Petitions are more credible than 40+ years of practical experience with the technology? Given what happened with Covid-19, I'm not too impressed with the sagacity of masses of doctors and scientists.
Have you done any research other that using the tech? There are people that can't even be around small amounts of EMR without side effects, were you aware of that? Also, when you're in contact with something harmful you aren't always going to feel or notice anything wrong especially in the short term ie: heads exploding. So you're siding with the same mainstream doctors and scientists that promote most of the poison today? And not the "fringe" doctors and scientists that have the balls to speak up?
I will admit that "heads exploding" is artistic license, but the technology is "out there" in commercial profusion, and there seems to be no wave of mysterious ailments. If some people react badly, then they should avoid the use of cell-phones...or speak through them on speaker when they can hold it in front of their lips. Not everything is for everyone. What do you want in a perfect world? To ban them altogether?
No diagram of the geometry or setting of the experimental measurements. Brain MRI measurements require insertion into a cumbersome scanning machine (been there, done that). And the result is: "CONCLUSIONS: In healthy participants and compared with no exposure, 50-minute cell phone exposure was associated with increased brain glucose metabolism in the region closest to the antenna. This finding is of unknown clinical significance."
Unknown clinical significance. What is there to "counter"?
Are you aware of the differences between 4g and 5g? It's pretty big and costly but yet the performance difference is negligible so why the big push? I simply shared the first file I came across I had. This is a research board after all and I'm not going to share link after link like I'm arguing with a lefty on Twitter. I'm just saying, there is a plethora of research out there and the link I shared may have been a bad example. You're free to draw your own conclusions obviously, but personally I'm very leary of the use of 5g in cellphones on a global scale.
Unless there is a shift to higher frequencies (shorter wavelengths), there would be no difference. Why don't you tell me what the differences are, instead of alluding to them without providing information? Could it be you don't know what the differences are? (The main issue seems to be the shift to the millimeter-wave part of the electromagnetic spectrum. It involves frequency assignments that are partially in conflict with those reserved for government use.)
Petitions are more credible than 40+ years of practical experience with the technology? Given what happened with Covid-19, I'm not too impressed with the sagacity of masses of doctors and scientists.
Have you done any research other that using the tech? There are people that can't even be around small amounts of EMR without side effects, were you aware of that? Also, when you're in contact with something harmful you aren't always going to feel or notice anything wrong especially in the short term ie: heads exploding. So you're siding with the same mainstream doctors and scientists that promote most of the poison today? And not the "fringe" doctors and scientists that have the balls to speak up?
I will admit that "heads exploding" is artistic license, but the technology is "out there" in commercial profusion, and there seems to be no wave of mysterious ailments. If some people react badly, then they should avoid the use of cell-phones...or speak through them on speaker when they can hold it in front of their lips. Not everything is for everyone. What do you want in a perfect world? To ban them altogether?
https://www.activistpost.com/2013/09/first-study-on-4glte-cell-phone.html
First source I pull out of my files. There's plenty out there. This is early 4g mind you. Seriously look into this if you're going to counter it.
No diagram of the geometry or setting of the experimental measurements. Brain MRI measurements require insertion into a cumbersome scanning machine (been there, done that). And the result is: "CONCLUSIONS: In healthy participants and compared with no exposure, 50-minute cell phone exposure was associated with increased brain glucose metabolism in the region closest to the antenna. This finding is of unknown clinical significance."
Unknown clinical significance. What is there to "counter"?
Are you aware of the differences between 4g and 5g? It's pretty big and costly but yet the performance difference is negligible so why the big push? I simply shared the first file I came across I had. This is a research board after all and I'm not going to share link after link like I'm arguing with a lefty on Twitter. I'm just saying, there is a plethora of research out there and the link I shared may have been a bad example. You're free to draw your own conclusions obviously, but personally I'm very leary of the use of 5g in cellphones on a global scale.
Unless there is a shift to higher frequencies (shorter wavelengths), there would be no difference. Why don't you tell me what the differences are, instead of alluding to them without providing information? Could it be you don't know what the differences are? (The main issue seems to be the shift to the millimeter-wave part of the electromagnetic spectrum. It involves frequency assignments that are partially in conflict with those reserved for government use.)