#Login Register


  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
Home 


5G provides the extra
Below Average Genius Show this Post
07-22-2019, 04:05 AM #1
Below Average Genius Anonymous Kritter
 
Rain clouds get their shape from ions and electromagnetic fields. When there is more of both, bigger angrier clouds show up. 5G has been providing the extra. Extra deaths, extra lost homes, etc.
07-25-2019, 06:25 PM #2
UniqueStranger Art in my heart
Posts:15,507 Threads:466 Joined:Jun 2012
I will keep reading the newest studies on this.

Quote:Scientists say that the most important criterion about whether any particular RFR is dangerous is whether it falls into the category of ionizing or non-ionizing radiation. Simply put, any radiation that’s non-ionizing is too weak to break chemical bonds. That includes ultraviolet, visible light, infrared, and everything with a lower frequency, like radio waves. Everyday technologies like power lines, FM radio, and Wi-Fi also fall into this range. (Microwaves are the lone exception: non-ionizing but able to damage tissue, they’re precisely and intentionally tuned to resonate with water molecules.) Frequencies above UV, like x-rays and gamma rays, are ionizing.

Quote:It’s easy to find claims online that the greater frequency of 5G alone constitutes a risk. RadiationHealthRisks.com observes that “1G, 2G, 3G and 4G use between 1 to 5 gigahertz frequency. 5G uses between 24 to 90 gigahertz frequency,” and then asserts that “Within the RF Radiation portion of the electromagnetic spectrum, the higher the frequency, the more dangerous it is to living organisms.”

But asserting that the higher frequency is more dangerous is just that—an assertion, and there’s little real science to stand behind it. 5G remains non-ionizing in nature.

https://www.howtogeek.com/423720/how-wor...sks-of-5g/
07-25-2019, 06:37 PM #3
UniqueStranger Art in my heart
Posts:15,507 Threads:466 Joined:Jun 2012
As for cloud formation, it appears that only ionizing radiation would affect cloud formation. Did you know that there were more clouds in pre-industralized times? Also checkout CERN's cloud studies.



Below Average Genius Show this Post
07-25-2019, 08:30 PM #4
Below Average Genius Anonymous Kritter
 
(2 hours ago)UniqueStranger Wrote:  I will keep reading the newest studies on this.

Quote:Scientists say that the most important criterion about whether any particular RFR is dangerous is whether it falls into the category of ionizing or non-ionizing radiation. Simply put, any radiation that’s non-ionizing is too weak to break chemical bonds. That includes ultraviolet, visible light, infrared, and everything with a lower frequency, like radio waves. Everyday technologies like power lines, FM radio, and Wi-Fi also fall into this range. (Microwaves are the lone exception: non-ionizing but able to damage tissue, they’re precisely and intentionally tuned to resonate with water molecules.) Frequencies above UV, like x-rays and gamma rays, are ionizing.

Quote:It’s easy to find claims online that the greater frequency of 5G alone constitutes a risk. RadiationHealthRisks.com observes that “1G, 2G, 3G and 4G use between 1 to 5 gigahertz frequency. 5G uses between 24 to 90 gigahertz frequency,” and then asserts that “Within the RF Radiation portion of the electromagnetic spectrum, the higher the frequency, the more dangerous it is to living organisms.”

But asserting that the higher frequency is more dangerous is just that—an assertion, and there’s little real science to stand behind it. 5G remains non-ionizing in nature.

https://www.howtogeek.com/423720/how-wor...sks-of-5g/

the author of those statements is clueless unfortunately. There are about 8,000 studies revealing the detrimental effects of 4G and 5G EMF's and ions. The studies that purport to show no harm are engineering studies that make invalid assumptions about the biological effects of the various generations of the towers etc. In contrast, biological studies have proven those assumptions to be wildly inaccurate.
07-25-2019, 08:35 PM #5
UniqueStranger Art in my heart
Posts:15,507 Threads:466 Joined:Jun 2012
It is not enough for me to accept someone calling other scientists 'clueless, so when I come across a controversy, I do my research at both ends.
Below Average Genius Show this Post
07-25-2019, 08:47 PM #6
Below Average Genius Anonymous Kritter
 
(2 hours ago)UniqueStranger Wrote:  As for cloud formation, it appears that only ionizing radiation would affect cloud formation. Did you know that there were more clouds in pre-industralized times? Also checkout CERN's cloud studies.

https://youtu.be/p10svmB7ktE

https://youtu.be/8M3up6T9Zeg

Thank you for the videos, US. The first one confirms the explanation I've given regarding why 5G is producing so many clouds because 5G adds both fields and ions to the sky. Even a small amount can spiral into a massive cloud formation. We have seen exactly that in the Florida Panhandle in recent weeks where 1,000-foot cloud formations are nonstop all over the place as 5G testing is going on.

The fact that my Cloud Tapper turns those clouds into wisps and swiss cheese is further conformation due to the types of fields it generates. Mind you that the Tapper has NEVER failed to alter the clouds it is pointed at. This makes sense because physical law is at play. Once when the prototype flew apart, I was immediately hit by gale force winds and nearly blown over. If I hadn't gotten off the beach, the incoming waves would have taken me out into the Gulf. This happened at Panama City Beach.
Below Average Genius Show this Post
07-25-2019, 08:50 PM #7
Below Average Genius Anonymous Kritter
 
(2 hours ago)UniqueStranger Wrote:  As for cloud formation, it appears that only ionizing radiation would affect cloud formation. Did you know that there were more clouds in pre-industralized times? Also checkout CERN's cloud studies.

https://youtu.be/p10svmB7ktE

https://youtu.be/8M3up6T9Zeg

The second video that is using an indoor replica of cloud formation has not been subjected to 5G ions and EMF's. While the study could be valuable in significant ways, it is useless in terms of the impact of 5G, unless one were to extrapolate that 5G's input would indeed produce far different results.
Below Average Genius Show this Post
07-25-2019, 09:04 PM #8
Below Average Genius Anonymous Kritter
 
(29 minutes ago)UniqueStranger Wrote:  It is not enough for me to accept someone calling other scientists 'clueless, so when I come across a controversy, I do my research at both ends.

When someone writes, "But asserting that the higher frequency is more dangerous is just that—an assertion, and there’s little real science to stand behind it. 5G remains non-ionizing in nature," they are indeed clueless because it is flat out WRONG! There have been at least 8,000 studies. It doesn't matter if the the person making the statement has a dozen PhD's - they are profoundly WRONG when it comes to their awareness of the literature!!

It's also clueless to assume that radiation needs to be ionizing to be a threat. It's not IONIZING RADIATION that is the danger here. It's positively charged IONS. Radiation is a wave, but ions are particles!! Far too many scientific parrots repeat that canard. they are truly brain dead to make a monumental mistake like that. It's like saying cheese balls are windstorms. Yeah, it's that bad. Yet you will see parrots everywhere repeating it as if it were received wisdom.

Interfering with our ionic electrolytes requires only ions - not radiation!! The positively charged electrolytes get repelled by the positively charged ions from the copper wires used to generate the electricity driving the towers. Yeah, it can be that simple. The same positively charged ions react to the fields and other ions in the air.
07-26-2019, 01:32 PM #9
UniqueStranger Art in my heart
Posts:15,507 Threads:466 Joined:Jun 2012
(Yesterday, 08:04 PM)Below Average Genius Wrote:  
(Yesterday, 07:35 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  It is not enough for me to accept someone calling other scientists 'clueless, so when I come across a controversy, I do my research at both ends.

When someone writes, "But asserting that the higher frequency is more dangerous is just that—an assertion, and there’s little real science to stand behind it. 5G remains non-ionizing in nature," they are indeed clueless because it is flat out WRONG! There have been at least 8,000 studies. It doesn't matter if the the person making the statement has a dozen PhD's - they are profoundly WRONG when it comes to their awareness of the literature!!

It's also clueless to assume that radiation needs to be ionizing to be a threat. It's not IONIZING RADIATION that is the danger here. It's positively charged IONS. Radiation is a wave, but ions are particles!! Far too many scientific parrots repeat that canard. they are truly brain dead to make a monumental mistake like that. It's like saying cheese balls are windstorms. Yeah, it's that bad. Yet you will see parrots everywhere repeating it as if it were received wisdom.

Interfering with our ionic electrolytes requires only ions - not radiation!! The positively charged electrolytes get repelled by the positively charged ions from the copper wires used to generate the electricity driving the towers. Yeah, it can be that simple. The same positively charged ions react to the fields and other ions in the air.

It can be very confusing, but I will try to understand. This article says the mmWave frequency they will be using is wedged between microwave and infrared...right there that is enough for me to raise my eyebrow and ask more questions. I also read where the further away from your microwave while it is in operation the less radiation reaches you. As for infrared exposure, I've read where it depends on the amount of exposure that determines harm.

Quote:Millimeter wave spectrum is the band of spectrum between 30 GHz and 300 GHz. Wedged between microwave and infrared waves, this spectrum can be used for high-speed wireless communications as seen with the latest 802.11ad Wi-Fi standard (operating at 60 GHz).

https://www.rcrwireless.com/20160815/fun...ag31-tag99

So, where I am going with this is that there must be safe or safer distances from towers to minimize the damaging effects on our bodies. As well, there must be guidelines (perhaps China has more studies?) as to exposure limits/times. I mean we can turn our gadgets off.
07-26-2019, 02:07 PM #10
UniqueStranger Art in my heart
Posts:15,507 Threads:466 Joined:Jun 2012


Again, nobody really knows what the harm will be. Quite a few studies use the word 'possibly'. So, I am still reading new studies.

Let's take infrared sauna waves because 5G will be in between infrared and microwave frequencies, they say it just heats the skin to a deep level. Then in the article below, it is mentioned that it actually fragments DNA, but was this study ever repeated? Then they say that the evidence is inconclusive. Very confusing.

"A 2009 study at the University of Basel in Switzerland found that intermittent (but not continuous) exposure of human cells to a 50 Hz electromagnetic field at a flux density of 1 mT (or 10 G) induced a slight but significant increase of DNA fragmentation in the Comet assay. However that level of exposure is already above current established safety exposure limits."

https://celebrationsaunas.com/emf-danger...ed-saunas/
Below Average Genius Show this Post
07-26-2019, 09:43 PM #11
Below Average Genius Anonymous Kritter
 
(7 hours ago)UniqueStranger Wrote:  https://youtu.be/JLTPerFA0ug

Again, nobody really knows what the harm will be. Quite a few studies use the word 'possibly'. So, I am still reading new studies.

Let's take infrared sauna waves because 5G will be in between infrared and microwave frequencies, they say it just heats the skin to a deep level. Then in the article below, it is mentioned that it actually fragments DNA, but was this study ever repeated? Then they say that the evidence is inconclusive. Very confusing.

"A 2009 study at the University of Basel in Switzerland found that intermittent (but not continuous) exposure of human cells to a 50 Hz electromagnetic field at a flux density of 1 mT (or 10 G) induced a slight but significant increase of DNA fragmentation in the Comet assay.  However that level of exposure is already above current established safety exposure limits."

https://celebrationsaunas.com/emf-danger...ed-saunas/

It can be a deadly mistake to evaluate cell tower effects by relying on engineering assumptions. They assume certain wavelengths are safe and base their erroneous conclusions from there. But their assumptions happen to be wrong based on thousands of biological studies.

BTW, the video makes the same grotesque error a lot of other defenders of 5G make by confusing ionizing radiation (waves) with ions (particles) beginning at 4:47 in the video.

I'm tired of having to repeat the same critical corrections of your sources. Please search where your sources find an error in what I have said before repeating the same errors from different sources. It's still wrong regardless of how many clueless people make the same mistakes.

Also this thread started out as a thread regarding the effects of 5G on our weather. Can we keep it there?
07-30-2019, 05:59 PM #12
UniqueStranger Art in my heart
Posts:15,507 Threads:466 Joined:Jun 2012
(07-26-2019, 08:43 PM)Below Average Genius Wrote:  
(07-26-2019, 01:07 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  https://youtu.be/JLTPerFA0ug

Again, nobody really knows what the harm will be. Quite a few studies use the word 'possibly'. So, I am still reading new studies.

Let's take infrared sauna waves because 5G will be in between infrared and microwave frequencies, they say it just heats the skin to a deep level. Then in the article below, it is mentioned that it actually fragments DNA, but was this study ever repeated? Then they say that the evidence is inconclusive. Very confusing.

"A 2009 study at the University of Basel in Switzerland found that intermittent (but not continuous) exposure of human cells to a 50 Hz electromagnetic field at a flux density of 1 mT (or 10 G) induced a slight but significant increase of DNA fragmentation in the Comet assay.  However that level of exposure is already above current established safety exposure limits."

https://celebrationsaunas.com/emf-danger...ed-saunas/

It can be a deadly mistake to evaluate cell tower effects by relying on engineering assumptions. They assume certain wavelengths are safe and base their erroneous conclusions from there. But their assumptions happen to be wrong based on thousands of biological studies.

BTW, the video makes the same grotesque error a lot of other defenders of 5G make by confusing ionizing radiation (waves) with ions (particles) beginning at 4:47 in the video.

I'm tired of having to repeat the same critical corrections of your sources. Please search where your sources find an error in what I have said before repeating the same errors from different sources. It's still wrong regardless of how many clueless people make the same mistakes.

Also this thread started out as a thread regarding the effects of 5G on our weather. Can we keep it there?

Actually, you can't prove effects on our weather just as we can't prove anything else regarding 5G. Just saying.
Below Average Genius Show this Post
07-30-2019, 07:05 PM #13
Below Average Genius Anonymous Kritter
 
(1 hour ago)UniqueStranger Wrote:  
(07-26-2019, 09:43 PM)Below Average Genius Wrote:  
(07-26-2019, 02:07 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  https://youtu.be/JLTPerFA0ug

Again, nobody really knows what the harm will be. Quite a few studies use the word 'possibly'. So, I am still reading new studies.

Let's take infrared sauna waves because 5G will be in between infrared and microwave frequencies, they say it just heats the skin to a deep level. Then in the article below, it is mentioned that it actually fragments DNA, but was this study ever repeated? Then they say that the evidence is inconclusive. Very confusing.

"A 2009 study at the University of Basel in Switzerland found that intermittent (but not continuous) exposure of human cells to a 50 Hz electromagnetic field at a flux density of 1 mT (or 10 G) induced a slight but significant increase of DNA fragmentation in the Comet assay.  However that level of exposure is already above current established safety exposure limits."

https://celebrationsaunas.com/emf-danger...ed-saunas/

It can be a deadly mistake to evaluate cell tower effects by relying on engineering assumptions. They assume certain wavelengths are safe and base their erroneous conclusions from there. But their assumptions happen to be wrong based on thousands of biological studies.

BTW, the video makes the same grotesque error a lot of other defenders of 5G make by confusing ionizing radiation (waves) with ions (particles) beginning at 4:47 in the video.

I'm tired of having to repeat the same critical corrections of your sources. Please search where your sources find an error in what I have said before repeating the same errors from different sources. It's still wrong regardless of how many clueless people make the same mistakes.

Also this thread started out as a thread regarding the effects of 5G on our weather. Can we keep it there?

Actually, you can't prove effects on our weather just as we can't prove anything else regarding 5G. Just saying.

If we lived in a world that denied the basics of physical science, as you are doing, what I've said would continue to be true anyway. Your position is akin to saying one can't prove turning lights switches on proves light switches turn on lights.

In a similar fashion, I have used my invention on a hundred or more cumulus and cumulonimbus clouds. In every single case without exception, the cloud is rapidly and dramatically altered, just like the light switch turns on the light every time. One time at the beach, the machine fell apart. This was during Hurricane Barry's activity in New Orleans, and we were getting the tail end of it. With 17 miles of beach in front and to the sides of me, the rain was reduced about 50%. In the time it took for me to pick up the parts, I was hit by hurricane force winds and nearly blown over while being pelted by a near deluge.

The invention is based on the same physical laws being utilized, and the results are 100%. Clouds that were relatively stationary and growing get turned into mere wisps or become small fractions of their former selves depending on how much time I spend and the thickness of the clouds.

The fact that the machine is so effective is also a proof of the ions and EMFs from 5G being the reason for the 100-fold increase in cloud formations. It is the only additional source of any magnitude for ions and EMFs unless you prefer to believe fairies have picked this particular time to make all those clouds.

But you have no proof of that scenario, do you! Meanwhile the telecom companies do in fact test their 5G systems and roll it out - unless you want to disbelieve them as well.
07-30-2019, 07:44 PM #14
UniqueStranger Art in my heart
Posts:15,507 Threads:466 Joined:Jun 2012
(39 minutes ago)Below Average Genius Wrote:  
(1 hour ago)UniqueStranger Wrote:  
(07-26-2019, 08:43 PM)Below Average Genius Wrote:  
(07-26-2019, 01:07 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  https://youtu.be/JLTPerFA0ug

Again, nobody really knows what the harm will be. Quite a few studies use the word 'possibly'. So, I am still reading new studies.

Let's take infrared sauna waves because 5G will be in between infrared and microwave frequencies, they say it just heats the skin to a deep level. Then in the article below, it is mentioned that it actually fragments DNA, but was this study ever repeated? Then they say that the evidence is inconclusive. Very confusing.

"A 2009 study at the University of Basel in Switzerland found that intermittent (but not continuous) exposure of human cells to a 50 Hz electromagnetic field at a flux density of 1 mT (or 10 G) induced a slight but significant increase of DNA fragmentation in the Comet assay.  However that level of exposure is already above current established safety exposure limits."

https://celebrationsaunas.com/emf-danger...ed-saunas/

It can be a deadly mistake to evaluate cell tower effects by relying on engineering assumptions. They assume certain wavelengths are safe and base their erroneous conclusions from there. But their assumptions happen to be wrong based on thousands of biological studies.

BTW, the video makes the same grotesque error a lot of other defenders of 5G make by confusing ionizing radiation (waves) with ions (particles) beginning at 4:47 in the video.

I'm tired of having to repeat the same critical corrections of your sources. Please search where your sources find an error in what I have said before repeating the same errors from different sources. It's still wrong regardless of how many clueless people make the same mistakes.

Also this thread started out as a thread regarding the effects of 5G on our weather. Can we keep it there?

Actually, you can't prove effects on our weather just as we can't prove anything else regarding 5G. Just saying.

If we lived in a world that denied the basics of physical science, as you are doing, what I've said would continue to be true anyway. Your position is akin to saying one can't prove turning lights switches on proves light switches turn on lights.

In a similar fashion, I have used my invention on a hundred or more cumulus and cumulonimbus clouds. In every single case without exception, the cloud is rapidly and dramatically altered, just like the light switch turns on the light every time. One time at the beach, the machine fell apart. This was during Hurricane Barry's activity in New Orleans, and we were getting the tail end of it. With 17 miles of beach in front and to the sides of me, the rain was reduced about 50%. In the time it took for me to pick up the parts, I was hit by hurricane force winds and nearly blown over while being pelted by a near deluge.

The invention is based on the same physical laws being utilized, and the results are 100%. Clouds that were relatively stationary and growing get turned into mere wisps or become small fractions of their former selves depending on how much time I spend and the thickness of the clouds.

The fact that the machine is so effective is also a proof of the ions and EMFs from 5G being the reason for the 100-fold increase in cloud formations. It is the only additional source of any magnitude for ions and EMFs unless you prefer to believe fairies have picked this particular time to make all those clouds.

But you have no proof of that scenario, do you! Meanwhile the telecom companies do in fact test their 5G systems and roll it out - unless you want to disbelieve them as well.

The problem is you are not performing tests in a controlled environment, therefore you can't make those claims.
Below Average Genius Show this Post
07-30-2019, 08:10 PM #15
Below Average Genius Anonymous Kritter
 
(26 minutes ago)UniqueStranger Wrote:  
(1 hour ago)Below Average Genius Wrote:  
(2 hours ago)UniqueStranger Wrote:  
(07-26-2019, 09:43 PM)Below Average Genius Wrote:  
(07-26-2019, 02:07 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  https://youtu.be/JLTPerFA0ug

Again, nobody really knows what the harm will be. Quite a few studies use the word 'possibly'. So, I am still reading new studies.

Let's take infrared sauna waves because 5G will be in between infrared and microwave frequencies, they say it just heats the skin to a deep level. Then in the article below, it is mentioned that it actually fragments DNA, but was this study ever repeated? Then they say that the evidence is inconclusive. Very confusing.

"A 2009 study at the University of Basel in Switzerland found that intermittent (but not continuous) exposure of human cells to a 50 Hz electromagnetic field at a flux density of 1 mT (or 10 G) induced a slight but significant increase of DNA fragmentation in the Comet assay.  However that level of exposure is already above current established safety exposure limits."

https://celebrationsaunas.com/emf-danger...ed-saunas/

It can be a deadly mistake to evaluate cell tower effects by relying on engineering assumptions. They assume certain wavelengths are safe and base their erroneous conclusions from there. But their assumptions happen to be wrong based on thousands of biological studies.

BTW, the video makes the same grotesque error a lot of other defenders of 5G make by confusing ionizing radiation (waves) with ions (particles) beginning at 4:47 in the video.

I'm tired of having to repeat the same critical corrections of your sources. Please search where your sources find an error in what I have said before repeating the same errors from different sources. It's still wrong regardless of how many clueless people make the same mistakes.

Also this thread started out as a thread regarding the effects of 5G on our weather. Can we keep it there?

Actually, you can't prove effects on our weather just as we can't prove anything else regarding 5G. Just saying.

If we lived in a world that denied the basics of physical science, as you are doing, what I've said would continue to be true anyway. Your position is akin to saying one can't prove turning lights switches on proves light switches turn on lights.

In a similar fashion, I have used my invention on a hundred or more cumulus and cumulonimbus clouds. In every single case without exception, the cloud is rapidly and dramatically altered, just like the light switch turns on the light every time. One time at the beach, the machine fell apart. This was during Hurricane Barry's activity in New Orleans, and we were getting the tail end of it. With 17 miles of beach in front and to the sides of me, the rain was reduced about 50%. In the time it took for me to pick up the parts, I was hit by hurricane force winds and nearly blown over while being pelted by a near deluge.

The invention is based on the same physical laws being utilized, and the results are 100%. Clouds that were relatively stationary and growing get turned into mere wisps or become small fractions of their former selves depending on how much time I spend and the thickness of the clouds.

The fact that the machine is so effective is also a proof of the ions and EMFs from 5G being the reason for the 100-fold increase in cloud formations. It is the only additional source of any magnitude for ions and EMFs unless you prefer to believe fairies have picked this particular time to make all those clouds.

But you have no proof of that scenario, do you! Meanwhile the telecom companies do in fact test their 5G systems and roll it out - unless you want to disbelieve them as well.

The problem is you are not performing tests in a controlled environment, therefore you can't make those claims.

You're completely missing the point because you're erroneously believing every process needs to have further study.

The science is confirmed regarding every aspect.

1. Clouds are made from cosmic rays, which are electromagnetic fields, striking ions.
2. 5G adds electromagnetic waves and ions to the air
3. Ions and electromagnetic waves respond to each other, not just some of the time but all the time and every time!

To require a controlled study about these already well known facts is like asking for a study to discover whether a hot stove can burn your finger. There is no study that proves hot stoves burn fingers, so I guess it doesn't happen! Or does it happen anyway?

Sometimes you can get away with touching a hot stove - but there is no time when ions and EMF's don't react.

Meanwhile, people are drowning in their cars, plus farms, businesses and homes are being destroyed because those three listed things are happening due to the addition of more ions and EMFs with 5G as the source. By the time your superfluous were set up and conducted, it's possible that most of the world's population would be starving or starved to death due to a lack of food.



Home