Amphibians in the Mine

Amphibians in the Mine

 

Communication towers inside Monteverde Cloud Forest Biological Preserve

 

AMPHIBIANS IN THE MINE

 

“Amphibians were here when the dinosaurs were here, and they

survived the age of mammals. If they’re checking out now, I think

it is significant.”

–    David Wake, Director of the Museum of

Vertebrate Zoology, University of California,

Berkeley, 1990

They are ancient animals with abilities to survive beyond belief. They live both in water and on land. They can breathe through their skin. They can regenerate limbs and organs. They don’t get cancer. They have been around for 365 million years, and have survived four mass extinctions during the history of life on Earth. Yet today, they are disappearing more rapidly than any other class of animals. By their death, they are screaming: Turn off your cell phones! Now, before it is too late!

 

Even before cell phones, the proliferation of radio and TV towers, radar stations, and communication antennas in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s began killing off these most hardy, well-adapted, and important forms of life.

 

  • The northern leopard frog, Rana pipiens — the North American green frog that croaked from every marsh, pond and creek when I was growing up — was already extremely rare by the end of the 1980s.
  • In the Colorado and Wyoming Rocky Mountains, boreal toads used to be so numerous that, in the words of Paul Corn of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, “You had to kick them out of the way as you were walking down the trail.” By 1990 they were difficult to find at all.
  • Boreal chorus frogs on the shores of Lake Superior, once innumerable, were extremely rare by 1990.
  • In the 1970s David Wake could turn up eighty or more salamanders under the bark of a single log in a pine forest near Oaxaca, Mexico. In the early 1980s he returned and was able to find maybe one or two after searching the forest all day.
  • Until 1979 frogs were abundant and diverse at the University of São Paulo’s field station at Boracea, Brazil, according to Stanley Rand of the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute. But when he returned in 1982, of thirty common frog species, six had disappeared entirely and seven had decreased in number drastically.
  • In 1974 Michael Tyler of Adelaide, Australia discovered a new frog species that brooded its young in its stomach. It lived in a 100-square-kilometer area in the Conondale Ranges, 60 kilometers north of Brisbane, and was so common that he could collect a hundred in a single night. By 1980 it was extinct.
  • The golden toad lived only in a 320-acre stunted forest in Costa Rica’s supposedly pristine, protected Monteverde Cloud Forest Preserve. In the early 1980s Marc Hayes of the University of Miami typically counted 500 to 700 males at one of the species’ breeding sites. After 1984 that site never had more than a dozen males. At another site Martha Crump observed a thousand males in 1987, but only one in 1988 and another single male frog in 1989. Today the species is extinct.

In 1990, when I began researching this magical class of vertebrates, there were not many amphibians left in all of Europe. Out of more than five thousand known species worldwide, about a dozen were doing well.​​

 

By the time I wrote Microwaving Our Planet in 1996, every species of frog and toad in Yosemite National Park had become scarce. Seventy-five species of the colorful harlequin frogs that once lived near streams in the tropics of the Western Hemisphere from Costa Rica to Bolivia had not been seen in a decade. Of the 50 species of frogs that once inhabited the Monteverde Cloud Forest Preserve, 20 were already extinct.

 

Similar population crashes were occurring in North, Central and South America, Europe, and Australia. Only in Africa and Asia, when I wrote that book, were amphibians doing well. That has since changed. On March 15, 2023, a team of 19 American scientists published a paper titled “Continent-wide recent emergence of a global pathogen in African amphibians.” Amphibians, say the authors, were doing fine on the dark continent until about the year 2000 — which coincidentally is when telecommunications companies began lighting up that continent with cell phone signals in earnest.

 

A couple of years earlier, in December 1997, I had published an article titled “The Informationization of the Third World.” I quoted President Clinton, who had lamented that “More than half the world’s people are a two days’ walk from a telephone.” I highlighted Bangladesh, where there were plans to bring cell phones to 40,000 of the country’s 68,000 villages over the next four years. In Africa, where several countries still had less than one conventional phone per one thousand people, some two dozen countries were introducing cellular systems. The debate, in the world’s press, was about what this would do to the traditional village, and whether this was a desirable thing from a cultural point of view. I took a broader view:

 

“An even more important question is what will happen to nature? Can nature survive at all in a distanceless world? I think the answer, if ecologists and environmentalists brought their knowledge to bear, would be a resounding no. Biodiversity depends on distance. What is not often acknowledged is that cultural diversity also depends on distance, and that culture is nature-based. Local dialects, and local handicrafts, and local dress, and local economies, and local varieties of crops, and local varieties of plants and animals — i.e. local ecosystems — depend on the village’s being a two days’ walk from a telephone. The most basic reason for the disappearance of species is that very few of them can withstand the global exploitation that must come when there is instantaneous transportation and communication.”

 

And then there is the radiation. The effects of microwave radiation in Africa, as cell towers began serving larger numbers of its residents, are now apparent: amphibians have been disappearing all over the continent. This has been blamed on a type of fungus called Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis (Bd), rare in Africa prior to the year 2000. But whether it is the fungus that is killing frogs, toads and salamanders, or whether it is the radiation that is killing them, and that is allowing a fungus to grow in their devitalized bodies, is a question no one is asking. For example, why, in Cameroon, where 83 percent of the population own mobile phones, and four cell phone providers cover a lot of the country, is the fungus found in 17 percent of all amphibians collected — while in neighboring Equatorial Guinea, where only 40 percent of the population own mobile phones and there are no cell towers except in the coastal city of Bata, there is zero fungus? Why, in South Africa, where 90 percent of the population own mobile phones, and coverage is good in most of the country, is the fungus found in 23 percent of amphibians collected — while in neighboring Mozambique, where only 43 percent of the population has a mobile phone, zero fungus has been found among the amphibians collected? Could it be because cell phones are still useless in much of northern Mozambique, and that is where all the amphibians in that country have been collected: Mount Mabu, Mount Namuli, Mount Ribáuè, and Balama?

 

Most of the suggested explanations for the global die-off make little sense. Climate change is being widely blamed, yet scientists looking for an association of population crashes with temperature or other weather factors have found none. Why, worldwide, are amphibians declining faster at high altitudes than at lower elevations where the climate is warmer? Could it be because the higher elevations receive more radiation, and because many antennas are found on mountains? Scientists have found no evidence that fish or non-native amphibians have caused native amphibians to go extinct. Land use change does not explain sudden population crashes in pristine protected areas. Pesticide use does not correlate with the population declines.

 

These inconsistencies seem to be escaping the scientists who are looking for answers. They are escaping them because they have a terrific blind spot: they do not see the radiation at all, it does not exist for them.

 

The single most rapid and catastrophic crash in amphibian populations occurred in the year 1988 in the Monteverde Cloud Forest Biological Preserve in Costa Rica, a location that has long puzzled scientists because it is strictly protected and supposedly untouched and pristine. This is what I thought as well until I began to do research for this article. I just found out, to my astonishment, that right in the middle of this two-square-mile preserve, on top of a hill called Cerro Amigos (“Friends Hill”), is an antenna farm called Las Torres (“The Towers”). A photo of the top of that hill is at the top of this article. As of 2012, there were 17 radio, TV, cell phone, and other types of communication towers on that hill, a few of them dating from the 1970s and 1980s. I am making inquiries to try to pin down what was added in 1988. If you live in Costa Rica and know some of this history, please contact me.

 

More Connected Means More Vulnerable

 

“Is It a Hazard to Be Healthy?” asked Dr. D. B. Armstrong in the Boston Medical and Surgical Journal in 1918. If you were undernourished, physically handicapped, anemic, or tuberculous, you were much less likely to get influenza and much less likely to die from it if you did. The vast majority of people who died from the Spanish influenza were pregnant women and healthy young adults. Doctors were seriously discussing whether they were actually giving their patients a death sentence by advising them to keep fit!

 

Amphibians are dying for the same reason. What is completely neglected in the sciences of biology, medicine and ecology, is our electrical connection to earth and sky. As I discuss in chapter 9 of my book, The Invisible Rainbow, we are all part of the global electrical circuit that courses through the sky above us, flows down to earth on atmospheric ions and raindrops, enters the tops of our heads into our bodies, flows through our meridians, exits into the earth through the soles of our feet, travels along the surface of the earth, and flows back up to the sky on lightning bolts during thunderstorms. Those of us who are most vital and have the strongest connection to earth and sky — healthy, vigorous young adults and pregnant women — died in the largest numbers in the 1918 flu, which was caused not by a virus but by the use of enormously powerful VLF radio stations by the United States when it entered the First World War. The same thing happened in 1889 (introduction of AC electricity), 1957 (first construction of civil defense radars), and 1968 (first constellation of military satellites).

 

“In each case—in 1889, 1918, 1957, and 1968—the electrical envelope of the earth, to which we are all attached by invisible strings, was suddenly and profoundly disturbed. Those for whom this attachment was strongest, whose roots were most vital, whose life’s rhythms were tuned most closely to the accustomed pulsations of our planet — in other words, vigorous, healthy young adults, and pregnant women — those were the individuals who most suffered and died. Like an orchestra whose conductor has suddenly gone mad, their organs, their living instruments, no longer knew how to play.”

 

Salamanders, toads and frogs have more vitality than other forms of life. The density of their strings — their meridians — that connect them to earth and sky is greater. It is why they rarely (and salamanders never) get cancer: both their external and internal communication systems are too strong for their cells to escape control. It is why frogs can partially regenerate lost limbs, and salamanders can regenerate them completely. It is why salamanders can even regenerate their heart — and do it within hours — if half of it is cut out — an astounding fact discovered by Dr. Robert O. Becker and written about in chapter 10 of his classic book, The Body Electric.

 

It is also why amphibians are dying out. Animals with such a strong connection to Earth’s orchestra — who are so attuned to it that they have survived for 365 million years — cannot withstand the chaos that we have superimposed on it during the past half century and more — the chaos that we have injected into the living circuitry with our radio and TV stations, our radar facilities, our cell phones and cell towers, and our satellites.

 

It is why, in 1996, when parades of cell towers were marching from coast to coast in the United States, and sprouting at tourist destinations, mutant frogs were turning up by the thousands in pristine lakes, streams and forests in at least 32 states. Their deformed legs, extra legs, missing legs, missing eyes, misplaced eyes, misshapen tails, and whole body deformities frightened school children out on field trips.

 

It is why developing frog embryos and tadpoles exposed by researchers in Moscow in the late 1990s to a (wired) personal computer developed severe malformations including anencephaly (absence of a brain), absence of a heart, lack of limbs, and other deformities that are incompatible with life.

 

It is why, when tadpoles were kept for two months in a tank on an apartment’s terrace in Valladolid, Spain, 140 meters from a cell tower, 90 percent of them died, versus only 4 percent mortality in an identical tank that was shielded from radio waves.

 

It is why wireless technology, which has placed a source of lethal radiation into the hands of almost every man, woman and child on earth, is such an emergency and must come rapidly to an end if we are so save our planet and the millions of other species who are still trying to share it with us. The frogs and salamanders are telling us that it is not a matter of choice, and it is not a matter of how far from our heads we hold our phones. It is a matter of their survival and ours.

 

Selected Bibliography

 

Balmori, Alfonso. The incidence of electromagnetic pollution on the amphibian decline: Is this an important piece of the puzzle? Toxicological & Environmental Chemistry 88(2): 287-299 (2006).

 

Balmori, Alfonso. Mobile phone mast effects on common frog (Rana temporaria) tadpole: The city turned into a laboratory. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine 29: 31-35 (2010).

 

Becker, Robert O. and Gary Selden. The Body Electric (NY: William Morrow 1985).

 

Berger, Lee, Rick Speare, Peter Daszak, et al. Chytridiomycosis causes amphibian mortality associated with population declines in the rain forests of Australia and Central America. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 95: 9-31-9036 (1998).

 

Berger, Lee, Alexandra A. Roberts, Jamie Voyles, et al. History and recent progress on chytridiomycosis in amphibians. Fungal Ecology 19: 89-99 (2016).

 

Bittek, Jason. Half of all amphibian species at risk of extinction. National Geographic, May 8, 2019.

 

Blaustein, Andrew R. and Pieter TJ Johnson. The complexity of deformed amphibians. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 1(2): 87-94 (2003).

 

Collins, James P. Amphibian decline and extinction: What we know and what we need to learn. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms 92: 93-99 (2010).

 

Drost, Charles A. and Gary M. Fellers. Collapse of a regional frog fauna in the Yosemite area of the California Sierra Nevada, USA. Conservation Biology 10(2): 414-425 (1996).

 

Firstenberg, Arthur. The Informationization of the Third World. No Place To Hide 1(3): 1-2 (Dec. 1997).

 

Firstenberg, Arthur. Microwaving Our Planet: The Environmental Impact of the Wireless Revolution (NY: Cellular Phone Task Force 1996, 1997).

 

Firstenberg, Arthur. The Invisible Rainbow: A History of Electricity and Life (White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green 2020, 560 pages).

 

Ghose, Sonia L., Tiffany A. Yap, Allison Q. Byrne, et al. Continent-wide recent emergence of a global pathogen in African amphibians. Frontiers in Conservation Science 4: 1069490 (2023).

 

González-del-Pliego, Pamela, Robert P. Freckleton, David P. Edwards, et al. Phylogenetic and trait-based prediction of extinction risk for data-deficient amphibians. Current Biology 29: 1557-1563 (2019).

 

Hoperskaya, O.A., L.A. Belkova, M.E. Bogdanov, and S.G. Denisov. The action of the “Gamma-7N” device on biological objects exposed to radiation from personal computers. In Electromagnetic Fields and Human Health: Proceedings of the Second International Conference, Moscow, Sept. 20-24, 1999, pp. 354-355, Abstract.

 

Houlahan, Jeff E., C. Scott Findlay et al. Quantitative evidence for global amphibian population declines. Nature 404: 752-755 (2000).

 

Laurance, William F. Global warming and amphibian extinctions in eastern Australia. Australian Ecology 33: 1-9 (2008).

 

Lips, Karen R., Patricia A. Burrowes, Joseph R. Mendelson III, and Gabriela Parra-Olea. Amphibian declines in Latin America: Widespread population declines, extinctions, and impacts. Biotropica 37(2): 163-165 (2005).

 

McCallum, Malcolm L. Amphibian decline or extinction? Current declines dwarf background extinction rate. Journal of Herpetology 41(3): 483-491 (2007).

 

Norris, Scott. Ghosts in our midst: Coming to terms with amphibian extinctions. BioScience 57(4): 311-316 (2007).

 

Pound, J. Alan and Martha I. Crump. Amphibian declines and climate disturbance: The case of the golden toad and the harlequin frog. Conservation Biology 8(1): 72-85 (1994).

 

Rose, S. Meryl. Regeneration (NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts 1970).

 

Souder, William. An amphibian horror story. New York Newsday, Oct. 15, 1996, p. B19+.

 

Souder, William. Deformed frogs show rift among scientists. Houston Chronicle, Nov. 5, 1997, p. 4A.

 

Stuart, Simon N., Janice S. Chanson, Neil A. Cox, et al. Status and trends of amphibian declines and extinctions worldwide. Sciencexpress, October 14, 2004 (5 pages).

 

Toledo, Luís Felipe, Sergio Potsch de Carvalho-e-Silva, Ana Maria Paulino Telles de Carvalho-e-Silva, et al. A retrospective overview of amphibian declines in Brazil’s Atlantic forest. Biological Conservation 277: 109845 (2023).

 

Vogt, Amanda. Mutant frogs spark a mega mystery scientists worry could be an early warning of environmental danger. Chicago Tribune, August 4, 1998, sec. 4, p. 3.

 

Vredenburg, Vance T., Ronald A. Knapp, Tate S. Tunstaff and Cheryl J. Briggs. Dynamics of an emerging disease drive large-scale amphibian population extinctions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107(21): 9689-9694 (2010).

 

Wake, David B. and Vance T. Vredenburg. Are we in the midst of the sixth mass extinction? A view from the world of amphibians. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105(Suppl. 1): 11466-11473 (2008).

 

Watson, Traci. Frogs falling silent across USA. USA Today, August 12, 1998, p. 3A.

 
 
____________

 

Arthur Firstenberg

President, Cellular Phone Task Force

Author, The Invisible Rainbow: A History of Electricity and Life

Administrator, International Appeal to Stop 5G on Earth and in Space

Caretaker, ECHOEarch.org (End Cellphones Here On Earth)

 

It gets worse and worse

It gets worse and worse

 

Could this be the reason why?

Spike protein inside nucleus enhancing DNA damage? – COVID-19 mRNA vaccines update 18

 

You have got to die of something

To stop monkeypox keep your underpants on

 

EMF pollution

EMF pollution

https://wirecalifornia.org/housatonic/ https://wireamerica.org/ https://idahoansforsafetechnology.org/ A. National Strategies . . . Parcel-based strategies — https://youtu.be/26OlmfP0qcU?t=1200 H.R. 3684 — Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act : https://wireamerica.org/hr-3684/ FirstNet : https://wireamerica.org/2022/01/what-… Wireless Licenses : https://wireamerica.org/co/la-plata-c… and https://specmap.sequence-omega.net/ Spectrum Analyzers : https://wireamerica.org/rfmeters/ Housatonic Live; videos are available on YouTube ( https://www.youtube.com/c/HousatonicLive ), BitChute ( https://www.bitchute.com/channel/hous… ) … and now on ODYSEE!!! at https://odysee.com/@Housatonic

https://youtu.be/wjsxQjUyuUY

 

CELL TOWERS ON THE OCEAN FLOOR
 
One blue sky above us,
One ocean lapping all our shores,
One earth so green and round,
Who could ask for more?

– Pete Seeger
 
In 2018, on land and in space, preparations to deploy millions of antennas were very publicly being made and advertised, for “5G,” “Smart Cities,” and the “Internet of Things.” At the same time, and without any publicity, governments, research laboratories, and commercial and military interests were collaborating on plans to create “Smart Oceans” and the “Internet of Underwater Things” (IoUT). They did not consult the fishes, whales, dolphins, octopuses, and other inhabitants of those depths.

In the United States, the National Science Foundation funded what it called the SEANet Project. The goal was to enable broadband wireless communication from any point on or in the oceans to anywhere else on the planet or in space. The Internet of Underwater Things is being designed to enable all the same communication capabilities that are being provided on land, including “real-time video streaming from underwater.”

In the last three years, a flood of papers have been published by scientists and engineers in the U.S., China, Pakistan, Qatar, South Korea, Spain, Australia, Greece, Italy, France, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, and elsewhere. In 2020, the IEEE Internet of Things Journal published a Special Issue on Internet of Things for Smart Ocean. In 2019, the journal Sensors published a Special Issue on Smart Ocean: Emerging Research Advances, Prospects and Challenges, and the same journal is now publishing another Special Issue on Internet of Underwater Things.

Some of the activities that supposedly “need” this technology in the oceans are:
 
  • climate change monitoring
  • pollution control and tracking
  • disaster prevention including tsunami warning systems
  • ocean exploration
  • fishing and aquaculture
  • coral reef harvesting
  • tectonic plate monitoring
  • navigation
  • global oceanic trade
  • oil and gas exploration and production
  • military communication and surveillance
The infrastructure that is beginning to be deployed, throughout the oceans, includes:
 
  • sensors and antennas (“nodes”) on the ocean floor
  • nodes at different depths
  • surface nodes
  • relay antennas at different depths to transmit data vertically from the ocean floor to the ocean surface, and horizontally between nodes
  • Autonomous Underwater Vehicles (AUVs)
  • Autonomous Surface Vehicles (ASVs)
  • underwater robots
  • wireless surface buoys
  • smart boats and ships
  • smart submarines
  • smart shores
 
Communication being more difficult to accomplish underwater than through the air, and more subject to interference, several different types of communication media are being used in the oceans to send data at different speeds and over different distances. Acoustic waves, radio waves, lasers, LED light, and magnetic induction are all being used to flood the oceans with data. An underwater GPS system is being developed. Most of these media work only for short- to medium-range communication. Long-range communication relies on acoustic waves, and is similar to the technology used in ocean sonar.​
 
 
 
 
These technologies are already being marketed commercially and installed in the world’s oceans today. At the 2022 Oceanology International conference, which will be held in London from March 15 to 17, dozens of these companies will be exhibiting their products.

WaterLinked sells underwater sensor technology through distributors around the world for use in aquaculture, and in underwater navigation. “Our Wireless Sense™ technology enables reliable wireless communication and innovative subsea sensor solutions,” says their website.

EvoLogics sells underwater acoustic modems, both mid-range and long-range, that “provide full-duplex digital communication.”

SonarDyne International sells underwater acoustic modems to the oil and gas industry and to governments and navies.

Voyis sells short- and long-range underwater laser scanners.

GeoSpectrum sells “integrated, end-to-end acoustic systems” for oil and gas exploration and for military purposes.

Dynautics sells autonomous underwater vehicles (AUVs).

Seaber sells “off-the-shelf micro-AUVs.”

Hydromea markets “the first ever tether-less underwater drone.”

Mediterraneo Señales Maritimas sells “data buoys that integrate sensors through our datalogger so the data can be transmitted to a remote station and displayed on our software.”

3D at Depth, Inc. “provides advanced subsea LIDAR laser systems.”

Teledyne Marine sells Autonomous Underwater Gliders, Autonomous Underwater Vehicles (“unmanned robot submarines”) and “laser systems for both shallow and deep-sea submerged diving.”

“Underwater robots swarm the ocean,” says a page on the website of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute. The Institute has developed an acoustic-based navigation system that is enabling large numbers of underwater robots to work together. “Instead of using just a single, larger and more expensive underwater robot to cover an area of the ocean, we want to have hundreds or even thousands of smaller, lower-cost robots that can all work in sync,” says their webpage.
 
Ocean protection organizations have long been campaigning against noise pollution in the oceans, but they are only beginning to be aware of this new type of assault, which has the potential to dwarf all previous noise assaults in its scope and magnitude. For example, one of the campaigns of the environmental organization, Sea Shepherd, is “Silencing the Deafening Roar of Ocean Noise Pollution.” They write:
 
“In 1953, Jacques Cousteau published a classic memoir on his early days of underwater exploration. He titled this book The Silent World. Today, human activities make a mockery of that title. Over the past several decades, marine noise pollution has grown at an exponential rate. Noise from vessel traffic is doubling every decade. Pile-driving, dredging, sonar, and seismic exploration for oil and gas add to the cacophony. For marine wildlife, and especially for acoustically-sensitive cetaceans, this anthropogenic racket poses a grave and growing threat. Ocean noise pollution causes severe stress, behavioral changes, masking (i.e., difficulty perceiving important natural sounds), strandings, and noise-induced loss of hearing sensitivity.”

To this mix is now being added the Internet of Underwater Things, which is beginning to flood the oceans with sound in order to connect them to the Internet. And this sound will be pulse-modulated with the same harmful frequencies as radio waves in order to carry the same data. And to communicate over large distances, some of the underwater acoustic modems that are being marketed are capable of producing sound as loud as 202 decibels. That is equivalent to 139 decibels in air. It is as loud as a jet engine at a distance of 100 feet, and is above the threshold for pain in humans. These modems blast modulated sound at frequencies ranging from 7 kHz to 170 kHz, encompassing almost the entire hearing range of dolphins, which use sound for hunting and navigating.
 
The effects of sonar on whales and dolphins have been widely publicized. But the effects of noise pollution on fish and other denizens of the deep are just as devastating, as Lindy Weilgart details in her 36-page report for OceanCare. She reviews 115 research studies on the effects of noise on 66 species of fish and 36 species of invertebrates.

“Most fish and invertebrates use sound for vital life functions,” she writes. “Noise impacts on development include body malformations, higher egg or immature mortality, developmental delays, delays in metamorphosing and settling, and slower growth rates… Anatomical impacts from noise involve massive internal injuries, cellular damage to statocysts and neurons, causing disorientation and even death, and hearing loss… Behaviorally, animals showed alarm responses, increased aggression, hiding, and flight reactions; and decreased anti-predator defense, nest digging, nest care, courtship calls, spawning, egg clutches, and feeding… Some commercial catches dropped by up to 80% due to noise, with larger fish leaving the area.”

If the new assault continues, it will provide the last nails in the coffins of our oceans, and — since the oceans are the source of all life — of our planet. Already in 1970, just 17 years after he published The Silent World, Jacques Cousteau, returning from 3½ years of exploration in which he traveled 155,000 miles, told the world: “The oceans are dying. The pollution is general.”

“People don’t realize that all pollution goes to the seas,” said Cousteau. “The earth is less polluted. It is washed by the rain which carries everything into the oceans where life has diminished by 40 per cent in 20 years. Fish disappear. Flora too.” And what was not being poisoned was being mined for food as though ocean life was an inexhaustible resource. “The oceans are being scraped,” he said. “Eggs and larvae are disappearing. In the past, the sea renewed itself. It was a complete cycle. But this balance was upset with the appearance of industrial civilization. Shrimps are being chased from their holes by electric shocks. Lobsters are being sought in impossible places. Coral itself is disappearing. Even in the Indian Ocean, which is little traveled.”

Life in the oceans today is hanging by a thread. If the rate of population declines continues, there will be no almost fish left in the oceans by 2048.[1] The oceans are absorbing 24 million tons of carbon dioxide every day, are 26% more acidic than before we began burning fossil fuels,[2] and have absorbed 93% of the heat generated by greenhouse gases since the 1970s.[3] The damage already done to coral reefs by acidification, rising temperatures, and bottom trawling would take 100,000 years for nature to repair.[4] Diatoms — a type of algae at the base of the ocean’s food chain that is also the source of a third of the world’s oxygen production — have been declining by more than 1% per year for two decades.[5] Populations of krill — the small shrimplike crustaceans that make up a large portion of the diet of many species of whales, penguins and seals — have declined by 80% since the 1970s.[6] And the deepest layers of the oceans are severely depleted of oxygen — so much so that deep-diving fish no longer dive deep but remain near the surface in order to breathe. And populations of fishes that live in the deep sea are drastically declining. Warming oceans can no longer hold as much oxygen, and it is the deepest waters that are depleted of oxygen first.[7][8][9][10] Large numbers of bottom-dwelling crabs have suffocated off the coast of Oregon.[11] More than a thousand manatees died of starvation in 2021 off the coast of Florida because the seagrass they eat has been killed by pollution.[12] And there is so much plastic throughout the oceans[13] that sardines sold in an Australian fish market contain 3 milligrams of plastic in every gram of their tissue.[14]

Although many are the assaults on the oceans, and on the Earth, the single most urgent assault, which is destroying the planet the quickest, is wireless technology. It is the most destructive itself, and it speeds up and coordinates all the other assaults. And driving all of wireless technology, including wireless technology on land, in space, and in the oceans, is the cell phone. All of wireless technology, from 2G to 5G to the Internet of Things to the Internet of Underwater Things, requires everyone to be holding a cell phone in their hands. It is the director, it is the target, and without it, the present rate of destruction could not continue.

As Hillel said two thousand years ago, “If not now, when? If not me, who?”
____________________ 
[1] Boris Worm et al. Impacts of Biodiversity Loss on Ocean Ecosystem Services. Science 314: 787-790 (2006).
[2] Oceaneos. Ocean Acidification.
[3] D. Laffoley and J. M. Baxter. Explaining ocean warming: Causes, scale, effects and consequences. International Union for the Conservation of Nature. Sept. 2016.
[4] Charles Clover. The End of the Line: How Overfishing is Changing the World and What We Eat. New Press, 2006, p. 67.
[5] Cecile S. Rousseaux and Watson W. Gregg. Recent decadal trends in global phytoplankton composition. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 29: 1674-1688 (2015).
[6] Matthew Taylor. Decline in krill threatens Antarctic wildlife, from whales to penguins. The Guardian, Feb. 14, 2018.
[7] Craig Welch. Oceans Are Losing Oxygen—and Becoming More Hostile to Life. National Geographic, March 12, 2015.
[8] Laura Poppick. The Ocean Is Running out of Breath, Scientists Warn. Scientific American, Feb. 25, 2019.
[9] Kirsten Isensee. The Ocean Is Losing Its Breath. Ocean and Climate Platform, 2018.
[10] International Union for the Conservation of Nature. Ocean Deoxygenation.
[11] Bradley W. Parks. Low oxygen levels off Northwest coast raise fears of marine “dead zones.” Oregon Public Broadcasting, July 22, 2021.
[13] Captain Charles Moore. Plastic Ocean. Avery, NY 2011.
 
 
 
Arthur Firstenberg
Santa Fe, NM 87502
USA
phone: +1 505-471-0129

The last 34 newsletters, including this one, are available for downloading
and sharing on the
Newsletters page of the Cellular Phone Task Force.
Some of the newsletters are also available there in
German, Spanish, Italian, French, Norwegian and Dutch.
 

 

The Spike enters Nucleus

The Spike enters Nucleus

This video discusses a new surprise discovery (yet to be confirmed by other scientists) that the SARS-CoV-2 full length spike protein can enter human cell nuclei and interfere with the mechanics of fixing of broken DNA damage. The authors of the study propose this might have been evolved in order to prevent the genetic recombination required to produce antibody varieties to successfully attack the virus. If true, then this could have important implications for potential negative health outcomes (another if!) and might require reconfiguration of vaccine design.

Discussed content: https://www.mdpi.com/1999-4915/13/10/… __________________________________________________________________

Dr. Raszek Credentials: https://merogenomics.ca/en/about/ ____________________________________________________________________

Spike protein inside nucleus enhancing DNA damage? – COVID-19 mRNA vaccines update 18 (12 min)

Thank you for these notes made by a kind and awesome supporter:

  • 00:00 Dr Mikolaj Raszek, Phd from Merogenomics
  • 00:09 The latest widest news in Molecular Microbiology
  • 00:33 WHO? Swedish research shows spike protein enters nucleus in human cells (in vitro)
  • 00:57 this is of course, biologically verboten (*German for STRICTLY FORBIDDEN)
  • 01:04 WHAT? *Discovery* Spike protein inhibits proper fixing of broken DNA
  • 01:18 Specifics: double stranded breaks where both strands are broken
  • 01:33 HOW? *Mechanism 1* suspected interference with BRCA1 gene product’s ability to repair DNA
  • 01:48 Consequence: if BRCA1 is mutated though, then you have highest predisposition for Cancer development precisely because BRCA1 gene codes for proteins that fix DNA damage when sheared in half
  • 02:14 Significance: Consequences are so great if true that it should be double checked, verified and reinvestigated
  • 2:42 Call for a lot more studies: Revalidation
  • 2:51 HOW? *Mechanism 2* Spike also interferes with mysterious nuclear protein 53BP1 which may serve to prevent DNA breaks from re-ligating to other DNA sources ensuring 2 chromosomes don’t link together that aren’t supposed to.
  • 4:21 HOW? *Mechanism 3* Perhaps spike in Nuclei interferes with Immune cells’ mechanisms (eg.BRCA1 and 53BP1) and diversity of response to infections.
  • 4:42 *TAKEAWAY* What if Spike protein evolved as a mutagen for DNA – what would implications be for a vaccine that’s primary focus was to produce Spike?
  • 5:32 CONTEXT: Recent discovery that Spikes may circulate for months on end in Exosomes to different parts of the body and in theory enter cells well after the point of vaccination as COVID-19 mRNA vaccines update 16 discussed
  • 06:15 CONTEXT: DNA gets 70k lesions/day /cell! But only 25 are double stranded shearing damages
  • 07:25 IMPLICATIONS: So within this context, what are the chances circulating spike proteins could enter and damage DNA and predispose to cancer? In cancer, it takes months for damage to accumulate and cause symptoms. Therefore…
  • 7:45 IMPLICATION: *Vaccine Safety* Are vaccines “SAFE”? What is vaccine “Safety”? Only Time can/will tell.
  • 8:07 IMPLICATION: Yes, Vaccines don’t produce dangerous clinical symptoms in the first few months BUT we don’t know what they do in very long-term basis so can we call them safe?
  • 8:34 HOW? *Mechanism 4* Vaccines use FULL length of spike protein thus produces whole protein in body. Prior to vaccinations some scientists mentioned that FULL protein length of Spike protein was dangerous
  • 9:16 IMPLICATION: *Antibody Dependent Enhancement or ADE* could occur with use of full length of Spike protein 10:27: AUTHORS’ RECOMMENDATION: Not to use full length of spike protein but only the Receptor Binding Domain or RBD portion for vaccines 10:41 Explanation: RBD 11:29: *TAKE AWAY* *Vaccine Safety* This shows how Vaccines are still uncharacterized on what they might be doing at the molecular level once injected in us.
  • 11:52 Spike protein also uncharacterized post-infection (but learning lots now).
  • 12:00 LIKE AND SUBSCRIBE and please *SHARE*