You're the idiot saying the exact same thing on the other account
what other account?
If you were an 'electrical engineer'
Electronics Engineer, electricals deal with motors and dull things like that
5G is 'safe' and not harmful
It is, go look at the endless safety studies.
I think globally only Switzerland has delayed a further rollout pending further monitoring, but they are still actually a world leader in 5G. Cantons just made a fuss about new antennas and power levels, because each country makes up its own arbitrary number and Switzerland's is just lower than most. You should see the shitfest over any telecom standards going back 40 years, everyone is slightly different in pointless ways. And a few made a fuss about Huawei, but that's unrelated to this.
you would know exposure to the EMF's from wifi/ and mobile communications devices is anything but 'safe
wi-fi is 2.4-5GHz at around 10mW, that's fuck all and the same as bluetooth, I could probably get that out of a transistor oscillator. mobiles are around 0.6-3 watts max, CB radios put out vastly more than that (10-10,000W) yet you are not complaining about those? 5G phased array technology is effectively lower than 4G over a wider area, slightly higher at the beam pointing at you for your 2min phone call, but you still have more V/m coming out of your TV and you sit in front of that all day...
Not that you will even read this or honestly reply about it. And as i said to the other account i'm a dumb nigger faggot that took 2 weeks of frequent reading and coming back to understand the more technical parts of it.
Link - 5G RISK (documentcloud.adobe.com)
Bullet points - SCNIHR and ICNIRP that set exposure levels throughout much of the World purposely omit studies that show negative conclusions or simply deliberately ignore cited evidence to the contrary. (Chapter 5 pg 41 - Table of actual reviews/ studies ignored, begins pg44.)
'TrUsT tHe ScIeNcE , gOy', Lmao.
And as i said to the other account
what other account?
link
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Pall "Professor Kenneth Foster, a bioengineer at the University of Pennsylvania has criticised Pall's ideas as using selective evidence that ignores research that finds no link between mobile phone technology and human health"
article from guardian that mentions him and why this tinfoil got traction https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jul/26/how-baseless-fears-over-5g-rollout-created-a-health-scare
I'm not going to bother to refute what he says because it's always worth doing research, even if it's unpopular, but it's still going to come back to the fact that truckers have sat next to massive CB antennas for decades and nobody though much about it. Certainly change the frequency and you might see different stuff going on, but it's not going to be radically different that all the 5Ghz transceivers we've carried in our pockets for years. Research is going to continue, if bad things eventually happen then they will rethink how to do this, it's not going to be ignored because it will affect them too. If you are that bothered, don't use 5G and the beam won't ever point in your direction, you'll only see an insignificant amount of backscatter
Wahahaa, still shilling the Corporate and msm narrative, huh ?. 5G is harmful. You are absolutely incorrect as 'endless safety studies show EMF's and 5G as well as the levels that continuous exposure is set and regulated at, is provably 'harmful' .
Wahahaa
see? even trying to talk to you as an adult is pointless
msm narrative
MSN wouldn't understand 5G either
5G is harmful
says the guy who doesn't understand any technology
You are absolutely incorrect as 'endless safety studies show EMF's and 5G as well as the levels that continuous exposure is set and regulated at, is provably 'harmful' .
Published: 16 March 2021 <---------------------
5G mobile networks and health—a state-of-the-science review of the research into low-level RF fields above 6 GHz
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41370-021-00297-6
"The review of experimental studies provided no confirmed evidence that low-level MMWs are associated with biological effects relevant to human health. Many of the studies reporting effects came from the same research groups and the results have not been independently reproduced. The majority of the studies employed low quality methods of exposure assessment and control so the possibility of experimental artefact cannot be excluded. Further, many of the effects reported may have been related to heating from high RF energy deposition so the assertion of a ‘low-level’ effect is questionable in many of the studies. Future studies into the low-level effects of MMWs should improve the experimental design with particular attention to dosimetry and temperature control. The results from epidemiological studies presented little evidence of an association between low-level MMWs and any adverse health effects. Future epidemiological research would benefit from specific investigation on the impact of 5 G and future telecommunication technologies."
Lmao, and what studies did they cite for their conclusions ??.
As i point out in my previous post and link (the one you didn't obviously read, lol) They simply ignored all the studies that show causation of harmful effect ' Hoe bout them apples for trusting science . No response to the link i proved huh?.
(post is archived)