5G is coming despite health warnings from scientists
- Thread starter lord_galathon
- Start date
Loki
Legacy Member
In atmosphere, true. But what if you slapped the chicken in space?
SilverViper
Premium
This is more than technically incorrect, it is also totally absurd.
Stirl_ae86
Legacy Member
The only guy in the thread that posted tinfoil hat BS is reminding us that this thread is about tinfoil hat BS.
You're trolling yourself or what? Do you post on your own Facebook wall too?
Spaceman Spiff
Well-known member
Do you understand the notion of sarcasm or do we have to explain it to you? Or is it because you're trying to follow a conversation in a language you don't speak?
Stirl_ae86
Legacy Member
Sorry I'm not fluent in troll
SilverViper
Premium
Popcorn only.
lord_galathon
Well-known member
illuminance
Legacy Member
-
Veteran MD Drops Bombshell About 5G Technology Dangers At 5G Hearing
Dr. Sharon Goldberg, an internal medicine physician & professor gives her testimony regarding 5g technology dangers specifically involving electromagnetic radiation. She says: "Wireless radiation has biological effects. Period."
"I'm already on 6G bro. I glow in the dark." lol
Veteran MD Drops Bombshell About 5G Technology Dangers At 5G Hearing
Dr. Sharon Goldberg, an internal medicine physician & professor gives her testimony regarding 5g technology dangers specifically involving electromagnetic radiation. She says: "Wireless radiation has biological effects. Period."
"I'm already on 6G bro. I glow in the dark." lol
Loki
Legacy Member
She mixes a whole bunch of things (1 in 2 Hispanics have diabetes, therefore RF is bad?, and what the heck is dirty electricity?)
But, I took a look in pubmed, since the abstracts are all public. There are a number of papers on 2.4GHz causing various types of damage in rats, all around 20+ mW/kg body weight. So if you're a regular 65kg human absorbing 1.3W of power (and thus carrying about 26 cell phones, all of which are on a call and all of which channel all their energy into the 2.4GHz frequency for some reason), then yes, maybe don't do that.
And before you freak out wifi routers put out around 100mW at the antenna. Don't eat your router while it's on, or you'll get a tenth of the dose those rats got.
Also don't microwave your rats.
But, I took a look in pubmed, since the abstracts are all public. There are a number of papers on 2.4GHz causing various types of damage in rats, all around 20+ mW/kg body weight. So if you're a regular 65kg human absorbing 1.3W of power (and thus carrying about 26 cell phones, all of which are on a call and all of which channel all their energy into the 2.4GHz frequency for some reason), then yes, maybe don't do that.
And before you freak out wifi routers put out around 100mW at the antenna. Don't eat your router while it's on, or you'll get a tenth of the dose those rats got.
Also don't microwave your rats.
Larkee
Well-known member
Near field and far field, there's a difference, a BIG difference. Le Canada a etablis un code de securité qui s'appelle le code 6. Oui la taille des cellules devient de plus en plus petite et le but est d'augmenter la capacite. La bonne nouvelle est que le terrain est a couvrir est de plus en plus petit pour chaque cellule, donc la puissance de transimission de plus en plus faible. Quand j'ai commencé dans le domaine, on avait des tours a 130W ERP pis des telephones a 0.6W. Tout le monde est encore en vie donc avec les puissance bcp moindre, les risques sont encore plus faibles.