5G in Sebastopol & Graton

[wisewomn]

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
...

[spam1]

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
2) Go to 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]

.... 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

'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

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...ipal-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]

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/s...IGkpZ1NpiuxPT4

and from Environmental Health Trust: What You Need To Know About 5G Wireless and “Small” Cells
https://ehtrust.org/wp-content/uploa...eid=4d7a031653

[Dogenzip]

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]




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, 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.

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]

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-tim...sition/5677437

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/s...IGkpZ1NpiuxPT4

and from Environmental Health Trust: What You Need To Know About 5G Wireless and “Small” Cells
https://ehtrust.org/wp-content/uploa...eid=4d7a031653

[sharingwisdom]

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/upc...frequency.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]

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]

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]

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/...ation-dangers/
5G Radiation Dangers – 11 Reasons To Be Concerned

[podfish]

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]

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]

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/...ation-dangers/
5G Radiation Dangers – 11 Reasons To Be Concerned

[sharingwisdom]

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

...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]

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]

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-tim...sition/5677437

More about NY Times' article:
https://www.globalresearch.ca/new-yo...ranoia/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]

More about NY Times' article:
https://www.globalresearch.ca/new-yo...ranoia/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]

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

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...ffects-of-emf/

[rossmen]

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-yo...ranoia/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]

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]

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]

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.
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…

[M/M]

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

[rossmen]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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? Should we go back to using organic horses to get around?

[amomirov]

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.