all 22 comments

[–]wizzwizz4 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

Eeehhhh… many of those scientists aren't reputable… and not all of them actually have doctorates (which aren't necessary to be a scientist, but suggest that they're not very prominent).

And it's only 247.

And the website doesn't use accurate terminology.

We need to be careful about this [5G]. But cancer? I see how it can mess up a host of things in your body, but DNA replication ain't the first you'd notice. Retracted.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

Wizz is always chiming in with the shill argument.

[–]JasonCarswell 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (10 children)

He's just a skeptroll guy.

Too bad he doesn't bother to research things before throwing shade on them. If he's young he's forgiven. If he's older then he's not very wise and certainly not woke.

I keep forgetting to add "5G" to my wishlist for subs. Added. Feel free to make some.

[–]wizzwizz4 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

I actually did research this one, though. I'm not happy about 5G for various reasons (safety concerns are about #3), but this doesn't look legit.

The data on cancer incidence is non-zero, but shaky. I was probably wrong to dismiss it so, but it doesn't rank highly on my list of issues with the tech.

[–]JasonCarswell 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

And because your health is not a priority does that mean it should be forced upon the rest of us?

These are totalitarian policies and implementation without transparent democracy nor open discussion, much less respectable public awareness about the pros and cons and risks. Like it or not.

[–]wizzwizz4 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

And because your health is not a priority does that mean it should be forced upon the rest of us?

No. I am not in favour of 5G. I was just saying that the site looked shaky, there aren't 250 signatories (and not everyone on the list is a professional scientist).

I've retracted the claim about cancer now. Happy?

These are totalitarian policies and implementation without transparent democracy nor open discussion, much less respectable public awareness about the pros and cons and risks.

That's the way most infrastructure goes. (It shouldn't be, but they're not making a special exemption for 5G.) But yes, this is bad.

[–]magnora7 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

I'm kind of with you about being on the fence about it. One of the bigger red flags I've heard is that it was developed in Israel, but is not being allowed to be deployed in Israel. I find that weird. They apparently also don't allow wifi in Israeli schools though, I have also heard. I haven't read why that is, but it's interesting.

[–]wizzwizz4 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

It might be a religious thing. Or it might be because they want to keep electromagnetic noise down so sensors work better (like light pollution, noise in other regions of the electromagnetic spectrum stop radio telescopes from working, etc.).

[–]magnora7 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Yeah I wonder. I tried to search it and surprisingly had a very hard time finding anything about it. There was a Quora post I found that completely dodged the question, apparently it was not made in Israel though. But I legit can't find any info about it being blocked

[–]wizzwizz4 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You could ask on Stack Exchange. I'm not sure whether it would be more on-topic on Politics or Mi Yodeya… Actually, yeah, Politics is probably the place, because it's only on-topic on Mi Yodeya if it is a religious reason, which isn't certain.

I think it's probably on-topic on Politics Stack Exchange? You'd have to check if you were going to ask a question.

[–]JasonCarswell 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I wouldn't trust Quora for shit.

Sorry to swear but they stole all my work. I was completely deleted/banned for life a few years ago for no explanation. I didn't get to save it off or anything. No notice. Not just my countless posts and comments but also the work of everyone who interacted with my posts and comments.

IMHO it's worse than Wikipedia. At least Wikipedia has their rigged system with transparency.

[–]JasonCarswell 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

My recent Zoon Politikon post covers 5G and school. It's her own experience on her local school board, etc. Apparently cell towers and wifi can mess with peoples heads, moods, thinking, health, etc. ( /s/Health/comments/fuy/parents_demand_removal_of_cell_tower_from_school/ )

Unfortunately it's not one of here stories with lots of citations but she's done many on them, and some are posted on SaidIt.

We could use a 5G sub.

And Vaccines. And UNAgendas.

And California to balance NYC.

And Feminism to balance MGTOW or just Sex/Sexism/Sexuality/SexIssues (and Race/Racism/RacialIssues).

And Progressive/Progressivism to balance Libertarian.

And Asia, Brazil, CentralAmerica, EuropeanUnion, NewZealand, Russia, SaudiArabia, SouthAmerica, UK, Vietnam


I guarantee you they will be used.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I'm not so sure.

I think he's the real deal.

[–]JasonCarswell 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

You obviously haven't seen any of the ample evidence piling up that is abundantly out there in the alternative media. You might want to check it out.

If 5G isn't a threat - why won't they slow down, do adequate tests and confirm it, rather than rush it through, regardless of whether communities want them or not?

[–]wizzwizz4 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I'm not saying it's not a threat. I'm not even saying that it's not a health concern; just criticising the veracity of the petition and the jump to cancer (which I think I was too hasty to criticise). But, for the sake of argument, let's assume that there are no health issues. Other reasons for them to rush it through are:

  1. Marketing. Companies want to be the first to have 5G so that they get more customers.
  2. Privacy. 5G requires towers to be closer together, allowing more location data to be gathered from users and monetised.
  3. War. If a malicious actor has control of the 5G systems, they'd want them put in as quickly as possible.

I'm not certain that the first one is a thing (do they all share the towers? Or build individual ones?) and I'm not presently too concerned with the last one. But they're all reasons.

[–]JasonCarswell 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You're too hasty to post and think later.

The issue IS health.

Fuck marketing and the rest.

[–]zyxzevn 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Almost ALL scientific research on microwave radiation can be found on:

In support of this petition, I will add a link to my own research on reddit:

Check the CIA docs to understand how non-ionizing causes harm on cellular level. For some reason, these principles are not understood by the other researchers on microwavenews

[–]magnora7 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Non ionizing heating basically melts stuff. And if parts of your body get too hot for too long, the proteins that require a small temperature range of a body can start breaking down and such. This is why people are not allowed for too long in an MRI machine. Is this basically your understanding of it as well?

[–]zyxzevn 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

No. Heat does not matter for the harm in many cases. The heat-effect is the only type of harm that is studied by many of the involved scientists. With that they ignore the electrochemistry in biology, and antenna technology.

The CIA docs show DNA damage and how ions (Na, Ca) are pushed through the membranes. My research shows that the DNA and nerves are conductors, so they act as a spark antennas.

So it is very easy to find many other causes of harm besides heat. But because those causes are systematically ignored, the harm that is found in studies are never understood by the scientists that did the research. For many of those peer-reviewed studies look at:
About 50% show some kind of harm related to exposure. Some medical studies even show epidemic problems. But the way it causes harm is not understood. That is because you need to know how biology+ electrochemistry+ antenna-technology can combine. I don't think many of the involved scientists know even 2 of these things.

(edited for clarity)

[–]magnora7 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

That's very interesting and you bring up some good points, tbh. You obviously have studied this and know what you're talking about.

I have to say though, the antenna thing... that's what heat is. That's the very mechanism by which non-ionzing radiation is absorbed in the first place. There is no way by which molecules absorb EMF other than by acting as antennas that react to certain frequencies. That's the entire mechanism of non-ionizing radiation heat absorption, there is no other parts to it.

Then that excited vibrating molecule once heated, hits all the other molecules, and the kinetic energy gets distributed across all the modes of vibrations of all the molecules due the Equipartition Theorem and conductive heating.

The only way you could say the antenna stuff is different from the heating stuff, is if you can demonstrate that one type of molecule is picking up heat far more than other molecules (because of the antenna affect of it being "tuned" to the one specific frequency that is being emitted) AND that that heated molecule is unable to get rid of the heat faster than it absorbs it through conductive heat loss, AND that the molecule is permanently damaged by the excess heat that it absorbs (like a protein denatures, or something like that).

If those all 3 could be proven definitively, then that'd be some super solid research imo.

But short of that we're still just talking about the effects of heat when we talk about the effects of non-ionizing radiation, imo. My 2 cents.

[–]zyxzevn 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Of course there can be localized heat due to antenna resonance of certain biological components.
But it certainly is NOT the only way this radiation can cause harm.

But I would suggest you check the CIA documents, as they show very different means of harm. They report direct harm of DNA. So much that it only causes cancer with weak radiation. If the radiation gets more, the cells are simply killed before they can become cancer. They also list the problems with the membranes. These are certainly studies that should be replicated.

My own model: Your mobile phone translate very weak radiation to an electrical signal. This needs a conductor, which biological systems clearly have.

This conductor can create voltage-changes and even sparks at very localized places. These places can be "ionized" or harmed directly. This can directly damage DNA, or DNA replication. Which could be a cause for cancer. Cancer and DNA damage is what we see in certain peer-reviewed studies. Ear cancer has gone up immensely.

Also there are many "amplifiers" in our biological systems. These are the nerves and certain cell-components that react to very small voltage changes. These nerves and components trigger bigger processes in the biological system. In its weakest form it will cause stress. And this is indeed what we see in the peer-reviewed tests.

These tests are all replicated in other studies, so it is clear that there is such harm. Studies that do not see problems are less focussed and have a lot of statistical noise. If you look only at all cancer cases, you do not see the problems with ear-cancer.
Again, most peer reviewed studies are at:

The only thing that they are uncertain of is how the damage is inflicted. That is because they think exactly like you in your post: "problem is heat". And based on that idea, their studies can not determine the exact problem. It is like a fatal car accident, when you are looking for a problem with the car's steering. When in the real problem was a bee inside. If you don't notice the bee, or think about that possibility, you can not find the problem.

And that is where the CIA studies and other studies come in: the harm is not the heat. The problem is at the membranes (CIA) and the ionizing effect of spark-gap antennas (Hertz).

I think that the harm has been hidden by the military, due to the health problems with radar systems.

[–]magnora7 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Thanks for the explanation, you've given me quite a bit to think about. I'll have to mull this over some more.

As for the DNA, that could still be non-ionzing heating damage that causes the DNA proteins to denature (change in to the wrong shape) so they don't work anymore. Basically all you'd have to do is find the resonant frequency of an amino acid pair, or DNA itself, or something like that, and then pump it with heat until it melts.

What you say about sparks is interesting. It's basically a sharp electrical gradient in a conductive material. I think in most cases the gradient would balance out, but if you hit one of the resonant frequencies of a molecule, there's a potential it wouldn't dissipate between subsequent wavefronts and instead would at like a an antenna connected to a capacitor, where it would just store more and more electrical charge as each wave comes in, potentially leading to a sparking situation which may itself cause ionizing radiation. That makes sense, I really hadn't considered that before.