winners_history

It's already an official US Military Pain-Beam .

goatboy

Fucking Ghandi, man.

Here's why this is so important. These same freq ranges can penetrate the skull. If you penetrate the skull and induce a destructive wave pattern in the motor cortex, you can stop a person's heart.

This is one branch of directed energy weapons. One group was looking at creating a non-contact defibrillator to use the same principle, but with the opposite effect. However, when they realized what they'd created and its potential for directed energy weapons, which violate several Arms Reduction treaties, the funding was shut down. The invisioned munition would be able to fly over an area and kill everyone in a region by heart attack with zero Destruction to infrastructure or have residual nastiness of Bio or chemical weapons. If I had to bet, some other groups kept going with the development. There are many countries that did not sign those treaties.

BiscuitFever

I just. There’s zero evidence. If I posted that pure h2o was bad because it contains oxygen, a known oxidizer, would you stop drinking water?

goatboy

Haha. Yes there is. Read an IEEE Journal for once in your life, tardfag.

qwop

Zero evidence for what? Here's a searchable database of 26,994 publications on the effects of electromagnetic fields on biology:
https://www.emf-portal.org/en

Looks like more than zero to me.

BiscuitFever

You get more radiation from the sun when you step outside on a cloudy day than radio waves that we broadcast. 5G emits even less energy than previous generation standards. I’m asking for evidence that this technology is actually harmful, not studies on the electromagnetic force’s effects on biology. It’s the equivalent to sending a link on gravities effects on biology. Yes it has an effect, every species on the planet have evolved defenses against the amount we experience from natural bodies in the solar system. Don’t ask people to prove a negative when you can’t support your claims with scientific research.

qwop

Aha. So you're going to go with the sun claim. However the real answer is in your own comment:

every species on the planet have evolved defenses against the amount we experience from natural bodies in the solar system.

Exactly. We have evolved natural defenses and ability to utilize the sun.

But what is microwave radiation? It is not the same frequency as visible light.

In fact the frequency of microwave radiation (about 300 MHz to 300 GHz), has never before existed on the planet. We have never evolved defenses against it. The natural background radiation on the earth is one quintillion times less than the wireless radiation that is polluting the earth today.

That's a 1 with 18 zeroes behind it. If you think we have any natural defenses for something that is a quintillion times higher than natural background, you're putting your head in the sand.

Hand_of_Node

If you treat your water with these magnets I sell I've found and made available for you, your water becomes safe to drink.

Mustard_Monkey

They found the frequency to disable our cognitive ability and make us zombies.

Cleanhobo

Ice(((berg)))

canbot

I find it suspicious that they make so many claims that are not easily tested for. So if someone takes on the task to test any one of them and finds it to not be real the people pushing this conspiracy theory will just say "well you only disproved one thing, but there are 30 others", and no one has the resources and time to disprove all 30.

It is basically an undisprovable claim, and that means it's probably bullshit.

qwop

What are you talking about? The paper by Martin Pall has close to 100 references. Do you think he just pulls his claims out of thin air? Most of what he mentions in his paper are already established effects (they are already proven).

Here's another list of 67 papers, with observed effects ranked by transmission power:
https://i.imgur.com/14uxRru.png

Is it possible your comment is the one that contains the bullshit?

canbot

You don't seem to understand my argument.

If I were to take one of those studies and disprove it would you agree that the threat is not real? Or would you dismiss the fact that one is wrong, but assume the rest of them are real?

By making 100 claims of danger instead of 1 they make it impossible to disprove because people like you will always assume that even though some of the claims are disproved the others must be true.

So it is frankly a waste of time and money to even disprove one, because it is not cheap or trivial.

I am not arguing that I have disproved the claims. I am merely pointing out how it is suspicious.

The day people like you can understand that we can begin to take an intelligent look at it. We can decide which claim is worth studying and if it doesn't pan out we can collectively put the controversy to rest.

qwop

You don't seem to understand my argument.

No, I don't think you read the paper. It is a meta-analysis of established literature, not some sort of claim factory.

Second, I don't think you understand how science works. You seem to think science is some sort of competition to debunk claims which others find inconvenient. This is a leftist type of thinking.

You say: "frankly a waste of time and money to even disprove one". This is not how science works. By making that statement you are implicating yourself as a biased researcher. That's not science.

In science you have a hypothesis, you then test your hypothesis, and your test will either show your hypothesis to be true in the real world or not.

There is no "putting time and money to disprove claims", there is only unbiased science; the testing of your hypothesis for truth.

What you need to seek is truth, not deliberate falsifications because you find something personally unpleasant to hear.

Pall does not "make 100 claims of dangers". Ha made exactly ONE: the VGCC or voltage gated calcium channels. He did a meta-analysis of the published literature, summarized it in his paper, and showed a new very probable hypothesis which could explain the observed effects in those papers.

What we should to next is test this hypothesis, not try and prove nor disprove anything.

The fact that we have so much research that shows harm already, is enough to raise concern even WITHOUT having this ONE specific hypothesis tested. In fact we have overwhelming evidence for harm at this point, and I'm sure in time Pall's hypothesis will be tested also. This is how science works.

canbot

there is only unbiased science

What rock do you live under?

qwop

I'm trying to explain to you what the real definition of science is.

Are you aware that most industry funded research shows no harm, and that most independent research shows harm.

Which one do you think is more likely to practice real science, and which one is doing the type of science where you "put time and money to disprove things"?

Laserchalk

I think they have the resources and time to test 30 different things before it's approved for public use.

Meme_Factory_1776

Yeah. right. Keep thinking that. They will pass it and approve it to protect the companies from lawsuits. That's all aproval is.

ReginaldPluntfarb

Just came across this guy a week or two ago looking for suggestions for off the grid/dumb phones. I like him.

hels

garage sales

somethingsgottagive

tl;dr real bad

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935118300355

It's making us sterile, the damage to our DNA is passed along to our offpsring if we even have any.

Highlights

• 7 effects have each been repeatedly reported following Wi-Fi & other EMF exposures.

• Established Wi-Fi effects, include apoptosis, oxidat. stress &:

• testis/sperm dysfunct; Neuropsych; DNA impact; hormone change; Ca2+ rise.

• Wi-Fi is thought to act via voltage-gated calcium channel activation.

• One claim of no Wi-Fi effects was found to be deeply flawed.

Can alter bacteria, creating antibiotic-resistant strains.