In the 1960s, a wave of teachers traveled from India to share yogic sciences with the West. One teacher offered a cosmological perspective on human behavior, noting (paraphrased):
“If an individual lies once, it is an experience/experiment. Lying continuously can become a habit, which can come to define one’s character.”
A nation’s character can also come to be defined by lying,
On the heels of the cigarette century, ironically, in the information age, discernment regarding “‘truth or consequences” has only become more demanding.
When Lying Enables Consolidation of Power
Historically, politicians challenged tobacco industry narratives, and independent researchers and health experts helped balance the scales against industry falsehoods. But these footholds of integrity and the evolution of wisdom are no longer operational. The character of the United States has become dominated by a growing consolidation of power that does not have a stable foundation in truth. The scope of imbalance now extends far beyond the warning about the military industrial complex, which was described as a threat to democratic government by departing President Dwight Eisenhower back in 1961. (Eisenhower was a retired five-star Army general who led the allies on D-Day.)
Case in point: the influence of wireless/tech industries in partnership with the media.
Historians will note that the acquisition of unwarranted power and the role of distortion being played out is not just in social media, but by mainstream news reporting, including the storied New York Times.
Who Does the New York Times Serve? Consolidated Wealth and Power
Who Is Carlos Slim? A Very Wealthy Telecom Magnate
According to Wikipedia, Carlos Slim is a Mexican business magnate. From 2010 to 2013, Slim was ranked as the richest person in the world by the Forbes business magazine. He derived his fortune from his extensive holdings in a considerable number of Mexican companies through his conglomerate, Grupo Carso. As of November 2023, Bloomberg Billionaires Index ranked him as the 11th-richest person in the world, with a net worth of $88 billion, making him the richest person in Latin America. Slim’s corporate conglomerate spans numerous industries across the Mexican economy, including education, health care, industrial manufacturing, transportation, real estate, mass media, energy, hospitality, entertainment, technology, retail, sports and financial services. However, the core of his fortune derives from telecommunications, where he owns América Móvil (with operations throughout Latin America) and the Mexican carrier Telcel and ISP Telmex, a state-run-gone-private company which maintained a virtual monopoly for many years after Slim’s acquisition. He accounts for 40% of the listings on the Mexican Stock Exchange, while his net worth is equivalent to about 6% of Mexico’s gross domestic product. As of 2016, he is the largest single shareholder of The New York Times Company. – Carlos Slim – Wikipedia
Which Cellphone Safety Experts Does the NYT Promote?
On Nov. 14, (just in time for Black Friday holiday shopping) the New York Times published an article about cell phone safety that experts and informed members of the public note is filled with misrepresentations and outdated information.
Who benefits when the public is misinformed about wireless safety? Why would the NYT peddle inaccuracies about cellphones?
Commentary re: NYT Article from Dr. Joel Moskowitz, Saferemr.com, “Referenced Papers More Than Two Decades Old“
“I searched EMF-Portal for papers on cell phone radiation written by the three “experts” cited in this NY Times article. I found only two papers co-authored by one of the “experts” when he worked at the National Cancer Institute. Since the papers were more than two decades old, I too question his expertise on this particular topic.“
- 2001, Inskip PD, Tarone RE, Hatch EE, Wilcosky TC, Shapiro WR, Selker RG, Fine HA, Black PM, Loeffler JS, Linet MS [details] Cellular-telephone use and brain tumors [epidem.]N Engl J Med 344 (2): 79-86
- 1999, Inskip PD, Hatch EE, Stewart PA, Heineman EF, Ziegler RG, Dosemeci M, Parry D, Parry N, Boice Jr JD, Wilcosky TC, Watson DJ, Shapiro WR, Selker RG, Fine HA, Black MCL, Loeffler JS, Linet MS
- Study Design for a Case Control Investigation of Cellular Telephones and Other Risk Factors for Brain Tumors in Adults [tech./dosim.]Radiat Prot Dosimetry 86 (1): 45-52
“For more information on the lead author of these two papers, Peter Inskip, see “NCI’s Peter Inskip: Odd Man Out” in Microwave News.” – Joel Moskowitz
“Inskip is well known for his opinion that cell phone radiation does not cause cancer. He published one of the first epidemiological studies on cell phones back in 2001: It showed no association with brain tumors (see MWN, J/F01, p.1). He has never wavered since.”
Commentary re: NYT Article by Dariusz Leszczynski, Ph.D., Between A Rock and a Hard Place (Finland) “Their research deals solely with the effects of ionizing radiation.”
“None of the research publications of Gayle Woloschak, Emily A. Caffrey, or Howard A. Fine deal with electromagnetic radiation that is used in wireless communication (later – wireless radiation). Their research deals solely with the effects of ionizing radiation. Neither of the interviewed experts is an expert in the effects of radiation used in wireless communication. By having general education in radiation, both ionizing and non-ionizing or in cancer physiology, all of the experts may provide, as they did, some very general comments on non-ionizing radiation effects. But because they are not experts in wireless radiation effects they said stuff that better fits a layperson who reads newspapers. It feels that they all simply recap the misleading and oversimplified statements disseminated for years in the news media by the ICNIRP, the IEEE-ICES, and the telecommunication industry.” – Source
NYTimes and William Broad’s 2019 5G Phone Infomercial
This is not the first foray into wireless/5G misinformation for the NYT. In July of 2019, the respected Australian EMF Facts Consultancy re-published two commentaries about an earlier New York Times piece on 5G, Fake news on 5G from New York Times Science Desk (two articles)
The Microwave News critique is here.
“Broad does not play fair with two central issues. First, he conflates the frequencies used in 5G wireless communications. For the foreseeable future, 5G networks will mostly use the 1-6 GHz band, frequencies similar to those used in 4G and previous generations of cell phones. Higher frequencies (above 24 GHz), called millimeter (mm) waves, will only come into play much later. There is a crucial biophysical difference between the two bands: radiation at the lower frequencies penetrates into the body, while the radiation at the higher frequencies is mostly absorbed by the skin.† Broad mixes up the two. [ ]
Broad’s second trick is to use sleight of hand to make it seem as if Curry is ignoring the shielding provided by outer layers of tissue. He suggests that Curry’s graph is of radiation in the brain when a phone is held next to the head, with skin and skull in between. Not so. Curry’s graph describes the dissipation of microwave energy in the brain, not the path the radiation took to get there. It is clearly labeled as “Microwave Absorption in Brain Tissue.” There’s nothing more. Broad’s legend to the Curry graph is blatantly deceptive.
Last fall, Broad tried to cast doubt on the National Toxicology Program’s $30 million RF-animal study. This is what he and a Times headline writer came up with for the story: “Study of Cellphone Risks Finds ‘Some Evidence’ of Link to Cancer, at Least in Male Rats.” That’s not only flippant, but wrong. The NTP study showed “clear evidence” of cancer. (See “Defending the Indefensible.”) In all his recent articles, Broad spins concern over cell phone radiation as based on junk science. The result is junk journalism.” – Microwave News
Environmental Health Trust Expert Critique of NYTimes William Broad’s 2019 5G Phone Infomercial
In March of 2021, Devra Davis of the Environmental Health Trust also weighed in with The Miseducation of America – “An expose on the major omissions of fact from the New York Times July 16, 2019 article on 5G by William J. Broad.”
“When William J. Broad, a Pulitzer-Prize winning New York Times science writer, mangles information on the dangers of 5G, this plays into the hands of those determined to advance this never-tested technology without serious examination of its long-term impact on human health and the environment. Until now, scientific evidence that the wireless foundation of 5G poses major hazards to migrating animals — from insects to mammals — and can undermine human health has remained under the public radar and largely unaddressed.”
“Swamped by the pressures generated from billions of dollars of public subsidies undergirding the infrastructure necessary for the 5G system to work, the science has been effectively ignored — particularly by those responsible for ensuring that our political and corporate classes maintain the public trust — namely, reporters.”
A point-by-point critique is available here.
Electromagnetic Radiation Safety: 2019 5G Cell Phone Story by New York Times reporter William Broad violated truth and accuracy code of Press Council of Ireland
Professor Tom Butler of University College Cork filed a complaint with the Office of the Press Ombudsman for the Press Council of Ireland about a cell phone story written by William Broad for The New York Times (William J. Broad, The 5G Health Hazard That Isn’t, New York Times, July 16, 2019) and reprinted by The Irish Times (William J. Broad, Are there any real links between wireless technology and health?, September 5, 2019). The Press Ombudsman concluded that the Broad story violated the truth and accuracy code of practice of the Press Council of Ireland. – Joel Moskowitz
(American consumers are unaware that a similar system of checks and balances is not in place in the U.S., which is one reason why the 2021 court ruling against the FCC for its failure to update its radio frequency exposure guidelines remains unaddressed.)
Chronicling Additional New York Times Inaccuracies About Wireless Safety
Commentary About NYTimes Unethical Collaboration with Telecom
To anyone who has any doubts about the NYT unethical connection with Telecom, here is an excerpt of the transcript from a January 2019 report on the 2019 Consumer Electronics Show on the Verizon website. The full article can be found here: https://www.verizon.com/about/news/hans-vestberg-keynotes-2019-consumer-electronics-show
From the Verizon article: “MARK THOMPSON: So Hans thank you for inviting me to join you up here to talk about our shared plans for 5G this year. Pretty much every company nowadays claims they are in the business of storytelling. But in the case of the New York Times, it’s actually true. The Times exists to tell stories. To tell the stories the world wants and needs to hear. Once as you all know we did it with just paper and ink but today we try to use every any digital display every display new advance new piece of — to bring our stories to life, which is why we pioneered the use of VR, AR, and Smart Phone infographics for serious journalism.“
“Yes it’s why we launched the Daily which brings Times journalism to nearly 8,000 people a month. That’s why we’re about to launch our first major TV Consumer Electronics Show, the Weekly on cable and OTT. And also why we’re so excited about the storytelling potential of 5G and about the collaboration we’re announcing today between the Times and Verizon. This January with Verizon support we’re launching a new journalism 5G lab at the Times. This lab will be based in our main newsroom and it will work very closely with Times journalists in New York City across America and around the world and partner with Verizon’s open innovation group and get early access to 5G technology and equipment and we’ll use those resources to experiment not just in lab conditions but in the field with real reporters and live news.” – https://www.verizon.com/about/news/hans-vestberg-keynotes-2019-consumer-electronics-show
Letter Regarding November 16, 2023 New York Times ‘Do I Need to Worry About Smartphone Radiation’ by Devra Davis PHD, MPH, Environmental Health Trust
As Thanksgiving week approaches, the topic of wireless safety may come up, especially in the families where one or more individuals has concerns about wireless technologies and infrastructure, or where a family member is experiencing direct harm. Rather than taking the NYTimes at its word, consider this commentary by Dr. Devra Davis of Environmental Health Trust. Although the letter was submitted to the media outlet, it will likely not reach the Times readership.
“Do I Need to Worry About Smartphone Radiation?” (11/14/23) gets it wrong. Hundreds of expert scientists have concluded that cell phone radiation carries serious health risks. There is no scientific consensus that phones are safe.
A growing body of peer-reviewed evidence links radiofrequency radiation (RFR) from cell phones and Wi-Fi to a broad range of harm. Even at levels compliant with current government limits, RFR can damage reproductive health, memory, behavior, and brain development. Published NIH animal studies found “clear evidence” of cancer and DNA damage.
Because their skulls are thinner and contain more fluid, children absorb RFR more deeply into their brains than adults. More than 20 countries recommend that children reduce cell phone radiation exposure. In the US, the American Academy of Pediatrics, California Department of Health, the New Hampshire Commission on 5G, and others have advised parents to reduce children’s exposure to wireless radiation.
There is no health agency with funded activities to study, test or control radiation from phones or the towers that connect them. While radiation from towers is much lower than from phones, long-term exposures are also associated with a range of negative impacts on human health and the environment. – Devra Davis
Link to PDF of letter by Dr. Devra Davis: https://safetechinternational.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/New-York-Times-Letter-1.pdf
Do We Need to Worry About Smartphones?
If you are gathering with loved ones this holiday season, instead of watching this PAID POST by Verizon 5G — Behind the 5G Experience (nytimes.com) please have a look at this offering from a non-industry expert.
“Radiofrequency Radiation and Your Health: Is 5G Harmful?” Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D. University of California, Berkeley October 2, 2023
“The Federal Mobility Group invited me to conduct a webinar about the health effects of radiofrequency radiation including 5G, the latest cellphone technology, on September 11, 2023.The FMG is a chartered organization in the executive branch of the Federal government of the U.S. It has representatives from more than 45 departments and agencies including the military. Its mission is to identify challenges in the deployment of secure mobile technology, develop solutions, and share best practices. The webinar features the path-breaking work of the International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF) to catalyze the widespread support within the scientific community for the adoption of stronger regulatory standards to protect humans and wildlife from the harm due to our ever-increasing exposure to wireless radiation.
For links to the slides and a YouTube video go to:
Regarding wireless technologies, the New York Times has a record of compromised reporting.
See recent news from Safe Tech International here: THE INTERNATIONAL CHILDREN’S DECLARATION AND OTHER UPDATES (mailchi.mp)
Source: Safe Tech International