U.S. Smart Meters and Wireless, No Anti-Nuke Space Treaty, No Nuremberg Code, But Let’s Do Paris in Spring?
When a portion of the population became injured and/or disabled by the imposition of “smart” utility meters within the last decade, many advocacy groups began calling for decision-makers to adhere to the Nuremberg Code. The question of the Code is arising again relative to charges of human experimentation, and medical decisions being made in nations around the world, in response to recent health challenges. 
What is the Nuremberg Code? And what do the Nuremberg Code, the international agreement to prohibit nuclear weapons in space, and the Paris Agreement not have in common?
“Paris in Spring” (also released as Paris Love Song) is a 1935 black and white musical comedy film.
The news that the United States has recently rejoined the Paris Climate Agreement, under the leadership of the Democratic president Joe Biden, has been perceived as good news by the mainstream media and left-leaning press, economic interests, and industry.
But is it really that black and white?
What international agreements has the U.S. not endorsed, and why?
The Paris Agreement – Yes! The U.S. Recently Re-joined
In February, CNN reported, “The United States on Friday officially rejoined the Paris Agreement on climate change designed to limit global warming and avoid its potentially catastrophic impacts. Nearly 200 nations have signed on to the landmark accord and committed to limit their greenhouse gas emissions in an attempt to keep global warming below 2 degrees Celsius – preferably below 1.5 degrees Celsius – compared to pre-industrial temperatures. “The Paris Agreement is an unprecedented framework for global action. We know because we helped design it and make it a reality,” Secretary of State Antony Blinken said in a statement. “Its purpose is both simple and expansive: to help us all avoid catastrophic planetary warming and to build resilience around the world to the impacts from climate change we already see.” Rejoining the Paris Agreement was one of President Biden’s top priorities. Only hours after taking the oath of office, he signed an executive order initiating a 30-day process to reenter the pact. 
The Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty – No! The U.S. Did Not Sign
“The use of nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction in space is currently banned under the Outer Space Treaty and the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test Ban Treaty. But not all nuclear armed nations have ratified the latter, including the US and North Korea. A small number of nuclear tests in space were conducted in the 1960s including Starfish Prime. These resulted in artificial radiation belts forming around the Earth which were still detectable decades after the event – posing a danger for astronauts. These radiation belts also disabled half a dozen satellites in low Earth orbit. If the results of Starfish Prime are anything to go by, then clearly it would take only a handful of nuclear detonations to make space unusable for any satellites for decades to come.”
The Nuremberg Code – No! The International Criminal Court- No! The U.S. Did Not Ratify
Following WWII, as explained by the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum’s website, “On August 19, 1947, the judges of the American military tribunal in the case of the USA vs. Karl Brandt et. al. delivered their verdict. Before announcing the guilt or innocence of each defendant, they confronted the difficult question of medical experimentation on human beings. Several German doctors had argued in their own defense that their experiments differed little from previous American or German ones. Furthermore they showed that no international law or informal statement differentiated between legal and illegal human experimentation. This argument worried Drs. Andrew Ivy and Leo Alexander, American doctors who had worked with the prosecution during the trial. On April 17, 1947, Dr. Alexander submitted a memorandum to the United States Counsel for War Crimes which outlined six points defining legitimate research. The verdict of August 19 reiterated almost all of these points in a section entitled “Permissible Medical Experiments” and revised the original six points into ten. Subsequently, the ten points became known as the “Nuremberg Code.” Although the code addressed the defense arguments in general, remarkably none of the specific findings against Brandt and his codefendants mentioned the code. Thus the legal force of the document was not well established. The uncertain use of the code continued in the half century following the trial when it informed numerous international ethics statements but failed to find a place in either the American or German national law codes. Nevertheless, it remains a landmark document on medical ethics and one of the most lasting products of the “Doctors Trial.”
International Criminal Court
Encyclopedia Britannica states, “International Criminal Court (ICC), permanent judicial body established by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (1998) to prosecute and adjudicate individuals accused of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. On July 1, 2002, after the requisite number of countries (60) ratified the agreement, the court began sittings. It is headquartered in the Netherlands at The Hague. The ICC was established as a court of last resort to prosecute the most heinous offenses in cases where national courts fail to act. Unlike the International Court of Justice, which hears disputes between states, the ICC handles prosecutions of individuals. The court’s jurisdiction extends to offenses that occurred after July 1, 2002, that were committed either in a state that has ratified the agreement or by a national of such a state. Although the Rome Statute was widely praised (some 140 countries had signed the agreement by the time it entered into force), few countries in the Middle East or Asia joined. Further, by 2002, China, Russia, and the United States had declined to participate, and the United States had threatened to withdraw its troops from United Nations peacekeeping forces unless its citizens (both military and civilian) were exempted from prosecution by the ICC. Nevertheless, within five years of its first sitting more than 100 countries had ratified the treaty. All member countries are represented in the Assembly of States Parties, which oversees the activities of the ICC. 
The Nuremberg Code and ‘Smart’ Meters; a Rude, Rude, Awakening
“Were these population-wide exposures to smart meters to be part of a project carried out in a medical setting, to test the risks and benefits of a new technology on human health and well being, it would be rejected by a Medical Institutional Review Board on ethical grounds as an unethical exercise in human experimentation.”  – Elihu D Richter MD, MPH (Assoc Professor) Hebrew University-Hadassah School of Public Health and Community Medicine Unit of Occupational and Environmental Medicine
The Nuremberg Code was signed in response to the atrocities that occurred during World War II. Over the years, the international agreement was refined further to protect individuals from non-consenting experimentation, as well as other human rights violations. What about the forced installation of dual use wireless and powerline ‘smart’ utility meters  (gas, water, electricity) that commoditize customer data and contribute to ubiquitous surveillance? With unclear costs over time? With unclear benefits? Without considering alternatives? Despite reports of harm?
Lack of Knowledge and Consent? Yes
Smart meter opposition groups were correct in identifying the imposition of untested mesh networks of wireless utility meters and/or powerline technologies as a form of human experimentation without knowledge and consent.
For example, Pamela Steinberg was harmed by the combination of a neighbor’s meter, the mesh network, and proximal infrastructure during the National Grid smart meter pilot program conducted in Worcester, MA. She noted, “Radiation without representation is tyranny.” The program was covertly authorized by local decision makers, without the informed consent of residents, and characterized as a massive overrun of community rights. The pilot functioned not as legitimate research, but as “decision-based evidence-making” to support the goal of meter deployment. Charges of fraud leveled by the community have yet to be addressed. That the pilot failed to monitor health and environmental impact is inexplicable, given that injury had already been reported in many jurisdictions.
Smart meter opposition groups and independent health care providers trained in Environmental and Functional Medicine were also correct in identifying the technology as harmful to an un-quantified portion of the population, despite industry and media dismissal and ridicule. As Dr. Beatrice Golumb MD PhD, Professor of Medicine at UC San Diego, said: “Our survey study shows this smart meter induced electrical sensitivity often led to catastrophic impacts in the lives of those affected.”
In fact, loss of sleep was one of the primary early symptoms reported by individuals and their health care providers. And, sleep deprivation is prohibited, internationally, as a form of torture. It is recognized as major contributor to adverse health outcomes. How can individuals utilize self care to support their health when they are forcefully immersed in an unnatural EMF environment that disrupts brain waves and disturbs sleep?
But what many Americans did not know, when they began to question smart meters, is that the United States did not endorse the Nuremberg Code, and, is not a member of the International Criminal Court.
And, what is alarming and incomprehensible to many is the fact that smart meter experiments did not involve the horrors that were revealed following WWII, of studying human physiology through gross experiments and/or torture.
The dynamic of pro-corporate, pro-political, pro-economic growth, pro-surveillance, pro-populace behavioral control policies has regressed to the point where proponents of technology treat harm and injury to a portion of the population as non-existent, irrelevant, or as collateral damage.  And by treating a portion of the population as non-existent, human rights abuses continue, under the umbrella of sustainability. While many responsive local and state officials attempted to provide advocacy for health-vulnerable groups, national decision makers and regulators have demonstrated little to no willingness to address harm accompanying deployment, in sharp contrast, for example, to covid. This lack of attention, lack of investigation, and lack of response directly impacts many non-benefitting, non-consenting individuals, including children, subjected to involuntary, inescapable exposures.
Why the difference in response between microwave poisoning, and covid?
Why have health vulnerable populations not been accommodated in the smart meter or emerging 5G telecom paradigm? 
Why, instead, has the government focused on increasing opportunities for industry to compete, and for economic expansion? For example, as noted by Roland Lehoucq, writing about SpaceX ambitions to provide internet access from space, “Thus the American authority tasked with regulating U.S. telecoms — which recently decided to drop the Net neutrality principle — turns a blind eye to the privatization of space by a corporation that wants to take over the low Earth orbit region. All this in the spirit of the 2015 Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act, which allows US industries to “engage in the commercial exploration and exploitation of space resources.” The 1967 Outer Space Treaty declared outer space to be a common good of humankind. Today this may seem quaint to some, but it is more necessary than ever.”
The Commoditization and Disaster Capitalism of Covid and Climate
The dual challenges of covid and climate are driving a number of economic agendas. Many environmentalist groups believe that they are aligned with “the high road” regarding support for the Paris Agreement. In addition, recent attention to race inequity is driving the industry and political narrative that rural broadband internet access must be increased, to address the digital divide. Internet access is increasingly equated with an essential human right.
On the other side of the equation, Western ambitions towards the climate outsource misery and suffering to impoverished nations, in the form of exploitation, slavery, conflict minerals, workplace abuse, and e-waste. (And, conversations about internet access fail to distinguish between hard-wired vs. wireless, surveillance ready applications.)
Some of the fallacies of Clean Green Energy are being outlined in an on-going series of articles by Katie Singer and Migual Coma; – Letters to Greta:
Exploiting the Digital Divide
Regarding the myth of addressing the digital divide in the United States, “The National Digital Inclusion Alliance describes itself as “a unified voice for home broadband access, public broadband access, personal devices and local technology training and support programs.” Angela Siefer and Bill Callahan wrote, Limiting Broadband Investment to “Rural Only” Discriminates Against Black Americans and other Communities of Color.”  “The federal government’s existing broadband programs target tens of billions of dollars to expand broadband availability for residents of “unserved and underserved” rural areas, while studiously ignoring tens of millions of urban Americans who still lack high-speed internet service. This policy framework is counterproductive for reducing the nation’s overall digital divide. It is also structurally racist, discriminating against unconnected Black Americans and other communities of color. We present data below showing that:
– most Americans who have a chance of benefiting from federal spending on rural broadband deployment subsidies are non-Hispanic white
– Americans who lack home broadband service for reasons other than network availability are disproportionately people of color.
– Conscious or not, the objective effect of current policy is that broadband investment – not just by the FCC and USDA, but by some states as well – is directed mostly to assisting non-Hispanic rural white people to get better internet connections.
Continued federal policies which direct federal “digital divide” spending only to rural infrastructure, and not to broader digital inclusion programs for both urban and rural residents:
– are inequitable to communities of color, and
– will help perpetuate the digital exclusion of those communities’ members from employment opportunities, education, healthcare services, financial and commercial access, and social and civic participation.
What do we learn from the data? The most urban cities and counties in the U.S. have many more residents who lack home broadband service than do the most rural counties. All of the nation’s counties whose populations are at least 75% rural, taken together, accounted for less than 8% of Americans living in households with no broadband. In contrast, the most urban counties — those with fewer than 5% rural residents — accounted for more than 35%. Unconnected residents in the nation’s largest cities and urban counties far outnumber unconnected residents in the most rural and “unserved” counties, regardless of race. But the urban/rural disparity for people of color and for Black Americans is far greater than for non-Hispanic whites. For example, there were slightly fewer white residents without broadband in our dataset from the 111 biggest cities than there were in the most rural counties (2.7 million vs. 2.9 million); but there were seven times as many unconnected Black residents in the cities, and almost nine times as many unconnected people of color.”
The Paris Agreement is Not Paris in Springtime, “The bad: unaccountable and uncertain”
“The 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change laid down a broad legal structure for global cooperation to which future agreements were intended to provide more specificity. Paris did nothing of the sort. Instead, the Paris Agreement introduces a new, and mainly worrisome, model of voluntary “nationally determined contributions” by governments. Many of the results are expected to be delivered by the magic of markets and not-yet-commercially available revolutionary technology, with world leaders cheering the change along.
For different reasons, this new model of voluntary national measures fits the interests of many key players, including the United States, China and India. But it leaves the future timetable for actual emission reductions squarely in the hands of the largest polluters with no collective system in place to enforce that individual countries meet clear targets. The success of the system depends too much on the good will of world leaders The ugly: no pledge, no commitment This so-called “bottom-up” approach may have been necessary to reach a deal in Paris. But it made it impossible to create an agreement where countries are clearly held answerable. The flamboyant language of aspiration coming out of Paris cannot hide the fact that the agreement is essentially void of clearly actionable commitments. On both the two high-profile issues that matter the most – emission reductions and financial investments – there are no new explicit numerical targets for individual countries and no meaningful mechanism for ensuring accountability.”
Racism, Job Loss, Environmental Concern as Opportunism (Executing a Wide Left Turn)
As nations like the U.S. move to justify policy under the umbrella of addressing the concept of climate change, who is accountable for ensuring that the effort is not being used to justify the abuse of human rights, and corporate and market overreach? Who is accountable for preventing green-washing?
The International Criminal Court has faced charges of racism for its emphasis on prosecuting drug crimes in predominantly Black countries,  while ignoring criminal activity in other countries, especially in the West.
The collaboration between
- the wireless industry’s ambitions,
- prevailing economic interests and concentration of wealth,
- partnered with the dominance of the American military,
- supported by incomplete analysis by environmental groups,
- with manipulation of strategies to address racial inequities,
- combined with left-ideals and policies regarding labor and jobs,
is a dangerous, combustible mix.
The ambitions of the wireless industry are being translated via proposed policy and regulation from “Trump-speak” to “Biden-speak.” Promoting “equal opportunity access” to the environmental toxin of microwave radiofrequencies, via 5G from earth and space, is a form of brain-washing. Whether recognized by the Paris Agreement or the International Criminal Court or not, promoting human rights abuse and ecosystem destruction as environmental stewardship and the provision of equal rights, is criminal.
Now, the U.S. rejoins the World Health Organization
Years ago, the World Health Organization was overrun with tobacco scientists. At this time, WHO is overrun by wireless industry objectives.
Learn more here about a new paradigm explaining recent health challenges in a half hour video with Dr. Zach Bush. He tells Jurriaan Kamp that Covid19 is not an enemy but a messenger calling for radical change in the relationship between humans and nature.
Ep. 2 Zach Bush | Kamp Solutions | Beyond The Virus Special – Watch on Vimeo HERE.
We can’t safeguard the earth without addressing the wireless footprint. Questioning the Paris Agreement, or smart meters, does not make an individual unwilling to adopt environmental goals, and it does not make an individual a domestic terrorist. And if we don’t soon recognize the power of the politicized propaganda, we’re toast.
 Smart meters are being promoted as if they have been provided in response to customer demand. But, like many innovations in the technological realm, they are a dual-use technology serving many masters. There is a claim that the meters “give consumers more control over their energy” without divulging punitive pricing schemes. Proponents have given less attention to the other ‘benefits,” especially when they failed to deliver. One example was the claim that the meters were necessary in order to integrate renewable energy into the grid. Yet following installation, solar wars exploded in state after state, with utilities creating one obstacle after another, as regulators favored utility scale solar over decentralized rooftop, which was emphasized in Germany.
Top image art by Flo Freshman
Patricia Burke works with activists across the country and internationally calling for new biologically-based microwave radio frequency exposure limits. She is based in Massachusetts and can be reached at [email protected].