We live in an electronic fog 24/7, this has never happened to us in all of history so there can't be any long term research on it at all. And there doesn't seem to be any control group, none except the Amish and others around the world living away from wi-fi fog.
I think wireless=bad is a psyop to break people from the internet so that the elite can regain control of the message and put people to sleep. I hear it each time the government pays the cell companies to add a +1 to their "G". 3G was supposed to enslave us. Then 4G. Now 5G.
I say this for multiple reasons:
First and foremost, we are awash in an 'electronic fog' (to steal your wording) just about 12/7. All of the same bands we use for things like radio, wifi or phone-gs are broadcast through us every time we step into sunlight.
Second and equally suspicious, we all - as in every single one of us - have the ability to go citizen science on this claim. Buy a hamster and put it right next to your wifi router. The hamster will die of old age before it dies of being near the router. Yet no one has noticed this affect in our companion critters in the 50 years of wirless phone, sat phone, cell phone, and wifi evolution - and the first iterations of these things were much more powerful broadcasters than we use now.
Third, the inverse square law. If a wifi router can damage you if you leave your hand on top of it, it can't have enough energy to damage you at your normal distance from it. Think of it like a camp fire. Stick your cup of coffee right into the flames and you'll have boiling coffee in no time. A foot above the flames and you still get it pretty hot but maybe not to a boil. Three feet and it'll get warm, but not hot. And a fire is a huge energy source in comparison to a router or phone. As a comparison closer to the technology the eye-searingly blue LEDs installed into your wifi router have a higher wattage than the transmitter itself in most cases.
The inverse square law indeed applies and is indeed helpful. The magnitude of the source signal is a huge factor, and the signal can be very powerful indeed. There are studies on the biological effects of 2.4 GHz electromagnetic radiation carrying digital signals (which is very different than what happens in nature) and many severe effects on human health have been shown.
But those studies are at exposure levels exeeding what you'd get staring into a microwave oven while directly in front of it for most of your life.
E.g. Water is poisonous to you, but not at levels you will encounter in any sane scenario.
How do "digital signals" differ from "those found in nature"? I ask in earnest because a microwave oven is an analog source of 2.4 ghz radiation running at 750-1500 watts and is quite damaging and a wifi router is a digital source operating at a threshold of about a quarter of a watt. How would the wifi router's digital nature make up 749 watts of energy to be on par with it's destructive capacity?
No, there are studies showing nasty biological effects at exposure levels lower than what many of us experience from our devices. Shanahan’s statements are accurate from research literature.
I have started chugging through it and I already notice issues. Pall I have researched many times over the years and he keeps getting it juuuuust wrong enough to make me think he's a plant. For instance, in your own literature, he specifies non-microwave radiation as harmful, but both cites literature and puts diagrams in about microwave damages as being the same thing. 5G can operate at microwave bands, but generally doesn't because no one wants to use that band for anything - its too cluttered and becomes useless in rainfall. Its not where you go for reliable signals.
For reference, in the EU they are using 3.6ghz and 26 Ghz bands and in the US, they are using something like 26-40Ghz bands.
Many of the claims I see as I skim these documents would require fine tuning to achieve. E.g. sweat duct transmission shaping. Each person's ducts are different sizes based on a whole host of factors (genetics, womb stress, growth stress, direct environmental damage like smoke or fire). You would need to tune each cell phone to transmit exclusively into a tight set of bands to create that resonance, and you'd be lucky if it worked on all members of one nuclear family, much less on a large swath of the population.
To see what I mean, get an old analog radio and try to tune it to an FM source 100 miles away. You can do it, but it's messy. Constant static pulses and even a temperature change in the radio will ruin the tuning.
Then I see things like 'shares bands with military crowd control weapon'. Great. An emotional scare tactic. I could also say 'Don't use a light bulb. That electricity is the same they use in personal control weapons (tazers).' Or maybe... 'don't drink water, don't you know that use that stuff in engine coolant?'
We live in an electronic fog 24/7, this has never happened to us in all of history so there can't be any long term research on it at all. And there doesn't seem to be any control group, none except the Amish and others around the world living away from wi-fi fog.
I think wireless=bad is a psyop to break people from the internet so that the elite can regain control of the message and put people to sleep. I hear it each time the government pays the cell companies to add a +1 to their "G". 3G was supposed to enslave us. Then 4G. Now 5G.
I say this for multiple reasons: First and foremost, we are awash in an 'electronic fog' (to steal your wording) just about 12/7. All of the same bands we use for things like radio, wifi or phone-gs are broadcast through us every time we step into sunlight.
Second and equally suspicious, we all - as in every single one of us - have the ability to go citizen science on this claim. Buy a hamster and put it right next to your wifi router. The hamster will die of old age before it dies of being near the router. Yet no one has noticed this affect in our companion critters in the 50 years of wirless phone, sat phone, cell phone, and wifi evolution - and the first iterations of these things were much more powerful broadcasters than we use now.
Third, the inverse square law. If a wifi router can damage you if you leave your hand on top of it, it can't have enough energy to damage you at your normal distance from it. Think of it like a camp fire. Stick your cup of coffee right into the flames and you'll have boiling coffee in no time. A foot above the flames and you still get it pretty hot but maybe not to a boil. Three feet and it'll get warm, but not hot. And a fire is a huge energy source in comparison to a router or phone. As a comparison closer to the technology the eye-searingly blue LEDs installed into your wifi router have a higher wattage than the transmitter itself in most cases.
The inverse square law indeed applies and is indeed helpful. The magnitude of the source signal is a huge factor, and the signal can be very powerful indeed. There are studies on the biological effects of 2.4 GHz electromagnetic radiation carrying digital signals (which is very different than what happens in nature) and many severe effects on human health have been shown.
But those studies are at exposure levels exeeding what you'd get staring into a microwave oven while directly in front of it for most of your life.
E.g. Water is poisonous to you, but not at levels you will encounter in any sane scenario.
How do "digital signals" differ from "those found in nature"? I ask in earnest because a microwave oven is an analog source of 2.4 ghz radiation running at 750-1500 watts and is quite damaging and a wifi router is a digital source operating at a threshold of about a quarter of a watt. How would the wifi router's digital nature make up 749 watts of energy to be on par with it's destructive capacity?
No, there are studies showing nasty biological effects at exposure levels lower than what many of us experience from our devices. Shanahan’s statements are accurate from research literature.
Wireless is bad. Just hardwire what you use to get on the internet and keep going.
Sun is bad. Just stay indoors and keep going.
Sun is awesome! Just stay outdoors and keep going.
Here are some files from my cloud storage that should be of interest. They go into great detail, most of them show that 5G is terrible.
https://app.filen.io/#/f/d9c48f75-9a72-4597-b512-1aacc585182b#HiCqgLAfbtFmOspK4HZT0RoY0t5waI5j
I have started chugging through it and I already notice issues. Pall I have researched many times over the years and he keeps getting it juuuuust wrong enough to make me think he's a plant. For instance, in your own literature, he specifies non-microwave radiation as harmful, but both cites literature and puts diagrams in about microwave damages as being the same thing. 5G can operate at microwave bands, but generally doesn't because no one wants to use that band for anything - its too cluttered and becomes useless in rainfall. Its not where you go for reliable signals.
For reference, in the EU they are using 3.6ghz and 26 Ghz bands and in the US, they are using something like 26-40Ghz bands.
Many of the claims I see as I skim these documents would require fine tuning to achieve. E.g. sweat duct transmission shaping. Each person's ducts are different sizes based on a whole host of factors (genetics, womb stress, growth stress, direct environmental damage like smoke or fire). You would need to tune each cell phone to transmit exclusively into a tight set of bands to create that resonance, and you'd be lucky if it worked on all members of one nuclear family, much less on a large swath of the population.
To see what I mean, get an old analog radio and try to tune it to an FM source 100 miles away. You can do it, but it's messy. Constant static pulses and even a temperature change in the radio will ruin the tuning.
Then I see things like 'shares bands with military crowd control weapon'. Great. An emotional scare tactic. I could also say 'Don't use a light bulb. That electricity is the same they use in personal control weapons (tazers).' Or maybe... 'don't drink water, don't you know that use that stuff in engine coolant?'
If you are going to dismiss it all based on a skim and your knowledge of just one paper then please take time to go through them all.