Still think 5G is harmless? Scientific American issues warnings about the confirmed and UNKNOWN DANGERS of 5G tech

[Andrew W]

https://www.naturalnews.com/2020-10-20-scientific-american-issues-warnings-dangers-of-5g.html


The oldest magazine in the United States, Scientific American, has issued a
strong warning about the dangers of 5G technology. Their concerns about both
the known and the potential dangers of 5G carry a lot of weight because the
magazine is so influential and known for its rigorous scientific standards.
In print since 1845, Scientific American is widely considered by modern fact
checkers to be pro-science and highly credible.

Public health researcher Joel M. Moskowitz of the University of California,
Berkeley, says in the article that 5G is a lot more harmful than the
government and telecommunications industry want people to believe. He also
said the same is true of Wi-Fi and cellular technology.

Exposure limits are outdated
One of his biggest concerns is related to the fact that the FCC is
reaffirming exposure limits for radio frequency radiation, or RFR, that were
put in place in the 1990s long before Wi-Fi, 2G, 3G, 4G and 5G existed. In
other words, the FCC plans to maintain significantly outdated safety
standards that do not take into account the increasing pile of evidence
showing that it is harmful in many ways.

According to Moskowitz, the exposure limits set in the ‘90s were mostly
related to the potential effects of RFR exposure intensity. Now, however, we
know that there is a risk of cancer and other problems.

5G will introduce the use of millimeter waves, in addition to the microwaves
that older cellular technologies used. Moreover, the limited reach of 5G
means cell antennas will need to be placed every 100 to 200 meters,
increasing people’s exposure. On top of that, new technologies in 5G such as
beam-forming antennas, massive MIMO, and phased arrays, will make it
difficult to measure exposure.

Short-term exposure to millimeter waves, which are absorbed by human skin
and the surface layer of the cornea, can affect the nervous, cardiovascular
and immune systems. Long-term exposure could put people at risk of melanoma,
ocular melanoma and sterility.

Moskowitz argues that new exposure limits should be put in place that
account for certain effects of signals, such as polarization and pulsing,
that raise their health and biologic impacts. The current RFR exposure
limits set by the FCC regulate the intensity of the exposure but ignore the
RFR’s signaling properties.

Moskowitz also referred to the International EMF Scientist Appeal, which
outlines how EMF impacts living beings at levels that are significantly
below most guidelines. These effects include cellular stress, rises in
harmful free radicals, reproductive system changes, neurological disorders,
learning and memory defects and a greater cancer risk. Effects are also
being noticed in plant and animal life.

The scientists who signed the appeal represent the majority of scientific
experts on non-ionizing radiation, who have published more than 2,000 papers
and letters on the topic of EMF in professional journals among them.

Moskowitz also takes issue with the fact that many working in the
telecommunications industry and the government officials who they’ve brought
over to their side label those who point out 5G’s dangers as fear mongerers.
This is far from a conspiracy theory; this position is coming from a body of
legitimate scientific research.

He said: “Since much of our research is publicly-funded, we believe it is
our ethical responsibility to inform the public about what the peer-reviewed
scientific literature tells us about the health risks from wireless
radiation.”

In short, 5G can be likened to a “global human experiment without consent.”
The very fact that Scientific American’s editorial board chose to print a
piece that is so strongly against 5G shows that even the world’s most
mainstream scientific publications have serious reservations about this
technology – and that should be enough to make anyone question whether this
technology should be used at all.

https://www.naturalnews.com/2020-10-20-scientific-american-issues-warnings-dangers-of-5g.html


Comments from readers -

Freedom Lover • 2 hours ago
I've experienced sickness from 5G as well. Last year I took a trip to Miami
with my wife for a few days and was staying in the top floor at the Delano.
Soon after we were getting comfortable in our room, we noticed we started
feeling fatigued, I looked outside our window and there was that huge 5G
white antenna maybe 10 feet away. My wife and I wanted to go out to the
nightclub but we fell asleep as we felt so extremely tired and had
headaches.

The next morning we were irritated and moody. I don't understand why hotels
allow these 5G towers to be installed so close to people on the roof?? I
guess money is the most important thing to these people



Don't Tread on Me • 2 hours ago
Does anyone know if 5G is linked to blood clots? I had a massive saddle clot
back in February that almost killed me, although it can be linked to a COVID
related symptom which likely got me, other people without COVID have been
getting real serious blood clots as well recently the exact same place.

I started having seasonal affective disorder around the winter of 2010 and
am never the same in winter anymore, I remember that's when 4G was
introduced. Could there be a link to that as well as cases of said problem
began exploding afterward?



Northlanders • 3 hours ago
I have been severely affected here in the UK by 5G, but I was also badly
affected by 4G, 3G etc. For all intents and purposes my life came to an end
in the mid 2000s as the roll out of mobile phones and transmitters increased
in the UK. I pick up when beams are running through me as my tinnatus
changes tone and volume according to the frequency of the beam/waves. This
is a mass extermination program that uses the cover of the resulting
conditions to remain below the radar. After travelling anywhere on public
transport I am nauseous and bedbound for hours - sometimes a day or two. I
am being microwaved, boiled and tortured to death. If only G-d would help me
and provide me with the means to move out of the city into the countryside -
I would happily live in a caravan just to escape the constant torture. If
only G-d helped those who have been praying to Him for years and stopped
helping the evil doers including those involved in mobile phone industry.
G-ds help will be too late for me I fear. Too much health damage has been
done



Blue Lion • 6 hours ago
Since 5G affects the immune system, it could be contributing to the
plandemic and some of the deaths from Covid.



Gene Laratonda • 6 hours ago • edited
I've personally experienced 5G radiation exposure at the Meadowlands Plaza
Hotel in New Jersey in room 904 on the top floor where a 5G tower was
literally 14' above my bed on the roof.

The first night I sat up at 3am with vertigo. I've never experienced vertigo
before in my life and I am a healthy 47 year old. The entire room was
spinning uncontrollably my eyes wouldn't stop flickering (nystagmus). I
couldn't stop spinning. That eventually went away as I left my week trip to
NYC for 9/11. My pupils were two different sizes (I have photos).

My tinnitus is much louder now and that seems to be permanent. I'm sure it
hurt me but there is no way to quantify it. I want to file a lawsuit, but no
one will take it.



turbotom Gene Laratonda • 3 hours ago
100%.my girlfriend lives underneath 5 (smaller towers)..all the same kinda
symptoms.Trillions spent on research/installations.Globalst Traitors;to
allow this upon humanity.;(

[Peter Pan]

"Andrew W" <spam_a...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

> https://www.naturalnews.com/2020-10-20-scientific-american-issues-warnings-dangers-of-5g.html
>
>
> The oldest magazine in the United States, Scientific American, has issued a
> strong warning about the dangers of 5G technology. Their concerns about both

So why are you linking to a conspiracy site instead of
the original alleged Scientific American article?

Oh, wait... the article you cited doesn't have a link to
the SciAm article either!

Maybe... it didn't say what they said it says?
Or maybe... the Scientific American article didn't exist?

What's this:...

Sources for this article include:
WakingTimes.com
WakingTimes.com

So Scientific American wasn't a source for an article
about a Scientific American article, and instead they got
it all from another conspiracy site?

[M I Wakefield]

Here's what Scientific American said about the column the next day:

Don’t Fall Prey to Scaremongering about 5G

Activists cite low-quality studies in arguing radio-frequency
radiation is dangerous, but the weight of evidence shows no risk

In a recent opinion piece for Scientific American, Joel M. Moskowitz
warned of the ostensible dangers of radio-frequency (RF) radiation,
stating bluntly that 5G technology could be dangerous, causing cancers
and untold harm. Moskowitz concluded by insisting readers join his
fellow activists petitioning against the new technology. His piece has
resonated with the anti-5G movement, generating heated discussion
online—but, alas, it is one that pivots on fringe views and fatally
flawed conjecture, attempting to circumvent scientific consensus with
scaremongering.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/dont-fall-prey-to-scaremongering-about-5g/

[Lucifer]

All so people can watch HD movies on their tablet.

I heard 5G can cure Covid-19.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Wed, 21 Oct 2020 09:32:14 +0800, Peter Pan <p...@172.16.1.1> wrote:

It's pretty standard for the conspiracy loonies - which include
creationists, IDiots, global warming denialists, anti-vaxxers, etc.

Often it's deliberate. Often it's because a somebody near the start of
the chain who quotes a previously mined quote leaves off quote-marks
so their commentary gets cited as part of the original. Of it's
because it's been filtered through ignorance, deliberate distortion
etc,

It's like the telephone game.

I've even seen it looping back in a much mutated form and the latest
version quote mined again by the original Liar For God - in an article
written by Duane Gish claiming scientists refuted protocell formation
and research.

His original article was either a deliberate distortion, he'd never
bothered to read it or he'd just skimmed through looking for something
to take out of context.

His later second article was claimed that scientists refuted the
original researcher whom he named - but he didn't even realise the
"scientists" were the original researcher and his team who had been
lost as the chain mutated.

These lies take on a life of their own and become "facts" - and when
reaches the originator again, he sees it as "proof" of his original
lie.

Even if the originator isn't the one repeating it, repeat a lie often
enough and it becomes "the truth".

[Ted]

On Tue, 20 Oct 2020 21:48:36 -0400, M I Wakefield <no...@present.com>
wrote:

Thank you. Case settled.

[Ted]

On Wed, 21 Oct 2020 11:29:21 +1100, "Andrew W"

<spam_a...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
https://www.naturalnews.com/2020-10-20-scientific-american-issues-warni
ngs-dangers-of-5g.html

> The oldest magazine in the United States, Scientific American, has
issued a
> strong warning about the dangers of 5G technology.

What's the overall consensus? What else has SciAm published about 5G?

> Public health researcher Joel M. Moskowitz of the University of
California,

Probably reputable. But again, what do the others say?

> Short-term exposure to millimeter waves, which are absorbed by
human skin
> and the surface layer of the cornea, can affect the nervous,
cardiovascular
> and immune systems. Long-term exposure could put people at risk of
melanoma,
> ocular melanoma and sterility.

Ah, here it is. Surely you can see here why this is pure bullshit, no?

[Ted]

On Wed, 21 Oct 2020 09:32:14 +0800, Peter Pan <p...@172.16.1.1> wrote:

Good call.

[Ted]

Well said, Christopher. Thanks for the additional info.

[Siri Cruise]

In article <almarsoft.7641...@news.altopia.com>,

Ted <stree...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Short-term exposure to millimeter waves, which are absorbed by
> human skin
> > and the surface layer of the cornea, can affect the nervous,
> cardiovascular
> > and immune systems. Long-term exposure could put people at risk of
> melanoma,
> > ocular melanoma and sterility.
>
>
> Ah, here it is. Surely you can see here why this is pure bullshit, no?

The effect is the same as standing next to a heater or a
fireplace with a chimney.

--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
The first law of discordiamism: The more energy This post / \
to make order is nore energy made into entropy. insults Islam. Mohammed

[Peter Pan]

Yes, thanks MI, for digging that up.

We already know 5G uses lower power than the legacy cell
sites. Moskowitz raises scary-sounding claims but seems
to avoid the details.

The conspiratorial folks have been trying for decades to
convince us that power lines are a danger. This sounds
like the same story.

[Ted]

On Wed, 21 Oct 2020 14:54:12 -0700, Siri Cruise
<chine...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <almarsoft.7641...@news.altopia.com>,
> Ted <stree...@gmail.com> wrote:


> > > Short-term exposure to millimeter waves, which are absorbed by
> > human skin
> > > and the surface layer of the cornea, can affect the nervous,
> > cardiovascular
> > > and immune systems. Long-term exposure could put people at risk
of
> > melanoma,
> > > ocular melanoma and sterility.
> >
> >
> > Ah, here it is. Surely you can see here why this is pure
bullshit, no?


> The effect is the same as standing next to a heater or a
> fireplace with a chimney.

Of course you see it. The penetration is half a mm.

[Ted]

Yep, same sorta crap. Does somebody make money from spreading this
bullshit?

[Peter Pan]

"Andrew W" <spam_a...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

<........>

> 5G will introduce the use of millimeter waves, in addition to the microwaves
> that older cellular technologies used. Moreover, the limited reach of 5G
> means cell antennas will need to be placed every 100 to 200 meters,
> increasing people’s exposure.

The limited reach of 5G is because it uses much lower
power. If stations are only 200 m apart (i don't know
that it is) then we are approaching ridiculously low
power, like with wifi.

How does this compare with the natural background
radiation?

> On top of that, new technologies in 5G such as
> beam-forming antennas, massive MIMO, and phased arrays, will make it
> difficult to measure exposure.

No it won't.

> Short-term exposure to millimeter waves, which are absorbed by human skin

IR, visible light, and UV are also absorbed by the skin.
So... ?

> and the surface layer of the cornea, can affect the nervous, cardiovascular
> and immune systems. Long-term exposure could put people at risk of melanoma,
> ocular melanoma and sterility.
>
> Moskowitz argues that new exposure limits should be put in place that
> account for certain effects of signals, such as polarization and pulsing,

Polarization is a hazard? Which polarization? LOL.

> that raise their health and biologic impacts. The current RFR exposure
> limits set by the FCC regulate the intensity of the exposure but ignore the
> RFR’s signaling properties.

That's because "signaling properties" (assuming you mean
modulation? but who knows) are utterly irrelevant. Unless
maybe your brain has a built-in transponder that replies
to coded queries from The Man.

> Moskowitz also referred to the International EMF Scientist Appeal, which

"EMF" (for electromagnetic fields) is a term used by
people who don't know what they are talking about. Either
you mean electric fields, magnetic fields, or
electromagnetic waves.

For everyone else, EMF means electromotive force, ie,
voltage.

I can't believe an organization of scientific
professionals named themselves with a woowoo term.

> outlines how EMF impacts living beings at levels that are significantly
> below most guidelines. These effects include cellular stress, rises in
> harmful free radicals, reproductive system changes, neurological disorders,
> learning and memory defects and a greater cancer risk. Effects are also
> being noticed in plant and animal life.

No they aren't.

> The scientists who signed the appeal represent the majority of scientific
> experts on non-ionizing radiation, who have published more than 2,000 papers
> and letters on the topic of EMF in professional journals among them.

No they don't represent anyone but themselves.

> Moskowitz also takes issue with the fact that many working in the
> telecommunications industry and the government officials who they’ve brought
> over to their side label those who point out 5G’s dangers as fear mongerers.
> This is far from a conspiracy theory; this position is coming from a body of
> legitimate scientific research.

Of course!... when the facts don't fit your theory,
there's obviously a conspiracy going on.

<snippity doo-dah>

[Peter Pan]

It seems like a tough way to make a living. The
conspiracy folks might say it's all about the grant
money.

The power line spin is sometimes used by people who want
the new power lines routed thru someone else's back yard.

[Siri Cruise]

In article <irc1pf953dpn05ltc...@4ax.com>,

Peter Pan <p...@172.16.1.1> wrote:

> How does this compare with the natural background
> radiation?

That usually refers to neutron and gamma radiation from isotope
decay. Those aren't directly comparable to microwave radiation.

> > Short-term exposure to millimeter waves, which are absorbed by human skin
>
> IR, visible light, and UV are also absorbed by the skin.
> So... ?

They have different effects. Because of photon quantisation the
energy of a microwave cannot cause ionisation or even an electron
jump in an atom. Radio to microwave photons cause vibration in
electron gasses (the conduction band) outside of atom in metals.
Going into infrared atomic electrons still can't be moved, but
it's enough to vibrate atoms. That can tear apart molecules, but
it's the same as touching a hot burner or just warm air bouncing
off your skin. Since everything causes cancer, so can burns, but
that's not what causes the pain.

Visible light can cause inner electrons to jump around in an
atom, but these electrons don't do chemistry, so the worse is to
make atoms vibrate and you're back to the chemistry of burning.

Ultraviolet photons have enough energy to boost electrons all the
way out of an atom and create ions. Since biochemistry depends on
the subtle and complicated electrical fields, ionisation can
cause the molecules to malfunction as well as tearing apart
additional molecules trying to neutralise the ions. This where
cancer risk becomes signficant. Xrays continue the damage with
higher energy electron displacement.

> Polarization is a hazard? Which polarization? LOL.

I don't see how unless electrons react to photon polarisation.

> > outlines how EMF impacts living beings at levels that are significantly
> > below most guidelines. These effects include cellular stress, rises in
> > harmful free radicals, reproductive system changes, neurological disorders,
> > learning and memory defects and a greater cancer risk. Effects are also
> > being noticed in plant and animal life.
>
> No they aren't.

A varying electrical or magnetic field induces currents in nearby
conductors, and since life does use ions, life is a conductor.
But since we are awash in fields and only very strong ones have
known biological effects (such as recent studies on brain
function), I'm not going to worry.

[Siri Cruise]

In article <almarsoft.6856...@news.altopia.com>,

Enough microwave photons can cause heating and burning. But it
takes a whole lot of them. And mild heating of the surface is not
a problem for mammals who control skin temperatures.

[Peter Pan]

Siri Cruise <chine...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> In article <irc1pf953dpn05ltc...@4ax.com>,
> Peter Pan <p...@172.16.1.1> wrote:
>
> > How does this compare with the natural background
> > radiation?
>
> That usually refers to neutron and gamma radiation from isotope
> decay. Those aren't directly comparable to microwave radiation.

It refers to the background RF noise that's all around
us, from the sun, atmosphere, CMB, thunderstorms in
tasmania, Europan aliens, and everything else.

> > Polarization is a hazard? Which polarization? LOL.
>
> I don't see how unless electrons react to photon polarisation.

It's a classical thing, dependent on the antenna
orientation with respect to you. If you're standing
upright, then vertically polarized 5g rays make you grow
horns, while horizontally polarized ones make you grow a
tail.

If you are reclining on the couch, then vice versa.

[Ted]

Good call.

[Ted]

Yeah, true.

[Andrew W]

"Ted" wrote in message
news:almarsoft.4314...@news.altopia.com...

What about people who have actually gotten sick from living near high
voltage power lines?

[Peter Pan]

You mean, people who say they got sick from power lines.

What about people who say they were abducted and anal
probed by aliens from Zeta Reticuli?

What about people who say they died, met God, and got
sent back to meatspace?

Of course people are always right about these things.

[Siri Cruise]

In article <pb14pf9fnc7vrkvmq...@4ax.com>,

People living near power lines do get sick. So do people far from
them. The first step is to see if there's correlation. Also power
lines would be less desirable, so you also have to account for
income differences.

[Ted]

Fuck 'em.