5G madness in Japan

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: muzzleflash

NIH says HSP causes cancer

The NIH doesn't say that, Stuart K. Calderwood does. And you modified the title of the article. Why?

It says that HSPs are a problem with existing cancers. It does not say that thermal effects cause cancer.

My browser closes ATS any time I Google anything so I wrote an ad hoc article link title.

I can't copy paste a title because I had the actual link as my copy, which is the important part.

You are nitpicking now.

NIH doesnt publish gibberish the author of that paper is being supported by them.

Nitpicking...
Basically your issue is my style not my actual data.

a reply to: Phage

It absolutely says thermal radiation causes DNA damage and increases cancer formation.

Anyone here can read it themselves.

Proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.
It's a Fact.

originally posted by: muzzleflash
It's not 5g.

Please guys do we need to go back to physics 101?

5g waves pass right through you and only the tiniest fraction might hit an atom.

False

I can't believe no one has called you out on this Mr. Scientist,

5g is non-ionizing and can't even pass through your skin let alone through your body LOL~!

The waves bounce off anything of matter.

Peace out

a reply to: muzzleflash

NIH doesnt publish gibberish the author of that paper is being supported by them.

The NIH did not publish the article. Trend in Biochemical Sciences did.

NIH does not support the author.

PMC is not a publisher and does not publish journal articles itself. Once a journal as a whole has been accepted for inclusion in PMC, NLM does not judge the quality of individual articles and relies on the scientific publishing process to identify and address problems through published comments, corrections, and retractions. NIH and other funders do not dictate the journals in which their funded authors may publish. Consequently, author manuscripts in PMC may be from journals that have not yet undergone scientific review by NLM, are traditionally out of scope for the NLM collection, or have not met NLM’s standards for PMC.

The presence of an article in PMC does not reflect an endorsement of, or concurrence with, the contents of the article by NLM.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

a reply to: Phage

I think you should appreciate my style.

Without those personal quirks and my aggressiveness Id never get anywhere or figure anything out.

I'm doing exceptionally good and getting better. I need support not pointless conflicts.

I could do something Good for ppl if only y'all accepted my persona and style.

Everyone loves aggressive figures in film literature music politics history etc but Im the odd one out?

I don't believe it. Im on the right path I know it.
I have to embrace who I am.

a reply to: muzzleflash

It absolutely says thermal radiation causes DNA damage and increases cancer formation.

It does not say that heat causes cancer. Which is what you said.



How hot do you reckon the cop's nuts got?

a reply to: Phage

They claim it's not an endorsement but show me 1 bunk article from NIH.

The fact you're attacking irrelevancies now is an admission that thermal radiation can induce cancer in certain circumstances.

I consider anyone publishing resources as essentially telling me "this is good stuff read it" so yes the NIH supports that article it's contents and is saying it's true info meeting its criteria for valid research.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: muzzleflash

It absolutely says thermal radiation causes DNA damage and increases cancer formation.

It does not say that heat causes cancer. Which is what you said.



How hot do you reckon the cop's nuts got?

Yes it does say that.
No it doesn't.
Yes it does.
No it doesn't.

But it does Phage!!!

originally posted by: Kargun

originally posted by: muzzleflash
It's not 5g.

Please guys do we need to go back to physics 101?

5g waves pass right through you and only the tiniest fraction might hit an atom.

False

I can't believe no one has called you out on this Mr. Scientist,

5g is non-ionizing and can't even pass through your skin let alone through your body LOL~!

The waves bounce off anything of matter.

Peace out

So if I'm sitting in my car my 5g phone will lose signal?

LMFAO

a reply to: Kargun

"There's nothing in the body corresponding to radio waves, and for the most part they pass right through you. Water can capture a microwave and spin; that's how microwaves heat food. Skin evolved for the purpose of capturing and reflecting light, to prevent it from being absorbed by more sensitive components inside."

5g = Radio

a reply to: muzzleflash

The fact you're attacking irrelevancies now is an admission that thermal radiation can induce cancer in certain circumstances.

You have provided no evidence of this. What circumstances?

How hot do you reckon the cops' nuts got?

originally posted by: Kargun

originally posted by: muzzleflash
It's not 5g.

Please guys do we need to go back to physics 101?

5g waves pass right through you and only the tiniest fraction might hit an atom.

False

I can't believe no one has called you out on this Mr. Scientist,

5g is non-ionizing and can't even pass through your skin let alone through your body LOL~!

The waves bounce off anything of matter.

Peace out

"Radio waves, microwaves, X-rays, and gamma rays all pass through us, yet visible light bounces right off our skin and we are not transparent. ... We also absorb X-rays and gamma rays, to an extent. That's why they cause cancer, and exposure should be limited. And light can pass through you as well."

Ionizing or non ionizing radiation doesn't determine if it passes through you.

Ionization determines if there is enough energy in the wave to knock an electron off an atom thus ionizing it which in biology can cause damage to DNA resulting in cancer cells potentially.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: muzzleflash

The fact you're attacking irrelevancies now is an admission that thermal radiation can induce cancer in certain circumstances.

You have provided no evidence of this. What circumstances?

How hot do you reckon the cops' nuts got?

I always provide evidence if needed and you always fail to read any of it and just claim "No it's not!".

What is this kindergarten?

Do I need to put you in the corner for not reading those articles but arguing about them blindly?

a reply to: muzzleflash

I always provide evidence if needed and you always fail to read any of it and just claim "No it's not!".

I read them. One was about treatment of cancer with thermal (laser) therapy. The other discusses the role of various HSPs (which do not only result from heating) in the progression of cancer. They do not say that thermal radiation causes cancer.

You did a keyword search and posted what you found without trying to understand it. Similar to what people used to do with HAARP.

How hot do you reckon the cops' nuts got, since it was "thermal radiation." What was the wavelength of that radiation, do you reckon? Everything over absolute 0 produces "thermal radiation", after all.

There are scientist from all over the World who have been investigating the effects of radiation for Years, like the BioInitiative Working Group .


BioInitiative

a reply to: Kenzo

29 authors who selected studies of interest to each of them, without cherry picking I'm sure. And what was the final result? Was it based on any consensus among them?

Given the structure of the BIR, there is no way to tell how many of the 29 authors of the various sections agree with the conclusions and recommendations of the report itself — or with each other for that matter. Indeed, Henry Lai, one of the authors in the BIR, recently wrote:

I don’t think the BioInitiative Report came up with any unanimous conclusion. Each author wrote his/her chapter and the opinion in each chapter is that of the authors alone. There was no communication and discussion among the authors on the preparation of the Report. As a matter of fact, I don’t personally know some of them.

It would require a more careful and balanced assessment than provided by the BIR to distinguish between these possibilities, or to fairly assess the potential health consequences of any effects from low-level exposures to electromagnetic fields in the environment, assuming that any can be definitely established

The first edition of the BIR was widely quoted by activist groups, but had no significant effect on public policy. The “cautionary” recommendations of the latest 2012 edition of the BIR, which are more than 100 times lower than the previous one, are made without clear scientific justification and at levels that would all but eliminate broadcasting and wireless technology. Perhaps they are hoping to gain more attention with such an extreme position. It will certainly excite the activists but it is unlikely to influence public policy any more than the first edition did.

sciencebasedmedicine.org...

a reply to: Phage

sciencebasedmedicine is a joke .


It`s called Astroturfing ....but maybe you cant notice it .

a reply to: Kenzo

BioInitiative is a joke.
It's called cherry picking...but maybe you can't notice it.

a reply to: musicismagic
So any sources? Proof? Anything?

originally posted by: muzzleflash
In reality 5g can't cause hardly any damage. The frequency is too high.

The frequency is not too high, for example: The military active denial system operates at 95 GHz, that can feck your eyes up. That is in the 5G range!

You mentioned something about ULF and ELF waves generated by various govt techs can affect your mind and drive you insane.

Long-term exposure to 5G could possibly damage your eyes, affect vision and cause headaches that could possibly drive a person insane etc. Non-ionizing radiation can be dangerous, much like long-term sunlight exposure can be dangerous.