5g2bcellular Tower.jpg

Another Potential Casualty of 5G: Storm Forecasting and Warning

by Joseph P. Farrell

With all the bad weather over the American plains states, people have been sending a lot of articles to me about weather warfare, modification, patents, and so on, but several people sent me this article, and it is, as they say, a “whopper doozie”, because some scientists are sounding the alarm that 5G might degrade their ability to track and warn people about severe storms:

Storm Tracking Could Be a Casualty of 5G

The  focus of these concerns has been hurricane tracking:

But now scientists are warning that their precision tracking of hurricanes could be disrupted by signals from the new generation of wireless networks known as #5G that will soon roll out across the U.S. In one test that mimicked interference, Sandy was incorrectly forecast to head out to sea.

At currently proposed 5G power levels, satellites may have trouble reading natural signals given off by water vapor.

That could set back forecast accuracy to levels last seen around 1980, said Neil Jacobs, head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

“This would result in the reduction of hurricane track forecast lead time by roughly two to three days,” Jacobs told Congress at a hearing earlier this month.

As the article notes, the tracking of hurricanes is made possible in part by the ability to read and track signals given off by the water vapor in hurricanes.

While I’m certainly not a radar expert or meteorologist, I suspect a similar technology is used by land-based storm trackers to track rain-wrapped tornadoes, which we certainly have had our fill of in the plains states in the last few weeks.

But whether my amateur’s “guess” be true or not, my problem – and the focus of today’s high octane speculation – is this statement by a 5G  defender, and the statement is typical of the attitude we’ve seen before (think GMOs):

The U.S. mobile communications industry, which says it’s investing $275 billion in 5G, scoffs at the notion that forecasts might be degraded. Such predictions amount to “an absurd claim with no science behind it,” according to a May 21 blog post by CTIA Executive Vice President Brad Gillen.

That attitude is the problem, for we’ve seen it before, chiefly in connection to GMO’s. Corporate “science” is the “real” science; anything challenging the narrative is “fake” science.

In this case, the concerns of meteorological scientists are simply brushed aside as “an absurd claim with no science behind it.”

Indeed, there is no science, nor is there any science behind the claims that 5G is harmless, or that it will not effect weather prediction (or… here it comes… the weather itself).

So by all means, let’s deploy the technology, and worry about the science and potential consequences later. It’s the “Mon(ster)santo approach”:

(1) If there’s science against your technology, pretend it’s not there; but (2) if the evidence gets too big to ignore, then simply  say it’s “bad” science or not science at all; (3) in the meantime, rush your technology into use and claim you’ve done serious intergenerational testing and environmental testing when you haven’t.

In fact, however, there have been 5G tests in the Netherlands (remember the dead birds?).

And now meteorologists are saying that their sensors’ ability to track hurricanes and water vapor operate in one of the frequency ranges that 5G would operate in.

One doesn’t need “science” here, because the physics, as NASA director Jim Bridenstein put it, is already there:

“We are sensing passively the energy state of water molecules in the atmosphere,” Bridenstine said. “That is set by physics. We can’t just go to a different part of the spectrum.”

Some lawmakers have called for the FCC to hold off awarding spectrum to the winners of the recent auction.

“We write with a straight-forward request: Don’t allow wireless companies to operate in a 24 GHz band until vital weather forecasting operations are protected,” Senator Ron Wyden, of Oregon, and Senator Maria Cantwell, of Washington, said in a May 13 letter.

This is what we know. What we don’t “know” is how all those new towers and frequencies will perhaps affect weather prediction (and perhaps the weather itself) over land. And forget about just the weather.

How will it affect human, animal, and plant health? Of course, the corporations will call us nuts for even raising these ideas and questions.

And to them I have a three word reply:

Glyphosate, Roundup, Monsanto.

See you on the flip side…