haidut

Member
Forum Supporter
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Messages
19,798
Location
USA / Europe
It is always pleasing to see that a bastion of corrupt, institutionalized science such as the Scientific American is publishing editorials exposing 5G wireless technology for what it is - a known human carcinogen that has also been already causally linked to virtually every chronic health condition known to medicine. Considering this damning evidence, to have FDA and FCC reaffirm the "safety" of exposure limit standards adopted in the mid 1990s is a travesty and a sad testimony about just how profoundly those agencies have become "captured" by the very industries they are supposed to regulate and reign-in. What's even worse is that (as the article itself bemoans) 5G wireless technology will not replace right away 4G/3G or even older technologies, for which there is already a mountain of evidence proving their detrimental effects on health. Btw, guess what the wireless industry told us when it was deploying 2G/3G/4G decades ago? The all too familiar - "trust us, it's safe". So, not only are the same unfounded claims of safety now being made about 5G as well but this new and untested technology will co-exist with the older (and provably dangerous) technologies for decades to come. As such, the negative effects on health may very well be synergistic. In an ironic twist of fate, there are rumors that one of the first deployments of 5G in government buildings may very well be at FDA and FCC locations. Maybe only if there is a dramatic drop in health among agency staffers will make them finally start taking the risks of these technologies seriously...

We Have No Reason to Believe 5G Is Safe

"...The chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) recently announced through a press release that the commission will soon reaffirm the radio frequency radiation (RFR) exposure limits that the FCC adopted in the late 1990s. These limits are based upon a behavioral change in rats exposed to microwave radiation and were designed to protect us from short-term heating risks due to RFR exposure. Yet, since the FCC adopted these limits based largely on research from the 1980s, the preponderance of peer-reviewed research, more than 500 studies, have found harmful biologic or health effects from exposure to RFR at intensities too low to cause significant heating."

"...Citing this large body of research, more than 240 scientists who have published peer-reviewed research on the biologic and health effects of nonionizing electromagnetic fields (EMF) signed the International EMF Scientist Appeal, which calls for stronger exposure limits. The appeal makes the following assertions: “Numerous recent scientific publications have shown that EMF affects living organisms at levels well below most international and national guidelines. Effects include increased cancer risk, cellular stress, increase in harmful free radicals, genetic damages, structural and functional changes of the reproductive system, learning and memory deficits, neurological disorders, and negative impacts on general well-being in humans. Damage goes well beyond the human race, as there is growing evidence of harmful effects to both plant and animal life.”

"...The FCC’s RFR exposure limits regulate the intensity of exposure, taking into account the frequency of the carrier waves, but ignore the signaling properties of the RFR. Along with the patterning and duration of exposures, certain characteristics of the signal (e.g., pulsing, polarization) increase the biologic and health impacts of the exposure. New exposure limits are needed which account for these differential effects. Moreover, these limits should be based on a biological effect, not a change in a laboratory rat’s behavior. The World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified RFR as "possibly carcinogenic to humans" in 2011. Last year, a $30 million study conducted by the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) found “clear evidence” that two years of exposure to cell phone RFR increased cancer in male rats and damaged DNA in rats and mice of both sexes. The Ramazzini Institute in Italy replicated the key finding of the NTP using a different carrier frequency and much weaker exposure to cell phone radiation over the life of the rats."

"...Based upon the research published since 2011, including human and animal studies and mechanistic data, the IARC has recently prioritized RFR to be reviewed again in the next five years. Since many EMF scientists believe we now have sufficient evidence to consider RFR as either a probable or known human carcinogen, the IARC will likely upgrade the carcinogenic potential of RFR in the near future. Nonetheless, without conducting a formal risk assessment or a systematic review of the research on RFR health effects, the FDA recently reaffirmed the FCC’s 1996 exposure limits in a letter to the FCC, stating that the agency had “concluded that no changes to the current standards are warranted at this time,” and that “NTP’s experimental findings should not be applied to human cell phone usage.” The letter stated that “the available scientific evidence to date does not support adverse health effects in humans due to exposures at or under the current limits.”

"...Millimeter waves are mostly absorbed within a few millimeters of human skin and in the surface layers of the cornea. Short-term exposure can have adverse physiological effects in the peripheral nervous system, the immune system and the cardiovascular system. The research suggests that long-term exposure may pose health risks to the skin (e.g., melanoma), the eyes (e.g., ocular melanoma) and the testes (e.g., sterility). Since 5G is a new technology, there is no research on health effects, so we are “flying blind” to quote a U.S. senator. However, we have considerable evidence about the harmful effects of 2G and 3G. Little is known the effects of exposure to 4G, a 10-year-old technology, because governments have been remiss in funding this research. Meanwhile, we are seeing increases in certain types of head and neck tumors in tumor registries, which may be at least partially attributable to the proliferation of cell phone radiation. These increases are consistent with results from case-control studies of tumor risk in heavy cell phone users."

"...5G will not replace 4G; it will accompany 4G for the near future and possibly over the long term. If there are synergistic effects from simultaneous exposures to multiple types of RFR, our overall risk of harm from RFR may increase substantially. Cancer is not the only risk as there is considerable evidence that RFR causes neurological disorders and reproductive harm, likely due to oxidative stress. As a society, should we invest hundreds of billions of dollars deploying 5G, a cellular technology that requires the installation of 800,000 or more new cell antenna sites in the U.S. close to where we live, work and play? Instead, we should support the recommendations of the 250 scientists and medical doctors who signed the 5G Appeal that calls for an immediate moratorium on the deployment of 5G and demand that our government fund the research needed to adopt biologically based exposure limits that protect our health and safety."
 

Sativa

Member
Joined
May 17, 2018
Messages
400
In an ironic twist of fate, there are rumors that one of the first deployments of 5G in government buildings may very well be at FDA and FCC locations.
This is ideal. One wonders how the aluminium molecules contained within the bodies of gov workers will react to intensified microwave radiation ... fire? I bet the aluminium will increase in temperature (potentially igniting) and directly damage surrounding tissue. This might further deteriorate their cognitive potential, resulting in even more stupidity etc.

In the England capital, London, a notable media-covered fire occurred at 'Grenfell Tower', which was built with aluminium 'insulation' within the outer layers. Naturally, there are many 5G transmitters in the vicinity, some only meters away from the tower... The fire must have been like a serious furnace...
Imagine wrapping a sausage in aluminium foil, then running it in the microwave for an hour.

(PS. they blamed the firefights for not doing their job properly, when the Aluminium itself was likely the key 'ignitory' element, alongside the intense 5G microwaves...)
 
Last edited:

lampofred

Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
3,244
This is ideal. One wonders how the aluminium molecules contained within the bodies of gov workers will react to intensified microwave radiation ... fire? I bet the aluminium will increase in temperature (potentially igniting) and directly damage surrounding tissue. This might further deteriorate their cognitive potential, resulting in even more stupidity etc.

In the England capital, London, a notable media-covered fire occurred at 'Grenfell Tower', which was built with aluminium 'insulation' within the outer layers. Naturally, there are many 5G transmitters in the vicinity, some only meters away from the tower... The fire must have been like a serious furnace...
Imagine wrapping a sausage in aluminium foil, then running it in the microwave for an hour.

(PS. they blamed the firefights for not doing their job properly, when the Aluminium itself was likely the key 'ignitory' element, alongside the intense 5G microwaves...)

The ones who will be impacted are the lower level workers who don't know the truth and aren't the ones making the real decisions. Poor guys/girls. What does it take to get people out of vicious cycles and become more perceptive?
 
Last edited:

GorillaHead

Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2018
Messages
2,372
Location
USA
I love technology as much as the other guy. We dont need 5g. 4g literally does the job. This is absurd surprised no one is fighting back with any bills
 

Auslander

Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2020
Messages
89
Nothing could have been done about 3g, or 4g, nothing will be done about 5g. Money talks and money rules.

So what can one do? Realistically nothing. The more you stress, the more you harm yourself on top of the harm done by all this EMF. Whats the point.
 

jzeno

Member
Joined
Nov 20, 2017
Messages
543
@GorillaHead It's not that simple that we can say "we don't need it so let's not do it". We don't have that luxury when there are plenty of countries that would love to overtake us or destroy us. Same principle as nukes. If China gets 5g, you can bet they will use it militarily and also within their economy and that could potentially reshape the world. US as a world leader is one thing (not perfect, but lots of benefits) but imagine a world dominated by a communist dictatorship. Asking for trouble. We don't have the luxury of saying 'no thanks' at this point. The situation is more complicated than you paint it. You have to consider global economic and national security consequences of saying 'no thanks' to the latest technology. It isn't a realistic choice. We have to figure out how to make it but make it safe. Or, figure out how destructive it is and avoid it all together.

That said, I have a lot of concerns about 5G, too. Not only health concerns, but how rapidly life would change and how quick the pace of life could potentially become among other concerns (connected everything, data, privacy concerns etc.).
 
Last edited:

Auslander

Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2020
Messages
89
@GorillaHead It's not that simple that we can say "we don't need it so let's not do it". We don't have that luxury when there are plenty of countries that would love to overtake us or destroy us. Same principle as nukes. If China gets 5g, you can bet they will use it militarily and also within their economy and that could potentially reshape the world. US as a world leader is one thing (not perfect, but lots of benefits) but imagine a world dominated by a communist dictatorship. Asking for trouble. We don't have the luxury of saying 'no thanks' at this point. The situation is more complicated than you paint it. You have to consider global economic and national security consequences of saying 'no thanks' to the latest technology. It isn't a realistic choice. We have to figure out how to make it but make it safe. Or, figure out how destructive it is and avoid it all together.

That said, I have a lot of concerns about 5G, too. Not only health concerns, but how rapidly life would change and how quick the pace of life could potentially become among other concerns (connected everything, data, privacy concerns etc.).

So would having to stream porno at 1080p instead of 8K present such a devastating economical disadvantage?

We've had all these xG technologies for how many decades now? What so revolutionary and live-changing has come out of them that we need to jump on the next xG wagon as a matter of economic survival? I mean life changing in a positive and in a substantial way.

It's just fluff.

Entertainment, fun, porn, lots of porn, and questionable convinience that we could easily do without are THE ONLY things that I can think of.

So what Im saying is that youre overblowing it quite a bit.
 

achillea

Member
Joined
Feb 29, 2016
Messages
903
5G is a weapon, a bioweapon and LED lights are antennas for 5G. One of the frequencies of the LED lights damages the ocular cells.
 

achillea

Member
Joined
Feb 29, 2016
Messages
903
Could This Outbreak Be Connected to 5G?


By Tom Cowan, M.D.

Because news outlets are blanketing us with updates on the coronavirus and the CDC’s prediction that a major epidemic is inevitable, I am getting a lot of questions about my understanding of this situation. Before I share my thoughts, I want to emphasize that this is an immense, controversial and emotionally charged subject, one that demands careful thought, research and action. I have no special insight into the genesis of this situation, besides the research I can do on my own. I also want to emphasize that anyone who doesn’t take the time and effort to look into this article by Martin Pall, PhD, and the book "The Invisible Rainbow" by Arthur Firstenberg will most likely not have the full picture.*

This article is only a brief look at what these two pioneers are telling us.

First, as I have previously explained, every instance of "influenza" epidemic in our modern era was associated with a radical change in the electrification of the earth immediately before the outbreak. One of the most studied of these pandemics was the 1918 Spanish Flu pandemic, which killed millions of people around the globe. The Spanish influenza pandemic actually started not in Spain but in the U.S. in early 1918. It was particularly associated with Naval bases and installations that were the first to install high-intensity radar.

The use of worldwide radar signals grew exponentially, and along with this expansion, the pandemic spread rapidly around the world, even appearing in places that had no contact with infected travelers. In other words, it appeared on naval ships and ports at identical times, essentially proving that an infectious or contagious etiology was impossible.

Also, paradoxically, the doctors at the time reported that their patients were not dying from respiratory complications, as one would expect from an infection with a respiratory virus; rather, as two physicians at the time stated:
"We have yet to receive a report of a case in which the time of coagulation was not prolonged."

Their patients were dying of internal hemorrhaging, bleeding into the brain and complications of the failure of the coagulation of the blood. This was a known side effect of the exposure of human blood to intense electrical exposures since at least 1779, when primitive electrical devices were first used on human subjects.

The 1956 flu pandemic directly followed the introduction of high-intensity radar installations off the coast of Alaska, Cape Cod and New York Harbor. For the first time, the entire globe was subjected to a level of radar waves never before experienced on earth. Within months of these installations going on line, the 1956 pandemic began.

In 1968 the "Hong Kong flu" pandemic swept the globe. This followed about eight months after the first satellites in the earth’s Van Allen radiation belt became operational. Again, doctors noticed their patients dying of acute hemorrhages rather than the respiratory complications one would expect from complications of the flu. The Van Allen belts are the protective electrical shield around the earth. Never before had humankind been so unwise as to put radiation-emitting electrical devices directly into orbit around the earth.

It seems that whenever there is a quantum leap in the intensity of electrical exposure, many people and many other living beings die. They die quickly and they die from the well-documented changes in their blood. This pattern has repeated itself over and over again.

This brings us to the coronavirus outbreak. As Dr. Pall has made perfectly clear, Wuhan City in China, where the outbreak started, was the initial site of the most intense rollout of 5G wireless technology on the planet. The rollout of 5G in our cities and towns across the globe also is coincident in time with the placement of thousands of radiation-emitting satellites in the ionosphere and magnetosphere. Although I’m not aware that hemorrhagic events are occurring during the current coronavirus outbreak, Dr. Pall summarizes a number of studies in which EMF radiation is a co-factor in either suppressing our immune response to viral infections, or itself makes viral infections more lethal. In either case, we are likely not dealing with a simple viral infection as much as the consequences of the intersection of a dramatic increase in our global EMF exposure, as well as a possible viral co-factor.

If a virus is involved, then the afflicted people have sufficiently weakened immune systems that offer little defense against this virus. This is a tragic situation, one that calls us to quickly wake up to the dangers of the further intensification of the electrification of the planet. This is a planetary emergency.
People, legitimately, are asking what they can do to help protect themselves and their families at this time. I haven’t dealt with any patients with this situation, so my answers are conjecture.

But, the first thing I would do is eliminate every source of EMFs you can from your life. Some might want to contact a building biologist and shield their home or their bedroom; others might decide that keeping their devices on airplane mode when not in use might be the best they can do. Please, though, educate yourself about this topic.
 

Luann

Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2016
Messages
1,615
Does 5G really have less of a penetrating effect than 4G? Is there a way to keep it out of the house?
 
Joined
Aug 14, 2019
Messages
159
Location
The Lone Star State
I've been on the fence regarding the dangers of 5g. I even have a 5g phone though the nearest antenna is an hour drive away. However, I plan on ditching the phone asap after what my mom experienced.

About a month ago she upgraded to the latest Samsung galaxy which is 5g capable. She lives in an area that has fully implemented 5g already. Within three weeks of using the phone, she lost a serious patch of hair which was discovered by her hair dresser.

In fact, she had visited her hair dresser to have her roots colored a week prior to upgrading to the phone. She went again a month later for the same hair treatment when her stylist discovered the huge missing patch. Needless to say, it freaked out both the stylist and my mom.

It certainly isn't stress, thyroid, or androgen induced alopecia as she has quarterly blood tests and everything is always in range. The missing patch aligns quite well with the location of the phone's upper antennae. She said that area was itchy and hot to the touch, indicating inflammation. She intuitively stopped using the phone immediately, as it's the only thing in her life that had changed since her previous stylist appointment. Since then her hair has begun to regrow. I've attached pictures of the damage.

She had one doctor confirm it was a radiation burn while her dermatologist was very reluctant to say as much, given the potential implications. Her carrier fortunately gave her a full refund and admitted that she wasn't the first person that this has happened to.

I came across a few articles mentioning that Corona patients often have alopecia. Naturally, the articles place the blame on the virus. However, I am convinced that this and many of the symptoms people experience are a result of 5g radiation.
IMG-20201030-WA0001.jpg
IMG-20201030-WA0002.jpg
 

RealNeat

Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2019
Messages
2,344
Location
HI
That article got called out and some dude tried to call him a quack and debunk it, it was hilarious, ad hominem attacks to be expected. You can find it in Scientific American as it's one of the first to come up on google. Go figure.

please know that aluminum bug screen is a really cheap and easy way to built a faraday cage. There are tons of tutorials online. Make a big wood frame over your bed and staple the screen in an overlapping fashion. You can even make a door.

extreme times call for extreme measures.
Watch there will be a full transition to plastic only bug screen.
 

Ideonaut

Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2015
Messages
499
Location
Seattle
It is always pleasing to see that a bastion of corrupt, institutionalized science such as the Scientific American is publishing editorials exposing 5G wireless technology for what it is - a known human carcinogen that has also been already causally linked to virtually every chronic health condition known to medicine. Considering this damning evidence, to have FDA and FCC reaffirm the "safety" of exposure limit standards adopted in the mid 1990s is a travesty and a sad testimony about just how profoundly those agencies have become "captured" by the very industries they are supposed to regulate and reign-in. What's even worse is that (as the article itself bemoans) 5G wireless technology will not replace right away 4G/3G or even older technologies, for which there is already a mountain of evidence proving their detrimental effects on health. Btw, guess what the wireless industry told us when it was deploying 2G/3G/4G decades ago? The all too familiar - "trust us, it's safe". So, not only are the same unfounded claims of safety now being made about 5G as well but this new and untested technology will co-exist with the older (and provably dangerous) technologies for decades to come. As such, the negative effects on health may very well be synergistic. In an ironic twist of fate, there are rumors that one of the first deployments of 5G in government buildings may very well be at FDA and FCC locations. Maybe only if there is a dramatic drop in health among agency staffers will make them finally start taking the risks of these technologies seriously...

We Have No Reason to Believe 5G Is Safe

"...The chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) recently announced through a press release that the commission will soon reaffirm the radio frequency radiation (RFR) exposure limits that the FCC adopted in the late 1990s. These limits are based upon a behavioral change in rats exposed to microwave radiation and were designed to protect us from short-term heating risks due to RFR exposure. Yet, since the FCC adopted these limits based largely on research from the 1980s, the preponderance of peer-reviewed research, more than 500 studies, have found harmful biologic or health effects from exposure to RFR at intensities too low to cause significant heating."

"...Citing this large body of research, more than 240 scientists who have published peer-reviewed research on the biologic and health effects of nonionizing electromagnetic fields (EMF) signed the International EMF Scientist Appeal, which calls for stronger exposure limits. The appeal makes the following assertions: “Numerous recent scientific publications have shown that EMF affects living organisms at levels well below most international and national guidelines. Effects include increased cancer risk, cellular stress, increase in harmful free radicals, genetic damages, structural and functional changes of the reproductive system, learning and memory deficits, neurological disorders, and negative impacts on general well-being in humans. Damage goes well beyond the human race, as there is growing evidence of harmful effects to both plant and animal life.”

"...The FCC’s RFR exposure limits regulate the intensity of exposure, taking into account the frequency of the carrier waves, but ignore the signaling properties of the RFR. Along with the patterning and duration of exposures, certain characteristics of the signal (e.g., pulsing, polarization) increase the biologic and health impacts of the exposure. New exposure limits are needed which account for these differential effects. Moreover, these limits should be based on a biological effect, not a change in a laboratory rat’s behavior. The World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified RFR as "possibly carcinogenic to humans" in 2011. Last year, a $30 million study conducted by the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) found “clear evidence” that two years of exposure to cell phone RFR increased cancer in male rats and damaged DNA in rats and mice of both sexes. The Ramazzini Institute in Italy replicated the key finding of the NTP using a different carrier frequency and much weaker exposure to cell phone radiation over the life of the rats."

"...Based upon the research published since 2011, including human and animal studies and mechanistic data, the IARC has recently prioritized RFR to be reviewed again in the next five years. Since many EMF scientists believe we now have sufficient evidence to consider RFR as either a probable or known human carcinogen, the IARC will likely upgrade the carcinogenic potential of RFR in the near future. Nonetheless, without conducting a formal risk assessment or a systematic review of the research on RFR health effects, the FDA recently reaffirmed the FCC’s 1996 exposure limits in a letter to the FCC, stating that the agency had “concluded that no changes to the current standards are warranted at this time,” and that “NTP’s experimental findings should not be applied to human cell phone usage.” The letter stated that “the available scientific evidence to date does not support adverse health effects in humans due to exposures at or under the current limits.”

"...Millimeter waves are mostly absorbed within a few millimeters of human skin and in the surface layers of the cornea. Short-term exposure can have adverse physiological effects in the peripheral nervous system, the immune system and the cardiovascular system. The research suggests that long-term exposure may pose health risks to the skin (e.g., melanoma), the eyes (e.g., ocular melanoma) and the testes (e.g., sterility). Since 5G is a new technology, there is no research on health effects, so we are “flying blind” to quote a U.S. senator. However, we have considerable evidence about the harmful effects of 2G and 3G. Little is known the effects of exposure to 4G, a 10-year-old technology, because governments have been remiss in funding this research. Meanwhile, we are seeing increases in certain types of head and neck tumors in tumor registries, which may be at least partially attributable to the proliferation of cell phone radiation. These increases are consistent with results from case-control studies of tumor risk in heavy cell phone users."

"...5G will not replace 4G; it will accompany 4G for the near future and possibly over the long term. If there are synergistic effects from simultaneous exposures to multiple types of RFR, our overall risk of harm from RFR may increase substantially. Cancer is not the only risk as there is considerable evidence that RFR causes neurological disorders and reproductive harm, likely due to oxidative stress. As a society, should we invest hundreds of billions of dollars deploying 5G, a cellular technology that requires the installation of 800,000 or more new cell antenna sites in the U.S. close to where we live, work and play? Instead, we should support the recommendations of the 250 scientists and medical doctors who signed the 5G Appeal that calls for an immediate moratorium on the deployment of 5G and demand that our government fund the research needed to adopt biologically based exposure limits that protect our health and safety."
An interesting update by Firstenberg on the negative effects of 5g and other such radiation directly on mitochondrial respiration and the electron transport chain.


INTERFERING WITH THE FIRES OF LIFE

Eating and breathing are the fundamental requirements of life. But the energy for life also requires combustion: the food we eat must combine with the oxygen we breathe. This combustion takes place inside our cells in tiny structures called mitochondria. And within our mitochondria are even tinier structures called electron transport chains. These are the invisible wires that carry the electrons generated by the digestion of our food to the molecules of oxygen supplied by our lungs and blood. Anything that interferes with these tiny electric currents interferes with life.

Wireless technology, by bombarding our cells with complex, pulsed, modulated electromagnetic fields, plays havoc with these currents of life. The whole process of eating, breathing, digesting, and producing energy -- the process of living -- slows down. We are seeing the consequences everywhere.

Diabetes, Heart Disease and Cancer

When the electron-generating enzymes in our mitochondria cannot keep up with the volume of sugars, fats and proteins being supplied by our digestive system, those components of our diet accumulate in our blood.

The accumulation of sugar in the blood, and its excretion by the kidneys, is called diabetes, a disease that was so rare before 1860 that most doctors never saw a case during their lifetime. Eating sugar, no matter how much, once did not cause diabetes.

The accumulation of fats in the blood, and their deposition in the walls of our arteries, including our coronary arteries, causes heart disease, which was uncommon in 1850 and almost never occurred except in infants and the elderly. Cholesterol, and high-fat diets, once did not cause heart disease. Later, the same changes occurred in zoo animals. Heart disease, for example, did not exist in any animals in the Philadelphia Zoo before 1945. And the first heart attacks ever recorded in zoo animals occurred in 1955. Yet sclerosis of the coronary arteries increased so rapidly that by 1963, over 90 percent of all mammals and 72 percent of all birds that died in the zoo had coronary disease, while 24 percent of the mammals and 10 percent of the birds had had heart attacks. Similar trends were reported from the London Zoo and the Zoo of Antwerp.

When our cells are starved of oxygen because they cannot use all the oxygen we breathe, sometimes they revert to anaerobic (non-oxygen using) metabolism and become cancerous. Cancer, too, was once quite rare. In 1850 it was the 25th most common cause of death in the U.S., behind accidental drowning. Even tobacco smoking, before about 1920, did not cause lung cancer. And during the 1930s and 1940s the rates of both malignant and benign tumors increased dramatically among many families of mammals and birds at the Philadelphia Zoo.

The modern pandemic of obesity is also an electrical disease caused not by overeating and lack of exercise but by the same slowing down of metabolism. Depending on our genetic disposition, our bodies either excrete a large portion of our digested food unused, causing weight loss, or else convert much of the carbohydrates and fats we eat into fatty tissues, causing obesity. Obesity has been steadily increasing, worldwide, not only in humans, but in zoo animals, laboratory animals, pets, farm animals, and wild animals, due to the increase in radiation.

Longevity

Contrary to popular belief, the lengthening of the human life span is not due to modern medicine. It is instead caused by the interference with metabolism that slows down our rate of living. And also contrary to popular belief, this is not a good thing: we are all living slower, sicker, less vital lives. This was observed in 1880 by Dr. George Miller Beard in his book on neurasthenia: “Although [neurasthenia] may tend to prolong life and to protect the system against febrile and inflammatory disease, yet the amount of suffering that [it] cause is enormous.” And the same observation was made by Yasuo Kagawa in 1978 about the remarkable increase in lifespan in Japan: “Extended life expectancy but increased diseases.”

This, too, has been occurring in both humans and animals.

The evidence for what I have summarized so far is set out in detail in chapters of my book, The Invisible Rainbow: A History of Electricity and Life: Chapter 11, “Irritable Heart”; Chapter 12, “The Transformation of Diabetes”; Chapter 13, “Cancer and the Starvation of Life”; and Chapter 14, “Suspended Animation.”

The rest of this newsletter is devoted to additional evidence that has been brought to my attention only recently.

Normal Body Temperature is Decreasing

Dousing the fires of life by interfering with metabolism might be expected to lower the body’s temperature. And it is so.

Two weeks ago, Dr. Mark Thompson, a biochemist in the UK, called my attention to a paper published by a group of doctors at the Stanford University School of Medicine. They pointed out that normal body temperature is no longer 37° Celsius (98.6° Fahrenheit), but that it in fact has been steadily declining for close to 150 years. Their paper, published January 7, 2020, is titled “Decreasing human body temperature in the United States since the Industrial Revolution.” The data they relied on were hundreds of thousands of temperature measurements taken from three databases: the Union Army Veterans of the Civil War (measurement years 1862-1930); the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey I (NHANES) (1971-1975); and the Stanford Translational Research Integrated Database Environment (STRIDE) (2007-2017).

Because these scientists could not figure out what could make body temperature drop so steadily, they attributed it to “physiologic evolution” instead of to an environmental factor.

Another study, this time of the Tsimane’ people in the Bolivian Amazon, came to my attention a few days ago. It is titled “Rapidly declining body temperature in a tropical human population.” Most Tsimane’ villages still have no electricity, but in 2004, many of the villagers acquired cell phones, radios, antennas, light bulbs, and solar panels, and in 2009 a 374-kilometer, 115-kilovolt transmission line was completed through the area. The line runs close to about a 50-kilometer stretch of the Maniqui River, where many of the villages are located. Today there is cell phone service for at least 25 kilometers, and probably farther, in every direction from the only town, San Borja. 16,800 measurements of body temperature were made between 2003 and 2018. During this period of time, normal body temperature plummeted among these people from 37.4° C (99.3° F) to 36.4° C (97.5° F).

I have charted all the data from both these papers on the same graph:






[TR]
[TD]




[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]
3e85da0e1ff4642189bd2b9baa217f9f35b86477975b87d0c4ef8cda90a21ed4.jpg

[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]
One detail that the Stanford scientists ignored is the sharp drop in body temperature that occurred in the U.S. when it entered World War I in 1917 and that continued through most of the 1920s. This is consistent with the deployment of immensely powerful low frequency radio stations by the United States in order to reach Navy ships overseas during the war, most of which were dismantled or replaced by lower power shortwave stations by the end of the 1920s.

The role of electricity and radio in causing influenza, including the Spanish influenza of 1918, is also explored in my book: Chapter 7, “Acute Electrical Illness”; Chapter 8, “Mystery on the Isle of Wight”; and Chapter 9, “Earth’s Electric Envelope.”

Cancer is Not a Genetic Disease

Additional evidence that cancer is a metabolic mitochondrial disease has also come to my attention recently. Although modern oncologists are wedded to the idea that cancer is caused by genetic mutations caused by environmental toxins, a rival theory, formulated a century ago by Otto Warburg, holds that cancer is a metabolic disease caused by lack of oxygen, and that carcinogens cause cancer by damaging cellular respiration.

Warburg based his hypothesis on the observation that cancer cells do not require oxygen, and this observation is behind the modern method of diagnosing and staging cancer using positron emission tomography, or PET scanning. Because anaerobic metabolism is inefficient and consumes glucose at a tremendous rate, PET scans can easily find tumors in the body by their more rapid uptake of radioactive glucose.

Now, new research by Thomas Seyfried at Boston College has virtually proven that cancer is not caused by genetic mutations. He reviewed evidence from nuclear transfer experiments done in his own and other laboratories in recent years that prove that it is the mitochondria-containing cytoplasm, and not the DNA-containing nucleus, that determines whether a cell is cancerous or not.

When the nucleus of a cancer cell is combined with the cytoplasm of a normal cell, the resulting fused cell grows normally when implanted into an animal. Conversely, when the nucleus of a normal cell is combined with the cytoplasm of a cancer cell, the fused cell forms a tumor when implanted. It is the mitochondria, and not the DNA, that determines whether a cell is cancerous or not.

“In contrast to the somatic mutation theory,” writes Seyfried, “emerging evidence suggests that cancer is a mitochondrial metabolic disease, according to the original theory of Otto Warburg.” Cancer, he says, is caused by lack of oxygen, and DNA mutations are a secondary effect of that lack. “It has been my view,” he writes, “that the plethora of random somatic mutations seen in tumors of almost every kind arise ultimately as downstream effects of insufficient respiration with compensatory fermentation.”

The prevailing, mistaken view of cancer is responsible for the artificial, wrong, and devastating distinction made by scientists, governments, and the World Health Organization between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation. Ionizing radiation is energetic enough to knock electrons off of atoms and create ions, and anything that can ionize your DNA is supposed to be able to cause genetic mutations which is supposed to be the cause of cancer. Therefore, according to the prevailing theory, wavelengths much shorter than light waves (high-energy ultraviolet, X-rays, and gamma rays) are dangerous and wavelengths longer than light waves (infrared, radio waves, and power line radiation) are safe, and can be pulsed, modulated and manipulated, and sent all over the planet with impunity.

Seyfried and his colleagues have virtually proven that this is wrong.
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]
Arthur Firstenberg
Author, The Invisible Rainbow: A History of Electricity and Life
P.O. Box 6216
Santa Fe, NM 87502
[/TD]
[/TR]
 

Sugartits

Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2020
Messages
63
My neighbor one street over from me was paid to allow a 5G tower to be erected in his front yard. My bedroom window looks right at it. I soon noticed that I would often wake up in the middle of the night to my entire body vibrating uncontrollably.

At first I attributed it to menopause, but eventually I realized that the buzzing happened during "Amber Alerts" and "Silver Alerts", and as soon as the alert ended, the buzzing stopped instantly, like a flipped switch. For those who may not know what an Amber Alert is, that is when a child or an elderly person goes missing, and the cell phone towers send out a signal to everybody's cell phones at the same time with a description of the person so that they can be on the lookout for them.

I moved to a downstairs bedroom to sleep, where I my bed is now slightly below the level of the ground. I have felt the buzzing only a couple times since then, and it is much less violent now that I am not face to face with the tower anymore. I do not expect a long lifespan, but fortunately death doesn't really scare me.
 

jay123

Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2017
Messages
288
It is always pleasing to see that a bastion of corrupt, institutionalized science such as the Scientific American is publishing editorials exposing 5G wireless technology for what it is - a known human carcinogen that has also been already causally linked to virtually every chronic health condition known to medicine. Considering this damning evidence, to have FDA and FCC reaffirm the "safety" of exposure limit standards adopted in the mid 1990s is a travesty and a sad testimony about just how profoundly those agencies have become "captured" by the very industries they are supposed to regulate and reign-in. What's even worse is that (as the article itself bemoans) 5G wireless technology will not replace right away 4G/3G or even older technologies, for which there is already a mountain of evidence proving their detrimental effects on health. Btw, guess what the wireless industry told us when it was deploying 2G/3G/4G decades ago? The all too familiar - "trust us, it's safe". So, not only are the same unfounded claims of safety now being made about 5G as well but this new and untested technology will co-exist with the older (and provably dangerous) technologies for decades to come. As such, the negative effects on health may very well be synergistic. In an ironic twist of fate, there are rumors that one of the first deployments of 5G in government buildings may very well be at FDA and FCC locations. Maybe only if there is a dramatic drop in health among agency staffers will make them finally start taking the risks of these technologies seriously...

We Have No Reason to Believe 5G Is Safe

"...The chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) recently announced through a press release that the commission will soon reaffirm the radio frequency radiation (RFR) exposure limits that the FCC adopted in the late 1990s. These limits are based upon a behavioral change in rats exposed to microwave radiation and were designed to protect us from short-term heating risks due to RFR exposure. Yet, since the FCC adopted these limits based largely on research from the 1980s, the preponderance of peer-reviewed research, more than 500 studies, have found harmful biologic or health effects from exposure to RFR at intensities too low to cause significant heating."

"...Citing this large body of research, more than 240 scientists who have published peer-reviewed research on the biologic and health effects of nonionizing electromagnetic fields (EMF) signed the International EMF Scientist Appeal, which calls for stronger exposure limits. The appeal makes the following assertions: “Numerous recent scientific publications have shown that EMF affects living organisms at levels well below most international and national guidelines. Effects include increased cancer risk, cellular stress, increase in harmful free radicals, genetic damages, structural and functional changes of the reproductive system, learning and memory deficits, neurological disorders, and negative impacts on general well-being in humans. Damage goes well beyond the human race, as there is growing evidence of harmful effects to both plant and animal life.”

"...The FCC’s RFR exposure limits regulate the intensity of exposure, taking into account the frequency of the carrier waves, but ignore the signaling properties of the RFR. Along with the patterning and duration of exposures, certain characteristics of the signal (e.g., pulsing, polarization) increase the biologic and health impacts of the exposure. New exposure limits are needed which account for these differential effects. Moreover, these limits should be based on a biological effect, not a change in a laboratory rat’s behavior. The World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified RFR as "possibly carcinogenic to humans" in 2011. Last year, a $30 million study conducted by the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) found “clear evidence” that two years of exposure to cell phone RFR increased cancer in male rats and damaged DNA in rats and mice of both sexes. The Ramazzini Institute in Italy replicated the key finding of the NTP using a different carrier frequency and much weaker exposure to cell phone radiation over the life of the rats."

"...Based upon the research published since 2011, including human and animal studies and mechanistic data, the IARC has recently prioritized RFR to be reviewed again in the next five years. Since many EMF scientists believe we now have sufficient evidence to consider RFR as either a probable or known human carcinogen, the IARC will likely upgrade the carcinogenic potential of RFR in the near future. Nonetheless, without conducting a formal risk assessment or a systematic review of the research on RFR health effects, the FDA recently reaffirmed the FCC’s 1996 exposure limits in a letter to the FCC, stating that the agency had “concluded that no changes to the current standards are warranted at this time,” and that “NTP’s experimental findings should not be applied to human cell phone usage.” The letter stated that “the available scientific evidence to date does not support adverse health effects in humans due to exposures at or under the current limits.”

"...Millimeter waves are mostly absorbed within a few millimeters of human skin and in the surface layers of the cornea. Short-term exposure can have adverse physiological effects in the peripheral nervous system, the immune system and the cardiovascular system. The research suggests that long-term exposure may pose health risks to the skin (e.g., melanoma), the eyes (e.g., ocular melanoma) and the testes (e.g., sterility). Since 5G is a new technology, there is no research on health effects, so we are “flying blind” to quote a U.S. senator. However, we have considerable evidence about the harmful effects of 2G and 3G. Little is known the effects of exposure to 4G, a 10-year-old technology, because governments have been remiss in funding this research. Meanwhile, we are seeing increases in certain types of head and neck tumors in tumor registries, which may be at least partially attributable to the proliferation of cell phone radiation. These increases are consistent with results from case-control studies of tumor risk in heavy cell phone users."

"...5G will not replace 4G; it will accompany 4G for the near future and possibly over the long term. If there are synergistic effects from simultaneous exposures to multiple types of RFR, our overall risk of harm from RFR may increase substantially. Cancer is not the only risk as there is considerable evidence that RFR causes neurological disorders and reproductive harm, likely due to oxidative stress. As a society, should we invest hundreds of billions of dollars deploying 5G, a cellular technology that requires the installation of 800,000 or more new cell antenna sites in the U.S. close to where we live, work and play? Instead, we should support the recommendations of the 250 scientists and medical doctors who signed the 5G Appeal that calls for an immediate moratorium on the deployment of 5G and demand that our government fund the research needed to adopt biologically based exposure limits that protect our health and safety."
Oh man. I just saw this as I posted a Scientific American article from 2007 talking about radiation and the growth of fungus.
 
OP
haidut

haidut

Member
Forum Supporter
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Messages
19,798
Location
USA / Europe
Oh man. I just saw this as I posted a Scientific American article from 2007 talking about radiation and the growth of fungus.

That is fascinating! I guess it will be fungi that will survive the nuclear holocaust (if there ever is one). Reminds me of the study on bacteria that can eat pure electrons as a source of energy.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom