  » Without it, it would be a loss of prosperity of the order of 50 billion € « . This will be « for the benefit of everyone, and first of all, of our citizens  » [note], Charles Michel repeats, if we had not understood him. These citizens, who have been fed media propaganda for years, on the  » competitive lag « ,  » the risk of losing billions and unprecedented personal advantages « , will be ready to accept this « innovation », no longer perceiving what is proposed to them — and it is even better if they ask for it — as what is imposed on them.

However, it is difficult to understand why, born of a desire for the common good, the strategic committee is composed solely of the business community: Michel Delbaere, who is the Chairman, is CEO of Crop’s (production and sale of vegetables, fruit and frozen meals) and former boss of Voka, but also, among other multiple functions, Chairman of Sioen Industries; Dominique Leroy, CEO of Proximus; Marc Raisière, CEO of Belfius; Michèle Sioen, CEO of Sioen Industries (world market leader in coated technical textiles and high-quality protective clothing), former president of the Federation of Enterprises in Belgium (FEB), Dutch-speaking manager of the year 2017, incidentally involved in Luxleak; Baron Jean Stéphenne, well established in academic and political circles, like his other acolytes, former vice-president and general manager of the pharmaceutical multinational GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals, but also chairman of the board of directors of Nanocyl, spin off of the universities of Liege and Namur, specialized in carbon nanotubes (batteries, cars, electronics…); Pieter Timmermans, administrator of the FEB. All these individuals know each other, they meet the political decision-makers to whom they transmit the employers’ interests, and the latter transform them into political decisions. They will be there to convince you, like the banker Marc Raisière, who will warn us:  » If we don’t make these investments, future generations will be the ones to suffer the consequences. »[note] All this  » is truly realistic  » for Dominique Leroy, who is excited by the values of equality and justice. So « realistic », that the report of the committee of experts on 5G set up by the Brussels Minister of the Environment will conclude:  » A major obstacle to new installations is the opposition of a certain part of the public. It is therefore necessary to continue to inform and educate the public in an objective manner, and to dispassionate the debate as much as possible « . The members of the committee, who are supposed to make an impartial report aimed at protecting the population, will recommend  » de-fragmenting the debate « , to reduce  » the opposition of a certain part of the public  » and to remove  » the brake on new installations « . The solution is to educate and inform us. We count on them.

WHO BENEFITS FROM THE CRIME?

If the public interest of technological innovations is never really questioned among those who have the responsibility to implement them, it is because the answers to these questions would reveal that, beyond the questions of health, equality or environment, the initiative of these projects emanates from minorities who will share the benefits alone: captains of industry and bosses of public enterprises, whose economic choices are put in place by zealous political servants who will derive from them, and sometimes their relatives, one day or another, a legal or hidden, but always illegitimate and indecent, advantage.

So who benefits from the deployment of technologies like 5G? Beyond all the technical considerations that are sold to us as progress, the real objective remains the lure of profit. Without it, there is a high probability that no one would have heard of 5G, no scientific research would have been launched, no advertisements to « prepare » the subject. It is therefore obvious that those who hope to get richer will not advocate the precautionary principle, because they know that the environmental, social and health risks would be in contradiction with the best interests of finance. Those who will reap the benefits can count on the entire political class, including the Ecolo party:  » Recognizing that the cult of growth was an immovable obstacle to climate action, environmentalists quickly capitulated and now claim that you can have the best of both worlds, namely both a healthy atmosphere and solid economic growth, and that in fact promoting renewable energy to replace fossil fuels could accelerate economic growth[note] ». The alliances between liberals and ecologists in the last Belgian municipal elections support this observation. Indeed, there is no longer a green office without its energy transition manager or its digital advisor. And for those aware that the transition is a chimera but that it serves temporarily to ensure the growth of their capital, they will take care to protect themselves from the objects they promote for others, as the bosses of Silicon Valley put their children in Waldorf schools without screens or tablets. The 5G zealots will thus live in areas decontaminated from waves. Thinking about the foundations of all creation thus makes one lucid and avoids, at first, talking about the environment, health, common goods… It is enough to verify if the religion of growth was primordial from the start. If this can be demonstrated, the conclusion is self-evident: the desire for economic growth in a capitalist society where enrichment is based on a process of exploitation is never in harmony with respect for nature, social justice, the common good and the interests of all. The spirit of profit always benefits only a minority and cannot be reconciled with a concern for life. The following illustrates the true interests of 5G.

CREDIT FOR THE « SCIENCE

In Belgium, operators (Proximus, Orange, Telenet) and their shareholders « must » be able to rely on technological deployment; they therefore necessarily need the state to relax « overly strict standards » and subsequently ensure the implementation of the necessary infrastructure throughout the country. But this cannot be done, as has been shown, without feigning the parliamentary democratic process; preparing the population (selling them the product before it is there), but also bringing the credit of science by using scientific experts. The Brussels Minister of Housing, Quality of Life, Environment and Energy, Céline Frémault, will therefore set up a committee of « independent » experts in 2015.

But let’s take a look at the telecom operators, in particular Proximus, a « public » company listed on the stock exchange. Since January 2014, Dominique Leroy has been its managing director and chair of its executive committee. We know that the major parties share the directorships of the most important public companies: the National Lottery, the SNCB, Proximus, Vivaqua, not to mention the intermunicipal companies (Publifin is a perfect example). The former federal deputy and man of many hats Stefaan De Clerck is now at Proximus. Why should he find it excessive to receive €270,000 in parliamentary allowances when he leaves parliament for Belgacom[note]? Wasn’t it Proximus that recently posted  » Make way for unlimited  » everywhere?

Still on the Board of Directors are: Karel De Gucht, Pierre Demuelenaere, Guido J.M. Demuynck, Martin De Prycker, Laurent Levaux, Tanuja Randery, Agnès Touraine, Catherine Vandenborre, Luc Van den Hove, Paul Van de Perre, Martine Durez and Isabelle Santens

Those who will make the decisions that will have a lasting impact on society and nature are technophiles linked to multinationals, investment funds, universities, banks and public companies. Leroy and De Clerck will present their strategic vision to an audience of enthusiastic parliamentarians. These directors, chosen by the Council of Ministers, will decide on the orientations of Proximus with the main aim of not harming the shareholders. Thus, it is the Board of Directors that will decide on the dismissal of 2,000 employees, while Minister Charles Michel will pretend to be surprised, having placed his cronies in the telecom operator’s lair, following the example of the other « big » parties. Indeed, with the indispensable support of the media, it is necessary to simulate astonishment in order to give the impression that all this is not carefully thought out and strategically organized by a political-financial elite that aims at the same objectives. The show, always[note].

In short, did you see anyone on the Proximus board who could introduce even an ounce of doubt about the relevance of deploying 5G in Belgium? Isn’t there a clear conflict of interest, given that Proximus remains a public company? How to ensure the common good and care about the precautionary principle when these technocrats receive huge emoluments, up to 1.55 million €?[note]

THE EXPERT COMMITTEE: THE RETURN OF IMPARTIALITY?

Faced with this display of indecency, the use of scientific expertise was going to help in the decision. But this was without counting that we were again dealing with convinced before their time… It was on June 19, 2015 that the Brussels government, on the proposal of the cabinet of Minister Frémault, approved the composition of the committee of experts on non-ionizing radiation. Although the committee is made up of nine members from various fields (medical, scientific, economic and technological) [note], this diversity obscures the reality of a committee that is globally committed to the technological cause, with some working in a sector that promotes 5G, and others being directly linked to the operators that finance them. This temporary group, assigned the task of evaluating  » the impact on health of GSM antennas on a continuous basis « , was going to have to decide on the health protection standards for the inhabitants of Brussels as well.

THE COMPOSITION OF THE COMMITTEE

1. THREE MEMBERS WITH SCIENTIFIC EXPERTISE ON THE HEALTH AND/OR ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF NON-IONIZING RADIATION:

Isabelle Lagroye is French and a member of ICNIRP, which describes itself as an  » independent scientific commission to promote protection against non-ionizing radiation (NIR) for the benefit of the public and the environment[note] ». Nice declaration of intent, but it would not have been difficult for the Brussels Parliament and Government to discover his past conflicts of interest. Lagroye finances his research with money from France Telecom, Alcatel and Bouygues Telecom[note], and also carries out studies financed by EDF. It is also a member of the French Society for Radiation Protection (SFRP),  » whose benefactors include Areva, GDF-Suez, IRSN  » [note].

Luc Verschaeve who, under the tab « Independence and scientific integrity », notes without humor:  » In scientific research, it is important to fight fraud and avoid conflicts of interest. This is especially important when the research is funded by industry (sic). The best way to guarantee the quality of research and the integrity of researchers, even under performance pressure (sic), is to maintain an optimal research culture in which the observance of a strict ethical code is paramount . And what better way to counter this risk of biased scientific research than to comply with the  » code of ethics for scientific research in Belgium  » and to ensure that  » researchers who participate in the activities of the BBEMG commit themselves to observe complete scientific honesty « . The lobbies are trembling. Here we are reassured on the impartiality of BBEMG’s research,  » the collaboration with Elia cannot exert any influence (…), theagreement clearly states that the researchers benefit at all times from a complete scientific freedom and that they are totally responsible for the results of their research[note]. « Elia, Belgium’s transmission system operator, certainly welcomes this code of ethics, as it certainly puts the health and well-being of the population before its financial interests. Finally, this is perhaps not the opinion of the residents of Woluwé-Saint-Lambert who were mobilized against the dangers of electromagnetic emissions set up by Elia. In particular, they reproached the municipality for having accepted the holding of an information meeting where Elia presented Mr. Verschaeve as an  » independent expert « , whereas they saw him as  » the umpteenth warning protester who appears in the media or at conferences in order to discredit the health warnings on radiation[note] ».

Jacques Van Der Straeten does not seem to be the subject of such conflicts of interest. This doctor, however, adopts the « intermediate » position, typical of the « false troublemaker » expert who, faced with the forward march of « inescapable » progress, advocates individual prudence, typical of our liberal societies: on the one hand, total laissez-faire to the multinationals that produce harmful objects, and on the other hand, individual choice of whether or not to protect oneself (insofar as one is able to do so) from this harmfulness. This is the model of the cigarette pack and the morbid photos that accompany it, of this paradoxical double message in which we are sold poison while being invited to protect ourselves from it, a model that expresses the relationship of a State that no longer has a grip on social functioning, only there to guarantee a context that is conducive to investment and to add a few touches of palliative regulation to ward off the most visible effects and prevent total chaos that would contravene the interests of capital. We let it happen, then we’ll see:  » Since the use of GSM is currently widespread, an alternative to case-control studies is the analysis of the evolution over time of the prevalence of brain tumors[note] ». This is called  » taking people for guinea pigs[note] ».

2. TWO MEMBERS WITH SCIENTIFIC EXPERTISE IN NON-IONIZING RADIATION PROPERTIES:

Yves Rolain, chairman of the committee set up by Frémault, is a member of the IEEE, whose  » main objective is to promote excellence and technological innovation for the benefit of humanity « . The table of directors alone gives an idea of the motivations of those at the head of the organization[note]. The IEEE has organized its 2nd 5G Forum in 2019, which aims to  » lead industry, academic and research experts to exchange their visions as well as their advances on 5G . » It is titled:  » Be a part of the Global Collaboration Creating 5G for the Benefit of Society[note] ». The mass is said, the information on 5G included on the site looks more like a marketing offer than the results of an « independent research ». Rolain will receive an IEEE award in 2004, 2010, 2011, and 2012, nothing to do with his integrity…

Véronique Beauvois, civil electrical engineer at the ULiège, is also part of the BBEMG whose funder is Elia. She works at the Montefiore Institute, which is linked to a set of spin-off companies and defines itself as  » a new company created from a research laboratory whose objective is to commercially develop a research result (a technology). To do this, the company spin-off is in principle linked to the university through a license agreement that establishes the conditions for the transfer of the technology from the laboratory to the company[note]. It’s hard to be more clear.

These include:

The Association of Engineers of Montefiore (AIM), where the University of Liège (ULiège) rubs shoulders with sponsors such as Engie Electrabel, Lampiris, Euresis, Schneider Electric[note], Siemens, Sonaca, Tractebel ;Ampacimon, which works on all continents to optimize the network, where we find as partners Elia, Alstom, Pôle Mecatech, Cigré, etc. ;Taipro, designer of microsystems, with partners such as Technord, Guardis, Biion, Safran ;Blacklight Analytics, which links IT skills to energy systems, working in particular in the area of artificial intelligence.
There is no need to describe the other four  » university spin-off industries « , once we understand that research serves industry, which in turn rewards university researchers. This pool of academic, industrial and political actors who are active in the field of high technology constitutes an indispensable guarantee for our governments. Health, as well as nature, are never of any importance in the face of economic imperatives.

3. TWO MEMBERS WITH SCIENTIFIC EXPERTISE ON MICRO AND MACROECONOMIC AND SOCIAL NEEDS IN MOBILE TELECOMMUNICATIONS:

We are here in the supra-social domain, the one where, after having received the experts’ reports, the political relays,  » for the well-being of the population « , can act.

Laura Rebreanu, a member of the Chamber of Commerce and the Brussels Business Union, does not hide her enthusiasm for technology as an indispensable tool for the energy transition:  » To limit global warming to less than 2°C, the transition to a « low-carbon » society, limiting CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions, will have to be rapid and global. Smart meters are essential to achieve this[note]. « If we had known, as early as 1972 with the Meadows Report, that the solution was there, in front of us, in the communicating meters!  » Resilient enterprise « ,  » stop waste « ,  » sustainable « ,  » urban mobility « ,  » co-creation « , the employer representative has adopted the novlanguage that ensures this « change in continuity « . Another particularity of this approach is that it is always about encouraging new technologies and good individual habits, while taking care not to challenge the largest companies.

Walter Hecq, professor at the Solvay Brussels School of Economics and Management, 75 years old, has been a member of all committees for decades.

4. TWO MEMBERS WITH SCIENTIFIC EXPERTISE IN WIRELESS COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES:

Sophie Pollin did her PhD at the Institute of Microelectronics and Components. After Berkeley, she joined the « wireless group » at Imec in Leuven, where she has been an assistant professor since 2012. In her CV available on the Imec website, she writes:  » The Internet of Things promises more and more devices to connect. So we need solutions that fit perfectly with the density of nodes, that are intelligent, self-learning, heterogeneous. The complex field of wireless includes swarm networks, LTE cellular networks as well as future airborne mobile sensor networks. Many interesting challenges and opportunities combined! [note] ». Let’s remember that Pollin is supposed to  » evaluate the effects of electromagnetic waves « , especially in terms of health, while she is an employee of a company whose leitmotiv is:  » The power of technology should not be underestimated. Technology has the power to improve lives. That’s why we push the limits of technology[note] ».

David Erzeel works for the Belgian Institute of Postal Services and Telecommunications (BIPT), which regulates both of these matters, and issued a press release on March 24, 2017, that boasted  » extended Broadband Belgium’s rights of use in the 3.5 GHz frequency band by five years (…) to introduce 5G mobile technology in Europe « . No wonder then that  » BIPT should promote the introduction of 5G in Belgium. It is indeed about the interest of the consumer and the functioning of the internal market for electronic communications[note] ». The former president of BIPT, Luc Hindryckx, has become a lobbyist at ECTA (European Competitive Telecommunications Association), an organization associated with many operators. This is not an exception, as former BIPT leaders frequently borrowed the revolving doors between public and private (Belgacom, France Telecom, Orange, etc.).

What can we say to these altruistic beings who do everything possible to ensure our future, except  » thank you « ?

SCIENCE, THE SPEARHEAD OF CAPITALISM

Science and its university temples have dedicated part of their activities to technological development, essential for profits and participating in the plundering of the planet. Among all the examples, Proximus, ULB and VUB signed in Beijing in June 2015  » a technology agreement with Huawei « , which « will provide the 5G infrastructure for the ‘campus of the future’ in Brussels[note] ». If it does not even seem contradictory to associate an operator and a multinational company with supposedly independent universities, it is because the latter are no longer independent at all. In France, an example among others, the IMS, laboratory of the integration of the material to the system attached to the CNRS,  » is working to develop this « miracle » chip that should eventually fit on the head of a pin. A creation that is only made possible, however, thanks to a partnership between an IMS laboratory and microchip giant STMicroelectronics[note] ». It doesn’t matter that it takes  » about 72 liters of water to produce one of these small chips that power laptops, GPS, phones, iPads, TVs, cameras, microwaves and cars. In 2012, probably nearly 3 billion chips were produced. This represents nearly 200 billion liters of water. For semiconductor chips[note] ».

The wish of Céline Frémault is therefore pious when she delegates to her committee the task of evaluating electromagnetic waves  » with regard to the evolution of technologies and scientific knowledge, economic and public health imperatives « . It is a pure aporia to put « economic imperatives » and health issues in the same sentence: there is no health when competitiveness and growth are introduced. It was not the Frémault committee’s evaluation that would determine whether or not 5G would be deployed, but the decision already taken by the multinationals to do so, supported by the political elites, that would determine the position of a scientific panel endorsing what should be endorsed. In short, Frémault, like the others, is an executor. Technocracy thus dictates its choices to politicians, who cannot accept them without feigning the democratic process by means of a committee of experts in order to give the illusion of an impartial decision, experts who are already committed to the cause.

As early as 2010, the European Commission set its objectives in the « 2010 Digital Plan », which will lead to the definition of « the Digital Plan » in 2016. an action plan for 5G in Europe « , shamelessly titling its first paragraph « thehe rapid deployment of 5G: a strategic opportunity for Europe « . It also states that already  » in 2013[note], the Commission launched a public-private partnership (PPP-5G) with €700 million in public funding, with the aim of ensuring the availability of 5G technology in Europe by 2020. However, research efforts alone will not be enough to ensure Europe’s leadership in 5G. Broader action is needed to make 5G and its services a reality, including the emergence of a European ‘home market’ for 5G. » It was therefore already clear that no public debate could take place and that no opposition could be heard. While the press praises the « undeniable advantages of 5G « , without ever expressing the slightest doubt, the political negotiations are done in discretion. Is this surprising when we know that the media belong to large financial groups that have multiple interests, especially in new technologies? Other authorities, however, point out the danger. In its resolution 1815 dated 2011, the European Parliament states in point 6:  » Waiting for sound scientific and clinical evidence before intervening to prevent well-known risks can result in very high health and economic costs, as in the case of asbestos, leaded gasoline or tobacco . » Nothing will do, the thing being economically too important. In a situation of deep crisis and metamorphosis of the capitalist system, the only possibility to ensure its sustainability is to rush forward technologically. As a result, the « green » speeches and arguments in terms of social progress of decision-makers (politicians and employers alike) hide the windfall that technological transition represents.

FREMAULT COMMITTEE: CITING WORRISOME RESULTS TO BETTER SWEEP THEM AWAY

The report of the Fremault Committee illustrates this reality, where doubt only benefits the beneficiaries of the « economic imperative », offering an anthology of assertions/counter-assertions, where on the one hand they cite the « worrying » results of scientific research, to better evacuate them on the other:

-  » This decision was taken by the majority of experts concerned, based on several studies showing an increased risk of glioma in cell phone users. There is no certainty, however, and recent studies tend to show that the link between exposure and gliomas is decreasing rather than increasing.

- For the time being, however, it is too early to make a definitive statement, given that many cancers take years to appear and that cell phone use is still too recent at this stage (sic). There is even less evidence for brain tumors or other head and neck cancers… The only study (sic) that looked at cell phones and brain tumors in children and adolescents showed no effect.

- Studies of potentially genetic effects (which may be indirectly related to cancer) have not shown clear effects. Alarming effects have been reported, but only in studies whose quality may be questionable. There is also insufficient evidence for other potential effects that may be related to cancer to some extent.

- Immunological effects have been observed, but to date, the biological relevance of these observations is unclear.

- Because we hold our cell phones to our heads, there is concern that the radiation reaching the skull may have harmful effects on the brain (not just cancer). There are indications of effects on brain activity, sleep, learning or memory but the effects are limited and for the moment it is not certain that they have a real impact on health (…) but the results are not consistent and probably have no functional significance. This is also the case for children, where questionable results have been recorded. No disruption of the thermoregulatory mechanism has been demonstrated in adults or children. Nevertheless, further research is needed.

- Several critical evaluations of these studies come to the same conclusion, namely that a disruption of the blood-brain barrier by (among other things) cell phone frequencies is possible, but only when the intensity of the exposure is high and thermal effects occur. No disruption of the blood-brain barrier is observed with « normal » use (sic) ofmobile communication devices and therefore « normal » exposure. Laboratory experiments have not revealed any neurological disorders such as Alzheimer’s disease, contrary to what some people claim. On the contrary, some studies on the subject show a protective effect (sic).

- Studies have found effects on reproduction and development. However, no serious effects were observed at the exposure levels of interest. No significant effect could be observed in mice that were permanently exposed to radiation from wireless communication systems over four generations. It is unlikely that there would be any effects on the fetus of mothers exposed during pregnancy because of the extremely low levels of exposure. There is no serious indication of effects on sperm quality.

- Some non-specific symptoms, such as headaches, fatigue, dizziness and others are sometimes attributed to exposure to radio frequencies. It is thus mentioned « electromagnetic hypersensitivity ». Previous studies (sic)The results of these studies, which have been supplemented by more recent studies, lead to the conclusion that there is no evidence that exposure to electromagnetic fields from cell phones, for example, has a causal link with these symptoms. On the contrary, there are indications of a « nocebo » effect « .

Concluding that, despite numerous studies, « the question ‘Is exposure to electromagnetic fields from wireless communication systems harmful to health’ cannot be answered clearly with ‘yes’ or ‘no ‚’  » the decision to deploy 5G seems to be a foregone conclusion. They are also preparing for the future, anticipating the future demands of the telecommunications industry, which will obviously move towards ever greater  » Relaxation of standards « :  » It should be noted that the proposed exposure limit does not mean that real risks are to be expected above this limit. « As in the case of nuclear energy, there is no risk when economic interests take precedence, even if we talk about situations we do not know about[note]. For the committee,  » there is no real scientific basis for such a strict standard. The goal has always been for the government to take into account not only the recommended values but also other considerations (e.g. economic) (sic), and therefore sets standards indicating the limit between acceptable and unacceptable levels of exposure (…) In view of current scientific knowledge, this relaxed standard does not seem unfair « .

The committee, which should rule on health risks, instead relies on a reality created by industrialists and advertisers, to warn of the inadequacy of infrastructure in the future:  » The growing use of smartphones and tablets is contributing to the increase in mobile data traffic (« data » in the broadest sense), and therefore increasing the pressure on existing infrastructure, which is increasingly at risk of being under-capacity . » Pointing out that  » the three drivers of growth  » are mobile data traffic, the introduction of tablets, laptops, smartphones and increasingly varied applications, the committee concludes that  » This evolution implies continuous upgrades of existing infrastructures and requires investments from the operators. 4G with « LTE capable » antennas are multi-band and operate in multi-frequency (…) is driving the global market and is worth $4 billion in 2015 (ABI Research, 2015). It prefigures the arrival of 5G in 2020 with LTE‑B antennas « .

Did you say « committee of experts », many of whom are from the scientific world? Basically, they do the opposite of what we expect from scientists: they start from generalized behaviors (the massive use of mobile technologies) to conclude that they are a sign of society’s well-being[note]This is a generalization of the fact that a massive use is from the outset the proof of harmlessness (asbestos offering, at another level, a good counter-example). The committee raises the usual argument that no precautions should be taken in the deployment of new technologies because  » This would greatly slow down the development of the « smart city », which aims to improve the quality of life of city populations while contributing to a more efficient use of resources . The rest is the same, where it is explained that  » Economic studies show that each € invested in broadband networks (fixed and mobile) generates €3 of GDP, and €1.5 of tax and social security revenues « , and that « it is not a matter of a single dollar. It is therefore necessary to simplify the legislation and to reduce as much as possible the administrative steps and requirements « . For those who do not understand:  » The digital transition desired by the Brussels Government cannot be achieved without a favorable legal, fiscal and administrative framework « . Here, in every respect corresponding to  » the regional policy statement (20 July 2014) « , which said it wanted to  » make Brussels a digital capital « ?

At the end of the report, the committee’s suggestions are astounding. About the IBGE website, the committee will say:  » In order to avoid a climate of distrust of all radiation, it is important to communicate clearly. The committee believes that the website can play an important role in this regard. The committee feels that the website deserves a higher profile « .

He adds,  » Wave propagation is an abstract matter. Electromagnetic waves have the disadvantage of not being observable by our senses, which makes the general public receptive to both information and misinformation. Information sources related to the Region are sometimes perceived as biased by the public and are therefore not valued. The committee believes that there is a need for scientifically correct but popularized communication, which are (sic) impartial and whose impartiality is also recognized by the general public. Suggestion: Provide an independent and honest channel of information for this technical subject « .

When you know where they are talking from, it’s pure cynicism.

AN UNWORKABLE MODEL

« Based on the data we currently have, the technology solution is anything but likely[note] »

This model is bound to run up against the limits of the planet one day, and remains unfeasible, even if those who want to implement it will push extractivism to the limit, reviving mining activity in countries that had massively abandoned it, such as France. The reality of the finiteness of natural resources in particular, such as that of rare metals essential to new technologies, makes it necessary to recall a few facts.

In the myth of the energy transition, everything starts with the mastery of rare metals, as before with coal and then oil:  » Like demiurges, we have multiplied its uses in two areas that are essential pillars of the energy transition: technologies that we have called « green » and digital technology[note] ». If the beginnings of the energy transition go back to the 1980s in Germany, it is in 2015 that the great coalition of 195 States was made, at the time of the COP21, leading to the Paris Agreement where the States expect to counter climate change and contain warming below two degrees[note] by substituting green energy for fossil fuels. In his book, the result of a six-year investigation, Guillaume Pitron imagines a wise man, an imaginary figure, who would go to the podium of the COP21 and say these words:  » This transition is going to put at risk entire sectors of your economy, the most strategic ones. It will precipitate into distress hordes of redundant workers who will soon provoke social unrest and repudiate your democratic gains (…) The energy and digital transition will devastate the environment in unprecedented proportions. In the end, your efforts and the toll on the Earth to build this new civilization are so great that it is not even certain that you will succeed « , concluding,  » your power has blinded you to such an extent that you no longer know the humility of the sailor at the sight of the ocean, nor that of the mountaineer at the foot of the mountain. But the elements will always have the last word![note] ». Pitron underlines the most crucial questions, which none of the delegations present asked themselves:  » How are we going to get these rare metals without which this treaty is useless? Will there be winners and losers in the new rare metals game, as there were once with coal and oil? At what cost to our economies, people and the environment will we manage to secure the supply[note] ».

The author underlines the new dependence that we will create for ourselves, even more dramatic than the previous one:  » By wanting to emancipate ourselves from fossil fuels, by switching from an old order to a new world, we are in fact sinking into a new, even stronger dependence (…) We thought we were freeing ourselves from the shortages, tensions and crises created by our appetite for oil and coal; we are in the process of substituting them with a new world of shortages, tensions and new crises[note] ».

Moreover, there is the essential question of « clean here » based on « dirty there »: in graphite mines (a mining resource used in the manufacture of electric cars),  » Men and women, noses and mouths covered with simple masks, work in an atmosphere saturated with blackened particles and acid fumes. It’s hell[note] ».  » This overview of the environmental impacts of rare metal extraction forces us, all of a sudden, to take a much more skeptical look at the manufacturing process of green technologies. Even before they are put into service, a solar panel, a wind turbine, an electric car or a low-energy lamp bear the original sin of their deplorable energy and environmental balance. We need to measure the ecological cost of the entire life cycle of greentech — a cost that has been precisely calculated[note] ».

On the question of the impossibility of achieving this transition without massive consumption of energy and raw materials («  coal, oil, gas and nuclear power plants, wind farms, solar farms and smart grids — all infrastructure for which we will need rare metals  »), Pitron has made multiple attempts to contact Jeremy Rifkin, theorist of the 3rd industrial revolution and lauder of the energy transition, without success. And his explanation for this leak offers a general explanation for the massive blindness and delusion of greentech : the energy and digital transition has been thought out of the ground. Whatever its applications, each of them indeed  » proceeds first of all much more prosaically from a crater cut in the ground (…) Basically, we do not solve at all the challenge of the impact of the human activity on the ecosystems, we only move it[note] ».

TO ARTICULATE THE REFUSAL OF THE WORLD THAT IS BEING PREPARED FOR US AND THE FIGHT AGAINST INDECENT WEALTH

To place our hopes in politicians, to implore them to « make the right decisions », is to give them the power to impose their solutions by using the media tools they control and which they will use to make us believe that these solutions are the result of our demands and for our sole good. So is the digital transition, driven by multinationals and their servants. The 5G, symbol of this race ahead, promises us hell. It is the captains of industry, those who set up their letter-box companies in Luxembourg, the bankers and other agioteurs that the former Prime Minister Charles Michel had charged, in the name of the government, to think about a National Strategic Investment Pact, whose sponsors are none other than the bosses of Belfius, Proximus, Sioens Industries, the Federation of Enterprises in Belgium… who are the real architects of the  » prepare our country for the next decade . This will require them to  » make a series of urgent investments over the next few years. These investments will strengthen the economy, innovation and employment. We need this additional prosperity to continue to fund education, health care and social protection. Let’s all get to work to make this happen. Let’s build our future together. Because the future is ours! « . Certainly, it belongs to them alone, for the moment, who seek only one thing: to keep the power to revive growth in order to ensure their profits[note]. But it is the future of living species and nature, not that of an insatiable minority, imitated and supported by 10% of the population, that we are concerned about. And to ensure this future, it will inevitably be necessary to move away from the imperative of economic growth and dare to make radical changes. We know what to reject and what to reverse. Our survival is at this price.

Alexandre Penasse

For further reflection, read also, « We are at war with 5G, » https://www.kairospresse.be/article/62899/, and all the articles on the site, by typing in the search bar « 5G »

Read more "
Home

Impact of 5G deployment on energy consumption and climate

As predicted long ago by a few enlightened minds, for example by the geophysicist Marion King Hubbert who, as early as 1956, predicted the peak of US conventional oil extraction in 1970[note], the peak of world conventional oil was reached in 2008. Presumably, the peak of conventional and unconventional oil combined occurred in November 2018 at 84.6 million barrels per day[note].

In view of the predicted shortage, it would be good policy to consider that any technical innovation must be examined in terms of its energy impact and that the only acceptable ones should be those that would contribute to a reduction in the consumption of fossil fuels.

The emergence of each new generation of mobile telephony (2G, 3G and 4G) has inevitably been followed by a sharp increase in data flows and, consequently, in wireless network power consumption. There is no reason to believe that 5G will be any different; on the contrary, as with previous generations, the search for better performance in terms of throughput and capacity will lead to a new explosion in data traffic that will wipe out the benefits of any possible improvements in energy efficiency: this is the consequence of the rebound effect or Jevons paradox, named after the economist who stated it in the nineteenth century[note]. Assuming 5G is more energy efficient than previous generations, which is promised but not proven, the rebound effect will negate its unlikely benefit.

In fact, a 5G antenna site consumes 3 to 3.5 times more electricity than the equivalent in 4G according to a Huawei document[note], which is also confirmed by Chinese operators precursors in this field[note]. On the other hand, given the use of millimeter waves by 5G — waves that are strongly attenuated by the slightest obstacle such as tree leaves and rain — the deployment of 5G requires a multiplication of antennas, up to one antenna every 100 meters in urban areas, per operator. With antennas alone accounting for more than half of the operators’ power consumption, the rollout of 5G will triple their power consumption.

According to Hugues Ferreboeuf and Jean-Marc Jancovici, engineers and experts in energy transition, the impact of 5G antennas will therefore represent a 2% increase in the overall electricity consumption of a country like France (or Belgium). They state,  » To this must be added the energy needed to manufacture the network elements, and especially to produce the billions of terminals and connected objects that we wish to link via this network (worldwide, the energy needed to manufacture terminals, servers and network elements represents 3 times the energy needed to operate the networks, excluding data centers). While an increase in the duration of use of smartphones would be central to reducing their carbon footprint, the advent of 5G would accelerate their replacement, to the delight of equipment manufacturers « [note].

The 2% increase in a country’s electricity consumption linked to 5G antennas is therefore only the tip of an iceberg that is mainly made up of the energy required for all the industrial processes linked to the deployment of this technology, first and foremost the manufacture of terminals (smartphones, tablets, laptops, etc.) that are still and always promised to be rapidly obsolescent.

Deploying 5G would therefore contribute to waste ever faster this limited resource that is oil, which will thus be greatly and cruelly missed by future generations to ensure a transition to a sustainable and decent society.

CLIMATE

5G is promoted by the telecom industry as a major technical innovation with multiple qualities[note] which would even contribute to the fight against global warming: according to Agoria[note], in its 2019 brochure, 5G, IoT (internet of things) and  » The massive use of connected objects will improve energy and environmental management, thus contributing to the achievement of European climate objectives .

Yet wireless data transmission is inherently energy inefficient: for example, 4G is about 20 times more energy intensive than wired transmission (fiber optics or copper cable)[note]. It currently accounts for a significant portion of the 4% of greenhouse gases emitted worldwide by the digital industry, whose energy consumption is growing strongly, at 9% per year[note]. The deployment of 5G would further accelerate this already deleterious trend.

At a time when worrying signals are multiplying, such as the accelerated melting of glaciers around the world and temperature records that are repeated year after year, and as the goal of containing global warming to 1.5 degrees, as set out in the COP21 agreement in Paris in 2015, becomes more and more remote, it has become imperative to limit the use of wireless, or even to outlaw it. Clearly, the deployment of 5G would go exactly against this imperative.[note]

Francis Leboutte

Read more "
Home

5G: the Brussels government in climate and health denial

At the end of July 2021, the Brussels government has agreed to raise the limit of protection against RF-EMF (radio frequency electromagnetic fields) from 6 V/m (0.1 W/m2)[note] at 14.5 V/m (0.56 W/m2) that is to say a multiplication by more than 5 of the impact that any inhabitant of the Region can undergo due to cell phone antennas and others. In doing so, it also opens the door to the deployment of 5G, while evacuating the deleterious consequences of this deployment, both in terms of public health and in terms of increased consumption of energy and non-renewable resources, and therefore GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions and aggravation of global warming. 

The IPCC, in its 6th report published on August 9[note]once again sounds the alarm:  » Human influence has unequivocally warmed the atmosphere, the ocean and the land. Each of the last four decades has been successively warmer than any decade since 1850. The concentration of CO₂ (carbon dioxide) in the atmosphere exceeds 410 ppm, a level not seen for two million years[note] « .

Titom

Temperatures will continue to rise and even faster: without radical measures to reduce CO₂ (carbon dioxide) and methane, the 1.5°C warming compared to the pre-industrial era will be reached almost 10 years earlier than expected, i.e. by 2030, while knowing that a 2°C rise in the global average temperature would be apocalyptic and that the current commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will lead us to a +3 degree trajectory before the end of the century. Climate change « is already producing many climate extremes in every region of the world ‚ » such as extreme heat waves, intense rainfall and flooding, droughts and hurricanes. In the next few years, our corner of Europe, where we largely underestimate our vulnerability to global warming, will experience more hot days at over 35°C, more drought in summer and more concentrated rainfall, especially in winter, and therefore more catastrophic and deadly floods, as we have just experienced in Belgium and Germany. The other regions of the world will not be left out, as shown by the recent succession of extreme weather events: violent rainfall followed by flooding in Moscow at the end of June, in India and China at the end of July, in Afghanistan, Nigeria, Panama, etc. mega-fires in Siberia (more than 10 million hectares reduced to ashes) and North America, but also in Greece (more than 100,000 hectares destroyed) and Turkey; record temperatures of more than 45°C in western Canada and India; record drought and water shortages in Iran, Angola, the United States and elsewhere. No one will be surprised that July was the warmest month (+ 1.54°C) since measurements began (142 years)[note].

Could it be that government members have not yet understood the relationship between energy consumption, greenhouse gas production and global warming, that there can be no radical reduction in our greenhouse gas emissions without an equivalent reduction in our energy consumption? Are they unaware that wireless data transmission is energy inefficient compared to fiber optic transmission, which should be the only technology promoted? Wouldn’t they know that the energy consumption associated with 5G deployment will result in a 2% increase in the country’s annual electricity consumption, to which must be added an even greater amount of energy for infrastructure and equipment?[note] Wouldn’t they have read the High Climate Council[note] that implementing 5G could equal nearly one percent of all our GHG emissions today? Finally, don’t they know that in order to stick to the scenario of limiting warming to 2°C, a lesser evil that is nevertheless extremely painful, we must reduce our GHG emissions by 2% per year, every year until 2050? 

This government has apparently not yet realized that any new project should be screened for climate impact, biodiversity and sustainability. Either he is not concerned at all about global warming and the preservation of the common good, or he is crassly ignorant, unworthy of those who are in charge of running a country. 

From a health point of view, by endorsing this increase in the protection standard, the Brussels government is pursuing the same laissez-faire policy that has been in place for the past ten years: in 2007, following the opinion of the Superior Council of Health, the limit was set at 3 V/m (0.024 W/m2), with the intention of reducing it afterwards, while the operators adapt. The opposite happened in 2013 when the limit was multiplied by 4 and increased to 6 V/m (0.1 W/m2), for the benefit of 4G and operators. Now, compared to the 2007 standard, the government is proposing to increase the limit by more than 20 times. 

This does not prevent the Minister of the Environment, Alain Maron, Ecolo (sic), from rejoicing (« Satisfied and optimistic politicians », headlined the newspaper La Libre of July 23, 2021), relying on the opinion of the deliberative commission, this process set up to give the illusion to 45 selected citizens that they could weigh in on political decisions when the only objective was to use them to endorse the deployment of 5G[note] :  » I have argued that 5G requires a calm debate with the public. I am pleased that this debate was able to take place in the deliberative commission, which brought together both citizens and politicians. It is clear from these recommendations that there is a desire to benefit from 5G while maintaining a protective standard and a framework for environmental consequences in terms of energy and waste « . Beyond all turpitude, the minister-president Rudi Vervoort (PS) is making a bidding war by declaring:  » And this, without compromising on the necessary protection of our fellow citizens, nor on that of the environment « .[note].

Let us recall here once again the limits recommended by independent scientific experts: the authors of the BioInitiative report[note] recommend a limit of about 5 μW/m2 (microwatt/m2 or 0.04 V/m) for the cumulative exposure of RF waves outside homes. The European Academy of Environmental Medicine (EUROPAEM) recommends 100 μW/m2 (0.2 V/m), but 10 times less during sleep and 100 times less for children (1 μW/m2, or 0.02 V/m). Thus, a limit of 100,000 to 500,000 times less than the one that Alain Maron will submit to the vote of the Brussels Parliament soon. It may seem low, but it is still a billion times higher than the intensity of natural EMF-RF[note]. Let’s also remember that about 5% of the population already suffers from electrohypersensitivity syndrome due to electromagnetic pollution and that this percentage and the suffering of these people will only increase with the increase of the protection limit. 

In September or October, when the law reducing the protection of citizens against EMF-RF and going in the exact opposite direction of what should be done to mitigate global warming will be submitted to the Parliament, will we see a salutary leap of faith from the Brussels MPs? 

Francis Leboutte, civil engineer

Read more "
Uncategorized

Press release from the European Greens

L’Union européenne oscille de l’obsession pour le climat au déni des autres dossiers écologiques. Un inquiétant recul vient d’avoir lieu sous nos yeux. Les pesticides sur notre continent ont encore de beaux jours devant eux, grâce aux forces politiques qui n’en démordent pas du dogme du Marché : ce seront les profits à l’infini, et tant pis pour la santé des populations à moyen et long terme. Anti-productivisme, plus que jamais!

Strasbourg, le 22 novembre 2023.

Règlement sur l’utilisation durable des produits phytopharmaceutiques (SUR). Le Parlement européen enterre la réglementation européenne sur les pesticides.

Aujourd’hui, les membres du Parlement européen ont rejeté le règlement sur l’utilisation durable des produits phytopharmaceutiques (SUR). Les députés du centre, de droite et d’extrême droite, encouragés par les lobbies des grandes industries agroalimentaires, ont réussi à affaiblir le texte dans des domaines cruciaux. En plus d’adopter des objectifs de réduction irresponsables, ils ont également supprimé la protection des jardins d’enfants, des écoles, des hôpitaux et des maisons de retraite dans les zones dites sensibles, ainsi que des règles contraignantes pour la lutte intégrée contre les parasites alors qu’il s’agit d’un outil capital pour la mise en œuvre de pratiques durables dans l’agriculture. En fin de compte, le texte n’était bon pour personne. Les membres du Parlement européen n’ont réussi à protéger ni notre santé ni notre planète.

Déclaration de Sarah Wiener, députée européenne du Groupe des Verts/ALE et rapporteur du Parlement européen pour le SUR : 

« Aujourd’hui, les membres du Parlement européen ne sont pas parvenus à trouver un accord sur la proposition de règlement sur les pesticides. C’est un coup dur pour la protection de l’environnement et de la santé publique. La majorité des députés européens ont fait prévaloir les profits des grandes entreprises agricoles au détriment de la santé de nos enfants et de la planète.   Les négociations sont en cours depuis des mois et nous avons réussi à obtenir un rapport solide au sein de la commission ENVI. Mais, relayant les intérêts du secteur agroalimentaire, les eurodéputés de droite et d’extrême droite, ainsi que certains membres de Renew et du S&D, ont voté pour un rapport en plénière terriblement affaibli. En particulier, en ce qui concerne la protection de la santé publique et de la biodiversité, ainsi que le soutien aux agriculteurs. L’objectif du SUR est de réduire de moitié l’utilisation des pesticides chimiques d’ici 2030. Mais, sans règles contraignantes pour la lutte intégrée contre les parasites et en l’absence de contrôle, ce n’est que de l’écoblanchiment. Ce n’était tout simplement pas un texte pour lequel nous pouvions voter en toute conscience. L’alliance entre l’extrême droite, les conservateurs et les libéraux a réussi à annihiler la position du Parlement en votant également contre le renvoi en commission. Cela signifie que les négociations en trilogue ne peuvent pas débuter et qu’il n’y aura tout simplement pas de nouveau règlement sur l’utilisation durable des pesticides.”

Guendalina de Sario, Conseillère Presse et Média BXL, Groupe des Verts/ALE  www.verts-ale.eu

Read more "
Home

School digitization, the Faustian/excellence pact

« Notre principal effort est de veiller à ce que tout le monde puisse suivre le rythme des changements et à ce que personne ne soit mis de côté lorsque les exigences du travail changent.[note] »Olaf Scholtz, chancelier de la République Fédérale d’Allemagne.

Illustration : Barbara Lemarchal

La numérisation de l’École serait-elle devenue un marronnier ? C’est en tout cas un thème que votre serviteur[note] a abordé plusieurs fois depuis une douzaine d’années[note] en lanceur d’alerte, jusqu’à présent en vain. Car la Fédération Wallonie-Bruxelles n’est pas la Suède. Au printemps dernier, celle-ci a décidé de faire marche arrière — normal, avec un gouvernement de centre-droit, entends-je déjà — en enlevant les écrans et en réintroduisant les manuels scolaires. Il se fait que les derniers tests PISA ne donnaient pas une image très glorieuse du niveau des élèves suédois… L’exemple de politiques reconnaissant leur erreur fera-t-il tache d’huile ? On ne peut que l’espérer. Dans nos contrées, nous n’y sommes pas encore, les zéla- teurs de l’École numérique sont toujours au taquet[note] ; à les écouter, là résideraient un destin et une vertu, celle de l’innovation, et même de la disruption. Pour l’institution scolaire, il s’agit toujours de « pré- parer les jeunes au monde qui les attend ». Mais quel monde ? Un cauchemar cybernétique répandant H24 un poison aussi intelligent qu’artificiel[note] ? Et « implémenté » par qui ? Le peuple souverain ? Quoiqu’il en soit, la perspective n’est pas très motivante… 

La citation ci-dessus relève à la fois de la langue de bois et de la realpolitik néolibérale à laquelle les dirigeants nous ont habitués depuis 4 décennies : marchez ou crevez, braves gens ! Ou dit plus gentiment : adaptez-vous[note]. Nous aurions envie de demander à Scholtz les précisions suivantes : 

1. Pourquoi tout le monde devrait-il suivre le rythme des changements ? 

2. De quels changements s’agit-il ?3. Tout changement est-il nécessairement un progrès, a fortiori dans le domaine technique ? 

4. Qui dicte les exigences du travail ? 

Répondons brièvement à sa place. 

La diversité régnant par définition dans le corps social, tout le monde n’est pas obligé de marcher au pas cadencé. Que ceux qui se pâment devant le « progrès technique » y aillent, grand bien (ou mal) leur fasse ; mais qu’ils fichent la paix aux autres. 

Des changements surtout technologiques, qui nous sont imposés à la fois d’en haut — UE, OCDE, WEF pour le volet institutionnel, GAFAM et clubs patronaux pour le volet commercial — et d’à côté — tous les agents (famille, amis, collègues) qui fonctionnent, se robotisent, oubliant qu’ils sont nés humains et qu’il convient donc de vivre en humain.

Bien sûr que non. Citons par exemple la bombe atomique, les mines anti-personnel, les pesticides, la nanotechnologie, les réseaux asociaux d’Internet, le QR-code, les « vaccins » à ARN messager, la 5G, la monnaie numérique, etc.

Les propriétaires des outils de travail, autrement dit, de nos jours, principalement les entreprises transnationales, dont les quatre volontés sont obligeamment relayées par les États et les médias dominants.

DANS LES LIVRES… 

Ceux qui ont quitté l’enseignement depuis 2019 — par pension, détachement professionnel ou démission — n’endurent plus la pression à la numérisation. S’ils ne sont pas définitivement dégoûtés, ils peuvent lire les chercheurs[note], universitaires ou non, qui décortiquent l’école numérique et l’addiction aux écrans, comme ces deux Québécois professeurs de philosophie, Eric Martin et Sébastien Mussi, auteurs de Bienvenue dans la machine. Enseigner à l’ère numérique (Écosociété, 2023), un essai philosophico-politique à mettre dans les mains de tout enseignant. On peut voir ces auteurs comme des représentants de ce que devrait être une authentique écologie politique, mâtinée de luddisme[note] et de décroissance. Ils enquêtent sur le cas du Québec à partir de chiffres assez comparables à ceux des pays européens. Ils constatent que « […] on branche, on arrime l’école sur le développement technico-économique et sur les systèmes autonomes qui ont pris le contrôle de notre monde[note] » et que « la nouvelle éducation ne sert plus à initier et à inviter les nouveaux venus à la société, à la culture, au monde commun qui lui préexistent ; bien au contraire, elle est mobilisée pour dissoudre le rapport à la société, à la culture locale aussi bien qu’universelle, au politique. Elle produit alors des individus déracinés, hors sol, avant de les repiquer au sein des réseaux informatique et des organisations multinationales du capitalisme globalisé[note] ». Bien que l’école en ligne, généralisée pendant la période covidienne, soit inefficace, les politiques de nos contrées persistent et signent ; l’apprentissage à travers les réseaux (networking) est un des chevaux de Troie de la marchandisation de l’école ; l’arrivée de l’intelligence artificielle (comme Chat GPT) signifie l’obsolescence prochaine des professeurs, dont le rôle se bornera à « tenir la main aux enfants qui devraient subir ce processus de dés-humanisation[note] » ; ajoutons‑y encore le remplacement du principe de précaution par le « principe d’irresponsabilité », l’extension du contrôle, le déni de démocratie, l’illusion d’une école « verte », le risque cognitif… Voici le règne des « bouffons cybernétiques » acteurs de ce « totalitarisme systémique » dont parlait le sociologue canadien Michel Freitag. Martin et Mussi exhortent à aller résolument à contre-courant de la tendance actuelle, car il s’agit ni plus ni moins de sauver l’École de l’assaut des machines de guerre du transhumanisme. 

ET SUR LE TERRAIN 

Après la théorie, il était temps d’aller aussi sur le terrain pour rencontrer un acteur qui a allumé des contre-feux pour tenir la bête informatique à distance. Dominique Verlinden est le directeur de l’école communale du centre, à Uccle. Depuis cette rentrée 2023, les compétences numériques font officiellement leur apparition dans l’enseignement primaire, à charge pour les instituteurs/trices de se former rapidement. Mais le directeur ne l’entend pas de cette oreille, ce qu’il avait déjà formulé dans Le Soir du 29 août : « En tant que président de l’Union des directeurs d’écoles communales (UDEC), je suis régulièrement appelé dans les médias. J’ai donc donné une interview dans Le Soir qui est tombée à pic. La journaliste ne venait pas spécialement chercher une contre-argumentation, mais c’est avec celle-ci qu’elle a conclu son article ! L’École devrait s’abstenir de renforcer l’attrait pour les écrans. Pourtant il y a encore, hélas, des établissements qui misent tout sur les machines numériques. À l’inauguration de l’un d’eux, à Bruxelles, j’avais vu un énorme écran avec lequel de jeunes enfants d’une section maternelle s’amusaient, en testant ses multiples possibilités tactiles. Cette mode m’inquiète, elle devient un argument commercial pour attirer les élèves : “Venez chez nous, nous proposons des tablettes et des tableaux blancs interactifs dans les classes !”. Mais pour faire quoi de mieux que ce qu’on fait déjà sans l’informatique ? La grande mode est aussi au codage. Des petites boîtes informatiques nous contactent, mais nous déclinons leur offre, comme la demande de certains parents d’intégrer des petits robots à l’apprentissage. Heureusement, la plupart d’entre eux sont de plus en plus sensibles aux arguments contre le numérique à l’école. Dans le cadre du Pacte d’excellence, tous les niveaux de l’enseignement obligatoire ont dû élaborer un “plan de pilotage”, qui est une analyse approfondie de leur situation et de leurs pratiques, également à partir de données chiffrées disponibles. L’état des lieux portait évidemment aussi sur le numérique, parmi 15 autres thématiques. Dans un second temps, les écoles ont fixé des objectifs d’amélioration, qui sont évidemment variables d’un établissement à l’autre. Bien qu’on y ait argumenté dans le sens de la plus grande méfiance à l’égard des écrans, le plan de pilotage a pourtant été bien reçu par les autorités, les délégués aux contrats d’objectifs et les directeurs de zones. Est-ce que l’argumentaire a été lu en profondeur ? Je ne sais pas… J’y ai fait un compte-rendu de ce qui existe dans notre école en matière de numérisation scolaire mais en parlant aussi d’autres priorités, comme celle de compenser le syndrome du “manque de nature” particulièrement présent en milieu urbain. J’affichais la couleur et citais de nombreuses références, dont les ouvrages de Michel Desmurget, La fabrique du crétin digital et Faites-les lire ![note] Je suis satisfait d’avoir intégré toutes ces remarques dans ce document officiel, validé par les instances communales et de la Fédération Wallonie-Bruxelles. C’est une petite victoire symbolique que je peux revendiquer pour résister quelque peu à d’éventuelles pressions à la numérisation. Elle a aussi une dimension politique, au sens noble du terme… Enseigner est en effet un acte politique : dans quelle société veut-on vivre ? » 

« J’ai pris conscience du problème de la numérisation de l’école progressivement, car on ne voyait pas les choses arriver directement. Remarquons que le numérique n’est pas seulement présent dans la classe, mais en dehors, dans la préparation des cours. Les enseignants communiquent entre eux sur des réseaux sociaux à propos de leurs pratiques, ce qui est en soi une bonne chose. Mais comme les partages de ressources “pédagogiques” sont pléthoriques, certains vont littéralement “à la pêche” sur Internet, en s’appropriant des outils conçus par d’autres, sans recul ni réflexion… Il y a aussi des enseignants qui utilisent leur smartphone en classe, par exemple pour scanner des QR-codes lors de la correction d’un exercice. En quoi une telle pratique sert-elle la cause ? Certains sont même devenus des “ambassadeurs” de Microsoft en recevant des outils gratuits, perdant du coup leur autonomie et leur liberté de pensée. Ils deviennent de véritables influenceurs ! On est loin de l’enseignant-chercheur que je préconise. D’un autre côté, il y a les questions éthiques et écologiques qui sont bien connues, et qu’il faut intégrer dans la réflexivité des acteurs de l’école. Tout comme les questions économiques, qui montrent des disparités entre les familles. Visons la cohérence et la conscience. Les instituteurs et institutrices de mon établissement adhèrent à ce discours en théorie. Même si certains vont quand même ponctuellement “à la pêche sur le Net”, aucun ne me demande du matériel informatique, sauf lorsque cela est justifié, par exemple pour un enfant dyslexique ou dyspraxique. Il y a une dizaine d’années, le parc informatique de l’école a été démantelé au profit de projets ayant du sens, comme le rayonnement musical et l’initiation à l’environnement, ou encore tous les projets visant à améliorer le bien-être et le vivre-ensemble. » 

« Du côté des enseignants, qui ont un rôle crucial à jouer, je considère qu’ils doivent lire davantage et devenir des enseignants-penseurs-chercheurs aptes à s’affranchir des courants de pensée dominants et à faire des choix assumés. Par exemple, notre établissement possède un jardin dans lequel sont organisées plein d’activités pédagogiques ; ça, c’est bien plus important pour les écoliers que de leur mettre une tablette dans les mains ! Le problème des enseignants non lecteurs, c’est que paradoxalement ils sont chargés de transmettre le goût de la lecture, celle-ci étant au centre de tous les enjeux d’apprentissages. Or les inégalités de lecture sont abyssales entre les écoliers, certains lisant en deux jours ce que d’autres liront en un an ! Pour combattre cette tendance, les enseignants doivent commencer par lire eux-mêmes, ce qui est hélas loin d’être gagné actuellement, puisqu’ils sont nombreux à n’avoir qu’une faible culture générale, gavés d’émissions et de séries sans intérêt… Il est difficile d’agir directement sur le milieu familial, contrairement à l’école, où il est de mon devoir d’aller à contre-sens de la tendance dominante, de lutter contre l’abêtissement et de développer une vision ambitieuse pour les enfants que nous accueillons et pour la société dans laquelle nous vivons. » 

Merci Monsieur Verlinden, tout espoir n’est pas perdu ! 

Bernard Legros 

Read more "
you didn't find what you were looking for?

Search again

Espace membre

Member area