>>26000 PB Question on 5G freqency matching Active Denial Military Frequency for Crowd Control

>>26007

>>26020

Hi anons, thanks for the response. Had a question about it.

You are right, that is a typo, unintended.

Here is what I had put together in pic related from looking it up and because info graphic, I had to put sauce in the graphic too.

According to my research 5G will run between 30GHZ and 300Ghz (see the article in the infographic, lower left side, copy pasta with with sauce above it)

Military Transmitter Active Denial System (drawing to the right, according to military reports runs at 96GHZ which is right in the middle lower third of 5 G capability.

Unless GHZ and Ghz are somehow different.

Is there a difference between?

Because if not, it looks to me like 5G towers will be capable of acting like Military Active Denial systems with a simple change in frequency.

Is there bad info in here? If so, anyone have sauce?

If not, I am left with the same conclusion.

5G in the wrong hands could be a bad thing.

>>26181

Not Opining.

Asking Questions which is why I named the pic as I did.

Have read enough on radiation and radiation powers on current towers to know that the 5G needs to be looked at in a serious way, for biological exposure.

Am biologist.

As far as "standards" go, I would not defer to the FCC at all. Not even close.

That is like depending on the FDA for food safety standards. Corruption and revolving doors to corporation abound.

Had a friend who took care of the towers as employment. Died of cancer.

So, yeah.

Not the FCC.

How about maybe ham radio guys. Trust them more.

Light frequencies run along a frequency band.

Can be used for good while simultaneously being VERY dangerous.

X ray is excellent example, but just one.

Microwave another.

Just want real info on the frequencies of planned 5G vs the current Active denial military crowd control device.

These towers will only be 1000 feet apart.

>>26151

See

>>26198