No accessories required, Starlink cellphone tower. NCSWIC.
(media.greatawakening.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (34)
sorted by:
Do you have any data correlating cell phone usage with cancer rates? Because honestly I have never seen anyone making such claims actually bring any sauce to the table. Decades of cell phone use and wireless earbuds and such and I think we'd all have seen something in our social circles if they really were causing brain cancer but I have seen as many as I've seen die of COVID: none.
The FCC based its current radiation exposure threshold on a study performed in the late 90's that used data from the 80's where as a person was exposed to 40 - 60 minutes of radio frequency radiation per day. The "safe" level determination was established in the late 90's using frequencies used in the 90's that were primarily used for voice and only radiating at time of phone being used.
Furthermore the frequency bands being used in those days were fairly wide (important) and relatively weak compared to those used today. In the 90's voice was the only data carried in that chosen band. No Internet over cell band, no text, and phones were not equipped with wifi.
Through time data demands grew and technology gave us the ability to miniaturize smaller and smaller antenna and chip sets for different case uses. Multiple cell bands, GPS, WIFI, Blue Tooth and NFC. As data demands grew band width shortened in order to carry a larger data load. A shorter wave length carrying more data traveled less distance so higher amplitude was required to reach destination. In order to amplify signal greater power was pumped through said antenna to reach it's destination. A shorter band width (wave peak to wave peak distance) also means that more wave frequency would be in contact with a greater amount of human/animal tissue and the same tissue would be zapped with greater frequency without the ability to regenerate and repair mutations caused by said frequency wave. A larger wave (as in the 90's) was in contact with less amount of the same human tissue to inflict lasting damage allowing our biology time to heal the damage caused by said wave even if capable of damaging our biology. One could argue that such a weak wave could do much damage if any at all.
For example the peak to peak wave length in those days could be measured in meters compared to today's waves that are measured in centimeters from peak to peak. One could now understand how many total waves would traverse through a 10" thick human body if peak of waves are meters apart and now imagine the same human and with our current cell signal of peak to peak length of a couple of centimeters. Your talking the difference of a 90's wave where a small sliver of a single wave would pass through you compared to multiple entire waves of today's frequency traveling through you to get to its destination.
If that were not enough we now have at the very least 5 different antennas both passive and active filling the space around your pocket/purse all bursting with waves at many different power levels and some always broadcasting. If that didn't get your attention now think of your small office and your cube mates all carrying these device all broadcasting in real time all the while blasting you and your mates with a constant stream of radiation.
Not enough? How about your work wifi constantly connecting and disconnecting from your and your friends cell phone. How about it constantly connected to the machine you are using to perform your daily duties as you transmit your work load across your office.
Finally your off of work and get to kick up your feet at home in front of your nice smart TV connected to your wifi watching a 4k movie on Netflix. As 30 gigs of high definition "show" gets beamed from your router behind your couch through your still warm work irradiated body to your TV and into your eyeball connected to that potato.
As a side point. The sun causes skin cancer if exposed to it for too long in large amounts. How does it do that? Radiation. Through a wave. What kind of wave? A wave with a peak to peak that's considered "ionizing". That is to say that the wave is so short that it zaps your DNA so much that it has the potential of knocking DNA structures apart within your biology with such great frequency that your body may not repair fast enough to stop mutations. End result is skin cancer. Where does this "ionizing" zone begin? The millimeter wave length. Anything below the size of a centimeter in length would fit that definition.
Our current cell tech is just above that threshold and getting very close. With future data demand assumptions taken into account one could see where we're going.
I'm no scientist but I did stay at a Holiday in last night and even I can make a safe assumption that being irradiated day and night may cause some bad side effects.
Bazaar that one requires "sauce" when they don't even brings the chips.
Make your own damn sauce from time to time. It helps with the critical thinking skills. Hell you may be currently suffering from some bad side effects of these frequincies. I think doctors call this illness "low effort fatigue".
This post would have benefited from less snark, condescension and good condensation.
All intended. Glad it proved my point. I've seen enough lazy post and the attitude that comes with it to know that it is the exact same mind set that has infected young lefty minds. In our case it simply happens to think 'righty'.
That comment seems fairly benign but if you were to take a couple minutes with it you begin to realize my frustration.
I understand the frustration for sure as EM radiation is difficult to quantify our reaction to long term, but some findings are not very positive to begin with, even just lower levels from our phones ten years ago.
I just believe, from one novelist to another, that you can get your point across a bit better by just focusing on the facts and if they don't want to hear it then you won't change their mind.
I try to take the Bongino method of argument: you argue for your audience, not your debate opponent, so if you can avoid becoming the one to get frustrated and condescending/insulting, you'll reach more ears.
Wireless ear buds are actually considered the worse of the two as it has a cleaner and clearer shot straight to your brain.
Something like this is difficult to study because it takes many, many years and by the time the study gets into full swing, we have different levels of EM radiation to study, e.g. 5G, a new Bluetooth generation, a new, more powerful WiFi standard with 5GHz or 6GHz, etc.
Possibly true about cel but death by covid is a proven fact.