Radio frequency (RF) radiation and electromagnetic fields (EMF) are a form of pollution.
Just as our ancestors thought it was perfectly OK to dump industrial chemicals into rivers and soils, and inject CO2, CFC's, and other particulates into the atmosphere, and nothing bad would ever come of it, our society today is making the same mistake.
Just as they marinated themselves in air pollution and water pollution, we today are marinating ourselves in radiation and electro-smog.
And future generations will look back on us the same way we look back on the naive rubes of the 1800's, who believed all that smog was "harmless" and "necessary for progress."
What's most ironic is the fact that environmentalists are often the most difficult to convince about this. Strange.
"I'm skeptical of this claim that RF / EMF is dangerous. Why are people so afraid of it? How can it harm us? And why is 5G specifically causing such an uproar? Can you explain?"
First, let's explain some basic science.
Cell phones communicate via light, which travels in a wave form. Waves come in various frequencies. Cell-phone radiation lies within the microwave part of the spectrum, which is between radio waves and visible light.
Yes, that's the same general range as microwave ovens. And there has been a debate, raging for decades, over whether cell-phone radiation damages biology.
So... does it?
Let's start by examining the arguments of the side that believes there's no danger.
The main argument used against the danger claim is the idea that "non-ionizing radiation can't be harmful."
But is this true?
"Well, first of all, what's the difference between ionizing and non-ionizing?"
Ionizing vs. Non-Ionizing
Ionizing radiation is that which caries enough energy, per photon, to liberate electrons from their nuclei, thus changing the chemical composition of the matter they strike. This is the kind of radiation that causes DNA damage, because it changes the molecular structure of the DNA molecule. They create charged ions out of stable atoms. Only frequencies in and above the ultraviolet range have the power to do this.
Microwaves, on the other hand, are of lower frequency than visible light. They are non-ionizing. They do not have the power to create ions out of stable atoms.
So the main "support" for the idea that microwaves "can't be harmful" is the fact that they are non-ionizing, and of lower frequency than visible light. The argument usually goes something like:
"Microwaves are of lower frequency than visible light, and visible light obviously doesn't damage biology, so therefore microwave radiation cannot either, because its frequency is lower."
That is the main argument you'll hear from people who want to trot out more and more radiation-emitting devices.
But if we devote more than 3 seconds to thinking about this, we can see immediately that that argument is pure idiocy.
Exhibit A: Warning Labels
First of all, there are FCC (or equivalent) labels on every phone, stating that the phone complies with regulations and emits less than the maximum "safe" level of radiation.
Wait... hang on. If non-ionizing radiation can't be harmful, why is there a "safe" level at all? "Safe level" implies that there is also an "unsafe" level, doesn't it?
How can that be, if none of it can be dangerous in the first place?
Furthermore, those same labels often carry a warning, to avoid placing the phone directly against your head while using it, and to avoid letting small children use it for long periods of time, and sometimes even to avoid using it if you're pregnant!
Why? If there's no such thing as any danger, why all these warnings? Why does the government attempt to establish "safe level limits" at all?
Exhibit B: Microwave Weapons
The U.S. military (and various other militaries) have been developing weapons out of microwave radiation for decades.
In the U.S., there is a weapon called the Active Denial System (ADS), which is a microwave "cannon" with an intended usage for crowd-control. It beams (95 GHz) microwaves at a crowd of people, causing them to instantly develop headaches, skin rashes, nausea, vomiting, vertigo, heart palpitations, brain fog, a sensation that one's skin is "burning", and a host of other pains and acute symptoms. The effects are immediate - quick enough to cause the crowd to disperse.
95 GHz is microwave radiation. It is non-ionizing. Why does it hurt people, if non-ionizing radiation is supposed to be unable to hurt anyone?
(By the way, 95 GHz is within the range planned for usage in the 5G network. In case you were wondering. You'll be marinating for 24 hours a day in low doses of a military weapon. Excited yet?).
Exhibit C: Microwave Ovens
There is a reason the machine shuts off as soon as you open the door.
"Yes, but it can't hurt YOU."
If microwave radiation can cook food, obviously, it can harm biology. Enough said.
"But the wattage."
The next argument that techies will use is the "wattage" argument. It goes something like:
"OK, fine, non-ionizing radiation CAN cause damage to biology, but only at high wattage. The ovens and weapons use thousands of watts, whereas your phone only uses around 10. The frequency can harm you, but the intensity is not enough."
Excuse us... did you just say "non-ionizing radiation can cause damage"?
"Yea... I did."
Thank you. We were waiting for that.
Anyway, this argument is still flawed, because "less damage" is not the same as "no damage." And if you multiply even a minuscule amount of damage by a large amount of time, you can start to see problems that are anything but minuscule.
Let's look at this mathematically.
If we think of a certain degree of Damage (D), we can expect the Time (T) required to inflict it to be inversely correlated with Wattage (W).
In other words, the less wattage, the more time required for any given amount of damage to occur.
Or, another way of phrasing it: The less the Wattage, the less Damage for any given amount of Time.
But its not zero damage for a given time frame...
...nor is it infinite time required for a given amount of damage.
They're both positive, finite numbers.
But here's the trillion-dollar question: What is the amount of time required for a specific amount of damage? And vice versa?
Does anyone know?
And a second thing to consider: You won't just be exposed to your phone, but to everyone else's as well. There will be many phones radiating at you at once - and many transmitters (towers). And many IoT (Internet of Things) devices. At any given time, you will be surrounded by dozens, hundreds, or even THOUSANDS of devices, all emitting radiation at once.
So really, we're not dealing with 10 watts. You've got to multiply the wattage exposure by at least 100, before the discussion even begins.
They don't take that into account in the "safety" studies, you know. When they test, they only test one phone, and don't factor in the hundreds of other phones likely to be in your vicinity at any given time, nor do they account for the towers and transmitters, nor the satellites.
Newsflash: Corporations can't be trusted.
Everyone knows this. If it were any other topic, that is. Whether it's food, pills, fossil fuels, tobacco, the list is virtually complete. No matter what a corporation sells, we don't trust them to be honest.
Except with big tech and telecommunications. Those corporations care about us!
Their top executives are youthful... and they make public appearances wearing T-shirts... and they're chill about weed and gay marriage! And they vote blue!
So they must be good guys. We can trust them. They have society's best interests at heart!
This may sound facetious, but it's literally the reasoning that's going on inside millions of people's heads, right now.
But there is a concerted effort by the telecommunications industry to cast doubt on the dangers, and assure the public that there's "nothing to worry about." This follows a long tradition of corporations not giving a shit about people:
The tobacco companies assured us that cigarettes were safe (and positively healthy!), and hired captive "scientists" to conduct "studies" that "proved" this.
The meat and dairy companies assured us that we all needed gargantuan quantities of animal flesh and secretions in our diets, or else we'd become flimsy and anemic, and they hired captive "scientists" to conduct "studies" that "proved" this.
And more recently, the fossil fuel industry denied that their products were causing climate change - and hired captive "scientists" to conduct "studies" that "proved" this.
In all of these cases, the outcome of a study could be predicted, with a high degree of accuracy, by the identity of its funding body. Those studies funded by the industry were likely to conclude that the product was safe, while independently funded studies overwhelmingly found danger and harm.
When "scientists" were paid by the industries that profited from the products, they found the products safe. Does that surprise you?
Today, there are studies referenced by the telecommunications industry showing that EMF radiation is "safe" - but why should we trust them? They're making MONEY off of it. Corporations will slit throats for nickels! We KNOW this already, folks! This is not a controversial statement!
"But, but, but... the GOVERNMENT is watching them, and looking out for us. And the Government says cell-phone radiation is safe!"
And then you have the government, which has been under complete regulatory capture by every industry in existence, for decades.
Regulatory agencies can't be trusted when they've undergone regulatory capture by the corporations they're supposed to be regulating.
Again, with every other industry, we all know this.
Environmental protection agencies can't be trusted when they're being staffed and directed by mining, logging, and chemical lobbyists.
Food and Drug regulatory agencies can't be trusted when they're being staffed and directed by lobbyists from big agriculture and big pharma.
Financial regulatory agencies can't be trusted when they're being run by bankers.
We KNOW this.
Yet for some reason, it all goes out the window as soon as we start talking about the tech industry. Why is that?
The end result of all this? That "safe exposure level" number on your phone means absolutely nothing.
And the next generation network, 5G, hasn't even been tested at all.
It's going to use frequencies 100 times higher than 4G, but that doesn't appear to warrant any testing! None, whatsoever!
Want proof? Here:
Since it hasn't even been tested (let alone tested honestly), its deployment violates the Geneva Convention.
Did you know that?
The Geneva Convention specifies that all medical experiments have to obtain the informed consent of all parties participating. This rule was instituted in response to the horrors of vivisection during the Holocaust, by infamous "doctors" such as Joseph Mengele.
The people of the post-war era decided that this was unacceptable, and it has been law, ever since, that you can't experiment on people without their permission.
But the 5G network is being deployed without any of our permission. Were you consulted? We weren't. Nobody was.
When they turn it on, it will constitute a planet-wide, and most importantly, non-consensual experiment on every man, woman, child, plant, and animal in the world.
And they're just going to turn it on, zap us, and see what happens. If it doesn't hurt us, great! If it does... oh well, we'll cross that bridge when we get there!
Sound like Mengele?
This is not how experimentation works, in the modern era. It doesn't matter what the ultimate outcome of the experiment will be - you have no right to conduct it in the first place.
You don't just get to test something on someone, and then later on, use the fact that they didn't (appear to) get sick from it, as an excuse to retroactively justify your non-consensual experimentation on them. That's not how it works.
Anyone who thinks it should work like that is a genuine psychopath.
Anyone who wants the 5G network deployed and switched on without any safety testing is a psychopath.
And a criminal.
Like, for instance, this guy:
That's Tom Wheeler, the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) chairman. If you're in a hurry, you can skip to where he admits that they're not testing it, and he's PROUD of that fact.
(And in case you're wondering, he's not a random goon appointed by the Trump administration as a reward for calling one of Trump's hotels beautiful and tremendous. Nope. He served under the "rational", "level-headed" Obama administration, and this clip is from that period).
Not only is he proud of not testing it, but he's also proud that it's going to saturate every square inch of the country, and no one will be able to get away from it.
How does a guy like that walk down the street without facing mobs of livid citizens?
Here are some other things to know about 5G:
1. Since the waves don't travel very far, there will need to be transmitters, called "small cells", spaced every 500 feet (150 meters) - that's every 2 to 8 houses in urban areas - which exposes everyone to the equivalent of a cellphone tower, pretty much right next to them, at all times.
2. It's going to use phased arrays, which is a kind of pulsed radiation, which previous networks don't use.
3. It has a hard time penetrating foliage, so cities across the UK and the world are cutting down mature, healthy trees to make way for it (always without any prior consultation with residents). If you look this up, you'll find people who claim to "debunk" it - i.e. that all of these healthy mature trees are being cut down for reasons other than 5G - but the telecom industries themselves have written, in their own internal papers and correspondences with government agencies, that tree foliage is a significant barrier to 5G signals.
4. While there have been no studies on 5G, there have been many studies on the previous networks (4G and 3G), and the results show unmistakable harm to all living organisms.
For more on the health problems that have been getting catalogued for years, see these doctors:
diagram of body with ailments
The Science Says It's Harmful
Media Release - Ontario Doctors Warn of Rising Health Care Costs after 5G Roll Out
5G Wifi technology the death blow to humanity Dr. Barrie Trower
Wireless wake-up call | Jeromy Johnson | TEDxBerkeley
A Leading Scientist Has Just Warned About the Serious Dangers of 5g – and His Words Are Alarming
The Truth About 5G - Dr. Graham Downing
New 5G cellphone towers Experiment Could Kill 5 Billion People
That's more than enough science to get you started.
But we mustadd: The burden of proof is not on the people claiming it's dangerous - it's on those claiming it's safe. We shouldn't have to prove that it's dangerous before stopping it - you should have to prove that it's safe before starting it. That's the way the Precautionary Principle works.
The Precautionary Principle
Even though there's a wealth of science showing the dangers of EMF radiation, we're not asking you to "believe" the science. You don't need to. There is a more profound issue here, and we encourage you to look deeper.
The #1 problem with 5G (and all artificial EMF to some extent) is that it violates the Precautionary Principle. Basically the principle that if you have a system that is:
1. Very complex
2. Vital to survival
and 3. Nobody fully understands how it works
...then you DON'T FUCK AROUND WITH IT.
To see how it works in practice, let's apply it to fossil fuels. We realize that changing the CHEMICAL composition of the atmosphere is fucking stupid, because the planet is a complex, dynamic system that nobody fully understands. And if you go back to the early 1900's when oil was first drilled, certainly back then our "scientists" knew even LESS about planetary ecology than we do today. Suffice it to say, they were idiots, and they never should have fucked around with the planet's chemistry. They never should have used fossil fuels.
So now let's apply that to EMF. When we apply the Precautionary Principle, we can see that changing the ELECTROMAGNETIC composition of our atmosphere is, again, fucking stupid, because the planet (and all life on it, including our bodies and our cells) are all complex, dynamic systems that nobody fully understands.
Even if there were studies, how can ANY study EVER truly be adequate? What if oil companies had "studied" the health effects of smog back in the 1920's? How could any reassuring result from such a study ever be adequate, considering that none of them had any clue how BIG oil would get in the future? They never foresaw 1970's L.A., or modern Beijing - and certainly not the melting of the ice caps!
So it's not like studies should ever truly reassure us anyway. What if 5G caused some WEIRD shit, like a planetary pole shift, or the collapse of the Van Allen belts, or who fucking knows? Just because no scientist predicts anything so huge NOW doesn't mean it can't happen. Few scientists (no scientists?) predicted in 1850 that coal (and coal's cousins) would melt the fucking ice caps. You CAN'T PREDICT.
If you're taking the position of "Bah, let's just go ahead and do it, and see what happens!!", then you're of the EXACT SAME mind and attitude as the original starry-eyed admirers of fossil fuels. They thought it would "transform" our society in huge ways. And they sure were right about that, weren't they? They just didn't expect it would be in BAD ways.
That is the legacy of technocracy. Every time it promises us improvements, it just makes things worse. Now it's banging up against the very boundaries of Life itself. Please, stop falling for it. Learn from the mistakes of history.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
Mistaking documented knowledge for reality itself
If not documented, not real
Possiblities, yet to be confirmed by science, but very well could be:
1. Cell resonance
If the wave resonates with the sfructure, it causes a logarythmically more intense vibration. Microwave wavelengths are in the meters to micrometers - the same general range as our bodies, organs, tissues, and cells.
2. Insect populations
They like to assure us that microwaves "can't penetrate more than a millimeter or two beneath the skin." Well, insects are ONLY a millimeter or two. So the radiation penetrates their ENTIRE BODIES. ALL of their organs, through and through.
3. Schumann resonance
4. Planetary magnetism
Refer to oil
Lack of discovery doesnt mean no phenomenon
Ice caps wacky