Two Updates/Postscripts: SpaceX and Aerospace Hazards; and New York Times and EMF Science Hazards by Patricia Burke of Safe Tech International with Nina Beety, Images courtesy Floris Freshman
SpaceX and Aerospace Hazards Update
Safe Tech International published SpaceX & Mars & Explosions & Injuries: It’s Not Just Where We’re Going, It’s How We Get There and Who Pays the Price November 11. The article included the recent Reuters investigation of horrific SpaceX workplace injuries. “The lax safety culture, more than a dozen current and former employees said, stems in part from Musk’s disdain for perceived bureaucracy and a belief inside SpaceX that it’s leading an urgent quest to create a refuge in space from a dying Earth.” – Reuters
“Regarding SpaceX’s demand for regulatory reform and faster approvals, a growing portion of the awakened public sees the tech industry’s sense of entitlement to speed and lax regulation as unrealistic, ungrounded, and unsafe.
Humanity, and every species, have co-evolved for eons to live on the Earth. To imply that a refuge can be successfully created on the Moon or Mars by SpaceX, when it cannot operate in harmony with the Laws of Nature, and with its institutionalized lack of respect for human rights, community rights, employee safety, and the Rights of Nature, is wildly illogical.
11-17-23 Presentation to California Coastal Commission on SpaceX and aerospace impacts
Rather than assuming that the Earth is dying, disjointed tech industries are ignoring the damage that they themselves are inflicting.”
This includes the alteration of the Earth’s electromagnetic environment, as noted in January 2022 by Arthur Firstenberg. – Source (It also includes mining, and disposal hazards).
November 17; Nina Beety Spoke to the California Coastal Commission about SpaceX and Aerospace Hazards
Nina Beety spoke before the California Coastal Commission about SpaceX and aerospace hazards on Friday, November 17,
11-17-23 Presentation to California Coastal Commission on SpaceX and aerospace impacts
11-17-23 Presentation to California Coastal Commission on SpaceX and aerospace impacts
Saturday November 18: SpaceX Starship Rocket Exploded, Again
Business Insider: SpaceX’s Starship rocket exploded again. Elon Musk’s Mars dreams remain grounded, for now.
“SpaceX launched Starship and its Super Heavy booster toward space for the second time on Saturday. The rocket exploded again, but this time it came within seconds of completing launch. Elon Musk wants Starship to settle Mars. NASA wants it to put astronauts on the moon. But it has to fly first.”
A “Rapid Unscheduled Disassembly“
“Starship successfully separated from its booster, nailing the maneuver that turned it into a giant fireball last time it flew. time, the booster exploded as it tumbled back to Earth, but no matter — Starship was still climbing to the heavens. Starship successfully separated from its booster, nailing the maneuver that turned it into a giant fireball last time it flew. This time, the booster exploded as it tumbled back to Earth, but no matter — Starship was still climbing to the heavens. About six minutes later, however, Starship needed to shut off its engines so that it could coast around the planet. Instead, it stopped sending signals back to the ground. After a few tense shots of SpaceX CEO Elon Musk speaking with others in what appeared to be the Starship control room, the livestream hosts unceremoniously announced that Starship had met the same explosive fate as its booster — a “rapid unscheduled disassembly.”
“Starship is the cornerstone of Musk’s grandest plans. He and SpaceX both say the Starship-Super Heavy launch system will one day spit next-generation Starlink internet satellites into orbit, ferry passengers anywhere on Earth in an hour or less, and carry 100 people at a time to Mars to build the first settlement there.”
“SpaceX’s explosions aren’t necessarily failure in Musk’s Eyes“
“The complete Starship-Super Heavy system first attempted to reach space in April. It ended up exploding in a fireball, after Starship and the Super Heavy booster failed to separate at a critical moment of the flight, when the booster had finished pushing Starship through the skies and the spaceship was supposed to continue toward orbit on its own.“
“The April launch also blasted a giant hole in its launchpad, initiating a volcano-like eruption that rained debris down on towns five miles away.“
“These exploding Starships are not necessarily failures in Musk’s eyes. Unlike NASA or legacy aerospace firms, SpaceX’s testing philosophy is to build it, fly it, fix any problems that arise, and fly it again. That’s allowed the company to move quickly compared to its competitors.” – Source
NBC News: After successful liftoff and separation, SpaceX loses touch with Starship. One SpaceX official said an automated termination system onboard Starship was likely triggered, and the spacecraft appeared to have detonated.
“It was a mostly successful second outing for SpaceX’s next-generation Starship megarocket. The company did not elaborate on what happened to the spacecraft, Starship, which lost contact with SpaceX and may have triggered its self-destruct system.
With a test like this, success comes from what we learn, and today’s test will help us improve Starship’s reliability as SpaceX seeks to make life multiplanetary,” the company added.” – NBC
MSN: FAA to oversee investigation of SpaceX’s explosive 2nd Starship flight
“The target was a splashdown in the Pacific Ocean near Hawaii about 90 minutes after launch. But Saturday’s flight ended just eight minutes in, with the “rapid unscheduled disassembly” of Starship’s upper stage. The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) deemed this outcome a mishap and will supervise an investigation into its cause.“
“The FAA will oversee the @SpaceX-led mishap investigation to ensure SpaceX complies with its FAA-approved mishap investigation plan and other regulatory requirements,” the agency wrote via X on Saturday. There have been no reports of injuries or damage to public property as a result of the flight, the FAA added in another post.” – MSN
What About the Ozone Layer? Water? Debris?
“Musk was using ‘industrial’ water this time to inundate the area under the engines to keep them from igniting a fire again. What is industrial water? Where does it come from? What contaminants did it contain before and after being exposed to SuperHeavy pollutants? Where did SpaceX dump it, or did they let it run off onto the mud flats of the wildlife preserve?
SpaceX had approval for 6 launches per year at Vandenberg. However, they violated that this year, almost doubling what they were allowed by launching 11 from Jan. – May. The Coastal Commission okayed 36 rocket launches per year in June. Will SpaceX come back and request more California launches for 2024?
At Vandenberg, SpaceX plans 6 rocket launches in November and 7 rocket launches in December. They include 4 Starlink satellite batches each month.
In Florida, SpaceX plans 7 rocket launches in November and 10 rocket launches in December, and they include 5 Starlink satellite batches each month.
At this rate, there won’t be much ozone left over the Santa Barbara region or over Florida. Attached are the most recent NASA ozone measurements of the Southern Hemisphere compared to the same date in 1979, the first year they published the data, with the Dobson units chart. We’re in trouble.” – Nina Beety
Suggested Reading: Ozone loss – Free The Sky
One million satellites planned • Cellular Phone Task Force (cellphonetaskforce.org)
The environmental impact of emissions from space launches: A comprehensive review
The Climate and Ozone Impacts of Black Carbon Emissions From Global Rocket Launches
See also: 2-minute October 12 Presentation to CA Coastal Commission: https://freetheskyorg.files.wordpress.com/2023/11/10-12-23-coastal-com-presentation-on-spacex-final.pdf
“Left a 385-acre debris field that flung concrete chunks as far as 2,680 feet from the launchpad, sparked 3.5- acre state park fire” — Bloomberg
“The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) documented that the debris cloud of pulverized concrete deposited material as far as six-and-a-half miles north of the launch pad.” — Texas Public Radio
Additional Information about New York Times and 5G/EMF/RF Smartphone Science Hazards
On November 17, Safe Tech international published Who Pay$ When the New York Time$ Serves as a Mouthpiece for the Wirele$$ Industry? regarding the November 14 New York Times article Do I Need to Worry About Smartphone Radiation?
The New York Times article inaccurately reported, Q: I’m constantly on my phone, and it’s usually near my body when I’m not. Should I worry about radiation exposure?
“Spending all day glued to your smartphone probably isn’t doing you any favors. Excess phone use has been linked with a range of concerns, including sleep issues, elevated cortisol levels, joint pain and even relationship woes. But if it’s radiation you’re worried about, experts say you don’t have to ditch your phone.
“There’s no risk of anything hazardous or dangerous with radiation from cellphones,” said Gayle Woloschak, an associate dean and professor of radiology at the Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine.
As with all cellphones (along with Wi-Fi networks, radio stations, remote controls and GPS), smartphones do emit radiation, said Emily Caffrey, an assistant professor of health physics at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. They use invisible energy waves to transmit voices, texts, photos and emails to nearby cell towers, which can shuttle them to virtually anywhere in the world. But nearly three decades of scientific research has not linked such exposures to medical issues like cancer, health authorities including the Food and Drug Administration say.“
The article by Safe Tech International reported that independent experts noted that “referenced papers are more than two decades old,“ and that “their research deals solely with the effects of ionizing radiation.“ The article also noted the potential influence of the New York Times Board of Directors, and the paper’s largest shareholder, telecom magnate Carlos Slim.
New York Times Smartphone Safety ‘Experts’
The NYT failed to disclose possible conflicts of interest for the “experts” they quoted, who also appear to have no background on topic.
All three are very government connected. They are not ‘independent’ nor do they represent the opinion of many scientists and researchers with expertise in non-thermal effects of radio frequency radiation.
None of their areas of expertise are in non-ionizing radiation or its biological effects. Two of them – Gayle and Emily — are in the field on nuclear radiation. Emily’s husband also works for NASA.
Gayle Woloschak worked for Argonne National Laboratory for 13 years
Howard Fine worked for NIH. He was founding Chief of the Neuro-Oncology Branch at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and National Cancer Institute (NCI). He also won an NIH award in 2017.
https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/882492
https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/882492
Emily Caffrey, as a consultant and through her own company, works on projects for government and industry clients including radioactive waste sites, and “helps clients obtain necessary regulatory approvals” for their projects.
As a consultant with South Carolina-based Risk Assessment Corporation (RAC) and president of her own company, Radian Scientific, Caffrey performs radiation-dose reconstructions for numerous projects sponsored by government and industry clients.
…Another facet of her business is working with industry clients that run low-level radioactive waste sites to determine if the sites will be safe thousands of years into the future. In addition to providing radiation-dose projections, she helps clients obtain necessary regulatory approvals.
When she and her husband, Jarvis – also a Beaver – moved to Alabama in 2016 for his dream job at NASA …”
https://scholars.uab.edu/5699-emily-caffrey
And she just won an American Nuclear Society’s Glenn T. Seaborg Congressional Science and Engineering Fellowship. They “will help the Society fulfill its strategic goal of enhancing nuclear policy by working in the halls of Congress, either in a congressional member’s personal office or with a committee, when their fellowship term begins in January.
A New Way Forward?
Consumers would be far better served by not relying on industry 5G ads or the New York Times for guidance about cellphone safety, because they are essentially one and the same, and wildly outdated and/or misleading.
As noted by Devra Davis of the Environmental Health Trust, “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. ” – Devra Davis, Environmental Health Trust
As Thanksgiving approaches in the United States, regarding the belief that ‘SpaceX is leading an urgent quest to create a refuge in space from a dying Earth’ many are recognizing that the Earth itself is an invaluable treasure beyond measure,
and that its time to rethink the rescuer/savior myth…
…and maybe to stop justifying ‘blowing things up’ as an appropriate learning curve.
When one tugs at a single thing in nature, he finds it attached to the rest of the world. –John Muir
Recent Related Reading:
Mobile phone use may affect semen quality A team from UNIGE and Swiss TPH has published a large study covering more than a decade of data on the effects of mobile phones on semen quality of young men.
Paradigm shift? US military studies find nonthermal RF radiation exposure causes biologic effects (James C. Lin, IEEE Microwave Magazine) The goal of RadioBio is innovative and the project is intriguing. They seem to suggest a paradigm shift in the U.S. military’s standard of operation procedures away from a conviction that nothing but thermal effects could be associated with electromagnetic fields and waves. The new initiatives instead appeared to allow exploration (and perhaps, exploitation) of low-level, nonthermal biological responses to RF exposure.
Italian Appeal Of Scientists For Electromagnetic Safety
Safeemr.com Joel Moskowitz has been circulating abstracts of newly-published scientific papers on radio frequency and other non-ionizing electromagnetic fields (EMF) monthly since 2016. The complete collection of these papers contains more than 1,900 abstracts and links to more than 2,000 papers. Several hundred EMF scientists around the world receive these updates. To see abstracts for the most recent papers or to download volumes 1 and/or 2 of this collection go to:
https://www.saferemr.com/2022/06/recent-research-on-wireless-radiation.html
Recent Research on Wireless Radiation and Electromagnetic Fields
Be on the Right Side History.
Source: Safe Tech International
Become a Patron!
Or support us at SubscribeStar
Donate cryptocurrency HERE
Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Follow us on SoMee, Telegram, HIVE, Minds, MeWe, Twitter – X, Gab, and What Really Happened.
Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.
Be the first to comment on "Spaceships and Smartphones Oh My, Updates: Rocket Hazards and Hazardous New York Times EMF Smartphone Science"