How safe is it?

submitted by zyxzevn from files.catbox.moe

all 13 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]zyxzevn[S] 11 insightful - 4 fun11 insightful - 3 fun12 insightful - 4 fun -  (4 children)

While it is placed in the conspiracy corner, there is actually a lot of science supporting the harm of non-ionizing radiation.

Studies clearly show health impacts
But in science circles, this harm is ignored, because most scientists don't understand how.
They only think that x-rays and other non-ionizing radiation can cause harm directly.
And that is because these scientists never studied electrobiology.

Here is how the Cells are affected by 5G:
Prof. Martin Pall - Cellular Effects of Wi-fi and 5G via VGCC

And here is some research from the CIA:
WARNING: CIA site
Effects of non-ionizing radiation https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP88B01125R000300120003-8.pdf
The effects of superhigh-frequency EM radiation on Electrophoretic mobility of erythrocytes https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP88B01125R000300120009-2.pdf
These show how calcium and sodium ions are forced through membranes by the electrical fields, and cause damage.

[–]JasonCarswell 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Brilliant x2 !

Feel free to repost in /s/Radiation.

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

seconded, there's tons of legit studies showing that non-ionizing radiation alters/impacts numerous biological processes. for reasons, these impacts are not considered "harmful" just quite yet. Scientists are forming advocacy groups to address this head on. the current EMF exposure guidelines are half baked and mostly from the 70s.

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

The ancient EMF exposure standards are only using heat as a cause for harm.
They model the complex biochemical human body as a barrel of water.
And then many scientists use this barrel to explain why the radiation can do no harm.

That is why it is very important for new safety standards to base new models on the video above. Or on the CIA research.

From the CIA research you can see how little radiation is needed to cause permanent harm to cells.

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

I have long been dispelling 5G conspiracy theories, explaining that 5G frequences are lower than that of visible light. Thank you for posting these sources, I will be going over them when I have some time.

[–]Sw0rdofDam0cles 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

When I read that so many of these 5G emitters were catching fire wherever they were installed, I thought to myself that there was no way people would be hostile to tech this fast, this broadly. Then I thought to myself, what if no one's actually done anything to those emitters and they're just so poorly made that they're catching on fire all by themselves and someone is claiming that people are lighting them on fire as misinformation?

[–]zyxzevn[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

The G5 antennas need a lot of cooling indeed.

But the burning started a few months earlier with an mobile antenna technician, who became aware of the health problems.

I can imagine that some people would get angry, when they get these things placed near their home. Especially after they see negative consequences to their loved ones.
Things that I heard of are: sleeping problems, depressions and pains. These are immediately resolved outside the radiation zone.

Some people claim that it is due to some crazy persons, who think that G5 spreads Covid19. The Covid19 also spreads in areas that have no G5, like France. While this idea of a link between G5 and corona is spreading over the internetz, I think that excuse is made up to make the victims seem crazy. Maybe it pushed a few angry people over the edge, or maybe the angry people have too much time on their hands.

I just hope that other scientists would take the hazards more seriously and revise the standards. This would help us all.

[–]Sw0rdofDam0cles 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Which begs the question, if the relay antennas are so prone to self destruction due to overheating, what information is so important that has companies rolling them out regardless of the fire hazard the units represent? What information could they possibly be moving in and/or out of the areas that makes this hardware so valuable, so critical that fires wouldn't affect cost/benefit outcome?

[–]zyxzevn[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

  1. Tracking/spying. 5G can track the position of every device more accurately. I think from 10 m, 5G goes to 10 cm, but that may be different. There is a lot of money in selling your data to CIA / China / Propaganda media.

  2. Latency. The network can react quicker, which is only necessary for games or VR or drones.. This may replace the old internet in some places, or enable drone surveillance.

  3. Hype. To sell unnecessary stuff, like fridges with internet (+commercials).

  4. Digital rights + digital degeneration. So you have to pay every year to use your internet fridge or start your car.

[–]Sw0rdofDam0cles 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Imagine the server farm used to store all that information coming in from all over the industrialized world. Imagine the AI used to actually process it. God, imagine if it's already self aware and playing factions of humanity against each other to keep everyone so completely distracted that no one's able to consider anticipating that it's positioning itself to take over let alone that it's self aware.

Which means if that's the case, then it would also mean all of the above and more.

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

I have worked on AI and am following the latest research.
But it is no where near intelligence. And a computer can not be aware, it has no clue what it is doing.
Not even high level trillion dollar research can not solve the basic problems.

What AI currently does is using all kinds of statistics to come to a certain conclusion. And you know how statistics can create lies. And this is what I see more as a problem, when people start to base important decisions on lies from statistics. Like most modern crises are based on lies.

[–]Sw0rdofDam0cles 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

So basically, AI is only marginally better at solving for X without all the variables than people are.

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

Yes. A research showed that good designed statistics had better results than neural networks.
Neural networks do average statistics, and still need human help to setup the conditions and parameters.
Most of the successes are things that work well with statistics.