Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

1.3K

(post is archived)

[–] • 2 pts

Now 6G is being rolled out.

Are you shitting yourselves?

About the question they were asked: they are not medical researchers, they won't be aware of that. Those questions need to be asked to the industry scientists, not execs. The execs are money people.

And, yes, we have tons of research on health and safety related to 5G. If I was an exec, I would have whipped out google scholar and did a simple search and read off the results. "Senator, did you do any research before coming to this hearing?"

And, yes these organizations DO spend dollars on this specific research: they are not aware of the funding that they put out there to these regulatory industries and bodies that conduct this research (such as IEEE).

Ignorance is not a "gotcha", it's just their ignorance. This video is not evidence of some sort of conspiracy, this video is evidence that Senator Blumenthal didn't do HIS research and is asking the wrong people questions to get his sound byte.

If any of you are actually interested in the data, this study goes back decades, revies thousands of studies, and compiles a list of all the concerns. At the longer wavelength radio waves (not 5G, this is for things like radio towers, Ham Radios, etc.), damage can be done but it is very minor and requires ridiculous situations. At the higher end, the wavelengths are so short that they cannot penetrate the epidermis.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC7337122/

If you're concerned about 5G being dangerous, you missed the boat entirely on real science and you should be concerned about old school radio technologies, not 5G or 6G.

[–] • 0 pt

The higher the frequency the higher the power. Light is much higher frequency (400-700 TERA Hertz!!!) so is much, much more damaging even than this . /s

[–] • 1 pt

The higher the frequency the higher the power.

Let's pretend you're serious for a moment (you're definitely joking but these anti-5G retards legit believe that bullshit).

Higher energy based on Planck's Law but that's energy as defined by quantum physics, not classical physics, which is the context you're using it.

The one you're referring to is classical intensity which is proportional to the amplitude of the electric-field oscillations in the light and has to do with how much energy you put into the light.

http://vergil.chemistry.gatech.edu/notes/quantrev/node4.html

But at no point is "power" used in those equations.

Light is much higher frequency (400-700 TERA Hertz!!!) so is much, much more damaging even than this . /s

lmao!

"All that energy, braaah! But I refuse to acknowledge that it only penetrates into the skin by .01 microns."

[–] • 1 pt

I'm pretty sure a higher-frequency photon (e.g. blue rather than red) carries more energy. Of course this has no relation to how much energy some communication technology uses, since the energy is the sum of all the photons, not a single one, so the amount of power they transmit with is what matters, and they can have high power at any wavelength.

Like you say, the shorter the wavelength, the more easily it's stopped by almost anything. I read that this is a big issue with 5G, needing basically a line-of-sight to get a good signal. They keep upping the frequency of these wireless technologies, which reduces range and signal pickup.

[–] • 0 pt

I'm a little confused by your use of "energy" and "power", and how since they give energy it doesn't say anything about power. Isn't power energy per unit time? Isn't the concern whether the energy is ionizing, and not total magnitude?

[–] • 2 pts

Wireless Industry Admits That No Safety Testing Has Been Conducted For 5G Technology During a Hearing.

Except the past 80-odd years of radar operating in these frequencies without causing anything 5G nuts claim.

[–] [deleted] • 4 pts

The perfect weapon. It's invisible. Just like weather warfare.

[–] [deleted] • 2 pts

Didn't they point radar into the sky when they were using those frequencies for it? How many NORAD radar antenna arrays were located on a 20' pole between an elementary school and a park?

As I recall, geese were killed by flying too close to those old radar arrays.

[–] • 0 pt

Radar is pointed at the horizon.

[–] [deleted] • 2 pts

The sky half of the horizon. The floor is about 400 feet if I remember correctly. That's not really down here where we live is it? Don;t answer, that was a rhetorical question.

5G might be safe, but it also might be harmful. We don't know because no studies have been conducted. That was the point of the article. Don;t be a simp for the corporate goons running the cellphone companies. They're not necessarily doing everything out of a sense of customer service.

[–] • 1 pt

What are you on about? Radar is known to damage humans in close proximity. Mig25 had a radar system that could fry birds on the runway at close range.

[–] • 0 pt

What are you on about? Radar is known to damage humans in close proximity.

We're talking about transmitters operating in the 200W range for 5G compared with military radar which uses transmitters in the 2+ megawatt range. That's 10,000 times more powerful. A person living 500 feet away from a 5G transmitter at maximum legal power would have the same exposure as anybody living within ten miles of a military radar installation.

Mig25 had a radar system that could fry birds on the runway at close range.

That's how microwave ovens work. It's the EIRP that makes the difference. It's true that if you get yourself about 6 inches away from a 2,000 Watt transmitter emitting a frequency that is efficiently absorbed by water you're going to have a bad day.

[–] • 0 pt

https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/radiation-exposure/cellular-phone-towers.html

"At this time, there’s no strong evidence that exposure to RF waves from cell phone towers causes any noticeable health effects. However, this does not mean that the RF waves from cell phone towers have been proven to be absolutely safe. Most expert organizations agree that more research is needed to help clarify this, especially for any possible long-term effects."

So far as I can tell, or so far as Google will tell, this "more research" has yet to be done on even 4G, let alone 5G, and now I hear 6G is coming. Apparently the old adage 'look before you leap' means nothing here. No problem....we will all gladly play guinea pigs just so impatient idiots can have their newest toy released ASAP. Why not? Many of us are already doing so with the clotshot, and most have been drafted into testing the longterm safety of GMOs. By all means throw caution to the wind!

[–] • 1 pt (edited )

everyone should know what a 5g antenna looks like. once you do, you will notice them everywhere. they are ~2-foot canisters on the tops of telephone poles and street lights. https://www.verizon.com/about/news/towers-what-they-are-how-they-work

[–] • 1 pt

Trick statement. Signaling doesn't require safety testing.

Now ask if any safety testing has been conducted at the corresponding frequencies and power levels. Oh, they didn't ask the only questions which matter? I wonder why they didn't?

[–] [deleted] • 1 pt (edited )

The FCC and FAA were given a full fucking year to get this sorted and they loped the mule until the last second. The entire bunch should be fired and replaced with people that can handle the job. Also, the two agencies have been bickering and pointing fingers at each other like a bunch of squabbling children.

The phone companies paid the government 80 fucking $Billion dollars for the specific frequencies. They deserve to start making a profit from their investment.

[–] • 1 pt

Warning on phone packets: only use speakers, do not put phone against your head. Warning from neurosurgeons: do no put phone against you skull under any circumstance; try keep them 1 metre away for prolonged periods. Things kept near phones when on: get cooked.

No thanks. I'll follow the safety warnings.