MARK STEELE
(Translated from Geordie and Hi-Tec by T Armstrong.)
His name is Mark Steele, a weapons systems designer and analyst with detailed knowledge of military technologies, their deployment strategies and underlying mechanisms. In his Substack Save Us Now he warns the public that what is being rolled out across our towns and cities under the guise of “5G telecommunications infrastructures” is, in reality, a weapons system, which he labels a kill grid.
Now, I have no idea if what he says is correct. He may be a complete crank, or he may be right and a brave battler for the public good. Or there may be some truth in what Steele says, but he has taken it too far. All I can say is that I spoke to him at length and he appeared to be knowledgeable and sincere. The reader should make their own mind up. Anyhow, this is his tale, collated from notes I took during our conversation.
Mark Steele’s contention is that 5G is not simply about faster downloads, streaming, or “smart cities.” Instead, it is a sophisticated, multi-layered deployment of military-grade directed energy technologies, embedded in lampposts, street furniture, and domestic appliances. That is, a system designed for surveillance, control, and, ultimately, harm, with a covert agenda of weaponisation against populations.
Steele rightly points out that weapons systems evolve. Technologies tested for battlefield applications migrate into civil life, often repackaged as consumer innovations. Microwaves, millimetre-wave radars and phased-array antennas are not new. They have long been used in targeting systems, crowd-control weapons, and surveillance platforms. Of course, many technologies first developed for military use evolved into entirely benign civilian technologies, but not all of them. Bear that in mind and use your own judgement, as I set out below Mark Steele’s opinions.
Steele says that 5G makes use of the same frequencies, architectures, and control protocols as weapons systems, and that what is presented as a benign communication technology is, in reality, the global roll-out of military hardware, disguised as “connectivity.” The infrastructure being placed on our streets is not designed solely to transmit mobile data. The so-called “small cells,” the lamp-post installations, and the dense urban grids of antennas are the architecture of modern warfare.
Local authorities across the UK and other nations have installed LED streetlights equipped with transmitters. These units are not simple lamps. They are embedded with phased-array antenna systems capable of emitting high-frequency, pulsed radiation. In Gateshead, where he first exposed these systems, streetlights were emitting Class 1 Radiation frequencies that can cause nose-bleeds, miscarriages, depression of the immune system, cancers, and neurological harm. Families living near these installations have reported sudden health deterioration.
5G uses a much denser grid than previous mobile technologies. Rather than a few distant towers, it uses thousands of localised nodes, every few hundred meters in urban spaces. This density is not necessary for ordinary mobile communications. It is, however, consistent with a battlefield deployment of directed energy systems. When deployed across entire cities it becomes what Steele terms the Kill Grid: a blanket of pulsed, high-frequency radiation that no one can escape.
Phased array is a military invention. Unlike a traditional antenna that emits radiation in all directions, a phased array can focus energy into tight, steerable beams that can track, target, and concentrate radiation on specific individuals or groups. 5G infrastructure employs phased arrays meaning, according to Steele, that under the cover of “telecommunications,” a malevolent authority can deploy beam-forming weapons systems capable of spying on populations, interfering with human physiology, and applying coercive control.
5G makes use of pulsed high-frequency radiation. Pulsed fields are significantly more biologically harmful than continuous waves. They interact with human cells, DNA, and neurological systems in disruptive ways. Scientific studies on pulsed radiation have shown links with cancer, infertility, immune suppression, and neurological disorders. In battlefield applications, pulsed radiation has been used for crowd control, causing disorientation, nausea, and pain. These mechanisms are now embedded in our civil infrastructure.
Modern LED streetlights are not passive illuminators. They flicker at frequencies that interact with the nervous system. Combined with radiofrequency transmissions, they contribute to an environment that can disrupt circadian rhythms, weaken immunity, and degrade mental health. The roll-out of 5G correlates with a rise in unexplained health problems in communities. People living near new street-light installations have reported nosebleeds, increased miscarriages, sudden onset of cancers. neurological issues such as tremors, headaches, and disorientation, sleep disruption and chronic fatigue and depression of their immune function
In Gateshead, Steele recorded dozens of such cases. In one instance, residents reported that birds were disappearing from areas near new installations. Insects, critical to the food chain, are also being harmed. The environmental impact is profound. This system is not overt. It does not kill with the blast of a bomb or the bullet of a gun. It operates as a silent weapon degrading health, suppressing populations, and leading to premature death.
Steele has claimed that 5G is already responsible for hundreds of deaths. The mechanism is clear, he says: radiation exposure that leads to cellular damage, immune suppression, and vulnerability to disease. When deployed across entire populations, the cumulative toll is immense. He also says that the timing of the 5G roll-out coincided with the COVID-19 pandemic and argues that 5G exposure exacerbates the symptoms attributed to the virus. Both involve respiratory distress, immune dysfunction, and systemic weakness. Steele claims that 5G might have been used to amplify or simulate the disease.
5G is not only about harm to health, according to Steele. It is also a system of control. The dense grid of sensors, antennas, and transmitters creates a surveillance architecture unlike any before. Every movement, every transaction, every communication can be tracked. With the integration of “smart” technologies, homes, vehicles, and workplaces become nodes in the grid. This is the infrastructure for a technocratic dictatorship where freedom is conditional, and every citizen is monitored and controlled.
Steele uses the sinister term “Kill Grid” because, he says, that is what it is; a weapons architecture disguised as infrastructure that blankets cities in harmful radiation and erodes health over time. It can be activated in targeted ways and, in his opinion, is ‘aligned with’ a broader agenda of population control and reduction. And it is here, now, he says, in our lampposts, our schools and our homes. Children are being irradiated in their bedrooms. Families are being microwaved in their beds.
In Gateshead, the council sought to silence Steele with a gag order, forbidding him from speaking about 5G. He fought that order and won, and considers that councils attempting to silence him is itself evidence of a cover-up. If these systems were safe, why would authorities expend such effort to suppress public debate? But Steele goes even further. In his opinion the roll-out of 5G should be seen in the context of wider agendas: transhumanism, technocratic governance, and population reduction. The evidence suggests, he says, that 5G is not an isolated project but part of a coordinated plan to reduce population, control survivors, and create a digitally enslaved society.
Telecom companies, local councils, and national governments all play a role. Whether through ignorance, corruption, or complicity, they are enabling the deployment of a weapon system against their own populations. International corporations profit, says Steele, while ordinary people suffer. Politicians repeat the mantra of “innovation” and “connectivity,” while ignoring the evidence of harm. Regulators, captured by industry, fail to act.
Steele says that we should resist the deployment of 5G and demand the removal of harmful streetlights and small-cell installations. Legal action should be pursued against councils and corporations that enable harm. He wants independent investigations into the health effects, the radiation levels, and the true purpose of this infrastructure. This, he says, is not about faster downloads. It is about survival.
So, what do you think? I have to say that not so long ago I’d have dismissed all this as the fevered rantings of a mad professor. But now? Well, it’s still hard swallow, but given the descent of the ruling class into autocratic lunacy, who knows.
Here’s Mark Steele telling his story on Youtube. He suggests doing your own research. Here’s links to a few of mine after asking Is 5G a weapons system: IEE.org; Project Censored and Parliament. It seems that there is, at least, the potential of 5G being used as a weapon. But is it part of a planned mass extinction plan? That’s a very different kettle of fish.
If anyone who has any expertise on 5G and its potential usages, please get in touch. If you have, write and let us know. If you disagree with Mark Steele, write a rebuttal article. And for the rest of us, I suppose we really should try to find out.
Mark has since sent me a detailed but highly technical response including multiple attachments, too much to reproduce here, but all highly detailed. Depending on how much interest this gets, I might try to put it all together in another article.
See Related Article Below
The 5G menace that government pretends doesn’t exist
GILLIAN JAMIESON
TECHNOLOGY has completely changed the way most of us live, particularly over the last 30 years. The use of mobile phones, smart gadgets and WiFi has increased exponentially, raising the question of whether there is a risk to health from the electromagnetic radiation these devices emit. The answer is, however, not readily available unless you know where to look, and there are conflicting opinions.
In summary there are two camps.
Camp One have strong links to and funding from the telecoms industry and their main expertise is electronic engineering. They play down the risks of health harm mainly on the grounds that harm occurs only if body tissue is heated by radio-frequency radiation (RFR) and that non-ionising radiation (NIR) cannot cause DNA damage. Supporters include the International Commission for Non-Ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), the World Health Organization, the Scientific Committee on Health, Environmental and Emerging Risks (SCHEER) and the now defunct UK Advisory Group on Non-Ionising Radiation (AGNIR).
They ignore those in Camp Two, which includes independent scientists and doctors whose main expertise is in human health, toxicology, epidemiology and biophysics, and includes electronic engineering. They say that harm occurs before the body heats up and that present safety limits need to be revised. They believe that DNA can be damaged by non-ionising radiation and that this can lead to cancer and other diseases. Many in this second group have recently come together under the auspices of the International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF) which states that the weight of scientific evidence justifies the call for meaningful policy changes to address ever-increasing EMF exposures.
The UK government defers to Camp One and adheres to safety exposure guidelines drawn up 27 years ago and barely changed since by ICNIRP, a self-selecting group based in Germany, and states: ‘Expert groups have examined the . . . evidence . . . and their conclusions support the view that health effects are unlikely to occur if exposures are below ICNIRP’s internationally agreed guideline levels.’
At the other extreme Professor James Lin, a biophysicist and professor of electronic and computer engineering at the College of Engineering, Chicago,stated recently: ‘Some of the safety guidelines are irrelevant, debatable, and absent of scientific justification from the standpoint of safety & public health protection.’ It is significant that Lin used to be on the ICNIRP board.
This summer another biophysicist, Dr Paul Héroux,addressed the question of divergence of opinions on the health effects of electromagnetic fields (EMFs) which include both wireless radiation and EMFs from powerlines. I intend to give a general summary of the beliefs of the two opposing camps, but for a more detailed analysis I recommend the above-mentioned articles by James Lin and Paul Héroux.
ICNIRP’s safety exposure guidelines, which are followed by the UK, are set at very high levels (10,000,000 µW/m2), far above those at which harm has been shown to occur as, for example, in Dr Lennart Hardell’s 5G case studies, and far higher than in countries such as India whose limits are set at one tenth of ICNIRP levels.
ICNIRP’s initial 1998 guidelines were already controversial because the studies did not take account of continuous exposure or possible chronic or long-term effects. Shockingly, despite important findings since then, the revised 2020 guidelines remained almost unchanged. In addition, when ICNIRP drew up its 2020 guidelines, it appears from my research that no medically qualified person was involved.
The 2020 guidelines completely ignore the 2011 classification of RFR as a possible carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). They also ignore two very large, well-conducted animal studies by the Ramazzini Institute and National Toxicology Program in 2018, which separately concluded that RFR caused heart cancer and brain gliomas in male rats. Professor Lin has said that these studies should result in a higher classification of RFR as ‘carcinogenic’ or ‘probably carcinogenic’. Furthermore, thousands of other studies have shown harm.
A critique of 14 flawed assumptions made by ICNIRP can be found in this important article, which asks for guidelines providing proper protection for humans and the environment ‘based on scientific evidence rather than on erroneous assumptions’. A good summary of these assumptions is appended to this letter to Indian authorities, in which they are urged not to yield to the telecoms industry’s demands to raise their safety limits to align with ICNIRP’s. Professor James Lin’s recent article also addresses various issues with ICNIRP guidelines, including discussion of the ‘roles of the military industrial complex in influencing research on the health effects and standards setting for safety levels’.
Furthermore, it is now 13 years since the Government asked the relevant expert committee to report on the potential health risks of 5G or its predecessors. The now disbanded AGNIR committee reported in 2012, but its findings were thoroughly discredited by neuroscientist Dr Sarah Starkey as it had omitted and distorted scientific evidence leading to wrong and misleading conclusions. She also noted how many personnel had dual roles or conflicts of interests by being in more than one of these regulatory bodies at the same time. The present expert committee, COMARE, holds only a watching brief having admitted it is waiting for the WHO’s final report on their systematic reviews.
Thousands of pre-5G studies listed by the Bioinitiative Report have shown that RFR does damage under the thermal threshold at cellular level leading to ‘non-thermal induction of reactive oxygen species, DNA damage, cardiomyopathy, carcinogenicity, sperm damage and neurological effects’ in the long term. The report also states the fundamental reason that RFR is harmful to humans: ‘Our hearts and brains are regulated by internal bioelectrical signals. Environmental exposures to artificial EMFs can interact with fundamental biological processes in the human body.’
The recent real-life 5G case studies by epidemiologist and oncologist Dr Lennart Hardell are of particular note. He found that, at levels which were a fraction of the ICNIRP limits, people were getting unbearable symptoms similar to ‘microwave syndrome’ (as documented in Eastern Europe in the 60s and 70s) almost immediately. These are short-term effects and basically also the symptoms of electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS). In the UK it is often statedthat RFR or 5G is safe because measurements are well below the ICNIRP levels. Hardell’s work proves that theoretical safety limits are of no use if health damage is caused well within them. He also points out that the pulsed modulation (not continuous) waves from 5G and devices such as smart meters are particularly damaging to health. Yet the government wants to force smart meters on all of us.
James Lin has raised the question of how there can be such ‘dissimilar assessments and inferences of the same scientific studies’. For an example of this, let us return to Camp One and look at the World Health Organization EMF Project. This has just produced its long-awaited 12 reviews of the research literature and until the last one, when it was admitted that RFR causes cancer in animals, their reviews played down the harms, except that one on infertility had to be corrected with the admission that RFR does, in fact, affect male fertility. The ICBE-EMF has taken them to task, pointing out serious flaws in several of the reviews. The EMF Project review by Karipdis et al, for example, showed little risk of cancer to humans from RFR, yet astonishingly another review using exactly the same studies showed clear risk to humans.
The issue of different scientists looking at the same studies and coming to different conclusions is described by biophysicist Dr Paul Héroux, in an article published in July this year, as a disagreement between ‘officers of (the telecoms) industry and their followers’ on the one hand and ‘health environmentalists’ on the other. He describes examples of the industry withdrawing funding as soon as their own narrative of negligible harm was in danger, and suggests that the industry was not justified in ‘publicising its thermalist (heating) agenda with so many governments worldwide’.
Confirmation of the control exerted by the telecoms industry is seen in the WHO EMF Project, whose final conclusions are expected imminently by governments worldwide. Its leader Emilie van Deventer is a member of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), which has long prioritised international pro-telecoms lobbying efforts aimed at the WHO. The EMF Project itself was compromised by conflicts of interests, since it began as a close collaboration between the WHO, ICNIRP and the electric, telecoms and military industries, and was partly financed by industry lobbying organisations. These details and the unsuitable credentials of those involved are described by Dr Lennart Hardell in his 2017 article.
ICNIRP’s conflicts of interest were highlighted by the Court of Appeal in Turin when it confirmed the causal link between mobile phone use and cancer. It found ICNIRP-influenced studies to be invalid, the judges writing: ‘The Tribunal recognises that telephone industry-funded scientists, or members of the ICNIRP, are less reliable than independent scientists’. Why is this not acknowledged and acted upon by our government?
I believe that the UK Government actively seeks to sweep the issue of health damage from EMFs under the carpet. I investigated two issues which seem to prove this. The reason must relate to a Government agenda which is much more important to it than public health. Scientists have several times called for more protective safety exposure guidelines and for the health risks to be investigated by telecoms-independent scientists, but instead there is a proliferation of wireless radiation from smart meters, WiFi, Bluetooth, Tetra and phone masts with people using smartphones continuously in public as never before.
Growing mistrust of the WHO, as well as the growing awareness that industry funding and conflicts of interest create bad science, should lead us require the government to recognise the health risks of non-ionising radiation and to take robust action on our behalf. It seems outrageous that the telecoms industry has so much say in matters of public health while scientists and doctors are simply ignored.
This article (The 5G menace that government pretends doesn’t exist) was created and published by Conservative Woman and is republished here under “Fair Use” with attribution to the author Gillian Jamieson
.
••••
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
••••
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
••••
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
••••
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of The Liberty Beacon Project.
Leave a Reply