5G signals won't make men infertile, sighs UK ad watchdog as it bans bonkers scary poster A group of Luddites who think 5G causes everything from cancer to lack to sleep have had an advert promoting their views banned from public display. Electrosensitivity-UK, a group of people who think “all forms” of electromagnetic radiation could be dangerous to your health, put up posters in July and August last year with the …
Does this mean that since they harm animals, they're not vegan? Maybe there'll be a whole bunch of people in future years refusing to use their mobile phones during "veganuary"... (Actually, I've used the joke icon but there will be people out there who take it seriously).
He does not take the bus on the basis that it will kill insects hitting it.
Utterly missing the point that the bus follows that route whether he's on it or not, so his walking doesn't save a single gnat.
On the other hand, if it were a dose of the clap he'd have no problem destroying trillions of lives with antibiotics.
Not really missing the point. By that same logic you should leave your heating on 24/7 because the power station's going to be fired up whether your tele's on or not or leave the car running all night because Saudi Arabia isn't going to pull any more oil out of the ground just because you're using your car a bit more. The point is that if a few more people do the same maybe the local bus company could decide to only run 29 busses a day rather than 30 and he directly isn't responsible for any of those gnats getting squashed.
Still utterly bonkers though.
Sure, if more people did the same, maybe there'd be less buses, but I doubt whether even 0.1% of the population would walk for an hour to save a gnat's life, so his walking has no effect on gnat mortality whatsoever. Maybe not theoretically missing the point, but practically doing so.
"Not to mention that when you walk, you are almost certainly killing insects and such by trodding on them."
I wondered whether he batted away the flies, gnats, mozzzies, spiders and other critters that bumped into or landed on him or does he accept that as "natural" and take them all into work with him?
And what about the millions of millions of bugs killed so his lettuce isn't eaten away and his apples aren't all wormy? Or those killed and whose habitats are ruined by the factories that make his clothing, the warehouses storing it during transport, the ... I smell unthinking and hypocrisy.
"Good grief, hopefully the 'poor' guy doesn't believe that legend about how many insects humans eat in their sleep..."
Not to mention the flora and fauna inside the human gut (and the rest if the body) which may be killed by eating various foods, eg by changing the gut environment in the short term.
I would imagine the loss of his productivity from not getting to work has not greatly impacted his employer.
Any 'positive' gains from this personal hardship/sacrifice will be completely eclipsed by the resources burnt during the strident virtue-signalling.
At work, so can't double check a little thing called facts...
IIRC, wasn't he fired from his last job? And that's why he is doing this?
On a tangent - did see a photo of this bloke before the trial, wearing what looked like a leather jacket!
The way I read it (and I'm happy to be corrected) was that he wasn't fired from his job for being a Vegan per se, but for gaining access to and releasing sensitive corporate financial information. My understanding was that the group/company he was working for were invested in stuff that he didn't agree with and which conflicted with his Vegan beliefs. So rather than just leave this company and find another job, he decided to steal and release this information into the wild to try to make some self-serving and futile ethical point. I'm pretty sure this action would be a fire-able offence for anyone, of any belief, in any company.
Still, I'm not sure that was the actual firing that he went to court over. I think I read that the actual firing is subject to another pending court case.
As I said, happy to be corrected.
Was once yelled out by a parent at a school asking me if I knew "that I was frying children's brains" by installing a (802.11b) wireless network.
Who then got on her phone, hand-clamped it to the side of her head, loaded her children in the car, and drove off still rabbiting on it...
Over-Population, extremely bad management of dwindling natural resources, greed and consumption heading the charts whilst civility and rational thought trailing way behind, basic privacy shot to death by the capitalists, CEOs writing themselves massive checks just to cover their egotistical fantasies....
Well, when you have a look at how well the world is actually doing, I am not convinced that a little bit of 5G infertility would actually be such a bad thing.
I am not convinced that a little bit of 5G infertility would actually be such a bad thing.
Just skimmed over today's Google News headlines. If anything, the problem would seem to be that it's only a little bit of 5G male infertility.
Oh well. Maybe 6G will do a better job of killing sperm. Progress works that way sometimes. One just HAS to be patient
"Surely you'd need two bricks ..."
No. Not if swung accurately and forcefully enough.
With sufficient velocity, *grass* can cause enough damage to impair fertility. Humans have had millions of years of practice in this field and are generally good at it and highly inventive.
"Oh well. Maybe 6G will do a better job of killing sperm."
Only if trousers are designed with phone-protecting front pockets. Upper-thigh pockets on the inside of the legs, perhaps? Though I'm unsure how efficient those would be for normal use.
On a similar subject, most girls tend to carry their phones in their *back* pockets if any so *their* baby-cells are probably relatively safe from the magical death rays.
As always, you have to look at where the population in growing. In rich countries it's ageing and at best stable. But in large parts of Asia,and in most of Africa it's continuing to rise and increasing the pressure for resources. What's it to be? Babies or safari animals?
A more valid metric is per-capita waste and inefficiencies. Over-population is undesirable, but it can be self regulating. Nobody encourages over population as policy.
>> In rich countries it's ageing and at best stable.
But consumption and waste per capita has shot up incredibly. It is consumption that actually does the most damage in the long term. Unlike population growth, this is actively pursued, by companies (for profit) and governments (for tax revenue and borrowing themselves). Consumer debt is an active part of the economy.
I'd imagine one person in the West is using a lot more plastic, energy, and producing garbage and food waste that is far in excess of what people in poorer nations do. Think of the supermarket waste needed to offer shelves of off-season produce, convenience products, prepped foods.
(As an experiment go a day and see how many wrappers, plastic packaging, imported foods you go through and think how much of that someone in a poor country produces)
Indeed if people reduced waste, it would impact the profit of companies and jobs.
Put another way, the west's economic growth is built on consumption, now in the territory of also encouraging waste. You could argue rich countries got to where they are for not entirely the right reasons.
It's a difficult problem to solve, as it is now a behavioural problem.
But the overpopulation argument is really about saying the current consumption and waste per-capita in richer countries should be preserved, so let the poor nations solve the problem by reducing the "capita". I think wasting limited resources is far more irresponsible.
(If you down vote explain yourself.)
I didn't vote either way, but I think your view is limited. Not wrong, as consumption is a problem too, but limited. Increasing populations also put pressures on the environment, and in different ways. For example, growing populations in areas almost always leads to deforestation of those areas for extra places to live or to grow food. When that happens, even more of the trees that sequester carbon are taken out of commission, and the typical way of doing that is burning them which exacerbates the problem. A good example of this was last year's fires in Brazil which the Brazilian authorities weren't particularly interested in stopping.
You can't treat the issue as only having one primary cause, because you'll end up playing a game of whack-a-mole. If something contributes, it should be considered as important. The single reason I provided wasn't it, either; that was just one example. There are lots of moving parts in this system, and you can't just point at the big, obvious one and think that you can simply make it stop or that making it stop will stop the system.
>> A good example of this was last year's fires in Brazil which the Brazilian authorities weren't particularly interested in stopping.
Are you aware that is almost entirely for beef/cattle farming - which is almost entirely exported, in particular to the US? It wasn't to build homes.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jul/02/revealed-amazon-deforestation-driven-global-greed-meat-brazil
https://www.washingtonpost.com/gdpr-consent/?destination=%2fbusiness%2f2019%2f08%2f27%2fhow-beef-demand-is-accelerating-amazons-deforestation-climate-peril%2f%3f
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/08/23/americas/brazil-beef-amazon-rainforest-fire-intl/index.html
Put another way, feeding a western rich country citizen needs say 100 acres and a poor citizen 1. They don't stock up their fridges and store shelves to bin them, so that it is conveniently avaialble.The food waste figures are incredible for western nations. But see how the argument is deflected here to what those poor nations should do.
Their population needs to be a 100 times greater for the damage to be the same - this is currently not the case.. The actual food without waste can probably be achieve with say 30 acres. (I'm making up there figures - food waste is at about 70%)
>> If something contributes, it should be considered as important.
This is naive - correcting every single contributor is never pragmatic in the real world.
I think *this* is limiting - because it creates deflection and noise from identifying the issue that is most feasible, most sustainable and actually make the *most* difference.
It is about identifying the minimum effective dose of the most effective medicine, instead of figuring out doses of every medicine that can make some difference through every possible delivery vector.
Even if I take you argument of all causes, for the example provided here, in particular, of rich versus poor nations, it is important that rich nations get their act together and make sure their houses are in order before commenting on what poorer nations ought to be doing. Think of the area of forest covered by the food waste of rich countries versus poor countries. Let's compare that to the area taken by their overpopulated overdense poor habitations.
The population is growing and the poor of the population is aspiring to "improve" their lifestyle by consumerism.
Delayed Malthusian, or Garrett Hardin's tragedy of the commons. We don't have waves of plague sweeping across Europe any more.
"Are you aware that is almost entirely for beef/cattle farming - which is almost entirely exported, in particular to the US?"
Yes, I was aware of that. Are you aware that the people doing the farming are Brazilian businesses, not some international group? And that this applies to myriad other areas where other things are being produced? See how it's still a problem? If it's shipped to the U.S. or eaten there, the forest has still been burned. This isn't necessarily the fault of increasing populations, but nor is it the fault of an eventual consumer. The people making the active decision to take an action that harms the environment are responsible.
You cannot limit yourself to taking only one action or declaring only one perpetrator. It's as if your house was on fire and I came to deal with the problem by pouring water on one corner of the house. I wouldn't be helping anything because the rest would continue burning, and when I ran out of water that corner would also go up in smoke. If you want this problem fixed, you need to evaluate all of the contributing factors and make plans for dealing with any that are large enough to have an effect. You can't focus on only one country or region, whether that's a developed or developing one, because the problem is global.
"I think your view is limited. Not wrong, as consumption is a problem too, but limited. Increasing populations also put pressures on the environment, and in different ways."
...and nature is addressing the issue, in the fullness of time it will alter the environmental conditions suficiently to greatly reduce, or maybe eraticate the current human infestation it is enduring.
When that happens, even more of the trees that sequester carbon are taken out of commission, and the typical way of doing that is burning them which exacerbates the problem.
Don't worry about the carbon - we need more of that in the atmosphere (not less!). Worry about other stuff. Besides, old trees don't absorb carbon, only growing ones do.
Food waste - I actually throw more in the bin now I've gone with a "zero food waste" system. What goes in the compost bin today becomes part of what I am planting in a couple of months time, some of which will go into compost and be re-planted later. Also looking at bio-gas digesting (when I get my own place sadly) and maybe to what we might call "total processing of all food waste" (all of you who told me to eat shit - yup, sounds like a plan - and I get "free" energy and compost in the process!).
On the plastic crap and other waste products, yeah I'd dearly love to see them gone. Not necessarily all plastic, and I do worry a little about what might be the result of the compost-able plastic-like bags made from "corn starch" - I like them BUT will we see corn being used for this instead of food?
Anyway.. Limit rubbish, limit waste, be energy/resource efficient, do what you can to improve your neighbourhood - and the whole "global warming" "co2=bad" and "fake climate emergency that isn't even remotely an emergency" will be taken care of. And if you're not living like that, don't gripe about other's actions!
As to 5G - not worried about that or other radio signals per se, but I have noticed that whereas the fuschias and tomatoes used to have abundant bumble bees and the rest of the garden had abundant other bees, nowadays we may see ONE SINGLE BEE in a day despite more plants for them - that is worrying and while I am not convinced it's our RF I am aware it could be messing up the insect's nav systems... Someone needs to find somewhere with a nice flowery field, 0 RF (aside from the sun etc), install BUT NOT POWER some typical RF kit and nearby beehives, watch the bugs for a while then power up the kit. Change in behaviour? Kit could be responsible. No change? Good chance the kit isn't harming them. Anyone know if this is done? Hell, anyone even still here????
"But in large parts of Asia,and in most of Africa it's continuing to rise and increasing the pressure for resources"
That's an old trope and not very accurate - what's ACTUALLY happening is that as countries in these areas have improved their economic lot over the last 20-25 years birthrates have dropped off dramatically. There are some interesting infographics on this but the TLDR is simple: the fastest way to reduce birthrates is to lift people out of grinding poverty.
Modulo some areas with religious fruitbats encouraging excess reproduction amongst the uberwealthy - but even there the birthrates are falling off rapidly.
"As for their capacity to do harm, millimetre waves, like all radio waves, are not ionising radiation, and thus don't have the capacity to break molecular bonds or damage biological tissue. This is all a simple matter of basic chemistry."
Go rig the microwave in your kitchen to run with the door open, microwave your hand a for a few minutes, and then come back and tell us that non-ionising radiation can't "damage biological tissue". (Or just use a sausage or something I suppose).
A sufficiently high power level of non-ionising radiation is quite capable of dumping heat into biological tissue (and much else), and that will damage that tissue.
The important thing to note here is that this effect is relatively easy to predict (eg), and that maximum power levels are limited specifically so this isn't a problem.
In Soviet Russia, oven microwaves YOU!
I'm not going to tell you not to try that at home, but I am going to tell you not to try it anywhere near my home.
Or just throw a baking potato in the Microwave. Set the it on HIGH and set the timer for 60 minutes instead of the intended 6 minutes. Move on to your next task.
I have (unintentionally) tried this experiment. Mean Time To Smoke Alarm (based on sample size one) = 27 minutes. Potato reduced to ash with a few weak flames flickering. Microwave was never really the same.
Microwave ovens work by exciting the O-H bond, which is why it's effective on carbohydates, but also great at drying stuff out until it's inedible. But this is hardly the kind of radiation that causes spontaneous genetic mutations that lead to things like infertility. The culprits for this are far more likely to be in the pseudo-hormonal compounds found in almost every modern product. So probably simply holding a phone, even while it's switched off, is probably riskier than its microwave.
But try telling that to the tin hat brigade.
I tend toward pedantry myself, so it pains me to call out others when they engage in it. You're technically correct, but what the article is clearly trying to address is the word "radiation". Too many people equate "radiation" with "ionizing radiation", and the intent is to explain that non-ionizing radiation does not present danger analogous to the ionizing sort.
Many years ago, I heard a talk by a fellow who had been TV critic for one of the local newspapers. He claimed to have been told that TVs brought on sterility, and to have guarded against this by turning an armchair around, and watching while he knelt on the seat. I assume this was facetious.
Those with eclectic tastes in reading may remember a bit in Thomas Pynchon's novel V in which a sailor considers exposure to radar as a method of birth control.
Before smashing machinery, which was a protest against job de-skilling (sounds familiar) they proposed:
- introduction of a minimum wage;
- the adherence of companies to abide by minimum labour standards;
- taxes which would enable funds to be created for workers’ pensions.
Yes anyone who says outloud that things are not very fair for the people who work for a living tends to get smeered
Shame the watchdog is not consistent with their banning of the advertising of irrational claims, I have visited many banks and not seen anyone with a glowing ring over their heads once and politicians seem only to care for a group I am not a member of.
As to infertility whilst population levels are generally going up, fertility of those that survived being forced to fight in the last two world cullings I would say are not keeping up. Given two generations of the best breeding stock being selectively wiped out in the UK you would imagine that those that fought and survived would be prized more and yet the graditude of those who profited most from the war only seems to have lasted a single generation before the return to face grinding and polluting their environment for profit. So I am thinking more guilt than gratitude
and yet the graditude of those who profited most from the war only seems to have lasted a single generation
What upsets me most about this is simply that the things my grandfather's shed blood to prevent are now the things no-one bats an eyelid at, and many clamour for more.
How quickly we forgot what was really worth fighting and dying for :(
I'm still not sure about their claims that we're having to cut all the trees down to allow us to get a 5G signal because the leaves will block the signal, but simultaneously they'll pass through a human body and cook it from the inside. Surely you can't have a signal so weak that half a mm of leaf will stop it dead, but so powerful that it can pass through bone, skin and fat and still cause damage to cells deep inside the body.
It was funny last summer though watching a climate change activist argue with a 5G-is-bad activist about why nobody should worry about each other's concern.
There is a noticeable difference in RF coverage of at least some 3G frequencies between winter and summer - at least on the low power outdoor small cells.
OTOH, the random pics of trees being chopped down to make way for 5G are invariably just lifted from other newspaper/internet articles (not necessarily recent either) and repurposed for the task ot taking down Big-Telcos.
I think the difference is that trees are generally very well rooted into the ground and so provide a very effective lightening rod which dumps the RF into the ground.
Whereas people tend not to be so effective in this capacity, especially as we live in a predominantly shoe-wearing society.
Would that include the (roughly 8-10 micron wavelength) IR our body radiates? Oh, well, each photon has a far higher energy than those of 5G signals, so they are BOUND to be more damaging. So we should all avoid each other's proximity for fear of being exposed to body heat radiation. How would that affect procreation, I wonder. </sarcasm>
I am not supporting the banned advertisers here but to be frank there is such a thing as resonance which can magnify effects and whilst everyone has a go at this group it will still be quite some time before science can actually say with any certainty if the increasing poliferation of EM is safe, anyone who says different is either not a scientist or without ethics.
For science to work you have to suck it to see and we havent been sucking long enough yet for any real conclusion to be drawn. That business controls science means that you often see claims that cannot be scientifically justified presented as scientific fact so it might be said that this banning is more to do with conflicting business interests than actual facts.
There was this story where a company here in Germany erected a cellphone tower in a small village. Promptly people complained about headaches, sleep problems, stiff necks etc. When asked about it, one of the executives of the company exclaimed: "Oh my goodness! How horrible! How bad will it be when we hook it up and power it next month?"
(The exclamation of the officer of the company is not true. What is true that there were health complaints when the tower was erected, and before it was hooked up and powered. Cell phone antennas hidden from sight, say, within church towers [installed during a 'necessary' renovation of the roof, whereby also the tiles are exchanged for radio-transparent ones], trigger significantly less complaints due to health problems.)
I remember reading ages ago a comment on here, or maybe slashdot (yes, it was that long ago) where a guy was on a camping holiday with his mate and his mates girlfriend.
She always claimed to be affected by wi-fi signals (specifically) and whilst on the holiday, happened to mention that her head was much clearer now in this environment with no wi-fi buzzing around.
He didn't tell her that at the time, his portable hotspot just a couple of meters away was powered up...
Not forgetting the masts disguised as petrol station signs.I'm also always amused by the signs saying "absolutely no mobiles allowed to be used on the forecourt", usually next to the "Pay using our mobile app" sign with no hint of irony (and yes, there's always the Mythbusters debunking of the danger, too)
The concern about using a mobile when you're filling up wasn't about them spontaneous explosions. It was about the fact that you're pumping perhaps hundreds of litres of dangerous chemicals that you don't want to spill so you should be paying attention to what you're bloody doing not on what you're phone call is about. This is also the reason you can't lock a pump on in the UK they way you can in the US.
The fact that it took driving laws a few years to catch up with this is depressing.
Yes there are times you should concentrate on something other than your phone even if it's a "simple" task that you have done hundreds of times before.
The other slight concern was that dropping the phone might cause some sort of spark when it hit the ground and the user replaceable battery (remember them?) flew off. This is a problem because the ground is where all the overflowing petrol went when the auto cut-off didn't quite work and you weren't paying attention because you were talking on the phone.
Back when I used to blow things up for a living (just a hobby now, honest) there was one job putting in the roads for a new subdivision in the hills, adjacent to an established very affluent area.
People would ring up the council or the primary contractor and complain about the noise and vibration from the blasts - except we hadn't actually set them off yet.
can you complain about something you do not know exists? people do get sick randomly thoughout their lives and if there is no obvious change to their environment they will accept it as normal unless it becomes a problem at which point they will see a specialist who if unaware of the hidden change in the patient's environment will be unable to consider if the change is attributal.
Yes there are always pychosomatics but we will all have to be long dead before science can say conclusively whether the EM proliferation we current live in effected the length or quality of our lives, assuming everyone is a pychosomatic is good way to prevent impartial science ever being involved
The problem with the animal experiments which get cited (the Ramazzini study) is that the results were inconclusive so both sides use them selectively. For instance one side might say "some of the exposed mice and rats got cancer, the control ones didn't" while the other side will say "all the exposed mice and rats significantly outlived the control animals". This means the control ones might have developed cancer too if they had lived long enough.
But ultimately it's the difference between science and belief. There are people who believe that radio waves are dangerous and that may be enough. There is a lot we don't understand about placebo and nocebo. Belief does seem to have and epidemiological effect so believing it is dangerous might actually make it so.
I made a cup of tea this morning, well it was pain boiled tap water, but I thought of it as homeopathic tea. It was delicious.
> with the headline “How safe is 5G?” over a picture of a family walking a dog,
If the 5G doesn't get them, there's always the risk of being licked to death by the dog.
Their majority mainstream viewpoint ? What numbers do they have that substantiates that declaration ?
Obvious. Everyone he knows, everyone he deals with, everyone in their web forums, so naturally that means everyone who matters. They're all in the same bubble. No one else matters.
I'd be more happy about this news story if I didn't remember about how people in the UK were prevented from learning about the dangers posed by Thalidomide after Americans had already been warned, so that only a few children were deformed by it in the United States, while many suffered in the UK. So the British authorities can't really be trusted to warn the people of health dangers.
Unfortunately, the icon I wanted was only available to anonymous cowards.
It's a lot harder to keep secrets nowadays.
Example, a couple of years ago, someone at work complained that some courtroom parasites were stopping him from knowing the name of the footballer who had a super injunction out. It took me under a minute to find the information. It is no longer possible for "them" to hide stuff from me if it is known elsewhere. It may be unwise of me to rebroadcast it though.
With high court injunctions, I would say it is easier to keep secrets than it was before the high court existed. As to finding out about your footballer then there new laws in place or you would have mention his name now wouldn't you.
Now secrets are branded as fake news and after that it will be something else to limit your opinion,having any impact no matter how truthful it might be.
or abestos, Omagh and a million other things that joe public collectively forgets and somehow believes that these powerful people really are doing it to them for their own good rather than their own......how do you think they got to be rich and powerful people? decent people never do.....
The Commission’s Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR) decided to endorse, during its 2014-2019 mandate, the view of the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) that the only risk of harm associated with electromagnetic fields (EMF) is from thermal effects (1) – a statement that has proven to be wrong (2) . Santé publique France recently recalled the risk factors for glioblastoma solid tumors, stating that ‘the latest epidemiological studies and animal experiments would support the carcinogenic role of exposure to electromagnetic fields’ (3) .
1 Which members of SCENIHR are also members of ICNIRP? How does the Commission ensure that its scientific committee provides an independent and balanced interpretation of the scientific findings when its members may have conflicting interests with other organisations?
2 How does the Commission assess the well-documented chain of reactions – EMF; activation of calcium channels; excess production of free radicals; damage to DNA; observed increase of glioblastoma and other relevant brain tumors (4) – in its policy regarding 5G?
3 How does the Commission intend to bring the deployment of 5G into line with the fight against cancer which President von der Leyen has set as a high priority? Does it consider visible-light communications (VLC / LiFi) to be an answer?
Dude, they're "well-documented".1 Documented so well you don't need to read it. Just the best documentation, you bet.
1See "Talk about the Fox Gaurding [sic] the Henhouse" [emfexpert 2020].
CinderfordAltRockexpert> Santé publique France recently recalled the risk factors for glioblastoma solid tumors, stating that ‘the latest epidemiological studies and animal experiments would support the carcinogenic role of exposure to electromagnetic fields’ (3)
What was actually said:
[ http://www.lesondesmobiles.fr/savoirplus.html
Link: Téléphoner avec un portable, est-ce risqué ? ]
L’actualisation de l’état des connaissances publiée par l’ANSES en octobre 2013, ne met pas en évidence d’effet sanitaire avéré et ne conduit pas à proposer de nouvelles valeurs limites d’exposition de la population. Elle pointe toutefois, avec des niveaux de preuve limités, différents effets biologiques chez l’Homme ou chez l’animal. Par ailleurs, certaines publications évoquent une possible augmentation du risque de tumeur cérébrale, sur le long terme, pour les utilisateurs intensifs de téléphones portables. Compte tenu de ces éléments, dans un contexte de développement rapide des technologies et des usages, l’Anses recommande de limiter les expositions de la population aux radiofréquences – en particulier des téléphones mobiles -, notamment pour les enfants et les utilisateurs intensifs, et de maîtriser l’exposition générale résultant des antennes-relais.
French public health officials are now overly cautious, after some of them ended up in jail after the blood contamination scandal. Unlike in the UK.
There was also a science show on one of the lesser public-financed TV stations about dowsing rods. Actually more about the people that use and believe in them. The reporter asked one dowser to inspect his hotel room. The dowser commented about the bad radiation at the left side of the bed. On the left nightstand, the reporter had left a phone, visible on top. Except it was a dummy – not even a real phone, just a plastic box that looks like one. His real phone was powered on in the RIGHT nightstand, hidden from sight.
Most people seem to find magical thinking comforting. It does reduce cognitive load and assuage feelings of helplessness or dependency, so that's hardly surprising.
At least the proponents of EMF Danger can point to an actual physical mechanism, even if the numbers don't work. They're a rung above the dowsers and homeopaths.
At least the proponents of EMF Danger can point to an actual physical mechanism, even if the numbers don't work.
Well.. It's known some humans are sensitive to some forms of radiation, at least knowing it's around regardless of whether or not it's harmful (I'll raise my hand as someone who can sense certain types of radiation, and I've witnessed some basic testing to confirm someone could detect reasonable changes in electro-magnetic fields (perhaps by the same mechanism that lets us tell what direction we're facing).
Animals are well shown to react to coming earthquakes, and much of the research I've seen on that suggests EM effects of quartz being crushed shortly before the quake.
However, there are a couple of factors that are known to make people sick, sometimes seriously so, which can have a direct bearing on this, and that's stress-induced illnesses and psychosomatic problems.
The former - if someone believes that EMF is bad and that our world is awash in it, it will be an added stressor in their lives that could lead to such issues (of course, many "stressed" people are just SJWs/snowflakes etc looking for the latest opportunity for some minor thing to "trigger" them).
And of course those subject to psychosomatic illnesses, well... If you believe hard enough you're going to get sick then you're going to get sick. Or shovel "cures" and "preventatives" into your body till you make yourself sick
Just eat a reasonable diet OK, and perhaps avoid some of the nastier fumes, and you're probably going to be OK, ok? And if you're not OK, then it's either bad genes (you were going to get sick anyway), misfortune (one of the very rare people who gets a bad vaccine or bad oncoming driver or...) or someone did something stupid (Fonterror making baby formula again...)
Possibly including some commenters, but certainly those who believe it‘s more harmful than walking your dog.
But it probably is much more harmful than walking a dog.
In my 40+ years of seeing stuff on this earth, I've seen 2 kids chase dogs out onto the road (3 if you count one of them being me). So far this year I think I've seen a dozen idiots with faces in phones attempt to walk into traffic.
Let's face it, if you rush out and buy a 5G phone you're much more likely to die a painful death than someone who goes out and gets a dog. (though given 5g's supposed movie streaming potential, there's a good chance the dog owner will die from some idiot watching screens rather than roads)
Do you think the ASA will admit they got it wrong when the data is irrefutable, of course they won't, who at the ASA is qualified to comment on such things?.
Of course the four fold increase of glioblastoma brain tumours in France is Irrefutable. for those of you that don't know, they are pretty much inoperable.
And all this press coverage is wonderful for all the Electrosensitives out there looking for support.
Petition on potential health risks of electromagnetic fields and the 5G rollout
08-01-2020 - 12:37
At the meeting of 21 January 2020, the Members will examine a petition on the potential health and environmental risks stemming from the 5G (5th generation) mobile networks. The petition challenges the most recent opinion by the Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR), which argues that there is no reason to be concerned about exposure to electromagnetic fields, as allegedly inconsistent and conflicting.
The petitioner calls for a non-biased and thorough literature review by the EU, which will take into account all viewpoints when assessing the potentially harmful health and environmental effects of electromagnetic fields.
What a disgusting article, I expect better from this site..... I'm by far from a 'luddite', my qualifications and experience speaks for itself!
Fact is nowhere near enough scientific research has been conducted so impossible to tell definitively one way or the other. As you mention though what has been done certainly suggests it is something to worry about...such as the tests on animals. Closest thing you're going to get to a human....and DARPA has well documented that the same technology can be used as a weapon against people. This is a publicly acknowledged fact! Anybody who has access or a malicious hacker either through deliberate action or incompetence can vary those signals enough to turn it into a very dangerous weapon to use on the population.
It is also a fact that I have been suffering a lot more headaches, depression and insomnia since the dman blue pyramid went on the lamp posts around here.....of course it could be something else that is causing that but I certainly not noticed anything else changing in my environment.
I would also have thought that anybody who writes for this 'rag' would also be familiar with the concept of radar and the current processing power of everyday computers and the s/w that is available. This gives the ability for these 'people' to record and monitor in full 3d holoporn 24/7 o what ever you choose to get up to in your own home.....so of course they want that power. If a significant % of the population gets ill and die a lot earlier...so what, to their mentality? Also with the problems facing this planet the science does suggest that we need radical population reduction or things will start to get extremely bad for everybody with global warming and fossil fuels running try....but hey lets cut down all the trees for 5G.
You may also wish to read the following for balance
https://humansarefree.com/2018/10/britains-first-court-case-against-5g-and-the-people-won.html?m=0
Where can I get one (for Free) ?
I gotta give it to a friend so he can hang it up in his "man-cave".
A good excuse for him when things don't go right with... uh, the ladies!
But then maybe one of the following might be better! https://dietsheriff.com/5g-male-review/
actually, my dick hasn't worked quite as well as it used to before they went in....i had never made the connection before :-(
Just increased headaches, inaility to think, blurred vision, more than usual heart pains, depression and lack of sleep. But that may well be psychosomatic (?) as i know the real reason they're there, at a minimum is constant surveillance of what people get up to in their own homes in full 3d holoporn.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
