Very dodgy 5g companies that do not exist.

The studies in this previous post address the dangers of non-ionized radiation, aka electro-magnetic waves.

Previous Post

Studies


Who wants to speculate on reasons why a 5G tower installation company would seemingly take extraordinary measures, to seemingly avoid liability? If that is the claim being made.

The address they used was claimed to be a Staples, from the video, but I saw a UPS Store, so I'm guessing they at least set up a receiving address.

Brave AI:

With a mailbox at The UPS Store, you get a real street address, not a P.O. Box number, and can use it as your official mailing address on business cards, websites, marketing materials, and something to give to your customers. You can also receive and have them hold packages from any carrier, including UPS, FedEx, and the US Postal Service.

The UPS Store - Mailboxes

Unlike P.O. Boxes, you’ll get a real street address for your very real small business. Receive packages and mail from all shipping carriers. And because running a 9 to 5 business is not a 9 to 5 job, you’ll have 24-hour access to your mailbox at participating The UPS Store locations. Plus, our expert staff and all of our small business services are on hand to help you be unstoppable.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: annonentity

The problem is you fail to comprehend 5G is a communication medium just like its predecessors.

That employs the use of non-ionizing radiation which does not have enough energy to ionize atoms or molecules.

Meaning it doesn't have sufficient power to remove electrons from atoms or molecules and thus is rather unlikely to cause damage to you or your cells.

The doom porn must flow all the same.

So you're just gonna ignore how plant life around these towers seem to just..... die?

a reply to: jidnum2

If you can show tangible evidence to support the claim that might be nice.

Again the radiofrequency radiation emitted by 5G towers falls within the ""non-ionizing"" part of the electromagnetic spectrum.

Meaning it doesn't have enough energy to cause direct damage to biological tissues like plants the same way ionizing radiation does.

Whats next windmills cause cancer?

a reply to: andy06shake

We have got a mast near us. The plant life is just lush.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Just a quick search dispels such lunacy.






All sorts of different plant life thriving around the local 5G com mast where I hail from.

You want to see it for bees in the summer, they are all over the area, and it does not seem to be affecting them any more than the surrounding plant life.

I will snap a few images next time I'm out with the dog.

It is very common to spray weed killer around utility poles for fire reasons.

a reply to: andy06shake

Again the radiofrequency radiation emitted by 5G towers falls within the ""non-ionizing"" part of the electromagnetic spectrum.

Meaning it doesn't have enough energy to cause direct damage to biological tissues like plants the same way ionizing radiation does.

You're correct that ionizing radiation can do far more damage than non-ionizing radiation, but that doesn't mean that non-ionizing radiation can't do harm.

For starters, amount of energy, and frequency, are different things. We consider light to be mostly harmless, but if it's of enough intensity, or in certain frequencies ranges, it will burn.

There are many factors regarding RF to take in consideration, and many biological systems that could be studied for effects.

I've linked over 500 research studies. (A Google account is needed to view them, unfortunately)

They are grouped into sections like:

Mobile Devices
Mobile Phone Mast
WIFI
Radio Transmitters
Electrical Sensitivity
EEG and Brain Responses

Here's a study I found about WiFi:

Wi-Fi decreases human sperm motility and increases sperm DNA fragmentation

Result(s): Donor sperm samples, mostly normozoospermic, exposed ex vivo during 4 hours to a wireless internet-connected laptop showed a significant decrease in progressive sperm motility and an increase in sperm DNA fragmentation. Levels of dead sperm showed no significant differences between the two groups.

Conclusion(s): To our knowledge, this is the first study to evaluate the direct impact of laptop use on human spermatozoa. Ex vivo exposure of human spermatozoa to a wireless internet-connected laptop decreased motility and induced DNA fragmentation by a nonthermal effect. We speculate that keeping a laptop connected wirelessly to the internet on the lap near the testes may result in decreased male fertility. Further in vitro and in vivo studies are needed to prove this contention.

I'll race you guys to finding a study that shows harmful effects to plant life around cell phone masts, and I'll even give you guys a few hours headstart.

a reply to: IndieA

Buddy the plant life around cell phone masts is doing just fine as is plainly evident by the pictures provided.

I am not going to convince you non-ionizing is harmless any more than you are apt to change my opinion as to the imagined unsubstantiated dangers.

Suffice to say as long as people don't decide to climb the things and hug the directional antenna for extended periods of time I imagine they will be just fine same as the plants, birds, and other animals that survive just fine and exist around the structures.

I've done the dance for several pages, I'm bored now to be honest in this thread, because as usual the doom porn is going nowhere.

Anyhoo I'm away to play in the other playground for a spell.

Enjoy the remainder of the day.

a reply to: andy06shake

Dont play in a playground with a cell tower.....

a reply to: annonentity

Sorry, according to you, how many times over are we all dead, yet?

a reply to: andy06shake

Studies Show Cell Phone Towers Inflict Significant Damage to Trees and Human Health

In a nine-year study on the effect of radiation from cellphone towers on nearby trees, researchers found that the electromagnetic emissions they produce cause ‘high-level damage’ to trees within range of the masts.

The study was conducted in Bamberg and Hallstadt, Germany using over 100 trees. After recording photographic and observational data, along with a measurement of electromagnetic radiation in the area, the scientists found that radiation did cause significant damage to nearby trees.

a reply to: annonentity

With the one case of multiple children at the same school getting cancer, that I have heard about, investigators tracked the cause to water contamination due to a forever chemical being mixed with water used to train firefighters nearby.

But as I mentioned before, there are hundreds of studys on the effects of RF on life.

I found this one especially interesting because, it deals with low level RF, at a certain frequency (microwaves @ 2.45GHz), at a certain pulse rate (500 pps), effecting certain biological process (choline uptake), within specific biological systems (the brain).

Low-level microwave irradiation and central cholinergic systems

Our previous research showed that 45 min of exposure to low-level, pulsed microwaves (2450-MHz, 2-microseconds pulses, 500 pps, whole-body average specific absorption rate 0.6 W/kg) decreased sodium-dependent high-affinity choline uptake in the frontal cortex and hippocampus of the rat. The effects of microwaves on central cholinergic systems were further investigated in this study. Increases in choline uptake activity in the frontal cortex, hippocampus, and hypothalamus were observed after 20 min of acute microwave exposure, and tolerance to the effect of microwaves developed in the hypothalamus, but not in the frontal cortex and hippocampus, of rats subjected to ten daily 20-min exposure sessions.Furthermore, the effects of acute microwave irradiation on central choline uptake could be blocked by pretreating the animals before exposure with the narcotic antagonist naltrexone. In another series of experiments, rats were exposed to microwaves in ten daily sessions of either 20 or 45 min, and muscarinic cholinergic receptors in different regions of the brain were studied by 3H-QNB binding assay. Decreases in concentration of receptors occurred in the frontal cortex and hippocampus of rats subjected to ten 20-min microwave exposure sessions, whereas increase in receptor concentration occurred in the hippocampus of animals exposed to ten 45-min sessions.

Ericsson has been a major contributor to the development of the telecommunications industry and is one of the leaders in 5G.[4]

en.wikipedia.org...

The Wallenberg family's business empire includes holdings in AstraZeneca, Ericsson, Saab and Nasdaq, and is worth 250 billion euros ($278 billion), according to the Financial Times.

The Wallenbergs have been called the Rockefellers, Gettys and Rothschilds of Sweden.

Investor AB owns significant holdings of the following companies. Ownership shares vary from 3%-35% as of 2022.[5]

Investor AB is a Swedish investment and holding company, often considered a de facto conglomerate. One of Sweden's largest companies, Investor AB serves as the investment arm of the prominent Swedish Wallenberg family

That includes Ericsson. It just gets my "oh for f**k sake" brain going when I read these connections. I've got a UK quango company itching to put its crude wifi on a pole, outside my house and neighbourhood, with a dodgy owner and dodgy MPs backing it, with dodgy bribes. The last thing we need regarding our well being and health is technology pushed by dodgy rich power players...

We non-rich dudes, have a hard time, pushing back when this stuff winds up outside pumping its thing... in and around us 24/7...

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Cracka
a reply to: chr0naut
How much oxygen is in the air we breathe? Derrrr

Roughly 21%

Yeah and that isn't blocking chit. Thank you for answering my rhetorical question.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Cracka

The claim that Wi-Fi is a ""significant"" threat to human health is not supported by scientific evidence.

www.canada.ca...
www.healthline.com...-claims
www.gov.uk...

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

originally posted by: IndieA

There's also a significant lack of research regarding the 60GHz frequency, and the fact that it is absorbed by oxygen molecules.

Look what I found:

Evidence for a connection between coronavirus disease-19 and exposure to radiofrequency radiation from wireless communications including 5G


There's this about a frequency close to 60GHz:

Szabo et al. [108] examined the effects of 61.2 GHz exposure on epidermal keratinocytes and found an increase in IL-1b, a pro-inflammatory cytokine.

In short, COVID-19 can lead to immune dysregulation as well as cytokine storms. By comparison, exposure to low-level WCR (wireless communications radiation) as observed in animal studies can also compromise the immune system, with chronic daily exposure producing immunosuppression or immune dysregulation including hyperactivation.

And from the conclusion:

There is a substantial overlap in pathobiology between COVID-19 and WCR exposure. The evidence presented here indicates that mechanisms involved in the clinical progression of COVID-19 could also be generated, according to experimental data, by WCR exposure. Therefore, we propose a link between adverse bioeffects of WCR exposure from wireless devices and COVID-19.

Specifically, evidence presented here supports a premise that WCR and, in particular, 5G, which involves densification of 4G, may have exacerbated the COVID-19 pandemic by weakening host immunity and increasing SARS-CoV-2 virulence by (1) causing morphologic changes in erythrocytes including echinocyte and rouleaux formation that may be contributing to hypercoagulation; (2) impairing microcirculation and reducing erythrocyte and hemoglobin levels exacerbating hypoxia; (3) amplifying immune dysfunction, including immunosuppression, autoimmunity, and hyperinflammation; (4) increasing cellular oxidative stress and the production of free radicals exacerbating vascular injury and organ damage; (5) increasing intracellular Ca2+ essential for viral entry, replication, and release, in addition to promoting pro-inflammatory pathways; and (6) worsening heart arrhythmias and cardiac disorders.

originally posted by: jidnum2

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: annonentity

The problem is you fail to comprehend 5G is a communication medium just like its predecessors.

That employs the use of non-ionizing radiation which does not have enough energy to ionize atoms or molecules.

Meaning it doesn't have sufficient power to remove electrons from atoms or molecules and thus is rather unlikely to cause damage to you or your cells.

The doom porn must flow all the same.

So you're just gonna ignore how plant life around these towers seem to just..... die?

yes so does plant life around phone company landline buildings.
the phone companys spray herbicides (think roundup) around there building to stop ground fires from damageing the buildings.

originally posted by: Cracka

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Cracka
a reply to: chr0naut
How much oxygen is in the air we breathe? Derrrr

Roughly 21%

Yeah and that isn't blocking chit. Thank you for answering my rhetorical question.

You are welcome.

The interaction of the inverse square law and the 21% oxygen content of the atmosphere means that 60 GHz RF signal is attenuated in power over a 10 meter distance by 398,384 Watts.

In an easy to imagine analogue, it would be equivalent to a 400,000 Watt highway street lamp being barely able to light up the ground at the base of the light pole (to give a 'real world' comparison, efficient LED street lamps that are currently used to light 4 lane highways are rated at about 100 watts).

So, blocked, it is.

a reply to: chr0naut

As far as I know, cell towers are not transmitting at 60GHz, the other frequencies travel further, and those frequencies are what was studied in the research paper linked above.

When 60GHz is used, it's for short range transmission and usually between much smaller devices than cell towers. I'm a little concerned about these devices being in places like, bedrooms, living rooms, and hospital rooms.

Just as I wouldn't want to climb an active cell tower, I wouldn't want to be living within feet of one of these 5G transmitters.

originally posted by: IndieA
a reply to: chr0naut

As far as I know, cell towers are not transmitting at 60GHz, the other frequencies travel further, and those frequencies are what was studied in the research paper linked above.

When 60GHz is used, it's for short range transmission and usually between much smaller devices than cell towers. I'm a little concerned about these devices being in places like, bedrooms, living rooms, and hospital rooms.

Just as I wouldn't want to climb an active cell tower, I wouldn't want to be living within feet of one of these 5G transmitters.

I totally agree, and have previously posted that the 60 GHz bands were more theoretical than practical, and that no cell towers are currently broadcasting at 60 GHz.

I explained the issue was due to the attenuation of RF at the frequencies around 60 GHz, making it impractical for cell tower type communication.

I also know of no retail equipment available yet for use with frequencies towards the top of the 5G spec.