She’s right! I heard once that the cell towers current runs counter to our (and all life’s) electrical current and that’s why it’s destructive. They said it could run with ours and actually be helpful. Can you imagine if we could just eliminate the poisons in the air, water & ground, the difference we’d feel? Hopefully that’s just around the corner!
This!! All frequencies affect us. We are mostly water. Look up 432hz and 440 hz affect on water. One stresses the water, the other puts beautiful patterns into the water. Once again remember our bodies are mostly comprised of water and we chose to use the audio frequency that stresses the water
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.
There is a pile of citations that I personally reviewed in the documentary Take Back Your Power. I had them at my fingertips for several years but don’t have them collected on my current computer. But they are in that film.
I will review that video and scrub for citations. There seems to be no citation list for it anywhere - not on his website nor as a collection at the end of the video. Upon searching for the citation list so I could prepare in advance of watching the video, I notice several red flags on his website: Almost no activity in four years, seeming paytriot scheme on his website, and number stretching in a two year old article that is his second most recent post (which is also telling you to buy his stuff) - "20,000,000 uw". That's 20 milliwatts. Milliwatts are an everyday measurement used in energy measurement for both wired and wireless transmissions - there's no reason to multiple it by a million to give you nanowatts unless you are trying to create a scary sounding number.
These were long term studies on 2G and 3G signals. (Remember that when they studies started, 3G was The Devil! like 4G and now 5G became) What they showed is that if you expose rats and mice to a cell phones maximum transmission power for 10 minutes on, 10 minutes off 9 hours a day for your entire life (including in-utero), you have an uptick in cancers. This is at a power level of 1.5 watts per kilogram in rats and 2.5 watts per kilogram in mice. And, in order for the uptick to be statistically relevant to the control population, you need to do the same cycle of use at 4x the power a cell phone can legally transmit at.
Basically, these studies say that if you are 200 pounds, you will need a cell phone strapped to your head that's transmitting at least 135 watts. 4.5 hours per day. For your entire life. All for a small increase in cancer risk. On the plus side, you won't miss leg days now that you'd have to carry a car battery at about 20 pounds to run this contraption for 4.5 hours every day.
Studies like these are what goes into the fear mongering about the wireless spectrum and they attempt to invoke the precautionary principle - which is dangerous bullshit designed to put all the power into the hands of our elite overlords. The problem is that instead of any nuance about relative risks, transmission strength versus distance, or that sort of thing, the message is always "cell phones cause cancer! It's proved!"
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?'
I will. But I have over a hundred papers and articles in my own collection from which I draw knowledge from. For, against, and neutral on continued utilization of EMF.
Your film "297 birds die in Holland after experiment with 5G technology.mp4" for instance is basically laying the claim that "2 weeks ago" at "The Hague" in Holland "in a park" where it was "due to an experimental antenna with 5G". 297 birds died in a park and nearby ducks were 'acting weirdly' by 'sticking their heads underwater' and 'flying away'.
The film then claims that the birds died from heart failure without signs of viral or bacterial infections, which means, per the film, it could only be the 5G test.
My assumption is that this film is not trying to mislead and is a production on harms of 5G that's presented without bias, despite not knowing who, where or what of the information contained therein.
Since it contained no information, I had to go find the information I could on it, and isolated this to an incident in October of 2018 in Huygens Park near the Hague. (My apologies to any Dutch. I can't spell anything properly from your language)
Here is what I can ascertain:
The test of 5G was run for a single day in June of 2018 via a temporary tower. This tower was not in place when the birds fell to their deaths in October approximately 10 weeks later.
Ducks stick their heads under water when foraging.
Starlings are known to drop out of the sky. They panic easily and can stress themselves into a heart attack and/or hitting buildings. Here's some in the UK for a count of 75. Here's in Arkansas for a count of 4,000. Both in 2010, long before 5G or any tests of 5G. There's also the possibility that someone poisoned a flock of annoying starlings.
Self Information conclusive: If a duck is 'flying away' in a panic, it may have a predator it's trying to escape from. A hawk or eagle nearby would explain why the Starlings were in a panic (I do not know what is natural in the Netherlands, so this may be an erroneous conclusion within that environment)
Subnote that the video makes technical errors. For example, it says that the 5G wavelength test was at 7Ghz, and then says that it means it oscillates 'a billion times per second'.
This makes me disregard this particular file as any evidence of harmful 5G. Yes, there is more provided and I'm digging through it.
She’s right! I heard once that the cell towers current runs counter to our (and all life’s) electrical current and that’s why it’s destructive. They said it could run with ours and actually be helpful. Can you imagine if we could just eliminate the poisons in the air, water & ground, the difference we’d feel? Hopefully that’s just around the corner!
This!! All frequencies affect us. We are mostly water. Look up 432hz and 440 hz affect on water. One stresses the water, the other puts beautiful patterns into the water. Once again remember our bodies are mostly comprised of water and we chose to use the audio frequency that stresses the water
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.
Please point me to those you reference.
There is a pile of citations that I personally reviewed in the documentary Take Back Your Power. I had them at my fingertips for several years but don’t have them collected on my current computer. But they are in that film.
I will review that video and scrub for citations. There seems to be no citation list for it anywhere - not on his website nor as a collection at the end of the video. Upon searching for the citation list so I could prepare in advance of watching the video, I notice several red flags on his website: Almost no activity in four years, seeming paytriot scheme on his website, and number stretching in a two year old article that is his second most recent post (which is also telling you to buy his stuff) - "20,000,000 uw". That's 20 milliwatts. Milliwatts are an everyday measurement used in energy measurement for both wired and wireless transmissions - there's no reason to multiple it by a million to give you nanowatts unless you are trying to create a scary sounding number.
I'll leave you with two citations in return for my homework assignment (i picked up two from this thread! This actually makes me happy!). https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/sites/default/files/ntp/htdocs/lt_rpts/tr595_508.pdf and https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/sites/default/files/ntp/htdocs/lt_rpts/tr596_508.pdf
These were long term studies on 2G and 3G signals. (Remember that when they studies started, 3G was The Devil! like 4G and now 5G became) What they showed is that if you expose rats and mice to a cell phones maximum transmission power for 10 minutes on, 10 minutes off 9 hours a day for your entire life (including in-utero), you have an uptick in cancers. This is at a power level of 1.5 watts per kilogram in rats and 2.5 watts per kilogram in mice. And, in order for the uptick to be statistically relevant to the control population, you need to do the same cycle of use at 4x the power a cell phone can legally transmit at.
Basically, these studies say that if you are 200 pounds, you will need a cell phone strapped to your head that's transmitting at least 135 watts. 4.5 hours per day. For your entire life. All for a small increase in cancer risk. On the plus side, you won't miss leg days now that you'd have to carry a car battery at about 20 pounds to run this contraption for 4.5 hours every day.
Studies like these are what goes into the fear mongering about the wireless spectrum and they attempt to invoke the precautionary principle - which is dangerous bullshit designed to put all the power into the hands of our elite overlords. The problem is that instead of any nuance about relative risks, transmission strength versus distance, or that sort of thing, the message is always "cell phones cause cancer! It's proved!"
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.
Exactly.
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.
I will. But I have over a hundred papers and articles in my own collection from which I draw knowledge from. For, against, and neutral on continued utilization of EMF.
I'll lay out how I evaluate evidence.
Your film "297 birds die in Holland after experiment with 5G technology.mp4" for instance is basically laying the claim that "2 weeks ago" at "The Hague" in Holland "in a park" where it was "due to an experimental antenna with 5G". 297 birds died in a park and nearby ducks were 'acting weirdly' by 'sticking their heads underwater' and 'flying away'.
The film then claims that the birds died from heart failure without signs of viral or bacterial infections, which means, per the film, it could only be the 5G test.
My assumption is that this film is not trying to mislead and is a production on harms of 5G that's presented without bias, despite not knowing who, where or what of the information contained therein.
Since it contained no information, I had to go find the information I could on it, and isolated this to an incident in October of 2018 in Huygens Park near the Hague. (My apologies to any Dutch. I can't spell anything properly from your language)
Here is what I can ascertain:
This makes me disregard this particular file as any evidence of harmful 5G. Yes, there is more provided and I'm digging through it.
Sorry but it's the vaccine not wireless causing people to fall over on stage