evilwhitemale

Maybe but Icke is not a good source on anything.

nobslob

you'll know when they switch it on because your balls will explode instantly.

Merchant_Menace

Watch out for that non ionizing radiation. It'll totally be able to hurt you by... uh... not breaking any of the chemical bonds in your body. So uh... it's like just bad because physics is hard and the word 'radiation' is scary. Don't question the specifics of why this is bad or harmful, just believe and anyone who suggests otherwise is a shill reeee

qwop

Radiation does not need to be ionizing to cause biological harm. Here's over 500 research papers on this subject:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1xwhUrsfs33Whic8pnTyIRQuypTayC4Kv/view

That radiation needs to be ionizing to cause harm, is a completely outdated claim.

Merchant_Menace

Dude I can show you research papers talking about how we need feminism to understand glaciers.

70times7

David "the jews are the most unduly persecuted people on earth" Icke.

psioniq

Forgive me for being a bit sceptical here. From what I've seen and read, the transmission distance of 5G is very limited, which is why they need to put up towers every ~500 meters. So, if they're able to send these signals from low earth orbit (~2000km), why aren't they just using the same tech on the surface? The 'article' sounds like FUD.

qwop

Which part are you sceptical about? The SpaceX project is called Starlink. You can read about it here for example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink_(satellite_constellation)

The satellites will employ optical inter-satellite links and phased array beam forming and digital processing technologies in the Ku- and Ka band according to documents filed with the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

Ku-band = 12 -18 GHz
Ka-band = 26.5 - 40 GHz

psioniq

Interesting - thank you. I'm actually on board with the whole '5G is dangerous', but the info put in the OP just seemed to conflict with the other info being spread about 5G. If, as you say, these satellites require a specialized receiver on the ground, it doesn't sound like it would pose a greater threat that what has already been proposed with surface based systems.

Don't know why you got downvoated - you took the time to dig up the info and prove that it is possible and in the works.

glassuser

It's complete FUD.

bunnysupreme

I am really getting an ominous feeling about this. Other countries mighty see this as an act of war. Many countries will not want those satellites over their nation and see it as a declaration of war.

lord_nougat

While I do agree that other countries might see this as an act of war, I don't believe that their sticks and mud based technology will pose much of a threat to us should they actually declare war on us.