1) Fiber Broadcast Association holds regular sessions in which a variety of topics related to fiber optic cable are discussed. Recordings of prior sessions are available on their site.
Near Shore Fiber Unlocks New Deployment Options
“It may be counterintuitive to look to the rivers and seas to affordably deploy fiber, but “near shore” deployment of fiber provides a way to deliver broadband to towns and communities that in some ways can be easier than dry land deployments.
On this week’s Fiber for Breakfast, Baylink Networks Director of Strategy Mike Maziarka said, “The cost to deploy [near shore] fiber is sometimes one-eighth of what we think of traditional subsea fiber. The methodologies are different; there are proprietary and patented technologies used. The service levels are that of terrestrial and the lifespans of those cables are almost infinite because they’re not powered.”…
“This approach has been gaining momentum since 2017 with many projects in the water, most notably the Connected Coast Project, which is a 2,200-mile network connecting 139 communities along the British Columbia coasts,” said Maziarka.”
https://fiberbroadband.org/2024/03/14/near-shore-fiber-unlocks-new-deployment-options/
2) The government’s objective of having 100% emission-free cars in about 10 years is dependent upon having the infrastructure in place to support it. Planning and development will need to begin now.
(click on photos to enlarge)
FAILURE TO CHARGE: A critical look at Canada’s EV policy
“This study delves into the potential implications of the increasing adoption of EVs on both Canada’s and various provinces’ electricity grids. Our analysis provides estimates of the additional generating capacity required to meet the escalating demand from EVs. We do not look into the necessity for additional transmission lines for renewable power sources or upgrades to local delivery lines….
“EVs could pose a significant burden on Canadian electricity grids, with system demand increasing by as little as 7.5% to as much as 15.3%, although the burden varies across the provinces.””
3) This online program is free, and runs from April 11-14. I don’t know or know of many of the presenters but the topics sound interesting.
EMF Hazards Summit
” – Find out why your phone, Wi-Fi router or Bluetooth gadgets could be making you sick — and take the first steps towards recovery.
– Learn Exactly How to Navigate Symptoms of Electro-Sensitivity, Reduce Your Exposure to Toxic EMFs & Move Towards Recovery”
https://emfhazards.com/?oprid=40726&ref=82
Letters:
From Devra Davis’s newsletter.
Remember When People Smoked on Planes?
“Did you know that planes used to be divided into smoking and non-smoking sections?
In 1983, as executive director of a committee with the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), I was tasked to develop a four-year, $500,000 study of smoking on airplanes that answered the question: Do non-smoking sections protect passengers?
Before the study got started, I happened to be booked on a cross-Atlantic flight. So I borrowed a special piece of scientific equipment called a piezobalance to measure airborne particles as tiny as those produced by cigarette smoke. It was an eight-hour flight. The measurements I took led me to conclude in eight hours what my committee would formally confirm four years and thousands of dollars later: identical levels of these particles existed in the plane’s smoking and non-smoking sections. Less than a year after the NAS report was published, smoking bans started taking effect on airplanes and in other public places.
Smoking was officially banned on all U.S. domestic flights in 1990. That was four years after the U.S. Surgeon General listed secondhand smoke as a cause of cancer.
The Surgeon General’s report was five years after the first major epidemiological studies showed that non-smoking women married to smokers had a higher risk of lung cancer than did non-smoking women married to non-smokers.
It took a long time to persuade policymakers and corporate leaders what we learned years earlier — that secondhand smoke is a threat to public health
Then There’s That Climate Change Issue
Back in the late 1990s, I participated in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as one of the lead authors of the panel’s assessment of climate mitigation policies. At the time, we predicted that if coal fuel continued to be used at its current levels, the death toll would rise to about 8 million people by 2020.
We knew coal soot in the air was linked with bronchitis and early deaths. It took years of work and decades of data to demonstrate the link between manmade fossil fuel emissions and rising global temperatures.
We worked to raise awareness of the health and environmental impacts of fossil fuels. The entire team that worked on the IPCC won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 along with the Honorable Al Gore. Yet today, millions of people still refuse to attribute the increase in extreme weather events to a rise in carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases being released into our atmosphere by big manufacturers.
Now It’s Time to Address Wireless Radiation
As the public comes to understand and accept the dangers of smoking and greenhouse gases, we at Environmental Health Trust are addressing another pollutant: wireless radiation.
Cell phones are commonplace today, and it is becoming obvious that the radiation emitted by wireless networks causes a host of illnesses and dangers to humans, plants, and animals.
Yet the FCC insists that radiation emissions are negligible. Its current U.S. “safety” thresholds are based off tests on 220-pound men with 11-pound heads who speak on the phone for six minutes per day.
That’s not an accurate representation of the public or its interaction with cell phones.
EHT has been trying to get the FCC to update its regulations for years, but as recently as February 2020, the FCC — using standards outlined by the telecom industry — issued “radiation test” results that reinforced the claim that cell phones are safe. However, the test used a separation distance between the phone and the body at thresholds that only protect us from heating effects, not biological effects.
The FCC is burying its head in the sand, and we have to dig it out.
EHT is on a mission to have the FCC retract its findings and acknowledge that its data are bad. We have gone so far as to sue the FCC to force it to admit the truth and acknowledge the reams of scientific studies that demonstrate harm from wireless radiation exposure.
Continuing our mission takes resources.
Your donation to EHT allows us to continue the pursuit of truth, health and safety. Any amount helps us to develop the competent science to demonstrate the impact of wireless radiation and to persuade our leaders to take our safety seriously.
Will you please donate to help protect all of us and our children.”
Sharon Noble, Director, Citizens for Safer Tech
“A community is like a ship; everyone ought to be prepared to take the helm.” Henrik Ibsen
Sent from my wired laptop with no wireless components. PLEASE Practice Safe Tech.