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.
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.