• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo
* * * - - 4 votes

5G will be making us ALL Sick & Killing us and your Pets!

sick killing aging deadly

  • Please log in to reply
56 replies to this topic

#31 Hip

  • Guest
  • 2,402 posts
  • -451
  • Location:UK

Posted 22 May 2019 - 04:02 AM

One difference between 2G/3G/4G and 5G is that 5G is directed into a beam which points at the mobile phone in contact with the 5G base station. I presume this will result in less electromagnetic radiation in the environment. 

 

At present with 2G, 3G and 4G, if you are making a telephone call, the base station which sends the electromagnetic signal to your phone actually radiates that signal in all directions, ie, in 360º. So everyone around the base station gets irradiated as a result of you telephone call. But with 5G the signal is confined to a beam around 60º to 120º pointing in the direction of the mobile phone. So in that respect 5G may reduce electromagnetic radiation exposure compared to 2G, 3G and 4G.

 

 

Another difference is that the higher frequencies of 5G mean the electromagnetic signal only penetrates only the outer layer of the skin, unlike 2G, 3G and 4G technology which pass through the body. So 5G is not going to get deep into the body. However, it might damage surface areas such as eyes, skin and sperm.

 

Ref: here.

 

 

 

 


  • Good Point x 1

#32 ceridwen

  • Guest
  • 1,292 posts
  • 102

Member Away
  • Location:UK

Posted 24 May 2019 - 08:21 PM

LED street lights on the other hand can cause disruption to the body's nitrogen monoxide system that keeps genes healthy can control gene expression. Any ideas anyone as to how this could be protected?
  • Needs references x 2

#33 Hip

  • Guest
  • 2,402 posts
  • -451
  • Location:UK

Posted 24 May 2019 - 08:24 PM

LED street lights on the other hand can cause disruption to the body's nitrogen monoxide system that keeps genes healthy can control gene expression. 

 

Sounds very improbable. Where did you read that? 



sponsored ad

  • Advert
Advertisements help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. [] To go ad-free join as a Member.

#34 Mind

  • Life Member, Director, Moderator, Treasurer
  • 19,181 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 19 October 2019 - 11:02 AM

Here, a scientist states what everyone is talking about, that no one knows for sure if there are risks associated with 5G: https://blogs.scient...eve-5g-is-safe/

 

Here is a list of studies on radiation exposure: https://drive.google...sAdYl3Eur3/view

 

If cellphone radiation (and all other sorts of EMFs) were definitively "cancer-causing", it would have shown up in the data by now. It could be contributing to the rise in cancer incidence, but it would be hard to tell for sure because there are so many other factors in modern life that could be causing cancer. Your age is still the primary driver of your cancer risk.



#35 Vitalist

  • Guest
  • 33 posts
  • 14
  • Location:Canada

Posted 19 October 2019 - 09:49 PM

Bees dying under 5G poles



#36 zorba990

  • Guest
  • 1,602 posts
  • 315

Posted 20 October 2019 - 12:00 AM

(Old man shakes fist at the sky -- get off my lawn!)

There is no consciousness wrt testing this kind of thing. Just more and more zombies staring at their devices and ordering things from online vendors.
People will become lost in the noise with less and less downtime. Subjectively, the under 30's I work with have much less productivity than the older folks -- they cannot break from their devices.
They complain of not sleeping, they and their kids get sick often. Their focus and concentration is obviously lacking.

High tech schools are failing : https://www.business...y-booker-2018-5

Enter into the next phase of modern life with your eyes open and look up once in a while. Tech leaders are sending their kids to tech-free schools -- ask yourself why?
https://www.business...red-flag-2018-2

It's not just the direct (and real) potential of frequency and energy to alter biological systems. We are losing touch with the part of the brain that created all this in the first place.
https://www.business...snt-good-2018-3


From:
https://www.ncbi.nlm...les/PMC5746568/
The interaction between electromagnetic fields at megahertz, gigahertz and terahertz frequencies with cells, tissues and organisms: risks and potential

Some in vivo studies have also been performed on animals [141]; fruit flies were exposed to 2.5 and 6.69 THz with power in the range of 1–10 mW for about 2 h; this resulted in alterations in gene expression [141,142]. Simulations predicted a total temperature increase of just 0.5°C, not a dramatic thermal shock, especially considering that during flying the active heat production of muscles may cause an increase in body temperature of 10°C or more. Terahertz radiation also affects warm-blooded animals who have body temperature control. In experiments conducted on mice exposed briefly to terahertz (3.6 THz, λ = 81.5 µm, 15 mW, 15 min) behavioural alterations were observed, especially in anxiety states [141,143]. In the same fashion, exposure of rats to 150.176–150.664 GHz at radiation power 4 mW and power flow 3 mW cm−2 for durations of up to 1 h demonstrated the development of depression in the tested animals [141,144]. The same group later designed more complex experiments and used experimental animals with induced hypokinetic stress, after conditioning animals were subjected to the same terahertz radiation protocol but of a lower intensity. Tests showed changes in blood antioxidant activity with respect to the control group, and the authors hypothesized a key role for nitric oxide (NO) molecules as an intermediator of biological effects [145]. Utilization of label-free detection of NO in injured neurons has been done by Abbas et al. [146]. In the study, the medicinal leech nervous cord was slightly damaged, and change in the formation of NO was monitored by observing the changes in sample's transmission in the range of 140–220 GHz. Introduction of the nerve lesion resulted into decreased in transmission coefficient 0.8 dB comparatively with the intact tissue and along all tested frequency range. Within 15 min after the injury, some slow recovery towards initial values appeared, probably due to degradation on NO in the test chamber. An additional test with the addition of NO production blocker (L-NAME) demonstrated no significant change in transmission spectra when compared with controls.

Edited by zorba990, 20 October 2019 - 12:02 AM.


#37 Mind

  • Life Member, Director, Moderator, Treasurer
  • 19,181 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 02 June 2020 - 05:53 PM

5G radiation can disrupt proteins in living cells. This does not mean it will definitively be bad for human health. but it is not a good sign for those who are health conscious. I am still amazed 5G is being pushed-out without any safety testing.


  • Agree x 3
  • Ill informed x 1

#38 Mr Serendipity

  • Guest
  • 985 posts
  • 19
  • Location:UK
  • NO

Posted 20 December 2020 - 12:40 PM

I wrote some notes and pondering about vitamin c and radiation from my thread here: https://www.longecit...otropic-effect/

 

 

https://www.youtube....h?v=Nds_7_fl614

 

 

Things I learnt from the video were Vitamin C can powerfully prevent radiation damage. Apparently when people get radiated, only 20% damages your cells DNA directly, while the other 80% makes chemicals in your blood such as water, into harmful oxidative versions of themselves, which then go on to damage other cells and their DNA in the body. By taking Vitamin C in high doses, you help prevent/greatly reduce the damage these oxidative substances in your blood can do, because of the anti-oxidant power of vitamin c. 

 

Also even if the body experiences genetic abnormalities because of heavy irradiation, these genes normalize again if vitamin c and other supplements is taken orally or intravenously! 

 

The main study done in this video, is a study where mice after being exposed to a lethal dose of radiation, all die after 14 days. However if you give them vitamin c for 3 days at 150mg/kg, 60% of the mice live longer than 2 weeks, and 42% survive! i.e. Going from a 0% chance of surviving after 14 days, to a 42% chance of surviving when taking high doses of vitamin C!

 

 

I didn't watch the video all the way through properly, and there may be other important stuff in there. But it makes me think, with the rise of wireless technologies in mass the last 20 years. Wi-Fi, mobile phones, cordless phones, and everything else. And we're exposed to these EMF/wireless waves in higher doses, and on a more regular basis then in any other time in history. Assuming the high exposure to these wireless technologies is dangerous and similar to other radiation poisoning. Vitamin C might not only be giving me great energy and clarity because of all the other health/brain benefits it's meant to be good for. But also because it's helping reduce the harmful effects of these powerful wireless technologies we are exposed to regularly.

 

 

I should finish off, as I forgot to mention earlier. In the first video, the guy talks about the Sutro Tower Childhood Cancer Study. There was some sort of strong wireless tower put in San Francisco in the 70's. And basically between 1973-1988, childhood leukemia in the San Francisco area increased by 18 fold, i.e. 1800%!

 

What's significant about this study is back then, people didn't have all these wireless devices as we do today. So something like the Sutro Tower and wireless exposure is very clear, as well as the correlation to the childhood cancer rates around the area it was placed.

 

These were just ponderings of mine at the time, it’s assuming that if wireless technologies can cause similar types of radiation damage as the radiation poisoning in the mice study, then taking high doses of vitamin c could be a very effective protective measure one can take against wireless radiation.


Edited by Jesus is King, 20 December 2020 - 12:42 PM.


#39 Mr Serendipity

  • Guest
  • 985 posts
  • 19
  • Location:UK
  • NO

Posted 20 December 2020 - 09:56 PM

https://www.ncbi.nlm...?report=classic

 

Evaluation of the Protective Role of Vitamin C on the Metabolic and Enzymatic Activities of the Liver in the Male Rats After Exposure to 2.45 GHz Of Wi-Fi Routers

 

Abstract

Background: 

The use of devices emitted microwave radiation such as mobile phones, wireless fidelity (Wi-Fi) routers, etc. is increased rapidly. It has caused a great concern; the researchers should identify its effects on people’s health. We evaluated the protective role of Vitamin C on the metabolic and enzymatic activities of the liver after exposure to Wi-Fi routers.

Material and Methods:

70 male Wistar rats weighing 200-250 g were randomly divided into 7 groups (10 rats in each group).The first stage one -day test: Group A (received vitamin C 250 mg/kg/day orally together with 8- hour/day Wi-Fi exposure).Group B (exposed to Wi-Fi radiation). Group C (received vitamin C). Group D or Control (was neither exposed to radiation of Wi-Fi modem nor did receive vitamin C). The second phase of experiment had done for five consecutive days. It involved Group E (received vitamin C), Group F (exposed to Wi-Fi radiation), Group G (received vitamin C together with Wi-Fi radiation). The distance between animals’ restrainers was 20 cm away from the router antenna. Finally, blood samples were collected and assayed the level of hepatic enzymes including alkaline phosphatase(ALP), alanine amino transferase(ALT) aspartate amino transferase (ASL), gamma glutamyl transferase (GGT) and the concentration of Blood Glucose, Cholesterol , Triglyceride(TG),High density lipoprotein (HDL)and low density lipoprotein (LDL).

Results:

Data obtained from the One day test showed an increase in concentration of blood glucose, decrease in Triglyceride level and GGT factor (P<0.05), however no observed significant difference on the Cholesterol , HDL , LDL level and hepatic enzymes activities in compare to control group. Groups of the five-day test showed reduction in the amount of blood glucose, elevation of cholesterol level and LDL relative to control group(P<0.05).

Conclusion:

WiFi exposure may exert alternations on the metabolic parameters and hepatic enzymes activities through stress oxidative and increasing of free radicals, but the use of vitamin C protects them from changing induced. Also taking optimum dose of vitamin C is essential for radioprotective effect and maintaining optimum health.

Keywords: Wi-Fi modem , Vitamin C , Hepatic enzyme activities


#40 Mr Serendipity

  • Guest
  • 985 posts
  • 19
  • Location:UK
  • NO

Posted 20 December 2020 - 10:05 PM

This is a large review of EMF and its effects and preventative measures. I’ve just pasted below a few abstracts from the link.

 

https://www.scienced...213879X17300731

Effects of electromagnetic fields exposure on the antioxidant defense system

 

Abstract

Technological devices have become essential components of daily life. However, their deleterious effects on the body, particularly on the nervous system, are well known. Electromagnetic fields (EMF) have various chemical effects, including causing deterioration in large molecules in cells and imbalance in ionic equilibrium. Despite being essential for life, oxygen molecules can lead to the generation of hazardous by-products, known as reactive oxygen species (ROS), during biological reactions. These reactive oxygen species can damage cellular components such as proteins, lipids and DNA. Antioxidant defense systems exist in order to keep free radical formation under control and to prevent their harmful effects on the biological system. Free radical formation can take place in various ways, including ultraviolet light, drugs, lipid oxidation, immunological reactions, radiation, stress, smoking, alcohol and biochemical redox reactionsOxidative stress occurs if the antioxidant defense system is unable to prevent the harmful effects of free radicals. Several studies have reported that exposure to EMF results in oxidative stress in many tissues of the body. Exposure to EMF is known to increase free radical concentrations and traceability and can affect the radical couple recombination. The purpose of this review was to highlight the impact of oxidative stress on antioxidant systems.

 

Abbreviations
EMF
electromagnetic fields
RF
radiofrequency
ROS
reactive oxygen species
GSH
glutathione
GPx
glutathione peroxidase
GR
glutathione reductase
GST
glutathione S-transferase
CAT
catalase
SOD
superoxide dismutase
HSP
heat shock protein
EMF/RFR
electromagnetic frequency and radiofrequency exposures
ELF-EMFs
exposure to extremely low frequency
MEL
melatonin
FA
folic acid
MDA
malondialdehyde

 

5. Antioxidants alleviate the potential risks of EMF exposure

When applied antioxidant supplemented with EMF exposure, improved the hydrophilic, lipophilic and enzymatic antioxidant blood capacity and partially compensated for these changes [147][148]Vitamin E(tocopherol) is one of the most important such antioxidants. Compounds of vitamin E, including alpha, beta, gamma and delta tocopherols, are soluble in lipid. Vitamin E is stored in the liver and has many functions. Its main antioxidant function is to prevent lipid peroxidation [149]. Several studies have shown the beneficial effects of vitamin E observed by reducing alteration in antioxidant capacity against the harmful effects of EMF [150][151]. Ghambari et al. observed that exposure to 3-MT EMF led to oxidative stress by reducing SOD activity and reported that treatment with vitamin E prevents the lipid peroxidation in the substantia nigra [146]. Mohammadnejad et al. studied ultrastructural changes in the thymus after exposure to EMF and investigated the protective effects of vitamin E in preventing these change. Their results demonstrated that exposure to EMF caused damage to the immune system and that vitamin E consumption can prevent ultrastructural alteration in tissue [152].

Vitamin B9 (folic acid and folate) is crucial for several functions in the human body, ranging from the production of nucleotides to homocysteineremethylation. In humans, folate is required for the body to make or repair DNA, and to methylate DNA, in addition to its function as a cofactor in various biological reactions. Moreover, this vitamin possesses antioxidant features [153]. It is especifically crucial during periods involving quick cell division and cellular growth. Folic acid (FA) is particularly required in pregnancy and for infant brain development. It is also necessary for the formation of new cells [154]. Our previous study revealed that FA prevented the adverse effect of exposure to EMF by preventing reductions in cell numbers in the cerebellum and brain. Kıvrak observed that EMF triggered oxidative damage by increasing the levels of CAT activity and reducing GPx activity. They also noticed that oxidative damage in the brain was significantly prevented by FA therapy [75] (Fig. 3).

MEL is a hormone secreted by the pineal gland and that is also known as N-acetyl-5-methoxy tryptamin. It functions as a first line of defense against oxidative stress [155]. This hormone acts together with other antioxidants such as CAT, SOD and GPx to increase the effectiveness of each antioxidant. As a free radical scavenger, it possesses amphiphilic properties and can easily cross cell membranes and the blood-brain barrier[156][157][158]. Previous studies have shown that MEL exhibits a protective effect against EMF-induced oxidative stress [159][160][161]. Koc et al. showed that MEL reduced neuronal damage in the hippocampusinduced by 900-MHz EMF. Ozguner et al. showed that exposure to 900-MHz EMF led to mild skin alterations [162]. Ulubay et al. stated that exposure to 900-MHz EMF in the rat kidney during the prenatal period results not only in an increase in total kidney volume, but also in decreased numbers of glomeruli. The application of MEL was found to prevent the negative effects of EMF on the kidneys [148]. Lai and Singh demonstrated that MEL prevents EMF-induced DNA damage resulting from free radical generation in rat brain cells [31].


6. Conclusion

The biological effect of exposure to EMF is a subject of particular research interest. The results of the recent studies not only clearly demonstrate that EMF exposure triggers oxidative stress in various tissues, but also that it causes significant changes in levels of blood antioxidantmarkers. Fatigue, headache, decreased learning ability, and cognitive impairment are among the symptoms caused by EMF. The human body should therefore be protected against exposure to EMF because of the risks this can entail. As reported in many studies, people may use various antioxidants such as vitamin E, MEL and FA to prevent the potential adverse effects of exposure to EMF.

 

 



#41 Mr Serendipity

  • Guest
  • 985 posts
  • 19
  • Location:UK
  • NO

Posted 20 December 2020 - 10:14 PM

This ones huge, and is written evidence to a committee for the UK parliament (comes straight from the UK parliaments website) by a doctor from Cambridge university (3rd ranking university in the world) with good credentials and prior experiences. I’ll just paste the summary. But concern for 5G is not a conspiracy theory.

 

committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/2458/html/

 

Written evidence submitted by Dr Joseph

 

Call for Evidence : Broadband and the road to 5G

Written and compiled by Dr Joseph, PhD

Brief Introduction

I am molecular biologist by discipline and have worked in multiple University departments in Cambridge (Departments of Physiology & Clinical Pharmacology, University of Cambridge) as an academic postdoctoral research associate during the course of my scientific career (e.g. at the Department of Physiology I worked on beta-adrenergic receptor function alongside colleagues in the same lab who were studying voltage gated sodium channel genes which cause sudden cardiac arrest, i.e. Brugada syndrome). 

Prior to this, I worked at the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, Hinxton, in the X chromosome group helping to map the human genome. Latterly, I have also worked for a contract research company, Cogenics, and in the scientific distribution industry doing bioscience product management and marketing for companies like Thermo Fisher Scientific, Scientific & Chemical Supplies and Appleton Woods.

I am submitting my evidence, because as a scientist, I understand the implications of negative biological effects on human pathophysiology. 

I am deeply concerned that key scientific literature, pointing to very realnon-thermal negative biological effects of EMR radiation is being ignored by the mobile and broadband industry as well as bodies like the ICNIRP, that our government relies upon, to give guidance regarding the safety of 5G. 

These concerns are very important because they have a direct impact on the ‘Broadband and the road to 5G’  consultation, and if they are ignored, it will be to the detriment of the health and wellbeing of the whole UK population, particularly that of our children, future generations, as well as our delicate ecosystem.

 

 

Summary of my Evidence regarding the Consultation on Broadband and the road to 5G

  1. Very real, negative non-thermal biological effects occur as a direct result of extremely low electromagnetic radiation (EMR) levels, which are several orders of magnitude lower than the current safety limits set by the International Commission for Non-ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP).

 

  1. The current legislative and regulatory plans for the roll out of 5G are misguided by Public Health England (PHE) which relies entirely on ICNIRP safety guidelines on EMR radiation which have been shown to be deeply flawed – see Pall, M. (2018) (1) and Hardell & Nyberg (2020) (3). ) and Naren et al. (2020) (24).

 

  1. The ICNIRP safety guidelines are flawed because: 
    1. They assume average EMR intensities and average SAR can be used to predict biological effects and therefore safety. In fact, negative non-thermal biological effects occur approximately 100,000 times below current allowable levels. 
    2. They ignore demonstrated biological heterogeneity and established biological mechanisms
    3. They ignore pulsed EMRs which are much more biologically active than are non-pulsed EMRs of the same average intensity
    4. They ignore complex sinusoidal dose-response curves
    5. They also ignore many important scientific reviews which show non-thermal negative biological effects caused by EMRs (see body of evidence in Tables 1,2 & 3)
    6. There are many articles which state that EMRs produce diverse non-thermal effects through voltage gated calcium channels (VGCCs) in cells and produce negative biological effects such as oxidative stress, cellular DNA damage and increased calcium signalling but the voltage sensor of the VGCC is ignored by the 2020 ICNIRP safety guidelines. (see the following articles for which  Pall,M. 2018 (1) & Doyon PR et al, (2017) (8) Herbert MR & Sage C (2013) (15),Panagopoulos et al (2002) (30).

 

  1. Negative non-thermal biological effects of electromagnetic radiation listed in the literature across humans and other species are : (see Tables 1, 2, 3 below and References below from Pall (2018) (1))
    1. Lowered adaptive immune responses or immune system dysregulation
    2. Cardiac effects, including tachycardia, bradycardia and arrythmias, and ventricular developmental defects
    3. Cancer including initiation, promotion and progression
    4. Pathological damage to multiple organs (e.g. liver, kidneys, uterus, bladder, testis)
    5. Trace element disturbances in tissues
    6. Ocular damage
    7. Lowered fertility 
    8. Hormonal dysregulation
    9. Neurological / neuropsychiatric effects 
    10. Sleep disruption
    11. Memory, motor skill, attention, cognition impairment
    12. Apoptosis / programmed cell death
    13. Oxidative stress / free radical damage
    14. Single strand and double strand breaks in cellular DNA 
    15. Increased intracellular calcium levels causing chronic effects

 

  1. Considering all of the above negative effects of lower intensity electromagnetic radiation already out there, many scientists globally have asked for a moratorium on the deployment of 5G until the electromagnetic radiation risks associated with this new emerging technology have been fully investigated by industry-independent scientists, but this is falling on deaf ears. The responses from the EU seem to have thus far prioritized industry profits to the detriment of human health and the environment. Hardell & Nyberg (2020) (3)

 

  1. This means that the current situation in the United Kingdom is a violation of Human Rights similar to that which has been tabled to the United Nations Human Rights Council in early 2019 for Australia by S.J. Toneguzzo. (See below UN NGO document link, page 11)

 

  1. The deployment of 5G without safety testing in the UK violates over 15 international agreements, treaties and recommendations, including article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and principle 9 of the Declaration of Helsinki of 1964. (links listed on page 11 below)

 

  1. Wireless carriers have already conceded to U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal that they are not aware of any independent scientific studies on the safety of 5G technologies – see reference 13 below. They are also making misleading comments about the safety of 5G – see comment by Dr Jack Rowley below, page 16).

 

  1. Clearly if existing low level EMRs are having damaging biological responses such as those listed in point 4 above, surely untested frequencies such as 5G, should mean that we should be invoking the precautionary principle on 5G, and re-evaluating and revising current safety limits, as well as putting a moratorium on the roll out of 5G? Naren et al. (2020) (23) have stated that 5G should only be deployed after having completed thorough research and well-designed safety testing, as the EMR radiation exposure levels they see with 2-4G are well over the safe limits set by Building Biology, Austrian Medical Association, and the BioInitiative standards which do take into account non-thermal negative biological EMR effects.

 

  1. The precautionary principle has already been applied by multiple local city councils in England (Brighton, Hove, Devonshire, Shepton Mallet, Somerset, Frome, Totnes, Wells, Glastonbury, Trafford) as well as other rightly concerned countries like Nigeria, Slovenia, etc. – see URL links 11 and 12 in References for a full list. 

 

  1. We should be insisting that adequate safety testing is done for 5G, and that current safety limits are re-evaluated in the light of the overwhelming body of current scientific literature which points to non-thermal negative biological responses across multiple species (see Tables 1, 2, 3), not just human beings. (see also letter to House of Commons from Radiation Research Trust requesting safety testing in reference 14 below) Naren et al. (2020) (24) state that “If 5G networks are deployed without careful analysis of expected exposure levels, almost all people in the area of coverage may be exposed to dangerous levels of power flux density, the outcomes of which, in the near future, may turn out to be calamitous.” They strongly suggest that a study similar to theirs be conducted in countries which choose to deploy 5G, by correlating the findings with the Basic Biology Standard, the Austrian Medical Association standard (AMA) and the BioInitiative standard (see Table 4) in order to get a consistent view of radiation exposure in 5G networks as compared to previous generations. This would provide much-needed insight and caution to all countries that are yet to adopt 5G.

 

  1. Only after safety testing of 5G had been done by the mobile and broadband industry and by independent non-industry scientists who have no economical allegiance or scientific bias towards such emerging technology, should 5G have even be considered to be deployed in the UK. Any such safety testing data needs to be independently verified by a non-industry scientific committee (see page 10, paragraph 2 below for suitable constituents of such a non-industry committee).

 

  1. Right now, we should be consulting and informing constituents of their rights in those parts of the UK, for whom 5G has been rolled out, without safety testing, as well as putting a halt to access to 5G, until we are aware of the full impact of 5G on, not just humans, but also on all species. This is because we now know that existing low level EMR radiation, is already damaging humans as well as less complex species such as plants, insects, birds and lower mammals (see list of articles in Table 1, 2 & 3 and Naren et al. (2020) (24)).

 

  1. I have assessed much of the latest data on EMR radiation (see Tables 1, 2, & 3 and References section below) and find that we should be doing all we can, to protect our public from harmful EMR radiation as follows: 

 

    1. Doing safety testing of 5G before we authorise any further roll outs and putting a halt to the operation of existing installations until the safety testing has been verified and approved by not just the mobile and broadband industry but by a non-industry working group of scientists, physicians and members of the public who can assess the data independent of 5G manufacturers

 

    1. Prioritising and incentivising the use of safer wired fibre optic solutions in our homes, shopping centres, airports, hospitals, workplaces and schools

 

    1. Encouraging families to protect their future generations by minimising the use of portable devices which produce EMR radiation like mobile phones, tablets, laptops, etc. (see letter requesting the same in reference 14 below)

 

    1. Suggesting urgent research on the safety and efficacy of shielding methods combined with use of generators emitting weak pulses of similar frequency, intensity, and waveform with the natural atmospheric resonances - see Panagopoulos & Chrousos (2019) (16)

 

    1. Getting a better understanding of the molecular mechanisms underlying the EMR potential challenges to not only a single system but to all our biological systems, in order to improve preventive strategies  - see Santini et al. (2018) (17)

 

    1. Putting in place mobile and broadband industry-independent safety and usage regulations to protect our public (adults and children) and other species and advising appropriate restrictions on the use of EMR emitting mobiles and all portable devices in order to protect the health of all users, i.e. not with respect to only one organ but with respect to our bodies as a whole, as well with respect to the health of the delicate ecosystem around us – see multiple papers in Table 3 which show:
      1. working memory impairment in human beings with mobile phone use (Kalafatakis et al. 2017)
      2. strong cancer causality with mobile phone use (Pareja-Peña et al. 2020)
      3. negative physiological and morphological effects on multiple plants (Halgamuge MN. 2017)
      4. cognitive and motor damage on insects  (Shepherd et al. 2018).

 

    1. Naren et al. (2020) (24) have done a highly informative study of the exposure to EMR radiation across multiple wireless devices. They havedetermined the radiation concern levels in several scenarios using a handheld radiation meter by correlating the findings with several international standards, which are determined based on thorough scientific evidence  They have suggested individual and collective human-centric protective and preventive measures that could be undertaken to reduce the risk of EMR radiation absorption but these are not fully protective for Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity (EHS) individuals, so these can only be looked upon as a non-comprehensive interim measure in an environment where wireless EMR radiation cannot be avoided due to the lack of a wired fibre optic infrastructure.

 

    1. Barnes & Greenebaum  (2020) (25) have also sought to give advice on how governments, mobile and broadband industry and associated regulatory bodies could assemble EMR safety guidelines for individuals, mobile and broadband companies, and system operators. They state that we don’t yet know whether biological effects seen due to lower level, long term EMR exposure are resulting in medical problems for a much larger number of people. Therefore, governments need to investigate longterm exposure to weak EMRs, and put in place safety guidelines to address this issue.

 

    1. I strongly urge the UK government to use an independent scientific committee (ISC – see page 19 below for its composition) and PHE, to: 

 

    1. Re-evaluate the body of scientific evidence on extremely low EMRs (continuous and pulsed) which produce non-thermal negative biological responses across multiple species not just humans

 

    1. Understand and communicate to the public which safety guidelines most closely adhere to protecting our people from any further EMR damage (by evaluating also the rationale of the Building Biology, Austrian Medical Association, and the BioInitiative standards which do take into account non-thermal negative biological EMR effects)

 

    1. Work together with the scientists of other countries who are assessing their exposure limits prior to rolling out 5G, to understand all the dangers of 2G-5G

 

    1. Set up UK-specific EMR safety guidelines based on what is found from the above exercise, and not just rely on the currently flawed ICNIRP guidelines (the new guideline could be then used as a gold standard globally)

 

    1. Set up new individual, worker, manufacturer, public spaces and atmospheric safety guidelines for existing 2G-4G EMR emitting portable and stationary devices, base stations and towers

 

    1. Use the protective and preventive measures from Naren et al. (2020) (24) in  a public information campaign to inform the UK population on the best methods of shielding themselves from existing 2G-4G EMR radiation in the absence of any other consensus (see Table 4 below)

 

    1. Set up a study similar to the one conducted by Naren et al 2020(24) in these countries, by correlating the findings with the Building Biology, Austrian Medical Association, and the BioInitiative standards in order to get a consistent view of radiation exposure in 5G networks as compared to previous generations.

 

    1. Set up new individual, worker, manufacturer, public spaces and atmospheric safety  guidelines for existing 5G EMR emitting portable and stationary devices, base stations and towers

 

    1. Halt the operation of existing 5G installations until safety testing has been verified and approved by not just the mobile and broadband industry but by a non-industry working group of scientists, physicians and members of the public who can assess the data independent of 5G manufacturers

 

    1. Contact the public in any area where 5G is going to be deployed or already deployed and ask them if they still want to have the greater connectivity of 5G despite the potential long term harms associated with exposed to very high levels of power flex density emitted by 5G EMR radiation. Leave the choice to the public, and where they still want access, ensure that 5G is made available only through wired fibre optic technology thereby protecting those members of the public who prefer not to be exposed, e.g. EHS individuals.

 

    1. Take action now for all those persons with Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity (EHS) where they have been already subjected to 5G to inform them that the existing 5G masts will be decommissioned and a wired fibre optic technology solution put in to replace 5G masts..

 

    1. If existing non-5G masts are within a few yards of a property, action should be taken immediately to rectify this as residential buildings and schools should be protected from close by sources of EMR radiation. Safe distances for these masts should be determined by the bodies that have created the Basic Biology Standard, the Austrian Medical Association standard (AMA) and the BioInitiative standard who recognise non-thermal negative biological effects of EMR radiation.

Edited by Jesus is King, 20 December 2020 - 10:23 PM.


#42 Hip

  • Guest
  • 2,402 posts
  • -451
  • Location:UK

Posted 20 December 2020 - 10:22 PM

This ones huge, but is written evidence to a committee for the UK parliament. I’ll just paste the summary. But concern for 5G is not a conspiracy.

 

That's a long quote you pasted, but it can be countered with a single sentence:

 

5G does not penetrate the skin, and so does not enter into the human body.



#43 Mr Serendipity

  • Guest
  • 985 posts
  • 19
  • Location:UK
  • NO

Posted 20 December 2020 - 10:32 PM

That's a long quote you pasted, but it can be countered with a single sentence:

 

5G does not penetrate the skin, and so does not enter into the human body.

 

 

https://ecfsapi.fcc.... or not (1).pdf

 

The human skin as a sub-THz receiver – Does 5G pose a danger to it or not?

 

6. Results

Fig. 11 displays the SARs distribution patterns over the model cal- culated at a frequency of 440 GHz. The duct ac conductivity was set to 10,000 S/m, (a) for the thin skin model (Fig. 10), (b) the same model showing a cross section exposing the sweat duct, © for the thin skin model without an embedded sweat duct and (d) the cross section of the same ductless model. Black indicates a high SAR value (above 1.76 W/ kg in dB) and white a low SAR value. The simulation indicates that the main mechanism for sub-THz absorption in the skin layer is via ab- sorption in the duct. Fig. 12 displays the SAR distribution patterns for the thick skin model. It is calculated at a frequency of 450 GHz with the duct ac conductivity set to 10,000 S/m. Fig. 12(a) for the model with an embedded sweat duct, (b) a cross-section of the same model showing the position of the sweat duct, © the same model without the presence of a duct and (d) a cross section of the same model. Black indicates a SAR value of above 2.2 W/kg in dB. The results tally with those of the thin skin model, showing that the energy is preferentially absorbed in the duct.
We calculated the maximal SAR as a function of the frequency for
each type of model (thick and thin skin model) as can be seen in Fig. 13 (for thick skin) and Fig. 14 (for thin skin) (Fig. 15)
The optimal frequencies for absorbance by human skin are re- presented by the peak in the Maximal SAR vs. frequency graphs ac- cording to the axial frequency predicted by Eq. (2). The thick skin model exhibit strong peaks at 410 GHz and 500 GHz and the thin skin model exhibits two strong peaks at 440 GHz and 580 GHz. The influ- ence of the ac conductivity of the duct is clearly evident in Fig. 14 (thick skin) and Fig. 16 (thin skin), it is clear that at even low levels of 2000 S/ m, the level of SARs is still high in respect to the SAR level obtained for the model without the duct.
Visualizing the Electric field distributions inside the model (Figs. 17and 18) further accentuate these conclusions. The EM field concentrates in the duct where it is effectively absorbed.
 
7. Conclusions
The need for high data transmission rates, coupled with advances in semiconductor technology, is pushing the communications industry towards the sub-THz frequency spectrum. While the promises of a glorious future, resplendent with semi-infinite data streaming, may be attractive, there is a price to pay for such luxury. We shall find our cities, workspace and homes awash with 5 G base stations and we shall live though an unprecedented EM smog. The benefits to our society of becoming so wired cannot ignore possible health concerns, as yet un- explored. There is enough evidence to suggest that the combination of the helical sweat duct and wavelengths approaching the dimensions of skin layers could lead to non-thermal biological effects. Such fears should be investigated and these concerns should also effect the defi- nition of standards for the application of 5G communications.

Edited by Jesus is King, 20 December 2020 - 10:35 PM.


#44 Hip

  • Guest
  • 2,402 posts
  • -451
  • Location:UK

Posted 20 December 2020 - 10:56 PM

There is enough evidence to suggest that the combination of the helical sweat duct and wavelengths approaching the dimensions of skin layers could lead to non-thermal biological effects

 

So the only worry about 5G boils down to some theoretical effect that might occur in skin sweat glands?

 

 

 

If do want to worry about electromagnetic radiation, I would look at the effects of 100 MHz FM radio, which was rolled out in the 1950s. As FM radio was slowly rolled out area by area in Sweden, skin cancer shot up dramatically in each new region where this new type of radio was introduced (prior to FM, there was only AM radio which uses much lower frequencies). 

 

See the studies of Hallberg and Johansson for more info. These authors do not claim that 100 MHz electromagnetic radiation causes cancer, but they speculate that this frequency may inhibit the DNA repair mechanisms in the cells, thus opening the door for skin cancer.

 

Unfortunately their work has not been replicated elsewhere, so hard to know whether 100 MHz radio waves really do promote skin cancer.


Edited by Hip, 20 December 2020 - 10:58 PM.

  • Disagree x 1

#45 Mr Serendipity

  • Guest
  • 985 posts
  • 19
  • Location:UK
  • NO

Posted 20 December 2020 - 11:14 PM

I’m just posting studies related to 5G.

 

And since that doctor from Cambridge with his scientific background and credentials was concerned enough to submit written evidence to the UK parliament, it’s understandable and healthy for people to have concern about this technology as well.



#46 Hip

  • Guest
  • 2,402 posts
  • -451
  • Location:UK

Posted 20 December 2020 - 11:56 PM


And since that doctor from Cambridge with his scientific background and credentials was concerned enough to submit written evidence to the UK parliament, it’s understandable and healthy for people to have concern about this technology as well.


Watch out for the retired old professors who have lots of time on their hands, and whose scientific judgement may be impaired due to advancing years. Not uncommon for scientists go off the rails as they get older.


  • Ill informed x 1
  • Unfriendly x 1

#47 Mr Serendipity

  • Guest
  • 985 posts
  • 19
  • Location:UK
  • NO

Posted 21 December 2020 - 12:43 AM

 

 

Watch out for the retired old professors who have lots of time on their hands, and whose scientific judgement may be impaired due to advancing years. Not uncommon for scientists go off the rails as they get older.

 

Except he isn’t retired and is still quite active: https://emit.medschl...oseph-cheriyan/


Edited by Jesus is King, 21 December 2020 - 12:43 AM.


#48 Hip

  • Guest
  • 2,402 posts
  • -451
  • Location:UK

Posted 21 December 2020 - 12:46 AM

Except he isn’t retired and is still quite active: https://emit.medschl...oseph-cheriyan/

 

Fair enough.



#49 Mind

  • Life Member, Director, Moderator, Treasurer
  • 19,181 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 05 June 2021 - 09:57 AM

The effective of the 5G range of radiation on human well-being is still relatively unknown. As noted earlier in this thread, there are physiological effects, but it is unknown as to whether or not these will ultimately be harmful. Still, it seems rather odd that no safety studies have been done.

 

In any case, in the US, it will now be legal for someone to install a 5G hub on their house without notifying their neighbors. This would be a receiver/transmitter for the network, not just a "personal use" endpoint, like a wi-fi router or other 5G devices. https://www.blushiel...ghbors-consent/

 

I am not so comfortable with this change in the FCC rules. While a 5G tower right next to my house would probably not hurt me, in the real world things are not always set-up as perfectly as planned. What happens if there is storm and the tower is damaged or shifted in a way that the primary beam is pointing directly into your house. This could happen with improper installation or malfunctioning equipment as well. Now you would be subject to rather intense terahertz radiation 24 hours a day - like standing in an airport scanner 24 hours a day - not something a lot of people would want.


  • Good Point x 1

#50 Hip

  • Guest
  • 2,402 posts
  • -451
  • Location:UK

Posted 05 June 2021 - 01:58 PM

The effective of the 5G range of radiation on human well-being is still relatively unknown. As noted earlier in this thread, there are physiological effects, but it is unknown as to whether or not these will ultimately be harmful. Still, it seems rather odd that no safety studies have been done.

 

In any case, in the US, it will now be legal for someone to install a 5G hub on their house without notifying their neighbors. This would be a receiver/transmitter for the network, not just a "personal use" endpoint, like a wi-fi router or other 5G devices. https://www.blushiel...ghbors-consent/

 

I am not so comfortable with this change in the FCC rules. While a 5G tower right next to my house would probably not hurt me, in the real world things are not always set-up as perfectly as planned. What happens if there is storm and the tower is damaged or shifted in a way that the primary beam is pointing directly into your house. This could happen with improper installation or malfunctioning equipment as well. Now you would be subject to rather intense terahertz radiation 24 hours a day - like standing in an airport scanner 24 hours a day - not something a lot of people would want.

 

5G does not penetrate into the body. 1 mm of skin is enough to block the signal. See my above post. So it cannot touch any internal part of your body.

 

In fact, 5G will not penetrate into many buildings, as modern energy-efficient glass used on office buildings is enough to block the signal. The leaves on a tree will also block the signal. Brick or wooden walls will totally block the signal. 



#51 Hebbeh

  • Guest
  • 1,661 posts
  • 571

Posted 06 June 2021 - 04:36 PM

So if I upgrade to a 5G phone, it won't get a signal inside buildings or under trees in the park? Or in the vicinity of any taller buildings that may block the signal as in downtown area? What good will it be?
  • Pointless, Timewasting x 1
  • Good Point x 1

#52 Hip

  • Guest
  • 2,402 posts
  • -451
  • Location:UK

Posted 06 June 2021 - 05:21 PM

So if I upgrade to a 5G phone, it won't get a signal inside buildings or under trees in the park? Or in the vicinity of any taller buildings that may block the signal as in downtown area? What good will it be?

 

Yes, you have to have a direct line of sight to a 5G transmitter to pick up the signal. A tree or even just a pane of glass is enough to block the signal. 

 

This is why telecom companies want to place 5G transmitters everywhere, like on every lamp-post, or outside building in the street, to try to ensure you will have a direct line of sight to at least one 5G transmitter. Seems like a lot of work. I am really not sure if it is worth the effort.

 

Of course, if you do not get 5G signal, your phone will automatically fall back to the slower 4G signal. 


Edited by Hip, 06 June 2021 - 05:21 PM.


#53 Mind

  • Life Member, Director, Moderator, Treasurer
  • 19,181 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 01 August 2021 - 09:26 AM

5G does penetrate the skin down to 1 mm and it is absorbed much more than other types. 3G and 4G penetrate a couple of cm, but it is very weak absorption.



#54 kurdishfella

  • Guest
  • 2,397 posts
  • -69
  • Location:russia
  • NO

Posted 20 February 2022 - 12:49 PM

Birds are falling from sky and animals attacking and locating 5g towers. Some say they overdosed and inhaled a dangerous gas in area since small animals overdose easier and faster than humans and diff faster metabolism. and drones fall from sky. But animals arent made of same as tech drones so the birds seemed like an attack were as drones etc not.

Edited by kurdishfella, 20 February 2022 - 12:52 PM.


#55 Mind

  • Life Member, Director, Moderator, Treasurer
  • 19,181 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 15 August 2023 - 04:04 PM

The cell phone industry touts the fact that there are no truly large long-term studies that show a statistically significant increase in cancer with the use of their products, but there are A LOT of smaller studies (in animals and humans) that make me worried.



#56 adamh

  • Guest
  • 1,069 posts
  • 121

Posted 18 October 2023 - 07:28 PM

Its clear that cellphone radiation is bad for health in general. This has been known for years and years. 5g is touted because it has a broader bandwidth than lower frequency 3g, 4g so more data can be sent on it. It needs line of sight which makes it almost useless, seems to me. You have to be outdoors in direct line of sight to a tower and not too far away for it to work. That may be fine for a business which can put an antenna on their roof but is impractical for consumers.

 

The claim that 5g does not penetrate the skin is not correct. It is mostly absorbed and reduced in the skin but some penetrates further. The skin is an important organ and problems with it are a big deal. Since 5g is mostly absorbed in the skin, it would follow that it will encourage melanoma and other skin disorders. With the shot still being pushed, its hard to say what increases in disease are due to 5g or the shot or some other cause.

 

The cell phone is like a deal with the devil. It gives us convenience but extracts a price in our health. I use it very little, I can call or send texts from my computer. This protects me from the radiation given off by the phone and I have it set to not use 5g at all. When it rings I ignore it and check for a message later. Most calls are junk anyway so no loss. Its mostly an insurance policy when I go out and something happens. 


  • Ill informed x 1
  • dislike x 1
  • Agree x 1

sponsored ad

  • Advert
Advertisements help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. [] To go ad-free join as a Member.

#57 HBRU

  • Guest
  • 167 posts
  • 45
  • Location:Italy
  • NO

Posted 10 December 2023 - 05:26 AM

5G is around since years and nothing bad is happening  :)

well the 26 and 28 ghz bands scares me (as higher the frequency higher are the enegy), but till now have been little to no used I as know

other channels are much similar to 4G...

 

GSMA | 26 GHz and 28 GHz are both needed for 5G - Spectrum

 

I see people here talking about 5G... but it has to specified wich 5G band you refer to.

5G goes from 700 mhz to 28ghz... many different bands, many different interactions are possible.

 

6G is arriving, and is much more concerning... 

Millimeter waves (30 to 300 GHz) and terahertz radiation (300 to 3000 GHz) might, according to some speculations, be used in 6G. 

 

6G - Wikipedia


Edited by HBRU, 10 December 2023 - 05:55 AM.

  • Informative x 1





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: sick, killing, aging, deadly

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users