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
(post is archived)