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.

 

Oldest U.S. Monthly Magazine, Scientific American, Warns of 5G

page: 1
29
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:
+5 more 
posted on Oct, 26 2019 @ 01:38 PM
link   


In an article published October 17 entitled, We Have No Reason to Believe 5G is Safe, Scientific American (SciAm) magazine released a chilling warning about the known and potential dangers of rapidly developing 5G technology.

This is particularly important considering that SciAm is the oldest continuously published monthly magazine in the United States. Founded in 1845 by inventor and publisher Rufus M. Porter, and running monthly since 1921, their reputation has been rigorously tested through the passage of time.

Today, SciAm has become a highly influential publication, known for its uncompromising scientific standards and is celebrated by “fact-checkers” as impeccably credible and staunchly pro-science.


Oldest U.S. Monthly Magazine, Scientific American, Warns of 5G

I have been concerned about 5G for a while. Not really sure if it is a danger. There is so much information about 5G that is contradictive that it has been hard to determine fact from fiction.

Lately, there has been more and more information released to the public showing that it is harmful. SciAm publishing this warning of the real and potential dangers of 5G. Has pushed me off the fence and onto the side of it being a true danger.

There is no way to stop it now. Too much money has been invested by too many too big to fail companies. Not only the companies that are making and selling 5G. There are also companies that need 5G bandwidth for their cutting edge and developing tech.


edit on 26-10-2019 by LookingAtMars because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 26 2019 @ 01:52 PM
link   
a reply to: LookingAtMars

They are not saying it is harmful. They are saying it may be harmful, and we don't know because there have been no real studies.

All very true.



posted on Oct, 26 2019 @ 01:54 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

They are saying both.


released a chilling warning about the known and potential dangers


ETA-
This is one known danger.


The FCC’s RFR exposure limits regulate the intensity of exposure, taking into account the frequency of the carrier waves, but ignore the signaling properties of the RFR. Along with the patterning and duration of exposures, certain characteristics of the signal (e.g., pulsing, polarization) increase the biologic and health impacts of the exposure.



edit on 26-10-2019 by LookingAtMars because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2019 @ 02:16 PM
link   
a reply to: LookingAtMars

Increasing the risk .. but the risk is unknown, so it can't be known what the increased risk is.

I am in no way saying there are not risks. The problem is it has not been studied so no one can say it is unsafe, or safe.

What we can say is there is the potential for it to be unsafe and it has not been studied. That's a real problem.



posted on Oct, 26 2019 @ 02:18 PM
link   
a reply to: LookingAtMars

It is not a SciAm article but an opinion piece posted on SciAm website.

blogs.scientificamerican.com...

The views expressed are those of the author(s) and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.



posted on Oct, 26 2019 @ 02:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: moebius
a reply to: LookingAtMars

It is not a SciAm article but an opinion piece posted on SciAm website.

blogs.scientificamerican.com...

The views expressed are those of the author(s) and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.


That is a good point. SciAm opinion pieces are always very pro-science and credible, though.

The Author:


Joel M. Moskowitz

Joel M. Moskowitz, PhD, is director of the Center for Family and Community Health in the School of Public Health at the University of California, Berkeley. He has been translating and disseminating the research on wireless radiation health effects since 2009 after he and his colleagues published a review paper that found long-term cell phone users were at greater risk of brain tumors. His Electromagnetic Radiation Safety website has had more than two million page views since 2013. He is an unpaid advisor to the International EMF Scientist Appeal and Physicians for Safe Technology.



posted on Oct, 26 2019 @ 02:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: LookingAtMars

They are not saying it is harmful. They are saying it may be harmful, and we don't know because there have been no real studies.

All very true.


There have been some studies. Unfortunately most of them are like this.

Intel Study Finds 5G will Drive $1.3 Trillion in New Revenues in Media and Entertainment Industry by 2028



posted on Oct, 26 2019 @ 02:42 PM
link   
Of course it's gonna eff with us. It's only debatable to what degree. See Becker et al. Yay, science in service to the national security state. Not.



posted on Oct, 26 2019 @ 02:43 PM
link   
"A trillion dollars of revenue?

I'll just cover the tumors with $100 bills, no reason to look unsightly."
-5G Companies



posted on Oct, 26 2019 @ 02:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

The problem is it has not been studied so no one can say it is unsafe, or safe.

What we can say is there is the potential for it to be unsafe and it has not been studied. That's a real problem.


That's kind of how it's handled when they know the news won't be good. Any accidentally relevant studies are buried or downplayed and new studies aren't undertaken or designed for desirable outcome. See Monsanto, Tobacco Industry, etc.



posted on Oct, 26 2019 @ 02:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: LookingAtMars

They are not saying it is harmful. They are saying it may be harmful, and we don't know because there have been no real studies.

All very true.


Indeed, and I am old enough to remember when the largest occupational hazard for cops riding in cars was testicular cancer caused by radar guns resting in the officer's crotch. It didn't take long to get the guns dash-mounted, but the fact remains that radiation causes cancer and other diseases in virtually all biological creatures.

So connect the dots, consider the history of corporations selling garbage to the public, and it is 100% certain that 5G will be fabulously harmful to humans.

The magazine is trying to walk the middle line, but political correctness can go too far.



posted on Oct, 26 2019 @ 02:55 PM
link   
a reply to: The GUT




posted on Oct, 26 2019 @ 03:24 PM
link   
a reply to: LookingAtMars

Maybe the inventor of the tin foil hat was ahead of his/her time.

What kind of harm are we talking about? Cancer, fried brain cells, microwaved bodies?



posted on Oct, 26 2019 @ 03:26 PM
link   
Perhaps the day will come, when we will be suffering the non-stop harassement of AI, during the 6G days ?
Perhaps we will look back and say:
"Ah the good old days of 5G. weren't they great ! " ?

Ready for 6G? How AI will shape the network of the future--- MIT Technology Review.


edit on 26-10-2019 by Nothin because: sp



posted on Oct, 26 2019 @ 03:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Tarzan the apeman.

There are types of radiation, and some are more harmful than others. Even the X-Rays at the dentist office are radiation.

EMF Electromagnetic Frequency radiation is what we're dealing with as I understand it.

They have demonstrated how it causes diseases in rats. Depending on a number of facts, it does the same to humans.

But this is to be kept silent by the mainstream media.



posted on Oct, 26 2019 @ 03:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Salander

Thanks for reply. Another question would be could a person measure what a 5G tower is putting out? I'm thinking they could.



posted on Oct, 26 2019 @ 03:49 PM
link   
a reply to: The GUT

Part of the problem is it takes a very long time to test these things. What happens to the US if we remove wifi and cell-phones? 10 years, 20 years, it's a real problem.



posted on Oct, 26 2019 @ 04:58 PM
link   
Back when it started, they knew it was bad,,and then this 5g into the schools and cities is a screaming attrocity

Radar sets ....melt your Hershey bar

I was avionics and radar in the Air Force.....5g is special......specially bad for Orwellian theory

reply to: OccamsRazor04



posted on Oct, 26 2019 @ 05:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Tarzan the apeman.
a reply to: Salander

Thanks for reply. Another question would be could a person measure what a 5G tower is putting out? I'm thinking they could.


There are EMF meter apps for your phone.

Someday soon I am going to check some towers out and see what I can see. The problem is identifying the towers. They all look different.


edit on 26-10-2019 by LookingAtMars because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2019 @ 05:54 PM
link   
a reply to: LookingAtMars
This article is a little bit alarmist for my tastes, but it has some good information in it nonetheless, and is worth the read.

First, it’s important to know that in 2011, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer classified RFR as a potential 2B carcinogen and specified that the use of mobile phones could lead to specific forms of brain tumors. Many studies have associated low-level RFR exposure with a litany of health effects, including:
DNA single and double-strand breaks (which leads to cancer)
oxidative damage (which leads to tissue deterioration and premature ageing)
disruption of cell metabolism
increased blood-brain barrier permeability
melatonin reduction (leading to insomnia and increasing cancer risks)
disruption of brain glucose metabolism
generation of stress proteins (leading to myriad diseases)


Note the word "potential". Not much is definitive at this point, but you can bet any real dangers will be down played for as long as possible. I found this part to be particularly noteworthy regarding prevalence and power requirements.

Here are some numbers to put the dangers of 5G into perspective: as of 2015, there were 308,000 wireless antennas on cell towers and buildings. That’s double the 2002 number. Yet 5G would require exponentially more, smaller ones, placed much closer together, with each emitting bursts of radiofrequency radiation (RFR)–granted, at levels much lower than that of today’s 4G cell towers–that will be much harder to avoid because these towers will be ubiquitous. If we could see the RFR, it would look like a smog that’s everywhere, all the time.

Source
edit on 10/26/2019 by Klassified because: Link

edit on 10/26/2019 by Klassified because: potential, not could




top topics



 
29
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join