The New 5G Towers in NYC Camouflaged.

a reply to: Nothin

How do you know that ?

because he's more than likely believes everything the overlords say, and is a party line kinda guy.

Lol, tell me another story. Please, that was a good one.
Stay away from who wants to be a millionaire or at least don't call me.
I'm on planet fucdat and we don't do wifi.
a reply to: XipeTotex

a reply to: Nothin
There is something in the study used in that thread that was overlooked.

If you read the whole thing, particularly the reviews, where others point out errors, and the rebuttals to these, you will see that the authors acknowledge and correct the errors but in order to maintain the original premise and their conclusion they shift goalposts on one important point.
The observation:

There is a huge amount of work in the western world having tested the bioactivity of the RF and ELF parameters of complex RF signals which is much more reliable than the mistranslated Russian studies. Most (if not all) of these studies have shown that the ELF pulsations/modulation are by far the bioactive factor and not the (non-modulated) carrier RF signals alone (Blackman et al 1980; Frei et al 1988; Huber et al 2002).

The goalpost shift:

Since modulations including short intense pulsations are involved in wireless communications radiation, one hypothesis for a mechanism is that organisms act as dispersive and lossy media for this radiation. As a result, the impinging complex waveform may decompose into its various frequency components and thus partially demodulate the signals, such that ELF may emerge and act as a key bioactive component (Pirard and Vatovez, 2012, page 27) (NB: this reference was provided by the reviewer). An alternative hypothesis, also proposed by Pirard and Vatovez, is that there is a “cumulated influence of all the (frequency) components because the human body could possibly not be able to discriminate within the spectrum of the signal, so that the effects of the envelope shape (e.g. pulsed variations of the amplitude) would need to be defined (Pirard and Vatovez, 2012, page 27). Further research is needed to test comparatively these hypotheses.

The reason this is important is because they are saying that it isn't the high frequencies used with 5G but ELF (extremely low frequencies) which could be part of the signal which might be harmful. This would mean that it isn't specific to radio wave frequencies used in 5G but part of all the common radio waves we have all been swimming in all our lives. It would even include light.

These ELF waves are in the 1 to 300 Hz range and this includes the 50/60 Hz that flow through power lines and that most people all over the world have running in their homes.

a reply to: vNex92

"Correlation does not imply causation".

The above is a commonly quoted truth that applies here. Unless of course studies have been done that support the theory that the 5G devices cause multiple types of cancer in that school. Parents are understandably irrational when faced with sick children.

Some questions that need to be answered here...

- What other potential hazards are present at that school?

-Are the sick kids subjected to any hazards at home?

-Which studies have been done to confirm the theory and where can we read them?

There are no doubt many other questions but still, this theory is pretty out there to just accept without any proof whatsoever. The cause could be old chemical contaminants or naturally occurring chemicals in the soil the school is built on. The water supply could be contaminated. Lots of things could be the cause, or the number of cases could be coincidental. Impossible to say and no person with good critical thinking skills just jumps to conclusions.

It could be the 5G devices, but I'd think that's pretty out there and not likely to be true.

Any links to relevant studies or actual evidence of the theory? Credible ones I mean.

a reply to: Blaine91555

Do you have any links to relevant studies or any actual evidence of any recent studies?

The only stuff I found was all based on studies from 1980s and 1996.

a reply to: BernnieJGato

No, I'm not. It's just that my degree is related to communications and I know how the technology works. Its just a mm wave. Nothing out of the ordinary, other than being a litter higher frequency.

Now I don't like 5g because the signal does not reliably carry very far which will mean more dead zones and higher up keep.

originally posted by: Jeremiah33three
a reply to: BernnieJGato

Now I don't like 5g because the signal does not reliably carry very far which will mean more dead zones and higher up keep.

"Its inherent fragility means that transmission boosting ‘cell’ antennae are generally required every 100–300 m."

Don't worry you can get them for indoors as well:

"5G networks are becoming increasingly dependent on indoor small cells. This trend is likely to continue as more 5G small cells are deployed in offices, homes and apartments."

a reply to: Itisnowagain

At that point it becomes the equivalent of wifi though. Needing a Hotspot the way we use routers now. I suppose that's better than a device supported h adhoc network.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: Blaine91555

Do you have any links to relevant studies or any actual evidence of any recent studies?

The only stuff I found was all based on studies from 1980s and 1996.

No, I've not seen any which is kind of the point. It's not my thread and I was hoping the OP would have more information.