The 5G Trojan Horse - If You Don't Read Articles Or Studies, Please Watch This! - Page 3

04-22-2020, 06:21 PM

-

#61

RagnarChadbrok
Registered User

RagnarChadbrok
Registered User

Join Date: Nov 2018

Posts: 5,398

Rep Power: 24375

Originally Posted By RealAesthetic⏩

What’s it like being a pathetic loser and a complete idiot ?

Jesus you 5g conspiritards can’t quit

Aren't you the same clown who negged me for saying shutting down countries over Covid is an overreaction? I guess retards are retarded all across the board. I wonder how a loser like you got green? Probably because there's a lot of other *******s like you on Misc. Also location: Canada

04-22-2020, 06:22 PM

-

#62

RealAesthetic
6’2 225 lean

RealAesthetic
6’2 225 lean

Join Date: Aug 2011

Location: Ontario, Canada

Posts: 20,380

Rep Power: 259389

Originally Posted By RagnarChadbrok⏩

Aren't you the same clown who negged me for saying shutting down countries over Covid is an overreaction? I guess retards are retarded all across the board. I wonder how a loser like you got green? Probably because there's a lot of other *******s like you on Misc. Also location: Canada

No avi - check
Conspiracy theorist pathetic loser - check

I literally don’t care what you think about me lmao

04-22-2020, 06:32 PM

-

#63

BetaAsPhuck
Wage Cuckin' It

BetaAsPhuck
Wage Cuckin' It

Join Date: Mar 2014

Posts: 34,506

Rep Power: 127306

Originally Posted By RealAesthetic⏩

What’s it like being a pathetic loser and a complete idiot ?

Jesus you 5g conspiritards can’t quit

Please articulate, in a few sentences, what you think the documentary has concluded.

I'm willing to bet you haven't watched the video, nor read an single study, but you are angrily dismissing. Please ask yourself why you think you don't need to look into the other side.

04-22-2020, 06:36 PM

-

#64

BetaAsPhuck
Wage Cuckin' It

BetaAsPhuck
Wage Cuckin' It

Join Date: Mar 2014

Posts: 34,506

Rep Power: 127306

I missed this post.

Also the next time you write a reply to me, can you use the quote function please. It's annoying to have to sort out what is my post, and what is yours.

Originally Posted By Schnitzl⏩

If it can't affect the body beyond the epidermis, why is it used in medical treatment beyond dermatology?

Did you read the study or even the abstract? It is explained there. The frequencies differ widely. Even if we ignore MRI vs 5g wavelength differences the non-ionizing properties of the waves can only change the temperature with which a large bulk of these medical treatments rely on as per your study.

Yes, and some don't. Obviously I was referring to the treatments that not simply thermal. Why don't you focus on those?

sickening microwave study by 5g shill(look at Pall ML all published studies to see how obsessed he is) but also on the right hand side is a counterstudyhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17620299

Also where's the summary, findings etc on the study.

On that review, there isn't. I mistakenly put that one in. However, you ignored the next review I posted, that did have footnotes.

You seem to have ignored the following review which I posted, which has links to studies....

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...91061815000599

Why?

Here's ICNIRP guidelines for for limiting exposure and also showing there is no known meta-studies that support any evidence of negative effects of 5g.

https://www.icnirp.org/cms/upload/pu...Prfgdl2020.pdf

in b4 "shills are funded by telcom probably"

There is no probably about, you can actually research the names to find out that they do have a conflict of interest. If you only retort to evidence that the ICNIRP is a untrustworthy organization, then I don't think you are honestly assessing the evidence, or authorities.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5504984/

And if you are going to us the ICIRP to justify your position, then I'll use the IARC.

"In May 2011 the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) evaluated cancer risks from radiofrequency (RF) radiation. Human epidemiological studies gave evidence of increased risk for glioma and acoustic neuroma. RF radiation was classified as Group 2B, a possible human carcinogen. Further epidemiological, animal and mechanistic studies have strengthened the association."

Hopefully you are aware of how current the WHO, so why would you be

in b4 funding firewall is jet fuel melting steel beams.

I don't think you are honestly assessing the research.

Here is a review, concluding that Radiofrequency radiation can increase in oxidative stress in tissues, and increases the concentration of free radicals...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/art...6/#!po=6.75676

Let's get back to high-school physics and make sure we know what sort of radiation EMF is

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-ionizing_radiation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation

I don't think you read the link, before you posted that. Because that is irrelvant. Like the studies you are repeatedly ignoring show, non ionizing radiation is affecting biology.

"EMFs, no matter where they occur in the frequency spectrum, are reported to causes a rise in levels of oxygen free radicals in an experimental environment in plants and humans"

Also let's seehttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4496716/since correlation doesn't mean causation. We need to look at the whole lifestyle changes that are happening globally rather than nitpicking.

Yep, and I posted a study from Nature that took based on a real world evaluation of the daily life of pregnant women. As you possibly know, nature is one of - if not the - most respected peer reviewed scientific journal, and they compared women living only in the San Francisco Bay area going about their daily life.

Of course, look at the sun. There's man-made and then there's natural. Sun, lighting etc. Nobody is arguing that sun causes cancer.https://www.who.int/peh-emf/meetings...keynote3ng.pdf

The link you just posted that reply under, explictly said that Radiofrequency radiation (man made) can cause the rise of free radicals. So I don't know how you can think that is a valid response.

Here is the link again...

https://www.researchgate.net/publica...n_cause_cancer

Let's agree to disagree if it seems so clear to you. For me it seems pretty clear that it's the other way around.

You didn't comment on these 2 studies that I posted...

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-16623-8

https://oem.bmj.com/content/57/4/258[/quote]

[QUOTE]I hope scientists are right as well. Otherwise if thousands if not hundreds of thousands of scientists around the world are out for money and all 5G research is funded by telcom companies[/QUOTE]How much 5G research is taking place? I think you are simply assuming that hundreds of thousands are scientists are testing 5G safety. Unless you have evidence that widespread testing is taking place.

Are you aware that under oath US telecommunication companies have said that they haven't funded any independent studies, into 5G safety?

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/embed/hsil3VQE5K4[/youtube]

[URL=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsil3VQE5K4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsil3VQE5K4[/URL]

Please ask yourself why don't they care to check it's safety? Are you not concerned that they aren't funding research?

As you possibly know, funding for scientific research is not hard to get. Telecommunication companies have enough money to fund numerous studies into 5G safety... So why arent?

Do you remember how cigarette companies suppressed, and shilled against research? (That is a fact, not conspiracy theory.) So that is not a good argument to believe that everything is OK.

I hope you respond to this post (and use quote tags).

04-22-2020, 06:36 PM

-

#65

iHateDeadlifts
Registered User

iHateDeadlifts
Registered User

Join Date: Aug 2014

Location: Texas, United States

Posts: 3,842

Rep Power: 0

yall have been blessed with no having to go to work for 1+ months and you have the opportunity to learn about a new skill(s) and yall waste your time into 5G conspiracies.

yall won't even read a 20 page article on Pubmed about the covid 19 but will spend 10+ hours on some hippie website about 5G. My goodness

04-22-2020, 06:42 PM

-

#66

BetaAsPhuck
Wage Cuckin' It

BetaAsPhuck
Wage Cuckin' It

Join Date: Mar 2014

Posts: 34,506

Rep Power: 127306

Originally Posted By RealAesthetic⏩

5g is absolutely not proven to be harmful to humans on any level

Radiofrequency radiation has been concluded in studies to have probable harmful effects, and 5G is a radiofrequency. More powerful than 4G.

In fact it is scientifically proven to not be harmful at all

Science doesn't deal in proofs, it's a fundamental of the scientific method, and the philosophy of science.

Also, have funding for studies is hard to come by, especially when the US telecommunication companies don't funded independant research. Which they admit under oath at a senate hearing.

Have you seen this footage where they admit that under oath? If not... Why?

Why do you not care that they haven't funded any independent studies, to check it's safety?

Are you OK with them experimenting on you, and your family?

04-22-2020, 06:44 PM

-

#67

BetaAsPhuck
Wage Cuckin' It

BetaAsPhuck
Wage Cuckin' It

Join Date: Mar 2014

Posts: 34,506

Rep Power: 127306

Originally Posted By iHateDeadlifts⏩

yall have been blessed with no having to go to work for 1+ months and you have the opportunity to learn about a new skill(s) and yall waste your time into 5G conspiracies.

What is the conspiracy that is being presented?

Noone I've asked is willing to summarize, what they think the documentaries (and I) are saying.

yall won't even read a 20 page article on Pubmed about the covid 19 but will spend 10+ hours on some hippie website about 5G. My goodness

Do you think the documentaries are talking about COVID 19, or something?

(Forgot to add... If you had patience and read the thread, I link studies from Pubmed, and other sources. I'm guessing you just jumped to conclusions, based on the thread title, which is common the misc.)

04-22-2020, 07:05 PM

-

#68

BetaAsPhuck
Wage Cuckin' It

BetaAsPhuck
Wage Cuckin' It

Join Date: Mar 2014

Posts: 34,506

Rep Power: 127306

Originally Posted By FA*******⏩

Read the entire thread, a couple of the research papers linked in here, and a couple of the papers referenced in those research papers, and this was the smartest post in here.

I think the most salient thing Beta is missing is power. A lot of the studies use far more power for experiments.

A lot, not all.

I specifically highlighted a study - in a reply to someone else - to address and prempt that criticism.

I'll repost it...

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-16623-8

Here is another study, asssesing the effects of Radiofrequency radiation under real world conditions...

https://www.avaate.org/IMG/pdf/Rimbach-Study-20112.pdf

This one may also become relevant real world exposure levels, as cell phone towers become more frequent in residential areas and near schools (which is what 5G requires)...

(i.e. frequently and chronically being in the proximity of cell towers, may mimic some of the exposure levels of this study)

https://oem.bmj.com/content/57/4/258

I wish telecommunication companies would fund more independent research.

04-22-2020, 07:34 PM

-

#69

DFDA15
Registered User

DFDA15
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2011

Location: United States

Age: 34

Posts: 984

Rep Power: 1336

Originally Posted By Tornach⏩

Solid posts.It's nice to see people questioning stuff instead of just following trends.

Green Bank, West Virginia.
Or build a basement and incorporate lead into the design.

You don't need to use lead bro. The tenth thickness of lead is 2" but 4" of steel will have the same effect. Just look up the tenth-thickness of any given material bro. Not hard.

04-22-2020, 07:42 PM

-

#70

FAPhaggot
Hawaiian shirt hoarder

FAPhaggot
Hawaiian shirt hoarder

Join Date: Nov 2015

Posts: 24,226

Rep Power: 185354

Originally Posted By BetaAsPhuck⏩

A lot, not all.

I specifically highlighted a study - in a reply to someone else - to address and prempt that criticism.

I'll repost it...

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-16623-8

I read the Nature article and didn't see anything mentioned about the frequency of the magnetic fields detected, which is concerning. CTRL-F'ed the paper for "frequency" and only found two mentions about the paper, neither of which gave a number value for the frequencies detected. If we're going to pin miscarriage rates on 5G or cell phone signals, we need to know that the magnetic field being picked up is actually coming from cell phone signals.

Then searching through the article for in the comment section (you know your journal's fancy when you have a comment section), I found this.

The effect of the frequency of the magnetic field was not analyzed (which would be important to look for possible biomedical mechanism) and the frequency range of the device is not stated in the manuscript. Looking up the measurement devicehttp://www.enertech.net/htm... one finds a measurement frequency range of 40-1000Hz. Therefore only claims for this frequency range can be made

1 GHz is a little beneath cell phone signal range in 2017 (2.4 GHz/5.1 GHz)... safe to say, they researchers weren't detecting cell phone signals at all.

04-23-2020, 07:43 AM

-

#71

BetaAsPhuck
Wage Cuckin' It

BetaAsPhuck
Wage Cuckin' It

Join Date: Mar 2014

Posts: 34,506

Rep Power: 127306

Originally Posted By FA*******⏩

I read the Nature article and didn't see anything mentioned about the frequency of the magnetic fields detected, which is concerning. CTRL-F'ed the paper for "frequency" and only found two mentions about the paper, neither of which gave a number value for the frequencies detected. If we're going to pin miscarriage rates on 5G or cell phone signals, we need to know that the magnetic field being picked up is actually coming from cell phone signals.

You're misinterpreting my point, I'll try to make it clearer...

5G is EMF/RF.

Like in those 3 real world studies I linked, it shows that high EMF/RF exposure (in relative comparison to other subjects), shows a correlation with an increase in negative health consequences. (Though admittedly, the last study talks about PEMF, being a possible reason.)

5G requires more base stations and small cell towers to be built in residential areas. So, it is obvious (I hope you agree) that based on that alone, it will increase the amount of EMF/RF that people are exposed to, due to increase proximity to cell phone base stations, and cell towers.

The more base stations and cell towers in residential areas = the more EMF/RF that people are exposed to. Due to increase proximity.

Also studies directly dealing with 5G are limited, because telecommunication companies generally aren't interested in funding independent studies. I have said that in this thread multiple times.Which is a key reason why people want to stop the rollout of 5G, because they want more testing.Do you understand that?

(If you don't fund studies, you have plausible deniability. "There are no studies showing harmful effects, of specifically 5G"... Maybe that's because the industry doesn't fund much independent research, despite knowing how hard it is for studies to receive funding.)

I'll post the video about US telecommunication company heads, openly admitted that they haven't funded any independent studies. For the 3rd time ITT.

Are you honestly comfortable with them experimenting on the public, without bothering to do multiple studies regarding 5G safety?

1 GHz is a little beneath cell phone signal range in 2017 (2.4 GHz/5.1 GHz)... safe to say, they researchers weren't detecting cell phone signals at all.

You are correct.

However, 1GHZ is well below (as you know) the frequency range of WIFI, 4G and 5G. And it's also worth noting, that the cause behind the highest readings, is reasonably likely to be found from WIFI and cellphone use - the women that were regularly exposed to WIFI and cell phones, were likely reason why the meter readings maxed out... Or do you honestly think that is unreasonable to conclude?

I honestly don't know how - or if - you seem to be seriously proposing that harmful effects may be found and 1GHZ, but aren't probably found at higher Ghz. You seem to be more educated than me, so please explain why. (Genuine request.)

I understand that strictly speaking you can only make direct claims, based on the measurement device, however... Based on all 3 studies, in real world contexts, I think it's safe to be concerned with increasing our exposure to EMF/RF radiation, and to demand that telecommunication companies fund more independent research. Do you disagree that there needs to be more testing, before we have an international rollout of 5G?

Would you honestly be comfortable letting your kids play daily in a garden, next to a small cell tower? You would have zero concern for their safety, after reading the real world studies that I linked?

"This follow-up of 60 participants over one and a half years shows a significant effect on the adrenergic system after the installation of a new cell phone base station in the village of Rimbach (Bavaria). After the activation of the GSM base station, the levels of the stress hormones adrenaline and noradrenaline increased significantly during the first six months; the levels of the precursor dopamine decreased substantially. The initial levels were not restored even after one and a half years. As an indicator of the dysregulated chronic imbalance of the stress system, the phenylethylamine (PEA) levels dropped significantly until the end of the study period. The effects showed a dose-response relationship and occurred well below current limits for technical RF radiation exposures. Chronic dysregulation of the catecholamine system has great relevance for health and is well known to damage human health in the long run.

https://www.avaate.org/IMG/pdf/Rimbach-Study-20112.pdf

I haven't read through this properly yet - I probably will later on today - but this review might be of interest to you...

Biological effects from exposure to electromagnetic radiation emitted by cell tower base stations and other antenna arrays

https://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi...0.1139/A10-018

04-23-2020, 07:53 AM

-

#72

RealAesthetic
6’2 225 lean

RealAesthetic
6’2 225 lean

Join Date: Aug 2011

Location: Ontario, Canada

Posts: 20,380

Rep Power: 259389

cliffs: op is a schizophrenic idiot with absolutely no idea what he's talking about

for every 1 article there is saying EMF is dangerous, there are 1000 that prove it is not.

again there is ZERO evidence to support EMF being dangerous.

04-23-2020, 07:57 AM

-

#73

BetaAsPhuck
Wage Cuckin' It

BetaAsPhuck
Wage Cuckin' It

Join Date: Mar 2014

Posts: 34,506

Rep Power: 127306

[QUOTE=RealAesthetic post_id=1603233781][youtube]k2t1dUCyE0I/youtube]

cliffs: op is a schizophrenic idiot with absolutely no idea what he's talking about

for every 1 article there is saying EMF is dangerous, there are 1000 that prove it is not.[/QUOTE]I had a feeling you when I saw your name, all you were going to do was name calling.

[i]1) Science doesn't deal in proofs. If you think you think I'm lying, please do research into the scientific method. So you are making a false claim.

2) Show us some of the studies. (I am aware some exist, I'm just curious if you will post some.)[/i]

I really don't think you have done any research. Not because you disagree with me, just based on the way you communicate ITT. Literally all you have is name calling, and then you post a 3 minute youtube video in response to peoples questions.

I would like to read a personal response from you, to this post I just made...

[URL=https://forum.obnoxiousbrutes.com/showthread.php?t=178311341&p=1603233091&viewfull=1#post1603233091]https://forum.obnoxiousbrutes.com/showt...post1603233091[/URL]

Please state specifically what you disagree with.

04-23-2020, 08:07 AM

-

#74

RealAesthetic
6’2 225 lean

RealAesthetic
6’2 225 lean

Join Date: Aug 2011

Location: Ontario, Canada

Posts: 20,380

Rep Power: 259389

Originally Posted By BetaAsPhuck⏩

I had a feeling you when I saw your name, all you were going to do was name calling.

1) Science doesn't deal in proofs. If you think you think I'm lying, please do research into the scientific method. So you are making a false claim.

2) Show us some of the studies. (I am aware some exist, I'm just curious if you will post some.)

I really don't think you have done any research. Not because you disagree with me, just based on the way you communicate ITT. Literally all you have is name calling, and then you post a 3 minute youtube video in response to peoples questions.

I would like to read a personal response from you, to this post I just made...

https://forum.obnoxiousbrutes.com/showt...post1603233091

Please state specifically what you disagree with.

https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/...lds-fact-sheet
https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...atchdog-health
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/16/s...ss-cancer.html
https://theconversation.com/do-wi-fi...-respond-54881
https://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/top.../emf/index.cfm

cliffs, people have personal opinions, none of which are backed by evidence

04-23-2020, 08:08 AM

-

#75

BetaAsPhuck
Wage Cuckin' It

BetaAsPhuck
Wage Cuckin' It

Join Date: Mar 2014

Posts: 34,506

Rep Power: 127306

Originally Posted By RealAesthetic⏩

https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/...lds-fact-sheet
https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...atchdog-health
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/16/s...ss-cancer.html
https://theconversation.com/do-wi-fi...-respond-54881

cliffs, people have personal opinions, none of which are backed by evidence

Those aren't studies.

I asked you to post studies, that you have personally compiled.

You said there are "1000 studies proving it's safe", so please go and compile some studies, and post them.

Also, please can you address the post that I asked you to respond to, giving specific criticisms. You honestly contribute nothing to the thread, apart from name calling, and dropping a link. You don't elaborate upon what you post.

04-23-2020, 08:09 AM

-

#76

RealAesthetic
6’2 225 lean

RealAesthetic
6’2 225 lean

Join Date: Aug 2011

Location: Ontario, Canada

Posts: 20,380

Rep Power: 259389

Originally Posted By BetaAsPhuck⏩

Those aren't studies.

I asked you to post studies, that you have personally compiled.

You said there are "1000 studies proving it's safe", so please go and compile some studies, and post them.

if you took the time to read you'd see that each of those articles includes references from studies and links to studies but you refuse to accept real evidence
https://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/top.../emf/index.cfm

04-23-2020, 08:11 AM

-

#77

RealAesthetic
6’2 225 lean

RealAesthetic
6’2 225 lean

Join Date: Aug 2011

Location: Ontario, Canada

Posts: 20,380

Rep Power: 259389

i'll make a thread when i get off work with all the studies and actual factual information
since you're a conspiratard

No surprise your name is betaasphuk because that’s exactly what you are

04-23-2020, 01:55 PM

-

#78

messomi
▇ █ █ ▇ █ █ ▇

messomi
▇ █ █ ▇ █ █ ▇

Join Date: Apr 2017

Posts: 20,365

Rep Power: 362412

04-23-2020, 06:55 PM

-

#79

Johnez
Registered User

Johnez
Registered User

Join Date: Jul 2019

Age: 56

Posts: 12,771

Rep Power: 87772

Originally Posted By BearyManilowe⏩

The bigger problem is that you guys are grabbing every available technology and calling it 5G. For example which 5G are we discussing here? Telecom 5G or WiFi 5G? Someone mentioned 60 GHz, but that's used exclusively for WiFi and isn't being installed on towers. Verizon's bands are currently 5GHz and 6GHz IIRC and T-Mobile took the opposite approach and their telecom 5G is at 600 MHz (less than 1 GHz). You guys are talking about ultra high, prolongeddirectexposure to extremely high frequencies. Not ******t exposure to telecom 5G (which is what is being installed on towers). Side note, Verizon's 5G antennas cannot penetrate building material so if a small cell 5G Verizon tower is on the street outside your house, you are not receiving exposure from those 5G antennas.

This post kinda sums up my issue.

I watched that red head on brighteon and she mentioned a specific frequency that caused damage, even had a graph. Went and checked out the frequencies the telcoms were using, none of them match what she mentioned.

That's just one example. I'm curious and open to hearing people and their concerns. If someone could explain in plain language exactly what the problem is, I'm fukking game. I don't want to hear how corrupt the legislative bodies are, how there are no long term studies on health, or anything that isn't directly pertinent to my health. The thing with CTers is they like to hit you with a thousand inferences and unrelated bullschit, usually covering the fact that they don't have any DIRECT evidence. I want concrete evidence on which wavelengths are proven bad for our health and which ones are coming out of towers. The leap of logic from MRIs using a wavelength to look in us to 5g is bad for us has zero direct evidence and relies again on inference. I have a feeling you nor anyone else has this, because if they did people would listen.

05-01-2020, 07:26 PM

-

#80

BetaAsPhuck
Wage Cuckin' It

BetaAsPhuck
Wage Cuckin' It

Join Date: Mar 2014

Posts: 34,506

Rep Power: 127306

Originally Posted By Johnez⏩

I have a feeling you nor anyone else has this, because if they did people would listen.

The issue is (as people have said multiple times), that major telecommunication companies aren't funding independant studies into 5G. That said that under oath to congress.

We have studies that show (please refere to my previous few posts) that base stations and cell towers have negative health effects, based on real world studies.

5G necessitates the builidng of more base stations and cell towers in residential areas, due to the short range of the 5G frequency. That is a fact.

(I hope you won't dispute that fact.)

So seeing as we have studies showing the direct harm of cell towers, that is the direct evidence you are looking for.

Here are some of studies about the dangers of cell towers...

https://www.avaate.org/IMG/pdf/Rimbach-Study-20112.pdf

https://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi...0.1139/A10-018

https://oem.bmj.com/content/57/4/258

I hope you respond to this post, and don't simply ignore it.

05-01-2020, 07:32 PM

-

#81

BetaAsPhuck
Wage Cuckin' It

BetaAsPhuck
Wage Cuckin' It

Join Date: Mar 2014

Posts: 34,506

Rep Power: 127306

Originally Posted By RealAesthetic⏩

if you took the time to read you'd see that each of those articles includes references from studies and links to studies but you refuse to accept real evidence
https://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/top.../emf/index.cfm

Again, that isn't a study.

You said you had 1000s of studies, so post them.

I don't think you've read a single study.

05-01-2020, 09:24 PM

-

#82

Frank Drebin
Cutting

Frank Drebin
Cutting

Join Date: Jul 2007

Location: Canada

Posts: 24,590

Rep Power: 86323

Of all the things to be terrified of in this world, you chose high speed internet.

05-01-2020, 09:35 PM

-

#83

coolbones
Registered User

coolbones
Registered User

Join Date: Jul 2011

Location: Tokyo, Japan

Age: 39

Posts: 1,668

Rep Power: 6040

5g can't penetrate the epidermis.
Your whole premise is flawed from the get go.
/thread.

05-02-2020, 03:10 AM

-

#84

OneLegSquats
Registered User

OneLegSquats
Registered User

Join Date: Jul 2018

Age: 56

Posts: 26,031

Rep Power: 118538

bumped to aware fellow truth seekers

05-02-2020, 03:12 AM

-

#85

A-GAME
Pedicabo ego vos et irrum

A-GAME
Pedicabo ego vos et irrum

Join Date: Nov 2006

Posts: 47,648

Rep Power: 280053

This topic should be easily settled. One of you *******s post a peer reviewed study demonstrating 5G is safe, or one of you *******s post a peer reviewed study that it's not safe. Das it...

Originally Posted By Ratfish⏩

1) the total annihilation of the global economy

This has been my position from the beginning.

05-02-2020, 05:32 AM

-

#86

BetaAsPhuck
Wage Cuckin' It

BetaAsPhuck
Wage Cuckin' It

Join Date: Mar 2014

Posts: 34,506

Rep Power: 127306

Originally Posted By coolbones⏩

5g can't penetrate the epidermis.
Your whole premise is flawed from the get go.
/thread.

Itt is an outdated conclusion that non ionizing radiation can't affect biology beyond the epidermis.

There is medical treatment based on using non ionizing radiation to affect physiology, beyond the epidermis. So if non ionizing radiation can't affect beyond the epidermis, why is being used in medical treatment?

05-02-2020, 05:39 AM

-

#87

BetaAsPhuck
Wage Cuckin' It

BetaAsPhuck
Wage Cuckin' It

Join Date: Mar 2014

Posts: 34,506

Rep Power: 127306

Originally Posted By MiscMathematician⏩

simple solution: wallpaper your home in tin foil

you don't want to use your cellphone anyway if you're buying into this.

People on the misc tend to go to extremes, they seem to think that if you are against one piece of tech, you must be against it all.

The problem is the amount of Radiofrequency radiation that we are exposed to. Very few people are calling for the complete elimination of radiofrequency raditation.

Some cellphone companies openly recommend that you use a hands free kit or speaker phone for long calls. Which is what I do. I don't walk around using bluetooth headsets, or with the phone pressed against my head.

I also keep my phone on the other side of the room when not in use, and I don't sleep with it near my head.

If you think I'm being crazy...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwyDCHf5iCY

all living things which do not die from other causes will eventually die from cancer; this is a fact of life.

I don't know why you mentioned that.

I'm guessing that you only read the thread title, and wrote your post solely based on that. (Which again, is common on the misc.)

05-02-2020, 05:41 AM

-

#88

BetaAsPhuck
Wage Cuckin' It

BetaAsPhuck
Wage Cuckin' It

Join Date: Mar 2014

Posts: 34,506

Rep Power: 127306

Originally Posted By A-GAME⏩

This topic should be easily settled. One of you *******s post a peer reviewed study demonstrating 5G is safe, or one of you *******s post a peer reviewed study that it's not safe. Das it..

One of the issues is (I've posted the video 3 times) major telecommunication companies have said under oath, in a senate hearing, that they don't fund any independant studies into the safety of 5G.

So they are going to experiment on the nation, regarding it's safety.

Are you comfortable with them building more cell towers near homes and schools, for 5G?

(We already have peer reviewed studies concluding that living near cell towers is bad for health. The pro-5G crowd completely ignore those studies, the simply don't respond to them when they are posted. I've posed them ITT several times, you can see that they don't address them for yourself.)

05-02-2020, 06:17 AM

-

#89

Schnitzl
calf of peace

Schnitzl
calf of peace

Join Date: Nov 2011

Posts: 20,067

Rep Power: 183416

Originally Posted By BetaAsPhuck⏩

Here are some of studies about the dangers of cell towers...

https://www.avaate.org/IMG/pdf/Rimbach-Study-20112.pdf

https://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi...0.1139/A10-018

https://oem.bmj.com/content/57/4/258

I hope you respond to this post, and don't simply ignore it.

You really need to try harder with pasting random papers that have barely to do with 5g towers.

Your first study

Klaus Buchner - MEP of the green-conservative ecological democratic party
Horst Eger - Could find ONLY 4 papers from him, all either from the year 2004 or co-authoring? some random foreign language papers. All about cell phone towers.

Kindly explain how 30% funding behind a firewall(which means they have no idea where the money is coming from to fund their research papers) to absolute leaders of their field is less believable than a 5g conspirator and a green ******* from European Parliament. Who has more incentive?

Second study

B. Blake Levitt - Postgrad in Essay writing, bachelors degree in who the fuk knows. You reckon she knows more than actual scientists working in the field for 30+ years each?http://www.blakelevitt.com/Most articles she's written are negging 5g which is obvious. It's like you writing those articles, you have a personal vendetta against it. You call that one of the hundreds of scientists who've done meta-analyses?

Your last study

https://oem.bmj.com/content/57/4/258

Can't find a single place where they concluded that 5g towers cause depression and cause suicides

The results of this study provide support for the hypothesis that occupational exposure to EMFs is associated with an increased risk of suicide. Men employed as electricians, and to a lesser extent as linemen, seemed to be at increased risk, broadly consistent with indications of increases in diagnosed depression and several depressive symptoms in electricians.37 Power plant operators, however, did not show increased risks. This discrepancy in results could be partially explained by a variation in exposure to levels or patterns of EMFs between those groups. Assessment of exposure to magnetic fields by Kromhout et al 28 showed highest exposures for electricians (1.11 μT) compared with linemen (0.65 μT) and power plant operators (0.79 μT). Also, the inconsistent findings across these jobs could be explained by varying exposure levels of other components of EMFs, which were not captured by our technique of assessing exposure. For example, Armstrong et al 38 reported high potential exposure to pulsed electromagnetic fields (PEMFs) for linemen, moderate exposure to PEMFs for electricians, and low exposure to PEMFs for power plant operators.

As expected, men currently in work had a substantially decreased risk of suicide, which reflected the healthy worker effect.36The increased OR for being out of work indicates that active workers are more physically and mentally fit than those who left the industry and therefore tend to have a lower risk of committing suicide. Exposure to sunlight at the workplace seemed to have a small positive association with risk of suicide, inconsistent with previously reported findings of an association of suicide with decreased exposure to sunlight.32-34 Nevertheless, a mechanism of action of light on suicide could involve inhibition of melatonin synthesis as light has an acute suppressing effect of melatonin synthesis in humans.39 The higher risk of suicide for workers living in the western United States is consistent with historical trends.3 4

An association of suicide with exposure to EMFs was first suggested by Reichmanis et al.40 Results indicated that the calculated strengths of EMFs at the residences of suicide victims differed from those at the residences of controls. Perry et al 41 measured magnetic fields and found that the strength of magnetic fields was greater at addresses of those who committed suicide than at addresses of controls. However, other studies did not confirm the findings of these two initial reports. In a study of mortality of people resident in the vicinity of electricity transmission facilities, McDowall42 followed up 8000 people and found a standardised mortality ratio (SMR) of 75 on eight cases. Baris and Armstrong43 found no increased rate of suicide in men with occupations likely to have resulted in exposure to electric and magnetic fields. In another study, Baris et al 44 found some evidence for an association with cumulative exposure to the geometric mean (GM) of electric fields among electric utility workers, but considered the evidence for a causal association to be weak. Kelsh and Sahl45 found a consistent association of suicide with non-office occupations in the electric utility workforce. Johansen and Olsen46 found, on the basis of 133 observed cases, no indication of excess mortality from suicide as a result of exposure to 50 Hz magnetic fields. None the less, all studies on suicide and EMFs have been limited in quality of assessment of exposure, sample size, or information on confounding factors.

n conclusion, the results of this study provide evidence for an association between cumulative exposure of extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields and suicide, especially among younger workers. We hypothesise that an increased vulnerability at younger ages may be based on a change in the nature of depression with age, with suicide more closely linked to depression among younger workers and physical impairments among older workers. Future research on the effects of exposure to EMFs on suicide and depression is warranted to examine more closely the temporal pattern of exposure, depression, and suicide.

First of all younger workers more vulnerable? So cumulative effect of EMF is where exactly? If foot workers are more at risk of suicide, where is the proof that over-exposure to HARMFUL sun rays isn't the cause? When they are outside? These questions aren't even addressing the fact that the study is useless in terms of 5g.

Try again without just copying random unresearched links from 5g CT websites.

05-02-2020, 06:21 AM

-

#90

Judgment
Registered User

Judgment
Registered User

Join Date: Feb 2008

Location: Michigan, United States

Age: 40

Posts: 11,454

Rep Power: 56697

Originally Posted By truesteez⏩

thanks for sharing OP, this stuff isn't easy to come by these days. Your last post with the alt sources is great too. Nice to have places/outlets of like minded/woke people.

We're being force fed anything they want to shove down our throats and people are eating it with a smile while asking for seconds. In fact, they're even cutting off any other supply of information that counters their agenda. It's scary.

The real pandemic is the lack of control and critical thinking the average normie possesses. The worst part is they sneeze at you if you try to explain otherwise. Brainwashed/10

It's amazing that people's minds can be this poisoned by the idea of being "woke" and "not a sheep" that they'll buy into anything retarded like this 5G nonsense and then turn around and call everybody else brainwashed.

Lmao at saying anything positive about OP's sources. BRB a bunch of people profiteering and making a name for themselves on disabled dumb fuks who are so badly clouded by the idea of being "wolf amongst sheep" (I.E. "Woke"). And this idiot is lapping it up while insinuating everybody else's IQ is inferior if they don't buy into this nonsense.

Fukking misc. I swear.

Log In

Your email is not your username

Register

Confirm your email

Welcome

Sign in

Thread: The 5G Trojan Horse - If You Don't Read Articles Or Studies, Please Watch This!