5G in Sebastopol & Graton [Archive]

M/M

03-27-2019, 01:40 PM

Anandaji, this doesn't answer the questions you initially posted either...

it's all red-pill stuff there. ...... you think any "mainstream" source of info is tainted and trying to fool us for nefarious reasons...

Medicine and people generally understand science and the body as matter: pretty much made of parts that function mechanically and chemically. Our technologies, on the other hand, are operating within and also well beyond Newtonian science... e.g. with light, electromagnetic energies, quantum physics and more... which are well beyond the understanding of most people on the planet... Added to that, there are many very wealthy people who are advancing goals that may or may not be in the best interest of the planet or the majority of life on it... using these same technologies...

It is easy to have an opinion and conflate that with a fact. It is easy to have favored opinions and begin right way to name call, when someone doesn't agree, in order to defend one's position. Neither encourage nor foster genuine communication, nor do they help us get to facts, knowledge, optimal decisions and a sense of community. It doesn't help that science & tech are not always in agreement as to what is real or factual... as they have operating theories and often conflict with one another, even as they make great advances.

In terms of 5G... 24/7 microwave energy will hit all objects and lifeforms - whether they are operating an electronic device or not. There are reports based on studies that show there are, in fact, negative impacts from this. These studies are suppressed or lumped in such a way (the message being 'look no further'). Financially strapped cities, towns may sell out to offers too lucrative to ignore.

Oregon has proposed a law doesn't leave politicians at the mercy of pressures to decide re: things they may have no understanding of: https://www.emfacts.com/2019/03/oregon-proposed-legislation-would-require-health-officials-to-review-independent-studies-on-microwave-radiation-from-wireless-technology/

as a bit of a curve ball, since it doesn't deal with anywhere near the same frequencies as 5G (6G and beyond), this article does show that pulsed energy waves of light and sound - can strongly influence matter - though study is not a complete answer to plaques that involve memory; and the caveat: "So far early testing for safety has shown the process seems to have no clear side effects" is hardly reassuring: Scientists 'clear' Alzheimer's plaque from mice using only light and sound - https://www.sciencealert.com/astonishing-new-study-treats-alzheimer-s-in-mice-with-a-light-and-sound-show

podfish

03-27-2019, 02:34 PM

... Medicine and people generally understand science and the body as matter: pretty much made of parts that function mechanically and chemically. Our technologies, on the other hand, are operating within and also well beyond Newtonian science... <snip> It is easy to have an opinion and conflate that with a fact....<snip>.
There are reports based on studies that show there are, in fact, negative impacts from this. These studies are suppressed or lumped in such a way (the message being 'look no further').most of your post sticks to facts, though I'm not sure why you found 17th century science a reasonable baseline for technology. I also don't see anyone conflating opinion with fact. But to your main point: sure, there are studies showing negative impacts. That's a data point (a fact). The leap to an assertion (not a fact) that "these studies are suppressed..." is exactly my problem with how the sites cited (sorry, verbal pun) by SharingWisdom operate. Trading citations is silly web practice, but still, I far prefer sites that don't wear their agenda on their sleeve like those do. You won't find me claiming worries about 5G are nonsense, but they aren't well grounded. For example, global warming threats are well enough documented to take precautions, even if they're expensive. Evidence supporting threats from 5G, and the threat level that's claimed, isn't enough to justify the level of fear.

Runningbare

03-29-2019, 04:36 PM

most of your post sticks to facts, though I'm not sure why you found 17th century science a reasonable baseline for technology. I also don't see anyone conflating opinion with fact. But to your main point: sure, there are studies showing negative impacts. That's a data point (a fact). The leap to an assertion (not a fact) that "these studies are suppressed..." is exactly my problem with how the sites cited (sorry, verbal pun) by SharingWisdom operate. Trading citations is silly web practice, but still, I far prefer sites that don't wear their agenda on their sleeve like those do. You won't find me claiming worries about 5G are nonsense, but they aren't well grounded. For example, global warming threats are well enough documented to take precautions, even if they're expensive. Evidence supporting threats from 5G, and the threat level that's claimed, isn't enough to justify the level of fear.

This morning as I was driving up the entrance to the Healdsburg Transfer Station, I was suddenly mortified by the roadside sight of a very tall and imposing telecommunications tower pretending to be a conifer tree-- as if Godzilla had donned a figleaf. With its beefy metal "trunk", the disguise was pathetic, the effect unsettling.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ol3tAxnNccY&feature=youtu.beThere are many documentaries out there about the harmful effects of 5G / electromagnetic radiation, but none I believe as effective and comprehensively researched as this one. This will wake you up and energize you — no matter who you are if you have a Soul!

Have we had enough? A question you might choose to answer sincerely upon watching this investigative journalism. There is simply no area of existence this bio-weaponry — masquerading as telecommunications technology will not touch and no aspect of your life that will not be touched by it.

Evidence supporting threats from 5G, and the threat level that's substantiated, more than justifies the level of alarm. For anyone paying attention to telecommunications industry's endrun around the Tenth Amendment, the collusion between it and regulatory agencies becomes extremely hard to ignore. This collection of data sourced from a wide range of qualified environmental, medical and health professionals, is a wake-up call for level heads thwarted by incredulity. The Bio-Initiative Report alone constitutes an unassailable indictment of where 5G proposes to take us.

The intended ubiquity of this qualitatively unprecedented scope of electromagnetic-biological warfare is staggering, to put it mildly. This is much more than a rabbit hole; this heralds a change of species. Educate yourself and don’t think you don’t have the power to change this trajectory - because collectively WE DO — SO BE IT!

barfly

03-29-2019, 07:35 PM

I really dislike those fake tree antenna towers. They look horrible and are dishonest. Antennas should look like antennas.

Why do you suppose “5G APOCALYPSE - THE EXTINCTION EVENT” is produced in a completely sensationalized style, such as you’d see on late night TV about bigfoot? Nothing about it resembles a legitimate documentary.

podfish

03-29-2019, 08:41 PM

....Why do you suppose “5G APOCALYPSE - THE EXTINCTION EVENT” is produced in a completely sensationalized style, such as you’d see on late night TV about bigfoot? Nothing about it resembles a legitimate documentary.because it's not a piece of journalism. It's a bigfoot movie. I'm sure there's a legitimate documentary to be made about the risks of 5G but it'd be too equivocal to be a crowd pleaser. Everyone hates it when people say "well on the one hand.." ... "but on the other hand...". They want someone to take a firm stand!!

Barry

03-29-2019, 09:49 PM

What if it was shown to kill 37,000 people every year and seriously injure many more , like (https://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/general-statistics/fatalityfacts/state-by-state-overview) motor vehicles do (https://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/general-statistics/fatalityfacts/state-by-state-overview)??

ChefJayTay

03-30-2019, 07:40 AM

We don't even know what all 5G will do/does. I'm looking forward to better internet, competition to cable/fiber internet providers, and much more. However, it's obviously also got national security components with the way the US and Canada are treating Huawei. I once read an article in popular science about how the disturbances in microwave signals can detect stealth planes.....Who knows what all they do.

barfly

03-30-2019, 09:35 AM

The Huawei issue has nothing specific to do with 5G. They’re embedding spy hardware in communications equipment. You could do the same with older technology except that it’s already been deployed. If you have the ability to monitor wired telephone calls, that also relates to national security.

With a little creativity and a lack of technical knowledge, you can create fabulous conspiracy theories. That reminds me, I’ve been meaning to re-read Asimov’s Foundation series.

5G leverages the advantages of moving up to millimeter wave frequencies. In particular lots of available spectrum and the antennas are scaled down in size because the wavelength is so short.

We don't even know what all 5G will do/does. I'm looking forward to better internet, competition to cable/fiber internet providers, and much more. However, it's obviously also got national security components with the way the US and Canada are treating Huawei....

spam1

03-31-2019, 09:47 AM

We don't even know what all 5G will do/does.
The single highest cost for cell phone companies is the cost of electricity to run the air-conditioner to cool the transmitters. Want to make a $100billion? Find a way to reduce the transmitter power and still maintain the link.

Enter 5G. 5G does three big things:

it spreads the energy over wider bands (so that if there is interference or the signal is blocked in one part, it switches to another), with higher speed so the "burst" of RF is shorter, and it uses electronically steerable antennas (ESA) to steer the signal to the user.

It has 2 ranges, FR1 (being deployed), which is in similar bands to cell and wifi today, and FR2, which is mm-wave bands and not expected to be widely deployed to handheld devices. The FR1 systems have antennas that can maintain the signal connection with about 250 times less power (the transmit antenna is 65 times more efficient, and the handset is about 4 times).

Finally, since the signal is steered (they call it beamforming), the end user, who desires to make the connection is the one who is primarily exposed, rather than everyone in the current system of broadcasting the cell signal (well, not exactly broadcasting since the current systems uses a wide beam that covers 60 degree arc; the 5G signal will have about 1 degree of arc.), but exposed still at lower power.

So: if you are concerned about RF energy causing health effects, and you think lower power, shorter duration, and directed at only the user are all good things, you should support 5G.

Antonio

03-31-2019, 12:51 PM

podfish

03-31-2019, 03:03 PM

FYI- Once upon a time, China(PRC) was poor and they discovered that they could look for disturbances in reflected TV signals, which were already in place and ubiquitous, and they could use these TV signals to detect aircraft rather than spending Billions of Yuan to develop and test specialized countermeasures like the West had done. Who knows what all TV signals do?well, MIT knows what WiFi can do ("MIT Device Uses Wi-Fi to ‘See’ Through Walls and Track Your Movements (https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/a3aaqp/mit-device-uses-wifi-to-see-through-walls-and-track-your-movements)")-- there's a lot of radiant energy in the world. You can worry about it if you like (even a technophile like Heinlein did.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waldo_(short_story) ) but you're probably worrying about the wrong thing. There's no way most people who worry about it understand what part of the technology is threatening and what parts are benign. The radiant energy in the ultraviolet coming from the sun is probably the worst you'll ever encounter. A tremendous number of people get cancer from it, way more than do from phones. See Spam1's post for a hint about why 5G pales in comparison.

M/M

03-31-2019, 06:42 PM

This morning as I was driving up the entrance to the Healdsburg Transfer Station, I was suddenly mortified by the roadside sight of a very tall and imposing telecommunications tower pretending to be a conifer tree-- as if Godzilla had donned a figleaf. With its beefy metal "trunk", the disguise was pathetic, the effect ominous.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ol3tAxnNccY&feature=youtu.beThere are many documentaries out there about the harmful effects of 5G / electromagnetic radiation, but none I believe as effective and comprehensively researched as this one. This will wake you up and energize you — no matter who you are if you have a Soul!

Have we had enough? A question you might choose to answer sincerely upon watching this investigative journalism. There is simply no area of existence this bio-weaponry — masquerading as telecommunications technology will not touch and no aspect of your life that will not be touched by it.

Evidence supporting threats from 5G, and the threat level that's substantiated, more than justifies the level of alarm. ...

I love your response... and have watched about 1/2-hour of the film.. I will watch the rest...

Many of the replies in this thread are interesting... on many levels. I have no understanding about the technology.. way beyond my scope. What is not beyond my scope is the fact that many medical people who are knowledgeable... whether in this film or elsewhere.... and see the effects of many generations of tech, including 5G where it is being tested prior to rollout.. are ignored. Doctors speak to politicians and / or industry spokesmen... who respond as if doctors are speaking in tongues... Pols/industry people say studies are needed... which studies never happen.

A neurosurgeon wonders about "WHY EYE AND BRAIN DISEASES ARE EXPLODING".... Many more people are dying of heart attacks before the age of 40... which may be related to wireless tech affecting calcium channels in heart.... et cetera...

The medical epidemiology alone, as reported in various hearings or published in journals or blogs - some recorded in the above film, could be a source of good information about 5G yet is ignored... I find that telling and frightening. Obfuscation hardly points to caring about welfare of life nor truly enlightens our ignorance...

wisewomn

03-31-2019, 07:09 PM

Surely, M/M, you can't be suggesting that politicians and big business would place a higher value on money than on people's lives?! :-)

I love your response... and have watched about 1/2-hour of the film.. I will watch the rest...

Jude Iam

04-01-2019, 03:08 AM

Bring your questions. Connect to organize. Jude

Science Buzz Cafe # 459
at the 'Abbey' HopMonk
230 Petaluma Ave. Sebastopol, CA
Host, Daniel Osmer ([email protected])
WEDNESDAY NIGHT
April 3rd, 2019 • 7pm • $5
Come Early for Food & Drink

Medicine, ElectroSmog & More:
How Can We Know What Is True?
Richard Diehl, PhD, M.Ed, L.Ac.

Expect a whirlwind conversation that begins with a brief epistemological view of language, perception and beliefs, the trances we live in, and why we sometimes get into stuck states, not allowing new input to influence us.

Richard will move into modern medicine and its focus, as well as its limits. Bugs (infections) & toxins will be discussed. The biggest focus in this talk will be a discussion of the risks of ElectroMagnetic Radiation and how the 3 might interact. Richard will be showing scientific research to back up this perspective

He will conclude with what simple and sometimes inexpensive steps that can be taken to reduce ElectroMagnetic risks “just in case”.

Richard recently moved to the mainland after 31 years in Hawaii, where I maintained a private practice as an Acupuncturist, Traditional Naturopath, ElectroMagnetic Remediater, and more. He has been a student, and colleague of Dietrich Klinghardt MD Ph.D. for 20 years and received much of his training in Alternative Medicine, EMF Remediation, Healthy Homes and more, from him. (Dietrich is one of the early spokesmen regarding chronic Lyme disease, the dangers of EMF, and much more. Richard has also also lectured in 9 countries on 5 continents, mostly on NLP (NeuroLinguistic Programming) and is certified as a Master Trainer in this discipline.

BRINGING SCIENCE & CURIOSITY BACK INTO CULTURE ...
www.sciencebuzzcafe.org (https://sciencebuzzcafe.us11.list-manage.com/track/click?u=bcf54a8d49ce6f36ac21066a5&id=095ef328e7&e=3bf604e993)
(707) 292-5281
[email protected]

This morning as I was driving up the entrance to the Healdsburg Transfer Station, I was suddenly mortified by the roadside sight of a very tall and imposing telecommunications tower pretending to be a conifer tree-- as if Godzilla had donned a figleaf. With its beefy metal "trunk", the disguise was pathetic, the effect unsettling.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ol3tAxnNccY&feature=youtu.beThere are many documentaries out there about the harmful effects of 5G / electromagnetic radiation, but none I believe as effective and comprehensively researched as this one. This will wake you up and energize you — no matter who you are if you have a Soul!

Have we had enough? A question you might choose to answer sincerely upon watching this investigative journalism. There is simply no area of existence this bio-weaponry — masquerading as telecommunications technology will not touch and no aspect of your life that will not be touched by it.

Evidence supporting threats from 5G, and the threat level that's substantiated, more than justifies the level of alarm. For anyone paying attention to telecommunications industry's endrun around the Tenth Amendment, the collusion between it and regulatory agencies becomes extremely hard to ignore. This collection of data sourced from a wide range of qualified environmental, medical and health professionals, is a wake-up call for level heads thwarted by incredulity. The Bio-Initiative Report alone constitutes an unassailable indictment of where 5G proposes to take us.

The intended ubiquity of this qualitatively unprecedented scope of electromagnetic-biological warfare is staggering, to put it mildly. This is much more than a rabbit hole; this heralds a change of species. Educate yourself and don’t think you don’t have the power to change this trajectory - because collectively WE DO — SO BE IT!

M/M

04-01-2019, 09:48 AM

Surely, M/M, you can't be suggesting that politicians and big business would place a higher value on money than on people's lives?! :-)

:heart:Language can be so tricky... can polarize both witting and unwittingly...

:read: I'm now 55 minutes into the 5G movie.. and am learning that there are many politicians, ex-military, business people, and others, who have been helping to get the word out and inform as well...

I learned from State of Michigan House committee hearings on this issue how: "public lost rights regarding wireless." For me, this is another reason to question, if not outright distrust, what some say.

The following are rough quotes: "Insurance won't cover medical issues related to wireless industry... and so industry needed laws to prevent lawsuits... Section 704 of the TCA (Telecommunications Act) was signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1996.. That section states: No health or environmental concern can interfere with the placement of telecom equipment."

"It gave the power to regulate health effects from wireless industry to the FCC.. which agency has nothing to do w/medical issues nor does it have even ONE biomedical person on their team."

"Another thing that 704 did was took the power from the state to regulate location of cell towers based on health. If they want to put a cell tower in front of your home you cannot go to city council and say you don't want it due to health concerns... You are not allowed to mention this in the city council because if you do and application is rejected, the city can be sued by the wireless industry... "

oldbaldman

04-02-2019, 09:27 AM

Forget about 5G, wireless radiation, chemtrails, vaccines, and every other alarming health threat described by some perfectly reliable YouTube video. The very certain threat to your well being that no one talks about is breathing. Studies have shown that in all cases persons who breath will succumb to degenerative decline and eventually die. The evidence is everywhere but THEY don't talk about it because THEY don't want you to wake up to this startling reality; BREATHING KILLS.

After observing billions of cases it is clear that anyone who breaths long enough will experience a gradual loss of skin tone, hair will lighten, possibly turn grey or white or even fall out and not grow back. There will be a gradual loss of vigor, victims will be heard groaning slightly when bending down to pick something up, the libido will diminish, mobility will be compromised and eventually death is almost certain. Stop breathing now and save yourself from the ravages of this pervasive and insidious threat.

luke32

04-02-2019, 09:34 AM

That's great, Baldy!:):

podfish

04-02-2019, 10:14 AM

... The very certain threat to your well being that no one talks about is breathing. Studies have shown that in all cases persons who breath will succumb to degenerative decline and eventually die....no, sometimes people who breathe die suddenly. It's kind of insidious. But stopping breathing is no guarantee of long life - one dose seems to be enough.

Also water is a poison. People who suffer from excessive thirst, maybe after exercise, have been known to drink enough to inadvertently kill themselves. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1770067/

Jude Iam

04-02-2019, 12:40 PM

M/M

04-04-2019, 06:45 AM

... THEY don't want you to wake up to this startling reality; BREATHING KILLS. ....

John Muir said, "When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe," what you write is a case in point :thumbsup: So given that death is inevitable, we likely each have a conscious or unconscious philosophy or belief system or metaphysic that puts that in some kind of context.. whether we believe in a loving or punitive God/Goddess or an accidental universe or xyz...... we will choose or live values based on our belief system or systems. I guess given the option, I like to live so there is more joy, meaning, health and the least amount of needless suffering... and I love the idea of living democratically... where an informed people cocreate life together...

M/M

04-04-2019, 06:55 AM

Brussels Becomes First Major City to Halt 5G Due to Health Effects (https://takebackyourpower.net/brussels-first-major-city-to-halt-5g-due-to-health-effects/)
Interesting.. and clueless here, yet wonder if coincidence or connection... Brussels is headquarters of EU, European Central Bank is there, plus offices of NATO, UN, etc etc...

M/M

04-09-2019, 03:27 PM

not holding my breath, but Brussels has decided against 5G, just sayin, Jude

Brussels Becomes First Major City to Halt 5G Due to Health Effects (https://takebackyourpower.net/brussels-first-major-city-to-halt-5g-due-to-health-effects/)

Rome joins opposition... Brussels Belgium and Rome Municipality Oppose Wireless 5G Antennas
https://ehtrust.org/brussels-belgium-and-rome-municipality-oppose-wireless-5g-antennas/

and maybe DC after hearings? Scientists Warn of Health Effects: Washington DC Council 5G Small Cell Roundtable https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljLynbr5iPc

Plus: 5G & Cell Tower Protests Worldwide https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLxeBuz0suM

M/M

04-12-2019, 06:53 PM

You tube: 5G & Worldwide "Urban Deforestation" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSrN_xPhL7g

He mentioned that not all 5G will be sent via towers; some 5G cable is going underground???
(AT&T is digging a trench and putting in cable across from Sebastopol Charter at Mill Station and 116.
Wonder if that is 5G capable???)

The same day 5G launched in South Korea was the day they had massive fires....

Lot of emphasis on self-driving cars coming, thanks to 5G.. Lots more questions than answers...

podfish

04-14-2019, 10:43 AM

...He mentioned that not all 5G will be sent via towers; some 5G cable is going underground??? ...Anyone who talks about 5G cable is either trying to fool you or is the last person you should turn to for information. It's like saying "cars are dangerous. Including the cars that have four legs and eat hay". It's possible they're right, but they aren't inspiring a lot of confidence that they understand the field. As for the massive fires, the day they had a bay-area world series we had a major earthquake.

geomancer

04-14-2019, 12:02 PM

M/M

04-14-2019, 12:32 PM

Anyone who talks about 5G cable is either trying to fool you or is the last person you should turn to for information. It's like saying "cars are dangerous. Including the cars that have four legs and eat hay". It's possible they're right, but they aren't inspiring a lot of confidence that they understand the field. As for the massive fires, the day they had a bay-area world series we had a major earthquake.

LOL Podfish, I'm clearly not technically inclined... nor do I want to be apologist for what is not factual.. though I think there are some smart people who raise excellent questions... that deserve maybe our holding those questions.. until we know some answers... if we ever do..

The link about fires and 5G was 5G may have made (DEW) directed energy weapons usable... Scenes post Korea's fire resemble California after fires. As I said.. more questions than answers...

Trust Life

We have no reason to harbor any mistrust against our world,
for it is not against us. If it has terrors, they are our terrors.
If it has abysses, these abysses belong to us. If there are dangers,
we must try to love them, and only if we could arrange our lives
in accordance with the principle that tells us that we must
always trust the difficult, then what appears to us to be alien
will become our most intimate and trusted experience.

How could we forget those ancient myths that stand
at the beginning of all races - the myths about dragons
that at the last moment are transformed into princesses.
Perhaps all the dragons in our lives are only princesses
waiting for us to act, just once, with beauty and courage.
Perhaps everything that frightens us is,
in its deepest essence, something helpless that wants our love.

So you must not be frightened if a sadness rises before you
larger than any you’ve ever seen, if an anxiety like light and
cloud shadows moves over your hands and everything you do.
You must realize that something has happened to you.
Life has not forgotten you; it holds you in its hands and
will not let you fall. Why do you want to shut out of your life
any uneasiness, any miseries, or any depressions?
For after all, you do not know what work these conditions
are doing inside you.

~ Rainer Marie Rilke

M/M

04-14-2019, 12:45 PM

Regarding the Loma Prieta earthquake, a lot of people went home from work early that day (including me) thus the Cypress structure was not jammed with cars when it collapsed. Hundreds would have died crushed beneath the upper deck on a typical day. Divine providence in the timing? Why not? I returned to work on Monday to find I would have had a tall bookcase fall on me if I had stayed at my desk.

YES.... Divine Providence, which some may recognize under other names :heart:

There is also Karma (perhaps in the case of Svalbard's seed bank and melting permafrost; Svalbard was also one of the first sites to receive fallout from Fukushima's disaster in 2011 (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0265931X12000033))

M/M

04-15-2019, 07:03 PM

spam1

04-16-2019, 01:20 PM

Developments around the world: 5G: The Dominoes Are Starting To Fall (https://takebackyourpower.net/5g-the-dominoes-are-starting-to-fall/)(or calling for more studies)
I read the link above and I can attest that much of what they say is true, but taken so far out of context that the meaning is completely distorted. For example, it says:

Prior to its use as a communications technology, 5G was a military weapon

Well, if you mean using an electronically steered antenna to focus RF in the direction you want, then yes, it was first developed for radars. It replaced the mechanically steered antennas.
and:

5G will be hundreds of times as powerful as 4G

And, if by powerful you capability to transmit data, yes, that's the point. But if you mean in terms of radiated power, then no.

But that is like saying water is dangerous, so dangerous that people have died from drinking water (link to water toxicity) and the CIA uses water to torture people (link to waterboarding), and there is no federally accepted safe level for drinking water (probably no one thought to set an upper limit as it is silly). Oh, and water kills over 3000 Americans every year (link to drownings)

So, net-net, 5G has all the problems of 4G (not specifying if or what they are), but just at lower overall levels, directed only at the users, and for shorter times. Seems to be a better choice. But, because it is one G more than 4G, it is engendering a strong response; illogical in my opinion, but still strong.

Remember, a single false article in the Lancet 30 years ago yields thousands of unnecessarily diseased children (Vaccine causes Autism trope); and there is nothing that will remove the false facts.

M/M

04-16-2019, 02:03 PM

I read the link above and I can attest that much of what they say is true, but taken so far out of context that the meaning is completely distorted. For example, it says:
Prior to its use as a communications technology, 5G was a military weapon
See: well-named Active Denial System: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_Denial_System

So, net-net, 5G has all the problems of 4G (not specifying if or what they are), but just at lower overall levels, directed only at the users, and for shorter times.
Just the opposite in fact.. directed at everyone 24/7... user/nonuser .. continuously...

Whereas 5G phones won't be readily available until next year and beyond in some cases... 5G will allow AI projects to take off.... AI (artificial intelligence) really likes things such as robots, bionics, driverless vehicles.

Musk who is going to be launching most of satellites for Western US 5G.. is also associated with this:
Elon Musk-linked scientists working on brain probes for DARPA (https://themindunleashed.com/2019/04/elon-musk-scientists-brain-probes-darpa.html) John Vibes Fri, 12 Apr 2019

podfish

04-16-2019, 02:41 PM

....Just the opposite in fact.. directed at everyone 24/7... user/nonuser .. continuously...you've mentioned earlier you're not all that technical, and in this case you're missing the whole point of 'directed'. It's available for everybody, I suppose, but the point is to avoid saturating the area in favor of targeting the communication to its receiver. Think of cupping your hands as a megaphone and facing the person you're trying to talk to.

M/M

04-16-2019, 03:38 PM

you've mentioned earlier you're not all that technical, and in this case you're missing the whole point of 'directed'. It's available for everybody, I suppose, but the point is to avoid saturating the area in favor of targeting the communication to its receiver. Think of cupping your hands as a megaphone and facing the person you're trying to talk to.
I'm not technical.. I guess - given the Internet of Things - the refrigerator letting us know what is due to expire, et cetera :hmmm: - wouldn't sending and receiving capability be on all the time as it now, only handling more data faster ??

spam1

04-16-2019, 04:48 PM

See: well-named Active Denial System: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_Denial_System
I apologize if my analogy wasn't clear enough... I'm not well aquainted with the microwave weapons, but my understanding is that they use phase-array systems that are NOT electronically steerable (the electronic steering components can't handle the high power and high frequency); to say they are related is true, both use EMF and directional antennas, but energy densities are at least 100,000 times different. and at 95 GHz a heavy shirt blocks the radiation. Like the difference between a raindrop and a firehose.

Just the opposite in fact.. directed at everyone 24/7... user/nonuser .. continuously...
This statement is simply not true. I am very familiar with 5G and it will ONLY be directed to the user, and only when using it. The point is to save money on transmitter power, and continuously transmitting, and transmitting omni-directionally (directed at everyone) would really defeat that point. I don't understand where or how you came by that view. It is true, that directional beams are not very tight (jet radar beams are 100 times tighter), but on the order of 60 times tighter than the current 4G beams. And the beams are used on the receivers too, so the transmitter power is even further reduced. It is like the large TV antennas that you rotate to make the signal seem stronger, only with 5G you don't have to physically rotate the antenna, it is done electronically.

Whereas 5G phones won't be readily available until next year and beyond in some cases... 5G will allow AI projects to take off.... AI (artificial intelligence) really likes things such as robots, bionics, driverless vehicles.
Not exactly. AI requires high computational power and likely will remain localized; 5G allows faster response times (it has lower latency than current cell phone methods), so that the AI in a big room in Colorado can get a response fast enough to compute whether to send the trolley into the homeless guy on the side track, or allow it to continue unabated to the family with the small children (see the trolley problem, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem)

Musk who is going to be launching most of satellites for Western US 5G.. is also associated with this:
Elon Musk-linked scientists working on brain probes for DARPA (https://themindunleashed.com/2019/04/elon-musk-scientists-brain-probes-darpa.html) John Vibes Fri, 12 Apr 2019
Yes, he is. But it is explicitly NOT 5G. I am very familiar with his program. Also Jeff Bezos;And Boeing and an outfit called OneWeb. There are at least 4 major players in LEO internet (http://www.circleid.com/posts/20190102_low_earth_orbit_leo_satellite_internet_developments_for_2018/)and maybe another 2 dozen smaller players for satellite based data communications. But these are not 5G.

They use similar technology (radio waves) but 5G is principally a common set of cell-phone standards that allow new capabilities to lower power consumption, increase capacity without increasing cell sites (that is, making current cell sites more capable of handling high data loads), lowering operating costs. It is very complicated how they do it, and it wasn't really possible before due the technology not being invented yet. But a lot of progress has happened in the last 4 years. The main hit against 5G (which also supports 4G as a legacy system) is that the early deployment hardly more than 4G. ATT's is 5G 'ready'; Verizon is low rate 5G. So it will be a few years before the main benefits are realized.

podfish

04-16-2019, 08:14 PM

- wouldn't sending and receiving capability be on all the time as it now, only handling more data faster ??as Spam1 explains too, the idea here is to get greater effective bandwidth at lower power by being smarter about communication. So no, it's not targeting anyone all the time, certainly not at any high power level. The analogy to shouting through cupped hands isn't that far fetched. It'll be like having a bunch of people mixed into a crowd, where each one can turn to the nearest people and call out any message sent directly to them. This, rather than having an auctioneer with a stack of Marshall amplifiers that can be heard by everyone, ripping through all the messages, one after another, as fast as he can. Which is what we in effect have now.

If you want to think of this as selfishly motivated (which it is, because, business...) the telcos want to get messages out less wastefully and faster. It's expensive to use more power than you need to.

M/M

04-17-2019, 04:09 PM

for consideration: 5G's effects on climate; plus authors also discuss "By now, we should have learned the lessons of how Washington has handled other scientifically proven dangers to the public..."
The Race Towards Extinction: Climate Change versus the 5G Microwave Technology Roll Out

(https://www.globalresearch.ca/extinction-climate-change-versus-5g-roll-out/5674688)(and are rockets carrying satellites for 5G going to be launched via this new beautiful totally non-green plane?
Stratolaunch Images: Paul Allen's Giant Rocket-Launching Plane (https://www.space.com/13918-images-paul-allen-stratolaunch-systems-private-space.html))

Guest Blog: ‘Health Exemption for Firefighters sends a Message to the World’ (https://betweenrockandhardplace.wordpress.com/2017/06/26/guest-blog-health-exemption-for-firefighters-sends-a-message-to-the-world-by-susan-foster/)

"Firefighters live and sleep in the stations when on duty, and have experienced significant RF radiation exposure." Imaging studies showed actual brain changes in firefighters.

in the 'you can't make this up' category:
Exposure to 5G Small Cell Towers Can Cause Excessive Sweating. New Prescription for Excessive Armpit Sweating Approved by FDA in Time for Massive 5G Rollout (https://www.activistpost.com/2018/08/exposure-5g-towers-cause-excessive-sweating-new-prescription-excessive-armpit-sweating-approved-fda-5g-rollout.html)

Video announcing med tells us Qbrexza is flammable. There are many listed side effects; however, nothing is said about long-term side effects of meds that interfere w/acetylcholine functions - such as memory loss and more.

M/M

04-17-2019, 05:28 PM

I apologize if my analogy wasn't clear enough...

Hi Spam1... I appreciate your reaching out and explaining what you have; despite many readings, I probably only understand a glimmer and won't waste either of our time by pretending I could catch up or get close to your level of expertise. I did try to find the 24/7 omnidirectional reference, and that may have been something I concluded from statements like: "No plant or tree, insect, bird, fish, animal or human will be able to escape 24-hour a day exposure to enormous amounts of electromagnetic pollution."

When letter written to Elon Musk (http://www.elektrobiologie.de/wp-content/uploads/Musk-Brief-englisch-OK.pdf) and reports say things like: "Elon Musk is set to launch the first 4,425 5G satellites in June 2019 and “blanket” the Earth with 5G, in breach of countless international treaties." I hear you are saying that the satellites in question have nothing to do w/5G but are satellites launched for other purposes. And doing a bit of research - led right into issue of spectra - it seems that 5G and LEO are not compatible (https://spacenews.com/dish-network-battles-oneweb-and-spacex-for-ku-band-spectrum-rights/) and elsewhere it seems one project will lead to 5G (https://www.fiercewireless.com/tech/oneweb-breaks-ground-new-satellite-facility-gears-up-for-5g):
The satellites built in the plant will be used primarily by OneWeb for its global internet services, but satellites also will be available for other commercial satellite operators and government customers globally as early as 2018. ... Of course, telecom operators are one of OneWeb’s primary customer bases, and OneWeb has designed its systems to be fully compatible and integrated with the cellular networks, including as they move to 5G.

For me, the upfront legislation (starting with the TCA - Telecommunications Act in 1996) that gives all power to industry and none to governments or to any concerns for health & welfare of life; industry suppression or denial of health effects, which are known since 3G and perhaps earlier - make it difficult to trust the industry in general.

podfish

04-17-2019, 06:12 PM

Hi Spam1... I appreciate your reaching out and explaining what you have; despite many readings, I probably only understand a glimmer and won't waste either of our time by pretending I could catch up or get close to your level of expertise.from your posts and others in this area (not just this specific topic, but any tech/science issue) I'm realizing that google searching can be a bad thing. People by nature form pretty strong opinions on a grab-bag of knowledge. It's extremely difficult to know, without actual guided study, where your impressions are right and where they're wrong.

I had a teacher describe acquiring knowledge in an eye-opening way. He pointed out that when you get introduced to a new topic, you are building a mental model that fits the information you're being given. A lot of it is right, and a lot is not. When the next topic gets introduced, you have to tear down the mental structure you've built up and replace the parts that were based on misunderstanding. This is a really powerful way to look at knowledge. There's an immense use of analogy when explaining complex topics to people who don't have time to build up enough background knowledge (when Feinmann was asked to explain magnetism in simple terms, he said "you can't"...) and the danger of using analogies is that the more they resonate with people, the more they think they understand. Since the analogy is imperfect, though, they can't tell when they're drawing correct inferences. For example, in my shouting-through-cupped-hand analogy in an earlier post, you might think that you could get spit on if you were too close. That wouldn't apply to 5G antenna.

So when Musk talks about 'blanketing' the earth, that's a hyperbolic analogy. Another way to think about it - the earth's gravity goes on forever, across the universe. It's meaningless to talk about where it 'ends'. But for practical purposes, it's not noticeable on Mars or the sun. You aren't affected by the moon's gravity, but the earth as a whole is. Sure, there's debate among knowledgeable researchers about the safety, but us amateurs are fooling ourselves if we cherry-pick scary items out of them. You have no way to do a lateral study, pulling equivalent evidence out of a wide range of research, and weighing them against each other.

I'm reading 'The Myth of the Mirror Neuron' by Hickock. It's a scientist's rebuttal of some widely-held beliefs, in a relatively non-technical form, that gives you a really good idea of how to make a case. For anyone interested in any of these sort-of-science based controversies, it's instructive. And you'll learn something about the brain and the current state of brain research while you're at it.

Dogenzip

04-17-2019, 07:58 PM

Scientists warn of potential serious health effects of 5G (https://childrenshealthdefense.org/known-culprits/electromagnetic-fields-wireless-technologies/)

We the undersigned, more than 180 scientists and doctors from 35 countries, recommend a moratorium on the roll-out of the fifth generation, 5G, for telecommunication until potential hazards for human health and the environment have been fully investigated by scientists independent from industry. 5G will substantially increase exposure to radio frequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) on top of the 2G,3G, 4G, Wi-Fi , etc. for telecommunications already in place. RF-EMF has been proven to be harmful for humans and the environment.

5G leads to massive increase of mandatory exposure to wireless radiation 5G technology is effective only over short distance. It is poorly transmitted through solid material. Many new antennas will be required and full-scale implementation will result in antennas every 10 to 12 houses in urban areas,thus massively increasing mandatory exposure.With ”the ever more extensive use of wireless technologies,” nobody can avoid to be exposed.Because on top of the increased number of5G-transmitters (even within housing, shops and in hospitals)according to estimates, ”10 to 20 billion connections” (to refrigerators, washing machines, surveillance cameras, self-driving cars and buses, etc.) will be parts of the Internet of Things. All these together can cause a substantial increase in the total, long term RF-EMF exposure to all EU citizens.Harmful effects of RF-EMF exposure are already proven.

More than 230 scientists from 41 countries have expressed their “serious concerns” regarding the ubiquitous and increasing exposure to EMF generated by electric and wireless devices already before the additional 5G roll-out. They refer to the fact that ”numerous recent scientific publications have shown that EMF affects living organisms at levels well below most international and national guidelines”. Effects 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. Damage goes well beyond the human race, as there is growing evidence of harmful effects to both plants and animals.

After the scientists’ appeal was written in 2015 additional research has convincingly confirmed serious health risks from RF-EMF fields from wireless technology. The world’s largest study (25 million US dollar)National Toxicology Program (NTP), shows statistically significant increase in the incidence of brain and heart cancer in animals exposed to EMF below the ICNIRP (International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection) guidelines followed by most countries. These results support results in human epidemiological studies on RF radiation and brain tumour risk. A large number of peer-reviewed scientific reports demonstrate harm to human health from EMFs.

To obtain more peer-reviwed scientific research with links to research reports visit The Environmental Health Trust (https://ehtrust.org/?s=scientist+warn+5G):

rossmen

04-19-2019, 01:51 AM

I love my brain, and in my lifetime brain research has been highly varied. To call internet research a possibly bad thing is really bad, like devil talk. Just because other people don't agree with your opinion, and cite experts, is a gift. Tear down your own mental structure. I have no idea wether the latest com tech is good or bad, but I appreciate caution. If civilization is a heat engine, then cell tech is the spark, let us fry our brains together!

from your posts and others in this area (not just this specific topic, but any tech/science issue) I'm realizing that google searching can be a bad thing. ...

caromia333

04-28-2019, 08:11 AM

The hard facts on 5G from testimony before congress by Dr. Sharon Goldberg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdbM7OpJQ0k

Anandaji

05-11-2019, 11:00 AM

<yt-formatted-string force-default-style="" class="style-scope ytd-video-primary-info-renderer">BIG WIRELESS CONCEDES: No studies showing safety of 5G - 7th Feb 2019
</yt-formatted-string>Recent Senate Hearing

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZ5soLrvXFg&feature=youtu.be&fbclid=IwAR1E9UAGj853JJ_zLEqR8U0EAWw97U_IkslYB86WsJq6ECFu8m9iuUq88B0

oldbaldman

05-12-2019, 08:36 AM

I wonder how much of the 5G alarmist rhetoric is originating with RT America.

<style type="text/css">p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px 'Lucida Grande'}</style>http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/misc/nytlogo152x23.gif

Your 5G Phone Won’t Hurt You. But Russia Wants You to Think Otherwise. (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/12/science/5g-phone-safety-health-russia.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage)

RT America, a network known for sowing disinformation, has a new alarm: the coming ‘5G Apocalypse.’

By William J. Broad
May 12, 2019

excerpt:
...
Opponents of 5G claim the technology’s high frequencies will make the new phones and cell towers extraordinarily harmful. “The higher the frequency, the more dangerous it is to living organisms,” a RT reporter told viewers (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpXEyP0WMrk) recently.

The truth is exactly the opposite, scientists say (https://sp.ehs.cornell.edu/lab-research-safety/radiation/rf-microwaves/Documents/RF_microwave_safety_program.pdf). The higher the radio frequency, the less it penetrates human skin, lowering exposure of the body’s internal organs, including the brain.

“5G emissions, if anything, should be safer than previous generations,” said Dr. Marvin C. Ziskin (https://ncrponline.org/?albdesign_popup_cpt=marvin-c-ziskin), a medical doctor and emeritus professor of radiology and medical physics at the Temple University School of Medicine.

Health concerns were raised last year when a large federal study (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/01/health/cellphone-radiation-cancer.html?module=inline) showed that 2G signals could produce brain cancer in male rats. But officials discounted a direct link to humans, saying people received smaller doses.

Nonetheless, RT has taken an active role in stirring up apprehension, casting the debut of 5G in biblical terms. The caption superimposed on a January show (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aO1gZhwqCvI) read, “5G Apocalypse.” The anchor reported that doctors, scientists and environmental groups were now calling for its ban.

RT America taps the ranks of existing anti-cellular activists to wage its 5G campaign. Some have railed for decades against cellphones, power lines and other everyday sources of electromagnetic waves. Much of their work appears not in reputable science journals but little-known reports, publications and self-published tracts, at times with copious notes of dubious significance. They tend to cite each other’s research.

It’s unclear how many RT experts realize they are aiding a Russian network or that it acts as Mr. Putin’s mouthpiece. At times, RT simply mines existing videotape and print materials, editing them to reflect its perspective. And the intelligence report noted (https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf) that some network staffers fail to disclose their RT affiliation when conducting interviews.
...

full article here (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/12/science/5g-phone-safety-health-russia.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage)

(https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/12/science/5g-phone-safety-health-russia.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage)

caromia333

05-12-2019, 10:37 AM

https://www.electricsense.com/12399/5g-radiation-dangers/

The world health organization is not a RT organization. They have deemed cell phone and wifi radiation as a probable carcinogen with extensive studies on the impacts of these technologies.

Here is a short & sweet summary in 50 seconds - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgGJeOVEdQs
Dr. Anthony Miller, senior advisor to the WHO IARC reviewed the best availible scientific evidence and now concludes that cell phone and wireless radiation is a carcinogen. This excerpt is from a July 31, 2017 lecture he gave in a scientific symposium sponsored by Environmental Health Trust. Get powerpoint slides and learn more at https://ehtrust.org/scientific-update... (https://www.youtube.com/redirect?q=https%3A%2F%2Fehtrust.org%2Fscientific-update-cell-phone-radiation-wireless-health-scientific-update-2017-jackson-hole-wyoming%2F&v=bgGJeOVEdQs&redir_token=0bPgWg2F4oe7IirJNVRg-SOVUgh8MTU1Nzc2ODkzOUAxNTU3NjgyNTM5&event=video_description)

It is very important to get educated on non-iodizing radiation. Best book on the subject by Columbia University scholar and researcher OVER POWERED. Then you will be ready to debate this subject.

The Dangers Of 5G – 11 Reasons To Be Concerned

The USA is currently leading the way on 5G. At the June 2016 press conference where the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) head Tom Wheeler announced the opening up of low, mid and high spectrum’s. There was no mention of health effects whatsoever. But the dangers are real.
https://www.electricsense.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/emf-5G-Radiation-Dangers-300x300.pngThousands of studies link low-level wireless radio frequency radiation exposures to a long list of adverse biological effects, including:

DNA single and double strand breaks
oxidative damage
disruption of cell metabolism
increased blood brain barrier permeability (https://www.electricsense.com/2597/cell-phone-radiation-studies%e2%80%93-is-this-as-much-truth-as-you-can-fit-on-one-page/)
melatonin reduction
disruption to brain glucose metabolism
generation of stress proteins

Let’s not also forget that in 2011 the World Health Organization (https://www.electricsense.com/1993/so-cell-phones-are-possibly-carcinogenic-really/) (WHO) classified radio frequency radiation as a possible 2B carcinogen.

More recently the $25 million National Toxicology Program concluded that radio frequency radiation of the type currently used by cell phones can cause cancer (https://www.electricsense.com/8822/cell-phones-cause-cancer-fact/).

But where does 5G fit into all this? Given that 5G is set to utilize frequencies above and below existing frequency bands 5G sits in the middle of all this. But the tendency (it varies from country to country) is for 5G to utilize the higher frequency bands. Which brings it’s own particular concerns. Here is my review of the studies done to date – 11 reasons to be concerned.

I wonder how much of the 5G alarmist rhetoric is originating with RT America.

Your 5G Phone Won’t Hurt You. But Russia Wants You to Think Otherwise. (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/12/science/5g-phone-safety-health-russia.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage)
(https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/12/science/5g-phone-safety-health-russia.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage)

caromia333

05-12-2019, 10:50 AM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=100&v=GHku99fR0-8Theodora Scarato directs EHT programs and coordinates scientific programs in the US and internationally with EHTs Senior Science Advisors. Scarato is lead policy analyst and researcher for the EHT database on international actions– the most comprehensive collection of information on policy actions on cell phones and wireless. She previously worked with EHT as Director of Educational Resources and Public Affairs, developing educational resources for communities and governments.She has co-founded several organizations both locally and nationally that address environmental health and safety concerns. As a practicing clinical psychotherapist, her two decades of work with children and adolescents includes directing an intensive special education therapy program in Montgomery County Schools and working a psychotherapist at an ADHD clinic. Her research interests include not only the effects from radiation exposures but also the social emotional effects of technology overuse.

caromia333

05-12-2019, 10:55 AM

Thank YOU for this. So important.
46647

<yt-formatted-string force-default-style="" class="style-scope ytd-video-primary-info-renderer">BIG WIRELESS CONCEDES: No studies showing safety of 5G - 7th Feb 2019
</yt-formatted-string>Recent Senate Hearing

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZ5soLrvXFg&feature=youtu.be&fbclid=IwAR1E9UAGj853JJ_zLEqR8U0EAWw97U_IkslYB86WsJq6ECFu8m9iuUq88B0

caromia333

05-12-2019, 11:18 AM

http://www.iemfa.org/emf-scientist-appeal-to-the-united-nations/

Letter of Support for the International EMF Scientist Appeal From Non-Governmental EMF Advocacy Organizations (NGOs)

http://www.iemfa.org/wp-content/pdf/Letter-of-Support.pdf

Education is critical. Listen to the leading biologists and scientists who understand this technology.

https://vimeo.com/123468632

O.W.

05-12-2019, 11:42 AM

Can anyone name a corporation who that operates for citizen benefit? Can anyone name a company with dangerous products that hasn't tried to hide the science showing the dangers? Just asking.

When our country was first formed corporations had to show public benefit before they were allowed to be chartered. Now it's all about the money and everything else falls by the side. Error on the side of caution? Why are so many governments saying no to 5G? Thanks for the discussion and science.

caromia333

05-12-2019, 11:53 AM

Lawmakers hitting the brakes on 5G:

<tbody>
USA, 24 March:

Portland Oregon city officials state clear opposition (https://digitalsurvivor.uk/2019/03/26/portland-officials-attempt-to-block-5g/) to the installation of 5G networks around the city, supported by the mayor and two commissioners.

Italy, 28 March:
Florence applies the precautionary principle (https://oasisana.com/2019/04/05/provoca-danni-al-corpo-firenze-frena-sul-5g-e-applica-il-principio-di-precauzione-approvata-con-voto-quasi-unanime-la-mozione-in-difesa-della-salute-notizia-esclusiva-oasi-sana/), refusing permissions for 5G and referring to “the ambiguity and the uncertainty of supranational bodies and private bodies (like ICNIRP)”, which “have very different positions from each other, despite the huge evidence of published studies”.

Italy, 28 March:

One Roman district votes against 5G trials (http://www.terranuova.it/News/Attualita/Un-Municipio-di-Roma-vota-contro-il-5G-cosa-fara-la-Giunta), with others expected to follow. Other motions to Stop 5G are expected in the four regional councils, one provincial council and other municipal councils of Italy.

Russia, 28 March:

The Russian Ministry of Defence refuses to transfer frequencies for 5G (https://www.vedomosti.ru/technology/articles/2019/03/28/797714-minoboroni-otkazalos-peredavat-5g), which effectively delays any 5G rollout there for several years.

Belgium, 31 March:

The Belgian Environment Minister announces that Brussels is halting its 5G rollout plans (http://www.brusselstimes.com/brussels/14753/radiation-concerns-halt-brussels-5g-for-now), saying, “The people of Brussels are not guinea pigs whose health I can sell at a profit.

Germany, 4 April:

Germans sign a petition en masse to force the German Bundestag to debate 5G (https://www.telecompaper.com/news/%20germans-petition-parliament-to-stop-5g-auction-on-health-grounds--1287962).

Netherlands, 4 April:

Members of Parliament in the Netherlands insist that radiation research must be carried out (https://www.ad.nl/tech/kamer-wil-eerst-stralingsonderzoek-dan-pas-5g-netwerk~ab567cd6/) before any approval of the 5G network.

USA, 5 April:

California Supreme Court Justices unanimously uphold (https://zero5g.com/2019/california-supreme-court-sides-with-cities-in-small-cell-faceoff/) a 2011 San Francisco ordinance requiring telecommunications companies to get permits before placing antennas on city infrastructure.

Switzerland, 9 April:

The Canton of Vaud adopts a resolution calling for a moratorium on 5G antennas (https://takebackyourpower.net/5g-vaud-switzerland-adopts-moratorium/) until the publication this summer of a report on 5G by the Swiss Federal Office for the Environment.

Switzerland, 10 April:
Geneva adopts a motion for a moratorium on 5G (https://www.letemps.ch/suisse/geneve-adopte-une-motion-un-moratoire-5g), calling on the Council of State to request WHO to monitor independent scientific studies to determine the harmful effects of 5G.

</tbody>

Developments around the world: 5G: The Dominoes Are Starting To Fall (https://takebackyourpower.net/5g-the-dominoes-are-starting-to-fall/)(or calling for more studies)

Portland Oregon; Florence and Rome, Italy; Vaud and Geneva, Switzerland; Netherlands; Germany and more....

sealwatcher

05-12-2019, 01:02 PM

I found the opposite of what is noted below for Russia, from the NYTimes.: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/12/science/5g-phone-safety-health-russia.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage

Yet even as RT America, the cat’s paw of Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin, has been doing its best to stoke the fears of American viewers, Mr. Putin, on Feb. 20, ordered the launch of Russian 5G networks in a tone evoking optimism rather than doom.

“We need to look forward,” he said, according to Tass (http://tass.com/science/1045609), the Russian news agency. “The challenge for the upcoming years is to organize universal access to high-speed internet, to start operation of the fifth-generation communication systems.”

Lawmakers hitting the brakes on 5G:

<tbody>
Russia, 28 March:
The Russian Ministry of Defence refuses to transfer frequencies for 5G (https://www.vedomosti.ru/technology/articles/2019/03/28/797714-minoboroni-otkazalos-peredavat-5g), which effectively delays any 5G rollout there for several years.

</tbody>

spam1

05-12-2019, 03:31 PM

It is very important to get educated on non-iodizing radiation. Best book on the subject by Columbia University scholar and researcher OVER POWERED. Then you will be ready to debate this subject.
I get you believe this, and the article relates to RF radiation in general, and a big advance in 5G is reducing the level of RF radiation through the use of directional antennas. Your phone will have gain for the receiver so it can receive signals that are 4-16 times lower than previous, meaning the cell tower can turn down the power 4-16 times.
Lower power would be better, eh?
And the Transmitters can direct energy to you rather than broadcasting widely, reducing the power by about 60-250 times.
Again, lower power is better? or not?
And 5 G can transmit the same amount of data 8-20 time faster, so the signal last much shorter.
Much shorter exposure is better, do you agree?

Even if one believes the issue of health effects (which most scientists and cancer organizations don't), wouldn't less be better.

Why are you not advocating for replacing bad 3G and 4G with 5G?

caromia333

05-12-2019, 05:21 PM

As someone who has taught environmental science, I have no doubts that the research I have quoted is from the most cogent, distinguished and well respected sources in the world.

It's important to move away from belief and opinion on issues such as climate change and 5G and do our own due diligence by reading the science and literature around these subjects. I realize its time consuming, and can be challenging for people not trained in scientific research, but we can't debate a subject when someone is just pulling notions out of their own hat.

To deny the World Health Organization's scientific findings on this issue borders on conspiratorial.

The comprehensive EHT database (https://ehtrust.org/policy/international-policy-actions-on-wireless/) on international policy that documents the 20+ nations that have protective policies in place to reduce public exposure to cell phone and wireless radiation.

Take time to study the science.
46648

caromia333

05-12-2019, 08:11 PM

https://fair.org/uncategorized/nyts-reassuring-radiation-reporting/FAIRNESS & ACCURACY IN REPORTING

William Broad who wrote the NYT article was sited by the organization FAIR - Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting
a journalism watchdog group - for industry bias reporting on the Radiation from Fukushima.

FAIR is one of the most important and ethical sources for accessing the news.

NYT’s Reassuring Radiation Reporting

The radioactive plume from Japan wafting from west to east across the U.S. is absolutely nothing to worry about, writes William J. Broad in a New York Times report today (“Radiation Over U.S. Is Harmless, Officials Say,” 3/22/11 (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/22/world/asia/22plume.html)) about the radiation threats posed by the Japanese nuclear plant disaster. Broad writes:

I wonder how much of the 5G alarmist rhetoric is originating with RT America.

<style type="text/css">p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px 'Lucida Grande'}</style>http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/misc/nytlogo152x23.gif

There are two things wrong with Broad’s report:
One, he doesn’t quote or even name any health experts in the piece. When he later elaborates on the claim that radiation from Fukushima will have no health consequences in the United States, he cites the Department of Energy–better known for its promotion of nuclear power than for its health expertise.
Two, in saying that small amounts of radiation are safe, Broad seems to be embracing the industry-favored threshold model of radiation risks. That view holds that below a certain level of radiation exposure, no health danger is posed.
But this is at odds with the National Academy of Sciences (http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=11340) and several other science associations that hold there is no such threshold (http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/Radiation-Threshold-Gofman20jun94.htm), and that any exposure poses some additional risk of cancer: the greater the exposure, the greater the risk. The linear, no threshold model isn’t universally (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/03/17/957303/-Radiation,-Cancer,-and-the-Linear-No-Threshold-Model)embraced,but is the prevailing view in scientific circles.
At the very least, if Broad is going to cite an industry-favored way of viewing radiation dangers, one that downplays the threat, isn’t he obliged to explain that that is what it is, and that it is contradicted by much of the scientific establishment?

<header class="entry-header" style="margin: 0px 0px 20px; caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: "Open Sans", sans-serif; font-size: 11px;">What’s FAIR?

</header>FAIR, the national media watch group, has been offering well-documented criticism of media bias and censorship since 1986. We work to invigorate the First Amendment by advocating for greater diversity in the press and by scrutinizing media practices that marginalize public interest, minority and dissenting viewpoints. As an anti-censorship organization, we expose neglected news stories and defend working journalists when they are muzzled. As a progressive group, FAIR believes that structural reform is ultimately needed to break up the dominant media conglomerates, establish independent public broadcasting and promote strong non-profit sources of information.

Your 5G Phone Won’t Hurt You. But Russia Wants You to Think Otherwise. (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/12/science/5g-phone-safety-health-russia.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage)

RT America, a network known for sowing disinformation, has a new alarm: the coming ‘5G Apocalypse.’

By William J. Broad
May 12, 2019

full article here (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/12/science/5g-phone-safety-health-russia.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage)

(https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/12/science/5g-phone-safety-health-russia.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage)

spam1

05-12-2019, 11:33 PM

To deny the World Health Organization's scientific findings on this issue borders on conspiratorial.

Completely agree. Here is what they say:

Are there any health effects?
A large number of studies have been performed over the last two decades to assess whether mobile phones pose a potential health risk. To date, no adverse health effects have been established as being caused by mobile phone use.

Reference:
https://www.waccobb.net/forums/waccobb/keep90days/2019-05-13_13-15-41.png
Electromagnetic fields and public health: mobile phones (https://www.who.int/en/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/electromagnetic-fields-and-public-health-mobile-phones)

(https://www.who.int/en/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/electromagnetic-fields-and-public-health-mobile-phones)And still, 5G uses less power per user than existing technologies.

I (https://www.who.int/en/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/electromagnetic-fields-and-public-health-mobile-phones)t seems you don't read responses and limit your engagement to various forms of "educate yourself". The Socratic method of education is to ask a question and answer questions to elucidate critical thinking. Shall we work together to educate both of us?

wisewomn

05-13-2019, 09:41 AM

Spam1, you've cited an article that's 5 years old.

Completely agree. Here is what they say:...
Electromagnetic fields and public health: mobile phones (https://www.who.int/en/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/electromagnetic-fields-and-public-health-mobile-phones)
(https://www.who.int/en/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/electromagnetic-fields-and-public-health-mobile-phones)...

spam1

05-13-2019, 10:21 AM

Spam1, you've cited an article that's 5 years old.
YES! Indeed I did. Here are the steps I took:
1) Google "world health organization": it suggests www.who.int (http://www.who.int)
2) Go to www.who.int (http://www.who.int) and select "Health Topics" and choose the letter M for mobile phones
3) Find a listing for mobile phones and select it.
It took me to the cited page.
Also checked "Radiation, non-ionizing", same effect.

Now, if the WHO doesn't have a more recent update, and caromia333 specifically calls out "To deny the World Health Organization's scientific findings on this issue borders on conspiratorial." and I check WHO and the only info one can find says "To date, no adverse health effects have been established as being caused by mobile phone use.", what are we to think?

M/M

05-13-2019, 10:25 AM

.... Here is what they say:
Are there any health effects?
A large number of studies have been performed over the last two decades to assess whether mobile phones pose a potential health risk. To date, no adverse health effects have been established as being caused by mobile phone use.

Reference: https://www.who.int/en/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/electromagnetic-fields-and-public-health-mobile-phones
(https://www.who.int/en/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/electromagnetic-fields-and-public-health-mobile-phones)

'They say' is often a great distorter or liar... BEFORE WHO said what you quoted - WHO itself recommended:

. The 2011 International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) at the World Health Organization (WHO) classification of RF as a 2B (possible) human carcinogen. Newer research calls for RF reclassification as 2A (probable) carcinogen, or to Group 1 (known) carcinogen.

Think the industry settled for that recommendation ? Your quote implies they did not.... and likely pressured WHO to change its tune.

AFTER WHO backtracked - hundreds of international scientists wrote WHO; and many subsequent studies show there are not only human health hazards, but other hazards as well:

. The 2015 International Scientists Appeal to the UN/WHO by 220 peer-reviewed scientists from 41 nations about grave concerns over rising ambient EMF/RF. Their warnings include all RF-emitting devices: cell phones, infrastructure, wifi, ‘smart’ meter/grid technology, devices like baby monitors, and commercial broadcast. The warning extends to 4 and 5G small cells.

. The 2017 petition by Swedish scientist Lennart Hardell, signed by over 180 scientists and doctors from 36 countries, calling for a EU moratorium on 5G roll-out until human and environmental hazards areinvestigated by non-industry scientists. Signatories noted 5G will substantially increase cumulative RF effects on top of existing 2G, 3G, 4G, wi-fi, and otherexposures. They urged EU to halt 4 and 5G until non-industry scientists show total radiation levels from all sources are safe,especially to children, pregnant women, and the environment.

. The 2017 U.S. National Toxicology Program’s (NTP) release of a 16-year, $28-million study that foundcausalrelationships between cell-phone RF and DNA damage, malignant brain cancers (glioma), and benign nerve tumors (schwannomas) of the heart in male rats. NTP, the largest long-term low-level RF study ever conducted, used 2G-type radiation at non-thermal RF where effects were considered impossible. Newer generation signaling characteristics are even more complex.

. The 2018 Ramazzini Institute study in Italy verified NTP’s findings at even lower non-thermal RF intensities. They also found brain tumors and schwannomas in both male and female rats. Consistent with NTP, Ramazzini showed effects are reproducible. Yet FCC, FDA, and industry ignore the data.

Two more good sources of information about Wireless... radio interview w/an electrical engineer (or transcript of same):
The Health & Wellness Show: Wireless Technology: 5G is Just the Tip of the Iceberg (https://www.sott.net/article/391492-The-Health-Wellness-Show-Wireless-Technology-5G-is-Just-the-Tip-of-the-Iceberg#)

WiFi, Bluetooth, 3G, 4G and soon 5G - we are living in a time of complete saturation of wireless signals. We're literally bathed in these frequencies 24 hours a day, from cradle to grave. But is this exposure safe? Official government bodies say yes, it's perfectly safe... But what if the very standard of measurement used in these studies is completely wrong? It turns out there is a great deal of research showing the harmful effects of wireless exposure that goes well beyond the red herrings used in studies "proving" its safety. ....

You've got your cell phones which are usually 1.7, 1.8, 1.9 gigahertz. You've got wifi which is commonly 2.4 gigahertz. Bluetooth is 2.4 and there are new flavours of wifi out now. One of them is 5 gigahertz and they're coming out with one that's 60 gigahertz and 60 gigahertz gets into millimetre wave. Millimetre wave is roughly 30 gigahertz up to 300 and blah, blah, blah.

All of that is actually unimportant because it turns out that in this study by Martin Paul, the one called Wifi is an Important Threat to Human Health.... the actual frequency itself is less important than the fact that it is some kind of digital modulation scheme. All of these different system like wifi, Bluetooth and cell phones all use different modulation schemes, modulation encoding.

The point of all these studies is that the frequency .... is not what's actually doing the harm ...

The argument is that because cell phones are much lower power and they don't exert those thermal effects, that they are safe because of that. Is that what you were alluding to earlier?

"Oh, well it's 10,000 times less powerful than a microwave oven so it's not cooking your brain. That means it's perfectly safe." What Paul is actually saying... is that it's actually other characteristics of the radio waves at these frequencies that matters.
.... wifi studies that defend wifi and say there's nothing wrong with it, they expose their test animals to a continuous low level amount of wifi or what they claim is wifi and what they found in all these studies - the effects on the human body are worse ....because your exposure is not actually constant, it's peaking and waning......
.... The list of effects that these studies are claiming that wifi has on the body and also other microwave frequency digital signals, are nuts; just simple oxidative stress, sperm testicular damage, male infertility, neuropsychiatric changes-it literally screws with your head, cellular DNA damage. ..these waves actually can literally rip DNA apart and cause problems and mutations and all kinds of crazy stuff. It screws with your melatonin which messes up your sleep. It goes on and on; abnormal post-natal development. It disrupts the development of teeth. It can cause changes in your heart and circulatory system.
.... It would probably be better if everyone understood that they probably should have been concerned about 4G and 3G and wifi and Bluetooth and all these things a long time ago.

Fiber Broadband and Small Cells: An Unholy Municipal Alliance (https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/05/13/fiber-broadband-and-small-cells-an-unholy-municipal-alliance/)

https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/05/13/fiber-broadband-and-small-cells-an-unholy-municipal-alliance/

As a science writer with two books on technology’s affects to biology, particularly infrastructure, I used to advocate for “fiber-to-the-premises”— meaning fiber optic cable, 100 percent wired to-the-home, without a mobile wireless component, preferably municipally owned, over which various communications providers could “compete” for fixed services like Internet, communications and entertainment. (That should be our national model.) But that train left the station several years ago when fiber was hijacked for “backhaul” by the current feverish small-cell zeitgeist in the name of ubiquitous connectivity for fourth generation (4G/4GLTE smart phones) and eventually 5G Internet of Things (IoT) machine-to-machine technology.

...The innocuous-sounding “fiber broadband” is potentially dangerous — financially, environmentally, legally.
Fiber may never again be the perfect dedicated system. It’s been kidnapped by wireless convenience’s feckless siren call.

Federal Communications Commission (FCC) RF exposure standards, over 20 years old, are for acute short-term thermal effects (like a microwave oven cooks food) but today’s exposures are long-term, low-level, chronic, and far below that threshold.

non-thermal research shows effects to: DNA, cell membranes, gene expression, neuronal function, the blood brain barrier, melatonin production, sperm damage, learning impairment, and immune system function. Known adverse effects to humans include infertility, neurogenerative changes, numerous cancers, and heart rate variability. .....Numerous effects to wildlife are seen. Birds suffer disorientation near cell towers. European studies found adverse effects in avian breeding, nesting and roosting near towers, and documented nest and site abandonment, plumage deterioration, locomotion problems, plus death from microwave RF in house sparrows, white storks, rock doves, magpies, collared doves, and other species. Under laboratory conditions, U.S. researchers found non-thermal radiation from standard cell phone frequencies were lethal to domestic chicken embryos. Other affected species include bats, amphibians, insects, and domestic animals — even plant/tree flora are susceptible. RF created increased bacterial antibiotic resistance, and fruit flies showed morphological abnormalities and decreased survival.The tiny millimeter waves used in 5G will be particularly devastating to insects and thin-skinned amphibians as they couple maximally with skin tissue.

The above is not chump change.

There has been enormous industry pressure on the feds and states to remove obstacles for ubiquitous small cell deployment for current and next generation telecommunications, which cannot work without fiber optic cable.

Since 2016, the Koch-funded lobbing group, American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), has introduced legislation in every state promoting small cells and overriding local jurisdiction.

M/M

05-13-2019, 11:50 AM

more sources of information about Wireless...

The ol' us-them in the NYT, a new low:
Your 5G Phone Won’t Hurt You. But Russia Wants You to Think Otherwise.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/12/science/5g-phone-safety-health-russia.html?fbclid=IwAR05tv3KpIwur_is1hcESnZaPenYVKgeWbWJk-j3zDLT_IGkpZ1NpiuxPT4

and from Environmental Health Trust: What You Need To Know About 5G Wireless and “Small” Cells
https://ehtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/5GFactsheet-August2018.pdf?mc_cid=b442aecb2f&mc_eid=4d7a031653

Dogenzip

05-13-2019, 06:45 PM

Write a letter to the NYT and to the Press Democrat who reprinted this misinformation. State the facts. Educate people. Emphasize the conflict of interest between Verizon and the NYT.

[email protected]

[email protected]

https://www.waccobb.net/forums/waccobb/keep90days/2019-05-14_13-04-07.png

The NY Times Invokes Russia and Conspiracy Theories in an Attempt to Stifle Opposition to 5G

On the eve of the May 15th 5G Day of Action (https://americansforresponsibletech.us8.list-manage.com/track/click?u=c3128cbc75b5968aacd624e4b&id=f08315ff68&e=3dac4a10eb), the first national campaign to push back against the unchecked deployment of 5G-ready small cell infrastructure, the New York Times has published a shameful and wildly inaccurate hit piece asserting that opponents of 5G are being unwittingly manipulated by Russia.

The article, "Your 5G Phone Won't Hurt You. But Russia Wants You to Think Otherwise," focuses exclusively on a television network most people have never heard of - RT America - and argues that the tiny network, controlled by the Russian government, is the sole driving force behind the growing public opposition to 5G.

The Times cleverly conflates 5G-enabled smart phones with 5G small cell antennas, and fails to note that RT America is just one of many media outlets that are covering the controversy over 5G antenna deployment, including Fox News and CNN.

It also neglects to mention the hundreds of recently published, peer-reviewed, independent scientific studies from highly credible academic institutions and our own National Institutes of Health that demonstrate biological harm, including cancer, from exposure to RF microwave radiation. A listing of some of the most recent studies is located here (https://americansforresponsibletech.us8.list-manage.com/track/click?u=c3128cbc75b5968aacd624e4b&id=90f07e11a1&e=3dac4a10eb).

Although the Times acknowledges its investment in a 5G joint venture with the telecom giant Verizon, it fails to mention another clear conflict of interest: the pages of the Times are filled with full-page color ads for wireless companies like Verizon which stand to make billions from new services made possible by the deployment of 5G-enabled small cell antennas on virtually every block of every street in America.

In the article, the Times attempts to disparage a highly credible academic researcher and medical professional with no financial stake in the debate, while quoting so-called "experts" with ties to industry but no credentials or experience in public health. Without any evidence, the Times smugly concludes that there is absolutely no risk related to 5G.

Based on the science, we are certain of the risk, and believe that widespread exposure to wireless radiation will soon become a national public health issue. We are particularly concerned for children, who, notwithstanding the casual assertion of the Times to the contrary, are more vulnerable than adults to environmental exposures of all kinds.

The Times owes an apology to its readers for failing to disclose its own economic stake in the successful deployment of 5G, and for publishing this transparent attempt to stifle legitimate concerns about an exposure that has been proven harmful.

Copyright © 2019 Grassroots Communications, All rights reserved.

sharingwisdom

05-14-2019, 06:08 PM

sharingwisdom

05-14-2019, 06:12 PM

On June 21 '17 the International Journal of Oncology published a critique of the World Health Organization's pending review of the adverse health effects of wireless (i.e., radio frequency or RF) radiation. The critique was written by Dr. Lennart Hardell, the world's preeminent researcher on brain tumor risk and long-term cell phone use. He notes that the WHO has relied heavily on members of ICNIRP, a non-governmental organization "with serious conflict of interest." In their reviews of the scientific evidence for adverse health effects from wireless radiation exposure, ICNIRP dismisses the evidence for biological effects due to non-thermal exposures. By focusing only on short-term heating effects and ignoring the effects of chronic exposure to non-thermal levels of RF radiation, ICNIRP has been able to adopt RF exposure guidelines about 300,000 times more permissive than otherwise would be required. RF exposure standards in many nations including the U.S. have been heavily influenced by these guidelines

https://www.saferemr.com/2013/05/upcoming-who-meeting-on-radiofrequency.html

..Now, if the WHO doesn't have a more recent update, and caromia333 specifically calls out "To deny the World Health Organization's scientific findings on this issue borders on conspiratorial." and I check WHO and the only info one can find says "To date, no adverse health effects have been established as being caused by mobile phone use.", what are we to think?

spam1

05-14-2019, 10:16 PM

On June 21 '17 the International Journal of Oncology published a critique of the World Health Organization's pending review of the adverse health effects of wireless (i.e., radio frequency or RF) radiation.

I read the article, which does indeed critique the WHO, but I was surprised when I searched on Scholar.google.com, which is the go-to place for academic articles, and didn't find any articles there. Google search finds it but only as a self-referenced publication.
(edit followup: I did find it, had to properly search)
That not withstanding, and I am REALLY curious if you have an answer to this question:

If the goal of 5G is to reduce the radiated power (by the use of directional antennas) and reduce the time duration of RF radiation (due to faster data rates): would you support 5G to lower the risk? (not that we agree on the level of risk). Less is more, so why is there an objection to 5G?

M/M

05-15-2019, 11:26 AM

I read the article, which does indeed critique the WHO, but I was surprised when I searched on Scholar.google.com, which is the go-to place for academic articles, and didn't find any articles there.
Not sure why anyone would consider Scholar.google a transparent and objective source ...

M/M

05-15-2019, 11:50 AM

more resources:
https://electrosmogrx.com/guide/ [PDF Download]
How 5G & EMF Radiation Impact Your Health
Quick Guide For Health Professionals & Enthusiasts

https://www.electricsense.com/12399/5g-radiation-dangers/
5G Radiation Dangers – 11 Reasons To Be Concerned

podfish

05-15-2019, 01:22 PM

Not sure why anyone would consider Scholar.google a transparent and objective source ...por que? .. unless you assume that someone might feel that a document is supposed to be authoritative merely by its presence on that site? though someone who thought that way would be pretty unsophisticated and I doubt that Spam1 falls into that category. Most of the websites cited here have the opposite problem - it's pretty easy to doubt the veracity of a document that is posted on an single-issue advocacy website, just as it is for one on a corporate-sponsored site. Ones like Scholar.google, that cast a wide net, are very good. If you understand the curation of a more focused site, those are better, but it's often hard to know the quality of the curators.

barfly

05-15-2019, 03:18 PM

The duration of transmissions would be decreased if the volume of data were constant. However, faster data rates allow new applications and a shift from wired to wireless data access. Volume of data will certainly increase.

While the effective radiated power (ERP) from the site is reduced, that's the wrong parameter. The concern is RF exposure. Because of decreased range at millimeter wavelengths, site locations allow people to get much closer for a net higher exposure.

An aside, that's exactly the issue in Brussels. Not the BS spin spewed on the propaganda web sites. Brussels has lower RF exposure limits than the rest of Europe, and with 5G sites placed closer to the ground, you can exceed exposure limits by standing next to them.

...I am REALLY curious if you have an answer to this question:

If the goal of 5G is to reduce the radiated power (by the use of directional antennas) and reduce the time duration of RF radiation (due to faster data rates): would you support 5G to lower the risk? (not that we agree on the level of risk). Less is more, so why is there an objection to 5G?

barfly

05-15-2019, 03:27 PM

Now that's just funny! You complain Google is not objective and transparent, but these sites which are utter nonsense propaganda, and worse yet exist to SELL YOU THINGS, are???

more resources:
https://electrosmogrx.com/guide/ [PDF Download]
How 5G & EMF Radiation Impact Your Health
Quick Guide For Health Professionals & Enthusiasts

https://www.electricsense.com/12399/5g-radiation-dangers/
5G Radiation Dangers – 11 Reasons To Be Concerned

sharingwisdom

05-15-2019, 05:50 PM

I do not believe the goal of 5G is to reduce the radiated power at all. As Tom Wheeler, former FCC head under Obama said in June 2016 at the DC FCC conference:
No testings, no standards, anything goes.
Aimed and amplified signals.
Ultra High Frequency-24 to 100 GHz
Rake in Billions
Share with satellites and military
Everything (and everyone?) must be microchipped
All areas including rural saturated with radiation
Bribe local gov'ts reps
Fast track all local deployment
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5AYRWvjiVg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5AYRWvjiVg%20)

...If the goal of 5G is to reduce the radiated power (by the use of directional antennas) and reduce the time duration of RF radiation (due to faster data rates): would you support 5G to lower the risk? (not that we agree on the level of risk). Less is more, so why is there an objection to 5G?

rossmen

05-16-2019, 01:57 AM

I thought the goal of 5g is to make cellular much quicker. And the danger is who ever rolls out the tech will know all we do? And nations are fighting for the right to be the know all? Clearly our brains are already fryed?

M/M

05-17-2019, 01:17 PM

The article, “Your 5G Phone Won’t Hurt You. But Russia Wants You to Think Otherwise,” neglects to mention the hundreds of recently published, peer-reviewed, independent scientific studies from highly credible academic institutions and our own National Institutes of Health that demonstrate biological harm, including cancer, from exposure to RF microwave radiation. A listing of some of the most recent studies .https://www.globalresearch.ca/ny-times-invokes-russia-conspiracy-theories-attempt-stifle-5g-opposition/5677437

More about NY Times' article:
https://www.globalresearch.ca/new-york-times-succumbs-conspiratorial-paranoia/5677730

New York Times Denies Health Impacts of 5G Cellphone Technology
Electromagnetic frequency's (EMFs) biomolecular effects on living organisms

By Richard Gale and Dr. Gary Null

Between August 2016 and September 2018, over 400 new studies on electromagnetic radiation risks were compiled by public health Professor Joel Moskowitz at the University of California at Berkeley. These studies cover earlier generation technologies, whereas 5G will be everywhere and far less safe. Compared to 4G technology in common use today, every 5G base station will contain hundreds of thousands of antennas each aiming laser like microwave beams to all devices. In an urban area, base stations could be installed as little as 100 meters (328 feet) apart.
......There is urgent reason to be concerned about 5G, especially for our children and their future children who will live in a sea 5G radiation. Dr. Lennart Hardel, an oncology professor at University Hospital in Orebro, Sweden, has even considered the horrible thought that the telecommunication industry’s plans to launch 5G globally may violate the Nuremberg Code.

podfish

05-17-2019, 02:02 PM

More about NY Times' article:
https://www.globalresearch.ca/new-york-times-succumbs-conspiratorial-paranoia/5677730

New York Times Denies Health Impacts of 5G Cellphone Technology
Electromagnetic frequency's (EMFs) biomolecular effects on living organisms

By Richard Gale and Dr. Gary Null
references "public health Professor Joel Moskowitz at the University of California at Berkeley" as their expert. He's quite prominent in the anti-EMF movement. The same names keep coming up. Given the benefits (or, if you disagree with that term, 'utility') of radio communications, especially 5G, it's going to take a lot more than the same few voices to have much impact. Most people don't really feel like they use devices other than their phones, and maybe the dreaded smartmeters, which generate or consume EMF radiation, so it seems like a minor sacrifice to limit it. Sadly for them, commercial and industrial users have immense need of it so it's unlikely to be stopped, or even slowed. If incontrovertible evidence of its dangers ever does emerge there may be some kind of limitations applied. So far Moskowitz is an outlier. He'll need to do what Michael Mann and others did for climate science.

M/M

05-17-2019, 07:18 PM

references "public health Professor Joel Moskowitz at the University of California at Berkeley" as their expert....

totally understand what you're saying... However, Moskowitz is loud and clear even if a 'lone' voice... He reports regularly to tumor boards for example. Old info, but good:

if you are still addicted to your technology and do not think EMFs dangerous watch this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WexAKXIovLs
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WexAKXIovLs)
Final Truth Bomb (Based on that video): Why does Israel have more parotid tumors today on the graph? They sustain more EMF radiation in their environment and have a lowered magnetic signal from the Earth because of where they live. Their Schumann frequency is being blocked because of the petrochemicals in the ground below them.... Jack Kruse, MD
another EMF article by Dr. K: https://jackkruse.com/emf-5-what-are-the-biologic-effects-of-emf/

rossmen

05-18-2019, 10:03 PM

Totally missing the point again pdfcr. You like to argue with what you assume are lessers. You haven't responded to me in like 1.5 yrs? Yes I'm the brother of mm, in case you haven't tracked, I walk the edge of knowledge, under the threat of banning by berry.

More about NY Times' article:
https://www.globalresearch.ca/new-york-times-succumbs-conspiratorial-paranoia/5677730

New York Times Denies Health Impacts of 5G Cellphone Technology
Electromagnetic frequency's (EMFs) biomolecular effects on living organisms

By Richard Gale and Dr. Gary Null

rossmen

05-18-2019, 10:13 PM

Of course your right, but are you real? 5g has more problems than emr. You haven't responded to me for like 1.5yrs. Perhaps you are afraid that we will get banned like my brother mm? Or perhaps you just want to be waccobb?

references "public health Professor Joel Moskowitz at the University of California at Berkeley" as their expert....

podfish

05-19-2019, 07:54 AM

Of course your right, but are you real? 5g has more problems than emr. You haven't responded to me for like 1.5yrs. Perhaps you are afraid that we will get banned like my brother mm? Or perhaps you just want to be waccobb?sorry, rman, but I find this a bit baffling. As for responding to you, hope this counts. In general, I respond on impulse or whim; if I notice any pattern in them it's that I react to what I think are assertions of facts that aren't facts, or weird logical inconsistencies. Your posts seem to me to be more often just streams of consciousness or 'opinion pieces' if you want to categorize them. Generally, I agree with or at least understand the sentiment behind them. I guess they don't trigger me to respond as much as some others...

caromia333

05-20-2019, 05:59 PM

MAJOR DECISION AGAINST 5G IN THE UK.

After a city council attempted a silencing campaign, a UK judge has declared that the people have a right to know about the harmful effects of 5G millimeter-wave technology being deployed upon them. Watch the 2-minute summary video above or on YouTube here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=De8eNC4zhkw).
Mark Steele, a campaigner [against 5G], has been highlighting the dangers of a secret 5G rollout by Gateshead Council where residents are complaining of increased illness and Cancer in the affected area. There’s enough evidence to conclude the new smart 5G arrays on the top of new LED lampposts emit Class 1 Radiation frequencies and should be treated as a danger to the Public.

Gateshead Council ignorantly rebutted clear evidence and created false allegations on social media posts and printed leaflets stating that Mark Steele is spreading pseudo science and that the arrays are not dangerous or 5G: “Please be assured that there is no scientific basis or credible evidence for any of these scare stories about street lights causing cancer and other illnesses.”

They misused Police Powers to gag Mark Steele and yesterday he left a free man and Gateshead Council to fork out £11k of taxpayers money to cover the court cost amounting to woeful ignorance. In Court, none of the Council Officers could explain what 5G is; and their leading Government expert refused to attend the Court hearing. In conclusion, the Judge refused to gag Mark, stating:

“The public have a right to know.”

The secret 5G rollout issue in Gateshead is now officially of public interest and will be treated as a landmark case for other people to start using this Court’s ruling to challenge their Councils. We know Surrey, Westminster and Luton all have these toxic Microwave EMF arrays installed on their new LED streetlights. We now know even if these arrays are currently 2G, 3G or 4G they can be 5G enabled by fitting a ‘lens’ that ‘focuses’ the frequency.

The Judge declared Mark Steele as a credible expert and engineer on EMF and GSM technologies, which proves Gateshead Council are liable for corruption, misleading the public, making people ill and attempting to discredit Mark Steele and all others such as Smombie Gate fighting 5G rollouts.

Read the full story and 5G action plan at SmombieGate.com… (https://www.smombiegate.org/britains-first-5g-court-case-and-the-people-won/)

M/M

05-20-2019, 06:52 PM

see also: 5G UK Court Case - Gateshead Study Links Funeral Service, George Soros and UN:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbNEpLP8x5A

rossmen

05-21-2019, 01:52 AM

I have a different experience. In my world I am actually disputing your point, for my own education of course. Why else would we be here? Perhaps that is the confusion. Or perhaps the agreement. Does it really matter what is written on wacco except for our own entertainment? I admit that I participate infrequently, usually late, often altered, and with passion. Stream of consciousness is apt. Thanks for still triggering me :)

sorry, rman, but I find this a bit baffling. As for responding to you, hope this counts. In general, I respond on impulse or whim; if I notice any pattern in them it's that I react to what I think are assertions of facts that aren't facts, or weird logical inconsistencies. Your posts seem to me to be more often just streams of consciousness or 'opinion pieces' if you want to categorize them. Generally, I agree with or at least understand the sentiment behind them. I guess they don't trigger me to respond as much as some others...

podfish

05-21-2019, 08:10 AM

I have a different experience. In my world I am actually disputing your point, for my own education of course. Why else would we be here?... ok, to maybe find the point of dispute, if there is one. You say 5g has more problems than EMR? if you mean security issues, then sorry, I'm certainly with you there. It's a security nightmare. We're kind of screwed on that one due to the way computing and network architecture has evolved. I'm just waiting for the hammer to fall and chaos to reign. I put the likelihood of something dramatic happening right up there with the San Andreas or Rogers Faults going off in a big way. Gonna happen, surprising it hasn't yet, might not for quite a while. Or is that not what you meant?

amomirov

05-23-2019, 02:25 PM

Why are the pro-5G people so smug and condescending? Does intellectual obedience make you feel smart?

It's not hard to see why 5G is a problem, and 4G for that matter. They are continuous inorganic radiation permeating a body not designed for it. 5G is not the sun. You cannot make vitamin D from 5G. It is an artificial frequency and represents a disruption of biological homeostasis. Over prolonged periods that means disease and death. The end. Just think please.

podfish

05-23-2019, 04:52 PM

Why are the pro-5G people so smug and condescending? ...eye of the beholder -- the anti-xxx groups seem smug and condescending in their "we know the real truth, you sheeple" point of view, though I'm sure (many of them) don't intend it that way.

but sorry, I'm willing to sound condescending here. If by "intellectual obedience" you mean we use our intellect to evaluate new information and reach conclusions, I guess some of us do that. Your post has some bizarre phrases that have no meaning. "continuous inorganic radiation?" I guess only organically-sourced radiation should be used! And what's discontinuous radiation like? unless you're referring to the wave-particle duality of it? but even then, I'm puzzled. And, what are the natural (? is 'natural' the opposite of artificial?) frequencies? does the red-shift mess with their natural state too? I won't even try to play with 'biological homeostasis', but I don't think it means what you think it means either.

amomirov

05-23-2019, 05:55 PM

Fair enough, there are plenty of pretentious truthers. You don't sound condescending you sound confused. Intellectual obedience means you're unwilling to reason from first premises, like, I have this body that evolved under certain conditions, and here is a man-made device that has nothing to do with those conditions, but is permeating my body constantly with a signal, what would their interaction be like? But instead accept others' conclusions to that question, along with their preferred data and explanations, which have every chance of being wrong. Continuous inorganic radiation means you're bathed in wifi day and night. A natural frequency would be the Schumann resonance or the electromagnetic field of a plant. Biological homeostasis is a pretty common idea I'm not sure why you're having trouble with it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeostasis

eye of the beholder...

Barry

05-24-2019, 12:16 PM

Continuous inorganic radiation means you're bathed in wifi day and night. ..And what about AM Radio, FM Radio, GPS, TV, and probably countless other frequencies currently in use, plus EMF fields generated by wires and electrical devices, etc... And even visible light that is artificially/inorganically created?

And even if there is a small risk to "artificial radiation", is it killing 1.25 million people every year, like automobiles do (https://www.asirt.org/safe-travel/road-safety-facts/)? Should we go back to using organic horses to get around?

amomirov

05-24-2019, 12:58 PM

And what about AM Radio, FM Radio, GPS, TV, ...

The EMF ocean probably is killing or contributing to the deaths of at least that many people over the long term. There is no precedent for this. You're part of a giant experiment and have no authority to declare how big the risk is. It's common sense that more radiation is a bad direction to move in. Cars are awful too, have you ever heard or smelled one? I drive a car but don't bury my head in the sand about its risks.

M/M

05-24-2019, 04:25 PM

And what about AM Radio, FM Radio, GPS, TV,...

Yes, where to draw a line - if we do.... or, at the very least - come up with alternatives for those in the world: who either don't want the benefits and/or want a respite from effects of being in continuous electrosmog??

It would be interesting to see response of local and wider government agencies to requests for special buildings or zones, where wireless technology is either blocked or not connected (IF latter is even possible).

Before 5G arrives, we know for example from:
5G danger: Hundreds of respected scientists sound alarm about health effects of 5G networks going up nationwide (http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/5g-danger-hundreds-of-respected-scientists-sound-the-alarm-about-health-effects-as-5g-networks-go-up-nationwide)

increasing exposure to EMF generated by electric and wireless devices.... such as cellular and cordless phones and their base stations, Wi-Fi, broadcast antennas, smart meters, and baby monitors as well as electric devices and infra-structures ... that generate extremely-low frequency electromagnetic field (ELF EMF)
.... Effects 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. ....

"And remember, 5G technology is going to take all of this to an entirely new level."

Independent scientists are raising the alarm: Humanity is becoming more electrosensitive
https://www.naturalnews.com/2019-01-24-humanity-is-becoming-more-electrosensitive.html

One French researcher has found reliable biomarkers among people who have electro hypersensitivity. These include high levels of blood histamine, elevated NTT (an oxidative stress marker), and elevated levels of S100B (a marker of blood-brain barrier leakage).

Electro pollution expert Dr. Magda Havas estimates that three percent of the population has severe symptoms and a further 35 percent have mild to moderate symptoms when they are exposed to “electrosmog.” She says these people might be able to function in the presence of electrosmog but have symptoms like trouble sleeping, headaches, fatigue, discomfort, movement difficulty, nausea, hearing problems, skin problems and memory loss.

The safety of 5G technology is finally being brought into serious question
https://www.naturalnews.com/2018-11-29-safety-of-5g-technology-questions.html

ChefJayTay

06-07-2019, 07:57 PM

Resisting is rather moot.
SpaceX is launching 12k (YES 12,000) satellites by mid 2020's to provide internet access for almost everywhere but the poles.

Goat Rock Ukulele

06-08-2019, 05:42 PM

If you are really worried about it there are a vast number of things you can do. There are special paints that block 99% of EMF radiation, coatings for windows etc. Doesn't do much when you are outside but if you want to make a bedroom into a faraday cage it isn't all that hard. Info below.

How to shield a space from the radiation of cell phone masts, wireless Internet networks (wi-fi), cordless phones, etc .;

Wireless radiation enters the building easily from windows (unless the glasses have a metal coating) and are blocked to some extent by the walls depending on the thickness and type of structural material.Electromagnetic shielding materials are special fabrics, window films, meshes, wallpapers and paints that reflect more than 99% of wireless radiation due to their special conductive composition.

Window films with metal coating or curtains with special weave of copper and silver, are placed on the windows, significantly reducing the levels of radiation due to external radiation sources (eg cell phone masts), since the windows are the most vulnerable points to the penetration of wireless radiation.

https://www.home-biology.com/images/radiationshieldingcurtains.jpg

The walls of buildings reflect/absorb a portion of the external wireless radiation, depending on the thickness and type of the structural material. By painting the walls with electromagnetic shielding paint, we can achieve even greater reduction of radiation in a space, which is usually desirable when there is a source nearby (eg cell phone masts at distance <200 m). The paint can even be used even on the floor. These paints provide higher radiation attenuation rates, even for very high frequency radiation, while also shielding from the low-frequency electric fields (e.g. from wires, electrical appliances, etc.).

https://www.home-biology.com/images/raditionshieldingpaint.jpg

On walls that are have not yet been plastered or on floors that have not been laid, you can place a special stainless steel mesh. This mesh is stainless steel so it can be easily used outdoors (eg nailing it on the external walls).

Electromagnetic shielding fabric which reflects wireless radiation can be placed underneath the sofa or bed when the radiation source is below (eg wireless modem from neighbor).

Practical solution for the bedrooms offer the shielded bed canopies. They inhibit penetrating radiation from all directions except from the bottom of the bed (but you can put shielding fabric underneath the bed). With such canopies, you get the minimum disturbance of your sleep from your current and future wireless radiation sources and do a daily break from electromagnetic pollution.

Continues here (https://www.home-biology.com/electromagnetic-shielding-guide/how-to-shield-your-house-from-eleectromagnetic-fields)

barfly

06-08-2019, 06:41 PM

Let me take a wild guess... this information came from a web site that sells you all these materials. Duh.

And this Gerard Hyland bio is BS. Nobel nominations are done by invitation in secret and not revealed for 50 years. So unless “contender” means he wishes he would be nominated, that’s just a lie to make it all seem legit.

I do wish RF shielding was this easy, that would solve a lot of problems for me in the lab.

If you are really worried about it there are a vast number of things you can do. There are special paints that block 99% of EMF radiation, coatings for windows etc. Doesn't do much when you are outside but if you want to make a bedroom into a faraday cage it isn't all ...
Dr. Gerard Hyland, Biophysics, University of Warwick, 2 times Nobel Prize contender Medicine [1]

heresbruce

06-08-2019, 07:09 PM

For what it is worth, from May 21, 2007 article:
http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2007/05/wi-fi-quackery-and-parliament.html

Let me take a wild guess... this information came from a web site that sells you all these materials. Duh.

And this Gerard Hyland bio is BS. ....

Barry

06-08-2019, 10:37 PM

Let me take a wild guess... this information came from a web site that sells you all these materials. Duh. ...

So I would have thought, but that doesn't seem to be the case. I found the EMF protection text on 2 sites that don't be to be selling it.

See: https://ediovision.blogspot.com/2018/09/how-to-shield-your-house-from.html (includes some trippy graphics)

and

https://www.home-biology.com/electromagnetic-shielding-guide/how-to-shield-your-house-from-eleectromagnetic-fields

barfly

06-08-2019, 11:27 PM

I looked at home-biology and it links to sites that sell stuff. I stopped looking as soon as I found meters for sale.

So I would have thought, but...

https://www.home-biology.com/electromagnetic-shielding-guide/how-to-shield-your-house-from-eleectromagnetic-fields

M/M

06-09-2019, 01:13 PM

Resisting is rather mute.
SpaceX is launching 12k (YES 12,000) satellites by mid 2020's to provide internet access for almost everywhere but the poles.
Possibly moot.... growing list of people making concerns known though:

Wireless Radiation: Stop the 5G Network on Earth and in Space, Devastating Impacts on Health and the Environment
International Appeal: There are 26,740 signatories as of December 4, 2018

By Arthur Firstenberg (https://www.globalresearch.ca/author/arthur-firstenberg)
Global Research, June 08, 2019
The Appeal (https://www.5gspaceappeal.org/the-appeal)

To the UN, WHO, EU, Council of Europe and governments of all nations
We the undersigned scientists, doctors, environmental organizations and citizens....., urgently call for a halt to the deployment of the 5G (fifth generation) wireless network, including 5G from space satellites. ....The deployment of 5G constitutes an experiment on humanity and the environment that is defined as a crime under international law.
....
If the telecommunications industry’s plans for 5G come to fruition, no person, no animal, no bird, no insect and no plant on Earth will be able to avoid exposure, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, to levels of RF radiation that are tens to hundreds of times greater than what exists today, without any possibility of escape anywhere on the planet. These 5G plans threaten to provoke serious, irreversible effects on humans and permanent damage to all of the Earth’s ecosystems.
Immediate measures must be taken to protect humanity and the environment, in accordance with ethical imperatives and international agreements.

5G will result in a massive increase in inescapable, involuntary exposure to wireless radiation

Also discussed: Ground- and Space-based 5G
Harmful effects of radio frequency radiation are already proven
The deployment of 5G satellites must be prohibited
5G is qualitatively and quantitatively different from 4G
Regulators have deliberately excluded the scientific evidence of harm
RF radiation has both acute and chronic effects

World governments are failing in their duty of care to the populations they govern
International agreements are being violated
and more.....