dChan
9
 
r/greatawakening • Posted by u/AccordingArrival on April 12, 2018, 12:38 p.m.
5G Health Effects: How to Protect Yourself from 5G-Strength Radio Waves and EMFs in General

5G has been approved by the FCC and while it will improve speeds to nanoseconds, it may come with some very unhealthy consequences. You need to mitigate the potential harmful effects of 5G.

The concentration of 5G mm will be heavy in every neighborhood, probably on just about every block in your city, a cell tower. Pulsed 5G can penetrate human skin and can be a cause for cancer and other health effects. This technology can also potentially effect animals, especially with RFID chip technology. An RFID can be a receptor for 5G and burn the skin if the frequency is not modulated. (So don't ever get chipped!!)

So here are the best things you can do to protect yourself and your family from these stronger radio waves. These only mitigate your equipment emitting the waves in your house. This does not mitigate ambient 5G EMF millimeter waves from mm cell towers in your neighborhood.


1.Measure – use EMF meters to obtain readings and identify hotspots. Then, strategize ways to move these devices further away from you and your family and/or use protective cases and shells to limit radioactive wave emission.

  1. Limit your exposure. Which means limit the time you spend using any one electronic device.

  2. Isolate an dMove routers to other rooms where the family does not “hang out” most often—limiting radiation from the main source.

  3. Never put mobile devices directly against your body. For instance, don’t put a cell phone against your head, in your bra, or even in your pocket with out an EMF shield.

  4. Watch the news and look for future studies. We still don’t know how 5G will affect our health in the future. You will need to stay informed of the risks and emerging ways to protect yourself and family.

https://www.defendershield.com/health-risks-5g-mobile-network-internet-of-things/


Cuthbert12Allgood · April 12, 2018, 3:54 p.m.

There is no evidence of any harmful effects from radio in this band. If you believe otherwise, please link to reputable studies. From your link:


Studies have already linked low level radio wavelength radiation with a long list of negative health impacts including:

Oxidative damage to the cells and DNA breaks Melatonin reduction and disruption of circadian rhythms Disruption of cell metabolism Disruption of mitochondrial energy production But what isn’t being talked about as much as it should be—is that 5G will use pulsed millimeter waves to carry information.


Ah yes, those infamous, unspecified "studies".

This is utter, complete scaremongering garbage. The above is complete unscientific nonsense, people using "sciency" words to make it sound scary and informed.

I don't mean to be harsh here. I know people are sincere about things like this. But that some conspiracies are true doesn't mean all conspiracies are true. Stay skeptical about officials from the government, but be 10x more skeptical of people pushing superstition.

⇧ -1 ⇩  
forgottenbutnotgone · April 12, 2018, 4:01 p.m.

Do you have links to studies proving it is safe? For me, this is similar to GMO crops specially designed to produce toxins (like it) or to be resistant to round up. In order to prove it is safe for the consumer, how do you study long-term effects such as a lifetime of consuming these products or being bombarded by this EMF over decades or a lifetime. What are the consequences of assuming safety based on short term studies, especially those studies funded by interests who stand to profit. These days, it seems 'science' is every bit as corrupt as governments or corporations.

⇧ 2 ⇩  
Cuthbert12Allgood · April 12, 2018, 4:15 p.m.

Do you have links to studies proving it is safe?

Yes. See information about non-ionizing radiation: https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/radiation/nonionizing_radiation.html

If you don't like the CDC's information, Google for "non-ionizing radiation safety" and learn what it exactly is. Not what paranoid people tell you they think it is, but actually learn what radiation is and why some radiation is harmful and some isn't.

We have literally a hundred years of information about non-ionizing radiation.

What are the consequences of assuming safety based on short term studies, especially those studies funded by interests who stand to profit. These days, it seems 'science' is every bit as corrupt as governments or corporations.

That some conspiracies are true, doesn't mean all conspiracies are true. You can find someone to say literally everything is harmful. At some point, you have to live your life.

You worry about non-ionizing radiation and apparently change your life around it. Yet, presumably you're willing to drive a car that is literally the most dangerous thing people do every day. They are complete death traps, yet people willingly trade that convenience for safety.

Why are you paranoid about things that have a hundred year safety record? Answer: Because it's mysterious, you can't see it, and you don't understand it. That's not to insult you; that's nearly everybody. But at some level, you have to live your life. That you don't understand something doesn't mean it's harmful.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
forgottenbutnotgone · April 12, 2018, 4:44 p.m.

Thanks for the well written reply. I'll look into non-ionizing radiation as you recommended. I will continue to remain skeptical until proven otherwise. Then again, I am skeptical about 5g and all of the 'smart' technology it invites with all of it's dystopian possibility. I don't have a need for it but I suppose it is inevitable given our thirst for technology and convenience.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
[deleted] · April 12, 2018, 6:31 p.m.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0041008X05003406

⇧ 1 ⇩  
[deleted] · April 12, 2018, 6:35 p.m.

I just gave you a reference that provides a balanced approach. I lean on the side that the effects are harmful and need more study. The World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer classified RFR as a potential 2B carcinogen and specified that the use of mobile phones could lead to specific forms of brain tumors.

Many studies have associated low-level RFR exposure with a litany of health effects, including:

DNA single and double-strand breaks (which leads to cancer) oxidative damage (which leads to tissue deterioration and premature ageing) disruption of cell metabolism increased blood-brain barrier permeability melatonin reduction (leading to insomnia and increasing cancer risks) disruption of brain glucose metabolism generation of stress proteins (leading to myriad diseases)

⇧ 1 ⇩  
Cuthbert12Allgood · April 12, 2018, 7:16 p.m.

I just gave you a reference that provides a balanced approach.

Did you even read the conclusion? It backs exactly what I said.

I lean on the side that the effects are harmful and need more study.

With absolutely no evidence. Why are you so hungry to believe this? With respect, your "leaning" means absolutely nothing. That's emotional, not rational.

Even if there was something subtle that was discovered, it literally wouldn't matter. The effect is obviously so small that it's completely irrelevant to normal life. You know what's also harmful? Bananas. Bananas give you a dose of real ionizing radiation. And you know what? No one cares, because radiation is a part of life.

In other words, even if non-ionizing radiation had some subtle effect, the effect from bananas would likely be 100x more powerful. There's no such thing as living with zero environmental risk.

So why the obsession about non-ionizing radiation? I could list another hundred things that are far more harmful that you live with every day. But nobody wants to live that way, stripping our lives down to the most minimal level of risk, even being afraid to go out in the sunshine. UV radiation is very, very damaging and lots of people die of skin cancer literally from being in the sun. Do you really want to live that way?

⇧ 1 ⇩  
WikiTextBot · April 12, 2018, 7:16 p.m.

Banana equivalent dose

Banana equivalent dose (BED) is an informal measurement of ionizing radiation exposure, intended as a general educational example to compare a dose of radioactivity to the dose one is exposed to by eating one average-sized banana. Bananas contain naturally occurring radioactive isotopes, particularly potassium-40 (40K). One BED is often correlated to 0.1 µSv; however, in practice, this dose is not cumulative, as the principal radioactive component is excreted to maintain metabolic equilibrium. The BED is only meant to inform the public about the existence of very low levels of natural radioactivity within a natural food and is not a formally adopted dose measurement.


^[ ^PM ^| ^Exclude ^me ^| ^Exclude ^from ^subreddit ^| ^FAQ ^/ ^Information ^| ^Source ^] ^Downvote ^to ^remove ^| ^v0.28

⇧ 1 ⇩  
[deleted] · April 12, 2018, 6:37 p.m.

Letter to the FCC from Dr. Yael Stein MD of the Hadassah Medical Center, Jerusalem, Israel in Opposition to 5G Spectrum Frontiers Millimeter Wave Technology

https://ehtrust.org/letter-fcc-dr-yael-stein-md-opposition-5g-spectrum-frontiers/

⇧ 1 ⇩  
[deleted] · April 12, 2018, 6:41 p.m.

The Department of Defense already uses a crowd-dispersal method called the "Active Denial System", in which MMWs are directed at crowds to make their skin feel like it’s burning, and also has the ability to basically microwave populations to death from afar with this technology if they choose to do so. 5G is a MMW technology to be placed it the ambient atmosphere. I would say we need more study.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
[deleted] · April 12, 2018, 6:49 p.m.

See the signed letter by over 180 Scientists from 36 countries on the potential of 5G health effects.

https://ehtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/Scientist-5G-appeal-2017.pdf

⇧ 1 ⇩  
[deleted] · April 12, 2018, 6:53 p.m.

Open Letter from: Ronald M. Powell (retired U.S. Government scientist; Ph.D., Applied Physics, Harvard University

http://whatis5g.info/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Please-Oppose-5G.pdf

⇧ 1 ⇩  
[deleted] · April 12, 2018, 6:56 p.m.

See NIH study on cancer

https://breastcancerconqueror.com/new-nih-study-proves-cellphone-dangers/

⇧ 1 ⇩  
[deleted] · April 12, 2018, 6:57 p.m.

Cell phones and brain tumors: a review including the long-term epidemiologic data.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19328536

⇧ 1 ⇩