machiavelli

Is 5G is safe for Whole Humanity ? Despite of hundreds of scientist warning dangers

62 posts in this topic

5g is rolling out all throughout the world. And despite of several studies which showed negative effect on biology in long term there is no stopping of 5G implementation.

Whats your view on it? 

Should we as conscious being should concern about it? Concern about whole humanity and its health.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you link some of these studies, I'm genuinely interested.


"To resist is to piss in the wind, anyone who does will end up smelling.....
Knowing this why do I defy? Because my inner voice is yelling.
"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Roy

The chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) recently announced through a press release that the commission will soon reaffirm the radio frequency radiation (RFR) exposure limits that the FCC adopted in the late 1990s. These limits are based upon a behavioral change in rats exposed to microwave radiation and were designed to protect us from short-term heating risks due to RFR exposure.  

Yet, since the FCC adopted these limits based largely on research from the 1980s, the preponderance of peer-reviewed research, more than 500 studies, have found harmful biologic or health effects from exposure to RFR at intensities too low to cause significant heating.

Citing this large body of research, more than 240 scientists who have published peer-reviewed research on the biologic and health effects of nonionizing electromagnetic fields (EMF) signed the International EMF Scientist Appeal, which calls for stronger exposure limits. The appeal makes the following assertions:

“Numerous recent scientific publications have shown that EMF affects living organisms at levels well below most international and national guidelines. Effects include increased cancer risk, cellular stress, increase in harmful free radicals, genetic damages, structural and functional changes of the reproductive system, learning and memory deficits, neurological disorders, and negative impacts on general well-being in humans. Damage goes well beyond the human race, as there is growing evidence of harmful effects to both plant and animal life.”

The scientists who signed this appeal arguably constitute the majority of experts on the effects of nonionizing radiation. They have published more than 2,000 papers and letters on EMF in professional journals.

The FCC’s RFR exposure limits regulate the intensity of exposure, taking into account the frequency of the carrier waves, but ignore the signaling properties of the RFR. Along with the patterning and duration of exposures, certain characteristics of the signal (e.g., pulsing, polarization) increase the biologic and health impacts of the exposure. New exposure limits are needed which account for these differential effects. Moreover, these limits should be based on a biological effect, not a change in a laboratory rat’s behavior.

The World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified RFR as "possibly carcinogenic to humans" in 2011. Last year, a $30 million study conducted by the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) found “clear evidence” that two years of exposure to cell phone RFR increased cancer in male rats and damaged DNA in rats and mice of both sexes. The Ramazzini Institute in Italy replicated the key finding of the NTP using a different carrier frequency and much weaker exposure to cell phone radiation over the life of the rats.

 

Based upon the research published since 2011, including human and animal studies and mechanistic data, the IARC has recently prioritized RFR to be reviewed again in the next five years. Since many EMF scientists believe we now have sufficient evidence to consider RFR as either a probable or known human carcinogen, the IARC will likely upgrade the carcinogenic potential of RFR in the near future.

Nonetheless, without conducting a formal risk assessment or a systematic review of the research on RFR health effects, the FDA recently reaffirmed the FCC’s 1996 exposure limits in a letter to the FCC, stating that the agency had “concluded that no changes to the current standards are warranted at this time,” and that “NTP’s experimental findings should not be applied to human cell phone usage.” The letter stated that “the available scientific evidence to date does not support adverse health effects in humans due to exposures at or under the current limits.”

The latest cellular technology, 5G, will employ millimeter waves for the first time in addition to microwaves that have been in use for older cellular technologies, 2G through 4G. Given limited reach, 5G will require cell antennas every 100 to 200 meters, exposing many people to millimeter wave radiation. 5G also employs new technologies (e.g., active antennas capable of beam-forming; phased arrays; massive multiple inputs and outputs, known as massive MIMO) which pose unique challenges for measuring exposures.

Millimeter waves are mostly absorbed within a few millimeters of human skin and in the surface layers of the cornea. Short-term exposure can have adverse physiological effects in the peripheral nervous system, the immune system and the cardiovascular system. The research suggests that long-term exposure may pose health risks to the skin (e.g., melanoma), the eyes (e.g., ocular melanoma) and the testes (e.g., sterility).

Since 5G is a new technology, there is no research on health effects, so we are “flying blind” to quote a U.S. senator. However, we have considerable evidence about the harmful effects of 2G and 3G. Little is known the effects of exposure to 4G, a 10-year-old technology, because governments have been remiss in funding this research. Meanwhile, we are seeing increases in certain types of head and neck tumors in tumor registries, which may be at least partially attributable to the proliferation of cell phone radiation. These increases are consistent with results from case-control studies of tumor risk in heavy cell phone users.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/we-have-no-reason-to-believe-5g-is-safe/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a firm believer the more connected we become through concepts such as the internet the more exponential human consciousness is perceived to rise. I have full faith that this evolution of connectivity is always for the greater good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Mafortu The studies could be biased. As big corporates and Tech Giants could pressurize and control different government bodies and institutes. 

If EMF from our cellphone tower can trigger irritability do you really think a network which is hundred times faster and operate on such high frequency band will not possess any problems on biology?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@machiavelli  If you want to bring people awareness to a danger in the world, focus on environmental pollution from chemicals such as phthalates atrazine.  These would have gotten you dismissed as a conspiracy theorist not too long ago but in recent years phthalates in particular gave gotten more mainstream attention following some extremely concerning research into how they disrupt sex hormone production in humans and animals, and now you can campaign against them all you want and nobody will dismiss you as a nutjob - infact generally most normies consider environmental activism to be a good thing, so it'll even work in your favour.

By contrast if you talk about EMF, public awareness isn't there yet and you'll just ruin your own reputation.  If I were you I'd just leave the campaign to the people who go out and physically destroy 5G towers.  They're already doing a pretty good job of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

@machiavelli How is this qualitatively different from QANON conspiracy theories? 

There are real dangers that humanity has to face in the coming years and instead your focused on a conspiracy theory. 

Edited by Harlen Kelly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

@Harlen Kelly

There is actually a lot of "evidence" supporting his claims. 

One of the greatest dangers to humanity is our habit to roll out technology - we don't fully understand yet - in a way that's super low conscious. 

We can see this in so many areas in our society, from our food supplies to the way we interact with each other. 

I also believe 5G could be a big concern, especially if we roll it out globally, or at least in most areas, as we won't be able to collect good data anymore... So this is a valid concern in my eyes. How about contributing something to the discussion, instead of trying to defame him by playing the "conspiracy theory" card. 

Edited by BadHippie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

@BadHippie No, this is just braindead conspiracy theories, not any different from QANON conspiracy theories. You are not ''high-conscious'' as you mentioned for believing in conspiracy theories. 

I would not be surprised if a moderator closes this thread for low quality. 

Edited by Harlen Kelly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

   Well, the birds slowly disappearing from the woodland areas where 5g towers are don't consider this a conspiracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

   Well, the birds slowly disappearing from the woodland areas where 5g towers are don't consider this a conspiracy.

Evidence please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Harlen Kelly said:

@BadHippie No, this is just braindead conspiracy theories, not any different from QANON conspiracy theories. You are not ''high-conscious'' as you mentioned for believing in conspiracy theories. 

I would not be surprised if a moderator closes this thread for low quality. 

@Harlen Kelly So when do believing in conspiracy theories is termed as low consciousness? Isnt it opposite?

Those who are highly conscious care for whole humanity and gaia.

Showing concern about something that can possess harm to health of everyone is not consipracy theory.

A person who is high on spiral dynamics will worry about whole earth and nature. Because everything is interconnected and interdependent.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5g is dangerous. You don't need rocket science for this. 

You already know the waves from our wifi networks is already harmful. 

5g is much higher frequency and it's not good for the ecosystem. 

Whatever we have is already enough 

And technology will destroy us anyway because technological waste is hard to dispose. Then we have CFCs. 

And we have AI. Hehe, we have enough things on the plate to destroy us, now we don't need to resurrect Jurassic Park. xD

 


 INTP loner... .shy girl..

Preety preety

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they want to implement wireless battery charging with the 5G... believeing that these waves wont fry your brain is being so naive

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Harlen Kelly said:

@machiavelli How is this qualitatively different from QANON conspiracy theories? 

There are real dangers that humanity has to face in the coming years and instead your focused on a conspiracy theory. 

yes, including abolishment of livestock, how do you think we wil achieve that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

14 hours ago, Harlen Kelly said:

@BadHippie No, this is just braindead conspiracy theories, not any different from QANON conspiracy theories. You are not ''high-conscious'' as you mentioned for believing in conspiracy theories. 

I would not be surprised if a moderator closes this thread for low quality. 

Well, you are brainwashed by the mainstream media and you aren't doing your own research. The mainstream media are the ones calling it a 'braindead conspiracy theory'. There are too many smart people who will never be able to go on mainstream media that think that 5G is dangerous.

I'd suggest you look into fringe sources that aren't mainstream, that aren't funded by people with agendas. People who actually care about the truth. Just because a source is fringe, that doesn't make their research any less valid. In fact, if they show evidence that the mainstream actively denies, you gotta question the mainstream! We want to be fair and objective here.

Edited by Parththakkar12

"Do not pray for an easy life. Pray for the strength to endure a difficult one." - Bruce Lee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've had enough of all you deluded people who believe in conspiracy theories and other nonsense. From now on I will just ignore you. Have fun with your ignorance and stupidity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, machiavelli said:

So when do believing in conspiracy theories is termed as low consciousness? Isnt it opposite?

Those who are highly conscious care for whole humanity and gaia.

Showing concern about something that can possess harm to health of everyone is not consipracy theory.

A person who is high on spiral dynamics will worry about whole earth and nature. Because everything is interconnected and interdependent.

There is nothing to worry about, it's a braindead conspiracy theory entertained by dullards. 

4 hours ago, Parththakkar12 said:

Well, you are brainwashed by the mainstream media and you aren't doing your own research. The mainstream media are the ones calling it a 'braindead conspiracy theory'. There are too many smart people who will never be able to go on mainstream media that think that 5G is dangerous.

I'd suggest you look into fringe sources that aren't mainstream, that aren't funded by people with agendas. People who actually care about the truth. Just because a source is fringe, that doesn't make their research any less valid. In fact, if they show evidence that the mainstream actively denies, you gotta question the mainstream! We want to be fair and objective here.

What makes you think Joe in his basement or a ''fringe'' source is more credible than mainstream media? 

Do you understand that trumpers think exactly like you, and trumpers are not the most brilliant people as everybody already knows. 

Believing conspiracy theories does not make you special, it makes you gullible and unscientific. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Harlen Kelly said:

There is nothing to worry about, it's a braindead conspiracy theory entertained by dullards. 

What makes you think Joe in his basement or a ''fringe'' source is more credible than mainstream media? 

Do you understand that trumpers think exactly like you, and trumpers are not the most brilliant people as everybody already knows. 

Believing conspiracy theories does not make you special, it makes you gullible and unscientific. 

Being skeptical of new technology that the government tells is safe does not make someone gullible. Look at all the other things that are considered safe that are pushed and used daily in our lives... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now