It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 26 2019 @ 05:57 PM
Can't we just skip 5G and go straight to Quantum?

posted on Oct, 26 2019 @ 06:41 PM
Sounds like there will be a demand for Faraday Rooms that block all RF signals. Any computer systems in a Faraday Room could be wired with Ethernet cables from a connection outside the room. Cellphones could be wired to an antenna outside the room to provide a cellphone connection. Electronics like computers in the room could be further shielded in a cubical within the room. You could reduce your exposure to very low levels that way.

I have this cheap portable multi-band radio that receives FM, AM and ten shortwave bands. It gets cross frequency interference and it's pretty sensitive to strong signals. On SW frequencies, I can use it to locate RF radiation from electrical wiring to appliances. You can't tell how strong it is, but you can hear it and locate it with the telescoping antenna.
edit on 26-10-2019 by MichiganSwampBuck because: Added extra comments

edit on 26-10-2019 by MichiganSwampBuck because: Typo

posted on Oct, 26 2019 @ 06:49 PM
a reply to: MichiganSwampBuck

And protect your electronics from a EMP or CME.

You can order metallic mesh sheets to do it with.

posted on Oct, 26 2019 @ 06:53 PM
It will be a must for a panic room or a bomb shelter type bunker.

It could be a trendy "Quiet Room" that blocks sound and RF signals, like a den or retreat.

posted on Oct, 26 2019 @ 10:16 PM
Probably dumb but, can you make clothing out of those mesh sheets? Or are we all f*&%*ed?

posted on Oct, 26 2019 @ 10:37 PM

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
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.

Just buy a 5G baby monitor for your new baby. Test...

posted on Oct, 27 2019 @ 12:11 AM
a reply to: Starcrossd

Yes they sell some you can line clothing with on Amazon. They also sell caps lined with the mesh. Someone did a thread on the cap a year or so ago.

posted on Oct, 27 2019 @ 12:44 AM
a reply to: LookingAtMars

Too Little, Too Late, ever wonder if all those loonies with there fear of secret weaponized EM devices targeting the public and culling the population were right, well even if they were not this is exactly that even if there is not a deliberate effort to do so behind it.

5G Goes well beyond internationally recognized danger boundary's for EM radiation yet because there is money changing hand's EVERYONE except a few of the potential victims' of this vile activity is turning a blind eye to it.

The answer is simple, much harder to implement but simple update those fiber optic connections and get back to rolling them out as they were before 5G was offered as a cheaper alternative, they are superior to 5G and not prone to interference, they can also be liked to 3G and even (Still dangerous but no where near as bad as 5G which even kill's tree's) 4G wireless.

5G is not necessary there are other ultra high speed methods but greed win's as they are more costly, dangerously toxic in it's affects to living organism's but of course corporations don't have ethic's even though for legal reason's they are recognized as individual's - if they were individual's almost to a man they would be in secure psychiatric facility's or prison's for there many crime's against humanity.

Stopping 5G is going to be like trying to stop Greed because that is the driving force behind it.

edit on 27-10-2019 by LABTECH767 because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 27 2019 @ 01:57 AM
a reply to: LABTECH767

5G is not necessary there are other ultra high speed methods but greed win's as they are more costly

Fiber is not going to run a self driving car or drone. Fiber is not going connect to AR glasses. They need a high bandwidth wireless connection for this and other newer tech.

posted on Oct, 27 2019 @ 03:34 PM
a reply to: LookingAtMars

Indeed but 5G is in no way necessary for that either.

posted on Oct, 27 2019 @ 04:59 PM
a reply to: LABTECH767

Are there other ways can you send that much data without that kind of RF?

edit on 27-10-2019 by LookingAtMars because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 27 2019 @ 05:14 PM
[post]originally posted by: LookingAtMars

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.

So this PhD has been warning us for 10 years yet nothing has changed. I would say his distrust of 5G won't lead to much.

edit on 10-27-2019 by LogicalGraphitti because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 27 2019 @ 06:51 PM
Inverse square law...
The phone against your ear is far more exposure than what you'll get from the tower unless you're determined enough to go climbing the tower in order to get that warm and fuzzy feeling.

posted on Oct, 27 2019 @ 08:45 PM
a reply to: LABTECH767

No it does not people just make stuff up. First lets get back to reality its not beyond internationally recognized danger boundary's for EM radiation. I dont know where you heard that where you aware weather monitoring stations use the same frequencies?? Its non ionizing radiation meaning its the equivalent of visable light. It cant even penetrate the skin. So about the worst it could do is give you a heat rash.

Just so you know 4g would actually be more dangerous because it requires significantly stronger signals. But even that damage is to skin and eyes. Think of looking at the sun its the uv rays that hurt you.

Where you aware you can buy rf heaters for your home? You can use any rf signal to produce heat .

If you have an induction range in your kitchen you are using radio frequencies to heat the pan. This is thousands of times stronger than the 5 g signal.

posted on Oct, 28 2019 @ 08:14 AM
a reply to: dragonridr

Sorry you are wrong (in my opinion).

Now YES they used to say going over 20 miles per hour would be lethal to a human being, they said we could never break the sound barrier and if we did it would kill the pilot etc, etc but this is based on solid scientific rational and mounting evidence.

Ever heard of Electromagnetic inductance - do you even know what that mean's, if not then we may as well forget this conversation.

Natural radio waves are present, FM and AM radio waves are present and Micro Wave radiation both natural and artificial is present throughout the universe.

But the way we modulate those waves, the carrier frequency, the amplitude and the environmental saturation make many of these signals' dangerous.

We are an Electrochemical organism, radio frequency inductance can interfere with and cause errors in many of our natural biological process even to the point of potentially causing damage in genetic replication process, inducing nausea and potentially triggering tumour's.

There is mounting evidence and it is going to be like the Cigarette industry in the future with litigation and counter litigation as the victim's eventually take the cell phone company's to the court's, in fact why do you think some Swedish company's got out of the game in the 90's and sold there assets to the Japanese - because they feared the ethical ramifications of evidence that was mounting EVEN THEN but has since been suppressed or countered with private studies much as happened in the tobacco industry's day's of financial power.

Peer Review is always going to be problematic as after all who is paying there salaries and whom is paying for the studies into the danger.

Economic forces are driving governments to allow this technology even when it may prove harmful for fear that without it there economy's will lag behind technologically with severe impacts on them.

In the UK police used to carry there radio's on there belt's usually in front or behind there kidney's - these operated at a lower frequency than the current model's, a study of police officers whom had worn these always on devices for showed that among serving and former officers there was a notable increase in Cancer's of there kidney's and pancreas.

Now they wear there updated models on there upper chest.

There is absolutely no point listing studies but you can if you want too.

Needless to say you are wrong.

As for Induction ranges in the Kitchen I have heavily shielded microwave oven AND an old style electrical oven whose frequency's as you know over here in the UK are 230+/- (rms) volts at just 50 hz while over there in the states, japan and other places is usually about 120 volts at about 60 hz, in the case of old style resistive heat element's, they are only on for a short time each day and the lonest the cooker is on would be to cook a joint of meat or a bird in the oven, all main's sources are dirty BUT they are no where near as dangerous as 5G, also people living near to electrical train line's and power pylon's do have a slight increase in leukemia and cancers though that one is very debatable as there are usually other environmental factors at play such as semi rural environment's and industrial zone's were agricultural chemical's and other pollutant's could skew such research.

edit on 28-10-2019 by LABTECH767 because: (no reason given)

posted on Oct, 28 2019 @ 03:24 PM
Using Scientific American as an 'argument from authority' doesn't bolster the 5G argument at all. It's cherry picking one article that the magazine does NOT STAND BEHIND. Here is what SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN has to say about that article:

Don't fall prey to scaremongering about 5-g

In a recent opinion piece for Scientific American, Joel M. Moskowitz warned of the ostensible dangers of radio-frequency (RF) radiation, stating bluntly that 5G technology could be dangerous, causing cancers and untold harm. Moskowitz concluded by insisting readers join his fellow activists petitioning against the new technology. His piece has resonated with the anti-5G movement, generating heated discussion online—but, alas, it is one that pivots on fringe views and fatally flawed conjecture, attempting to circumvent scientific consensus with scaremongering.

Firstly, science is not conducted by petition or arguments to authority; it is decided solely on strength of evidence. And claims such as Moskowitz’s are a complete misrepresentation of the evidence base. Far from being a harbinger of medical woe, the scientific consensus points starkly in the opposite direction. A multitude of quality studies conducted over the past few decades have found no measurable detrimental effect of RF radiation (RFR) on human health. In the words of the World Health Organization, “a large number of studies have been performed over the last two decades to assess whether mobile phones pose a potential health risk. To date, no adverse health effects have been established as being caused by mobile phone use.”

On the strength of epidemiological evidence, cancer fears are dangerously misguided: While American cell-phone usage has grown from virtually zero in 1992 to virtually 100 percent by 2008, there has been no indication that glioma rates have increased proportionally in the same period—a nonrelationship replicated by numerous other studies. Of course, not all studies are created equal. In biomedical science in general, low-quality, poorly controlled studies are far more likely to see ostensible effects than high-quality investigations, and RF research is no different. Many of the studies Moskowitz linked to are of poor quality, and more tellingly, at least one he listed flatly contradict his dire assertions.

posted on Oct, 28 2019 @ 06:39 PM
Like many things that are potentially hazardous, it may well be too late when we find out if it was. Roundup, cigarettes, even more recently vaping. Little testing, just roll it out, and watch people die. Just as people now are saying there is no basis in the worries of 5G, so sat a row of very learned scientists in front of court many years ago, swearing that smoking was perfectly safe - and the public believed them. Why would they lie? They were respected scientists, after all. Well.. money is why.

My biggest worry is saturation and exposure. Right now, towers can be a fair bit away. With 5G there could very well be a cell tower on every single street corner. If not in a very rural area, you will be exposed, whether you like it or not. And I'm a tech guy, and highly supportive of newer and faster bandwidth alternatives. But I think 5G was rolled out far too quickly, without any real testing to speak of. And they will do it again with 6G.. and 7G. And people will just accept it.

posted on Oct, 28 2019 @ 06:48 PM
Yes. So it does.
How are you going to stop it?
Posting it on ATS?..
Trust me. There are much greater dangers.

posted on Oct, 29 2019 @ 06:24 AM
a reply to: LookingAtMars

Very much not the same thing at all though.

posted on Oct, 29 2019 @ 11:14 AM

originally posted by: LookingAtMars
a reply to: LABTECH767

Are there other ways can you send that much data without that kind of RF?

May just be people jumping on the bandwagon or maybe it is genuine but there is a growing movement against 5G around the world as people become more educated to the potential dangers of involuntary constant exposure to high frequency radiation.

So do Neonicotinoids let's not forget that.

But back to 5G.

As soon as the investors and corporate boards start to realize the damage they are doing to there company's and the lucrative ethical alternative market with it's equal or even greater profit's they may even bow to this pressure and draw back from the 5G precipice or we can hope so.

At the moment as government's back the technology the momentum will continue but as the public become clued up and more informed the momentum will go into reverse and eventually 5G may even be removed except were it is used in big brother surveillance or were large investment's already made may argue to keep such already present systems in place however the evidence against it IS mounting.

Even older style 4G and 3G which most of us use in our home wireless network's may also be potentially harmful but they are no were near the danger potential of 5G to living organism's in close proximity to the transceivers.

And back to 5G and some more interesting viewing.

Political debate in the UK BUT remember that business interests will often over rule public safety concern's - worryingly - still a great debate.

Of course there are Video's and articles arguing in Favor of 5G, perhaps you could do a post listing some of those to balance this one.

But perhaps you should read these first.

Now here is the point to think about, the elite only want there hedge fund's to blossom and grow so they get wealthier, the hedge fund's are major investors in the wireless communications industry but these wireless communications providers are one day DEFINITELY going to go the way of the Tobacco industry IN SPITE of the fact that in the US for example law's designed to PROTECT corporations against future litigation are getting past the US senate and already have at an alarming rate all of which endanger the US and international general public and all of which erode the right's of the individual citizens in favor or protecting investment's for those hedge fund's in these corporate entity's.

There is no Smoke without fire.
edit on 29-10-2019 by LABTECH767 because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in