National Security

Next cyberattack target? Medical devices

Posted by

0


Enemies of the United States who seek to take down the country in a cyberattack could soon target the health care industry.

New reports warn that, following a spate of localized cyberattacks against health care facilities, federal officials and health systems are concerned that the next cyberattack target will be medical devices, including those in hospital rooms, at imaging centers and even inside patients’ homes.

“Hackers have especially targeted health systems for their valuable troves of patient data and in some cases have temporarily knocked systems offline, disrupting patient care,” Axios reported about the matter.

“But there are also a range of medical devices – such as MRIs, ventilators and pacemakers – that are potential targets, particularly when it comes to aging devices with outdated software.”

Though the cyberattack threat to medical devices is still largely theoretical, experts like Toby Gouker, an executive at privacy and security firm First Health Advisory, believe that it is only a matter of time before hackers figure out a way to break them virtually.

“It’s a real Achilles’ heel and a blind spot for health systems,” Gouker is quoted as saying. “What makes more money in a hospital than anything else? If you bring an MRI down, you can take a lot of health systems to their knees.”

(Related: Some people believe that communist China is planning a cyberattack to take down America.)

Government watchdog calls on FDA to expand cybersecurity of medical devices

The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) is calling on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which oversees medical devices, to work more closely with the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency to coordinate cybersecurity and medical devices in advance of a potential attack.

Both agencies have responded to the GAO’s call positively, stating that they, too, believe more needs to be done to protect medical devices from hacking attempts.

The GAO produced a report that says the vulnerabilities inherent to medical devices “still pose risks to hospital networks – and patients.”

As of last March, a new law requires all medical device manufacturers to submit plans for how to address any cybersecurity vulnerabilities inherent to their products. That law does not, it is important to note, affect any connected devices that are already on the market.

“Everything from your hospital bed to your infusion pump next to the bed, to the monitor next to the bed that’s measuring, monitoring your vitals, they’re all connected,” said Chelsea Arnone, director of federal affairs for the College of Healthcare Information Management Executives.

“Everything is online … so they’re all ostensibly hackable.”

Because many medical devices incorporate off-the-shelf software that, like all other software, is vulnerable to threats like viruses and “worms,” it is important that medical device manufacturers pay mind to this threat early on to avoid potential hacking problems later on down the road.

Up until the new law took shape and was signed into law, most medical device manufacturers offered little to no support in providing patches or other cybersecurity solutions to their customers, especially for older medical devices that no longer hold “blockbuster” status.

The name of the game for the medical device industry, just like with the pharmaceutical industry, is profits. And providing constant software support for older products means fewer profits, hence the need for legislation to force these companies to do the right thing.

One recent incident that illustrates the problem occurred in Russia after a hacker found a backdoor into a hospital’s medical device. The hospital was unable to take the product offline in order to isolate the problem, and when its employees contacted the company for assistance, they were told there is no fix.

“It’s just old school,” Arnone said about the incident. “You’re calling someone on the phone and waiting and trying to get the right person who can help you. It’s like the worst kind of customer support.”

5G Danger: 4 Ways 5G wireless technology can seriously harm human health

Posted by

0


Fifth generation (5G) networks, which are touted to support faster mobile connections, are actively being rolled out around the world. However, 5G produces radiofrequency (RF) radiation and electromagnetic energy fields (EMF), which are increasingly being recognized as new types of environmental pollution. They have also been linked to serious health issues.

Here are four reasons why Americans should be concerned about 5G networks being launched in thousands of cities across the United States.

EMF from 5G causes premature aging

Numerous studies have shown that exposure to EMF can cause rapid aging. Some have even estimated that it can reduce longevity by 10 to 15 years.

According to Dr. Martin Pall, an EMF scientist, EMF exposure leads to premature aging and causes damage to vital organs, such as the brain and the heart, as well as DNA because it triggers the formation of free radicals. Research pioneered by Pall exposed how EMF activates voltage-gated calcium channels (VGCCs), which regulate the flow of calcium ions in and out of cells.

This activation causes VGCCs to allow excess calcium to enter cells, resulting in the production of nitric oxide (NO) and superoxide. These chemicals readily react to form peroxynitrite and free radicals, which can cause oxidative stress. Oxidative stress damages cells and their components, especially proteins, lipids and DNA. It is also said to drive cellular aging by promoting inflammation.

EMF from 5G can cause early onset Alzheimer’s

Pall’s research has also linked EMF exposure to the development of Alzheimer’s disease. His work using animal models shows two possible mechanisms through which EMF can cause Alzheimer’s: via the excessive calcium signaling pathway and via the peroxynitrite/oxidative stress/inflammation pathway.

A study published in the journal Nature Reviews Neuroscience elaborates on the consequences of calcium dyshomeostasis, noting that “increased intracellular calcium elicits the characteristic lesions of this disorder [Alzheimer’s disease], including the accumulation of amyloid-B, the hyperphosphorylation of TAU and neuronal death.”

Meanwhile oxidative stress, which is characterized by an imbalance between free radical production and antioxidant defense, is said to play a major role in the process of neurodegeneration and cognitive decline, especially among the elderly. Numerous studies have shown that the brain tissues of people with Alzheimer’s disease are heavily exposed to oxidative stress.

“EMFs act via peak electric and time varying magnetic forces at a nanosecond time scale,” explained Pall. With each increase in pulse modulation produced by EMF-emitting devices, such as smart meters, smart cell phones and 5G technology, such peaks are considerably increased as well, resulting in what Pall describes as the ultimate nightmare — extremely early onset Alzheimer’s disease.

Pall also highlighted human genetic and pharmacological studies that show high VGCC activity increasing the incidence of Alzheimer’s in humans. Because exposure to EMF, which is freely emitted by 5G networks, directly increases VGCC activity that triggers oxidative stress, it can be considered an important cause of Alzheimer’s disease. (Related: 5G is a weapons system designed to KILL people, says weapons expert Mark Steele.)

Pulsed wave radiation from 5G smart meters causes brain damage

Instead of continuous wave radiation, wireless smart meters emit pulsed wave radiation, a feature unique to them. This means that they alternate between emitting a burst of EMF and temporarily being inactive. According to court documents and testimony from Pacific Gas and Electric Company of California, smart meters on average produce pulsed waves between 9,600 and 190,000 times per day.

Pulsed wave EMFs have been shown to be more dangerous for humans than continuous wave EMFs. Animal studies suggest that the application of short, high-power RF pulses can cause significant brain damage, most notably abnormalities in the structure and function of dopamine synapses in the hippocampus.

Dopamine transmission in the brain, which is mediated by dopamine synapses, is involved in motor control and reward processing. Dysfunction of these synapses can lead to various psychiatric and neurological disorders in humans. In animal models, this has been linked to Parkinson’s disease.

5G can cause DNA alterations and cancer

5G has been reported to use millimeter waves (MMW) frequencies in the 24 to 100 GHz range. These frequencies are very high with extremely short (millimeter range) wavelengths, hence the name. MMW frequencies, especially at high doses, have been shown to alter the secondary structure and expression of DNA, which could have unfavorable consequences for human health.

In an article published in the journal Oncology Letters, Swedish researchers highlighted the fact that 252 EMF scientists from 43 countries have found sufficient evidence that “RF-EMF affects living organisms at levels well below most international and national guidelines.” Some of the serious health issues linked to RF-EMF emitted by 5G include “increased cancer risk, cellular stress, increase in harmful free radicals, genetic damages, structural and functional changes of the reproductive system, learning and memory deficits, neurological disorders, and negative impacts on general well-being in humans.”

A study published in the Journal of Biomedical Physics Engineering also called attention to the fact that MMW irradiation has been found to trigger biological responses within the skin that negatively affect the heart, immune system and nervous system in the long run. In addition, absorption of 5G radiation through the skin triggers excessive production of free radicals, which increases the risk of skin cancer.

Studies have shown that free radicals can cause DNA base damage and strand breaks. They can also damage tumor suppressor genes and promote the expression of pro-cancer genes. In turn, free radical-induced DNA damages increase the rates of DNA mutation, decrease genomic stability and trigger apoptosis, or programmed cell death. Cancer and atherosclerosis, in particular, are “salient free radical diseases” that could be triggered by heightened exposure to 5G radiation. (Related: 5G Danger: Hundreds of respected scientists sound the alarm about health effects as 5G networks go up nationwide.)

The push for 5G in America comes with significant risks to public health and safety. Learn more about the dangers of 5G and smart meters at 5GAlert.com.

Watch this video about the hidden dangers of 5G.

https://www.brighteon.com/embed/6d908021-88a9-483a-a554-8cfd01e2b558

This video is from TheMoreUKnow channel on Brighteon.com.

More related stories:

How Climate Change Became a National Security Problem

Posted by

0


Russian tanker Renda powers toward Nome, Alaska in the Bering Sea.

Russian tanker Renda powers toward Nome, Alaska in the Bering Sea.
TOWARD THE END of last week’s Democratic debate, CNN anchor Anderson Cooper tossed the five candidates on stage a relative softball: “What is the greatest national security threat to the United States?” he asked.

The chaos in the Middle East, Governor Lincoln Chafee offered meekly. Nuclear Iran, said former Maryland governor Martin O’Malley. The spread of nuclear weapons and the risk of them falling into the wrong hands was former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s answer. And Senator Jim Webb crammed three answers into his response: China, cyber warfare, and the “situations in the Middle East.”

But Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, never one to let a lack of consensus stand in his way, broke from the pack. His nomination for the biggest national security issue: climate change. That earned Sanders derision from Republican candidates like Mike Huckabee and public praise from supporters like Seth MacFarlane. Still, it was just one answer in a two and a half hour debate, and was quickly overshadowed just minutes later when Sanders told Cooper that America was sick of hearing about Clinton’s “damn emails.”

But while the national security comment may have been fleeting, the fact that climate change was brought up in that context at all signals a much bigger shift in how politicians are framing the issue—a shift that’s been years in the making.

Though talk of climate change was notably absent from the 2012 debates—which caused critics to accuse both President Obama and Mitt Romney of “climate silence”—it’s been a fairly steady fixture of presidential debates for decades, discussed in nearly every debate cycle since 1988. Candidates have framed it as an economic issue, an environmental issue, and a public health issue. But only recently have politicians like Sanders—and even President Obama himself—elevated climate change to the seriousness of national security.

Just this year, President Obama—who back in 2008 was praising green jobs as a key to the country’s economic recovery—told graduates of the United States Coast Guard Academy that “climate change constitutes a serious threat to global security,” which will “impact how our military defends our country.”

Both Obama and Sanders have a point, of course. Climate change activists and military minds have been sounding the alarm on this issue since the early 2000s. But if concern over the climate moves from the academic and scientific spheres to the political, that’ll have important implications for how the country responds. And old-line environmentalists may not always like it.

From Syria to the Arab Spring
Back in 2003, the Department of Defense issued a report called “An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for United States National Security.” It posited that climate change could lead to food shortages and drought, which can exacerbate instability in vulnerable countries. But according to Francesco Femia, founding director of the Center for Climate and Security, that report was easy for people to ignore; the first of its kind, it positioned climate change as a far-off threat.

Since then, however, defense and intelligence agencies have concluded that climate change—and its ensuant upheaval—could be a more immediate threat. A Council on Foreign Relations paper in 2007 offered specific recommendations on how to mitigate risk. Another report in 2008, commissioned by the CIA, attempted to predict climate change’s impact on national security by the year 2030. By 2014, the Department of Defense had adopted the term “threat multiplier” to describe climate change, and put out its so-called Climate Change Adaptation Roadmap, which surveyed the vulnerability of the country’s military bases, and included input from its Combatant Commands around the world.

Meanwhile, research began to reveal how climate change contributed to the Arab Spring and the conflict in Syria.

All of this, says Femia, who co-authored a report on the Arab Spring, “raised the bar on the issue” in political circles, particularly among Democratic leaders. “We’ve seen very clear evidence that climate change is already impacting security in a number of places around the globe, including strategically significant places like Syria,” he says.

“It’s not just a framing. It’s not just a message,” Femia adds. “It’s coming very much from the analysis that our military and intelligence community has been doing over the past decade.”

Breaking the Deadlock
Of course, just because this issue is getting legitimate research attention doesn’t mean that attention isn’t also politically expedient. Over the last decade, climate change has become as partisan an issue as guns and abortion, says Joshua Busby, an associate professor of public affairs at the University of Texas, who authored the Council on Foreign Relations 2007 report. “That’s disastrous for this problem,” Busby says.

Framed as an economic issue, Democratic leaders had no choice but to argue that investments in alternative energy would create new jobs, even as Republican leaders warned that retreating from fossil fuels would decimate existing jobs. When evidence of the national security implications of climate change began to surface, Busby says, activists thought, “Maybe Republicans might be more open to thinking of climate change as a real problem if it’s brought to them by people they trust on national security.”
The Citizens United decision, which enabled donors to pour unlimited money into campaigns, also amplified the influence that billionaire environmentalists like Tom Steyer and his Super PAC NextGen Climate Action could have on pushing the issue. In the 2014 election cycle, NextGen Climate Action spent nearly $74 million to promote environmental issues. That, Busby says, has made advocating for climate action more “politically advantageous for Democrats,” because there’s money behind the cause.

Be Careful What You Wish For
Framing climate change as a national security threat has obvious advantages. Not only does it increase the sense of urgency, but it also creates a path for environmental solutions. The military, for instance, could play an important role in building advanced green technology, helping secure the country’s grid and giving the US a strategic advantage over other countries in the future. “Once we recognize it as an issue that affects all sectors of society including the security of our political institutions, governments, and communities, then we can tackle it in a much more holistic way,” says Femia.

But while the security implications of climate change are real, both Femia and Busby say it’s crucial not to raise too many alarms. Femia, for one, takes issue with Sanders’ assertion that climate change is the biggest national security risk today. “I think that framing is problematic. It doesn’t compete with other priorities, things like terrorism or the nuclear threat of Iran or North Korea,” he says. Ignoring that fact, Femia says, will only make it easier for candidates on the other side of the aisle to write off the issue entirely. “It’s going to be really important in the future to talk about climate change as not the biggest security issue, but an issue that will make security harder in the future,” he says.

Then there’s the fact, says Busby, that framing climate change as a military issue could lead to military solutions, not environmental ones. For instance, sea ice melting in the Arctic has paved the way for new drilling opportunities for countries like Russia. Of course, climate mitigation activists know that more drilling won’t fix the problem. But faced with the increased presence of countries like Russia in the region, President Obama recently called for new investment in Arctic icebreakers, which will help the US Coast Guard defend its oil interests in the region against other countries.

In other words, when you frame climate change as a security threat, the military will want to respond. And the way they will respond may have very little to do with stopping the spread of climate change. It will have to do with protecting military interests. “All that comes at a cost,” both environmental and monetary, Busby says.

Which is why, he says, politicians should think long and hard before recasting the issue of climate change completely. “People who are proponents of using the security framework to attract attention to this issue might not anticipate that when the military takes something seriously as a security threat, it has certain implications for the military,” Busby says. “It reinforces nationalistic responses to solving the problem, as opposed to collective efforts that might be mutually beneficial to the world.”