# Stuff and Things > HISTORY, veterans & science >  Evidence that Covid 19 may have started due to 5G networks

## phoenyx

I'll start off by saying that I don't think that 5G, or even EMFs in general are the only cause of Covid 19. That being said, I think they were perhaps the first. If it's true that viruses are created by the body in order to try to purge toxins form the body, then the new variants could be the body's attempts to purge other drugs and the covid 19 vaccines themselves from the body. But Covid came out before the Covid 19 vaccines, so clearly, if viruses are just the body's attempt to get rid of toxins, some new toxin had to have come out to develop this new virus strain. I think it's possible that 5G may well have been a type of toxin to the body via radiation that caused exosomes that we have been calling Covid 19 to be produced. 

**
November 15, 2020
by Edward Hendrie
On February 5, the _Diamond Princess_ was boarded at port Yokohama in Tokyo Bay by Japanese health officials. Those health officials pronounced that 10 persons on board were diagnosed as having coronavirus, later known as COVID-19. The ship was ordered quarantined for 14 days. Nobody could leave the ship during the quarantine period. Within 3 days another 125 passengers were diagnosed with having COVID-19). By February 13, a total of 218 people were diagnosed with having COVID-19.

A little known fact is that the _Diamond Princess_ was sporting some new high tech 5G towers. An earlier news release explained that “Princess Cruises has announced a new dimension in its connectivity partnership with SES and will become the first global cruise ship fleet with early access to SES’s O3b mPOWER network augmenting the Princess Medallion Class experience as it scales across the fleet, according to a press release.” _Cruise Industry News_, February 3, 2020.

Is there a connection between the newly installed 5G network on the ship and the passengers being struck ill with coronavirus? It should be noted that only the Princess cruise line that had installed the 5G had outbreaks of COVID-19. In March 2020, the _Grand Princess_ had outbreaks of COVID-19 before docking in San Francisco. The _Ruby Princess_ was reported to have had an outbreak of COVID-19 involving 600 passengers prior to docking on March 19, 2020, at Sydney, Australia. All of those ships are Medallion Class ships with the new 5G tower connectivity from SES’s O3b mPOWER.

SES explains on their website that the O3b mPOWER is a next-generation 5G satellite signal system. 
Together with key stakeholders and technology partners, SES Networks is advancing satellite integration into 5G through standardization, technology development and demonstrations.
*[snip]*

What is the effect of 5G on humans? Dr. Magda Havas, Ph.D, sought to answer that question. Dr. Havas “compared the average number of cases, deaths, and tests for covid-19 per million population in states with and without 5G.”
Dr. Havas found that the standardized testing for states with and without 5G was similar. But he discovered a real difference in COVID-19 cases per million population for those states that deployed 5G. Dr. Havas found that *“Covid-19 cases per million are 95% higher and covid-19 deaths per million are 126% higher in states with 5G.”*
5G-v-no-5G-Data-Deaths-and-Cases-.png
Source:
Is there an association between covid-19 cases/deaths and 5G in the United States?  Dr. Magda Havas, PhD.

**

Another article on this:
Study Shows Direct Correlation between 5G Networks and  RADIATION DANGERS
*

5G Explains Cruise Ship COVID-19 Outbreak*

Does 5G explain the COVID-19 outbreak on the Princess cruise ships? A researcher has studied the COVID-19 outbreak aboard the Diamond Princess and he concluded the following:
[COLOR=rgba(51, 51, 51, 0.701960784313725)]When the Diamond Princess data was compared to the controls, it’s clear that the death and infection rates of the Diamond Princess significantly surpass the death and infection rates of all the control data. Ongoing use of 5G can result in potential harm to populations. For the above reasons, this paper concludes that 5G wireless technology radiation is a probable factor for causing Covid-19 outbreaks, but still identifies other causes that still need to be tested. Governments are recommended to impose a moratorium on 5G wireless technology until it can be proven that this technology is safe for humans and the environment.[/COLOR]
**
*Wuhan is China’s Experimental City For 5G*

China has one of the largest 5G networks in the world. In November 2019, the Chinese government announced plans to blanket China with more than 130,000 5G base stations.
Wuhan, China, which started the entire alleged COVID-19 pandemic, was interestingly enough one of the first cities in China to be blanketed with 5G technology. The plans to blanket Wuhan in 5G bandwidth was announced in April 2018. The Chinese government announced that “[b]y 2020, 5G network will cover every corner of the city.”
Sure enough, right on cue, as soon as the 5G network was fired up in Wuhan, the citizens started dropping like flies with symptoms that exactly mirrored the symptoms associated with COVID-19.
Indeed, the very hospital that treated most of the Wuhan COVID-19 patients was, itself, bathed in 5G electromagnetic radiation. https://www.youtube.com/embed/vpPOAA1frVY?feature=oembed Wuhan, China’s Experimental city for 5G

*What Does 5G Do To Humans?*

Scientific researchers looked a the science behind 5G and its effects on the human body. They stated:
In this research, we show that 5G millimeter waves could be absorbed by dermatologic cells acting like antennas, transferred to other cells and play the main role in producing Coronaviruses in biological cells.
_Id._ at 1.
The researchers explained:
Thus, towers in this technology could exchange waves with DNAs within cells and produce various types of diseases such as COVID-19.
_Id._ at 5.
How does this happen? They state that “5G technology waves could pass the cell membranes and lead to production of COVID-19.” _Id_. at 7.
The researchers concluded:
In this research, we have shown that new generation mobile technology, like 5G, could have the main role in constructing various types of viruses, such as Coronaviruses, within a cell.
_Id._ at 9.
These astounding findings were met with an outcry from the larger scientific community who put pressure on the publisher of the research paper, _Journal of Biological Regulators and Homeostatic Agents,_ to withdraw the publication of the paper, which they did. The paper is now listed as a retracted research paper.
The original research paper can be downloaded at the link below:
FIORANELLI-5G-Cause-of-COVID-19Download

What Science Calls Viruses May Really Be Exosomes:
What Science Calls Viruses May Really Be Exosomes  Great Mountain Publishing
**
Full article: 
Covid-19 is a Smokescreen for 5G Radiation Sickness  EMF Madness

----------

Big Dummy (08-30-2021)

----------


## Well Bonded

> I think it's possible that 5G may well have been a type of toxin to the body via radiation that caused exosomes that we have been calling Covid 19 to be produced.


Absloute hogwash published by a person who has no clue as to what 5G is or has a clur as to how RF effects the body.

----------

Hillofbeans (08-30-2021)

----------


## patrickt

Those ships also had toilets. Humans transfer both liquid and solid matter from their bodies to the toilets and when the toilets are flushed molecules of the liquid and solid matter deposited go airborne and are inhaled back into the human depositing these materials.

That's a possible cause for insanity.

----------


## donttread

This post belongs under CT

----------

Call_me_Ishmael (08-30-2021),Hillofbeans (08-30-2021)

----------


## Frankenvoter

> Absloute hogwash published by a person who has no clue as to what 5G is or has a clur as to how RF effects the body.


Hmmmmm, so I'd bet were someone to press the issue you'll get all flustered and tell them that 9 out of 10 scientists agree, therefore it's "settled science" and we just need to shut up and absorb our EMF whether we want to or not?

Scientists have yet to solve the mystery of why none of them rate a girlfriend until they have money, why not get a think tank working on that one Poindexter? 

A bonus question would be "does she really love you, or the money"?

A double bonus question would be "what's she doing with the pool guy while you're at work"? 



A triple bonus would be to unravel the mysteries of "spell check".

----------

Big Dummy (08-30-2021)

----------


## Call_me_Ishmael

> Hmmmmm, so I'd bet were someone to press the issue you'll get all flustered and tell them that 9 out of 10 scientists agree, therefore it's "settled science" and we just need to shut up and absorb our EMF whether we want to or not?
> 
> Scientists have yet to solve the mystery of why none of them rate a girlfriend until they have money, why not get a think tank working on that one Poindexter? 
> 
> A bonus question would be "does she really love you, or the money"?
> 
> A double bonus question would be "what's she doing with the pool guy while you're at work"? 
> 
> 
> ...


We've been studying and using the results of the studies on RF hazards to the body for decades and decades. There's is no "settled science" since various countries have often developed their own modifications to the safety standards. But they all are within some bounds that are are similar. The US adopted IEEE C95.1 as its standard. The NATO countries used a similar standard. I have also used a Denmark standard that is every so slightly more conservative in some part of the spectrum.  

Anyone who wants to can obtain IEEE C95.1 on the internet. There are more recent versions than 2005 but I will give that version a thumbs up on the quality of documentation.  And then there are decades of measurements and simulations and analysis of RF hazards to humans that can be found documented. 
Anyone with an opinion on this stuff should at least go up that learning curve before making their tin foil hat statements.  

I know this stuff like the back of my hand. Studied it. Used it. Taught it. Developed protective instructions for people working around it. 


If I have any concerns about 5G, they are - for the _most_ part - no more and no less the concerns of other cell phone bands. 

Those who are ignorant of electromagnetics have to fear that they are being lied to. Those of us who know the science don't have to trust anyone but ourselves.

PS. I addressed only safety above.  Some people are asceeered of the surveillance possibilities. I said nothing about that.

----------

Frankenvoter (08-30-2021),QuaseMarco (09-14-2021)

----------


## Well Bonded

> Hmmmmm, so I'd bet were someone to press the issue you'll get all flustered and tell them that 9 out of 10 scientists agree, therefore it's "settled science" and we just need to shut up and absorb our EMF whether we want to or not?


Not at all, but lets give it a try, what's the alleged difference between 3G, 4G and 5G that makes 5 G so dangerous? 

See if you can answer that and we can go from there, if you cannot, then you are not in a position to question those who can and as such fail to understand what is in that report is a load of bullshit.

----------

Call_me_Ishmael (08-30-2021)

----------


## UKSmartypants

move to covid sticky, not science forum

----------


## phoenyx

> Absloute hogwash [snip]


Gee, what a constructive comment, I'm sure lots of productive posts will follow -.-. Seriously, if you actually want to make a constructive comment, you'd do better explaining why you disagree with the article's author.

----------


## Call_me_Ishmael

> move to covid sticky, not science forum


Yep.

----------


## Call_me_Ishmael

> Gee, what a constructive comment, I'm sure lots of productive posts will follow -.-. Seriously, if you actually want to make a constructive comment, you'd do better explaining why you disagree with the article's author.


5G is implemented in places where the cellular companies need the extra bandwidth to meet the needs of their customers... so that they can make the most money for their investment. These areas will tend to be the most heavily populated.  

Ummmmm.... does one need to finish connecting the dots for you?

Assuming the author actually has data, he needs to understand the difference between causation and correlation....like any good high school student could.

----------


## Well Bonded

> Gee, what a constructive comment, I'm sure lots of productive posts will follow -.-. Seriously, if you actually want to make a constructive comment, you'd do better explaining why you disagree with the article's author.


Simple, can you explain why the other G's are not causing CV-19 and 5G is?

Probably not, because when it comes to non-ionizing radiation, there are no differences between the various generations of those communications systems. 

And anyone who believes otherwise either has no clue as how they work or the difference between non-ionizing and ionizing radiation and why one can be harmful and the other not harmful. 

Make sense?

----------

Call_me_Ishmael (08-30-2021)

----------


## phoenyx

> Hmmmmm, so I'd bet were someone to press the issue you'll get all flustered and tell them that 9 out of 10 scientists agree, therefore it's "settled science" and we just need to shut up and absorb our EMF whether we want to or not?


Yep, that's pretty much the way of it these days :-/. To be honest, when I first heard about all of this stuff, I was skeptical, but the more I read, the more it made sense. In particular, were reports, going all the way back to the days of the spanish flu, of people getting sick from it even though they had been in contact with no one, for instance, a ship out at sea. I've heard of cases with Covid 19 as well. It made no sense from a contagion perspective, but it makes perfect sense if 5G radiation is getting people sick. I've also come to believe that while 5G probably makes the most severe Covid cases, other EMFs, such as 4G, might make milder cases. It's a field of study that is so new for the mainstream, but some people, at least, have been taking it very seriously. 

Scientific American's Blog recently came out with an article getting into the dangers of 5G:
We Have No Reason to Believe 5G Is Safe - Scientific American Blog Network

Another site I've found with interesting information:
https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1053072...ctricSense.pdf


Children's Health Defense also won a court ruling against the FCC regarding 5G and wireless radiation recently that is interesting:
Government Failed to Consider Evidence of Harm, Including to Children, From 5G and Wireless Radiation, Court Rules s Health Defense

----------

Big Dummy (08-30-2021),Frankenvoter (08-30-2021)

----------


## phoenyx

> 5G is implemented in places where the cellular companies need the extra bandwidth to meet the needs of their customers... so that they can make the most money for their investment. These areas will tend to be the most heavily populated.  
> 
> Ummmmm.... does one need to finish connecting the dots for you?


Certainly, 5G tends to be implemented in places with high populations, but not always and, perhaps most importantly, there is strong evidence that the most important factor is the 5G, not the high populations. The example of Wuhan China is a great example, as is the Grand Princess, both elaborated on in the article in the opening post.

----------


## Well Bonded

> 5G is implemented in places where the cellular companies need the extra bandwidth to meet the needs of their customers...


Incorrect 5G does not create bandwidth, it is nothing more than a bonded method of RF transmission, bandwidth is dependent on frequency and that applies to both wireline and wireless transmission.    

[bquote]so that they can make the most money for their investment. These areas will tend to be the most heavily populated. [/bquote]


If that was true, which it is not, please explain why are carriers are implementing 5G, network wide, not just in urban areas?




> Ummmm.... does one need to finish connecting the dots for you?


In order to connect the dots, one must understand what are the dots and what are piles of crap.

----------


## phoenyx

> Simple, can you explain why the other G's are not causing CV-19 and 5G is?


I never said the other Gs couldn't possibly cause mild Covid. As to why 5G is so much worse, it has to do with the higher frequencies it uses. Here's a good article on it:
https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1053072...ctricSense.pdf

----------


## Well Bonded

> there is strong evidence that the most important factor is the 5G


Incorrect 5G is not a thing, it is a different method of deploying a commonly used technology known as radio.

----------


## Call_me_Ishmael

> Incorrect 5G does not create bandwidth, it is nothing more than a bonded method of RF transmission, bandwidth is dependent on frequency and that applies to both wireline and wireless transmission.    
> 
> [bquote]so that they can make the most money for their investment. These areas will tend to be the most heavily populated. [/bquote]
> 
> 
> If that was true, which it is not, please explain why are carriers are implementing 5G, network wide, not just in urban areas?
> 
> 
> In order to connect the dots, one must understand what are the dots and what are piles of crap.


Cheesus .. dude. We were in agreement that 5G has nothing to do with COVID and now you go off and post this stuff that is not correct.

----------


## phoenyx

> Incorrect 5G is not a thing, it is a different method of deploying a commonly used technology known as radio.


Sorry, but you're just mistaken. 5G uses higher frequencies than all previous "Gs", some of which are in the millimeter range. Those are the ones that are particularly damaging to humans.

----------


## donttread

> Hmmmmm, so I'd bet were someone to press the issue you'll get all flustered and tell them that 9 out of 10 scientists agree, therefore it's "settled science" and we just need to shut up and absorb our EMF whether we want to or not?
> 
> Scientists have yet to solve the mystery of why none of them rate a girlfriend until they have money, why not get a think tank working on that one Poindexter? 
> 
> A bonus question would be "does she really love you, or the money"?
> 
> A double bonus question would be "what's she doing with the pool guy while you're at work"? 
> 
> 
> ...



If you are referring to CC nine out of ten scientist do agree. With the basics, like the earth is warming, we are likely part of that and the seas will rise. BUT after they have mentioned all that agreement they pretend all of them agree with AOC's brillant predictions. LOL. MSM , even some con media, is a half truth paradise

----------


## Well Bonded

> I never said the other Gs couldn't possibly cause mild Covid. As to why 5G is so much worse, it has to do with the higher frequencies it uses. Here's a good article on it:


A article not supported by fact, furthermore 5G as currently deployed utilizes the same frequencies as the previous generations of cellular communications.

----------


## Call_me_Ishmael

> Sorry, but you're just mistaken. 5G uses higher frequencies than all previous "Gs", some of which are in the millimeter range. Those are the ones that are particularly damaging to humans.


No. They actually are not.  Those that are most dangerous are those near the broad resonances of the body.  The maximum permissible exposure level curve looks like a bathtub.  You can tolerate much higher levels of exposure above and below the more sensitive area of the curve. 

The higher frequencies can't even get much past the skin.. if at all.  The lower frequencies go through you without being absorbed. If getting into your body was key.... the 60 Hz power grid has been doing that for a hundred years.

----------


## phoenyx

> A article not supported by fact


Did you even click on the link? I guess I should start quoting from it:

**
*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 spectrums. There was no mention of health effects whatsoever. But the dangers are real.Thousands 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 (Source: https://www.electricsense.com/2597/c...t-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 (WHO) classified radio frequency radiation as a possible 2B carcinogen (Source: https://www.electricsense.com/so-cel...ogenic-really/ )

More recently the $25 million National Toxicology Program concluded that radio frequency radiation of the type currently used by cell phones can cause cancer (source: https://www.electricsense.com/cell-p...e-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 its own particular concerns. Here is my review of the studies done to date – 11 reasons to be concerned.
**
Full article:
https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1053072...ctricSense.pdf

----------

Big Dummy (08-30-2021)

----------


## Well Bonded

> Sorry, but you're just mistaken. 5G uses higher frequencies than all previous "Gs", some of which are in the millimeter range.


Once again incorrect, by and large 5G excepting T-Mobile's 2.5 Gig which they got from SPRINT, is using the same frequencies as 4, 3 and 2 G has, mm wave is still experimental and where it is being trialed it is on a microcell basis, think power levels lower than the leakage from an old microwave oven and less radiation that a person gets from standing outside while the sun is shining .





 Those are the ones that are particularly damaging to humans.[/QUOTE]

----------


## phoenyx

> No. They actually are not.  Those that are most dangerous are those near the broad resonances of the body.  The maximum permissible exposure level curve looks like a bathtub.  You can tolerate much higher levels of exposure above and below the more sensitive area of the curve. 
> 
> The higher frequencies can't even get much past the skin. The lower frequencies go through you without being absorbed.


Sorry, but I'll take the many studies done over your opinion any day. If you're interested in the evidence, I recommend articles like this one:
https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1053072...ctricSense.pdf

----------


## Traddles

> 5G is implemented in places where the cellular companies need the extra bandwidth to meet the needs of their customers... so that they can make the most money for their investment. These areas will tend to be the most heavily populated.  
> 
> Ummmmm.... does one need to finish connecting the dots for you?
> 
> Assuming the author actually has data, he needs to understand the difference between causation and correlation....like any good high school student could.


Cell ("Mobile" in Brit-speak,  :Cool20:  ) companies built 5G coverage first in large population centers? And diseases spread most easily in large population centers? Who could could have foreseen that a disease would be most concentrated where 5G coverage would also be concentrated, but *without a causal relationship*?

What's up with reverting to a ridiculous spring _2020_ conspiracy theory?

Personally, I think the fact that murderers, rapists, kidnappers, and thieves in the US have all eaten carrots proves that carrots are a leading cause of crime in the US.  :Smiley20:

----------


## Well Bonded

> Did you even click on the link? I guess I should start quoting from it:
> 
> **
> At the June 2016 press conference where the FederalCommunications Commission’s (FCC) head Tom Wheeler announced the opening up of low, mid and highspectrum’s. There was no mention of health effects whatsoever. But the dangers are real.Thousands of studies link low-level wireless radio frequencyradiation exposures to a long list of adverse biological effects,including:


A FCC press conference that never happened. 

As for the rest it all leads back to the same source of BS.

----------


## Well Bonded

> Personally, I think the fact that murderers, rapists, kidnappers, and thieves in the US have all eaten carrots proves that carrots are a leading cause of crime in the US.


Which is more logical than thinking 5G causes CV-19.

Heck if 5G caused CV-19 I should be dead from it, considering where I work.

----------


## phoenyx

> Once again incorrect, by and large 5G excepting T-Mobile's 2.5 Gig which they got from SPRINT, is using the same frequencies as 4, 3 and 2 G has, mm wave is still experimental and where it is being trialed it is on a microcell basis, think power levels lower than the leakage from an old microwave oven and less radiation that a person gets from standing outside while the sun is shining .


You're certainly one to say what you believe, but unlike me, I haven't seen you put out a single linked article. Your choice, but it doesn't give you credibility. Anyway, I know that they started with bandwidths within the same range as 4G, that being said, they're on the high end and ofcourse the mm wave ones are beyond it. I don't know the exact number of providers who are using millimeter wave ones, but I can easily imagine that all this extra bandwidth couldn't have been good for people. Furthermore, a lot of satellites have started bombarding large swaths of the earth with 5G as well. I imagine that's not in the mm bandwidth range, because of the distance issue, but still, a lot more EMFs hitting people.

----------


## nonsqtr

The OP is not evidence of what is claimed.

Correlation does not equal causality.

----------

donttread (08-30-2021)

----------


## Call_me_Ishmael

> Sorry, but I'll take the many studies done over your opinion any day. If you're interested in the evidence, I recommend articles like this one:
> https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1053072...ctricSense.pdf


I'm done with this nuttery . That ecfsapi file is a comment from the public..  a comment that *anyone* - including nuts - can make.  The FCC solicits and records comments - even nuttery - when they plan to do things.  You stumbled onto that link, have no idea what it actually is, but believe that you found an official FCC reading on the safety of 5G. But you simply found a rant by some person who is like minded with you. 

But you didn't know that,  did you?  Because you didn't try to research what the hell you are posting about.

----------


## nonsqtr

The human body does not create random Covid viruses.

If it did, everyone would have had one long ago.

----------


## Authentic

> The human body does not create random Covid viruses.
> 
> If it did, everyone would have had one long ago.


What about exosomes?

----------

phoenyx (08-30-2021)

----------


## nonsqtr

> What about exosomes?


What about them?

Have you ever met a Covid exosome?

----------


## Authentic

> Have you ever met a Covid exosome?


We have not been formally introduced.

----------

phoenyx (08-30-2021)

----------


## Call_me_Ishmael

Hesitantly.... 

If I have any MAJOR concerns about some conspiracy involving cell phone systems, they are wrapped up into some issue that no one here has  mentioned. I'm not going to mention it either but if the issue comes up, I may rejoin the conversation.  Till then... it's all nuttery.

----------


## nonsqtr

> Hesitantly.... 
> 
> If I have any MAJOR concerns about some conspiracy involving cell phone systems, they are wrapped up into some issue that no one here has  mentioned. I'm not going to mention it either but if the issue comes up, I may rejoin the conversation.  Till then... it's all nuttery.


Unless you sleep with the phone next to your genitals, you're probably okay.

----------


## Well Bonded

> You're certainly one to say what you believe, but unlike me, I haven't seen you put out a single linked article.


https://www.fda.gov/media/135043/download

Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) For Cell Phones: What It Means For You | Federal Communications Commission

Non-ionizing Radiation, Part 1: Static and Extremely Low-frequency (ELF) Electric and Magnetic Fields


To date, there is no consistent or credible scientific evidence of  health problems caused by the exposure to radio frequency energy emitted by cell phones (see Review of Published Literature between 2008 and 2018 of Relevance to Radiofrequency Radiation and Cancer – PDF 1.3MB).

Scientific Evidence for Cell Phone Safety | FDA

Radio Frequency Safety | Federal Communications Commission




> Your choice, but it doesn't give you credibility. Anyway, I know that they started with bandwidths within the same range as 4G,


Credibility, yea right, you cannot even get the terms of the subject correct, the correct term is not bandwidth which is a measurement, it is frequency which defines a set band. Jeeez.    




> that being said, they're on the high end and ofcourse the mm wave ones are beyond it. I don't know the exact number of providers who are using millimeter wave ones, .


The exact number in the US at this time is 2 AT&T and VZ, however like all mm systems their effective radiated power is so low and directional a person get more harmful radiation from standing in the sun. 




> Furthermore, a lot of satellites have started bombarding large swaths of the earth with 5G as well. I imagine that's not in the mm bandwidth range, because of the distance issue, but still, a lot more EMFs hitting people.


100% FALSE. 

Now based on your comments, I feel it is my duty to post the proper FCC signage/warning on this thread.

bsf.jpg

----------


## Call_me_Ishmael

> Unless you sleep with the phone next to your genitals, you're probably okay.


As far as the maximum permissible exposure levels (MPEL) go, you are almost correct. 
Male genitals AND eyes have been identified in the standards as most vulnerable to damage.  

But I was not referring to MPEL issues.

----------


## nonsqtr

OP :

Read this article. Physics of magnetic resonance imaging - Wikipedia

Scroll down to where it says 'Radio Frequency Systems'.

You see that number there? 35 kW?

That means 35,000 watts.

That is "almost as strong as" the strongest commercial radio station allowed in the US, which is 50,000 watts.

I wouldn't worry about cell phones.

----------


## Authentic

Beware. Big bad 6G is on the horizon. What variant will it spawn?

----------

NuYawka (08-30-2021),ruthless terrier (08-30-2021)

----------


## Well Bonded

> Unless you sleep with the phone next to your genitals, you're probably okay.


How about working on this equipment while it is on the air?

Attachment 62366

----------


## nonsqtr

> How about working on this equipment while it is on the air?
> 
> Attachment 62366


I did that once.

I touched an 18 ft vertical antenna attached to a 15 watt transmitter, and it chicken fried my thumb. Darn thing was blue for a week! Yeah, it cooks you from the inside like a microwave. By the time you feel it, it's too late.

----------


## Well Bonded

> As far as the maximum permissible exposure levels (MPEL) go, you are almost correct. 
> Male genitals AND eyes have been identified in the standards as most vulnerable to damage.  
> 
> But I was not referring to MPEL issues.


That's because they are small, isolated and full of moisture.

The only effect non-ionizing radiation has on the human body is localized heating and that requires kilowatts of energy to be concentrated in a small area, overall a person's body is so large unless one was to step in front of a directional antenna or a dish they would not notice anything. 

Ionizing radiation is the bad stuff, it can and will cause DNA fracturing and in extreme dose's radiation poisoning, but that doesn't happen until the frequencies radiated are well above those of light.

Attachment 62368

----------


## Well Bonded

> I did that once.
> 
> I touched an 18 ft vertical antenna attached to a 15 watt transmitter, and it chicken fried my thumb. Darn thing was blue for a week! Yeah, it cooks you from the inside like a microwave. By the time you feel it, it's too late.


That's because you turned yourself into a radiator and received a RF burn, RF doesn't travel through conductors, it travels over the skin of conductors and if the feed isn't matched the voltage can be come dangerously high as you figured out. 

Skin effect - Wikipedia

----------


## Call_me_Ishmael

> That's because they are small, isolated and full of moisture.
> 
> The only effect non-ionizing radiation has on the human body is localized heating and that requires kilowatts of energy to be concentrated in a small area, overall a person's body is so large unless one was to step in front of a directional antenna or a dish they would not notice anything. 
> 
> Ionizing radiation is the bad stuff, it can and will cause DNA fracturing and in extreme dose's radiation poisoning, but that doesn't happen until the frequencies radiated are well above those of light.
> 
> Attachment 62368


No argument. Agreed.

----------


## Call_me_Ishmael

> I did that once.
> 
> I touched an 18 ft vertical antenna attached to a 15 watt transmitter, and it chicken fried my thumb. Darn thing was blue for a week! Yeah, it cooks you from the inside like a microwave. By the time you feel it, it's too late.


In the the IEEE C95.1 standard, there are separate MPELs for "touch hazards". They cover exactly what you are referring to. The MPELs for touch hazards are different than the MPELs for radiated hazards. 

At some point this conversation could get complicated because the standards recognize the differences between field composition for near fields vs far fields. Far fields are easy to describe and have nice clean relationships between electric and magnetic fields: polarizations are orthogonal to direction of propagation and to each other. Magnitudes are related by the characteristic impedance of free space... yada yada yada.  Near fields... not so much.

----------


## Well Bonded

> At some point this conversation could get complicated because the standards recognize the differences between field composition for near fields vs far fields.


Basically if one was to ask I would tell them, I worked close to the near fields, trying to keep their phones out in the far fields operating or sometimes not working at all. ;-)

If it isn't working I can fix that, if it is working, I can fix that too.

----------


## Frankenvoter

> Not at all, but lets give it a try, what's the alleged difference between 3G, 4G and 5G that makes 5 G so dangerous? 
> 
> See if you can answer that and we can go from there, if you cannot, then you are not in a position to question those who can and as such fail to understand what is in that report is a load of bullshit.



"Wavelengths"

----------

phoenyx (08-30-2021)

----------


## Frankenvoter

> Not at all, but lets give it a try, what's the alleged difference between 3G, 4G and 5G that makes 5 G so dangerous? 
> 
> See if you can answer that and we can go from there, if you cannot, then you are not in a position to question those who can and as such fail to understand what is in that report is a load of bullshit.


Also, looks like you're attempting to dictate who's in a position to ask a question and who isn't, how totalitarian of you.

How about this, I ask the question whether you like the question thats being asked or not, how about that?

Am I allowed to ask _that_ question, of whether or not I'm allowed to _ask_ a question?

----------


## Well Bonded

> "Wavelengths"


Within the wavelengths of RF, that's an incorrect answer. 

Try again.

----------


## Well Bonded

> Also, looks like you're attempting to dictate who's in a position to ask a question and who isn't, how totalitarian of you.
> 
> How about this, I ask the question whether you like the question thats being asked or not, how about that?


If you can figure how to properly ask a question I will answer it, if not, no answer, how about that? 




> Am I allowed to ask _that_ question, of whether or not I'm allowed to _ask_ a question?


Uh, what's the question?  .

----------


## Frankenvoter

> Incorrect answer. 
> 
> Try again.


No, I'm happy with my answer whether you are or not poindexter.

----------


## Well Bonded

> No, I'm happy with my answer whether you are or not poindexter.


Happy you may be, but you are still incorrect.

----------


## nonsqtr

> No, I'm happy with my answer whether you are or not poindexter.


The biggest problem with 5g is it's an eyesore.

I don't know about you, but I can tell a fake palm tree.

----------

donttread (08-30-2021)

----------


## phoenyx

> I'm done with this nuttery . That ecfsapi file is a comment from the public..  a comment that *anyone* - including nuts - can make.


I don't know you from Adam, but I'm still listening. Reminds me of something you yourself said not too long ago:




> Those who are ignorant of electromagnetics have to fear that they are being lied to. Those of us who know the science don't have to trust anyone but ourselves.


Now that we've gotten the fear of the public out of the way, I suggest you, or anyone else in the audience, actually read the article itself. It's here:
https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1053072...ctricSense.pdf

----------


## nonsqtr

> Happy you may be, but you are still incorrect.


Well... let's call it partially correct.

It's not 'wrong"...

----------


## nonsqtr

> I don't know you from Adam, but I'm still listening. Reminds me of something you yourself said not too long ago:
> 
> 
> 
> Now that we've gotten the fear of the public out of the way, I suggest you, or anyone else in the audience, actually read the article itself. It's here:
> https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1053072...ctricSense.pdf


Ish has a point. We need to be listening to the experts, not the loonies.

The only way to tell the difference is to survey the existing knowledge.

----------


## phoenyx

> Ish has a point. We need to be listening to the experts, not the loonies.
> 
> The only way to tell the difference is to survey the existing knowledge.


Exactly. So, did you read the article?

----------


## Call_me_Ishmael

> I don't know you from Adam, but I'm still listening. Reminds me of something you yourself said not too long ago:
> 
> 
> 
> Now that we've gotten the fear of the public out of the way, I suggest you, or anyone else in the audience, actually read the article itself. It's here:
> https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1053072...ctricSense.pdf


And you still think this is an FCC article.  Nuttery. It is a record of a public comment from the nuttery farm.  See the URL? ECFSAPI.

Try looking that up.

----------


## Frankenvoter

> Happy you may be, but you are still incorrect.


Possibly, but you dont have to talk down to people in your answers. So I will clarify with "Ultra high frequency wavelengths", which you may say is irrelevant in the RF range but all EMF has wavelengths, from "stretched out" in the infrared range to highly compact in the gamma ray range, frequency being the distance between peaks and valleys.

Now go ahead and tell me how I'm wrong in a condescending way please, I'll wait for my answer.

Oh, that's right, you're the type of teacher who expects a correct answer, and won't lead the student through how or where they got it wrong, just that they did get it wrong with a reminder you're the smirking expert on it.

I dont do that, which is why my students like me and are in class everyday.

----------


## Frankenvoter

> The biggest problem with 5g is it's an eyesore.
> 
> I don't know about you, but I can tell a fake palm tree.


They're disgusting looking, there's a fake pine tree not too far from here I don't know if they think we're that stupid to mistake it for real but more and more I'm thinking the answer on both counts is "yes".

----------


## phoenyx

> https://www.fda.gov/media/135043/download


I would hardly call the FDA the expert on EMF radiation. It seems that standards are set by the FCC. And a court recently ruled that the FCC has been negligent on when it comes to EMF radiation. You may want to take a look at the following article:
Government Failed to Consider Evidence of Harm, Including to Children, From 5G and Wireless Radiation, Court Rules s Health Defense

----------


## nonsqtr

> Exactly. So, did you read the article?


No, not interested, thank you. I've been into radio since I was 6 years old. I also have an Ivy League degree in biophysics. I'm just trying to to help y'all navigate the data without coming off as more of an arrogant prick than I already am.  :Grin:

----------


## Well Bonded

> Well... let's call it partially correct.
> 
> It's not 'wrong"...


It's not even partially correct, therefore it is incorrect. 

You are getting into a subject that don't understand and as such cannot separate fact from fiction and are coming to incorrect conclusions based on emotions and feelings.

----------


## nonsqtr

> I would hardly call the FDA the expert on EMF radiation. It seems that standards are set by the FCC. And a court recently ruled that the FCC has been negligent on when it comes to EMF radiation. You may want to take a look at the following article:
> Government Failed to Consider Evidence of Harm, Including to Children, From 5G and Wireless Radiation, Court Rules s Health Defense


 :Smile: 

Your TV generates a thousand times more microwave radiation than a 5g cell node.

Do I believe that overhead power lines affect humans? Yes. Do I believe that microwaves are bad for you? Yes. Am I worried about 5g cell phones? No.

----------


## nonsqtr

> It's not even partially correct, therefore it is incorrect. 
> 
> You are getting into a subject that don't understand and as such cannot separate fact from fiction and are coming to incorrect conclusions based on emotions and feelings.


It is partially correct. 100-gig signals obey the same inverse square law that 10-gig signals do. What matters is what happens at the other end.

----------


## Well Bonded

> No, not interested, thank you. I've been into radio since I was 6 years old. I also have an Ivy League degree in biophysics. I'm just trying to to help y'all navigate the data without coming off as more of an arrogant prick than I already am.


Well you have me beat by a few years, though I did manage to get my FCC First Class  Radiotelephone License when I hit 21, back in the days when it meant something and one had to go to the FCC and sit for a test, without a calculator.

That allowed me to go to work at a AM station near my home, where I soon discovered the money in that business wasn't all that great, FM was a lot better.

----------


## Call_me_Ishmael

> Your TV generates a thousand times more microwave radiation than a 5g cell node.
> 
> *Do I believe that overhead power lines affect humans? Yes. Do I believe that microwaves are bad for you? Yes. Am I worried about 5g cell phones? No*.


Agreed.

----------


## nonsqtr

> Well you have me beat by a few years, though I did manage to get my FCC First Class  Radiotelephone License when I hit 21, back in the days when it meant something and one had to go to the FCC and sit for a test, without a calculator.
> 
> That allowed me to go to work at a AM station near my home, where I soon discovered the money in that business wasn't all that great, FM was a lot better.


I don't know what our friend Well Bonded is on about.

I do know quite a bit about the field, I can rattle off 10 W/m^2 off the top of my head, and I know that exposure limits are based on biological heating. ("Not" cancer).

What is the magic answer you were looking for?

----------


## phoenyx

> Your TV generates a thousand times more microwave radiation than a 5g cell node.
> 
> Do I believe that overhead power lines affect humans? Yes. Do I believe that microwaves are bad for you? Yes. Am I worried about 5g cell phones? No.


I imagine you never even clicked on the linked article. I'll quote a bit of it for you, to get you up to speed on current developments (coloured text goes to linked pages in the original):
**
A recent landmark court ruling in a case brought by Children’s Health Defense (CHD) against the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) should concern anyone who uses wireless technology (cell phones, iWatches and Wi-Fi), especially parents of children who use these devices.
On Aug. 13, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled the FCC’s 2019 decision that its 1996 guidelines adequately protect the public from non-cancer harms from 5G and wireless-based technologies was capricious, arbitrary and not evidence-based.
In 2019, after an alleged six-year review of the science on the potential harms of 5G and wireless technology, the FCC concluded the evidence showed no harm and therefore its 1996 guidelines are sufficient to protect the public and no review of the guidelines was warranted.
In the U.S., as long as a wireless-based technology complies with FCC guidelines, it is considered safe, and no lawsuit can be filed for injuries.
However, CHD’s case revealed that while the FCC has been pushing 5G and forcing Wi-Fi-based technologies on our children, the safety assurances made by the FCC and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are not supported by evidence. As the court’s ruling indicates, the contrary is true.
**
Source:
Government Failed to Consider Evidence of Harm, Including to Children, From 5G and Wireless Radiation, Court Rules s Health Defense

----------


## Well Bonded

> It is partially correct. 100-gig signals obey the same inverse square law that 10-gig signals do. What matters is what happens at the other end.


Fully understood, the same as light,  but the subject is Cv-19 and 5G, not ISL, which is not trivial, as it matters a lot in the area of RF safety, important things like not entering a 50KW AM Phasor cabinet, while the station is on the air, or walking in front the antenna at a AT&T LongLines microwave site, though one can heat a sandwich that way, I think the ERP was something like 1.1Mw.

----------


## Hillofbeans

:Thinking:  :Geez:

----------


## nonsqtr

> I imagine you never even clicked on the linked article. I'll quote a bit of it for you, to get you up to speed on current developments (coloured text goes to linked pages in the original):
> **
> A recent landmark court ruling in a case brought by Childrens Health Defense (CHD) against the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) should concern anyone who uses wireless technology (cell phones, iWatches and Wi-Fi), especially parents of children who use these devices.
> On Aug. 13, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled the FCCs 2019 decision that its 1996 guidelines adequately protect the public from non-cancer harms from 5G and wireless-based technologies was capricious, arbitrary and not evidence-based.
> In 2019, after an alleged six-year review of the science on the potential harms of 5G and wireless technology, the FCC concluded the evidence showed no harm and therefore its 1996 guidelines are sufficient to protect the public and no review of the guidelines was warranted.
> In the U.S., as long as a wireless-based technology complies with FCC guidelines, it is considered safe, and no lawsuit can be filed for injuries.
> However, CHDs case revealed that while the FCC has been pushing 5G and forcing Wi-Fi-based technologies on our children, the safety assurances made by the FCC and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are not supported by evidence. As the courts ruling indicates, the contrary is true.
> **
> Source:
> Government Failed to Consider Evidence of Harm, Including to Children, From 5G and Wireless Radiation, Court Rules s Health Defense


Fully understood.

However, I actually know a lot about this topic.

I am a biophysicist, who studies the brain. I deal with things like ion channels, neurotransmitter receptors, and so on.

If you look at the graph of frequency vs SAR, you'll find two peaks in humans, about 40 and 60 gHz. The one at 40, is actually 42, and it belongs to a calcium dependent potassium channel which is sensitive at 240 microwatts per cm^2, "far" below the human exposure limits. The biological effect 'that we know of" is a temporary reduction in action potentials. At higher power levels the response resembles heating, just like most of the other biological responses

----------


## nonsqtr

> Fully understood, the same as light,  but the subject is Cv-19 and 5G, not ISL, which is not trivial, as it matters a lot in the area of RF safety, important things like not entering a 50KW AM Phasor cabinet, while the station is on the air, or walking in front the antenna at a AT&T LongLines microwave site, though one can heat a sandwich that way, I think the ERP was something like 1.1Mw.


The brain people are all over this stuff. They look for ways of tweaking neurons, and external is better. We are interested in 'biological resonances", which could even include things like alpha brain waves down around 11 hz. Molecular conformation is usually up in the 10's of gHz at least.

IMO, the information that Phoenyx is trying to bring to our attention, is not to be taken lightly. At 4 W / m^2, below the exposure limits, there is plenty of evidence of DNA breakage, cell death, stem cell mutation, changes in sperm motility, all kinds of nasty stuff.

I think though, 5g repeaters are mostly line of sight afaik (slaps forehead, for a different reason), so 5g probably won't be blanketing humans unless they happen to be right in the path.

How come we keep arguing about stuff we don't have enough information about? Calcium dependency is one of the hottest topics in neuroscience right now, and Ca is just about always attached to phosphates, which are paramagnetic. Not only that, but the diphosphates tunnel. We don't know a whole lot about all this, yet.

But Covid? No...

----------


## Well Bonded

> I think though, 5g repeaters are mostly line of sight afaik (slaps forehead, for a different reason), so 5g probably won't be blanketing humans unless they happen to be right in the path.


5G, like the generations before it is 120 degree sectorized communications, ERP is 100 watts or less, excepting T-Mobile is all under 1 Ghz, TM is using 2.5 Ghz they acquired from SPRINT in urban areas (it has very short range.) 

Hardly brain or thought modifying via. RF, unless one receives news they didn't want to hear over their cell. 

5G is no different than 4G other than channel bonding (MIMO) to increase over the air bandwidth.

However there are folks who don't understand RF and will believe whatever the snake oil salesmen are proffering, however when one digs deep, we find a lot of anti-5G is from groups trying to shake down carriers seeking zoning approval from local governments. They way they have been milking it is, they try to get a carrier to hire one of their experts to do a study and after that happens it is quickly discovered the proposed upgrade will not be as dangerous as once thought, the winds have changed and the elctrosmog blew away to the next zoning hearing. The grease is spread and the doomers and gloomers move on, leaving the useful idiots they recruited, in their wake stroked ans soaked, looking like the fools they are.  



How come we keep arguing about stuff we don't have enough information about? Calcium dependency is one of the hottest topics in neuroscience right now, and Ca is just about always attached to phosphates, which are paramagnetic. Not only that, but the diphosphates tunnel. We don't know a whole lot about all this, yet.

But Covid? No...[/QUOTE]

----------


## phoenyx

> Fully understood.
> 
> However, I actually know a lot about this topic.
> 
> I am a biophysicist, who studies the brain. I deal with things like ion channels, neurotransmitter receptors, and so on.
> 
> If you look at the graph of frequency vs SAR, you'll find two peaks in humans, about 40 and 60 gHz. The one at 40, is actually 42, and it belongs to a calcium dependent potassium channel which is sensitive at 240 microwatts per cm^2, "far" below the human exposure limits. The biological effect 'that we know of" is a temporary reduction in action potentials. At higher power levels the response resembles heating, just like most of the other biological responses


I readily admit I don't think I'd heard of any of this. That being said, you may find the following interesting. Again, from the article I've been quoting (coloured text goes to linked pages in the original):
**
The court ruled the FCC failed to engage at the level of reasoned decision-making required from a federal agency. Furthermore, the commission failed to provide an analysis of the evidence showing how it reached its decision.
The FCC’s determination that its health guidelines related to non-cancer harms were adequate, was based on a statement from the FDA and a link to the FDA webpage from 2017. The court ruled that the FDA’s conclusions also were not supported by careful scientific analysis, as required from a federal agency.
During a press conference Aug. 16, announcing CHD’s victory, CHD Chairman Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. said “Those agencies no longer have any interest in protecting public health. They have become sock puppets for the industry that they are supposed to be regulating.”

In order to strengthen the alleged legitimacy of its guidelines, the FCC claimed the guidelines were supported by other government agencies. However, after petitioners refuted this claim, the FCC explained the fact that other agencies didn’t raise any objections was evidence of their consensus.
The court disagreed, ruling that “silence is not consent.”
Following a report by the Government Accountability Office suggesting the FCC should review its 1996 guidelines, in 2013, the FCC opened a Notice of Inquiry requesting comments from the public on whether the commission should initiate a rulemaking to modify the guidelines.
In December 2019, the FCC published its decision (called “order”) that the guidelines were sufficiently protective of public health and required no review.
Consequently, in February 2020, CHD filed the lawsuit (called “Petitioner for Review”) challenging the decision. A similar case was filed by the Environmental Health Trust. The cases were consolidated in the D.C. Circuit and the organizations filed joint briefs.
More than 1,000 comments and extensive evidence of harm from radiation at levels well below the guidelines were filed with the FCC by scientists, medical organizations, municipalities and individuals who have developed sickness from this technology.
The court explained that when reaching a determination, a federal agency must consider the evidence filed by the public, and address important evidence, especially when it contradicts the premise behind the agency’s determination (as it did in this case). The petitioners filed 11,000 pages of evidence showing the extent of evidence the FCC ignored.
**
Source:
Government Failed to Consider Evidence of Harm, Including to Children, From 5G and Wireless Radiation, Court Rules s Health Defense

Seeing that you were unaware of this court case, I imagine you aren't that familiar with much if any of the 11,000 pages of evidence showing the extent of evidence that the FCC ignored. Given your background, I imagine you might find it illuminating.

----------


## Authentic

> Your TV generates a thousand times more microwave radiation than a 5g cell node.
> 
> Do I believe that overhead power lines affect humans? Yes. Do I believe that microwaves are bad for you? Yes. Am I worried about 5g cell phones? No.


I keep telling my cousin that watching TV will fry her brain.

----------


## Authentic

> And you still think this is an FCC article.  Nuttery. It is a record of a public comment from the nuttery farm.  See the URL? ECFSAPI.
> 
> Try looking that up.


But, its not just the birds. The declining bee population is said to be linked to this non-ionizing EMF radiation. It reduces the egg laying ability of the queen, resulting in a decline of colony strength.

----------

phoenyx (08-30-2021)

----------


## nonsqtr

> I keep telling my cousin that watching TV will fry her brain.


Funny you should say that. Right around the time of the "this is your brain on drugs' ads, there was a band called The Tubes who had a big hit called "White Punks on Dope".

Well, a popular German singer named Nina Hagen did a cover of it (in German), but couldn't translate the lyrics to fit with the meter, so she changed it to "TV Glotze", which basically means "White Punks on TV".

----------

Authentic (08-30-2021)

----------


## Authentic

See, the key is the birds and the bees. If _they_ can kill off pollinators, what can _they_ do to humans.

Are _they_ aliens?

----------


## Authentic

Are the aliens holed up in some bungalow in Arleta? Would they be distinguishable from the illegal aliens in Pacoima?

----------


## Well Bonded

> But, its not just the birds. The declining bee population is said to be linked to this non-ionizing EMF radiation. It reduces the egg laying ability of the queen, resulting in a decline of colony strength.


The declining bee population is primarily caused by a lack of flowering plants due to over development and pollution, that is one of the reasons out here we encourage people to plant bee friendly flowering plants and if they have the acreage allow beekeepers to set hives on their property on a share basis.

----------


## phoenyx

> The declining bee population is primarily caused by a lack of flowering plants due to over development and pollution, that is one of the reasons out here we encourage people to plant bee friendly flowering plants and if they have the acreage allow beekeepers to set hives on their property on a share basis.


Well, I certainly agree that pollution plays a role, but certain EMFs can certainly be seen as pollution. Tell me, have you ever heard of the Mystery on the Isle of Wright? If not, you may want to listen to the following excerpt from a book I read:
**
*8.  Mystery on the Isle of Wight* 


IN 1904 THE BEES began to die. From this quiet island, 23 miles long and 13 miles wide, lying off England’s southern coast, one looks across the English Channel toward the distant shores of France. In the preceding decade two men, one on each side of the Channel, one a physician and physicist, the other an inventor and entrepreneur, had occupied their minds with a newly discovered form of electricity. The work of each man had very different implications for the future of our world. 

At the westernmost end of the Isle of Wight, near offshore chalk formations called The Needles, in 1897, a handsome young man named Giuglielmo Marconi erected his own “needle,” a tower as tall as a twelve-story building. It supported the antenna for what became the world’s first permanent radio station. Marconi was liberating electricity, vibrating at close to a million cycles per second, from its confining wires, and was broadcasting it freely through the air itself. He did not stop to ask if this was safe.

A few years earlier, in 1890, a well-known physician, director of the Laboratory of Biological Physics at the Collège de France in Paris, had already begun investigations bearing on the important question Marconi was not asking: how does electricity of high frequencies affect living organisms? A distinguished presence in physics as well as medicine, Jacques-Arsène d’Arsonval is remembered today for his many contributions in both fields. He devised ultra-sensitive meters to measure magnetic fields, and equipment to measure heat production and respiration in animals; made improvements to the microphone and the telephone; and created a new medical specialty called darsonvalization, which is still practiced today in the nations of the former Soviet Bloc. In the West it has evolved into diathermy, which is the therapeutic use of radio waves to produce heat within the body. But darsonvalization is the use of radio waves medicinally at low power, without generating heat, to produce the kinds of effects d’Arsonval discovered in the early 1890s.

He had first observed that electrotherapy, as then practiced, was not producing uniform results, and he wondered if this was because of lack of precision in the form of the electricity being applied. He therefore designed an induction machine capable of putting out perfectly smooth sine waves, “without jerks or teeth,”1 that would not be injurious to the patient. When he tested this current on human subjects he found, as he had predicted, that at therapeutic doses it caused no pain, yet had potent physiological effects.

“We have seen that with very steady sine waves, nerve and muscle are not stimulated,” he wrote. “The passage of the current nevertheless is responsible for profound modification of metabolism as shown by the consumption of a greater amount of oxygen and the production of considerably more carbon dioxide. If the shape of the wave is changed, each electrical wave will produce a muscular contraction.”2 D’Arsonval had already discovered the reason, 125 years ago, why today’s digital technologies, whose waves have nothing but “jerks and teeth,” are causing so much illness.
D’Arsonval next experimented with alternating currents of high frequency. Using a modification of the wireless apparatus devised a few years earlier by Heinrich Hertz, he exposed humans and animals to currents of 500,000 to 1,000,000 cycles per second, applied either by direct contact or indirectly by induction from a distance. They were close to the frequencies Marconi was soon going to broadcast from the Isle of Wight. In no case did the subject’s body temperature increase. But in every case his subject’s blood pressure fell significantly, without—in the case of human subjects at least—any conscious sensation. D’Arsonval measured the same changes in oxygen consumption and carbon dioxide production as with low frequency currents. These facts proved, he wrote, “that the currents of high frequency penetrate deeply into the organism.”3These early results should have made anyone experimenting with radio waves think twice before exposing the whole world to them indiscriminately—should have at least made them cautious. Marconi, however, was unfamiliar with d’Arsonval’s work. Largely self-educated, the inventor had no inkling of radio’s potential dangers and no fear of it. Therefore when he powered up his new transmitter on the island he had no suspicion that he might be doing himself or anyone else any harm.

If radio waves are dangerous, Marconi, of all people in the world, should have suffered from them. Let us see if he did.

As early as 1896, after a year and a half of experimenting with radio equipment in his father’s attic, the previously healthy 22-year-old youth began running high temperatures which he attributed to stress. These fevers were to recur for the rest of his life. By 1900 his doctors were speculating that perhaps he had unknowingly had rheumatic fever as a child. By 1904 his bouts of chills and fevers had become so severe that it was thought they were recurrences of malaria. At that time he was occupied with building a permanent super-high-power radio link across the Atlantic Ocean between Cornwall, England and Cape Breton Island, Nova Scotia. Because he thought that longer distances required longer waves, he suspended tremendous wire net aerials, occupying acres of land, from multiple towers hundreds of feet tall on both sides of the ocean.
On March 16, 1905, Marconi married Beatrice O’Brien. In May, after their honeymoon, he took her to live in the station house at Port Morien on Cape Breton, surrounded by twenty-eight huge radio towers in three concentric circles. Looming over the house, two hundred antenna wires stretched out from a center pole like the spokes of a great umbrella more than one mile in circumference. As soon as Beatrice settled in, her ears began to ring.
After three months there she was ill with severe jaundice. When Marconi took her back to England it was to live underneath the other monster aerial, at Poldhu Bay in Cornwall. She was pregnant all this time, and although she moved to London before giving birth, her child had spent most of its nine months of fetal life bombarded with powerful radio waves and lived only a few weeks, dying of “unknown causes.” At about the same time Marconi himself collapsed completely, spending much of February through May of 1906 feverish and delirious.

Between 1918 and 1921, while engaged in designing short wave equipment, Marconi suffered from bouts of suicidal depression.

In 1927, during the honeymoon he took with his second wife Maria Cristina, he collapsed with chest pains and was diagnosed with a severe heart condition. Between 1934 and 1937, while helping to develop microwave technology, he suffered as many as nine heart attacks, the final one fatal at age 63.

Bystanders sometimes tried to warn him. Even at his first public demonstration on Salisbury Plain in 1896, there were spectators who later sent him letters describing various nerve sensations they had experienced. His daughter Degna, reading them much later while doing research for the biography of her father, was particular taken by one letter, from a woman “who wrote that his waves made her feet tickle.” Degna wrote that her father received letters of this sort frequently. When, in 1899, he built the first French station in the coastal town of Wimereux, one man who lived close by “burst in with a revolver,” claiming that the waves were causing him sharp internal pains. Marconi dismissed all such reports as fantasy.

In what may have been an even more ominous warning, Queen Victoria of England, in residence at Osborne House, her estate at the north end of the Isle of Wight, suffered a cerebral hemorrhage and died on the evening of January 22, 1901, just as Marconi was firing up a new, more powerful transmitter twelve miles away. He was hoping to communicate with Poldhu the next day, 300 kilometers distant, twice as far as any previously recorded radio broadcast, and he did. On January 23 he sent a telegram to his cousin Henry Jameson Davis, saying “Completely successful. Keep information private. Signed William.”

And then there were the bees. 

In 1901, there were already two Marconi stations on the Isle of Wight—Marconi’s original station, which had been moved to Niton at the south end of the island next to St. Catherine’s Lighthouse, and the Culver Signal Station run by the Coast Guard at the east end on Culver Down. By 1904, two more had been added. According to an article published in that year by Eugene P. Lyle in World’s Work magazine, four Marconi stations were now operating on the small island, communicating with a steadily growing number of naval and commercial ships of many nations, steaming through the Channel, that were equipped with similar apparatus. It was the greatest concentration of radio signals in the world at that time.


In 1906, the Lloyd’s Signal Station, half a mile east of St. Catherine’s Lighthouse, also acquired wireless equipment. At this point the bee situation became so severe that the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries called in biologist Augustus Imms of Christ’s College, Cambridge, to investigate. Ninety percent of the honey bees had disappeared from the entire island for no apparent reason. The hives all had plenty of honey. But the bees could not even fly. “They are often to be seen crawling up grass stems, or up the supports of the hive, where they remain until they fall back to the earth from sheer weakness, and soon afterwards die,” he wrote. Swarms of healthy bees were imported from the mainland, but it was of no use: within a week the fresh bees were dying off by the thousands.

In coming years “Isle of Wight disease” spread like a plague throughout Great Britain and into the rest of the world, severe losses of bees being reported in parts of Australia, Canada, the United States, and South Africa.4 The disease was also reported in Italy, Brazil, France, Switzerland, and Germany. Although for years one or another parasitic mite was blamed, British bee pathologist Leslie Bailey disproved those theories in the 1950s and came to regard the disease itself as a sort of myth. Obviously bees had died, he said, but not from anything contagious.


Over time, Isle of Wight disease took fewer and fewer bee lives as the insects seemed to adapt to whatever had changed in their environment. Places that had been attacked first recovered first. 
Then, in 1917, just as the bees on the Isle of Wight itself appeared to be regaining their former vitality, an event occurred that changed the electrical environment of the rest of the world. Millions of dollars of United States government money were suddenly mobilized in a crash program to equip the Army, Navy, and Air Force with the most modern communication capability possible. The entry of the United States into the Great War on April 6, 1917, stimulated an expansion of radio broadcasting that was as sudden and rapid as the 1889 expansion of electricity.

Again it was the bees that gave the first warning.

“Mr. Charles Schilke of Morganville, Monmouth County, a beekeeper with considerable experience operating about 300 colonies reported a great loss of bees from the hives in one of his yards located near Bradevelt,” read one report, published in August 1918.5 “Thousands of dead were lying and thousands of dying bees were crawling about in the vicinity of the hive, collecting in groups on bits of wood, on stones and in depressions in the earth. The affected bees appeared to be practically all young adult workers about the age when they would normally do the first field work, but all ages of older bees were found. No abnormal condition within the hive was noticed at this time.”

This outbreak was confined to Morganville, Freehold, Milhurst, and nearby areas of New Jersey, just a few miles seaward from one of the most powerful radio stations on the planet, the one in New Brunswick that had just been taken over by the government for service in the war. A 50,000-watt Alexanderson alternator had been installed in February of that year to supplement a less efficient 350,000-watt spark apparatus. Both provided power to a mile-long aerial consisting of 32 parallel wires supported by 12 steel towers 400 feet tall, broadcasting military communications across the ocean to the command in Europe.
**
Source:
Firstenberg, Arthur. The Invisible Rainbow . Chelsea Green Publishing. Kindle Edition.

----------

Hillofbeans (08-30-2021)

----------


## donttread

> The biggest problem with 5g is it's an eyesore.
> 
> I don't know about you, but I can tell a fake palm tree.


Here in the rondacks we've had "tree towers" for years. We have to look prettier than anywhere else say the folks who don't live here. They blend in with other trees when placed in heavily wooded areas. Once you know where one is it's easy to spot but few will have reason to know.

----------


## phoenyx

> A FCC press conference that never happened.


On what do you base this on? I imagine this is the Press Conference that was being referenced:
https://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Rel...C-339920A1.pdf

----------


## Authentic

I think that the bees are pollinating pot plants, getting high, and then can't find their way back to the hive.

----------

Hillofbeans (08-30-2021)

----------


## phoenyx

> And you still think this is an FCC article.


I never thought or claimed it was an FCC article.

----------


## phoenyx

> The human body does not create random Covid viruses.


I never claimed it did. I've decided it might be best to create a separate thread to better explain where I'm coming from in regards to viruses and why I think they are all exosomes. The new thread I've made is here:
The Truth About Contagion: Exploring Theories of How Disease Spreads

----------


## Call_me_Ishmael

> I never thought or claimed it was an FCC article.


Ok. That's good. But the free consultation is over. People have been paying me good money for decades for my expertise in electromagnetics. You should write down what I posted so you have it for future reference.

----------


## phoenyx

> Ok. That's good. But the free consultation is over. People have been paying me good money for decades for my expertise in electromagnetics. You should write down what I posted so you have it for future reference.


As far as I know, you weren't even aware of the recent lawsuit that was won by Children's Health Defense. So while you may have some expertise in electromagnetics, it seems it's sorely lacking when it comes to the safety aspects of it.

----------


## Well Bonded

> On what do you base this on? I imagine this is the Press Conference that was being referenced:
> https://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Rel...C-339920A1.pdf


Totally irrelevant.

----------


## phoenyx

> Totally irrelevant.


I believe that you saying something that isn't true is actually quite relevant- it degrades your credibility.

----------


## Well Bonded

> I believe that you saying something that isn't true is actually quite relevant- it degrades your credibility.


You are not in a position to judge my credibility.

----------


## Call_me_Ishmael

> As far as I know, you weren't even aware of the recent lawsuit that was won by Children's Health Defense. So while you may have some expertise in electromagnetics, it seems it's sorely lacking when it comes to the safety aspects of it.


Totally wrong.  I cited the standard that I have used for dozens of RF hazard analysis... literally dozens... for our Navy, Air Force, and Army and for the navies of 1, 2, 3, 4 ... at least 4 different nations ( had to count). And before that standard, NATO STANAG 2345. I've been doing this on and off - as required since the 80s but much more frequently in the past 10 years. Measurements, analysis, and simulations.... 
I apply my education and experience to other applications of electromagnetics - and I mean literally DC to daylight - as well, especially survivability of military platforms faced with hostile RF and IR threats.  


You are reading these words from a published expert in the area. It was not just my hobby. You should consider yourself lucky to have even obtained my opinion on the matter.

----------


## phoenyx

> Originally Posted by phoenyx
> 
> 
> As far as I know, you weren't even aware of the recent lawsuit that was won by Children's Health Defense. So while you may have some expertise in electromagnetics, it seems it's sorely lacking when it comes to the safety aspects of it.
> 
> 
> 
> Totally wrong.  I cited the standard that I have used for dozens of RF hazard analysis... literally dozens... for our Navy, Air Force, and Army and for the navies of 1, 2, 3, 4 ... at least 4 different nations ( had to count). And before that standard, NATO STANAG 2345. I've been doing this on and off - as required since the 80s but much more frequently in the past 10 years. Measurements, analysis, and simulations.... 
> I apply my education and experience to other applications of electromagnetics - and I mean literally DC to daylight - as well, especially survivability of military platforms faced with hostile RF and IR threats.  
> You are reading these words from a published expert in the area. It was not just my hobby.


I'm not saying it's your hobby. I'm saying that, as far as I know, you weren't even aware of the recent lawsuit that I cited. Am I mistaken? Did you read the 11,000 pages of information that were apparently ignored by the FCC?

----------


## phoenyx

> Originally Posted by phoenyx
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  Originally Posted by Well Bonded
> ...


So you can judge my credibility, but I can't judge yours? Anyway, you claimed that the June 2016 FCC press conference that was mentioned never happened. Do you still stand by that claim? I took the time to quote all of our conversation from the point that I mentioned it to refresh your memory in case you'd forgotten.

----------


## phoenyx

> Your TV generates a thousand times more microwave radiation than a 5g cell node.
> 
> Do I believe that overhead power lines affect humans? Yes. Do I believe that microwaves are bad for you? Yes. Am I worried about 5g cell phones? No.


I think the main issue has to do with things like distance, in the case of cell phones, and perhaps the constant exposure that we get when it comes to cell phone towers. In any case, I hope you take the time to look at and respond to my post #77 in response to you, as I think it brings up some good points in regards to the dangers of 5G and other wireless technology.

----------


## Well Bonded

Good job of mixing up what the false information you posted, with irrelevant information to try and make it factual. 

You have confused public comments, with actual facts. 

Good job.  
.

----------


## Authentic

> Good job of mixing up what the false information you posted, with irrelevant information to try and make it factual. 
> 
> You have confused public comments, with actual facts. 
> 
> Good job.  
> .


Are there any public comments that are also actual facts?

----------

phoenyx (08-30-2021)

----------


## phoenyx

> Originally Posted by phoenyx
> 
> 
> So you can judge my credibility, but I can't judge yours? Anyway, you claimed that the June 2016 FCC press conference that was mentioned never happened. Do you still stand by that claim? I took the time to quote all of our conversation from the point that I mentioned it to refresh your memory in case you'd forgotten.
> 
> 
> Good job of mixing up what the false information you posted, with irrelevant information to try and make it factual.


There is no confusion here. Either you are continuing to assert that there was no FCC press conference in June 2016, or you aren't. So, which is it?

----------


## phoenyx

> Are there any public comments that are also actual facts?


He just doesn't want to admit that he was mistaken and the FCC did, in fact, hold a Press Conference in June 2016.

----------


## Well Bonded

> Are there any public comments that are also actual facts?


Not until the Commission decides they are.

----------


## phoenyx

> Not until the Commission decides they are.


This is just making me laugh :-p. Come on WB, just admit it, the Press Conference that wasn't actually was :-p.

----------


## Well Bonded

> He just doesn't want to admit that he was mistaken and the FCC did, in fact, hold a Press Conference in June 2016.


Projecting or what?

----------


## Well Bonded

> This is just making me laugh :-p. Come on WB, just admit it, the Press Conference that wasn't actually was :-p.


Bullcrap the link you first posted wasn't even from the FCC, *<<removed>>*.

----------


## phoenyx

> Bullcrap the link you first posted wasn't even from the FCC, [ad hominem attack removed].


Irrelevant. You said the Press Conference didn't happen. But it did. You want proof? Here you go:
https://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Rel...C-339920A1.pdf

Another thing, using ad hominem attacks doesn't bolster your case.

----------


## Well Bonded

Irrelevant to you first post of BS on his subject .

Try again.

----------


## phoenyx

> Originally Posted by phoenyx
> 
> 
> Irrelevant. You said the Press Conference didn't happen. But it did. You want proof? Here you go:
> https://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Rel...C-339920A1.pdf
> 
> Another thing, using ad hominem attacks doesn't bolster your case.
> 
> 
> Irrelevant to you first post of BS on his subject .


Again, it's relevant when you say something that's not true, at least if you care about truth. Now, I've made statements that aren't true and when I realize this, I admit it. You seem to have a problem admitting when you're wrong. Instead of admitting it, you seem to think the best solution is to swear and use ad hominem attacks. Not cool.

----------


## phoenyx

> Originally Posted by nonsqtr
> 
> 
> The human body does not create random Covid viruses.
> 
> If it did, everyone would have had one long ago.
> 
> 
> 
> What about exosomes?


Exactly :-). I have a feeling you don't always agree with me, but I'm really beginning to appreciate your little questions :-). Not too many words, but so important. I actually created another thread that focuses on the issue of exosomes that you might find interesting. It's here:
The Truth About Contagion: Exploring Theories of How Disease Spreads

----------


## NuYawka

@Well Bonded, with your expertise, in order from best to worst, how would you rate the 5G coverage of VZ, AT&T and T-mobile(SPRT)?

----------


## Well Bonded

> @Well Bonded, with your expertise, in order from best to worst, how would you rate the 5G coverage of VZ, AT&T and T-mobile(SPRT)?


T-Mobile is known to be lagging, in the 4th quarter of 2020 they stopped paying their turf vendors for 5G updates, many of them went past 120 days with no payments, that resulted in a complete shutdown of 5G updates for T-Mobile. 

From the guys I talk to at VZ which is only a few here and there when I work at sites, they seem to be around 80% complete. 

Where I worked AT&T Wireless, until I retired in March, we where already at 80&+ and where projected to be at 100% by the end of the year, we already had to do site updates for FirstNet by AT&T, so the 5G antenna work that was needed was done at the same time, under a separate budget.

----------

NuYawka (08-31-2021)

----------


## NuYawka

> T-Mobile is known to be lagging, in the 4th quarter of 2020 they stopped paying their turf vendors for 5G updates, many of them went past 120 days with no payments, that resulted in a complete shutdown of 5G updates for T-Mobile. 
> 
> From the guys I talk to at VZ which is only a few here and there when I work at sites, they seem to be around 80% complete. 
> 
> Where I worked AT&T Wireless, until I retired in March, we where already at 80&+ and where projected to be at 100% by the end of the year, we already had to do site updates for FirstNet by AT&T, so the 5G antenna work that was needed was done at the same time, under a separate budget.


Thank you, @Well Bonded. I used to do the landline part of the OSP (before landlines went the way of the dinosaur) for about twenty years up in NY before I moved down South.

----------


## nonsqtr

I'm sorry people, I apologize. I said what I did, because, it seems some people think they're doing us a favor by bringing these outlandish (and unvetted) theories to our attention - and... let's take a step back and look at the landscape, shall we? 

We have people talking about exosomes, and, we have people saying Covid is a Chinese bioweapon. So which is it?

We have people suggesting Covid started from 5G, and people saying it's a bioweapon, so which is it? Or, did the Chinese military fund it, or did Bill Gates and pHarma fund it cause they want to sell vaccines? Which is it?

Let's be serious, Covid has nothing to do with 5G. There is NO POSSIBLE WAY anyone can coax mutations out of a Covid virus with microwaves (at least not without destroying it in the process), we simply don't have the technology. No one does. And no one's looking for it, either. We have plenty of VERY specific biochemical ways of creating mutations, wherever and whenever we need them.

So okay, microwaves are dangerous. We knew that already. But guess what, if you have a microwave oven in your house, you don't have to worry about your cell phone.

Come on, we have to reasonable about this. Fear mongering is NOT COOL when everyone's already looking for answers. These things like 'Covid is related to 5G", these are not answers. I don't know where they find the crackpots who come up with that stuff, but we shouldn't be spreading it around like it's science or something. At BEST in an unsupported conjecture. Little kids are gonna read this stuff and end up in mortal feat of their cell phones, like they're gonna catch Covid if they sleep near it or whatever.

It's hard enough navigating through all the BS from the politicians, let's not compound the problem by pretending outliers are mainstream and conjecture constitutes evidence. Yes, Fraudci and company want to sell vaccines. Yes, nasty Democrats want to "make life difficult" for the unvaccinated. I say: wash your hands, and don't play in the dirt. Worry about what you can control.

----------

Oceander (08-31-2021)

----------


## Well Bonded

> Thank you, @Well Bonded. I used to do the landline part of the OSP (before landlines went the way of the dinosaur) for about twenty years up in NY before I moved down South.


Years back I went to work for Southern Bell, it didn't work out they didn't like me I didn't like them, so I went into land mobile radio, first at GE then moved to Motorola, while working on the side as a broadcast engineer at a couple of stations in Miami, it was a good gig I could work my day job and then at night go back to work playing around with RF five thousands times higher. 

Then in 81 had a buddy at the IBEW help me get my local electrical contractors license and I built that company up to state wide, in 96 I sold the company to my guys and retired, yea right, a year later I was back to work at BellSouth rode that gravy train until around 2011 and then took a lateral over to Cingular Wireless, AT&T bought us out and hung in there until 2015 and retired again, yea right. 

Applied for and was granted a Private Carrier license by the FCC and am now building a Florida state wide private communications system, with parts of it being built on the abandoned assets of Florida Rural Broadband Inc.

----------

NuYawka (08-31-2021)

----------


## phoenyx

> I'm sorry people, I apologize. I said what I did, because, it seems some people think they're doing us a favor by bringing these outlandish (and unvetted) theories to our attention


I think you need to recognize that not everyone agrees with your notions as to what theories are outlandish and/or unvetted.





> - and... let's take a step back and look at the landscape, shall we? 
> 
> We have people talking about exosomes, and, we have people saying Covid is a Chinese bioweapon. So which is it? We have people suggesting Covid started from 5G, and people saying it's a bioweapon, so which is it?


I agree with you that not all theories can be correct. Clearly, I've come to believe that viruses are actually exosomes and exosomes aren't contagious. Which would mean that Covid 19 can't be a bioweapon. Since it can't be a bioweapon with the exosome theory, this would mean that viruses can't be to blame, which would necessitate another cause. 5G and other environmental toxins would make the most sense.




> Or, did the Chinese military fund it, or did Bill Gates and pHarma fund it cause they want to sell vaccines? Which is it?


I have never assumed that anyone wanted Covid 19 to happen. 




> Let's be serious, Covid has nothing to do with 5G. There is NO POSSIBLE WAY anyone can coax mutations out of a Covid virus with microwaves (at least not without destroying it in the process)


It may be that all these Covid mutations are in fact our bodies reacting to other toxins, such as the toxins in these Covid vaccines, and creating different exosomes to try and remove these toxins from our bodies. 





> So okay, microwaves are dangerous. We knew that already. But guess what, if you have a microwave oven in your house, you don't have to worry about your cell phone.


There is a lot of concern regarding cell phones and cell phone networks. For more on this, I suggest you study the landmark court case that Children's Health Defense won. Here's a good article on it:
Government Failed to Consider Evidence of Harm, Including to Children, From 5G and Wireless Radiation, Court Rules s Health Defense




> Yes, Fraudci and company want to sell vaccines. Yes, nasty Democrats want to "make life difficult" for the unvaccinated.


I'm glad we agree on Fauci. And it's not just the democrats that want to make life difficult for the unvaccinated. I'm curious, what are your take on the Covid vaccines?

----------

Authentic (08-31-2021)

----------


## nonsqtr

> I think you need to recognize that not everyone agrees with your notions as to what theories are outlandish and/or unvetted.


YOUR AGREEMENT IS NOT THE ISSUE.

You know what they say about opinions, don't you?

You want to pretend to science, YOU BETTER HAVE EVIDENCE.

Some crackpot's opinion is NOT evidence.




> I agree with you that not all theories can be correct. Clearly, I've come to believe that viruses are actually exosomes and exosomes aren't contagious. Which would mean that Covid 19 can't be a bioweapon. Since it can't be a bioweapon with the exosome theory, this would mean that viruses can't be to blame, which would necessitate another cause. 5G and other environmental toxins would make the most sense.


Viruses are NOT exosomes, and exosomes are NOT viruses.

Yet another crackpot HIGHLY UNSCIENTIFIC "opinion", for which there is NO evidence. Zero! Zip, squat, nada.




> It may be that all these Covid mutations are in fact our bodies reacting to other toxins, such as the toxins in these Covid vaccines, and creating different exosomes to try and remove these toxins from our bodies.


No. It may NOT be. The Covid virus is real. There are picture of it. It has been fully sequenced, including its variants.




> There is a lot of concern regarding cell phones and cell phone networks. For more on this, I suggest you study the landmark court case that Children's Health Defense won. Here's a good article on it:
> Government Failed to Consider Evidence of Harm, Including to Children, From 5G and Wireless Radiation, Court Rules s Health Defense


And this has what to do with Covid, exactly?




> I'm glad we agree on Fauci. And it's not just the democrats that want to make life difficult for the unvaccinated. I'm curious, what are your take on the Covid vaccines?


Whoever wants one, should get one.

It's your life, I'm not in a position to control anyone.

Nor am I scared, of the Big Bad Covid. I just do not think it's that big a deal.

----------


## phoenyx

> YOUR AGREEMENT IS NOT THE ISSUE.


You're discussing something with me, so yes, my agreement is rather important. I also never understand why people feel the need to shout/caps lock things, but I guess some people get frustrated easily.




> You know what they say about opinions, don't you?
> 
> You want to pretend to science, YOU BETTER HAVE EVIDENCE.


Again with the caps lock -.-. Buddy, I'm always talking about evidence myself. And I don't just talk about it. I think it's safe to say that I provide linked articles more than anyone else in this thread, complete with studies. 




> Some crackpot's opinion is NOT evidence.


What's with all these ad hominem attacks? Just chill and focus on the evidence. 




> Viruses are NOT exosomes, and exosomes are NOT viruses.


Prove it then.




> Yet another crackpot HIGHLY UNSCIENTIFIC "opinion", for which there is NO evidence.


Again, prove there is no evidence if you are so sure.





> Originally Posted by phoenyx
> 
> 
> It may be that all these Covid mutations are in fact our bodies reacting to other toxins, such as the toxins in these Covid vaccines, and creating different exosomes to try and remove these toxins from our bodies.
> 
> 
> No. It may NOT be.


Again, let's see your proof if you are so sure.





> Originally Posted by phoenyx
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  Originally Posted by nonsqtr
> ...



Apparently you've forgotten that I and others believe that 5G may have been one of the primary reasons for this Covid pandemic. If that's the case, then where do you think the evidence is for this assertion? In case you haven't yet guessed, it would be in information showing the harms of 5G and Wireless Radiation. Now check the title of that link I just put up.  




> Originally Posted by phoenyx
> 
> 
> I'm glad we agree on Fauci. And it's not just the democrats that want to make life difficult for the unvaccinated. I'm curious, what are your take on the Covid vaccines?
> 
> 
> Whoever wants one, should get one.
> 
> It's your life, I'm not in a position to control anyone.
> ...


Well, I'm certainly not worried about getting infected by others, so in that sense, we are in agreement.

----------


## Authentic

When a picture was taken of the COVID virus, how did anyone know that it was what they say it is?

----------

phoenyx (08-31-2021)

----------


## Authentic

And if pictures can be taken of the thing, why do people have to be tested?

----------


## phoenyx

> When a picture was taken of the COVID virus, how did anyone know that it was what they say it is?


I swear Authentic, you always ask good questions :-). From what I have read, they didn't. They simply assumed it. I wish we could take these scientists that claim they know a Covid virus when they see one and show them a bunch of slides, ones with the alleged Covid virus, others with exosomes and see if they can tell them apart. I really don't think they'd be able to.

----------


## Authentic

Shouldn't a positive test come with a picture so that a person can say "that's COVID-19, alright!"

----------


## phoenyx

> And if pictures can be taken of the thing, why do people have to be tested?


They're testing for genetic sequences, which you can't see in a photograph. The problem is that the genetic sequences are not unique to this alleged Covid virus. You really want to get into just how messed up all of this is, I recommend the thread I started here:
COVID19  Evidence Of Global Fraud

In particular, the article that's in the opening post. Looks like that guy actually believes in viruses, so he did his research into all the official explanations. What he found was a bunch of scientists who stretch the truth to the breaking point.

----------

Authentic (08-31-2021)

----------


## Authentic

> I swear Authentic, you always ask good questions :-). From what I have read, they didn't. They simply assumed it. I wish we could take these scientists that claim they know a Covid virus when they see one and show them a bunch of slides, ones with the alleged Covid virus, others with exosomes and see if they can tell them apart. I really don't think they'd be able to.


Science is all about asking questions. But the "experts" don't want us to ask questions. They want us to sit, down, shut up, and "trust the science."

----------


## Call_me_Ishmael

> Shouldn't a positive test come with a picture so that a person can say "that's COVID-19, alright!"


If we use the language of engineering verification, that sweaty/sticky arm and magnet thing is called a "demonstration". A "test" would involve a repeatable documented measurement with instruments.  
They have done no "tests".... if that lingo is relevant.

----------


## phoenyx

> Shouldn't a positive test come with a picture so that a person can say "that's COVID-19, alright!"


Lol :-). I have a feeling that taking pictures of microscopic things wouldn't be cheap. That being said, you -can- do so for bacteria- they have different shapes so it's possible that they can all be differentiated via pictures/scans:
Different Types of Bacteria - Biology Wise

Viruses, though, well, as far as I can tell, they look just like exosomes- a bunch of round balls of varying sizes. It'd all make sense if they were just all exosomes, but the current dogma is that they're different. So I'd like to see what evidence they have that this is so.

----------


## phoenyx

> Science is all about asking questions. But the "experts" don't want us to ask questions. They want us to sit, down, shut up, and "trust the science."


Yeah, so true :-/

----------


## phoenyx

> Originally Posted by Authentic
> 
> 
> Shouldn't a positive test come with a picture so that a person can say "that's COVID-19, alright!"
> 
> 
> 
> If we use the language of engineering verification, that sweaty/sticky arm and magnet thing is called a "demonstration". A "test" would involve a repeatable documented measurement with instruments.  
> They have done no "tests".... if that lingo is relevant.


You're switching subjects- Authentic was asking for evidence that people have Covid, you're bringing up something else.

----------


## Authentic

> Lol :-). I have a feeling that taking pictures of microscopic things wouldn't be cheap. That being said, you -can- do so for bacteria- they have different shapes so it's possible that they can all be differentiated via pictures/scans:
> Different Types of Bacteria - Biology Wise
> 
> Viruses, though, well, as far as I can tell, they look just like exosomes- a bunch of round balls of varying sizes. It'd all make sense if they were just all exosomes, but the current dogma is that they're different. So I'd like to see what evidence they have that this is so.


The Ebola virus is supposed to look like a shepherd's crook.

----------


## nonsqtr

> You're discussing something with me, so yes, my agreement is rather important. I also never understand why people feel the need to shout/caps lock things, but I guess some people get frustrated easily.
> 
> 
> 
> Again with the caps lock -.-. Buddy, I'm always talking about evidence myself. And I don't just talk about it. I think it's safe to say that I provide linked articles more than anyone else in this thread, complete with studies. 
> 
> 
> 
> What's with all these ad hominem attacks? Just chill and focus on the evidence. 
> ...


Bloody fucking idiots...  :Geez: 

No, sorry pal, it is not my job to disprove your crackpot theories.

It's YOUR job to be a responsible scientist.

Believe what you want to believe, I don't care. Just don't try to pass it off as science.

----------


## nonsqtr

> I swear Authentic, you always ask good questions :-). From what I have read, they didn't. They simply assumed it. I wish we could take these scientists that claim they know a Covid virus when they see one and show them a bunch of slides, ones with the alleged Covid virus, others with exosomes and see if they can tell them apart. I really don't think they'd be able to.


Bullshit.

You guys have left orbit.

----------


## phoenyx

> The Ebola virus is supposed to look like a shepherd's crook.


I looked it up, you're right, and some do seem to be images:
ebola virus image at DuckDuckGo

Then again, I never heard that exosomes -had- to be balls, it's just that the only ones I've seen have that shape. So perhaps they have other shapes as well.

----------


## nonsqtr

> Science is all about asking questions. But the "experts" don't want us to ask questions. They want us to sit, down, shut up, and "trust the science."


No. They DO the science, you just talk about it.

----------


## Call_me_Ishmael

> You're switching subjects- Authentic was asking for evidence that people have Covid, you're bringing up something else.


Could be. Antivax fear porn threads are like a rampant virus in our forum.  Sorry for the mixup.

----------


## phoenyx

> Bloody fucking idiots... 
> 
> No, sorry pal, it is not my job to disprove your crackpot theories.



More ad hominem attacks -.- Look, you can claim that the sky is purple, but I'm not going to believe you if you don't show some evidence.




> It's YOUR job to be a responsible scientist.


Technically, I'm not a scientist, but I definitely believe in responsible ones. 





> Believe what you want to believe, I don't care.


Ironically, I actually care what others believe. But if people don't want to listen to evidence that runs contrary to what they believe, there's little hope of me changing a person's beliefs, regardless of how mistaken they are.





> Just don't try to pass it off as science.


Science is all about providing evidence, proof if you have it. You don't seem all that interested in the scientific method. Which is fine, but I think I've made my point.

----------


## nonsqtr

> More ad hominem attacks -.- Look, you can claim that the sky is purple, but I'm not going to believe you if you don't show some evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> Technically, I'm not a scientist, but I definitely believe in responsible ones. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Evidence.

Post it if you got it.

So far I haven't seen any.

----------


## phoenyx

> Bullshit.
> 
> You guys have left orbit.


You and your invective. Why not try bringing some evidence to the table instead of a never ending litany of insults?

----------


## phoenyx

> No. They DO the science, you just talk about it.


Science is asking questions, forming hypothesis and theories, then testing them. Authentic revels in asking questions, I like working with hypothesis and theories, seeing what makes the most sense, always reading more on subjects that interest me. You seem more interested in insulting people.

----------


## nonsqtr

> You and your invective. Why not try bringing some evidence to the table instead of a never ending litany of insults?


Hey DOOFUS, listen up -

YOU PERSONALLY seem to have a problem, discerning what is evidence from what is not.

NOTHING you've posted in this thread qualifies as scientific evidence.

YOU PERSONALLY own this thread, and all the crap in it.

YOU PERSONALLY are responsible for this fear mongering, you personally brought it to the table.

Go crack a book or something. At least show us some peer reviewed evidence, instead of the lunatic ravings of God-knows-who.

----------


## phoenyx

> Could be. Antivax fear porn threads are like a rampant virus in our forum.  Sorry for the mixup.


I think what we have in this forum is more of an ability to ask questions and assert hypothesis and theories that wouldn't be allowed in other forums. This could certainly lead to theories that are heretical to the mainstream flourishing, but I don't think that's a bad thing, especially considering the current dogma.

----------


## phoenyx

> Hey DOOFUS, listen up


Wow, you just don't quit with the ad hominem attacks, do you? A word of advice- if you want people to listen to you, you might want to put the breaks on that. I see ad hominem attacks and I tend to stop reading and instead head over to the report button. If that's your goal though, then you're on a roll.

----------


## nonsqtr

> Science is asking questions, forming hypothesis and theories, then testing them. Authentic revels in asking questions, I like working with hypothesis and theories, seeing what makes the most sense, always reading more on subjects that interest me. You seem more interested in insulting people.


I haven't even started yet.  :Mad:

----------

Authentic (08-31-2021)

----------


## Call_me_Ishmael

> I think what we have in this forum is more of an ability to ask questions and assert hypothesis and *theories* that wouldn't be allowed in other forums. This could certainly lead to theories that are heretical to the mainstream flourishing, but I don't think that's a bad thing, especially considering the current dogma.


You are light years away from from any "theory".

You don't even have reproducible observations.

----------


## nonsqtr

> Wow, you just don't quit with the ad hominem attacks, do you? A word of advice- if you want people to listen to you, you might want to put the breaks on that. I see ad hominem attacks and I tend to stop reading and instead head over to the report button. If that's your goal though, then you're on a roll.


Are you usfan?

That's the other fool who tries to make everything personal.

Screw you. Go away.

----------


## phoenyx

> I haven't even started yet.


Joy -.-

----------


## phoenyx

> You are light years away from from any "theory".


On the contrary, I've been focused on 2 theories that have been shared worldwide. The theory that 5G is at least partly to blame for Covid has been around for quite some time. The theory that germs aren't the real issue, but instead the terrain is one that's been around for around 100 years:
Germ Theory Versus Terrain: The Wrong Side Won the Day - The Weston A. Price Foundation

----------


## Call_me_Ishmael

> On the contrary, I've been focused on 2 theories that have been shared worldwide. The theory that 5G is at least partly to blame for Covid has been around for quite some time. The theory that germs aren't the real issue, but instead the terrain is one that's been around for around 100 years:
> Germ Theory Versus Terrain: The Wrong Side Won the Day - The Weston A. Price Foundation


I might as well go outside and talk to a squirrel about how a watch works.

----------


## WarriorRob

This is all above my pay rate, so I'll just stay quiet :Thinking:  :Smiley ROFLMAO:

----------

phoenyx (08-31-2021)

----------


## nonsqtr

> On the contrary, I've been focused on 2 theories that have been shared worldwide. The theory that 5G is at least partly to blame for Covid has been around for quite some time. The theory that germs aren't the real issue, but instead the terrain is one that's been around for around 100 years:
> Germ Theory Versus Terrain: The Wrong Side Won the Day - The Weston A. Price Foundation


The Weston A Price Foundation

Coronavirus - The Weston A. Price Foundation

"Contagion doesn't exist".

Idiot is as idiot believes.

----------


## nonsqtr

> Joy -.-


You're wrong again.

There will be no joy for you in the remainder of this thread.

----------


## phoenyx

> I might as well go outside and talk to a squirrel about how a watch works.


You do that then. I have important matters to discuss.

----------


## phoenyx

For those interested in evidence that 5G could be causing Covid, as well as the lack of evidence of an infectious Covid virus, the authors of the book mentioned in the opening post wrote an interesting article with some information on these things:
The Contagion Fairy Tale - The Weston A. Price Foundation

----------


## Authentic

> If that's your goal though, then you're on a roll.


Roll is 4/5 troll.

----------

phoenyx (09-01-2021)

----------


## nonsqtr

> For those interested in evidence that 5G could be causing Covid, as well as the lack of evidence of an infectious Covid virus, the authors of the book mentioned in the opening post wrote an interesting article with some information on these things:
> The Contagion Fairy Tale - The Weston A. Price Foundation


You just exposed your own nuttery.

If you had a brain cell you'd already have left this thread with your tail between your legs.

Keep going though, I'll just kick back...

----------


## nonsqtr

> Roll is 4/5 troll.


5G doesnât cause COVID-19, but the rumor it does spread like a virus | Rafik Hariri Institute for Computing and Computational Science  Engineering

----------


## nonsqtr

Journal of Medical Internet Research - COVID-19 and the 5G Conspiracy Theory: Social Network Analysis of Twitter Data

----------


## nonsqtr

https://fortune.com/2021/07/23/russi...s-study-finds/

----------


## Authentic

> Are you usfan?
> 
> That's the other fool who tries to make everything personal.
> 
> Screw you. Go away.


Naw. He hasn't used "Progresso World" "atheistic naturalism" or "psychobabble".

----------

nonsqtr (08-31-2021)

----------


## nonsqtr

SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class journal research

----------


## Authentic

> Joy -.-


Almond Joy has nuts, Mounds don't!

----------


## nonsqtr

Nutballs everywhere...

Cleveland doctor tells Ohio lawmakers COVID-19 vaccine can leave people magnetized, interfaced with 5G towers

----------


## Call_me_Ishmael

> Almond Joy has nuts, Mounds don't!


I will take a mound over anything with nuts.  But that's just me.

----------


## nonsqtr

How does fake news of 5G and COVID-19 spread worldwide?

----------


## Authentic

Are viruses real?

How come Muslim countries have low infection rates? Could it have something to do with Ramadan fasting and restrictions on their diet due to Islamic law?

----------


## Oceander

> Nutballs everywhere...
> 
> Cleveland doctor tells Ohio lawmakers COVID-19 vaccine can leave people magnetized, interfaced with 5G towers


Y'know, I'm really disappointed in my vaccination.  No third arm, no third eye, and now no g-d damned magnetism, either!!!!

I feel like I got gypped.

----------


## Authentic

> Y'know, I'm really disappointed in my vaccination.  No third arm, no third eye, and now no g-d damned magnetism, either!!!!
> 
> I feel like I got gypped.


Maybe you received the saline solution.

----------

phoenyx (09-01-2021)

----------


## Oceander

> Maybe you received the saline solution.


Wouldn't that be a kicker.  Except that I did have a reaction to it, so no, I doubt I got saline solution.

----------

Authentic (08-31-2021),phoenyx (09-01-2021)

----------


## Authentic

Doctors _speculate_ that people attaching magnets to their arms are using tape.

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/cor...251955083.html

Speculation. How scientific.

----------

phoenyx (09-01-2021)

----------


## nonsqtr

> Naw. He hasn't used "Progresso World" "atheistic naturalism" or "psychobabble".


The ad-hom bit was a clue...

Hey man, I'll own my part. If someone wants to make this personal on me, I'll be more than happy to throw it right back in their faces.

I am TIRED of the nutty fuckery. I'm going to make each and every one of these nut cases own their bullshit.

These people are LIARS, they're every bit as bad as that dumbass Fraudci.

These conspiracy nutballs are pushing FAKE NEWS. There's nothing real about it, it's as fake as the green cheese on the moon.

These ASSHOLES are giving conservatives a bad name.

----------


## Authentic

I just did an experiment. I placed a magnet on my arm. It did not stay. Just what I expected since I am unvaccinated.

----------

nonsqtr (08-31-2021),phoenyx (09-01-2021)

----------


## Call_me_Ishmael

> Are viruses real?
> 
> How come Muslim countries have low infection rates? Could it have something to do with Ramadan fasting and restrictions on their diet due to Islamic law?


Have you considered that women normally wear masks as part of their normal garb in  many of those countries?  But in Turkey, I was hard pressed to find a face covering let alone a burka. My Turkish friends found it interesting to watch the women with Burkas eat... it was such an unusual sight for them. This was true in 2012 for the western half of Turkey..interior as well as coast,  large city as well as rural. I did not venture east.

Majority backs COVID-19 restrictions for unvaccinated, study shows - Turkey News

----------

Authentic (08-31-2021),Oceander (08-31-2021)

----------


## Authentic

> The ad-hom bit was a clue...
> 
> Hey man, I'll own my part. If someone wants to make this personal on me, I'll be more than happy to throw it right back in their faces.
> 
> I am TIRED of the nutty fuckery. I'm going to make each and every one of these nut cases own their bullshit.
> 
> These people are LIARS, they're every bit as bad as that dumbass Fraudci.
> 
> These conspiracy nutballs are pushing FAKE NEWS. There's nothing real about it, it's as fake as the green cheese on the moon.
> ...


Save some for the Copenhagen folks.

----------


## nonsqtr

> Save some for the Copenhagen folks.


Just doing my patriotic duty, draining the swamp.  :Grin:

----------


## Authentic

Are we in a sprint against time?

----------


## Authentic

What is coming up over the verizon?

----------


## Authentic

Are T-cells mobile?

----------


## phoenyx

> Are viruses real?


I think the answer to that question depends on how one is defining a virus. There is an author named Jeff Green who believes that viruses are real, but that they aren't contagious:
Viruses Are Not Contagious  Viral Misconception

For a while, I thought that made the most sense, because some people were saying there were some differences between viruses and exosomes. However, I have not found any other authors who side with Jeff Green. Most side with conventional theory that viruses are separate from exosomes -and- contagious, but there are several doctors and others who have come to believe that all viruses are exosomes.

Now, I'm the first to admit that I'm fairly new to all of this. In another site, they're saying that viruses can reproduce, while exosomes can only be produced. I haven't seen evidence that viruses can truly reproduce or that exosomes can't, so for now I'm skeptical.

----------

Authentic (09-01-2021)

----------


## phoenyx

> Wouldn't that be a kicker.  Except that I did have a reaction to it, so no, I doubt I got saline solution.


Here in Toronto, I have heard that some doses were watered down, which should make them less harmful. Conversely, in the past, some vaccines had higher concentrations of various toxins, and given to minorities. A good documentary on this type of thing is here:
Medical Racism - The New Apartheid

You can watch the documentary for free by signing up to their newsletter. They ask for a donation, but it's optional (I declined).

Of if people would just like to see an article on the documentary, one can be found here:
CHD’s New ‘Medical Racism’ Film Exposes Long-Standing Experimentation on Minorities | Children's Health Defense

----------


## phoenyx

This message is in response to a post in another thread. I think most would agree this subject matter belongs here, so responding here.




> Originally Posted by phoenyx
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  Originally Posted by Well Bonded
> ...


Where did I say there was -conclusive- evidence? Once again, I said there is -evidence-. I believe the evidence is strong, but we can certainly go over it if you disagree.





> and 5G MM wave is so lightly deployed and for such a short time, it is impossible to make such a specious claim with a straight or an iota of factual evidence or research.


I admit I don't know the extent to which 5G MM wave frequencies are deployed. Regardless, I believe there's strong evidence that 5G networks, as well as previous networks, are causing a fair amount of damage. I think you'd agree that it must be fairly substantial for the D.C. Circuit Appellate Court to force the FCC to review its guidelines on 5G and previous networks.





> However I will let you try to explain how non-mm 5G operates in a manner that would make it anymore dangerous than the previous G's, if you cannot answer that one you really don't understand the technologies and are simply parroting what you have read but have no clue as to the actual subject of RF and safety or health.


Let's backtrack to the evidence in the court case that forced the FCC to review their guidelines. I think we can agree that this is my ace up my sleeve, so let's see where it leads, shall we?

----------


## Well Bonded

> I think you'd agree that it must be fairly substantial for the D.C. Circuit Appellate Court to force the FCC to review its guidelines on 5G and previous networks.


Incorrect the Appellate court only ruled on the method the FCC used to comply with the APA, it made no decision to force the FCC review it's guidelines, try reading the actual case not what is pushed out by those with a profit to be made. 

That Ace up your sleeve is a Joker, not an Ace. 


Let's backtrack to the evidence in the court case that forced the FCC to review their guidelines. I think we can agree that this is my ace up my sleeve, so let's see where it leads, shall we?[/QUOTE]

----------


## UKSmartypants

> Are viruses real?
> 
> How come Muslim countries have low infection rates? Could it have something to do with Ramadan fasting and restrictions on their diet due to Islamic law?



or it could be to do with the Draconian movement restrictions imposed by Sharia law in a lot of Moslems countries, where women are defacto under house arrest

----------


## UKSmartypants

> Y'know, I'm really disappointed in my vaccination.  No third arm, no third eye, and now no g-d damned magnetism, either!!!!
> 
> I feel like I got gypped.



cheap korean rip off vaccine. mate, you got scammed

----------

Oceander (09-06-2021)

----------


## Oceander

> Here in Toronto, I have heard that some doses were watered down, which should make them less harmful. Conversely, in the past, some vaccines had higher concentrations of various toxins, and given to minorities. A good documentary on this type of thing is here:
> Medical Racism - The New Apartheid
> 
> You can watch the documentary for free by signing up to their newsletter. They ask for a donation, but it's optional (I declined).
> 
> Of if people would just like to see an article on the documentary, one can be found here:
> CHDs New Medical Racism Film Exposes Long-Standing Experimentation on Minorities | Children's Health Defense


/snicker

----------


## UKSmartypants

> The ad-hom bit was a clue...
> 
> Hey man, I'll own my part. If someone wants to make this personal on me, I'll be more than happy to throw it right back in their faces.
> 
> I am TIRED of the nutty fuckery. I'm going to make each and every one of these nut cases own their bullshit.
> 
> These people are LIARS, they're every bit as bad as that dumbass Fraudci.
> 
> These conspiracy nutballs are pushing FAKE NEWS. There's nothing real about it, it's as fake as the green cheese on the moon.
> ...



Quesa next thread will explore the fact you can get Covid if you think about it whilst wiping your arse with newspaper. He will produce links to prove this from  completebollxfacts.com and looneyconspiracysite'co.uk, both fact checked by Ghislaine Maxwell.

----------


## UKSmartypants



----------

Oceander (09-06-2021)

----------


## UKSmartypants

More Antivaxxer logic

----------


## phoenyx

> Originally Posted by phoenyx
> 
> 
> I admit I don't know the extent to which 5G MM wave frequencies are deployed. Regardless, I believe there's strong evidence that 5G networks, as well as previous networks, are causing a fair amount of damage. I think you'd agree that it must be fairly substantial for the D.C. Circuit Appellate Court to force the FCC to review its guidelines on 5G and previous networks.
> 
> Let's backtrack to the evidence in the court case that forced the FCC to review their guidelines.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




What evidence do you have that Children's Health Defense (CHD) made any money out of fighting this legal case? I imagine that far from making money, they had to dish out a fair amount of it in legal costs. Anyway, never mind my words, let's use the words of the Appellant's organization itself, CHD. If you find that there is anything false in the following, by all means, point it out:

**
A recent landmark court ruling in a case brought by Children’s Health Defense (CHD) against the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) should concern anyone who uses wireless technology (cell phones, iWatches and Wi-Fi), especially parents of children who use these devices.
On Aug. 13, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled the FCC’s 2019 decision that its 1996 guidelines adequately protect the public from non-cancer harms from 5G and wireless-based technologies was capricious, arbitrary and not evidence-based.
In 2019, after an alleged six-year review of the science on the potential harms of 5G and wireless technology, the FCC concluded the evidence showed no harm and therefore its 1996 guidelines are sufficient to protect the public and no review of the guidelines was warranted.
In the U.S., as long as a wireless-based technology complies with FCC guidelines, it is considered safe, and no lawsuit can be filed for injuries.
However, CHD’s case revealed that while the FCC has been pushing 5G and forcing Wi-Fi-based technologies on our children, the safety assurances made by the FCC and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are not supported by evidence. As the court’s ruling indicates, the contrary is true.
**

Source:
Government Failed to Consider Evidence of Harm, Including to Children, From 5G and Wireless Radiation, Court Rules s Health Defense

----------


## Well Bonded

> What evidence do you have that Children's Health Defense (CHD) made any money out of fighting this legal case? I imagine that far from making money, they had to dish out a fair amount of it in legal costs.


If they weren't making money at it they wouldn't bothered to hire lawyers to file the case and the appeal. 




> Anyway, never mind my words, let's use the words of the Appellant's organization itself, CHD. If you find that there is anything false in the following, by all means, point it out:
> On Aug. 13, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled the FCC’s 2019 decision that its 1996 guidelines adequately protect the public from non-cancer harms from 5G and wireless-based technologies was capricious, arbitrary and not evidence-based.




That statement is false, all the CoA ruled on is the FCC failed to follow the APA on the 2019 decision, they stated nothing about the CHD's health claims.

The court actually went so far as to actually state the FCC's guidelines may very well be correct, just not properly or fully filed in compliance with the APA.

As stated by the court in their final decision :

As the dissenting opinion indicates, there may be good reasons why the various studies in the record, only some of which we have cited here,* do not warrant changes to the  Commission’s guidelines.*

----------


## phoenyx

> Originally Posted by phoenyx
> 
> 
> What evidence do you have that Children's Health Defense (CHD) made any money out of fighting this legal case? I imagine that far from making money, they had to dish out a fair amount of it in legal costs.
> 
> 
> 
> If they weren't making money at it they wouldn't bothered to hire lawyers to file the case and the appeal.


As if making money was the only reason people filed cases and appeals -.-




> Originally Posted by phoenyx
> 
> 
> Anyway, never mind my words, let's use the words of the Appellant's organization itself, CHD. If you find that there is anything false in the following, by all means, point it out:
> 
> **
> A recent landmark court ruling in a case brought by Children’s Health Defense (CHD) against the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) should concern anyone who uses wireless technology (cell phones, iWatches and Wi-Fi), especially parents of children who use these devices.
> On Aug. 13, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled the FCC’s 2019 decision that its 1996 guidelines adequately protect the public from non-cancer harms from 5G and wireless-based technologies was capricious, arbitrary and not evidence-based.
> [snip]
> ...



First of all, the above statement says nothing about the CHD's health claims- please follow what's actually being said. In any case, perhaps it may be better to get a little more specific as to what the article claims the court decided. Please let me know if you disagree with any of the following statements from the CHD article:
**
The court ruled the FCC failed to engage at the level of reasoned decision-making required from a federal agency. Furthermore, the commission failed to provide an analysis of the evidence showing how it reached its decision.
The FCC’s determination that its health guidelines related to non-cancer harms were adequate, was based on a statement from the FDA and a link to the FDA webpage from 2017. The court ruled that the FDA’s conclusions also were not supported by careful scientific analysis, as required from a federal agency.

[snip]


In order to strengthen the alleged legitimacy of its guidelines, the FCC claimed the guidelines were supported by other government agencies. However, after petitioners refuted this claim, the FCC explained the fact that other agencies didn’t raise any objections was evidence of their consensus.

The court disagreed, ruling that “silence is not consent.”

Following a report by the Government Accountability Office suggesting the FCC should review its 1996 guidelines, in 2013, the FCC opened a Notice of Inquiry requesting comments from the public on whether the commission should initiate a rulemaking to modify the guidelines.

In December 2019, the FCC published its decision (called “order”) that the guidelines were sufficiently protective of public health and required no review.

Consequently, in February 2020, CHD filed the lawsuit (called “Petitioner for Review”) challenging the decision. A similar case was filed by the Environmental Health Trust. The cases were consolidated in the D.C. Circuit and the organizations filed joint briefs.

More than 1,000 comments and extensive evidence of harm from radiation at levels well below the guidelines were filed with the FCC by scientists, medical organizations, municipalities and individuals who have developed sickness from this technology.

The court explained that when reaching a determination, a federal agency must consider the evidence filed by the public, and address important evidence, especially when it contradicts the premise behind the agency’s determination (as it did in this case). The petitioners filed 11,000 pages of evidence showing the extent of evidence the FCC ignored.

The court ruled the FCC failed to meaningfully respond to the evidence filed with the agency, and that this failure also renders the FCC decision arbitrary, capricious and not evidence-based.

Referring to the petitioner’s brief, the court referenced evidence of numerous harms from wireless technology, including radiation sickness (electro-sensitivity), neurological effects, oxidative stress (a causal mechanism of harm), effects on sperm, and effects of prenatal exposure and blood-brain barrier damage, all of which the FCC ignored.

The court emphasized the FCC’s failure to respond to evidence of the effects on children, especially in regard to testing procedures for cell phones. The court stated that extensive evidence was filed.

The evidence includes a letter from the American Academy of Pediatrics, experts’ letters regarding the effects on children, the BioInitiative Report and many studies including a study showing that one year of cell phone use by adolescents can lead to permanent damage to memory and other brain effects.
The FCC guidelines test wireless portable devices for 30-minute exposure from a single device, and consider only heating effects on tissue. The court determined the FCC failed to respond to evidence showing effects that have nothing to do with heat (called “non-thermal harms”), and also failed to consider other factors that may be involved in causing harm, including long-term exposure and pulsation and modulation of the wireless radio frequency signals (two methods of imbuing radio waves with information).
The court stated the FCC also failed to address evidence relating to the effects of developments in wireless technology that have occurred since 1996, including the ubiquity of wireless devices, Wi-Fi and the emergence of “5G” technology.
The FCC’s complete failure to acknowledge and respond to evidence concerning environmental harms was yet another reason for the court’s ruling. The court cited a 2014 letter from the U.S. Department of the Interior voicing concern that radiation from cell towers affects migratory birds and concluding the FCC guidelines are 30 years out of date.

CHD’s lead attorney for the case, Scott McCollough, explained that “as a result of this decision, the FCC will have to re-examine its determination and for the first time meaningfully and responsibly confront the vast amount of scientific and medical evidence showing that current guidelines do not adequately protect health and the environment.”
**






> The court actually went so far as to actually state the FCC's guidelines may very well be correct, just not properly or fully filed in compliance with the APA.
> As stated by the court in their final decision :
> 
> As the dissenting opinion indicates, there may be good reasons why the various studies in the record, only some of which we have cited here,* do not warrant changes to the  Commission’s guidelines.*[/FONT][/COLOR]


You're citing the -dissenting- opinion, not the main one -.-

----------


## Well Bonded

> You're citing the -dissenting- opinion, not the main one -.-


100% incorrect that statement I posted was a part of the final decision III, try reading the courts findings not the smoke the CHD is puffing up somewhere. 

When you can quote from the courts findings get back to me, until then your are out.

----------


## phoenyx

> 100% incorrect that statement I posted was a part of the final decision III, try reading the courts findings not the smoke the CHD is puffing up somewhere.


Ah, I get it now. The main opinion can cite the dissenting opinion. Bottom line, they are saying that the dissenting opinion on this -may- be true, but clearly they aren't sure. I think it would have been far better if you hadn't cherry picked that snippet of text and included the text around it. I'll do it:

**
To be clear, we take no position in the scientific debate regarding the health and environmental effects of RF radiation—we merely conclude that the Commission’s cursory analysis of material record evidence was insufficient as a matter of law. As the dissenting opinion indicates, there may be good reasons why the various studies in the record, only some of which we have cited here, do not warrant changes to the Commission’s guidelines. But we cannot supply reasoning in the agency’s stead, see SEC v. Chenery Corp., 318 U.S. 80, 87–88 (1943), and here the Commission has failed to provide any reasoning to which we may defer.

So ordered.
**

Source:
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/w...n-decision.pdf

----------


## Well Bonded

> I think it would have been far better if you hadn't cherry picked that snippet of text and included the text around it. I'll do it:


If you had been following the threads on this subject you would have noticed I already posted the entire decision, I chose the part I reposed again to emphasize the point I was trying to make, about a subject I had already posted in full, as such it was not cherry picking.

----------


## phoenyx

> If you had been following the threads on this subject you would have noticed I already posted the entire decision, I chose the part I reposed again to emphasize the point I was trying to make, about a subject I had already posted in full, as such it was not cherry picking.


Alright, fine, now that that's out of the way, would you please let me know if you disagree with any of the following statements made by CHD on the decision:

**
The court ruled the FCC failed to engage at the level of reasoned decision-making required from a federal agency. Furthermore, the commission failed to provide an analysis of the evidence showing how it reached its decision.
The FCC’s determination that its health guidelines related to non-cancer harms were adequate, was based on a statement from the FDA and a link to the FDA webpage from 2017. The court ruled that the FDA’s conclusions also were not supported by careful scientific analysis, as required from a federal agency.

[snip]


In order to strengthen the alleged legitimacy of its guidelines, the FCC claimed the guidelines were supported by other government agencies. However, after petitioners refuted this claim, the FCC explained the fact that other agencies didn’t raise any objections was evidence of their consensus.

The court disagreed, ruling that “silence is not consent.”

Following a report by the Government Accountability Office suggesting the FCC should review its 1996 guidelines, in 2013, the FCC opened a Notice of Inquiry requesting comments from the public on whether the commission should initiate a rulemaking to modify the guidelines.

In December 2019, the FCC published its decision (called “order”) that the guidelines were sufficiently protective of public health and required no review.

Consequently, in February 2020, CHD filed the lawsuit (called “Petitioner for Review”) challenging the decision. A similar case was filed by the Environmental Health Trust. The cases were consolidated in the D.C. Circuit and the organizations filed joint briefs.

More than 1,000 comments and extensive evidence of harm from radiation at levels well below the guidelines were filed with the FCC by scientists, medical organizations, municipalities and individuals who have developed sickness from this technology.

The court explained that when reaching a determination, a federal agency must consider the evidence filed by the public, and address important evidence, especially when it contradicts the premise behind the agency’s determination (as it did in this case). The petitioners filed 11,000 pages of evidence showing the extent of evidence the FCC ignored.

The court ruled the FCC failed to meaningfully respond to the evidence filed with the agency, and that this failure also renders the FCC decision arbitrary, capricious and not evidence-based.

Referring to the petitioner’s brief, the court referenced evidence of numerous harms from wireless technology, including radiation sickness (electro-sensitivity), neurological effects, oxidative stress (a causal mechanism of harm), effects on sperm, and effects of prenatal exposure and blood-brain barrier damage, all of which the FCC ignored.

The court emphasized the FCC’s failure to respond to evidence of the effects on children, especially in regard to testing procedures for cell phones. The court stated that extensive evidence was filed.

The evidence includes a letter from the American Academy of Pediatrics, experts’ letters regarding the effects on children, the BioInitiative Report and many studies including a study showing that one year of cell phone use by adolescents can lead to permanent damage to memory and other brain effects.
The FCC guidelines test wireless portable devices for 30-minute exposure from a single device, and consider only heating effects on tissue. The court determined the FCC failed to respond to evidence showing effects that have nothing to do with heat (called “non-thermal harms”), and also failed to consider other factors that may be involved in causing harm, including long-term exposure and pulsation and modulation of the wireless radio frequency signals (two methods of imbuing radio waves with information).
The court stated the FCC also failed to address evidence relating to the effects of developments in wireless technology that have occurred since 1996, including the ubiquity of wireless devices, Wi-Fi and the emergence of “5G” technology.
The FCC’s complete failure to acknowledge and respond to evidence concerning environmental harms was yet another reason for the court’s ruling. The court cited a 2014 letter from the U.S. Department of the Interior voicing concern that radiation from cell towers affects migratory birds and concluding the FCC guidelines are 30 years out of date.

CHD’s lead attorney for the case, Scott McCollough, explained that “as a result of this decision, the FCC will have to re-examine its determination and for the first time meaningfully and responsibly confront the vast amount of scientific and medical evidence showing that current guidelines do not adequately protect health and the environment.”
**

----------


## Well Bonded

> Alright, fine, now that that's out of the way, would you please let me know if you disagree with any of the following statements made by CHD on the decision: The court explained that when reaching a determination, a federal agency must consider the evidence filed by the public, and address important evidence, especially when it contradicts the premise behind the agency’s determination (as it did in this case). The petitioners filed 11,000 pages of evidence showing the extent of evidence the FCC ignored.




The FCC didn't not ignore, the spam of filings they properly deferred to the FDA for a decision, which the the FDA failed to reply upon.   



> The court ruled the FCC failed to meaningfully respond to the evidence filed with the agency, and that this failure also renders the FCC decision arbitrary, capricious and not evidence-based.





> Referring to the petitioner’s brief, the court referenced evidence of numerous harms from wireless technology, including radiation sickness (electro-sensitivity), neurological effects, oxidative stress (a causal mechanism of harm), effects on sperm, and effects of prenatal exposure and blood-brain barrier damage, all of which the FCC ignored.
> The court emphasized the FCC’s failure to respond to evidence of the effects on children, especially in regard to testing procedures for cell phones. The court stated that extensive evidence was filed.
> 
> The evidence includes a letter from the American Academy of Pediatrics, experts’ letters regarding the effects on children, the BioInitiative Report and many studies including a study showing that one year of cell phone use by adolescents can lead to permanent damage to memory and other brain effects.
> The FCC guidelines test wireless portable devices for 30-minute exposure from a single device, and consider only heating effects on tissue. The court determined the FCC failed to respond to evidence showing effects that have nothing to do with heat (called “non-thermal harms”), and also failed to consider other factors that may be involved in causing harm, including long-term exposure and pulsation and modulation of the wireless radio frequency signals (two methods of imbuing radio waves with information).
> The court stated the FCC also failed to address evidence relating to the effects of developments in wireless technology that have occurred since 1996, including the ubiquity of wireless devices, Wi-Fi and the emergence of “5G” technology.
> The FCC’s complete failure to acknowledge and respond to evidence concerning environmental harms was yet another reason for the court’s ruling. The court cited a 2014 letter from the U.S. Department of the Interior voicing concern that radiation from cell towers affects migratory birds and concluding the FCC guidelines are 30 years out of date.
> 
> CHD’s lead attorney for the case, Scott McCollough, explained that “as a result of this decision, the FCC will have to re-examine its determination and for the first time meaningfully and responsibly confront the vast amount of scientific and medical evidence showing that current guidelines do not adequately protect health and the environment.”



The rest of this was not decided in the appeal by the CHD, so it is now moot as the remainder of the appeal no longer stands, they can sue someone again, but their APA spam attack failed to work this time around.

----------


## phoenyx

> Originally Posted by phoenyx
> 
> 
> Alright, fine, now that that's out of the way, would you please let me know if you disagree with any of the following statements made by CHD on the decision:
> 
> **
> The court explained that when reaching a determination, a federal agency must consider the evidence filed by the public, and address important evidence, especially when it contradicts the premise behind the agency’s determination (as it did in this case). The petitioners filed 11,000 pages of evidence showing the extent of evidence the FCC ignored.
> 
> 
> ...


You're right, it didn't not ignore the evidence. That is, it ignored it. It also ignored other things. Some quotes from the court's decision, along with another bolded sentence where the court decided that the FCC had ignored either evidence or something important. Also including a third sentence where the EPA ignored something important.

**
To be sure, “[a]gencies can be expected to respect the views of such other agencies as to those problems for which those other agencies are more directly responsible and more competent.” City of Boston Delegation v. FERC, 897 F.3d 241, 255 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (internal alteration and quotation marks omitted). What the Commission may not do, however, is rely on an outside expert’s silence or conclusory statements in lieu of somereasoned explanation for its decision. And while it is certainly true that an agency’s decision not to initiate a rulemaking at a time when other agencies see no compelling case for action may represent “the sort of priority-setting in the use of agency resources that is least subject to second-guessing by courts,” EMR Network, 391 F.3d at 273, the same is true of most agency decisions not to initiate a rulemaking, see Am. Horse, 812 F.2d at 4–5. *Nevertheless, an agency’s decision not to initiate a rulemaking must have some reasoned basis, and an agency cannot simply ignore evidence suggesting that a major factual predicate of its position may no longer be accurate.* Id. at 5.

[snip]

In addition to the Commission’s inadequate response to the non-cancer-related effects of RF radiation on human health, the Commission also completely failed even to acknowledge, let alone respond to, comments concerning the impact of RF radiation on the environment. That utter lack of a response does not meet the Commission’s obligation to provide a reasoned explanation for terminating the notice of inquiry. The record contains substantive evidence of potential environmental harms. Most relevantly, the record included a letter from the Department of the Interior voicing concern about the impact of RF radiation from communication towers on migratory birds, see J.A. 8,379, 8,383–86. In the Department of the Interior’s expert view, the Commission’s RF radiation limits “continue to be based on thermal heating, a criterion now nearly 30 years out of date and inapplicable today.” J.A. 8,383. “The [current environmental] problem,” according to the Department of the Interior, “appears to focus on very low-level, non-thermal electromagnetic radiation.” Id.Although the Commission has repeatedly claimed that it considered “inputs from [its] sister federal agencies[,]” 2019 Order, 34 FCC Rcd. at 11,689, the Commission entirely failed to address the environmental harm concerns raised by the Department of the Interior. To be sure, the Commission could conclude that the link between RF radiation and environmental harms is too weak to warrant an amendment to its RF radiation limits. *All we hold now is that the Commission should have said something about its sister agency’s view rather than ignore it altogether.* That lack of any reasoned explanation as to environmental harms does not satisfy the requirements of the APA.


The dissenting opinion portrays this case as about the Commission’s disregard of just five articles and one Department of Interior letter. Not so. The record contained substantial information and material from, for example, the American Academy of Pediatrics, J.A. 4,533; the Council of Europe, J.A. 4,242–44, 4,247–57; the Cities of Boston and Philadelphia, J.A. 4,592–99; medical associations, see, e.g., J.A. 4,536–40 (California Medical Association); thousands of physicians and scientists from around the world, see, e.g., J.A. 4,197–4,206 (letter to United Nations); J.A. 4,208–17 (letter to European Union); J.A. 5,173–86 (Frieburger Appeal by over one thousand German physicians); and hundreds of people who were themselves or who had loved ones suffering from the alleged effects of RF radiation, see, e.g., J.A. 8,774–9,940; see also J.A. 4,218–39 (collecting statements from physicians and health organizations expressing concern about health effects of RF radiation).


The dissenting opinion then offers its own explanation as to why those select sources were not worth being addressed by the agency. This in-the-weeds assessment of scientific studies and assessments falls “outside our bailiwick[,]” Dissenting Op. at 10. More to the point, the Commission said none of what the dissenting opinion does. If it had and if those six sources fairly represented the credible record evidence seeking a change in Commission policy, that discussion likely would have sufficed. But just as post hoc rationales offered by counsel cannot fill in the holes left by an agency in its decision, neither can a dissenting opinion. See Grace v. Barr, 965 F.3d 883, 903 (D.C. Cir. 2020) (“[W]hen ‘assessing the reasonableness of [an agency’s action], we look only to what the agency said at the time of the [action]—not to its lawyers’ post-hoc rationalizations.’”) (second and third alterations in original) (quoting Good Fortune Shipping SA v. Commissioner, 897 F.3d 256, 263 (D.C. Cir. 2018)).


Instead, the Commission chose to hitch its wagon to the FDA’s unexplained disinterest in some similar information. Importantly, the dissenting opinion does not dispute that the FDA’s conclusory dismissal of that evidence ran afoul of our precedent in American Horse and American Radio. It just says that the deficiency in the FDA’s analysis cannot be imputed to a second agency, and so the dissenting opinion would hold dispositive “the fact that the Commission and the FDA are, to state the obvious, distinct agencies.” Dissenting Op. at 5.


They certainly are. But that does not amount to a legal difference here. While imitation may be the highest form of flattery, it does not meet even the low threshold of reasoned analysis required by the APA under the deferential standard of review that governs here. One agency’s unexplained adoption of an unreasoned analysis just compounds rather than vitiates the analytical void. Said another way, two wrongs do not make a right. Compare City of Tacoma v. FERC, 460 F.3d 53, 76 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (“[T]he action agency must not blindly adopt the conclusions of the consultant agency, citing that agency’s expertise. Rather, the ultimate responsibility for compliance with the [Endangered Species Act] falls on the action agency.”), and Ergon-West Virginia, Inc. v. EPA, 896 F.3d 600, 612 (4th Cir. 2018) (“Although the EPA is statutorily required to consider the [Department of Energy]’s recommendation, it may not turn a blind eye to errors and omissions apparent on the face of the report, which [petitioner] pointed out and the EPA did not address in any meaningful way.* In doing so, the EPA "ignore[d] important aspects of the problem.’”)* (internal citations omitted), with Bellion Spirits, LLC v. United States, No. 19-5252, slip op. at 13–14 (D.C. Cir.Aug. 6, 2021) (approving consultation by the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (“TTB”) with the FDA where the TTB “did not rubberstamp FDA’s analysis of the scientific evidence or delegate final decisionmaking authority to FDA,” but instead “systematically evaluated and explained its reasons for agreeing with FDA’s analysis of each scientific study” and “then made its own determinations” about the claims at hand).
[snip]
**

Source:
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/w...n-decision.pdf

----------


## phoenyx

Responding to a post in another thread of mine, I think the subject here makes it fit better...


**



> Which is not technically possible as 5G utilizes the same power and frequencies as 4G and 3G.


Not true. I imagine you haven't heard much from Joel M. Moskowitz. For some background, his Wikipedia page:
**
*Joel M. Moskowitz is a researcher on the faculty of the School of Public Health at the University of California, Berkeley. He has worked on public health issues that include cell phone risk, tobacco control, and alcohol use disorder. He helped the city of Berkeley, California to draft an ordinance mandating safety warnings on cell phones. In 2018, Moskowitz won the James Madison Freedom of Information Award for his work in bringing to light previously publicly unknown California Department of Public Health guidance documents about cell phone safety.
**
Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joel_Moskowitz


Now on to some things he's said on 5g:
**
The latest cellular technology, 5G, will employ millimeter waves for the first time in addition to microwaves that have been in use for older cellular technologies, 2G through 4G. Given limited reach, 5G will require cell antennas every 100 to 200 meters, exposing many people to millimeter wave radiation. 5G also employs new technologies (e.g., active antennas capable of beam-forming; phased arrays; massive multiple inputs and outputs, known as massive MIMO) which pose unique challenges for measuring exposures.

Millimeter waves are mostly absorbed within a few millimeters of human skin and in the surface layers of the cornea. Short-term exposure can have adverse physiological effects in the peripheral nervous system, the immune system and the cardiovascular system. The research suggests that long-term exposure may pose health risks to the skin (e.g., melanoma), the eyes (e.g., ocular melanoma) and the testes (e.g., sterility).


Since 5G is a new technology, there is no research on health effects, so we are “flying blind” to quote a U.S. senator. However, we have considerable evidence about the harmful effects of 2G and 3G. Little is known the effects of exposure to 4G, a 10-year-old technology, because governments have been remiss in funding this research. Meanwhile, we are seeing increases in certain types of head and neck tumors in tumor registries, which may be at least partially attributable to the proliferation of cell phone radiation. These increases are consistent with results from case-control studies of tumor risk in heavy cell phone users.

5G will not replace 4G; it will accompany 4G for the near future and possibly over the long term. If there are synergistic effects from simultaneous exposures to multiple types of RFR, our overall risk of harm from RFR may increase substantially. Cancer is not the only risk as there is considerable evidence that RFR causes neurological disorders and reproductive harm, likely due to oxidative stress.

As a society, should we invest hundreds of billions of dollars deploying 5G, a cellular technology that requires the installation of 800,000 or more new cell antenna sites in the U.S. close to where we live, work and play?

Instead, we should support the recommendations of the 250 scientists and medical doctors who signed the 5G Appeal that calls for an immediate moratorium on the deployment of 5G and demand that our government fund the research needed to adopt biologically based exposure limits that protect our health and safety.

**

**Source:
*We Have No Reason to Believe 5G Is Safe - Scientific American Blog Network

----------


## Well Bonded

> Not true. I imagine you haven't heard much from Joel M. Moskowitz. For some background, his Wikipedia page:


Once again you are totally incorrect, as i have stated many times 5G cellular, utilizes the same frequencies as all of the previous generations have.

MM wave is a offshoot of 5G and has nothing to do with cellular, you ignorance of the subject is so intense, I give up trying to educate you any further, this discussion is over, period. 

have a great day.

----------


## Authentic

> Once again you are totally incorrect, as i have stated many times 5G cellular, utilizes the same frequencies as all of the previous generations have.
> 
> MM wave is a offshoot of 5G and has nothing to do with cellular, you ignorance of the subject is so intense, I give up trying to educate you any further, this discussion is over, period. 
> 
> have a great day.


Are you implying that you and him are on differing wavelengths?

----------


## phoenyx

> Once again you are totally incorrect, as i have stated many times 5G cellular, utilizes the same frequencies as all of the previous generations have.


No, it's you who are incorrect, as Professor Moskowitz makes clear in his article. 5G does use -some- frequencies that are in the upper 4G range, but it also uses millimeter frequencies, which are higher than the 4G range.

----------


## phoenyx

> Are you implying that you and him are on differing wavelengths?


Very funny :-p. But the fact that he so cavalierly dismisses the clear evidence that 5G does in fact use frequencies much higher than any previous cell phone network is cause for concern.

----------


## phoenyx

> As far as mmwave is concerned.... those short wavelengths don't even penetrate past the skin 
> 
> Attachment 62496
> 
> 
> EMF-Portal | Radio frequency (10 MHzâ€“300 GHz)
> 
> Granted...you have to extrapolate on this chart to go above 20 GHz but you can see it's gonna be a tiny depth.


You may want to take a look at the following article on 5G:
We Have No Reason to Believe 5G Is Safe - Scientific American Blog Network

----------


## Call_me_Ishmael

> You may want to take a look at the following article on 5G:
> We Have No Reason to Believe 5G Is Safe - Scientific American Blog Network


Cheeses dude.. they quote a politician.

----------


## Call_me_Ishmael

> Very funny :-p. But the fact that he so cavalierly dismisses the clear evidence that 5G does in fact use frequencies much higher than any previous cell phone network is cause for concern.


But not higher than frequencies that have been use in other services for a long long time. And those services had to be scrutinized for safety.  Take a look at the FCC frequency allocation chart. You will see.

If you are afraid of higher frequencies... turn off all your lights. Those frequencies are a thousand times higher than a millimeter wavelength signal.

----------


## phoenyx

> Cheeses dude.. they quote a politician.


I didn't even notice until you brought it up. I took a look, they didn't even mention said politician's name:
**
Since 5G is a new technology, there is no research on health effects, so we are “flying blind” to quote a U.S. senator.
**

Is that seriously the only thing you focused on in the entire article?

----------


## phoenyx

> But not higher than frequencies that have been use in other services for a long long time.


I imagine it's the quantity that's the big difference. As a matter of fact, I'm thinking that perhaps it's just the addition of so much more cell phone towers that's the biggest issue at this point.

----------


## Authentic

GGGGG

----------


## Call_me_Ishmael

> I didn't even notice until you brought it up. I took a look, they didn't even mention said politician's name:
> **
> Since 5G is a new technology, there is no research on health effects, so we are “flying blind” to quote a U.S. senator.
> **
> 
> Is that seriously the only thing you focused on in the entire article?


It said nothing except "we don't understand it so we are scared shitless"

They don't understand it because they didn't study it in school nor work with it for decades.

----------


## phoenyx

> It said nothing except "we don't understand it so we are scared shitless"


I'm really beginning to wonder how much of the article you actually read. Anyway, Im beginning to think that perhaps the focus of this thread was a bit too ambitious, so I've decided to create a new thread focusing on the dangers of 5G and I quote a good chunk of that article. You're welcome to participate if you like:
5G and other EMFs- what the science shows regarding harm

----------


## Call_me_Ishmael

> I'm really beginning to wonder how much of the article you actually read. Anyway, Im beginning to think that perhaps the focus of this thread was a bit too ambitious, so I've decided to create a new thread focusing on the dangers of 5G and I quote a good chunk of that article. You're welcome to participate if you like:
> 5G and other EMFs- what the science shows regarding harm


I can't watch the train wreck.  Sorry.

----------


## phoenyx

> I can't watch the train wreck.  Sorry.


Pffft. Science at its best is what it is :-).

----------

