| This is good news on 23:06 - May 4 with 4023 views | StokieBlue |
| This is good news on 22:47 - May 4 by Enigma_Blue |
"There that was easy"
"If you are worried about 5G you probably shouldn't go out in the daytime or use the lights in your house or post on here in front of your monitor. Better to be safe than sorry."
Is to possible for you to reply to me or anyone else for the matter without being patronising and condescending? I doubt you would speak to someone this way in person and if you did i am pretty sure they wouldn't tolerate it. If it is not possible for you to engage in debate like a mature adult then I think the best thing going forward is for us to ignore each other.
5G technology has not been properly tested to determine its impact on human health or the environment. The federal government agency in charge of wireless infrastructure, has never studied the health impacts of any wireless technology.
In 2011 the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer classified RF radiation as "possibly carcinogenic to humans" after studies suggested links to a specific type of brain tumor.
The new millimetre wave technology in 5G produces 10 times the radiation compared to 4G. The fact that 5G has not been tested for me is a cause for concern.
There have been concerns for years about the implementation of 5G. See below.
A group of over 250 scientists from around the world in 2017 wrote and published a declaration called the “5G Appeal” asking for a moratorium on the building of 5G infrastructure. This was a followup to a previous letter sent to the United Nations with a similar request.
They said in part:
“We recommend a moratorium on the roll-out of the fifth generation, 5G, for telecommunication until potential hazards for human health and the environment have been fully investigated by scientists independent from industry…RF-EMF has been proven to be harmful for humans and the environment.”
You can read the entire published appeal here.
A few other notable comments made by experts (thanks to EHtrust.org for putting these together)
“There is a substantial body of evidence that this technology is harmful to humans and the environment. The 5G millimeter wave is known to heat the eyes, skin, and testes… Of particular concern are the most vulnerable among us – the unborn, children, the infirm, the elderly and the disabled. It is also expected that populations of bees and birds will drastically decline.” —Letter from oncologist Lennart Hardell MD & Colleagues
“A growing body of scientific literature documents evidence of nonthermal cellular damage from non-ionizing wireless radiation used in telecommunications. This RF EMR has been shown to cause an array of adverse effects on DNA integrity, cellular membranes, gene expression, protein synthesis, neuronal function, the blood-brain barrier, melatonin production, sperm damage, and immune dysfunction”. —Dr. Cindy Russell 2018 paper entitled “5 G wireless telecommunications expansion: Public health and environmental implications.” [Post edited 4 May 2020 22:58]
|
A lot of that has been discredited. You could find that out for yourself with a bit of research which I am sure you are going to do as you don't want me telling you things. I will quickly tackle a couple though:
"The new millimetre wave technology in 5G produces 10 times the radiation compared to 4G."
Even if this is true (which I would need to check) why is it important? As previously shown this is non-ionising radiation which is less harmful than visible light. The only possible harm known from this form of radiation is from heat and the levels from 5G are thousands of times to weak for this and the overall level far, far below the upper limits allowed under law.
"In 2011 the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer classified RF radiation as "possibly carcinogenic to humans" after studies suggested links to a specific type of brain tumor."
Why cite a 2011 WHO study when in 2014 they said stated there was no adverse health reactions from using mobile phones. They also classified the following as "possibly carcinogenic to humans":
- Eating pickled vegetables
- Using talcom powder
The following were put in a higher category of being carcinogenic than what you specified:
- Alcohol
- Eating processed meat
I love how it's now condescending to point out scientific facts which disagree with a posters opinion. That has happened to two people in this thread. It seems to be some new way of attempting to discredit someone.
SB [Post edited 4 May 2020 23:17]
|  | |  |
| This is good news on 23:17 - May 4 with 4011 views | Bluearmy71 |
| This is good news on 18:09 - May 4 by SpruceMoose |
With all due respect (which is none) it's easy to be condescending and belittling when confronted with such utter bo-llox.
If you're going to think and say such ridiculous things, you probably need to develop a thicker skin. |
And this proves one of my points entirely, thank you for that! |  | | |
| This is good news on 23:42 - May 4 with 4002 views | Bluearmy71 |
| This is good news on 22:19 - May 4 by Nthsuffolkblue |
This is part of the problem. You believe all opinions are valid.
There are such things as facts and opinions that fly in the face of facts should not simply be allowed to be perpetrated unchallenged. If they are dangerous, why should you want them to be publicised? Strange.
My opinion could be that you are a red badger living in the Antarctic.
Is the opinion all people of a certain racial type or religious belief are inherently inferior perfectly acceptable for you? What about that there is a perfect ideal race? There are reasons why some "opinions" are not acceptable to be preached. |
An opinion may not have validity but its still a persons right to have one!
At no point did I say or even suggest it was right to preach hate, could you please show me where I said I want dangerous and harmful things published, you need to stop insinuating things! | | | |
| This is good news on 23:44 - May 4 with 4002 views | Enigma_Blue |
| This is good news on 23:06 - May 4 by StokieBlue |
A lot of that has been discredited. You could find that out for yourself with a bit of research which I am sure you are going to do as you don't want me telling you things. I will quickly tackle a couple though:
"The new millimetre wave technology in 5G produces 10 times the radiation compared to 4G."
Even if this is true (which I would need to check) why is it important? As previously shown this is non-ionising radiation which is less harmful than visible light. The only possible harm known from this form of radiation is from heat and the levels from 5G are thousands of times to weak for this and the overall level far, far below the upper limits allowed under law.
"In 2011 the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer classified RF radiation as "possibly carcinogenic to humans" after studies suggested links to a specific type of brain tumor."
Why cite a 2011 WHO study when in 2014 they said stated there was no adverse health reactions from using mobile phones. They also classified the following as "possibly carcinogenic to humans":
- Eating pickled vegetables
- Using talcom powder
The following were put in a higher category of being carcinogenic than what you specified:
- Alcohol
- Eating processed meat
I love how it's now condescending to point out scientific facts which disagree with a posters opinion. That has happened to two people in this thread. It seems to be some new way of attempting to discredit someone.
SB [Post edited 4 May 2020 23:17]
|
For every theory or hypothesis put forward there will always be an organisation or individual who will discredit it. It is not proof one way or another, scientists disagree all the time. Science is never really “settled” and should always remain open to reinterpretation and new techniques or data sources.
If you are not concerned about 5G then good for you and it may well prove to be harmless. I would prefer it if the technology was tested thoroughly for possible effects on humans by an organisation independent from the industry. If it is proved that it is completely harmless then great.
As for the WHO, in May last year more than 230 scientists and doctors from 40 countries appealed to the World Health Organisation calling for a halt on 5G and that it should be moved from a Group 2B carcinogen to a Group 1, the same as asbestos and arsenic.
I would argue that people like you can't help being condescending because you are so convinced that you are right about something just because you have found evidence and sources that support your belief but ignore all the conflicting evidence & sources.
Let me be clear here I am not saying 5G isn't safe i am saying i would prefer if it had been properly tested for any negative health effects before it was implemented just so we could be 100% sure. As you said better safe than sorry.
Just because someone called StokieBlue on a football forum said he is sure it is completely safe because he has found evidence on the internet that fits with his belief doesn't reassure me. I am sorry if this isn't good enough for you. [Post edited 4 May 2020 23:58]
|  | | |
| This is good news on 00:40 - May 5 with 3969 views | Bluearmy71 |
| This is good news on 23:06 - May 4 by StokieBlue |
A lot of that has been discredited. You could find that out for yourself with a bit of research which I am sure you are going to do as you don't want me telling you things. I will quickly tackle a couple though:
"The new millimetre wave technology in 5G produces 10 times the radiation compared to 4G."
Even if this is true (which I would need to check) why is it important? As previously shown this is non-ionising radiation which is less harmful than visible light. The only possible harm known from this form of radiation is from heat and the levels from 5G are thousands of times to weak for this and the overall level far, far below the upper limits allowed under law.
"In 2011 the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer classified RF radiation as "possibly carcinogenic to humans" after studies suggested links to a specific type of brain tumor."
Why cite a 2011 WHO study when in 2014 they said stated there was no adverse health reactions from using mobile phones. They also classified the following as "possibly carcinogenic to humans":
- Eating pickled vegetables
- Using talcom powder
The following were put in a higher category of being carcinogenic than what you specified:
- Alcohol
- Eating processed meat
I love how it's now condescending to point out scientific facts which disagree with a posters opinion. That has happened to two people in this thread. It seems to be some new way of attempting to discredit someone.
SB [Post edited 4 May 2020 23:17]
|
"I love how it's now condescending to point out scientific facts which disagree with a posters opinion. That has happened to two people in this thread. It seems to be some new way of attempting to discredit someone."
But you see SB my opinion wasn't about scientific fact, as explained earlier space and time theories were used by myself as an example of some popular theories that were ultimately proved wrong, no disputing the scientific fact about anything, no disputing they may have been very plausible at the time, you went far too deep into this and made it into something my original comment was not about and in doing so came across as very condescending and belittling which was totally uncalled for, one of your mates jumped on your bandwagon and insinuated that I advocate the publishing of hate, dangerous or harmful preaching, totally out of order! Time and time again I agreed that David Icke's opinion/theory of 5G and Coronavirus being connected is totally absurd, it has 99.9% chance of being wrong but until proven otherwise still has a miniscule chance of being right, but he as any other person has the right to form whatever theory they like about any subject matter they like! | | | |
| This is good news on 00:48 - May 5 with 3965 views | Bluearmy71 |
| This is good news on 23:44 - May 4 by Enigma_Blue |
For every theory or hypothesis put forward there will always be an organisation or individual who will discredit it. It is not proof one way or another, scientists disagree all the time. Science is never really “settled” and should always remain open to reinterpretation and new techniques or data sources.
If you are not concerned about 5G then good for you and it may well prove to be harmless. I would prefer it if the technology was tested thoroughly for possible effects on humans by an organisation independent from the industry. If it is proved that it is completely harmless then great.
As for the WHO, in May last year more than 230 scientists and doctors from 40 countries appealed to the World Health Organisation calling for a halt on 5G and that it should be moved from a Group 2B carcinogen to a Group 1, the same as asbestos and arsenic.
I would argue that people like you can't help being condescending because you are so convinced that you are right about something just because you have found evidence and sources that support your belief but ignore all the conflicting evidence & sources.
Let me be clear here I am not saying 5G isn't safe i am saying i would prefer if it had been properly tested for any negative health effects before it was implemented just so we could be 100% sure. As you said better safe than sorry.
Just because someone called StokieBlue on a football forum said he is sure it is completely safe because he has found evidence on the internet that fits with his belief doesn't reassure me. I am sorry if this isn't good enough for you. [Post edited 4 May 2020 23:58]
|
Excuse my French ( I am rather eloquent in it tbh) fu*king well put, but do expect a condescending retaliation! | | | |
| This is good news on 05:59 - May 5 with 3916 views | m14_blue |
| This is good news on 00:40 - May 5 by Bluearmy71 |
"I love how it's now condescending to point out scientific facts which disagree with a posters opinion. That has happened to two people in this thread. It seems to be some new way of attempting to discredit someone."
But you see SB my opinion wasn't about scientific fact, as explained earlier space and time theories were used by myself as an example of some popular theories that were ultimately proved wrong, no disputing the scientific fact about anything, no disputing they may have been very plausible at the time, you went far too deep into this and made it into something my original comment was not about and in doing so came across as very condescending and belittling which was totally uncalled for, one of your mates jumped on your bandwagon and insinuated that I advocate the publishing of hate, dangerous or harmful preaching, totally out of order! Time and time again I agreed that David Icke's opinion/theory of 5G and Coronavirus being connected is totally absurd, it has 99.9% chance of being wrong but until proven otherwise still has a miniscule chance of being right, but he as any other person has the right to form whatever theory they like about any subject matter they like! |
Who is stopping him forming that theory? | | | |
| This is good news on 08:20 - May 5 with 3890 views | StokieBlue |
| This is good news on 00:48 - May 5 by Bluearmy71 |
Excuse my French ( I am rather eloquent in it tbh) fu*king well put, but do expect a condescending retaliation! |
See this is the problem.
Responding with facts, logic and science is not a retaliation. It's pointing out the huge flaws and bias in the positions you are taking.
The fact you see it as a battle or war is part of the problem.
SB | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| This is good news on 08:29 - May 5 with 3880 views | StokieBlue |
| This is good news on 23:44 - May 4 by Enigma_Blue |
For every theory or hypothesis put forward there will always be an organisation or individual who will discredit it. It is not proof one way or another, scientists disagree all the time. Science is never really “settled” and should always remain open to reinterpretation and new techniques or data sources.
If you are not concerned about 5G then good for you and it may well prove to be harmless. I would prefer it if the technology was tested thoroughly for possible effects on humans by an organisation independent from the industry. If it is proved that it is completely harmless then great.
As for the WHO, in May last year more than 230 scientists and doctors from 40 countries appealed to the World Health Organisation calling for a halt on 5G and that it should be moved from a Group 2B carcinogen to a Group 1, the same as asbestos and arsenic.
I would argue that people like you can't help being condescending because you are so convinced that you are right about something just because you have found evidence and sources that support your belief but ignore all the conflicting evidence & sources.
Let me be clear here I am not saying 5G isn't safe i am saying i would prefer if it had been properly tested for any negative health effects before it was implemented just so we could be 100% sure. As you said better safe than sorry.
Just because someone called StokieBlue on a football forum said he is sure it is completely safe because he has found evidence on the internet that fits with his belief doesn't reassure me. I am sorry if this isn't good enough for you. [Post edited 4 May 2020 23:58]
|
"Let me be clear here I am not saying 5G isn't safe i am saying i would prefer if it had been properly tested for any negative health effects before it was implemented just so we could be 100% sure. As you said better safe than sorry."
What form should this proper testing have taken?
As has been pointed out by countless scientists, as a civilisation we know how the EM spectrum works and have done for 150 years. This is just a part of that spectrum and a very low energy and non-ionising part like your monitor and far below visible light or your microwave.
As for science not being settled, that is of course correct. However for theories that are proven it's not OK to say someone else has a hypothesis and that is as valid as the proven theory. It's an appalling argument. A hypothesis is not a theory as others have pointed out and thus doesn't have equivalence of weight. It's bad form to keep pushing them as if they do.
"I would argue that people like you can't help being condescending because you are so convinced that you are right about something just because you have found evidence and sources that support your belief but ignore all the conflicting evidence & sources."
Isn't this what you've been doing all threat? You won't even respond of scientifically proven facts about the EM spectrum, you just post stuff from some website that agrees with you and ignore points which require evidence-based responses.
Your sources aren't conflicting as they don't have evidence to support them. By your own admission they are hypotheses (most of which are disproved) and not theories.
Can't even be bothered with the condescending nonsense anymore. Two posters have been accused of that in this thread, both of whom tried to counter the non-evidence based points being made with scientific evidence.
One could equally make the same argument about your posts given your lack of willingness to look at the actual science and repeated dismissal of proven theory in favour of unproven hypotheses. Pretty condescending by your logic.
SB | | | |
| This is good news on 08:30 - May 5 with 3877 views | bluelagos |
| This is good news on 08:20 - May 5 by StokieBlue |
See this is the problem.
Responding with facts, logic and science is not a retaliation. It's pointing out the huge flaws and bias in the positions you are taking.
The fact you see it as a battle or war is part of the problem.
SB |
Stokie, let me help you here.
David Icke has often repeated his belief that the Royal family are Lizards. Anyone who chooses to take anything he says, ever, seriously, is a mentalist and not worthy of your time.
You are wasting your time and energy on loons. Conspiracy theorists aren't worth your valuable time imho. |  |
| |
| This is good news on 08:31 - May 5 with 3872 views | DanTheMan |
| This is good news on 23:44 - May 4 by Enigma_Blue |
For every theory or hypothesis put forward there will always be an organisation or individual who will discredit it. It is not proof one way or another, scientists disagree all the time. Science is never really “settled” and should always remain open to reinterpretation and new techniques or data sources.
If you are not concerned about 5G then good for you and it may well prove to be harmless. I would prefer it if the technology was tested thoroughly for possible effects on humans by an organisation independent from the industry. If it is proved that it is completely harmless then great.
As for the WHO, in May last year more than 230 scientists and doctors from 40 countries appealed to the World Health Organisation calling for a halt on 5G and that it should be moved from a Group 2B carcinogen to a Group 1, the same as asbestos and arsenic.
I would argue that people like you can't help being condescending because you are so convinced that you are right about something just because you have found evidence and sources that support your belief but ignore all the conflicting evidence & sources.
Let me be clear here I am not saying 5G isn't safe i am saying i would prefer if it had been properly tested for any negative health effects before it was implemented just so we could be 100% sure. As you said better safe than sorry.
Just because someone called StokieBlue on a football forum said he is sure it is completely safe because he has found evidence on the internet that fits with his belief doesn't reassure me. I am sorry if this isn't good enough for you. [Post edited 4 May 2020 23:58]
|
This argument of "it's never been tested on humans!" has been repeated for every single rollout of Wifi technology. There's a reason for this though, if you think about how randomised control studies work.
You'd need to get a sizable group of people together (hundreds) and say to half of them they are not allowed to use their phones. They'd also, one would assume, have to be in a very controlled environment where any other form of radiation (like the Sun) could not in anyway affect them. After all, a lot of these studies are generally looking for things like certain forms of cancer.
This study would then need to run in the years time scale. Even then over a few hundred people, that would just be for starters, you'd need to move well into the tens of thousands for a proper study.
Because of this, I'd be surprised if you found these control studies for 4G, 3G or 2G.
Also I'd like to point out that the 230 scientists who wrote to the WHO did not write about 5G. You can actually view the full statement here.
https://emfscientist.org/index.php/emf-scientist-appeal
It's worth noting in particular that the original version of this was written in May 2015. |  |
| |
| This is good news on 09:14 - May 5 with 3844 views | Harry_Palmer |
| This is good news on 23:44 - May 4 by Enigma_Blue |
For every theory or hypothesis put forward there will always be an organisation or individual who will discredit it. It is not proof one way or another, scientists disagree all the time. Science is never really “settled” and should always remain open to reinterpretation and new techniques or data sources.
If you are not concerned about 5G then good for you and it may well prove to be harmless. I would prefer it if the technology was tested thoroughly for possible effects on humans by an organisation independent from the industry. If it is proved that it is completely harmless then great.
As for the WHO, in May last year more than 230 scientists and doctors from 40 countries appealed to the World Health Organisation calling for a halt on 5G and that it should be moved from a Group 2B carcinogen to a Group 1, the same as asbestos and arsenic.
I would argue that people like you can't help being condescending because you are so convinced that you are right about something just because you have found evidence and sources that support your belief but ignore all the conflicting evidence & sources.
Let me be clear here I am not saying 5G isn't safe i am saying i would prefer if it had been properly tested for any negative health effects before it was implemented just so we could be 100% sure. As you said better safe than sorry.
Just because someone called StokieBlue on a football forum said he is sure it is completely safe because he has found evidence on the internet that fits with his belief doesn't reassure me. I am sorry if this isn't good enough for you. [Post edited 4 May 2020 23:58]
|
It looks like hundreds of conspiracy theorists in Belgium agree with your position of safety first before we let the telecommunications industry roll out their untested technology from which they are set to profit to the tune of billions.
Oh, did I say conspiracy theorists, sorry I meant 1300 Doctors and health care workers who have written an open letter to Government. Clearly bonkers, the lot of them.
https://www.brusselstimes.com/all-news/belgium-all-news/109231/health-workers-ca |  | | |
| This is good news on 09:28 - May 5 with 3837 views | StokieBlue |
| This is good news on 08:30 - May 5 by bluelagos |
Stokie, let me help you here.
David Icke has often repeated his belief that the Royal family are Lizards. Anyone who chooses to take anything he says, ever, seriously, is a mentalist and not worthy of your time.
You are wasting your time and energy on loons. Conspiracy theorists aren't worth your valuable time imho. |
Yet he has 4 up votes for his last post which didn't address any of the points I made and just repeated the ones he already made with along with some digs at me so some of these things need to be challenged.
Disappointed in one of those people upvoting as well but there you go.
I will leave it now as they aren't addressing any of the actual science, when the flaws of their sources are pointed out it's ignored and they then just repost the same stuff.
Perhaps I am wrong, I guess time will tell but if so then much of what we know about EM radiation will need to be scrapped and that seems unlikely.
SB [Post edited 5 May 2020 9:36]
| | | |
| This is good news on 09:35 - May 5 with 3826 views | StokieBlue |
| This is good news on 09:14 - May 5 by Harry_Palmer |
It looks like hundreds of conspiracy theorists in Belgium agree with your position of safety first before we let the telecommunications industry roll out their untested technology from which they are set to profit to the tune of billions.
Oh, did I say conspiracy theorists, sorry I meant 1300 Doctors and health care workers who have written an open letter to Government. Clearly bonkers, the lot of them.
https://www.brusselstimes.com/all-news/belgium-all-news/109231/health-workers-ca |
How are doctors and healthcare workers experts on the EM spectrum? It's an appeal to authority fallacy.
If there were direct medical conditions in people that they had spotted then it would have a a stronger point but there aren't with regards to 5G and the 4G ones implied have been largely disproven I believe. In fact they are just repeated the 2011 WHO statement which has been superseded in 2014 as I have already pointed out.
In 2011 the WHO classified talcum powder and pickles as the same level as carcinogenic and processed meat and alcohol as higher. Are you calling for those to be banned as well on the basis of the same statement?
"Now along comes 5G — or for the time being at least, a sort of 4G+ — which promises to be many times more powerful."
Tired of repeating it in this thread but this isn't strictly true, in fact there being more base stations means the signal won't need to be more powerful in some cases. It's also non-ionising and magnitudes below the internationally agreed safety levels and the levels required to cause heating.
We won't agree and I've repeated the same facts enough times now so I will wish you a good day.
SB | | | |
| This is good news on 10:09 - May 5 with 3811 views | midastouch |
| This is good news on 09:35 - May 5 by StokieBlue |
How are doctors and healthcare workers experts on the EM spectrum? It's an appeal to authority fallacy.
If there were direct medical conditions in people that they had spotted then it would have a a stronger point but there aren't with regards to 5G and the 4G ones implied have been largely disproven I believe. In fact they are just repeated the 2011 WHO statement which has been superseded in 2014 as I have already pointed out.
In 2011 the WHO classified talcum powder and pickles as the same level as carcinogenic and processed meat and alcohol as higher. Are you calling for those to be banned as well on the basis of the same statement?
"Now along comes 5G — or for the time being at least, a sort of 4G+ — which promises to be many times more powerful."
Tired of repeating it in this thread but this isn't strictly true, in fact there being more base stations means the signal won't need to be more powerful in some cases. It's also non-ionising and magnitudes below the internationally agreed safety levels and the levels required to cause heating.
We won't agree and I've repeated the same facts enough times now so I will wish you a good day.
SB |
I had somebody leaflet our area about EMF and it wasn't something I'd ever given too much thought about. They cited somebody called Dr Andrew Goldsworthy from Imperial College London.
His credentials look solid. He was for example a scientific advisor to the European Space Agency.
See his credentials in full here:
http://www.wirelesswatchblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2001/11/Declaration-of-Dr.-A
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmenergy/161/161vw44.htm
Somebody said above "better to be safe than sorry". Given what Dr Andrew Goldsworthy says in the above links, would you still be comfortable with having either a 5G mast, or a standard mobile phone mast, within very close proximity of your bedroom window? Would there not be a tiny bit of doubt at least? Or are you convinced they are entirely safe? |  |
| |
| This is good news on 10:14 - May 5 with 3800 views | Harry_Palmer |
| This is good news on 09:35 - May 5 by StokieBlue |
How are doctors and healthcare workers experts on the EM spectrum? It's an appeal to authority fallacy.
If there were direct medical conditions in people that they had spotted then it would have a a stronger point but there aren't with regards to 5G and the 4G ones implied have been largely disproven I believe. In fact they are just repeated the 2011 WHO statement which has been superseded in 2014 as I have already pointed out.
In 2011 the WHO classified talcum powder and pickles as the same level as carcinogenic and processed meat and alcohol as higher. Are you calling for those to be banned as well on the basis of the same statement?
"Now along comes 5G — or for the time being at least, a sort of 4G+ — which promises to be many times more powerful."
Tired of repeating it in this thread but this isn't strictly true, in fact there being more base stations means the signal won't need to be more powerful in some cases. It's also non-ionising and magnitudes below the internationally agreed safety levels and the levels required to cause heating.
We won't agree and I've repeated the same facts enough times now so I will wish you a good day.
SB |
We don't have to agree, I have no problem there. I accept the points you have made but I think what is possibly being overlooked is the cumulative effect of adding 5G on top of the many other ways we are exposed to EMFs. It is reasonable to assume that if we keep increasing our exposure at some stage a tipping point will be reached where it could become harmful. This has not studied to my knowledge.
In any case the point of my post was really to show that it is not just conspiracy loons that are concerned, many perfectly reasonable ant intelligent people also are. You have a good day. | | | |
| This is good news on 10:15 - May 5 with 3792 views | m14_blue |
| This is good news on 10:14 - May 5 by Harry_Palmer |
We don't have to agree, I have no problem there. I accept the points you have made but I think what is possibly being overlooked is the cumulative effect of adding 5G on top of the many other ways we are exposed to EMFs. It is reasonable to assume that if we keep increasing our exposure at some stage a tipping point will be reached where it could become harmful. This has not studied to my knowledge.
In any case the point of my post was really to show that it is not just conspiracy loons that are concerned, many perfectly reasonable ant intelligent people also are. You have a good day. |
Do you think there is any possibility at all that 5G is linked to Coronavirus? | | | |
| This is good news on 10:21 - May 5 with 3780 views | longtimefan |
| This is good news on 09:28 - May 5 by StokieBlue |
Yet he has 4 up votes for his last post which didn't address any of the points I made and just repeated the ones he already made with along with some digs at me so some of these things need to be challenged.
Disappointed in one of those people upvoting as well but there you go.
I will leave it now as they aren't addressing any of the actual science, when the flaws of their sources are pointed out it's ignored and they then just repost the same stuff.
Perhaps I am wrong, I guess time will tell but if so then much of what we know about EM radiation will need to be scrapped and that seems unlikely.
SB [Post edited 5 May 2020 9:36]
|
I wonder how many people who seem to believe 5G is dangerous have no qualms about visiting airport, where they will be subjected to radar signals at similar frequencies, or body scanners at even higher frequencies? Or are even owners of newish cars with collision prevention systems based on automotive radars that also operate at these frequencies? | | | |
| This is good news on 10:45 - May 5 with 3751 views | Harry_Palmer |
| This is good news on 10:15 - May 5 by m14_blue |
Do you think there is any possibility at all that 5G is linked to Coronavirus? |
I am certain that 5G is not causing all of the CV-19 symptoms and cases, which is what I believe some like Icke have claimed. This can be pretty easily debunked by the fact that certain countries that don't have 5G at all still have cases of CV-19.
whether 5G exposure can cause similar symptoms or make symptoms worse in people who have the virus is a different question and I have seen some evidence that this could be possible. There was a recent study out of Spain for example which seemed to correlate more severe outbreaks of CV-19 in areas which had 5G.
Scientists say we are still learning new things about the virus everyday so for me it makes sense to keep an open mind, especially with 5G in its infancy also. I am certainly not going to accept that there is no link whatsoever at this stage on the say so of agencies that have a financial interest in the roll out of 5G.
What do you think, and what are you basing it on? [Post edited 5 May 2020 10:45]
| | | |
| This is good news on 10:48 - May 5 with 3745 views | sparks |
| This is good news on 10:45 - May 5 by Harry_Palmer |
I am certain that 5G is not causing all of the CV-19 symptoms and cases, which is what I believe some like Icke have claimed. This can be pretty easily debunked by the fact that certain countries that don't have 5G at all still have cases of CV-19.
whether 5G exposure can cause similar symptoms or make symptoms worse in people who have the virus is a different question and I have seen some evidence that this could be possible. There was a recent study out of Spain for example which seemed to correlate more severe outbreaks of CV-19 in areas which had 5G.
Scientists say we are still learning new things about the virus everyday so for me it makes sense to keep an open mind, especially with 5G in its infancy also. I am certainly not going to accept that there is no link whatsoever at this stage on the say so of agencies that have a financial interest in the roll out of 5G.
What do you think, and what are you basing it on? [Post edited 5 May 2020 10:45]
|
SHOW US THE EVIDENCE.
Or stop spouting conspiratorial bollx. |  |
| The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to the presence of those who think they've found it.
(Sir Terry Pratchett) | | Poll: | Is Fred drunk this morning? |
| |
| This is good news on 10:48 - May 5 with 3745 views | StokieBlue |
| This is good news on 10:45 - May 5 by Harry_Palmer |
I am certain that 5G is not causing all of the CV-19 symptoms and cases, which is what I believe some like Icke have claimed. This can be pretty easily debunked by the fact that certain countries that don't have 5G at all still have cases of CV-19.
whether 5G exposure can cause similar symptoms or make symptoms worse in people who have the virus is a different question and I have seen some evidence that this could be possible. There was a recent study out of Spain for example which seemed to correlate more severe outbreaks of CV-19 in areas which had 5G.
Scientists say we are still learning new things about the virus everyday so for me it makes sense to keep an open mind, especially with 5G in its infancy also. I am certainly not going to accept that there is no link whatsoever at this stage on the say so of agencies that have a financial interest in the roll out of 5G.
What do you think, and what are you basing it on? [Post edited 5 May 2020 10:45]
|
"There was a recent study out of Spain for example which seemed to correlate more severe outbreaks of CV-19 in areas which had 5G."
Do you have a link to this study because correlation doesn't mean causation. All kinds of spurious correlations can be found when looking for them - humans are incredibly good at fitting data to their preconceived ideas. It's surely far more likely that larger outbreaks are in densely populated areas and these are also the areas which are likely to get 5G first. That is a correlation in population density not in technological causation.
How exactly is 5G supposed to make symptoms of C19 worse? How can EM radiation effect the ability of the lungs to process air? Link to the study on this as well please.
SB | | | |
| This is good news on 11:04 - May 5 with 3731 views | Harry_Palmer |
| This is good news on 10:48 - May 5 by sparks |
SHOW US THE EVIDENCE.
Or stop spouting conspiratorial bollx. |
Do you have to be quite so unpleasant? I am pretty sure you would not speak in such a way if we were face to face, in fact I know you wouldn't.
What conspiratorial bollox? I am not promoting any particular theory, I simply said I am keeping an open mind at this stage regarding whether or not 5G exposure can cause some symptoms. 1300 Health workers in Belgium have also voiced their concerns maybe you should write to them and explain that they are all talking bollox. | | | |
| This is good news on 11:05 - May 5 with 3729 views | sparks |
| This is good news on 11:04 - May 5 by Harry_Palmer |
Do you have to be quite so unpleasant? I am pretty sure you would not speak in such a way if we were face to face, in fact I know you wouldn't.
What conspiratorial bollox? I am not promoting any particular theory, I simply said I am keeping an open mind at this stage regarding whether or not 5G exposure can cause some symptoms. 1300 Health workers in Belgium have also voiced their concerns maybe you should write to them and explain that they are all talking bollox. |
yes we do- because this is utterly tiresome. | |
| The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to the presence of those who think they've found it.
(Sir Terry Pratchett) | | Poll: | Is Fred drunk this morning? |
| |
| This is good news on 11:05 - May 5 with 3729 views | m14_blue |
| This is good news on 10:45 - May 5 by Harry_Palmer |
I am certain that 5G is not causing all of the CV-19 symptoms and cases, which is what I believe some like Icke have claimed. This can be pretty easily debunked by the fact that certain countries that don't have 5G at all still have cases of CV-19.
whether 5G exposure can cause similar symptoms or make symptoms worse in people who have the virus is a different question and I have seen some evidence that this could be possible. There was a recent study out of Spain for example which seemed to correlate more severe outbreaks of CV-19 in areas which had 5G.
Scientists say we are still learning new things about the virus everyday so for me it makes sense to keep an open mind, especially with 5G in its infancy also. I am certainly not going to accept that there is no link whatsoever at this stage on the say so of agencies that have a financial interest in the roll out of 5G.
What do you think, and what are you basing it on? [Post edited 5 May 2020 10:45]
|
I don’t think it has any link at all, no.
That’s based on all the experts in their relevant fields telling me as much and my own (limited) knowledge.
I don’t know enough about the wider risks or otherwise of 5G so won’t comment but tbh the second people link it to Covid19 their arguments lose all credibility in my eyes. | | | |
| This is good news on 11:13 - May 5 with 3723 views | Harry_Palmer |
| This is good news on 10:48 - May 5 by StokieBlue |
"There was a recent study out of Spain for example which seemed to correlate more severe outbreaks of CV-19 in areas which had 5G."
Do you have a link to this study because correlation doesn't mean causation. All kinds of spurious correlations can be found when looking for them - humans are incredibly good at fitting data to their preconceived ideas. It's surely far more likely that larger outbreaks are in densely populated areas and these are also the areas which are likely to get 5G first. That is a correlation in population density not in technological causation.
How exactly is 5G supposed to make symptoms of C19 worse? How can EM radiation effect the ability of the lungs to process air? Link to the study on this as well please.
SB |
I simply said I am keeping an open mind. I genuinely did not keep a copy of the study and only skimmed over it, if I come across it again I will post it. As you say it well be that there were other more prominent correlations such as population density etc. Like most studies I think it concluded that further studies should be carried out.
I reserve the right to keep an open mind and I really don't have to justify this or prove anything, it is what everybody should be doing to be honest. Its a new virus and a new technology we are talking about, it's not like somebody has all the answers. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
