Skirmish

It is a mind gate, spiritual gate, or esp cage. also works to identify people if they break the gate.

nobslob

They're trying to cook your balls from the inside out while you stream video games over blazing fast 5g in 8k. totally worth it.

downton-stabby

If it's so healthy when why does Israel put limits on the amount of time Children can spend around it? They also require safety information on mobile phones.

https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10929117005596/46-Attachment%2046-%20Israel%20Bans%20WiFi%20Kindergarden%20 &%20Other%20precautions%20taken.pdf

SharpSliceOfMango

RF exposer near high output sources...or that lower output and closer proximity are just as bad. It has nothing to do with the frequency.

Yes, I say exactly the same thing. But the output power drops realy fast over distance. You are not going to have a problem if you are a couple of meters away from a 5G or other system with similar power output. Just look at the formulars for power loss / attenuation.

Skirmish

Under an Ionized Sky: From chemtrails to space fence lockdown. Written in 2018.

Those who lie, will always lie. Those who dismiss evidence are the enemy.

SharpSliceOfMango

Can you explain your claims to me in detail? I work alot with RF systems and designed some amps etc. myself. Some discussion about this topic would be nice.

SharpSliceOfMango

My wifi is actually on my windowsill between my plants and I'm using my wifi higher than my regulatory domain allows me. 3x1W with 6dbi antenna. My plants are doing fine.

I know that this stuff is bullshit. The power of those systems are just to low. I do EMI tests and everyone who works in the absorber room is still allive.

The only danger from those systems are if they have a high power output. If you are standing before a 70kw radar you are going to be blind because your eye cant dissipate the heat. Or depending on the setup and frequency it can heat the water in your skin and cause imense pain, but those systems also have a very high power output (100kw @95ghz ).

ThirteenthZodiac

For someone who is a bit of a layman when it comes to this kind of thing, can you provide a more detailed refutation of the article?

I've been hearing a lot about 5G and its supposed dangers. It sounds not good, but this could just be knee jerk hysteria - but then, there could also be merit to their arguments.

I legitimately don't know, and would appreciate a different take on the topic.

SharpSliceOfMango

The only danger you are going to have from a wireless transmission system (depending on frequency and power) is the heating up of tissue. Your microwave oven is nothing more than a continues wave radio transmitter (~2.4GHz magnetron). But your microwave has a very high output power (600-900W) a 5G transmitter is 20W max. You probably dont want to stand right in front of a 20W beamforming transmitter but its safe after a couple of meters due to attenuation / power loss.

5G is not a specific frequency. A 5G sytem can operate from 400MHz up to 100GHz. There are a lot of transmitters in that range that are way more powerfull than 5G that penetrate you with radiowaves all the time. 5G is not going to make a difference because its just another fairly low power high frequency transmission system that is going to bombard you with electromagnetic waves all the time. This is why those claims in the article are bogus, you would already have died if those frequencys were that dangerous.

This chart goes up to 300GHz:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c7/United_States_Frequency_Allocations_Chart_2016_-_The_Radio_Spectrum.pdf

This little marine radar has up to 25000W output power and its not going to kill everyone on the ship or on ships nearby.

https://www.alphatronmarine.com/de/product/jma-5200mk2-proline-396/

And applying some modulation to a signal for data transmission is not going to make the signal more dangerous. QAM that is used by 5G is already used in many transmission systems like normal wifi.

qwop

The only danger you are going to have from a wireless transmission system (depending on frequency and power) is the heating up of tissue.

This is simply not true, as per numerous biological studies, and makes everything else you say completely suspect.

You may have technical knowledge of antenna and RF output, but the quote from you shows you have done no actual research on the biological effects of RF waves. The effects are called non-thermal biological effects, and by now these effects are well established in the scientific literature.

Example:
https://docdro.id/hy69xFU

Projecting the image of being an authority on the subject, and then telling everyone that there is no harm is completely irresponsible of you.

The only thing you have to understand is that non-thermal biological effects have and are being documented in the scientific literature all the time, and if you just made an honest mistake, you should understand that you cannot go around telling people RF waves are completely harmless below thermal thresholds.

SharpSliceOfMango

On the PDF "Example 2":

In one example he measures high values on one side at one tree that are lower than higher values on the other side at another tree. What is this supposed to be? A difference in exposure kills those leaves? In at least one photo there cant be any direct exposure from the antenna on the photo. (Angle of the sector antenna is wrong). And its always one tree that is magically affected, other trees around this tree are fine. In one photo you can clearly see that the tree has a potassium deficiency. You can also see that the guy does not know anything about attenuation.

Tell me how this effects work on a biological level. None of those dubious publications tell what exact mechanism causes this, some random dead trees are not proof. If you show me how I can reproduce your claims, then I will try this, equipment is not the problem.

qwop

A difference in exposure kills those leaves?

No, the difference in exposure shows the absorption by the tree. One side is high, the other side is low, it means the difference in power density went into the tree.

qwop

I give you one example of an effect. Every cell is your body is surrounded by a lipid (oil-based) membrane. The permeability of this membrane is adjusted by the cell using an electrical potential called the polarization of the membrane.

The variable permeability is essential for the cell in order to adjust its nutrient uptake, metabolic waste excretion, and for protection against foreign organisms.

When the polarized membrane is hit by electromagnetic waves it gets depolarized (it loses its charge):
https://i.imgur.com/IaeGv3B.png

This is a documented effect, and is the theory behind one of the mechanisms (there are many others) for the observed effects.

Here is one paper discussing this mechanism:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3780531/

Here is a paper discussing using this mechanism for therapeutic effects:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4590499/

And another one:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4516580/

Like I said this is only one effect, there are many others, like changes in the zeta potential of colloidal liquids in the body, resonance frequencies of polar molecules in the body, effects on charges particles in the mitochondria and the molecular machinery inside the cell, possible disruption of bacterial signalling, etc..

The list is endless and ever growing. You could spend a lifetime studying just ONE of them. Hence we have to rely on aggregated lists like I posted in Example 1. You just can't keep ignoring the growing body of studies that show these effects.

Now if you want to reproduce these effects, I doubt you can do this without a deep understanding of molecular biology and access to proper laboratory equipment.

If you really want to make your own experiments, and have access to laboratory equipment, I suggest you contact Paul Héroux at McGill university in Canada. He has written several papers and done cellular studies, he will be able to help you if you have the required credentials.

SharpSliceOfMango

I have enough knowledge of biochemistry to understand this. Low power RF frequency is not going to do anything. Those cell mechanisms are only affected by ELF (under 300Hz) The first paper is talking about ELF. The second paper is good but if you want to do this over 600m you would need a very very high power transmitter(MW range), they talk about 800µA of direct current. The last paper is also talking about ELF, this time under 100Hz.

If you really want to make your own experiments

I dont want to make an experiment on a cellular level with plant tissue etc. and I dont want to reproduce any of those ELF stuff, we are talking about RF here. I just want to reproduce the effects of your second PDF. What frequency, modulation, output power etc should I use? If a normal mobile/GSM/UMTS/whatever transmitter can archieve this over 600m (like shown in the second PDF) then it should be very very easy to reproduce.

qwop

Low power RF frequency is not going to do anything.

And what do you classify as the threshold for "low power"? You can't really talk about low power without specifying a reference level. I assume you prefer to use the cellular industry terminology, which references everything either to heating effects, or electronic communication transmissions.

I'm trying to tell you this is the wrong approach for biological system. The background level on this planet, for hundreds of millions of years, has been 10e-18 W/m2 (@ 1GHz). This is what biology has adapted to, and only if you classify something around that region as the threshold for low power, then you are on the right track.

Just as an example, here's 67 studies grouped by power density and tagged with observed biological effects. All of those effects are below what official guidelines currently consider safe for the public. If your definition of low power falls within these boundaries, then your statement about no effects at low power is simply not accurate.

https://i.imgur.com/14uxRru.png

The point is currently the levels set by the FCC and ICNIRP are all based on thermal effects ONLY. It's a plastic gelatin head with a temperature probe inserted into it. That's essentially how the thresholds were constructed. There was no real biochemical science done to determine if such an approach really was correct.

I'm sure even if you doubt anything else I've said here, you can understand that such an approach is simply ignorant. Yet these are the only guidelines we have.

As for your desire to do experiments, I would contact the authors and ask them for specifics. I only have access to the same information you have.

SharpSliceOfMango

I'm a little bit vague with the definition of power, because its very complicated. A 5G transmitter with 20W and a big 25dBi sector antenna is from a wireless communication standpoint "high power" but if you compare it with a small 25000W marine radar system in the same frequency range then you could describe it as low power. The problem is how do you calculate the exposure of some cells under the skin for a 5G transmitter that is 500m away? You have attenuation/FSPL the skin, reflections etc etc.

The publications you showed me are all about ELF under 300Hz. And the one that couples the power directly into the cells is talking about 800uA @ 500V you probably need a >1MW transmitter to put that much power into a human body over 500m.

I know that EMF can affect the human body and also the brain. There was a method to couple audio directly into the human brain via EMF. It would be really nice to know more specific stuff about the affects of RF/ELF on human cells and the brain. But most publications are not conclusive:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12881192

And it would be very nice if they make some test with modulated stuff not only some nice clean waveform out of a VCO. https://i.stack.imgur.com/6yngK.gif

qwop

Yes. There are some researchers that have started computer modeling 5G RF and human skin, and indeed this is where you need to start, in order to then be able to do accurate in vitro studies for example.

What they found, is that the sweat ducts of the skin start acting like helical antennas at the higher 5G frequency bands, which means the skin cannot be considered as just a simple reflector - it gets much more complicated than that.

I wish I could make a brain dump into your head, because you seem to have at least enough knowledge to understand that there is some great complexity involved here. I just want you to understand that there are many unexpected and unknown relationships, many of them yet to even be discovered.

For example Prof. Trevor Marshall has discovered molecular resonances of substances within our cells in the 4-5G frequency bands. What are the implications of that, when such molecules need to constantly be involved in the electrochemical processes of the body.

You soon realize you simply cannot go around assuming health implications can be hand waved away with some simple heating assumptions, or even slightly more advanced modeling is not enough. It gets extremely complex quickly on the physics level.

It's a lot of work for me to dig up publications, but if you want to have a look at the ones in the graph I posted above, the list of them are here, and they are all in the microwave frequency bands:

https://bioinitiative.org/rf-color-charts/

You will find them listed in the PDF document on that page.

As for modulation. Many researchers know modulation and pulsations are extremely important considerations for biological research. That's why many use just regular phones or WiFi equipment for testing. It's the easiest way to get realistic waveforms, but on the other hand you then suffer in accuracy.

Btw. also consider that the original heating thresholds that determine the safety levels of say GSM phones, were done with these pulsed GSM signals. Now if you know how GSM works, you know it uses something around a 217 Hz pulse frequency, with a 1:7 mark space ratio (one 5ms pulse, seven spaces of silence).

That means if you do an AVERAGE heating measurement, and then set a threshold for "safe" output power based on this measurement, the actual pulses will be 7 times more powerful than this average(!). This is insanity. There is an effect called thermal ionization, and I can bet you a million dollars they never tested, calculated, nor even thought about considering that such a 5ms pulse at 7 times the average could perhaps induce thermal ionization of molecular structures.

Now I'm not saying thermal ionization occurs, but I'm just trying to point out the complexities involved here, and the ridiculousness of the gelatin head model for safety purposes. Anyway..I'm sure you get the point by now.

P33psh04h

Oh god more fear-mongering please. Maybe this will just be the end of the world like it describes and we can all burn to death. Fuck.

badruns

Imagine France if it had 5G towers everywhere: crowd control and dispersal on command. No more yellow vest protesters.

SharpSliceOfMango

This article is full of technological nonsense.

There are lots of mil and civilian radar working with high frequencies that have way more output power than those 5G transmitters. The biggest (metro) 5G transmitters are working at 20W, a small mobile 12GHZ X-Band radar has 70000W.

The pulsed wave claims are also complete bullshit.

The danger with every high power transmitter is that if you get to close your tissue is going to heat up. Take a 2.4Ghz 900W CW magnetron and put a waveguide + 18db funnel antenna on it and you can hurt someone over 3-5 meters. You cant do this with a 20W 5G transmitter.

I dont know why people are lobbying against 5G, its probably a political thing.

LightningAndTheSun

Power is not a measure of the killing power of RF just as wattage is not a measure of killing power of a stun gun just as energy of a rifle round is not its killing power.

111_onlythetruth

3G and 4G are bad enough. is this why people are fucking crazy today ?? 5G will send them all over the edge. bad microwaves!!!!!

Iornukrum

Swiss Telecomms Association did a fact check (pdf trigger warning) on the matter if anyone's interested. I think it's gonna be lime the mobile phone scare of the 90s. Hot air for the most part.

Jimmycog

Prolly some type of scalar energy weapon after it is arrayed together.

blackguard19

It’s funny how so many articles choose to include some kind of thumbnail or image like this fake picture globe Earth with fake satellites around it. But there are absolutely 0 real pictures of earth from space that include satellites.

BushChuck

It's everywhere, once you know to look for it.

I've been interrogating the heliocentric model for over a year, now. I find it woefully lacking.

I'm reasonably certain that we live on an infinite plane. There are other puddles, other suns, and the government damn well knows this.

Byrd's expeditions beg a lot of questions, as does his disappearance from both public life and the history books.

Honestly. Had you ever heard of Admiral Byrd, or Operation High Jump before yo-u investigated the heliocentric model?

blackguard19

No, I didn’t know any of that shit before I investigated Flat Earth. The average person who believes in the globe has no idea how big the earth is supposed to be, the speeds it allegedly travels, the curvature formula, etc.

For me it was finding out Apollo was fake and then over the next couple years, even though I rejected flat earth, being unable to ignore how every image of earth from space was manipulated and how generally full of shit NASA seems to come across with literally everything they do, ISS and Mars rover included.

And then of course, every physical observation we can make for ourselves tells us we live on a flat motionless surface with lights moving above.

You can really go either way with the theory though, which is another thing to love about it and makes it so fascinating. Because you can think, ok we are the center of creation in this huge terrarium or whatever it is, which is a beautiful thought, or you can think as you said that we are still just one of many puddles, and maybe our existence here is more sinister than that. Once you realize that any space mission is fake you just have something in the back of your mind at all times asking “why would they fake that other than money?” And “how long can they keep it up?”

BushChuck

COntrol. Everyone asks what is to gain from such a massive lie.

Control. COntrol over your very soul. And it works. Look at the qultists. See how much their belief that trump is anything other than a ZOG sock puppet affects their reality.

THey already have all the money. We've been slaves to the bankers for almost five generations, and a big part of it is the hopeless ennui engendered by believing you are a speck on a speck on a speck...

The reason I lean towards infinite plane is the old maps.

But yeah. Gravity is horse shit, Coriolis Effect is horse shit.

blackguard19

Coriolis is a joke. Even in older sniper manuals you can’t find any mention of the earth’s alleged spin. They have added some kind of chart to at least one new manual someone showed me, but anyone who says snipers actually use little pocket calculators to consider the earth’s rotation before they fire is full of shit. The idea that a globe’s spin affects a bullet but not an airplane is so ludicrous.

BushChuck

For shots over 1000M you need to factor in spin drift . This is the natural drift caused by the rotation of the projectile.

It's the reason the "snipe filing down bullets" meme exists. The idea being to get your ammo as close to identical as possible, so as to have a reliably calculable spin drift.

Coriolis Effect would make it fucking impossible to ever land an aircraft, as well.

Men13

"for humanity" lol no. Some people will die, more will get sick out sterilized. There'll be an outrage, maybe.

But humanity will be just fine

Le_Bucheron

The effects on birds and bees is what I fear most. There's many evidences already of trees/parts of trees dying near newly installed 5g antenna.