COVID-19 disease linked to radio-frequency radiation including 5G

originally posted by: Blaine91555

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: Blaine91555
a reply to: Asmodeus3

My opinion only, once again, and I like to follow the money.

Donate page on the site you linked.

Thank You for Your Support!

We cannot thank you enough for your support. Together, are transforming the issue of wireless radiation exposure from cellular devices, towers, and antennas. This is an environmental and human health hazard that EHT has worked on for more than a decade! Current safety standards by the U.S. government and many other agencies are outdated and out of sync with reality.

Our efforts to reduce environmental health hazards, depends on your support. We hope that you see the impact that EHT is making and support us with a donation. Thank you.
DONATE WITH credit card
Donation to Environmental Health Trust
Monthly donors make the biggest impact!
All donations to EHT (EIN 20-7498107) are tax-deductible as a registered non-profit.

DONATE STOCK

For information about directly transferring assets to Environmental Health Trust, please contact Seth Wernick at 202-876-2442 or [email protected]
Send A Check

Environmental Health Trust P.O. Box 58 Teton Village WY 83025

Express mail:
Environmental Health Trust 7100 N Rachel Way Unit 6 Eagles Rest, Teton Village WY 83025
EHT is a 501 C 3 IRS registered public charity EIN NUMBER 20-7498107

That "Express mail" address ends up being what looks like a condo on Google Map. It does not appear to be a commercial building so it's someone's private residence.

I know that area or knew it decades ago before the rich and the celebrities ruined it for everyone. It's very exclusive and whoever that is paid serious money for that condo.

Again, all my opinion.

Not a valid point though.

If you now argue that these scientists, regardless of whether they are right or wrong in this matter, don't have credibility means you have accepted that they did work which is controversial in your view, but could have some merits. Your point is that they have no or very little credibility.

Speaking of credibility then you could possibly say a lot more about Dr Anthony Fauci....

You don't think that their office turning out to be a condo next to a tennis club in and exclusive community gives you pause? How much research did you do? It only took me minutes to find things that bothered me.

I am sorry for once more but you can't say the two scientists who wrote the paper are not credible or they are incompetent. One of them has a PhD in Biophysics and the other has an MD with experience in Radiology coming from the Biological Sciences.

I am not interested in where their office is or was and whether there is a tennis club next to it or what they do in their personal lives and whether they have extramarital affairs or believe in aliens.

What I am interested is the following: Can radio-frequency radiation coming from wireless communications be harmful to humans and/or animals.

The authors of the paper think that it could weaken the immune system and hence exacerbate the disease (Covid-19 in this case). But that goes further.

They are not the only scientists who think that this type of radiation could be harmful.




Here is Dr Melnick who was a senior toxicologist at the National Institutes of Health for a long period of time.


emfconference2021.com...

The NTP studies clearly show that non-ionizing radiation can cause cancers and other adverse health effects.Prior to the start of the NTP studies, it was assumed by the industry and the regulatory agencies that radiofrequency radiation could not cause adverse health effects other than those due to tissue heating. So we designed this study to investigate if non-thermal exposures would cause health effects. In the NTP studies, there was clear evidence of cancer development and other adverse health effects at non thermal exposure levels. In the US, the FCC limits for human exposure to radiofrequency radiation are based on the assumption that only thermal effects can cause harm. The NTP studies prove this assumption of safety is not valid… All new wireless technologies, including 5G, should be adequately tested before their implementation leads to unacceptable levels of human exposures and increased health risks.” – Dr. Ronald Melnick

It seems that there is evidence according to the authors that this type of radiation is indeed harmful or could be harmful as it can weaken the immune system. Dr Melnick states clearly that they found this type of radiation can cause cancers and a series of other serious health problems.

So instead of drifting is better if you guys deal with the main question: Can radio-frequency radiation coming from wireless communications be harmful?

originally posted by: Blaine91555
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Sorry but the whole Biofield thing is a money-making scheme in my opinion. Anyone involved has no credibility in my opinion.

Do you accept this without hesitation or study because it backs up what you want to be true, rather than what's proven to be true?

You may not believe the two authors but as I posted above here is another source from Dr Melnick former senior toxicologist in the NIH

emfconference2021.com...

The NTP studies clearly show that non-ionizing radiation can cause cancers and other adverse health effects.Prior to the start of the NTP studies, it was assumed by the industry and the regulatory agencies that radiofrequency radiation could not cause adverse health effects other than those due to tissue heating. So we designed this study to investigate if non-thermal exposures would cause health effects. In the NTP studies, there was clear evidence of cancer development and other adverse health effects at non thermal exposure levels. In the US, the FCC limits for human exposure to radiofrequency radiation are based on the assumption that only thermal effects can cause harm. The NTP studies prove this assumption of safety is not valid… All new wireless technologies, including 5G, should be adequately tested before their implementation leads to unacceptable levels of human exposures and increased health risks.” – Dr. Ronald Melnick

Is also Dr Melnick a conspiracy theorist or a quack or a charlatan?

Answering your question. I don't believe in things. I rather see and judge with the brain I have. However I don't easily accept something or reject something else even if it seems 'strange' to most others.

originally posted by: Blaine91555

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: Blaine91555

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: Blaine91555
Insurance companies won't insure against it.......

It is standard practice for insurance coverage to exclude health damages from wireless and electromagnetic radiation. The Insurance authority Swiss Re released a white paper classifying 5G as a “high” emerging risk cautioning that “potential claims for health impairments may come with a long latency.” If insurance companies won’t take the risk why should we?

ehtrust.org...

Same dubious source as my post above this one.
Refer to that for my opinion.

You said that the source is dubious and this is of course your opinion.

emfconference2021.com...

You may have missed this one

I found he had two papers in 2017 but no evidence they were peer-reviewed. Do you have a link that will help me beyond what I've found on my own?

I don't know who is the person you are to referring to. But it's irrelevant in our conversation.

When these two scientists wrote the paper then they waited to get response and criticisms which you can find in the paper itself after the acknowledgements.

None of the scientists assessing the paper accused them of being incompetent and/or non credible and certainly they didn't refer to them as quacks or charlatans. But instead engaged and made recommendations as usual.

I don't recall any of them arguing on the basis of their publication history either.

Since when prior publications validate or invalidate the ones that are currently published or will be published in the future?

originally posted by: Blaine91555
a reply to: v1rtu0s0

You know what I meant. The non-profit is probably a drawer in a desk and a checkbook to pay "cough" administrative costs. The country is full of them.

Caveat emptor.

Indeed it is.

That is how Snopes™ was exposed a few years-ago, as being just some dude in an apartment.

It's also similar to all that was found by me, while trying to find who/what was behind that famous Covid-19™ case/death counter, that so many of us blindly believed as Scientific™.
Just a dead-end personal residence.

To be fair : it's probably how the majority of businesses get started, from outa their own home.

All of my fav alternative journalists work out-of their own home, so it would only be a red-flag if the company/organization, is making themselves out to be bigger than they really are.

Also : alternative medical, or natural-healing websites, would not be housed, or hosted by anything related to the Medical-Mafia™. Sounds obvious now that it's written down though.



Some links about 5G, and wireless communications :

Open Letter To UK Parliament On The Insane Law Changes For 5G Rollout

Dear Lords, Ladies, and Members of Parliament,

A new study has been published that adds to the wealth of science indicating the serious potential health effects of 5G. This is a significant event considering 5G has never been proven safe. It is the first study to demonstrate 5G causes harm specifically. However, existing scientific evidence has long indicated 5G could cause harm.

It still stands that proof exists of 5G’s potential to harm and there is no proof of its safety. Deeply flawed guidelines followed by the government might suggest otherwise. This letter will explain why government must invoke the precautionary principle and place a moratorium on 5G. ...

History Of The Anti-Wireless Movement

... Cell phones are effectively radioactive devices. The idea that they are not radioactive comes from a mistaken distinction that the medical community made a century ago, which most people persist in believing despite a century of research showing that distinction to be little more than a fantasy. It is a fantasy that says that (a) only radiation above a certain frequency is energetic enough to remove electrons from molecules to form ions, (b) this causes genetic mutations which are the cause of cancer, and (c) radiation is harmless if it does not cause cancer.

The most obvious of those fictions is that radiation has no effects besides cancer. Whereas in fact radiation acts directly on the electrons in our mitochondria, slowing metabolism, making us hypoxic, and causing diabetes, heart disease and, yes, cancer. Radiation also acts directly on all the electric transmission lines in our bodies, including our nerves, our blood vessels, our heart’s pacemaker, and yes — even though western medicine doesn’t recognize their existence — our acupuncture meridians. ...

The Most Dangerous Technology Ever Invented Part Two

The selling of cell phones is, and always has been, based on lies and deception. The biggest lie is that they are “low power” devices and that this makes them safe.

That is a double lie. It is a lie because they are not low power. If you put a cell phone — any cell phone — in your hand or next to your body, you are being blasted by more microwave radiation from your phone than you are getting from any cell tower, and by ten billion times as much microwave radiation as you are getting from the sun, the Milky Way, or any other natural sources.

The exposure guidelines established by the Federal Communications Commission reflect this reality: cell towers are permitted to expose your body at a specific absorption rate of 0.08 watts per kilogram, while cell phones are allowed to expose your brain at a specific absorption rate of 1.6 watts per kilogram, which is twenty times higher.

And it is a lie because low power devices are not any safer than high power devices. The reason for this is that electromagnetic fields are not toxins in the ordinary sense, and the rule in toxicology that a lower dose is a safer dose does not apply to microwave radiation. As Allan Frey wrote in 1990:

“Electromagnetic fields are not a foreign substance to living beings like lead or cyanide. With foreign substances, the greater the dose, the greater the effect — a dose-response relationship. Rather, living beings are electrochemical systems that use low frequency EMFs in everything from protein folding through cellular communication to nervous system function. To model how EMFs affect living beings, one might compare them to the radio we use to listen to music…

If you impose on the radio an appropriately tuned EMF or harmonic, even if it is very weak, it will interfere with the music. Similarly, if we impose a very weak EMF signal on a living being, it has the possibility of interfering with normal function if it is properly tuned. That is the model that much biological data and theory tell us to use, not a toxicological model.” ...

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


International Journal of Oncology


Case-control study of the association between malignant brain tumours diagnosed between 2007 and 2009 and mobile and cordless phone use

/

Part of the Abstract

Previous studies have shown a consistent association between long-term use of mobile and cordless phones and glioma and acoustic neuroma, but not for meningioma. When used these phones emit radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMFs) and the brain is the main target organ for the hand-held phone. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified in May, 2011 RF-EMF as a group 2B, i.e. a ‘possible’ human carcinogen. The aim of this study was to further explore the relationship between especially long-term (>10 years) use of wireless phones and the development of malignant brain tumours

Conclusion

In conclusion, this study confirmed previous results of an association between use of mobile and cordless phones and malignant brain tumours. The risk was highest for ipsilateral use and tumours in the temporal lobe. The results are consistent with initiation carcinogenesis for analogue phones, and both initiation and promotion carcinogenesis for digital wireless phones.

Non-ionising radiation and association with malignant brain tumors including initiation and promotion of carcinogenesis for digital wireless phones.

ATTENTION
Again....

I don't know how it is that people can't understand that opinions of each other are not the topic on ATS - EVER - but it's close to time to start issuing Posting Bans to those who ignore this.

BE WARNED IF YOUR POST IS NOT ON TOPIC AND IS ABOUT OTHER MEMBERS YOU ARE ABOUT TO BE POSTING BANNED!

Everyone and I mean everyone is allowed to post here on topic and to do so without being called names or becoming the target of others' posts. Debate the topic and leave each other out of it.

The topic is "COVID-19 disease linked to radio-frequency radiation including 5G "

These rules apply to all threads and if you want to engage in personal attacks there are other sites on the Internet where you can do that. Our goal is for ATS to be above that. For members here to post like mature adults.

And, as always...
Do not reply to this post.

The evidence for 5G, and previous EMFs causing damage to all forms of life, continues to accumulate.

Make your own minds up.

Cell phone radiation / 5G causes DNA damage with Cecelia Doucette

The US government + the FDA commissioned a $30 million study on cellular technology decades ago. In their final report, they determined CLEAR evidence of cancerous tumors + DNA damage. Watch Cecelia Doucette on #CHDTV

5G Danger: 13 Reasons 5G Wireless Technology Will Be a Catastrophe for Humanity

12. 5G Danger: Re-Radiation Inside the Body
Way back in 2002, RF researcher Arthur Firstenberg published an analysis of 5G long before the technology was approved. He explained how, due to 5G EM pulses being extremely short and delivered in bursts, they actually replicate inside the body – and end up creating tiny new 5G antennas internally. Firstenberg wrote:

“… when extremely short electromagnetic pulses enter the body, something else happens: the moving charges themselves become little antennas that re-radiate the electromagnetic field and send it deeper into the body …”

“These re-radiated waves are called Brillouin precursors … They become significant when either the power or the phase of the wave changes rapidly enough … This means that the reassurance we are being given – that these millimeter waves are too short to penetrate far into the body – is not true.”

This echoes a previous point made – that 5G penetration is a serious danger.

13. 5G Danger: Insurance Companies Refuse to Underwrite Big Wireless. What Do They Know?
Insurance companies (the most famous of which is Lloyds of London) have made headlines by refusing to insure Big Wireless (the telecommunication corporate conglomerate) against wi-fi and 5G-related illnesses and claims:

“Well, Lloyd’s November 2010 Risk Assessment Team’s Report gives us a solid clue: the report compares these wireless technologies with asbestos, in that the early research on asbestos was “inconclusive” and only later did it become obvious to anyone paying attention that asbestos causes cancer. Keep in mind that Lloyd’s Risk Assessment study of wi-fi was published over 8 [now 9 – Ed.] years ago. Even back then, however, their Risk Assessment Team was smart enough to realize that new evidence just might emerge showing that the various wi-fi frequencies do cause illness.”

All links for claims, listed at the bottom of the page, in the link to Global-Research.

originally posted by: Nothin
The evidence for 5G, and previous EMFs causing damage to all forms of life, continues to accumulate.

Make your own minds up.

Cell phone radiation / 5G causes DNA damage with Cecelia Doucette

The US government + the FDA commissioned a $30 million study on cellular technology decades ago. In their final report, they determined CLEAR evidence of cancerous tumors + DNA damage. Watch Cecelia Doucette on #CHDTV

5G Danger: 13 Reasons 5G Wireless Technology Will Be a Catastrophe for Humanity

12. 5G Danger: Re-Radiation Inside the Body
Way back in 2002, RF researcher Arthur Firstenberg published an analysis of 5G long before the technology was approved. He explained how, due to 5G EM pulses being extremely short and delivered in bursts, they actually replicate inside the body – and end up creating tiny new 5G antennas internally. Firstenberg wrote:

“… when extremely short electromagnetic pulses enter the body, something else happens: the moving charges themselves become little antennas that re-radiate the electromagnetic field and send it deeper into the body …”

“These re-radiated waves are called Brillouin precursors … They become significant when either the power or the phase of the wave changes rapidly enough … This means that the reassurance we are being given – that these millimeter waves are too short to penetrate far into the body – is not true.”

This echoes a previous point made – that 5G penetration is a serious danger.

13. 5G Danger: Insurance Companies Refuse to Underwrite Big Wireless. What Do They Know?
Insurance companies (the most famous of which is Lloyds of London) have made headlines by refusing to insure Big Wireless (the telecommunication corporate conglomerate) against wi-fi and 5G-related illnesses and claims:

“Well, Lloyd’s November 2010 Risk Assessment Team’s Report gives us a solid clue: the report compares these wireless technologies with asbestos, in that the early research on asbestos was “inconclusive” and only later did it become obvious to anyone paying attention that asbestos causes cancer. Keep in mind that Lloyd’s Risk Assessment study of wi-fi was published over 8 [now 9 – Ed.] years ago. Even back then, however, their Risk Assessment Team was smart enough to realize that new evidence just might emerge showing that the various wi-fi frequencies do cause illness.”

All links for claims, listed at the bottom of the page, in the link to Global-Research.

Thanks for the post.

If you have a look above I have posted a few good pieces of information


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

In conclusion, this study confirmed previous results of an association between use of mobile and cordless phones and malignant brain tumours. The risk was highest for ipsilateral use and tumours in the temporal lobe. The results are consistent with initiation carcinogenesis for analogue phones, and both initiation and promotion carcinogenesis for digital wireless phones.

There is evidence as it seems which associates this type of radiation with brain tumors as well as with other serious health issues. One would have expected that radio-frequency radiation is harmless given that most attention is given to the effects of ionising radiation and assumes that everything else cannot cause damage.

You may want to see the posts I made about Dr Melnick who was a senior toxicologist for the NIH and he has come to the same conclusions.

a reply to: Nothin
You are the first person to mention the 'extremely short electromagnetic pulses'......

I found this interesting.....

Non-ionizing radiation with nanosecond pulsed electric fields as a cancer treatment: in vitro studies.
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Two Modes of Cell Death Caused by Exposure to Nanosecond Pulsed Electric Field
journals.plos.org.../journal.pone.0070278

There's loads to read online if you go looking for stuff about NsPEFs and cell death.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: Nothin
You are the first person to mention the 'extremely short electromagnetic pulses'......

I found this interesting.....

Non-ionizing radiation with nanosecond pulsed electric fields as a cancer treatment: in vitro studies.
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Two Modes of Cell Death Caused by Exposure to Nanosecond Pulsed Electric Field
journals.plos.org.../journal.pone.0070278

There's loads to read online if you go looking for stuff about NsPEFs and cell death.

Hi, second link doesn't work but I am sure we can locate it.

In terms of non-ionising radiation causing ill health is something that I have not payed much attention but it seems there is a lot of information around. If you see my links and the links from some other members there is plenty of research that has been conducted in the area.

a reply to: Asmodeus3
Thanks.
You can easily locate the 2nd link by just searching for:
Two Modes of Cell Death Caused by Exposure to Nanosecond Pulsed Electric Field

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: Asmodeus3
Thanks.
You can easily locate the 2nd link by just searching for:
Two Modes of Cell Death Caused by Exposure to Nanosecond Pulsed Electric Field

Did you read about the research conducted by Dr Melnick who was at NIH and was a senior toxicologist for several years. It clearly suggests thar non-ionising radiation can cause a range of serious health issues as well as cancers. This is backed up by the article I have linked above from the journal of oncology which also suggests carcinogenesis as a result of using wireless communications.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: Asmodeus3
Thanks.
You can easily locate the 2nd link by just searching for:
Two Modes of Cell Death Caused by Exposure to Nanosecond Pulsed Electric Field

Here is your link

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

a reply to: Asmodeus3
That link works....thanks for posting.

I have just started watching:
An invisible threat - full documentary......

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: Asmodeus3
That link works....thanks for posting.

I have just started watching:
An invisible threat - full documentary......

Interesting documentary!

a reply to: Asmodeus3

My opinion is my opinion. Debate does not include anyone having to adopt the opinion of anyone else in the debate.

You said this..

You said that the source is dubious and this is of course your opinion.

I'm not sure why you then state this?

I don't know who is the person you are to referring to. But it's irrelevant in our conversation.

You provided the sources and you don't know who I'm referring to? I simply asked if you had any further sources of information on a source you provided earlier. In particular, any peer-reviewed material? It's your topic.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

Am not really into looking online for stuff about death ... LoL !!

This will be my last drop, as have apparently moved-on.

There is STILL No U.S. Federal Agency that Ensures Cell Tower Radiation Exposure Safety.

The FDA - “The FDA does not regulate cell towers or cell tower radiation. Therefore, the FDA has no studies or information on cell towers to provide in response to your questions.”

–Ellen Flannery, Director, FDA Policy Center for Devices and Radiological Health to a California mother with a cell tower on her street who asked the FDA about safety, July 11, 2022

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

“EPA’s last review was in the 1984 document Biological Effects of Radiofrequency Radiation. The EPA does not currently have a funded mandate for radiofrequency matters.”

-Lee Ann B. Veal Director, EPA Radiation Protection Division Office of Radiation and Indoor Air, July 8, 2020 Letter to Theodora Scarato

Fact: There are no scientific reports by the CDC on cell tower radiation safety, nor does the agency have staff with expertise monitoring the science and evaluating risk. Public information requests found that several CDC website pages on radio frequency were found to be drafted with a wireless industry consultant.

The Department of the Interior

“The electromagnetic radiation standards used by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) continue to be based on thermal heating, a criterion now nearly 30 years out of date and inapplicable today.” – U.S. Department of Interior Letter to FCC, 2014

The World Health Organization

Fact: The World Health Organization (WHO) EMF Project has not reviewed the science since 1993. The WHO webpages on cell phones and cell towers are not based on a published scientific review. The WHO EMF Project webpages were written by a scientist who used wireless industry money to start the WHO EMF Project and who is now a consultant to industry.

In contrast, the WHO International Agency for Research on Cancer (a separate WHO entity vetted for conflicts of interest) determined RF radiation to be a Class 2 B “possible” carcinogen in 2011. Many scientists now state the evidence showing cancer has increased.

a reply to: Asmodeus3
This is the kind of info one needs to have in one's pocket, at the beginning of the thread, to lay-on all of the naysayers that think that if the Government doesn't say anything, then it must all be safe.

originally posted by: Nothin
a reply to: Itisnowagain

Am not really into looking online for stuff about death ... LoL !!

This will be my last drop, as have apparently moved-on.

There is STILL No U.S. Federal Agency that Ensures Cell Tower Radiation Exposure Safety.

The FDA - “The FDA does not regulate cell towers or cell tower radiation. Therefore, the FDA has no studies or information on cell towers to provide in response to your questions.”

–Ellen Flannery, Director, FDA Policy Center for Devices and Radiological Health to a California mother with a cell tower on her street who asked the FDA about safety, July 11, 2022

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

“EPA’s last review was in the 1984 document Biological Effects of Radiofrequency Radiation. The EPA does not currently have a funded mandate for radiofrequency matters.”

-Lee Ann B. Veal Director, EPA Radiation Protection Division Office of Radiation and Indoor Air, July 8, 2020 Letter to Theodora Scarato

Fact: There are no scientific reports by the CDC on cell tower radiation safety, nor does the agency have staff with expertise monitoring the science and evaluating risk. Public information requests found that several CDC website pages on radio frequency were found to be drafted with a wireless industry consultant.

The Department of the Interior

“The electromagnetic radiation standards used by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) continue to be based on thermal heating, a criterion now nearly 30 years out of date and inapplicable today.” – U.S. Department of Interior Letter to FCC, 2014

The World Health Organization

Fact: The World Health Organization (WHO) EMF Project has not reviewed the science since 1993. The WHO webpages on cell phones and cell towers are not based on a published scientific review. The WHO EMF Project webpages were written by a scientist who used wireless industry money to start the WHO EMF Project and who is now a consultant to industry.

In contrast, the WHO International Agency for Research on Cancer (a separate WHO entity vetted for conflicts of interest) determined RF radiation to be a Class 2 B “possible” carcinogen in 2011. Many scientists now state the evidence showing cancer has increased.

a reply to: Asmodeus3
This is the kind of info one needs to have in one's pocket, at the beginning of the thread, to lay-on all of the naysayers that think that if the Government doesn't say anything, then it must all be safe.

Thanks for this.

I have posted quite a few links where it is argued that non-ionising radiation can cause serious health issues including cancers. Dr Melnick who was a senior toxicologist in the NIH has argued about the serious issues with this type of radiation and this is backed by the article in the journal of oncology which makes the same suggestion i.e carcinogenesis as a result of radiation from wireless communications.

It seems there is plenty of material in this subject.