Study: 5G causes Microwave Syndrome.

a reply to: Wide-Eyes

This isn't even a matter of scientific debate, and it's easy to verify in a lab.

a reply to: rickymouse

You do not have to directly change DNA to cause changes, all you have to do is alter gene expression with the frequency.

The science on this is well known, it's been known for decades. The frequencies simply aren't high enough. 5G uses non-ionizing radiation, it doesn't interact with DNA and it doesn't interact with the enzymes in your body.

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
a reply to: Wide-Eyes

This isn't even a matter of scientific debate, and it's easy to verify in a lab.

You won't hear the buzz in the lab.

I hope it stops tonight.

Perhaps it was a trial run and they were still collating the results.

a reply to: AaarghZombies

originally posted by: AaarghZombies

originally posted by: nugget1
a reply to: Sander1976
The human body is only capable of so many chemical and environmental assaults before it can no longer survive. We're getting to a tipping point where only the most hardy of our species will be forging ahead to the future; let's hope it's not the politicians and world leaders that are allowing/creating the perfect storm.

What you're doing is the equivalent of saying that if you stand out in the rain for enough time you'll eventually drown.

And if you throw in hail, high winds, maybe a tornado and 7 point quake your chances of death just rose exponentially.

This a really good paper.

Several studies have reported that exposure to EMF results in oxidative stress in many tissues of the body. Exposure to EMF is known to increase free radical concentrations and traceability and can affect the radical couple recombination.

[www.sciencedirect.com...]

they said more or less the same about 2G, 3G and 4G. I've also heard similar things being said about home wifi and the signal used for digital tv.

It's just more doom porn.

Have cancer and autism increased since 2G was fired up?

And you will drown eventually that rain will cause a puddle over your head and you will die.

If the cause of death is an effect of an action so be it.

a reply to: AaarghZombies

a reply to: Sander1976

As I don't know Swedish I don't know what the study really says, but talking about "5G radiation" is a sign of either lack of technical knowledge or intention to mislead, as there's no such thing as "5G radiation".

5G uses several frequencies, including the ones already used by 4G, and it uses some new frequencies. If some of those frequencies do affect humans then they should say which ones, not say that 5G radiation affects humans.

originally posted by: ArMaP
a reply to: Sander1976

As I don't know Swedish I don't know what the study really says, but talking about "5G radiation" is a sign of either lack of technical knowledge or intention to mislead, as there's no such thing as "5G radiation".

5G uses several frequencies, including the ones already used by 4G, and it uses some new frequencies. If some of those frequencies do affect humans then they should say which ones, not say that 5G radiation affects humans.

Huh? Anything that "radiates" or emits frequencies of any kind is emitting radiation. An AM-FM station transmits "radiation" to your radio receiver.

It doesn't need to be neutron radiation from plutonium to be called and referred to as radiation. There is definitely 5G radiation. 5G wouldn't even work unless there was.

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
a reply to: rickymouse

We are messing with things that have not properly been assessed. Just changing a few enzymes can change how we think and repair ourselves.

The frequencies used in 5G aren't high enough to do that, they're not able to interfere with DNA bonds or replication. This is actually pretty easy to assess and can be done in the labs of most university science departments using only basic equipment.

People have been making claims like this for decades, they said more or less the same about 2G, 3G and 4G. I've also heard similar things being said about home wifi and the signal used for digital tv.

It's just more doom porn.

There might be more to it.

Quirk, a former NASA scientist, says he may resurrect the bill that was recently vetoed by governor Brown.

“I know scientifically that putting up these cell phone towers is safe,” he said.

But the International Association of Firefighters disagrees. It began opposing cell towers on fire stations, after firefighters complained of health problems.

“These firefighters developed symptoms,” says Dr. Gunnar Heuser who conducted a pilot study on firefighters at a station with cell towers.

“The symptoms included problems with memory, problems with intermittent confusion, problems with weakness,” Heuser said. Heuser says their brain scans suggest even low-level RF can cause cell damage and he worries about more vulnerable groups like kids.

“We found abnormal brain function in all of the firefighters we examined,” Heuser said.

So, following lobbying by firefighters, assemblyman Quirk and his co-author exempted fire stations from their bill, making them one place cell companies couldn’t put a tower.

sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com...

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
There is definitely 5G radiation. 5G wouldn't even work unless there was.

Actually, 5G is a protocol which uses the existing frequencies and some additional higher frequencies. It doesn't emit anything.

Using your AM-FM radio example, it would be like saying your local rock station is emitting rock radiation which is worse for humans than the smooth jazz radiation on some other part of the radio spectrum.

a reply to: Sander1976

Wuhan had a few 5G 'pilot' sites starting April-May 2018 and those pilot sites provided inner city coverage of Wuhan by 18 October, 2019.

But the alleged correlation between COVID-19 and 5G is irrelevant because there is no way that something the size of a virus could measure enough electrical signal (potential difference) to do anything effective.

An efficient aerial is usually the size of the wavelength of the frequency it measures - organized as a dipole (two half wavelength 'wires', electrically separated from each other). This is so that one part of the aerial is immersed in the 'peak' part of the waveform, and the other part of aerial is immersed in the 'trough' part of the waveform. This represents the maximum voltage potential difference between the two 'poles' at any one moment.

Generally the higher a frequency is, the shorter its wavelength is. This changes slightly depending upon the media the waveform propagates through, but with most electromagnetic signals like radio, the propagation is close to the speed of light, so wavelengths don't vary that much.

The highest frequency proposed for 5G is 95 GHz (this is proposed, but is currently impractical), which has a wavelength of about 3.2 millimeters, or 0.032 of a meter. So an optimal antenna for this frequency would be equivalent to that wavelength. For all the other wavelengths, of all the other 5G frequencies, the length would be even longer.

A virus is a nano-particle, which means that the size is in the range of 0.000,000,001 to 0.000,000,999 of a meter in size. Normally, the SARS-CoV-2 virus is between 50 and 120 nano-meters in size.

So, a 120 nano-meter virus would need to be roughly 267,000 times bigger for it to efficiently fit between the peak of the waveform and the trough of the waveform. This means that it is impossible for anything the size of a virus to measure an electrical potential difference, and to either send, or receive, anything at even the highest proposed 5G frequency.

Therefore it is totally implausible that there is a relationship between 5G and the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

Similarly, the power outputs suggested for 5G in some publications are ludicrously overstated, and would require entire power stations dedicated to only a few 5G towers to achieve. Current cellphone tower maximum power limits for the US are 100W in city areas and 500W in rural areas. Normally, actual outputs are only 1/10th of that maximum and dynamically change to save power efficiently. There are light globes available for use in the home that exceed those power levels!

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
a reply to: Wide-Eyes

This isn't even a matter of scientific debate, and it's easy to verify in a lab.

You won't hear the buzz in the lab.

I hope it stops tonight.

The lowest radio signal is way above the threshold of human hearing.

If you have tinnitus, it is probably indicative of hearing damage due to exposure to excessively loud sound levels.

I would suggest that you visit an audiologist if you are having some sort of auditory disturbance.

a reply to: nugget1

I Suspect that Personal Electro Magnetic Force Fields will become All the Rage in the 2030's Once Some Smart Guy Invents them ........Hmm...

originally posted by: AaarghZombies
a reply to: Sander1976

This isn't a study, it's an editorial posted on the website of an anti-5G pressure group called "The Protection Foundation".

It's a conspiracy website that is currently attempting to connect 5G with "Havana Syndrome".

This particular document contains almost no valid research, just a series of accusations, and what research it does contain is largely irrelevant or is being misused.

For example, it does not adequately differentiate between power and frequency, and tried to attribute the effects of ionizing radiation to non-ionizing radiation.

It's doom porn.

In New Zealand, we have had a number of cellphone towers vandalized by the anti-5G people. The funny thing is that none of the vandalized towers were 5G.

We only have a couple of 5G hot-spots in central Auckland and in central Christchurch. None out in the 'burbs, where the attacks took place. The Luddite vandals couldn't even use a coverage map, LOL.

(Also, *hint* if it looks like a big ol' cell tower, it probably isn't 5G. They are smaller, closer together, and closer to the ground. They look more like WiFi AP's).

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
There is definitely 5G radiation. 5G wouldn't even work unless there was.

Actually, 5G is a protocol which uses the existing frequencies and some additional higher frequencies. It doesn't emit anything.

Using your AM-FM radio example, it would be like saying your local rock station is emitting rock radiation which is worse for humans than the smooth jazz radiation on some other part of the radio spectrum.

That's baloney. Radiation isn't always harmful. Like a radiator that heats. 5G systems incorporate all kinds of things to do the job it was designed to do, and EMITS signals. Any signal from 0 Hz to cosmic rays is a "radiation of energy". By the way, I have a degree in electronics and know all about these technologies.


Your use of my AM-FM example is hilarious. It shows you have no science knowledge whatsoever. AM and FM radio signals are not a part of the sound you hear coming from the speakers. Your reply wins an award for not thinking a little longer.

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
There is definitely 5G radiation. 5G wouldn't even work unless there was.

Actually, 5G is a protocol which uses the existing frequencies and some additional higher frequencies. It doesn't emit anything.

Using your AM-FM radio example, it would be like saying your local rock station is emitting rock radiation which is worse for humans than the smooth jazz radiation on some other part of the radio spectrum.

That's baloney. Radiation isn't always harmful. Like a radiator that heats. 5G systems incorporate all kinds of things to do the job it was designed to do, and EMITS signals. Any signal from 0 Hz to cosmic rays is a "radiation of energy". By the way, I have a degree in electronics and know all about these technologies.


Your use of my AM-FM example is hilarious. It shows you have no science knowledge whatsoever.

Glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) is the most commonly occurring malignant primary brain tumor, representing 77%-81% of all primary malignant tumors of the central nervous system (CNS) [1]. It is classified as a grade IV diffuse astrocytic and oligodendroglial tumor by the World Health Organization [2]. The mean age of primary GBM presentation is 62 years, and the median survival is approximately 14.6 months [1,3]. The poor prognosis associated with GBM is well documented, while survival rates remain disappointingly low despite medical and surgical advances.

International studies reveal an approximate annual incidence rate of 0.59 to 5 per 100,000 persons; however, there have been studies indicating a rise in incidence [4-8]. Miranda-Filho et al. in 2017 described increasing rates of CNS and brain cancers in countries in South America, Eastern Europe and Southern Europe, while decreasing rates were only reported in Japan [9]. Dobes et al. in 2011 have also noted an increasing incidence of GBM tumors in two of their multicentered Australian studies, with a particular increase in frontal and temporal lobe GBM tumors [10].

The reasons for this increase in incidence are yet to be determined, and only possible causal factors can be postulated.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

There's a definitive increase in brain cancers.

Real-world cell phone radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposures

Abstract:

In 2011 the International Agency for Research on Cancer classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF EMF) from cell phones as possibly carcinogenic to humans. The National Toxicology Program and the Ramazzini Institute have both reported that RF EMF exposures significantly increase gliomas and Schwannomas of the heart in rodent studies. Recent studies indicate that RF EMF exposures from cell phones have negative impacts on animal cells and cognitive and/or behavioral development in children. Case-control epidemiological studies have found evidence for cell phone use and increased risk for glioma and localization of the glioma associated with the consistent exposure site of regular cell phone use. Understanding the exposure level, or power density, from RF EMF emitted by cell phones under real-world usage and signal reception conditions, as distinct from the published measurements of maximum Specific Absorption Rate values, may help cell phone users decide whether to take behavioral steps to reduce RF EMF exposure. Exposure measurements were conducted on phone models from four major mobile network operators (MNOs) in the USA for calls received under strong and weak reception signal conditions, near the phone face and at several distances up to 48 cm. RF EMF exposure from all phones was found to be greater under weak (1-2 display bars) than under strong (4-5 display bars) reception signal conditions by up to four orders of magnitude. Notably, RF EMF exposure levels under weak reception signal conditions at a distance of 48 cm from the phone were similar to or greater than those detected under strong reception signal conditions at a distance of 4 cm. Under weak reception signal conditions, power density reductions of up to 90% occurred at 16 cm typical for speaker phone or texting over the 4 cm near-ear exposure. The results of this investigation of second-generation (2G) technology suggest that reduced and precautionary use of cell phones under weak signal conditions could lower a user's RF EMF exposure by up to several orders of magnitude. Bluetooth headset power density exposures were 10-400 times lower than those of the cell phones to which they were connected and dependent on the headset rather than the connected phone. The results of this study informed the development of public health guidance regarding cell phone use.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

RF-EMF: Abbrevation for “radiofrequency electromagnetic fields”. Emission of electromagnetic radiation from radiofrequency waves.

Common EMF sources are power and transmission lines, internal building wiring system, electrical panels, transformers, motors and appliances.

Common RF sources are radio and tv transmissions, mobile towers and antennas, mobile phones, wireless computer networks (WLAN) and radar equipment.

www.investigate-europe.eu... k55J42LlhRKQmJdtlbRKVRpXJgns2YXLat4q5Mur83l5_KuTcji_SxoC9O8QAvD_BwE

a reply to: StoutBroux

Agreed.

It's quite easy as well to link big tech lobbyists and politics to the silencing of debate about these kinds of concerns about health and safety related to these newer technologies, but there are too many knowledge based voices to stop it all.

The subject about health and safety is brought up daily in colleges and universities all around the planet in electronics classes, and any other technology, so there definitely is debate and discussion about 5G systems. Some here that don't believe 5G systems "emit" anything can go pitch a tent on top a tower or next to a 5G FR2 base station and prove wrong all those concerns.

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
Your use of my AM-FM example is hilarious. It shows you have no science knowledge whatsoever. AM and FM radio signals are not a part of the sound you hear coming from the speakers. Your reply wins an award for not thinking a little longer.

That was the point, 5G isn't the radio waves, it is the protocol. Just like the music coming out of the speakers of a radio are not the radio waves, also AM and FM are also not the radio waves either but how these waves are modulated, amplitude or frequency.

What's next claiming your monitor is emitting http radiation or maybe html radiation?

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
Your use of my AM-FM example is hilarious. It shows you have no science knowledge whatsoever. AM and FM radio signals are not a part of the sound you hear coming from the speakers. Your reply wins an award for not thinking a little longer.

That was the point, 5G isn't the radio waves, it is the protocol. Just like the music coming out of the speakers of a radio are not the radio waves, also AM and FM are also not the radio waves either but how these waves are modulated, amplitude or frequency.

What's next claiming your monitor is emitting http radiation or maybe html radiation?

Um, yeah we are talking about 5G but not the protocol moniker, that's on you. You made it suddenly about the term 5G as a protocol, but the OP isn't about that. It IS about the "waves". Read the thread title.