all 23 comments

[–]wizzwizz4 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (6 children)

Let me guess: the US wants its European allies to use potentially-compromised US gear for 5G networks?

I'm being facetious – US gear is less likely to be compromised overtly than Chinese gear – but it's still potentially-compromised, whether by the US government, its agents, or malicious third-parties.

If a system's publicly funded, you shouldn't be hiding the code and hardware specs away! It needs to be reviewed by people who know what they're talking about!

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

The US equipment is certain to be compromised with many more zero day vulnerabilities.

Snowden was unplugging corded telephones in a Hong Kong hotel in 2012.

China may have copied American products, but they don't know which secret command unlock which secret doors (God mode).

I bet the Israelis have them, though...

[–]wizzwizz4 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Yeah, but that doesn't mean that the zero-days are used. And I doubt Chinese developers, some of which are even competent, would've copied wholesale the code; that's an easy way to get sued in the US.

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

Yeah, but that doesn't mean that the zero-days are used.

They aren't used, until they are.

By then, it's too late. They got you.

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

Most zero days aren't deliberate. I should know; I've made enough of 'em.

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

Well, that's not exactly a comforting statement. More than a few are there by design..

Who knows how many are currently used every day.

[–]wizzwizz4 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I've got a ballpark:

  • Randomly pick a number from 1 to 30 000.
  • Now spend that amount of money on Ethereum.

It's more than I can count in a minute.

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

How about 5G fiber optic networks like you promised and keep all the wifi away from my home. So easy to spy on people when everything is in a blanket of wifi. And yes, non-ionizing radiation DOES have biological effects in Humans, animals, insects and plants.

[–]magnora7[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

And yes, non-ionizing radiation DOES have biological effects in Humans, animals, insects and plants.

It just creates heat. Which can do damage, granted. That's why they only allow people 2 hours in an MRI machine maximum per day

[–]Jesus 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

No, there are thousands of studies illustrating since WW2 that non-ionizing radiation, without heating has biological effects on all life forms.

Here's thousands of studies illustrating biological effects of non-ionizing EMF's w/ and without heating, under the recommended guideliens by the FCC, even though they are astronomically higher than most other countries.

https://ehtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/5g-emf-hazards-dr-martin-l.-pall-eu-emf2018-6-11us3-1.pdf

https://ehtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/Scientist-5G-appeal-2017.pdf

https://ehtrust.org/scientific-research-on-5g-and-health/

https://drive.google.com/file/d/19CbWmdGTnnW1iZ9pxlxq1ssAdYl3Eur3/view

Endocrine System Damage


Research from the links I posted above and I have read most, shows impacts to the pineal gland, adrenal gland, and thyroid gland. These glands balance hormones that involve sleep. Research has shown that low levels of microwave exposure can reduce melatonin. Melatonin is not just critical to maintaining our sleep rhythm but it is also an extremely important antioxidant that helps to repair damaged DNA and reduces the growth of cancer cells. Additionally, research shows thyroid hormone levels can be impacted by wireless radiation. It has been established that even a small change in thyroid hormones can alter the brain.

Genotoxic Effects


Radiation at extremely low levels (0.0001 the level emitted by the average digital cellular telephone) caused heart attacks and the deaths of some chicken embryos…independent, third-party peer-reviewed studies need to be conducted in the U.S. to begin examining the effects from radiation on migratory birds and other trust species. —Willie Taylor, US Department of the Interior in his February 2014 letter to Mr. Eli Veenendaal of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Dept. of Commerce.

Studies at non-thermal (no measurable temperature change) levels of microwave exposures show chromosomal instability, altered gene expression, gene mutations, DNA fragmentation, and DNA structural breaks. Genetic mutations and cellular damage can potentially contribute to cancer growth. Strong effects from microwaves have been found in stem cells. Since stem cells are more active in children, researchers are concerned that children are at increased risk.

While electromagnetic fields may not directly damage DNA, research indicates they could set into motion a series of biological impacts that result in genetic damage.

A 2015 experimental study found that 2.4 GHz (Wi-Fi radiation) can alter expression of some of the miRNAs, and the study’s authors concluded that “long-term exposure of 2.4 GHz RF may lead to adverse effects such as neurodegenerative diseases originated from the alteration of some miRNA expression and more studies should be devoted to the effects of RF radiation on miRNA expression levels.”

Dr. Lai analyzed research since 2006 and found there are more papers reporting effects from exposure than no effect: New radiofrequency studies report that 65% of genetic studies show effects and 35% do not show effects.

Oxidative Stress


Oxidative stress is the formation of tissue-damaging free radicals. A recent research review shows 93 out of 100 currently available peer-reviewed studies indicate that radiofrequency radiation increases oxidative stress. This stress response damages cells and DNA through the production of peroxides and free radicals. Oxidative stress is implicated in the cause of many diseases such as cancer and Alzheimer’s disease.

Fertility and Reproduction


Consistent evidence from experimental research, epidemiological studies, in vitro (cells) laboratory studies, and in vivo (animal) studies shows that RF exposure is associated with reduced sperm count, motility and concentration, as well as DNA damage and altered cell structure. Research also shows damage after wireless exposure to the ovaries of rats and mice, as well as changes in the eggs of flies and birds. This is possibly, although no causative evidence of the 60% drop in male fertility rates. It could however, be a contributing factor.

Scientific Evidence Documenting Increased Cancer From Exposure


The research evidence indicates that long term use of cell phones and wireless increase the risk of cancer risk. Independent longitudinal research has consistently shown that “heavy” (30 min/day) cellphone users have an increased risk of brain cancer. Such research lead to the World Health Organization’s International Agency for the Research on Cancer to classify this radiation as a Class 2 B Possible Human Carcinogen in 2011. Since 2011, the evidence has increased.

“A disservice has been done in inaccurately depicting the body of science, which actually indicates that there are biological effects from the radiation emitted by wireless devices, including damage to DNA, and evidence for increased risk of cancer, without heating and other substantial health consequences…The public the world over has been misled by this reporting.” — Dr. Ronald B. Herberman

Dr. Hardell’s research showed that adults who started using cell or cordless phones as teenagers had an 8-fold higher risk of brain cancer on the side of their head where they held the phone. A French study also found increased brain cancer in long term cell phone users. To date, the only published study of children’s risk of brain cancer from cell phone use found more than a 2-fold risk after >2.8 years of use (from billing records), combined with a statistically significant trend of increasing risk with increasing years of use.

In 2015 Lerchl et al published an important replication study which confirms that wireless acts as a tumor promoter. In this important study, lymphomas and tumors of the lungs and livers in exposed animals were significantly higher. The wireless exposure was at low to moderate exposure levels well below exposure limits for the users of mobile phones.This research is significant in that it used a larger group of mice and replicated tumor-promoting effects shown in a 2010 study.

[–]happysmash27 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

So would talking on the phone with a headset be safer?

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

Yes, even the cell phone companies agree that is recommended

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

Yes, much. The SAR limit was tested on an artifical head filled with salt and sugar based on a 6’ 1” 210 pound military man. The scientist who conducted this study later refuted his work as inadequet. But the FCC still uses this study as a RF and SAR limit to this day, despite the many newer studies showing biological effects much, much lower to the contrary of the older study, this does not even take into account non-thermal biological effects.

Bluetooth is safer than wifi in 2.4ghz or higher but it depends on the amplification and concentration of said signals. DECT phones are horrible, replace with corded phones. And yes, a head set is important. RF by the WHO is considered a class 2b carcinogen. Certain frequencies used and the concentration of these frequencies are even higher up on the classification list.

RF is ESPECIALLY dangerous to babies and kids. Do mot leave your kid near a cell phone. Their heads absorb hundreds pf times more radiation than someone who is 6 feet 220 pounds. But don’t tellvthe fcc that.

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

I will have to chew on this for a while. Thanks for the information

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

Your very welcome. Read the studies I linked and then read the industry studies to get an idea of the controversy.

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

I mean it kind of makes sense, a lot of molecular connections have a resonant energy/frequency. This is how they manipulate chemicals in particle physics. I can imagine a complex protein acting as an antenna to a wide variety of frequencies, and if too much of a certain resonant frequency is input, the protein might permanently deform to an non-functional shape.

Like in atomic physics there is the "Balmer series" which is basically a mapping of the resonant frequencies output by a hydrogen atom. So if you bombard it with any one of these, the atom will "ring like a bell" so to speak, as the electron is energized and moves in to higher energy states. Then when it relaxes from the high energy state to the low one (which are discreet quantized levels, this is where the "quantum" in quantum physics comes from) so it always outputs the exact same energy.

So if you bombarded a hydrogen atom with all the frequencies from the Balmer Series, it would eventually ionize. Before the electron is ejected, it's non-ionizing radiation, even if the electron is dancing around the nucleus at a very high energy level. But the moment the electron gets too energized, it hops out and leaves forever, and then it's ionized. Non-ionizing radiation just gives the electron energy, and it eventually relaxes back in to the lowest-energy state, and emits a photo ("heat") in the process. The frequency of the photons emitted as the electrons jump down the various quantum energy levels creates the Balmer series.

Sooo... with all that considered, there's also molecular bonding. Like pi bonding and covalent and ionic bonding. Which themselves all have a resonant frequency and associated energy (the frequency and energy of a photon are always exactly proportional because photons always travel at the speed of light in discreet individual packets, like you cannot have 1.3 of a photon)

So I think the whole theory of non-ionizing non-heating radiation absorption working to change molecular bonds seems to depend on the energy levels of these bonds, and how responsive they are to the photons they interact with. A molecule is a distributed system, a cloud of electrons, so it has many more ways to distribute heat before electrons end up being ionized.

But in the instance of a pi bond, or something like that, it's hard to say what would happen...

I mean obviously this stuff has been tested for safety quite a bit over the decades. But it's possible there's 1 protein human beings have they overlooked, that happens to have a shape that seriously catches the frequencies put out by 5G, and thus degrades because of all the internal heat within the molecule (and basically "shakes apart" as that's what heat is).

So a good experiment would be to find whatever proteins they claim are degraded by 5G (even if that's DNA or whatever) and then expose it to very high levels of sustained 5G electromagnetic activity. Then the degradation should be able to be tested and verified in a reproducible way.

So if I found quality studies that verify that, and they can be reproduced, then I'll begin to be concerned. Then it also has to be verified that at normal 5G exposure levels, the degradation still occurs (instead of the captured energy just dissipating through heat conduction like normal).

Basically the rate of absorption has to outpace the rate of dissipation for a given protein, when exposed to 5G traffic, in order for there to be a provable health concern. Which is basically just heat tbh, but in very specific conditions.

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

Magnora, were there controversies regarding 4G LTE before its launch?

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

Yes, there were. But not at the number concerning 5th Generation, which opens up new frequencies all the way up to 90ghz which will be concentrated and directed. The same frequencies that are used by the military for crowd dispersal. Nevertheless, these frequencies have for 60 years been studied on and show negative biological, cellular effects with non-thermal radiation. It isn’t a controversy between the consumers and the telecommunication industry, though they fastrack state legislature in so muniipalities are not allowed to prevent small cells but a controversy between telecommunication industry backed (funded) scientists and no-conflict of interest independent scientists. Out of 1450 studies concerning emfs, hundreds on non-thermal effects, the independent scientists show that over 75% of the studies, all peer reviewed manu double blind placebo that there is negative biological effects on ALL life forms. Bees, insects, plants, animals and humans. As for the industry backed they illustrate that around 68-72% have no biological effects and are safe. Read the studies I listed below, there are thousands, and see if they are safe longterm. 20 years from now we will have hundreds of new rare brain tumour and cancer metastasations that rarely existed before the proliferation of EMF smog today. We are dosed 16 quintillion more times in artifical radiation than we were in the 1980’s.

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

Also, the spying capabilities when everything is connected via these frequencies. Your new smart meter, all your new appliances, your smart TV, and almost everyhing else made after 2014 will be orwellian. Rent an acoustimeter, and you’ll get an idea of all the appliances and things in your house that send out RF even WHEN OFF to a cloud that is then recieved either by your smart meter. That data is filtered and sent to third parties for marketing or law enforcement or the 5th generation small cell routers themselves. This means total invisible surveillance control, even worse than China. A former director of the CIA, said this smart grid is particular dangerous to the liberty and privacy of the public and to the entire electric grid itself. 5G is much more than faster speeds, it will be a spying apparatus, a control system, when fully implemented by Agenda 2030, and a way to extract living data from your home. When you turn on each appliance that is fitted with an internal antenna kr when you watch your smart TV. That and 5G small cells are being bought by state police as well to be used similarly to trapwire in RF form as well as crowd dispersal devices when 70-90ghz is concentrated or directed via modded small cells.

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

3-D echolocation can completely map everything out. 100% transparency, without colour.

https://www.scienceabc.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/batman-sonar-2-1024x576.jpg

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

I'd imagine newer devices like trapwire using this tech are being used by the military and law enforcement by now.

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

There were, but I don't remember this many as I'm seeing for 5G. I wouldn't necessarily say that means it's less safe though