Is 5G killing trees?

a reply to: LookingAtMars

get an angle grinder and take that lampost down

or EMP the thing !

a reply to: sapien82

why the hell are you advocating criminal damage against an instalation that is :

1 - not a 5g tranceiver

2 - not responsible for the death of one tree

a reply to: ignorant_ape

WHY , because I have had enough of these #s taking the piss out of us for profit !
and action speaks louder than words , if we dont take back our planet , it will be too late and I am willing to risk my life and liberty to save the planet , I already risk my liberty every time I paint illegally on walls across Scotland , so why not risk it for the world!



Well if it was a 5G mast , then there is plenty of evidence to suggest it is harmful to life

over 215 scientists from 40 different countries have appealed to the United Nations for urgent action to reduce the EMF (electromagnetic field) exposure emitting from wireless sources. These scientists also submitted a letter to the FCC, asking the body to consider health risks and environmental issues before rapidly deploying 5th generation wireless infrastructure. All of these scientists have conducted EMF studies and published their results in peer-reviewed journals that show adverse biological and health effects caused through EMF sources developed by humans.

So we never asked for these masts to be erected outside our homes and to damage our environment
they are simply to generate cash at the expense of the people and the planet !

Is 5G harmful for humans

Obviously more research is required , but most of the research done was sponsored by the companies who want 5G to be a reality , so they are more likely to downplay the adverse affects

So aye , cut the #in things down , # those companies
they dont care about you or me or the environment they just care about cash !

So aye , I am advocating to damage them , because they dont care about us , its just a #in piece of metal mate
no harm caused, no suffering , If I were to go and cut it down , no one would be worse off , accept maybe a corporation who paid for it , but havent paid their corporate tax to the government so all is fair in love and war !

tear them all down !

a reply to: flyandi

It's not about short term exposures it's about long term exposures. It's a slow silent killer over 10 years of being bathed in pulsed signals all around us. Most of this Wifi only been around for 10 years. So it's difficult to extrapolate the outcome of the harm of it. From what I have gathered of the controlled studies on rats/mice that the evidence is clear they got cancerous tumors being subject to it over a long period of time.

I thought that maybe the pulse waves was doing something chemically to the cells and ironically that's what it sounds like in their studies in the it's 2 step process instead of a 1 step process that high radiation does. In a way it makes sense. The human body needs sodium so our brain can send electrical pulses down our nerves. If anyone ever made a salt battery that's what it's similar to. With the ph of the blood being more alkali also fights against cancer. Cancer loves an over abundance of acidic sugar levels. Iron in the blood is important for the oxygen to bind to the blood cell so the oxygen can get to where it needs to be for muscles and tissue. To much iron and it's a harmful. So, to much of anything is harmful. Our bodies are like a chemistry lab going on and those levels need to be perfect and within range. When your doctor does a blood test, it's like a window into how healthy you are. They can see quickly if there is something wrong, if something is at abnormal levels. It's hard to say if it's harmful or not, but I believe that if was harmful, then it is highly likely to take years. The human body is very good and compensating underlining issues until one day BAM you drop dead from a heart attack.

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: sapien82

why the hell are you advocating criminal damage against an instalation that is :

1 - not a 5g tranceiver

2 - not responsible for the death of one tree

Correction.

Half a tree.

Coz you know, the living side of that tree hasn't been exposed to the exact amount of radiation as the dead side because....magic I guess?

a reply to: sean

Oh absolute agree with you - we don't have enough data to make those decision that's why I believe that they deliberately choose short term exposure studies because that's the only way to they can show "Hey we tested and it's all good".

Any long term will eventually turn bad.

a reply to: flyandi

Exactly. We could put global warming in that same category. We really are a few degree's from catastrophic proportions. What kind of damage will Fukushima do over a course of 10 years? It's funny a few times I think on ATS I suggested planting more forest of pine tree's. Global warming or not it won't hurt a thing, but can help in many ways. It will help balance out the air we breath and tame the winds with cooler air in the hot summers. Shaded areas under the tree gets blown around in the air and brings the temps down and holds moisture. One country was doing just that dropping tree bomb's with clumps of seeds. Wish I could find the article and post it. It's a simple easy task really and doesn't cost much and you can plant a whole forest in one fly over in a day. Planting tree's the traditional way is tough work. As well as logging, fighting fires, digging fire trails etc. I done a lot of that myself. When I did some logging cutting down old tree's, I firmly believed that we should replenish 2-3 for every old growth cut down. That would make up for the generations lost. we really got to think of these things. All we do is take take take and never put back, you know what I mean??

originally posted by: Chadwickus

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: sapien82

why the hell are you advocating criminal damage against an instalation that is :

1 - not a 5g tranceiver

2 - not responsible for the death of one tree

Correction.

Half a tree.

Coz you know, the living side of that tree hasn't been exposed to the exact amount of radiation as the dead side because....magic I guess?

Wood absorbs 5G. The live side opposite what is said to be a 5G pole is not being hit with the same amount of 5G. Could just be science and not magic. For some it is hard to tell the difference though.

a reply to: LookingAtMars

Oh I see, a tree trunk absorbs all the 5g signal huh? It doesn’t pass through the branches and leaves.

Please share your “science”.

a reply to: Chadwickus

5G Danger: Hundreds Of Respected Scientists Sound The Alarm About Health Effects As 5G Networks Go Up Nationwide

5G waves are “ultra high frequency” and “ultra high intensity”, but they are also easily absorbed by objects such as buildings and trees.

That is why so many smaller 5G poles are needed.
Here is more:

EMF shielding by building materials



And I never said all, though it might, I said less.

Before you go poo-pooing the sources do a little research, it is true.

a reply to: LookingAtMars

You still haven’t explained how it can kill half a tree.

It can’t.

a reply to: Chadwickus

The whole tree is dying per a post in this thread. It has damaged the side by the 5G pole the most. They sound like they know what they were talking about.

It's a maple or a sycamore . All trees produce dead wood but don't usually lose useful portions .

. The tree is not long for this world , should be due to be cut down immediately on safety grounds . It's not in an area that goes unmaintained . The grass is sprayed out underneath . This tells tells you that whatever happened to it, it happened quickly . You'd want to know how long it's been rolled out for there . It might go a year without felling , but in that state (severe bark damage) it wouldnt go unnoticed by council tree surveyors and un as yet sorted out for much longer than that . If it's left that way it's an insurance liability .

You can also tell the two thirds of the tree died off quickly because the thinner ends of the branches are unusually still in tact in comparison to the normal state of bark degradation over time - the thinner dead wood blows off easily in the wind but hasn't even begun to fall yet .

Without the 5g transmitter next to it you could equate this damage with a large bonfire having burned next to it , damaging most of the side closest to the heat , leaving some active bark away from the source of heat alive protected by the wood of the trunk . It's not spray damage . It could be assumed that disease has taken a large portion but
the protected side is not showing similar symptoms , meaning the problem is not systemic but endemic . More likely to be a local outside cause, but not spray damage .
The major clue is in the bark loss . Children vandals or squirrels can damage bark but not to the extent shown . It has fragmented and fallen off already but the ends haven't fallen off yet , and that's 'not right' . It's not something you'd normally see on dead portions of tree . Portions do die sometimes , but not that quickly . Complete and sudden fragmentation of the bark like that is also very unusual .

What'd normally cause a dieback like that would be cracked or broken limbs , poor pruning skills , or unfortunate accident like being hit with a loading arm . None of that's occured , but the damage looks most similar to fire damage

a reply to: LookingAtMars

lets backtrack to the question :

is the light next to the tree a 5g instalation ???

as you claim it is - lets see your evidence

go ..............

a reply to: ignorant_ape

I am not sure if it is a 5G pole or not hence the Skunk Works. The dude in the video says it is. If you read the thread you will see 5G can look like a lamp post and is being put on lamp posts. I provided a link in the thread showing that at least one city is using posts like this so people don't know it is 5G.

That is a very good question though. I thought maybe someone on that side of the sea could let us know if it was 5G or not.

And I never claimed it was. I asked if 5G was killing trees.

I think the op needs to lay off the Teresa Green

Who?

I don't even know who she is

originally posted by: scolai
a reply to: LookingAtMars

If it kills trees, then it would stand to reason that it would kill other flora too, correct?

Why isn’t the bush directly behind it showing any symptoms of death? What about the grass surrounding it? The plant behind the tree seems to be more dead on the right side of the picture.

Correlation does not equal causation.

P.S. Look up lightning damaged trees on google images.

Wood absorbs 5G so a tree could be damaged by it more than a shrub or grass. I don't know, it could be lightning damage. That is why I asked in the OP: "Any tree experts out there that can tell whats wrong with this tree?"

I do know at a high enough power it does harm cells and at a lower power it can cause pain.

5G Network Uses Same EMF Waves as Pentagon Crowd Control System

I think it is worth looking at. As 5G rolls out I will keep an eye out for poles by trees and others should too. Right now there is just not enough evidence to go by. Correlation does not equal causation, but 5G could be harmful to humans and trees. I think we need to keep an eye on this.

There does not seem to be any trees as close as that one on the other side of the pole. Looks like there are a few, but they are not as close.





And then there is this:

The other problem with 5G - World Domination

While the question if 5G will kill or damage life or even take control of humanity's minds is unclear. There is no question that whoever controls the 5G networks will have vast control over the information of most of the world. Imagine if that turns out to be Google. Right now though it looks like it may be China that is about to dominate the world with 5G.

The internet of things will be everything from sex dolls to headless cars. From your fridge to drones. Even weapon systems will be hooked up to the IoT. It will all be connected by 5G and then it will be more powerful than SkyNet.

This guy put's out a tough argument.