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?
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?