Archived No Studies Show 5G Is Safe. Satellites Being Sent Into Space To Blast Earth With It Anyway. (activistpost.com)
submitted ago by madmalloy
Posted by: madmalloy
Posting time: 1.7 years ago on
Last edit time: never edited.
Archived on: 7/7/2019 10:00:00 AM
Views: 357
SCP: 44
49 upvotes, 5 downvotes (91% upvoted it)
Archived No Studies Show 5G Is Safe. Satellites Being Sent Into Space To Blast Earth With It Anyway. (activistpost.com)
submitted ago by madmalloy
view the rest of the comments →
[–] badruns ago (edited ago)
You're retarded - signal strength is an inverse square relationship.
No shit, but there's a big difference between the sun which is millions of miles away and spending 9+ hours a day 15 feet directly underneath a transmission tower.
[–] Neo-maxi-zoom-dweeby ago (edited ago)
The energy coming out of those towers is no stronger than a street light. But it does not matter how close it is - the wavelength of the highest energy band is 3mm. That is WAY too big to interact with chemical bonds or interfere with any biological processes. Compare that to UVB which has a wavelength of 320 to 400 nm - which is small enough to interfere with any place along the DNA strand that has two thymine bases in a row. Those light frequencies are sufficient to generate oxygen free radicals - but this is all millions of times smaller than the wavelength of 5G.
So it does not matter how much energy you dump into a transmitter at anywhere from 3 to 90 ghz - its not going cause any biological responses. I think you should look at the evidence offered in support of that hypothesis with more skepticism. You might want to attempt to look for verification or at least understand what mechanism they are offering as the possible response. What was shown that i have seen does not lend me confidence about their claims.
[–] badruns ago (edited ago)
If what you say is true, why do European contries issue guidelines about exposure limits? Are you suggesting they are being foolish?
Here's WHO saying that heavy cellphone usage is enough to cause an increase in cancer rate: https://www.iarc.fr/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/pr208_E.pdf
^^Which does not even come close to the exposure levels you would see when stationed near transmitters that are constantly active.
The only study long-term study that was done in the US that I was aware of was decades ago: it used mice - those mice got cancer at triple the rate of the control group. This was hand-waved away because "mice often get cancer". Here's a more recent one: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/11/181101133924.htm
^^Those rats got about 9 hours of constant exposure total per day for a period of 2 years - many got cancer as a result. This is incredibly similar to what happened at the school in California - teachers and students would be getting about 8-9 hours a day of constant exposure under the transmission towers for years. 4 elementary school children and 2 teachers attending that school developed cancer within quick succession. Do they have to squeak like mice too for you to see the similarity?
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cell-tower-shut-down-some-california-parents-link-to-several-cases-of-childhood-cancer/
Why did Sprint shut the tower down? This is effecting their bottom line, do you think they are doing it just to be nice?
Cigarettes don't cause lung cancer because the tobacco companies said so, right? Sugar doesn't make you fat because the sugar industry said so...