#Login Register


  • 2 Vote(s) - 3 Average
Home 


5G cities getting pummelled
04-08-2020, 03:21 PM #16
JayRodney ⓐⓛⓘⓔⓝ
Posts:30,289 Threads:1,495 Joined:Feb 2011
Could be like nano tech... it just appeared with no trials and now it's in the food chain doing God knows what. Our causes can't see their ill effects.

wonder.gif

04-09-2020, 04:23 PM #17
UniqueStranger Art in my heart
Posts:15,718 Threads:473 Joined:Jun 2012
(03-25-2020, 02:34 AM)Below Average Genius Wrote:  
(03-24-2020, 05:53 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  
(03-22-2020, 01:53 AM)Below Average Genius Wrote:  
(03-20-2020, 06:04 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  WHO put it this way:

5G non-ionizing radiation has been classified as a Group 2B carcinogen causing agent and so is caffeine similarly classified in that group. So 'everything causes cancer' is the message, which means nothing.

Then newer studies point to caffeine being a health benefit...turn that around...can non-ionizing radiation also be a health benefit? Who knows?...WHO does not know, really.
The classification you refer to is from a political body, not from a scientific one. Furthermore, cancer should be the least of anyone's concerns about 5G. Because 5G disrupts electrolyte function, it can kill a healthy person long before any cancer would be big enough to be noticed. There have been multiple examples of this happening in 30 seconds in videos that escaped from Wuhan.
You never post scientific sources, why is that? Show me electrolyte function disruption!
I almost never do that because it takes time to relook it up, and I'm working on other things - including my invention that electronically prevents the flu. You can research Prof. Martin Pall and VGCC if you're interested in pursuing it yourself. 

It's probably worth noting that citing WHO is also not a scientific source either. They don't do peer review research.
Fair enough, I will keep an open mind for now but other factors come into play here, for instance...

Quote:
“If people are upset, they will perceive a thing as more dangerous … if people perceive a thing as dangerous, they will become upset,” Wingate-Saul added. “Once people are upset, they become resistant to reason. Simply ‘explaining the data’ is not going to work. We are all immune to information we don’t want to learn.”
So Wingate-Saul’s advice to those seeking to avoid the fear is simpler. Engage with communities earlier, explain the technology and its constraints in simple non-technical terms, and “pay close attention to aesthetic design and symmetry”. If mobile phone masts are nicer, fewer people will be enraged by them, turn to the internet, and convince themselves they’re dangerous.
But it’s probably too late for that to save the reputation of 5G. The rollout is progressing at full speed, and many more sites will be upgraded or installed over the coming months, creating more frustrated residents, and perpetuating the cycle further. Eventually, some will forget and move on, with just a nagging feeling that they ought to be concerned. Others will remain dedicated, until another spark ignites the movement again.
Based on historical trends, we can expect to see 6G launched in the mid- to late 2020s, using a still higher part of the spectrum. And based on those same trends, we can expect opposition.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2...alth-scare
I will now read Dr. Pall's (retired) self-published document (not peer reviewed mind you) on this.

https://peaceinspace.blogs.com/files/5g-...-11us3.pdf

BAG, here is a push back on Dr. Pall's findings where supposedly he used only one study to arrive at those findings. The pushback comes from Arthur Firstenberg, Administrator of the International Appeal Stop 5G on Earth and in the Space, so no bias there, now is there?

"Pall’s reasoning is faulty. Calcium is necessary for hundreds of physiological processes that are affected by EMFs. If you prevent calcium from coming into the cell by using a calcium channel blocker, you will stop all of those physiological processes and prevent the EMF effects. That does not tell you anything about the mechanism of action of EMFs. If EMFs act directly on any function that requires calcium, the calcium channel blocker will prevent it. If EMFs instead act on the calcium channel itself, the calcium channel blocker will also prevent it. There is no way to distinguish whether EMFs act directly on the end mechanism or on the supplier of calcium to the end mechanism. Pall points to the “instantaneous” action of EMFs (taking less than 5 seconds) found in one study (Pilla 2012). However Pilla’s study (See Study No. 25, below) also does not prove where the locus of action of the EMFs in that study is.

https://betweenrockandhardplace.wordpres...ypothesis/

Although, Arthur's sources seem to be published mostly in obscure places and not peer reviewed either. So, here we all are...round and round we go. Stop the world, I want to get off.

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5...enberg.pdf
Below Average Genius Show this Post
04-10-2020, 04:47 AM #18
Below Average Genius Incognito
 
(04-09-2020, 04:23 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  
(03-25-2020, 02:34 AM)Below Average Genius Wrote:  
(03-24-2020, 05:53 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  
(03-22-2020, 01:53 AM)Below Average Genius Wrote:  
(03-20-2020, 06:04 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  WHO put it this way:

5G non-ionizing radiation has been classified as a Group 2B carcinogen causing agent and so is caffeine similarly classified in that group. So 'everything causes cancer' is the message, which means nothing.

Then newer studies point to caffeine being a health benefit...turn that around...can non-ionizing radiation also be a health benefit? Who knows?...WHO does not know, really.
The classification you refer to is from a political body, not from a scientific one. Furthermore, cancer should be the least of anyone's concerns about 5G. Because 5G disrupts electrolyte function, it can kill a healthy person long before any cancer would be big enough to be noticed. There have been multiple examples of this happening in 30 seconds in videos that escaped from Wuhan.
You never post scientific sources, why is that? Show me electrolyte function disruption!
I almost never do that because it takes time to relook it up, and I'm working on other things - including my invention that electronically prevents the flu. You can research Prof. Martin Pall and VGCC if you're interested in pursuing it yourself. 

It's probably worth noting that citing WHO is also not a scientific source either. They don't do peer review research.
Fair enough, I will keep an open mind for now but other factors come into play here, for instance...

Quote:“If people are upset, they will perceive a thing as more dangerous … if people perceive a thing as dangerous, they will become upset,” Wingate-Saul added. “Once people are upset, they become resistant to reason. Simply ‘explaining the data’ is not going to work. We are all immune to information we don’t want to learn.”
So Wingate-Saul’s advice to those seeking to avoid the fear is simpler. Engage with communities earlier, explain the technology and its constraints in simple non-technical terms, and “pay close attention to aesthetic design and symmetry”. If mobile phone masts are nicer, fewer people will be enraged by them, turn to the internet, and convince themselves they’re dangerous.
But it’s probably too late for that to save the reputation of 5G. The rollout is progressing at full speed, and many more sites will be upgraded or installed over the coming months, creating more frustrated residents, and perpetuating the cycle further. Eventually, some will forget and move on, with just a nagging feeling that they ought to be concerned. Others will remain dedicated, until another spark ignites the movement again.
Based on historical trends, we can expect to see 6G launched in the mid- to late 2020s, using a still higher part of the spectrum. And based on those same trends, we can expect opposition.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2...alth-scare
I will now read Dr. Pall's (retired) self-published document (not peer reviewed mind you) on this.

https://peaceinspace.blogs.com/files/5g-...-11us3.pdf

BAG, here is a push back on Dr. Pall's findings where supposedly he used only one study to arrive at those findings. The pushback comes from Arthur Firstenberg, Administrator of the International Appeal Stop 5G on Earth and in the Space, so no bias there, now is there?

"Pall’s reasoning is faulty. Calcium is necessary for hundreds of physiological processes that are affected by EMFs. If you prevent calcium from coming into the cell by using a calcium channel blocker, you will stop all of those physiological processes and prevent the EMF effects. That does not tell you anything about the mechanism of action of EMFs. If EMFs act directly on any function that requires calcium, the calcium channel blocker will prevent it. If EMFs instead act on the calcium channel itself, the calcium channel blocker will also prevent it. There is no way to distinguish whether EMFs act directly on the end mechanism or on the supplier of calcium to the end mechanism. Pall points to the “instantaneous” action of EMFs (taking less than 5 seconds) found in one study (Pilla 2012). However Pilla’s study (See Study No. 25, below) also does not prove where the locus of action of the EMFs in that study is.

https://betweenrockandhardplace.wordpres...ypothesis/

Although, Arthur's sources seem to be published mostly in obscure places and not peer reviewed either. So, here we all are...round and round we go. Stop the world, I want to get off.

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5...enberg.pdf
Scientists get paid to make things complicated, but in this case it's best to keep it simple. 

Take any good ion meter and measure the positively charged ions your electronics produce, be it a cell phone or whatever. Those ions go into our heads or our chest/abdomen. 

So now we ask what is the ionic charge of our main electrolytes? All of them are positively charged. All you need is a week of high school chemistry to understand that some of the positive ions from the phone are going to repel our positively charged electrolytes from being able to do their assigned jobs.

Drs. Kreiger and Smith did studies on ions at the University of California circa 1958 and found that positive ions slow down our voltage activated cilia, too, from 900 beats a minute to 600 or even less, sometimes stopping the cilia all together. When the cilia stops, amyloid plaque develops whether the cilia be in the brain or elsewhere.

Those are not healthy outcomes. 

Another simple way to understand is that the waves from towers, WiFi, etc are PULSED waves. Nature and music rely on gentle fractal waves. A pulsed wave is like an alarm clock that' won't shut off. Just like the clock can be maddening, so are the pulsed waves at a microscopic level.
04-10-2020, 06:16 PM #19
UniqueStranger Art in my heart
Posts:15,718 Threads:473 Joined:Jun 2012
(04-10-2020, 04:47 AM)Below Average Genius Wrote:  
(04-09-2020, 04:23 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  
(03-25-2020, 02:34 AM)Below Average Genius Wrote:  
(03-24-2020, 05:53 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  
(03-22-2020, 01:53 AM)Below Average Genius Wrote:  
(03-20-2020, 06:04 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  WHO put it this way:

5G non-ionizing radiation has been classified as a Group 2B carcinogen causing agent and so is caffeine similarly classified in that group. So 'everything causes cancer' is the message, which means nothing.

Then newer studies point to caffeine being a health benefit...turn that around...can non-ionizing radiation also be a health benefit? Who knows?...WHO does not know, really.
The classification you refer to is from a political body, not from a scientific one. Furthermore, cancer should be the least of anyone's concerns about 5G. Because 5G disrupts electrolyte function, it can kill a healthy person long before any cancer would be big enough to be noticed. There have been multiple examples of this happening in 30 seconds in videos that escaped from Wuhan.
You never post scientific sources, why is that? Show me electrolyte function disruption!
I almost never do that because it takes time to relook it up, and I'm working on other things - including my invention that electronically prevents the flu. You can research Prof. Martin Pall and VGCC if you're interested in pursuing it yourself. 

It's probably worth noting that citing WHO is also not a scientific source either. They don't do peer review research.
Fair enough, I will keep an open mind for now but other factors come into play here, for instance...

Quote:“If people are upset, they will perceive a thing as more dangerous … if people perceive a thing as dangerous, they will become upset,” Wingate-Saul added. “Once people are upset, they become resistant to reason. Simply ‘explaining the data’ is not going to work. We are all immune to information we don’t want to learn.”
So Wingate-Saul’s advice to those seeking to avoid the fear is simpler. Engage with communities earlier, explain the technology and its constraints in simple non-technical terms, and “pay close attention to aesthetic design and symmetry”. If mobile phone masts are nicer, fewer people will be enraged by them, turn to the internet, and convince themselves they’re dangerous.
But it’s probably too late for that to save the reputation of 5G. The rollout is progressing at full speed, and many more sites will be upgraded or installed over the coming months, creating more frustrated residents, and perpetuating the cycle further. Eventually, some will forget and move on, with just a nagging feeling that they ought to be concerned. Others will remain dedicated, until another spark ignites the movement again.
Based on historical trends, we can expect to see 6G launched in the mid- to late 2020s, using a still higher part of the spectrum. And based on those same trends, we can expect opposition.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2...alth-scare
I will now read Dr. Pall's (retired) self-published document (not peer reviewed mind you) on this.

https://peaceinspace.blogs.com/files/5g-...-11us3.pdf

BAG, here is a push back on Dr. Pall's findings where supposedly he used only one study to arrive at those findings. The pushback comes from Arthur Firstenberg, Administrator of the International Appeal Stop 5G on Earth and in the Space, so no bias there, now is there?

"Pall’s reasoning is faulty. Calcium is necessary for hundreds of physiological processes that are affected by EMFs. If you prevent calcium from coming into the cell by using a calcium channel blocker, you will stop all of those physiological processes and prevent the EMF effects. That does not tell you anything about the mechanism of action of EMFs. If EMFs act directly on any function that requires calcium, the calcium channel blocker will prevent it. If EMFs instead act on the calcium channel itself, the calcium channel blocker will also prevent it. There is no way to distinguish whether EMFs act directly on the end mechanism or on the supplier of calcium to the end mechanism. Pall points to the “instantaneous” action of EMFs (taking less than 5 seconds) found in one study (Pilla 2012). However Pilla’s study (See Study No. 25, below) also does not prove where the locus of action of the EMFs in that study is.

https://betweenrockandhardplace.wordpres...ypothesis/

Although, Arthur's sources seem to be published mostly in obscure places and not peer reviewed either. So, here we all are...round and round we go. Stop the world, I want to get off.

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5...enberg.pdf
Scientists get paid to make things complicated, but in this case it's best to keep it simple. 

Take any good ion meter and measure the positively charged ions your electronics produce, be it a cell phone or whatever. Those ions go into our heads or our chest/abdomen. 

So now we ask what is the ionic charge of our main electrolytes? All of them are positively charged. All you need is a week of high school chemistry to understand that some of the positive ions from the phone are going to repel our positively charged electrolytes from being able to do their assigned jobs.

Drs. Kreiger and Smith did studies on ions at the University of California circa 1958 and found that positive ions slow down our voltage activated cilia, too, from 900 beats a minute to 600 or even less, sometimes stopping the cilia all together. When the cilia stops, amyloid plaque develops whether the cilia be in the brain or elsewhere.

Those are not healthy outcomes. 

Another simple way to understand is that the waves from towers, WiFi, etc are PULSED waves. Nature and music rely on gentle fractal waves. A pulsed wave is like an alarm clock that' won't shut off. Just like the clock can be maddening, so are the pulsed waves at a microscopic level.
The fact of the matter is is that experts' studies are all either not verified or inconclusive, to date. But they all seem to agree on one fact, that being, that the RF energy is higher at the source (cell tower) than when it reaches us. Too low to effect us adversely. But, like I said before, I will keep my mind open and look for verified (repeated) studies to come.
Below Average Genius Show this Post
04-11-2020, 08:30 AM #20
Below Average Genius Incognito
 
(04-10-2020, 06:16 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  
(04-10-2020, 04:47 AM)Below Average Genius Wrote:  
(04-09-2020, 04:23 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  
(03-25-2020, 02:34 AM)Below Average Genius Wrote:  
(03-24-2020, 05:53 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  
(03-22-2020, 01:53 AM)Below Average Genius Wrote:  
(03-20-2020, 06:04 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  WHO put it this way:

5G non-ionizing radiation has been classified as a Group 2B carcinogen causing agent and so is caffeine similarly classified in that group. So 'everything causes cancer' is the message, which means nothing.

Then newer studies point to caffeine being a health benefit...turn that around...can non-ionizing radiation also be a health benefit? Who knows?...WHO does not know, really.
The classification you refer to is from a political body, not from a scientific one. Furthermore, cancer should be the least of anyone's concerns about 5G. Because 5G disrupts electrolyte function, it can kill a healthy person long before any cancer would be big enough to be noticed. There have been multiple examples of this happening in 30 seconds in videos that escaped from Wuhan.
You never post scientific sources, why is that? Show me electrolyte function disruption!
I almost never do that because it takes time to relook it up, and I'm working on other things - including my invention that electronically prevents the flu. You can research Prof. Martin Pall and VGCC if you're interested in pursuing it yourself. 

It's probably worth noting that citing WHO is also not a scientific source either. They don't do peer review research.
Fair enough, I will keep an open mind for now but other factors come into play here, for instance...

Quote:“If people are upset, they will perceive a thing as more dangerous … if people perceive a thing as dangerous, they will become upset,” Wingate-Saul added. “Once people are upset, they become resistant to reason. Simply ‘explaining the data’ is not going to work. We are all immune to information we don’t want to learn.”
So Wingate-Saul’s advice to those seeking to avoid the fear is simpler. Engage with communities earlier, explain the technology and its constraints in simple non-technical terms, and “pay close attention to aesthetic design and symmetry”. If mobile phone masts are nicer, fewer people will be enraged by them, turn to the internet, and convince themselves they’re dangerous.
But it’s probably too late for that to save the reputation of 5G. The rollout is progressing at full speed, and many more sites will be upgraded or installed over the coming months, creating more frustrated residents, and perpetuating the cycle further. Eventually, some will forget and move on, with just a nagging feeling that they ought to be concerned. Others will remain dedicated, until another spark ignites the movement again.
Based on historical trends, we can expect to see 6G launched in the mid- to late 2020s, using a still higher part of the spectrum. And based on those same trends, we can expect opposition.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2...alth-scare
I will now read Dr. Pall's (retired) self-published document (not peer reviewed mind you) on this.

https://peaceinspace.blogs.com/files/5g-...-11us3.pdf

BAG, here is a push back on Dr. Pall's findings where supposedly he used only one study to arrive at those findings. The pushback comes from Arthur Firstenberg, Administrator of the International Appeal Stop 5G on Earth and in the Space, so no bias there, now is there?

"Pall’s reasoning is faulty. Calcium is necessary for hundreds of physiological processes that are affected by EMFs. If you prevent calcium from coming into the cell by using a calcium channel blocker, you will stop all of those physiological processes and prevent the EMF effects. That does not tell you anything about the mechanism of action of EMFs. If EMFs act directly on any function that requires calcium, the calcium channel blocker will prevent it. If EMFs instead act on the calcium channel itself, the calcium channel blocker will also prevent it. There is no way to distinguish whether EMFs act directly on the end mechanism or on the supplier of calcium to the end mechanism. Pall points to the “instantaneous” action of EMFs (taking less than 5 seconds) found in one study (Pilla 2012). However Pilla’s study (See Study No. 25, below) also does not prove where the locus of action of the EMFs in that study is.

https://betweenrockandhardplace.wordpres...ypothesis/

Although, Arthur's sources seem to be published mostly in obscure places and not peer reviewed either. So, here we all are...round and round we go. Stop the world, I want to get off.

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5...enberg.pdf
Scientists get paid to make things complicated, but in this case it's best to keep it simple. 

Take any good ion meter and measure the positively charged ions your electronics produce, be it a cell phone or whatever. Those ions go into our heads or our chest/abdomen. 

So now we ask what is the ionic charge of our main electrolytes? All of them are positively charged. All you need is a week of high school chemistry to understand that some of the positive ions from the phone are going to repel our positively charged electrolytes from being able to do their assigned jobs.

Drs. Kreiger and Smith did studies on ions at the University of California circa 1958 and found that positive ions slow down our voltage activated cilia, too, from 900 beats a minute to 600 or even less, sometimes stopping the cilia all together. When the cilia stops, amyloid plaque develops whether the cilia be in the brain or elsewhere.

Those are not healthy outcomes. 

Another simple way to understand is that the waves from towers, WiFi, etc are PULSED waves. Nature and music rely on gentle fractal waves. A pulsed wave is like an alarm clock that' won't shut off. Just like the clock can be maddening, so are the pulsed waves at a microscopic level.
The fact of the matter is is that experts' studies are all either not verified or inconclusive, to date. But they all seem to agree on one fact, that being, that the RF energy is higher at the source (cell tower) than when it reaches us. Too low to effect us adversely. But, like I said before, I will keep my mind open and look for verified (repeated) studies to come.
Not verified??? There are 8,000 studies that reveal harm. 

Secondly, although the bad ions are much higher on the towers, the ions from electronics can be measured and those ions get absorbed because that's what ions do. Your unsupported assertion that the ions are too low to cause harm is complete hogwash as I explain in my previous response. Amyloid plaque is no joke.

Finally, it is not the responsibility of consumers to prove danger. It is the industry's job to prove safety. They have not done this. Thirty-year-old standards based on engineering testing of mannequins for heat absorption simply doesn't cut it. But that's what the industry relies on.
04-13-2020, 04:51 PM #21
UniqueStranger Art in my heart
Posts:15,718 Threads:473 Joined:Jun 2012
(04-11-2020, 08:30 AM)Below Average Genius Wrote:  
(04-10-2020, 06:16 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  
(04-10-2020, 04:47 AM)Below Average Genius Wrote:  
(04-09-2020, 04:23 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  
(03-25-2020, 02:34 AM)Below Average Genius Wrote:  
(03-24-2020, 05:53 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  
(03-22-2020, 01:53 AM)Below Average Genius Wrote:  The classification you refer to is from a political body, not from a scientific one. Furthermore, cancer should be the least of anyone's concerns about 5G. Because 5G disrupts electrolyte function, it can kill a healthy person long before any cancer would be big enough to be noticed. There have been multiple examples of this happening in 30 seconds in videos that escaped from Wuhan.
You never post scientific sources, why is that? Show me electrolyte function disruption!
I almost never do that because it takes time to relook it up, and I'm working on other things - including my invention that electronically prevents the flu. You can research Prof. Martin Pall and VGCC if you're interested in pursuing it yourself. 

It's probably worth noting that citing WHO is also not a scientific source either. They don't do peer review research.
Fair enough, I will keep an open mind for now but other factors come into play here, for instance...

Quote:“If people are upset, they will perceive a thing as more dangerous … if people perceive a thing as dangerous, they will become upset,” Wingate-Saul added. “Once people are upset, they become resistant to reason. Simply ‘explaining the data’ is not going to work. We are all immune to information we don’t want to learn.”
So Wingate-Saul’s advice to those seeking to avoid the fear is simpler. Engage with communities earlier, explain the technology and its constraints in simple non-technical terms, and “pay close attention to aesthetic design and symmetry”. If mobile phone masts are nicer, fewer people will be enraged by them, turn to the internet, and convince themselves they’re dangerous.
But it’s probably too late for that to save the reputation of 5G. The rollout is progressing at full speed, and many more sites will be upgraded or installed over the coming months, creating more frustrated residents, and perpetuating the cycle further. Eventually, some will forget and move on, with just a nagging feeling that they ought to be concerned. Others will remain dedicated, until another spark ignites the movement again.
Based on historical trends, we can expect to see 6G launched in the mid- to late 2020s, using a still higher part of the spectrum. And based on those same trends, we can expect opposition.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2...alth-scare
I will now read Dr. Pall's (retired) self-published document (not peer reviewed mind you) on this.

https://peaceinspace.blogs.com/files/5g-...-11us3.pdf

BAG, here is a push back on Dr. Pall's findings where supposedly he used only one study to arrive at those findings. The pushback comes from Arthur Firstenberg, Administrator of the International Appeal Stop 5G on Earth and in the Space, so no bias there, now is there?

"Pall’s reasoning is faulty. Calcium is necessary for hundreds of physiological processes that are affected by EMFs. If you prevent calcium from coming into the cell by using a calcium channel blocker, you will stop all of those physiological processes and prevent the EMF effects. That does not tell you anything about the mechanism of action of EMFs. If EMFs act directly on any function that requires calcium, the calcium channel blocker will prevent it. If EMFs instead act on the calcium channel itself, the calcium channel blocker will also prevent it. There is no way to distinguish whether EMFs act directly on the end mechanism or on the supplier of calcium to the end mechanism. Pall points to the “instantaneous” action of EMFs (taking less than 5 seconds) found in one study (Pilla 2012). However Pilla’s study (See Study No. 25, below) also does not prove where the locus of action of the EMFs in that study is.

https://betweenrockandhardplace.wordpres...ypothesis/

Although, Arthur's sources seem to be published mostly in obscure places and not peer reviewed either. So, here we all are...round and round we go. Stop the world, I want to get off.

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5...enberg.pdf
Scientists get paid to make things complicated, but in this case it's best to keep it simple. 

Take any good ion meter and measure the positively charged ions your electronics produce, be it a cell phone or whatever. Those ions go into our heads or our chest/abdomen. 

So now we ask what is the ionic charge of our main electrolytes? All of them are positively charged. All you need is a week of high school chemistry to understand that some of the positive ions from the phone are going to repel our positively charged electrolytes from being able to do their assigned jobs.

Drs. Kreiger and Smith did studies on ions at the University of California circa 1958 and found that positive ions slow down our voltage activated cilia, too, from 900 beats a minute to 600 or even less, sometimes stopping the cilia all together. When the cilia stops, amyloid plaque develops whether the cilia be in the brain or elsewhere.

Those are not healthy outcomes. 

Another simple way to understand is that the waves from towers, WiFi, etc are PULSED waves. Nature and music rely on gentle fractal waves. A pulsed wave is like an alarm clock that' won't shut off. Just like the clock can be maddening, so are the pulsed waves at a microscopic level.
The fact of the matter is is that experts' studies are all either not verified or inconclusive, to date. But they all seem to agree on one fact, that being, that the RF energy is higher at the source (cell tower) than when it reaches us. Too low to effect us adversely. But, like I said before, I will keep my mind open and look for verified (repeated) studies to come.
Not verified??? There are 8,000 studies that reveal harm. 

Secondly, although the bad ions are much higher on the towers, the ions from electronics can be measured and those ions get absorbed because that's what ions do. Your unsupported assertion that the ions are too low to cause harm is complete hogwash as I explain in my previous response. Amyloid plaque is no joke.

Finally, it is not the responsibility of consumers to prove danger. It is the industry's job to prove safety. They have not done this. Thirty-year-old standards based on engineering testing of mannequins for heat absorption simply doesn't cut it. But that's what the industry relies on.
Again, the experts have proven non-ionizing radiation is not absorbed otherwise our microwave ovens would cause all of us harm, which they don't.

Quote:
Studies of people who may have been exposed to RF radiation at their jobs (such as people who work around or with radar equipment, those who service communication antennae, and radio operators) have found no clear increase in cancer risk.

A number of studies have looked at the possible link between cell phones and cancer. Although some studies have shown a possible link, many others have not. The possible link between cell phones and cancer is hard to study for many reasons, including the relatively short time that cell phones have been in widespread use, changes in the technology over time, and difficulty in estimating each person’s exposure. The possible link between cell phones and cancer risk is discussed in detail in Cellular Phones.

Again, I will keep an eye on future studies as there is still controversy here. Keeping an open mind is good advice for everyone.

https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-cau...ation.html
Below Average Genius Show this Post
04-16-2020, 07:23 AM #22
Below Average Genius Incognito
 
(04-13-2020, 04:51 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  
(04-11-2020, 08:30 AM)Below Average Genius Wrote:  
(04-10-2020, 06:16 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  
(04-10-2020, 04:47 AM)Below Average Genius Wrote:  
(04-09-2020, 04:23 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  
(03-25-2020, 02:34 AM)Below Average Genius Wrote:  
(03-24-2020, 05:53 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  You never post scientific sources, why is that? Show me electrolyte function disruption!
I almost never do that because it takes time to relook it up, and I'm working on other things - including my invention that electronically prevents the flu. You can research Prof. Martin Pall and VGCC if you're interested in pursuing it yourself. 

It's probably worth noting that citing WHO is also not a scientific source either. They don't do peer review research.
Fair enough, I will keep an open mind for now but other factors come into play here, for instance...

Quote:“If people are upset, they will perceive a thing as more dangerous … if people perceive a thing as dangerous, they will become upset,” Wingate-Saul added. “Once people are upset, they become resistant to reason. Simply ‘explaining the data’ is not going to work. We are all immune to information we don’t want to learn.”
So Wingate-Saul’s advice to those seeking to avoid the fear is simpler. Engage with communities earlier, explain the technology and its constraints in simple non-technical terms, and “pay close attention to aesthetic design and symmetry”. If mobile phone masts are nicer, fewer people will be enraged by them, turn to the internet, and convince themselves they’re dangerous.
But it’s probably too late for that to save the reputation of 5G. The rollout is progressing at full speed, and many more sites will be upgraded or installed over the coming months, creating more frustrated residents, and perpetuating the cycle further. Eventually, some will forget and move on, with just a nagging feeling that they ought to be concerned. Others will remain dedicated, until another spark ignites the movement again.
Based on historical trends, we can expect to see 6G launched in the mid- to late 2020s, using a still higher part of the spectrum. And based on those same trends, we can expect opposition.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2...alth-scare
I will now read Dr. Pall's (retired) self-published document (not peer reviewed mind you) on this.

https://peaceinspace.blogs.com/files/5g-...-11us3.pdf

BAG, here is a push back on Dr. Pall's findings where supposedly he used only one study to arrive at those findings. The pushback comes from Arthur Firstenberg, Administrator of the International Appeal Stop 5G on Earth and in the Space, so no bias there, now is there?

"Pall’s reasoning is faulty. Calcium is necessary for hundreds of physiological processes that are affected by EMFs. If you prevent calcium from coming into the cell by using a calcium channel blocker, you will stop all of those physiological processes and prevent the EMF effects. That does not tell you anything about the mechanism of action of EMFs. If EMFs act directly on any function that requires calcium, the calcium channel blocker will prevent it. If EMFs instead act on the calcium channel itself, the calcium channel blocker will also prevent it. There is no way to distinguish whether EMFs act directly on the end mechanism or on the supplier of calcium to the end mechanism. Pall points to the “instantaneous” action of EMFs (taking less than 5 seconds) found in one study (Pilla 2012). However Pilla’s study (See Study No. 25, below) also does not prove where the locus of action of the EMFs in that study is.

https://betweenrockandhardplace.wordpres...ypothesis/

Although, Arthur's sources seem to be published mostly in obscure places and not peer reviewed either. So, here we all are...round and round we go. Stop the world, I want to get off.

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5...enberg.pdf
Scientists get paid to make things complicated, but in this case it's best to keep it simple. 

Take any good ion meter and measure the positively charged ions your electronics produce, be it a cell phone or whatever. Those ions go into our heads or our chest/abdomen. 

So now we ask what is the ionic charge of our main electrolytes? All of them are positively charged. All you need is a week of high school chemistry to understand that some of the positive ions from the phone are going to repel our positively charged electrolytes from being able to do their assigned jobs.

Drs. Kreiger and Smith did studies on ions at the University of California circa 1958 and found that positive ions slow down our voltage activated cilia, too, from 900 beats a minute to 600 or even less, sometimes stopping the cilia all together. When the cilia stops, amyloid plaque develops whether the cilia be in the brain or elsewhere.

Those are not healthy outcomes. 

Another simple way to understand is that the waves from towers, WiFi, etc are PULSED waves. Nature and music rely on gentle fractal waves. A pulsed wave is like an alarm clock that' won't shut off. Just like the clock can be maddening, so are the pulsed waves at a microscopic level.
The fact of the matter is is that experts' studies are all either not verified or inconclusive, to date. But they all seem to agree on one fact, that being, that the RF energy is higher at the source (cell tower) than when it reaches us. Too low to effect us adversely. But, like I said before, I will keep my mind open and look for verified (repeated) studies to come.
Not verified??? There are 8,000 studies that reveal harm. 

Secondly, although the bad ions are much higher on the towers, the ions from electronics can be measured and those ions get absorbed because that's what ions do. Your unsupported assertion that the ions are too low to cause harm is complete hogwash as I explain in my previous response. Amyloid plaque is no joke.

Finally, it is not the responsibility of consumers to prove danger. It is the industry's job to prove safety. They have not done this. Thirty-year-old standards based on engineering testing of mannequins for heat absorption simply doesn't cut it. But that's what the industry relies on.
Again, the experts have proven non-ionizing radiation is not absorbed otherwise our microwave ovens would cause all of us harm, which they don't.

What you've claimed here is false. It has been assumed that radio waves have no biological effect based on the premise that our outer dead layers of skin are thicker than any penetration by waves.  There is no study that confirms it the faulty hypothesis. Many human parrots will repeat what you've said despite there not being any testing on humans.

It's also a faulty assumption to claim that microwave ovens don't cause any harm. There are no human studies to verify that specious claim either. 

But researchers have shown that the waves penetrate our bodies via our 3 to 5 million sweat glands. Our sweat glands have been found to have helical antenna in them thereby intensifying the waves as they are sent deeper into the body.
04-16-2020, 04:31 PM #23
UniqueStranger Art in my heart
Posts:15,718 Threads:473 Joined:Jun 2012
(04-16-2020, 07:23 AM)Below Average Genius Wrote:  
(04-13-2020, 04:51 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  
(04-11-2020, 08:30 AM)Below Average Genius Wrote:  
(04-10-2020, 06:16 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  
(04-10-2020, 04:47 AM)Below Average Genius Wrote:  
(04-09-2020, 04:23 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  
(03-25-2020, 02:34 AM)Below Average Genius Wrote:  I almost never do that because it takes time to relook it up, and I'm working on other things - including my invention that electronically prevents the flu. You can research Prof. Martin Pall and VGCC if you're interested in pursuing it yourself. 

It's probably worth noting that citing WHO is also not a scientific source either. They don't do peer review research.
Fair enough, I will keep an open mind for now but other factors come into play here, for instance...

Quote:“If people are upset, they will perceive a thing as more dangerous … if people perceive a thing as dangerous, they will become upset,” Wingate-Saul added. “Once people are upset, they become resistant to reason. Simply ‘explaining the data’ is not going to work. We are all immune to information we don’t want to learn.”
So Wingate-Saul’s advice to those seeking to avoid the fear is simpler. Engage with communities earlier, explain the technology and its constraints in simple non-technical terms, and “pay close attention to aesthetic design and symmetry”. If mobile phone masts are nicer, fewer people will be enraged by them, turn to the internet, and convince themselves they’re dangerous.
But it’s probably too late for that to save the reputation of 5G. The rollout is progressing at full speed, and many more sites will be upgraded or installed over the coming months, creating more frustrated residents, and perpetuating the cycle further. Eventually, some will forget and move on, with just a nagging feeling that they ought to be concerned. Others will remain dedicated, until another spark ignites the movement again.
Based on historical trends, we can expect to see 6G launched in the mid- to late 2020s, using a still higher part of the spectrum. And based on those same trends, we can expect opposition.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2...alth-scare
I will now read Dr. Pall's (retired) self-published document (not peer reviewed mind you) on this.

https://peaceinspace.blogs.com/files/5g-...-11us3.pdf

BAG, here is a push back on Dr. Pall's findings where supposedly he used only one study to arrive at those findings. The pushback comes from Arthur Firstenberg, Administrator of the International Appeal Stop 5G on Earth and in the Space, so no bias there, now is there?

"Pall’s reasoning is faulty. Calcium is necessary for hundreds of physiological processes that are affected by EMFs. If you prevent calcium from coming into the cell by using a calcium channel blocker, you will stop all of those physiological processes and prevent the EMF effects. That does not tell you anything about the mechanism of action of EMFs. If EMFs act directly on any function that requires calcium, the calcium channel blocker will prevent it. If EMFs instead act on the calcium channel itself, the calcium channel blocker will also prevent it. There is no way to distinguish whether EMFs act directly on the end mechanism or on the supplier of calcium to the end mechanism. Pall points to the “instantaneous” action of EMFs (taking less than 5 seconds) found in one study (Pilla 2012). However Pilla’s study (See Study No. 25, below) also does not prove where the locus of action of the EMFs in that study is.

https://betweenrockandhardplace.wordpres...ypothesis/

Although, Arthur's sources seem to be published mostly in obscure places and not peer reviewed either. So, here we all are...round and round we go. Stop the world, I want to get off.

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5...enberg.pdf
Scientists get paid to make things complicated, but in this case it's best to keep it simple. 

Take any good ion meter and measure the positively charged ions your electronics produce, be it a cell phone or whatever. Those ions go into our heads or our chest/abdomen. 

So now we ask what is the ionic charge of our main electrolytes? All of them are positively charged. All you need is a week of high school chemistry to understand that some of the positive ions from the phone are going to repel our positively charged electrolytes from being able to do their assigned jobs.

Drs. Kreiger and Smith did studies on ions at the University of California circa 1958 and found that positive ions slow down our voltage activated cilia, too, from 900 beats a minute to 600 or even less, sometimes stopping the cilia all together. When the cilia stops, amyloid plaque develops whether the cilia be in the brain or elsewhere.

Those are not healthy outcomes. 

Another simple way to understand is that the waves from towers, WiFi, etc are PULSED waves. Nature and music rely on gentle fractal waves. A pulsed wave is like an alarm clock that' won't shut off. Just like the clock can be maddening, so are the pulsed waves at a microscopic level.
The fact of the matter is is that experts' studies are all either not verified or inconclusive, to date. But they all seem to agree on one fact, that being, that the RF energy is higher at the source (cell tower) than when it reaches us. Too low to effect us adversely. But, like I said before, I will keep my mind open and look for verified (repeated) studies to come.
Not verified??? There are 8,000 studies that reveal harm. 

Secondly, although the bad ions are much higher on the towers, the ions from electronics can be measured and those ions get absorbed because that's what ions do. Your unsupported assertion that the ions are too low to cause harm is complete hogwash as I explain in my previous response. Amyloid plaque is no joke.

Finally, it is not the responsibility of consumers to prove danger. It is the industry's job to prove safety. They have not done this. Thirty-year-old standards based on engineering testing of mannequins for heat absorption simply doesn't cut it. But that's what the industry relies on.
Again, the experts have proven non-ionizing radiation is not absorbed otherwise our microwave ovens would cause all of us harm, which they don't.

What you've claimed here is false. It has been assumed that radio waves have no biological effect based on the premise that our outer dead layers of skin are thicker than any penetration by waves.  There is no study that confirms it the faulty hypothesis. Many human parrots will repeat what you've said despite there not being any testing on humans.

It's also a faulty assumption to claim that microwave ovens don't cause any harm. There are no human studies to verify that specious claim either. 

But researchers have shown that the waves penetrate our bodies via our 3 to 5 million sweat glands. Our sweat glands have been found to have helical antenna in them thereby intensifying the waves as they are sent deeper into the body.

If microwaves are harmful I am sure everyone would know about it by now.

There are no studies done on humans to prove that 5G waves penetrate our body either, so there ya go.
Below Average Genius Show this Post
04-18-2020, 03:07 AM #24
Below Average Genius Incognito
 
(04-16-2020, 04:31 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  
(04-16-2020, 07:23 AM)Below Average Genius Wrote:  
(04-13-2020, 04:51 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  
(04-11-2020, 08:30 AM)Below Average Genius Wrote:  
(04-10-2020, 06:16 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  
(04-10-2020, 04:47 AM)Below Average Genius Wrote:  
(04-09-2020, 04:23 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  Fair enough, I will keep an open mind for now but other factors come into play here, for instance...

I will now read Dr. Pall's (retired) self-published document (not peer reviewed mind you) on this.

https://peaceinspace.blogs.com/files/5g-...-11us3.pdf

BAG, here is a push back on Dr. Pall's findings where supposedly he used only one study to arrive at those findings. The pushback comes from Arthur Firstenberg, Administrator of the International Appeal Stop 5G on Earth and in the Space, so no bias there, now is there?

"Pall’s reasoning is faulty. Calcium is necessary for hundreds of physiological processes that are affected by EMFs. If you prevent calcium from coming into the cell by using a calcium channel blocker, you will stop all of those physiological processes and prevent the EMF effects. That does not tell you anything about the mechanism of action of EMFs. If EMFs act directly on any function that requires calcium, the calcium channel blocker will prevent it. If EMFs instead act on the calcium channel itself, the calcium channel blocker will also prevent it. There is no way to distinguish whether EMFs act directly on the end mechanism or on the supplier of calcium to the end mechanism. Pall points to the “instantaneous” action of EMFs (taking less than 5 seconds) found in one study (Pilla 2012). However Pilla’s study (See Study No. 25, below) also does not prove where the locus of action of the EMFs in that study is.

https://betweenrockandhardplace.wordpres...ypothesis/

Although, Arthur's sources seem to be published mostly in obscure places and not peer reviewed either. So, here we all are...round and round we go. Stop the world, I want to get off.

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5...enberg.pdf
Scientists get paid to make things complicated, but in this case it's best to keep it simple. 

Take any good ion meter and measure the positively charged ions your electronics produce, be it a cell phone or whatever. Those ions go into our heads or our chest/abdomen. 

So now we ask what is the ionic charge of our main electrolytes? All of them are positively charged. All you need is a week of high school chemistry to understand that some of the positive ions from the phone are going to repel our positively charged electrolytes from being able to do their assigned jobs.

Drs. Kreiger and Smith did studies on ions at the University of California circa 1958 and found that positive ions slow down our voltage activated cilia, too, from 900 beats a minute to 600 or even less, sometimes stopping the cilia all together. When the cilia stops, amyloid plaque develops whether the cilia be in the brain or elsewhere.

Those are not healthy outcomes. 

Another simple way to understand is that the waves from towers, WiFi, etc are PULSED waves. Nature and music rely on gentle fractal waves. A pulsed wave is like an alarm clock that' won't shut off. Just like the clock can be maddening, so are the pulsed waves at a microscopic level.
The fact of the matter is is that experts' studies are all either not verified or inconclusive, to date. But they all seem to agree on one fact, that being, that the RF energy is higher at the source (cell tower) than when it reaches us. Too low to effect us adversely. But, like I said before, I will keep my mind open and look for verified (repeated) studies to come.
Not verified??? There are 8,000 studies that reveal harm. 

Secondly, although the bad ions are much higher on the towers, the ions from electronics can be measured and those ions get absorbed because that's what ions do. Your unsupported assertion that the ions are too low to cause harm is complete hogwash as I explain in my previous response. Amyloid plaque is no joke.

Finally, it is not the responsibility of consumers to prove danger. It is the industry's job to prove safety. They have not done this. Thirty-year-old standards based on engineering testing of mannequins for heat absorption simply doesn't cut it. But that's what the industry relies on.
Again, the experts have proven non-ionizing radiation is not absorbed otherwise our microwave ovens would cause all of us harm, which they don't.

What you've claimed here is false. It has been assumed that radio waves have no biological effect based on the premise that our outer dead layers of skin are thicker than any penetration by waves.  There is no study that confirms it the faulty hypothesis. Many human parrots will repeat what you've said despite there not being any testing on humans.

It's also a faulty assumption to claim that microwave ovens don't cause any harm. There are no human studies to verify that specious claim either. 

But researchers have shown that the waves penetrate our bodies via our 3 to 5 million sweat glands. Our sweat glands have been found to have helical antenna in them thereby intensifying the waves as they are sent deeper into the body.

If microwaves are harmful I am sure everyone would know about it by now.

There are no studies done on humans to prove that 5G waves penetrate our body either, so there ya go.
What you've said is factually wrong as was noted in my previous response: "But researchers have shown that the waves penetrate our bodies via our 3 to 5 million sweat glands. Our sweat glands have been found to have helical antenna in them thereby intensifying the waves as they are sent deeper into the body."

Secondly, it is the responsibility of the providers to prove safety rather than the victims. 

When people were screaming about the dangers of cigarettes, the same argument was surely made, "If smoking were so bad for you, we'd all know and doctors wouldn't be promoting it!" So the fight took decades.

We don't have the luxury of decades or even years at this point. Millions of lives and livelihoods are ALREADY being destroyed.
04-19-2020, 03:23 PM #25
UniqueStranger Art in my heart
Posts:15,718 Threads:473 Joined:Jun 2012
Maybe the researchers need new methodology because whatever the researchers are doing now is not convincing the people that run our safety standards regarding this technology.


Quote:
Quote: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.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/obs...g-is-safe/



Home 





Copyright © 2011 - 2020 kritterbox.com