It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

(2020) New Mobile Technology 5G - Safety not priority - (FCC chairman speech).

page: 1
14
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 21 2017 @ 05:34 AM
link   
I made a transcript of this video: youtu.be... – in the picture below :


(for bigger picture: files.abovetopsecret.com...)

He clearly hates safety and finds it a hindrance to advancements in wireless communication.
Does that have an effect on us? Yes! It means having to put up with microwave energy in our homes and bodies 24/7 and with 5G there will be more of it. Our air/ atmosphere is already billions to trillions times higher (depending on where you live) than natural microwave levels and it could yet again get worse in 2020.

Plants, insects and animals have also been shown to suffer from our ‘phone signal coverage’ (microwaves). I recommend reading the DECT phone bee study: DECT (wireless house phone) Bee Study.

5G means more cell towers and a higher frequency. The FCC chairman is also open for THz technology, (I think he would also allow for gamma-ray wireless networks if it means the public can shave a second of their downloads... /joke)


files.abovetopsecret.com...


files.abovetopsecret.com...


files.abovetopsecret.com...


The internet has a lot more evidence showing negative effects with non-ionising and non-thermal radiation from cell towers.

The negative effects may not be dramatic (depending on the individual) but there are definite 0-30% effects if you know what I mean.
Another problem is that microwave effects build up (USSR study on rats) over time and fade with time so you never get to instantly notice it, you will just assume it’s something to do with you, the mood of the day or something wrong with society.
Microwaves in my opinion are similar to how UV radiation (also on the EMF spectrum like microwaves) builds up over time to cause sunburn; you might not notice it at first but you will in time. (This effect is even more striking on cloudy days with a strong UV index).

So 5G is yet again going to publically appear like the previous 'G's', it's going to be sold to the public with its 'amazing fast speeds'. The public will know nothing of safety regarding it. IT will be assumed that the Government knows best. If the Government is asked, they will give the usual response; 'its non-ionising, it can't cause cancer. *COUGH* directly that is.' or 'it’s non-thermal, it doesn't heat human tissue'. Well technically it can heat us up but legally it can't go above 1 degree Celsius and as for it not causing cancer; it might not directly cause cancer but it can indirectly cause oxidative stress leading to a surge of free radicals which can cause cancer. So yes it can cause cancer. The Government is fiddling with words again – or playing dumb so it can rake in more tax revenue from wireless companies.

So very clearly the Government and the regulators are not being fully honest nor do they have our health as priority. They will blind themselves on a few facts that make it ok to keep our environment microwave’d 24/7. Government officials will play the 'unaware of' card if shown evidence that goes against the wireless communication industry regarding health.

The wireless and cell tower industries want the public on their biased side. They love the fact that the overwhelming majority are unaware of what a phone signal actually is and what it means for you and your environment. That needs to change. It must be taught in schools.

They are willing to blind themselves to a few facts on arguments for 24/7 microwave'd environments if it means making lots of money. The Government have already massively failed at protecting us and will do so again. They are ready to play dumb yet again with 5G and will be buttering the public up to accepting it - with its cool new features and futuristic capabilities, without publically touching on health and well-being concerns (which concerns all living things).

Do some research on EMF wireless devices. Avoid wireless house phones, especially near your bed. Turn off Wi-Fi when not in use and especially at night (or go wired) and avoid smart meters which are microwave technology too - if you can. Turn off electrical things in your bedroom at night. And if you ever move house, avoid living too close to a cell tower!

Locate Cell towers near you. - You will need to select your country and go through the operators individually however, unfortunately.

UK phone mast locator. - This one is easier, just use your UK postcode and it will show any nearby operator mast.

If these cell tower locators fail you, there may be other websites you can use on the internet. Also note that these websites aren't 100% accurate.


edit on 21-11-2017 by jonnyc55 because: Link edits.

edit on 21-11-2017 by jonnyc55 because: Link edits and additions (for bigger pictures and youtube time edit)

edit on 21-11-2017 by jonnyc55 because: Paragraph spacing.

edit on 21-11-2017 by jonnyc55 because: Paragraphic spacing

edit on 21-11-2017 by jonnyc55 because: Wording.

edit on 21-11-2017 by jonnyc55 because: Wording.

edit on 21-11-2017 by jonnyc55 because: Capital letter editing.

edit on 21-11-2017 by jonnyc55 because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-11-2017 by jonnyc55 because: Removed BB codes.

edit on 21-11-2017 by jonnyc55 because: Cell tower locator links.

edit on 21-11-2017 by jonnyc55 because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 21 2017 @ 06:14 AM
link   
Thanks for all the info. I notice that a lot of men now here in Japan are losing their hair. I always thought that these cell phones have something to do with it although, this may sound silly at the moment, but when you fry potatoes to make chips in oil, there is no doubt now that high temperature oil cooking "will" cause cancer. What I'm saying here is, years ago, about 25 years ago, potato chips on the shelf took up little room, now them shelves look like the stores in the USA and cancer is also on the rise here.



posted on Nov, 21 2017 @ 06:20 AM
link   
Great post! S&F

In looking at that data and studies, there is certainly something amiss as it pertains to exposure limits and the harmful effects.

I honestly believe it's a slow killer...kind of like cigarettes. Anyone who smokes or has smoked can attest to how hard it is to quit.

I would say the same for these gadgets that have pretty much taken over our lives. There's really no going back unfortunately; the cellphone makers and signal carriers are the new tobacco companies... promoting a safe alternative to actual human interaction... offering a digital, virtual world unto the masses, and it's absolutely genius how addicted we have become to their "service".

It will only be a matter of time before we really see the in your face effects of this technology. People will literally have to be dying from this to actually even raise an eyebrow about it. We're just too reliant on these gadgets..

edit on E30America/ChicagoTue, 21 Nov 2017 06:22:30 -060011amTuesdayst06am by EternalShadow because: add/correction



posted on Nov, 21 2017 @ 06:30 AM
link   
A shame hardly anybody's taking this seriously.

Wireless tech is looking like mankind's greatest threat.



posted on Nov, 21 2017 @ 06:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: musicismagic
Thanks for all the info. I notice that a lot of men now here in Japan are losing their hair. I always thought that these cell phones have something to do with it although, this may sound silly at the moment, but when you fry potatoes to make chips in oil, there is no doubt now that high temperature oil cooking "will" cause cancer. What I'm saying here is, years ago, about 25 years ago, potato chips on the shelf took up little room, now them shelves look like the stores in the USA and cancer is also on the rise here.


No problem. I am happy that it is useful for you.

I too also feel you may be onto something regarding potato chips in Japan.

Interesting.

Thank you.


originally posted by: EternalShadow
Great post! S&F



In looking at that data and studies, there is certainly something amiss as it pertains to exposure limits and the harmful effects.



I honestly believe it's a slow killer...kind of like cigarettes. Anyone who smokes or has smoked can attest to how hard it is to quit.



I would say the same for these gadgets that have pretty much taken over our lives. There's really no going back unfortunately; the cellphone makers and signal carriers are the new tobacco companies... promoting a safe alternative to actual human interaction... offering a digital, virtual world unto the masses, and it's absolutely genius how addicted we have become to their "service".



It will only be a matter of time before we really see the in your face effects of this technology. People will literally have to be dying from this to actually even raise an eyebrow about it. We're just too reliant on these gadgets..


Thanks EternalShadow. Yes something is certainly amiss, i have the same feeling. If i recall correctly some studies i have read showing negative effects are well within the exposure limits and they are sometimes massively under the exposure limits.

I also feel it is a slow killer. I used to smoke and I also found it very hard to quit but i feel more 'lighter' and 'sharper' so I do not want to go back to feeling heavy and fatigued.

I do use my mobile here and there (I usually have data turned off, it's less constant radiation - microwaves and ELF) but if there was to be no more cell phone towers i would be fine. A bit like how smokers want to quit but can't - if someones removes cigarettes from all shops, some smokers would be thankful. I would be one of them smokers regarding mobile phones.

Technically we used to function fine as a society and socially without mobiles.


originally posted by: Tucket
A shame hardly anybody's taking this seriously.



Wireless tech is looking like mankind's greatest threat.


It is a big shame. The public only get to see mobile operator adverts and that is it regarding the wireless industry for them.
Education needs to cover it also, kids are growing up clueless to how their gadgets work. The Government need to publizise all the studies but the problem for the Government is, if they do that, the public will know they have been lieing to us since the 80s regarding cell phone towers.

We really do not care, fire those in Government who have allowed this to happen, it is very simple, hire new respectable people.

Cell phone towers are a big threat to this planet. It is completely unnatural/unwanted what cell phone towers do to us and our enviroment. Society will get worse and it will be constantly blaming the wrong things. This is why the Governments of this Planet need to speak up and do something and fix the real problems.
edit on 21-11-2017 by jonnyc55 because: wording.

edit on 21-11-2017 by jonnyc55 because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-11-2017 by jonnyc55 because: Wording.

edit on 21-11-2017 by jonnyc55 because: Wording.



posted on Nov, 21 2017 @ 07:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: Tucket
A shame hardly anybody's taking this seriously.

Wireless tech is looking like mankind's greatest threat.


It is.
When I was in elementary school back in the late 50's I remember that because of radiation, men and women will start to become bald. Sadly, I I mention above, the Japanese male here seems to be about 50 less hair, and we are talking of high kids now. I don't live in Hokaido, but I do believe in northern Hokaido, the loss of hair is less in the male. Why male, don't know.



posted on Nov, 21 2017 @ 07:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: musicismagic

originally posted by: Tucket
A shame hardly anybody's taking this seriously.

Wireless tech is looking like mankind's greatest threat.


It is.
When I was in elementary school back in the late 50's I remember that because of radiation, men and women will start to become bald. Sadly, I I mention above, the Japanese male here seems to be about 50 less hair, and we are talking of high kids now. I don't live in Hokaido, but I do believe in northern Hokaido, the loss of hair is less in the male. Why male, don't know.





"A short-term exposure (15 and 30 minutes) to RFR (900-MHz) from a mobile phone caused a significant increase in DNA single-strand breaks in human hair root cells located around the ear which is used for the phone calls."


List of studies. (i ctrl+f searched hair on the page)
Source study of my quote.




From these results, we suggest that 1,763 MHz RF exposure stimulates hair growth in vitro through the induction of IGF-1 in hDPCs.


^^^

One study that says there was hair growth





Review of literature showed that DNA breakage [4-6] and generation of ROS [7-9] play a role in slowing down of hair growth and hair loss from exposure to mobile radiation [4].


^^^

Web site that says there is hairloss (cell phones)


I think it depends on the frequency. But at the end of the day there is a clear effect on us. There are so many studies on EMF/microwaves/cell towers that show negative effects that the Government are clearly being biased.

Locate Cell towers near you. - You will need to select your country and go through the operators individually however unfortunately.

UK phone mast locator. - This one is easier, just use your UK postcode and it will show any nearby operator mast.



edit on 21-11-2017 by jonnyc55 because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-11-2017 by jonnyc55 because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-11-2017 by jonnyc55 because: links.



posted on Nov, 21 2017 @ 07:31 AM
link   
a reply to: jonnyc55

The planet and the effects of us on it mean nothing to these people



posted on Nov, 21 2017 @ 08:17 AM
link   
I'm not shure if this is really any worse than the days of tube tv's that would give you sunburn if u watched to close

I am shure useing the only place that's had a nuclear reactor disaster with balding will get you no credit tho ... I mean did we all forget about that I'm amazed we don't see people born with dramatic birth defects there like what happen in DU heavy war zones

not saying your wrong or right ... just there is a lot of better populations to study with far less likelihood of being exposed to radiation

ps also the only place to be attacked with nukes

I'm really sorry Japan
edit on 21-11-2017 by markovian because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2017 @ 08:22 AM
link   
Shouldnt worry about cell towers when the devices in your home far out weigh exposure by cell towers. Currently in our homes we have wifi routers laptops,tablets and cell phones, Tvs,bluetooth items and even your home wiring dwarfing any exposure from cell towers.



posted on Nov, 21 2017 @ 09:27 AM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

That changes very quickly if you have a antenna on every streetend. The "cell-tower" density is higher with 5G. If you have a cell-tower sporting 5kW (and that´s not much) output not far from your home, that thing will dwarf anything you can legaly set up in your home.

Power density degrades with distance, of course.

You also mix up different frequencies, this frequency will be in the THz region, while wlan for example operates between roughly 2.4-~6 GHz, UMTS and Bluetooth around 2-2.4 GHz.

Where as THz-Band starts at 1000GHz. And it´s not a conspiracy that you can map out rooms with even 2.4GHz and two, if you´re good in math, three antennas.

With that in mind, I find your post highly ignorant about the matter.



posted on Nov, 21 2017 @ 10:10 AM
link   
a reply to: verschickter

Your fear is irrational its not like you will bestanding in front of a cell phone tower. They are a minimum of 5 meters tall aimed at the horizon. Meaning your exposure would be through scattering.The power levels are relatively low, the antennas are mounted high above ground level, and the signals are transmitted intermittently, rather than constantly.you cant base readings at any given location based on distance and power output because most of it will be scatteringeffects. Then about 60 percent wouldnt be strong enough to penetrate your skin much less clothes walls etc. Meaning that charts based off strength of signal is useless. Direct readings at any location would be needed. And in most homes your highest source of EMF will be power lines especially in europe



posted on Nov, 21 2017 @ 12:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: verschickter

Your fear is irrational its not like you will bestanding in front of a cell phone tower. They are a minimum of 5 meters tall aimed at the horizon. Meaning your exposure would be through scattering.The power levels are relatively low, the antennas are mounted high above ground level, and the signals are transmitted intermittently, rather than constantly.you cant base readings at any given location based on distance and power output because most of it will be scatteringeffects. Then about 60 percent wouldnt be strong enough to penetrate your skin much less clothes walls etc. Meaning that charts based off strength of signal is useless. Direct readings at any location would be needed. And in most homes your highest source of EMF will be power lines especially in europe


You are right that Wi-Fi routers and other devices pose a big threat too. But for those like me living near cell phone towers, our homes have levels similar to having a strong Wi-Fi router turned on all day and night throughout our entire home.

These Microwave EMF levels are near my window, with a monopole near my house (as you can see):


files.abovetopsecret.com...

Near my bedroom window for example, it is already 73 million times higher than Salzburg exposure limits for inside houses.

I might as well be talking on a mobile phone 24/7 in my bedroom. It is disgusting. I despise the Government.


files.abovetopsecret.com...


But for those who do not live near a cell tower, you are right, your Wi-Fi router will be the biggest threat to you in your home along with other EMF devices wired or non-wired.


edit on 21-11-2017 by jonnyc55 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2017 @ 01:14 PM
link   
These are hard to make out images however these are my EMF levels when the mast was turned off, as it was in these images, when the mast was off for repair work. There were men up high working on it and on the boxes near it on the ground. The levels i got with the masts turned off were around 0.0xxx mW/m2 compared to what i get near my window now: 5-90 mW/m2, it is an insane difference with on and off.

The levels with the mast off should technically be lower than what my EMF meter can show however other signals from neighbours Wi-Fi, cars driving past with radios/mobiles is being picked up by my EMF meter. Also note that TV and Radio use microwave EMF too. However it is not just the microwave range of the EMF spectrum that poses a problem it can be other EMF frequencies like from electrical wiring and appliances that can also have a bad effect on us.


files.abovetopsecret.com...


files.abovetopsecret.com...

The pictures below show near my kitchen door. It shows low microwave-EMF levels when the mast was turned off:


files.abovetopsecret.com...

Here it is when the mast is turned on:


files.abovetopsecret.com...

The levels were much healthier when the mast was turned off. Back in 2010 the mast wasn't even there.
.
edit on 21-11-2017 by jonnyc55 because: Wording.

edit on 21-11-2017 by jonnyc55 because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-11-2017 by jonnyc55 because: Wording.



posted on Nov, 21 2017 @ 01:21 PM
link   
Ok, so i took a look at the "620 studies" link because it sounded like an attempt to shock people with numbers whilst relying on them not bothering to check the studies out.

First study says absolutely nothing about harm from exposure.

Second study literally says "this does not indicate need for alarm" in the abstract.

I gave up after that because it quickly became clear that this was a Gish Gallop.



posted on Nov, 21 2017 @ 01:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
Ok, so i took a look at the "620 studies" link because it sounded like an attempt to shock people with numbers whilst relying on them not bothering to check the studies out.

First study says absolutely nothing about harm from exposure.

Second study literally says "this does not indicate need for alarm" in the abstract.

I gave up after that because it quickly became clear that this was a Gish Gallop.


Yes because the studies you read were labeled neutral (see my picture below, notice how the first two you checked are labeled neutral). The green ones show a clear effect, the green ones are my '620' figure. Green box studies show an effect, grey ones show neutral, and red show no effect. The key/legend is explained on that website.


Zoomed in version.

Here: Source for 620 peer reveiwed studies showing effects. Sorry. I can't edit my OP now and I should of put a link, it is in the picture however but the picture i made, the one you mention, was for a presentation last week which i did for an english class. I will ask a moderator if i can add this link to my OP. I regret using that image for ATS as it is a bit dramatic but was fine for my english presentation. It isn't totally incorrect though, i tried to estimate those study numbers by roughly counting them on that website for both, green (shows effect from EMF), grey (neutral) and red (shows no effect).
I agree that a EMF website could be biased and portray more negative effects from cell towers than studies that show no effect. This website doesn't compare numbers (creating possible biases) BioInitiative Report 2012

What i was trying to do was point out that there is clearly some good evidence that makes it enough for cell towers to be held back from the public.

The internet has lots of good studies showing cell tower radiation to be harmful and unwanted.

I find the bee study i linked was interesting regarding DECT phones (wireless house phones):

* 2 beehives were unexposed and 2 beehives were exposed to a DECT base station (i.e. the equivalent of a mobile phone mast).
* 25 bees were selected from each beehive and released 800 meters away.
* Unexposed beehives: 16 and 17 bees returned after respectively 28 and 32 minutes.
* DECT-exposed ones: 6 bees returned after 38 minutes to one hive. The other hive remained deserted.
* In the exposed beehives, there were 21 per cent fewer honeycomb cells constructed in the hive frames after 9 days.


This guy is quite hard to understand because of his accent, but he talks about microwave exposure being more harmful for fetuses : www.youtube.com...


edit on 21-11-2017 by jonnyc55 because: Added picture.



posted on Nov, 21 2017 @ 01:43 PM
link   
we don't need this! i like tech but not at the expense of health and even animals i mean do you know what will happen to plants and the planet if we lose just the bees! god help us



posted on Nov, 21 2017 @ 01:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: TimHeller
we don't need this! i like tech but not at the expense of health and even animals i mean do you know what will happen to plants and the planet if we lose just the bees! god help us


Yeah i just made a post above yours on a bee study regarding wireless house phones. Wireless house phone base units work like a cell tower and operate on the same EMF frequency band.

It is worse for animals and nature because they don't even use mobile phones, they are just left with negative effects.



posted on Nov, 21 2017 @ 07:05 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

I don´t fear anything, I was merely pointing out some facts you got wrong. Just because I corrected you, does not mean I defend some kind of position here.

You´re being irrational by thinking I fear something just because I made a neutral comment on the topic...I guess, nowadays you must be pro or contra, rep or dem, right or left, is that how far it has come with ATS?

I bet it´s because of all this political bs going on since nearly two years. That´s why everyone constantly needs to put others into camps and groups and if someone disagrees, he must be from an "opposing" group.



edit on 21-11-2017 by verschickter because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 21 2017 @ 10:33 PM
link   
We need an honest government to set safety standards. Good luck with that.
GET OUT OF TOWN!



new topics

top topics



 
14
<<   2 >>

log in

join