The 5G Problem(s)

Richard Stanley

Administrator
Another interesting presentation by The Corbett Report on the issues surrounding the upcoming conversion to 5G wireless technology.

Why does everything need to be connected to the Internet. It doesn't, unless it is really you and everybody else that is meant to be monitored, if not directly, then by inference. And then there is the EMF exposure issue, which will be much more intense than any other period, and no opting out.

 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
What is 5G?

The simple term "5G" covers a wide range of technology. In most respect, in terms of the surveillance issues and EMF exposure issues, it's just more of the same thing that's been going on already. The one thing that's really novel is the use of RF energy in the millimeter wave band, 30 to 300 GHz in frequency, or 1-10mm wavelength.

In Wi-Fi local home/office networking, "5G" refers to operation on the 5GHz (microwave) frequency band. This has been available for several years now, and is widely deployed.

In the cell phone business, "5G" is a marketing term that can refer either to a new industry standard known as "5G NR", or it can refer to upgrades of the earlier 4G LTE technology, incorporating some "5G NR" features. AT&T, for example, is rolling out something called "5G Evolution", and Verizon is deploying their "5GTF" system. AT&T 5G E is basically 4G LTE with improved antennas and the ability to use more carrier frequencies simultaneously. Verizon 5GTF is a competitive or alternate 5G standard which is generally similar to 5G NR, but not compatible. Verizon plans to convert their system to 5G NR when they are satisfied that it meets their performance specifications.

As explained by the industry newsletter 5GUK:

What is 5G NR?
5G NR is a new air interface being developed for 5G. An air interface is the radio frequency portion of the circuit between the mobile device and the active base station. ...
In a nutshell, the 5G NR is being designed to significantly improve the performance, flexibility, scalability and efficiency of current mobile networks, and to get the most out of the available spectrum, be that licensed, shared or unlicensed, across a wide variety of spectrum bands.
The article goes on to describe the many innovations involved, including improved multiplexing waveforms, new station-switching algorithms for lower latency, provisions for node-to-node communications between devices without involving the cell phone tower, and various other incomprehensible and geeky tech upgrades.

Popular articles and presentations about 5G generally focus on two aspects of the new technology. The first aspect is that 5G systems are typically "small cell" setups, meaning that the base stations are located very close together, located on telephone poles or buildings instead of huge towers. Each cellular base station serves only a small area, perhaps only a city block or less.

However, small cell technology is actually nothing new. The carriers have been increasing the density of cellular base stations in highly populous urban areas, and many offices deploy their own "femtocell" base stations to improve service within the building. This has been going on for several years, and there are now 12 million small cell installations worldwide already. The City of Eugene has a website devoted to small-cell and 5G base station deployments, with an interactive map, showing small cell towers popping up all over town. But, both AT&T and Verizon say that their 5G rollout is currently limited to just a few major cities, and only the most densely populated downtown regions of those cities. There are no verifiable reports of 5G coming to Eugene. My guess is that these small cell base stations in Eugene are just old-fashioned 4G LTE small cell stations. Basically, the more towers you have, the more customers you can handle, and the more data you can deliver to those customers.

The other new aspect to 5G is the millimeter-wave RF frequency. This allows more bandwidth for each channel, which gives higher data rates. But, millimeter-wave requires small cell density, because RF in this frequency range is attenuated by passage through air. These millimeter-wave, small-cell networks are the ones being rolled out by AT&T and Verizon in major metropolitan areas. Most cell phones being sold today can't receive or transmit on this band: Samsung has the top-of-the-line Galaxy S10 5G (available only to business customers in the US), but Apple won't have an iPhone 5G model available until next year.

It's said that millimeter-wave signals are poor at penetrating through building materials. Which seems like a pretty significant problem to me.

Elon Musk's new satellite constellation Internet service will presumably use a 5G NR air interface, but it obviously can't use millimeter wave because of the range issue.

Why 5G?

Why does everything need to be connected to the Internet. It doesn't...
The carriers say that this is all demand-driven. Customers are using more data, and more gadgets are being connected to the Internet all the time.

As an American consumer, this all makes perfect sense to me. Once you've seen 4K HDR video, there's no going back. (Well, not really. I can't tell the difference between 4K resolution, and upscaled 1080P, unless I'm sitting six inches from the screen. HDR can be pretty exciting, but mostly it hurts my eyes. I guess I'm getting old and crabby, and my eyeglass prescription needs updated.) And who could resist an internet-connected fridge that keeps an inventory of what's inside, and orders your groceries to be delivered by Amazon drone flight? My daughter has one.

And it's very ecological. At my house, my solar panel array talks directly to its manufacturer, who obviously needs to know whether my system is working or not. Next time I upgrade the setup, I expect that the solar panels will talk to my electric car, and decide when to charge the battery.

Self-driving cars are said to require 5G data rates and latency, to connect with other cars in the vicinity. What happens if the millimeter-wave radio signals are blocked by a passing ice cream truck? The mind boggles.
 
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
5G Health Effects

And then there is the EMF exposure issue, which will be much more intense than any other period, and no opting out.
Effects of exposure to microwaves (1-10 GHz band) has been a concern for a long time, with cell phones and Wi-Fi. I think there's a "scientific consensus" about this. And to be consistent: if one is going to argue in favor of "global warming" based on "scientific consensus" (and I do), then it's only reasonable to at least consider the consensus about microwaves.

And the scientific consensus is, health effects of microwaves come into play only if there's enough intensity to heat the tissues of the body. Cell phone transmitters have about 3 watts of power, which is enough to produce slight but measurable heating in the brain if the phone is held right up to one's ear. So from a consensus basis, it's not completely surprising if chronic and intensive cell-phone users experience a slightly elevated level of pre-cancerous brain tumors. This is the only effect that's been widely acknowledged. Aside from that, these devices are thought to be perfectly safe.

But of course, as Postflavians, we know that "scientific consensus" isn't the last word. Scientists are only human beings, buffeted by numerous external pressures as well as their own internal biases. After years of doing battle within state-sponsored education systems, they are subjected to continuous exposure to billionaire-owned mass media. And then there's the peer review system, and the publish-or perish paradigm, and the grant game. All of these factors can contribute to errors and misinterpretations in scientific publications.

In this case, a very powerful bias is created by the telecommunications companies themselves. If their equipment is dangerous, they certainly don't want to know about it. And neither do their bankers, and neither do the politicians who pass enabling legislation for the systems.

Pressing on the other side, there are foundations that would like nothing better than a new disruptive cause to tout. And, there are always young scientists who just need to get papers published. There's a crisis of repeatability of scientific papers that's in the news right now, caused by a well-known statistical effect that if one tests enough variables, some of them will show "significance" just by random chance. But this isn't so clearly understood that peer reviewers understand it, and furthermore their pharmaceutical company backers don't want it to be understood. Otherwise they wouldn't be able to get FDA approval for various drugs of dubious effectiveness.

In addition to all the studies that show zero health effects of low-intensity microwaves, there are some that show some effects. For the most part, the alleged effects are at the limit of statistical detectability, or involve specific biological effects in test tubes. My guess is that most of these results are because of the aforementioned tendency to publish irreproducible results in the quest for academic tenure. But there are some exceptions: for example, it's been proven that (non-ionizing) ultraviolet waves can cause DNA damage.

Some perfectly reputable scientists also believe that tissues are subject to all sorts of resonant effects from RF energy. If these effects exist, they're highly dependent on the specific tissues involved, as well as the characteristics of the RF energy: frequency, power and pulse rate. There's no reason to expect that any of these effects are linear, or predictable, without doing the sort of giant epidemiological studies that nobody wants to providing funding for. With all due respect to the proponents of these theories: this is pretty far out on the fringe.

I think it's prudent to follow a precautionary principle. Why take unnecessary risks? I use my cell phone as little as possible, and when I do, I often use speakerphone mode and hold it well away from my head. I had my house wired with CAT-5 cable, so that I rarely if ever need to turn the Wi-Fi on.

I would argue that for most users, 5G NR cell phone technology will result in less exposure to RF, rather than more exposure. This is because most of the exposure is from the radio transmitter in the cell phone itself. With "small cells", the nearest cell phone tower is going to be a lot closer, so the cell phone will reduce its transmission power accordingly. If the tower is far away, the phone might use its full 3-watt power. But with 5G small cell, it might only need a few milliwatts. One of the expected benefits of 5G, is longer cell-phone battery life due to reduced power requirements.

There's some concern that millimeter wave RF energy could be more dangerous than microwave, because of the higher energy per quantum. But remarkably enough, the actual experimental evidence (such as it is) points the other way. This is all explained in a paper "Medical Applications of Millimetre Waves" (1998) by MJ Rojavin and MC Ziskin of Temple University in Philadelphia. Starting in the former Soviet Union in the 1980's, Russians have been using "Millimeter Wave Therapy" to treat a broad range of conditions including cancer, coronary artery disease, diabetes, and bone damage. According to Rojavin & Ziskin, "The reported success rate of MW therapy for various pathologies is astonishingly high." Which, they admit, is difficult to explain in light of the fact that millimeter waves are mostly absorbed in the skin, within 0.5 mm from the surface. Furthermore, they say, "Poor reproducibility of some of the experimental results and the lack of acceptable theoretical models resulted in a significant delay to research activity in this area in the USA." In other words, most American doctors think the Russians are a bunch of quacks.

For whatever it's worth, Rojavin & Ziskin seem to think that the Russians might be on to something. The therapeutic effect is said to occur at intensities of about 20 mW/cm2, which is about equivalent to a 5G cell phone held at 3 cm distance from the body, if anyone wants to try it. Or you might go to the airport and walk through the body scanner, unless they have the X-ray model.

Or if it turns out that both microwave and millimeter wave are equally carcinogenic: with the new technology you'll probably get skin cancer instead of brain cancer.

As for "opting out", it seems that it might actually be easier to opt out of millimeter-wave 5G than any earlier technology. With the old-fashioned microwaves, you really needed a complete metal faraday cage to be totally safe. There might be some benefit from a tin-foil hat or Pastafarian colander, but such an improvisation would leave the brain exposed to waves from below. Whereas a few extra layers of drywall, or some brownstone, might do a pretty good job of attenuating 5G.

[Edited 8/23 based on information in post #10 below from Martin Pall]
 
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
How can you support "scientific consensus," then go on to admit that there's a crisis in repeatability of scientific papers? How can you take as valid a scientific consensus that is supported by oligarchs? Isn't that enough to bring it under suspicion?
Welcome back Miss Kitty. Long time, no see.

I certainly wouldn't argue that "scientific consensus" is the end of the story, or that anybody ought to believe it. I'm just saying that as a starting point for any discussion, it's a good idea to ask whether there is such a consensus. And, to consider the reasoning and evidence behind it.
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
So, if there is a health danger from 5G it would seem to be at the margins of a respective provider's coverage area, where the field devices' transmitters will necessarily need to ramp to higher power levels.

In any case, I am perhaps more concerned by the civil rights aspects of the 'Panopticon', that Miss Kitty's heros of the coming new order will impose upon us, as they have explicitly stated -- shown in Corbett's piece. The real Deep State (not discussed by Agent Orange Leaks) is intent on protecting cryptoJews like Miss Kitty from threats, albeit mostly fake. No different than when the globalsit Christian (Judaism Lite) scam was foisted on humanity in the first place.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
So, if there is a health danger from 5G it would seem to be at the margins of a respective provider's coverage area, where the field devices' transmitters will necessarily need to ramp to higher power levels.
This would only be from a "consensus science" point of view, which is concerned about heating effects.

For a review of the scientific studies that have raised concerns about health effects, here's a good resource:

https://ehtrust.org/key-issues/cell-phoneswireless/5g-networks-iot-scientific-overview-human-health-risks/

Scanning through some of the material, I was intrigued by a paper about effects of microwaves on insects. And another paper claiming that millimeter waves are absorbed preferentially in sweat ducts in the skin. And some survey-type studies that show various biological effects in humans and animals, at relatively low signal levels. The data isn't limited to just test tubes as I said above.

There's plenty to read here, and ponder the significance of the various effects reported. Maybe there's more to it than just statistical errors & confirmation bias.

I feel it's a respectable choice, to minimize one's exposure to microwaves and millimeter waves as much as possible. And when it comes to public health effects, I feel we'll probably never know. Somebody dies of cancer: what's the cause? Is it microwaves, or Fukushima radiation, or second-hand smoke, or GMO food, or pesticide residues, or ...??? Nothing will be statistically demonstrable, unless there's a truly catastrophic level of risk.
 
Welcome back Miss Kitty. Long time, no see.

I certainly wouldn't argue that "scientific consensus" is the end of the story, or that anybody ought to believe it. I'm just saying that as a starting point for any discussion, it's a good idea to ask whether there is such a consensus. And, to consider the reasoning and evidence behind it.
No, you stated that you argue in favor of global warming based on scientific consensus, so why not consider arguing in favor of 5G on the same basis? You said "and I do." That's when Miss Kitty stopped reading and started skimming badly. In common English, you said believe in global warming because you read somewhere that most scientist who've looked into it say that it's happening. Now, I know you don't like common English.

[More off topic digressions moved to other thread: https://postflaviana.org/community/index.php?threads/science-and-christianity.2561/ ]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Another interesting presentation by The Corbett Report on the issues surrounding the upcoming conversion to 5G wireless technology.

Why does everything need to be connected to the Internet. It doesn't, unless it is really you and everybody else that is meant to be monitored, if not directly, then by inference. And then there is the EMF exposure issue, which will be much more intense than any other period, and no opting out.

Miss Kitty doesn't want 5G at all. I was happy to get far away into the forest - where I couldn't even get 4G. But then one day, I started getting 4G in the forest. The forest ranger thinks I'm getting 5G soon. This is evil.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
That's when Miss Kitty stopped reading and started skimming badly.
When Miss Kitty stops reading and starts skimming, she misses the point. "Scientific Consensus" is only the starting point of the analysis.

Getting back to the science: Martin Pall, an emeritus biochemistry professor from Washington State University, has come up with a remarkably comprehensive theory about a possible cause of cellular damage caused by low-level EMF. He says that the Voltage Gated Calcium Channels (VGCC) in cellular walls are very sensitive to EMF's, at a rate millions of times greater than most tissue. When the VGCC's are activated, calcium ions flow into cells and cause all sorts of havoc.

As quoted below, Pall believes that EMF is an extinction level threat to the human species.

In a peer reviewed paper entitled "Wi-Fi is an important threat to human health" published in Environmental Research, Pall surveyed the literature on biochemical effects of microwave radiation, and also compared the papers demonstrating serious effects vs. a number of papers supporting what I've called the "consensus view" above, that EMF can only cause biological effects due to heating.

Pall argues it's the "no effect" papers that suffer from small sample size, poor experimental design, or bad statistics. Meanwhile, it seems, the papers that have been raising concerns, have been marginalized at least partly because up until now, there's been no theoretical basis for understanding the effects.

The paper also discusses several other theories which have been proposed to explain biochemical effects of EMF. Pall cites a lack of evidence for these other theories.

For those who prefer video, here's an interview (with a transcript) with Dr. Joseph Mercola (but for caveats about Mercola, see Quackwatch):


MP: One thing I’d like to emphasize is that this whole nonsense that the industry had been putting forth is just that. It’s just nonsense. We are literally destroying our health in many different ways.
I think we talked about the extinction issue. I think there are actually six different ways in which it’s probable that we will generate our own extinction rather quickly from these EMFs. But I think one of the things that’s important here is that when you look at the effects of EMFs on the brain, and when you look at the effects of EMFs on the reproductive system, they both develop slowly over time. Those are the things we’re not aware of, because they develop slowly. I mean it’s not like getting hit in the head by something. It develops over periods of months and sometimes years.
JM: Like smoking.
MP: We’re not aware of them even though they are cumulative and they develop quite severe effects. This is something where – I think people are not aware of this because they develop slowly over time despite the severity of the eventual effects. That’s something that I think all of us should keep in mind.
 
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Another important factor relating to 5G is the increased use of "Massive MIMO" antenna technology, which concentrates the available transmitter power into a very tightly formed beam. So, peak transmitter power levels are much higher, even though the average power over time is the same or lower. Peak power levels are thought to be an important factor in determining the extent of health effects.

Depending on local regulatory regimes, the power levels of a typical 5G base station might require an exclusion zone as large as 115 meters radius, making "5G network rollout a major problem or impossible" in these areas. With a liberal interpretation of the ICNIRP standard (which is similar to the US FCC standard), the exclusion zone around that same typical 5G base station would be only 10 meters.

See:

https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-T/Workshops-and-Seminars/20171205/Documents/S3_Christer_Tornevik.pdf
 
To me, the whole 5G thing is so appalling, I can't understand why anyone would even consider tolerating it. I don't much care about the health effects because the whole thing makes me doubt life will be worth living if we the people don't take this whole thing down right away. If everyone were like me, millions would be over at the capital building with pitchforks and torches. Former military people would be blowing up any 5G cell towers that might crop up. It's like body scanners at the airports. It's so destructive to basic human rights and dignity, so shocking in its possible uses by the surveillance state, I can't understand why it's even possible. I personally avoided airports for ten years in protest and in I fear that I might bitch slap a TSA agent. I cannot understand why hardly anyone seems to care. If everyone were like me, there would be melees and fist fights at the airports. The Department of Homeland Security could never stand. I stayed out of airports until the "TSA Pre Check" made it extremely likely that you can get on a plane without being body scanned or groped. And even then, I am outraged at the fingerprints they demanded.

My husband is from Lebanon, and he tells me that Americans tried to get the Lebanese to accept surveillance in Beirut streets. Not anything as sophisticated as 5G - just cameras. There was no possible way. And no surveillance at the airports, either. You can't abuse the Lebanese this way. They will kill you. And more importantly, they are willing to die in order to stop you.

Where is our dignity? Why are we so cowed? Do we wanna live forever?


[Off topic material moved to Miss Kitty's other thread: https://postflaviana.org/community/index.php?threads/science-and-christianity.2561/]
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Emma Robertson

Active Member
To me, the whole 5G thing is so appalling, I can't understand why anyone would even consider tolerating it. I don't much care about the health effects because the whole thing makes me doubt life will be worth living if we the people don't take this whole thing down right away. If everyone were like me, millions would be over at the capital building with pitchforks and torches.
Hi Miss Kitty, have you watched my thread https://postflaviana.org/community/index.php?threads/how-is-our-world-going-to-be-re-shaped-and-why-the-industrial-revolution.2521/page-3#post-12588 ?

I address exactly the problem of modern technology.

The elite is smiling for your reaction, that's exactly how they want us to react. They want us to fear 5G technology and be happy to live without any modern technology in the future. By staying out of airports as a protest for their surveillance methods you are doing their game. The same as people who live without TV and without mobile phones are playing their game all the while believing to be against their game. When the post-apocalyptic time comes you will be among the first to be happy to live in a medieval like agricultural life, apparently free from controlling devices, while the controlling device will be the lack of modern technology itself!

My husband is from Lebanon, and he tells me that Americans tried to get the Lebanese to accept surveillance in Beirut streets. Not anything as sophisticated as 5G - just cameras. There was no possible way. And no surveillance at the airports, either. You can't abuse the Lebanese this way. They will kill you. And more importantly, they are willing to die in order to stop you.
I guess the elite is not the least concerned about the difficulty to control the Lebanese with technology. The Lebanese are already prepared to live without. The masses that needs to be convinced to do without modern technology are in advanced countries, America the first. One of the ways they are using, besides scaring us with control threats, is through romantic movies that convert people living in opulent big cities and with a career to a life in poor villages because they will find love, simplicity and freedom there! I am seeing plenty of those movies...

When I used to believe like you and many other people that we are going to be enslaved by advanced technology I was trying to figure out when the elite would be ready for the worldwide control through such devices and it looked to me there was still a lot of work to do in developing countries, to endow them with advanced technology to be able to control them like us. It also looked unprobable as they are so backward still it would be a huge investment needed and I couldn't see such willingness in action. Now I can see how foolish it would be for the elite to do such thing. Why spend so much money and efforts to control these people that they can already control through religion, poverty, starvation and deseases?

The one world government will not need to wait for the developing countries to be high-tech controlled like us, as I said, the plan is achieved when the advanced countries believe they are being controlled. We will get to a peak threat during the Antichrist government, lasting just 3,5 years. Then the threat will collapse with the coming of Jesus the Saviour.
 
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
When the post-apocalyptic time comes you will be among the first to be happy to live in a medieval like agricultural life, apparently free from controlling devices, while the controlling device will be the lack of modern technology itself!
My guess is that in post-apocalyptic times, the elite will used cabled Ethernet and avoid microwaves. That is, if the elite survive into post-apocalyptic times.
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
It's so destructive to basic human rights and dignity, so shocking in its possible uses by the surveillance state, I can't understand why it's even possible.
What if we just exclude such abuse to approved white people?
If everyone were like me, millions would be over at the capital building with pitchforks and torches.
Chinese-made Polynesian Tiki torches?
My husband is from Lebanon, and he tells me that Americans tried to get the Lebanese to accept surveillance in Beirut streets. Not anything as sophisticated as 5G - just cameras. There was no possible way. And no surveillance at the airports, either. You can't abuse the Lebanese this way. They will kill you. And more importantly, they are willing to die in order to stop you.
Where is our dignity? Why are we so cowed? Do we wanna live forever?
So ... what you're saying is that if your husband was still living in Lebanon, he would be bombing 5G cell towers and such, but he hasn't done so here .... yet?

Such as 5G will help facilitate the automation of repetitive and boring work, like lawyers, store clerks at 99 Cent stores and such. As President Yang has pointed out, such automation got your almost hero (and his Slavic illegal immigrant, whore wife) into the White House.

But as my recently posted video on The War on Sensemaking suggested about looking for a positive Synthesis from the traditional dialectic poles, President Yang provides just such. That you should not be a Luddite and instead revel in the profits of such as Bezos and Zuckerberg, so that we can give every American $1,000 a month to spend in such as 99 Cent stores. It would be a terrible world for you 'Christians' if small business owners had a lot more money to look after, and business owners small and large didn't have to take care of their employees' health insurance costs and issues.

Of course, if all Americans had proper access to health care, and not bad access to disease treatment, the medical industry and its investors would lose out on trillions of dead presidents each year.

This is all so ironic hearing these particular complaints about 5G, from someone who was whining about her lost profits in Bitcoin:

...
Powerful people have always imposed their ideas of money onto others to reinforce their wealth and dominance.
Maurer notes that the emergence of gold and silver as dominant currencies in the ancient world stemmed because of the fact that wealthy elites had previously acquired status objects composed of precious metals. As they consolidated their power over government and laws, they made those metals currency standards.
Bitcoin has its equivalents of those ancient elites. Big mining firms, early adopters/investors, and core developers all have an oversized interest in promoting it. The same goes for the “whales” of Bitcoin Cash, Bitcoin SV, ether and other cryptocurrencies.
This isn’t to say the crypto elites don’t deserve rewards for being early to the game or for helping to develop and secure an ingenious new form of money. Nor can one equate the power they wield – all within a system that doesn’t actively prohibit anyone from mining, owning or contributing code to bitcoin – with that of governments that use military might and judicial threats to control access to their money.
I raise it simply to point out that these influential players are both incentivized and financially enabled to aggressively push and promote their positions.
Believers gonna believe
These competing, financially enabled voices are battling for the minds of users, which means they’re appealing to people’s passions and emotions.
It’s unavoidable. You can be as nerdy and detached as the most cerebral cryptographer, but if you want your favored currency to grow to the point that it becomes money, you must engage in cultural production. You want a shared story of belonging to develop around it, one that’s widely accepted enough that your currency is widely held and used.
Of course, you also need your currency to have intrinsic qualities – those of scarcity, fungibility, transportability, durability and divisibility are common to both gold and bitcoin, for example. But in and of themselves, they aren’t sufficient. For something to become money, it needs belief.
Here we enter into the realm of myths and storytelling, the foundations upon which the most powerful systems of human organization are built – nations, religions, brands and, most of all, money.
Think of the importance attached to the unknown identity of bitcoin’s founder. It not only denied critics a target to accuse of running a get-rich-quick scheme; it gave the bitcoin community its genesis myth. That, in turn, has fed the posturing over Bitcoin Cash and Wright’s Bitcoin SV, the latter’s name alluding unabashedly to the prophet-like notion of “Satoshi’s Vision.”
But here’s the thing: “believers” are vulnerable to manipulation. (Just look at how the powerful have gotten religious communities to do their dirty work through the ages, from priests and mullahs stirring up “ethnic cleansings” to America’s televangelists fleecing their congregations.) Sadly, the increasingly wide communities interested in cryptocurrencies are similarly vulnerable – the thousands hoodwinked into BitConnect, for example.
And in a situation where specialized knowledge about the complex workings of cryptocurrency is limited, those vulnerabilities are heightened for the many who don’t fully grasp the tech.
“Because it’s supposed to be about the code and the mathematics, and not everyone understands the code and the mathematics, people take advantage of that to try to sell you whatever they want to sell,” says Maurer. “People are desperate to have a firmer foundation for their beliefs. So, it’s easier to fall for someone that offers that to them.”
I’m not saying the “trust in code” mantra isn’t useful when applied to the decentralized management of a cryptocurrency’s monetary policy or payments system. But it’s naïve to believe the human networks gathered around this technology are somehow immune to the failings of humanity itself. Worse, that belief enables the scammers.
So, if we want to rid ourselves of the Faketoshis, snake oil salesmen, and general cultural chaos of crypto, it’s up to we humans, not the code or the coders per se, to come up with ways to mitigate those failings. Human governance matters. ...

Faketoshis? Ask that marketing mate from Phoenicia about why his kind helped give us those neighbors of yours, his Semitic cousins.
 

Emma Robertson

Active Member
My guess is that in post-apocalyptic times, the elite will used cabled Ethernet and avoid microwaves. That is, if the elite survive into post-apocalyptic times.
It's part of their game to make us believe that they are going to succumb. The bad guys being punished or self-punished for their arrogance. And that we are going to start afresh with a new life and a new leadership that we can trust. "Channeled" material from "higher beings" is plently of that. And Christian "channeled" material from Jesus and Mary as well, besides the interpreters of bible prophecies. They all point to the bad current elite to annihilate itself or repent. I've been cheated enough to smell total fake in there. But I realize it's too hard for most people to accept. In order to have a motivation to go on in this world it is necessary to believe that things will get better, or that at least they have a chance to get better, we need to self-deceive ourselves. And the elite knows that. So it's easy for them to serve their lies to us on a platter.
 
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
So it's easy for them to serve their lies to us on a platter.
So you are saying that Martin Pall is a liar, with his theory about microwave effects on calcium channels?

It's certainly possible that he's mistaken, and that other scientists are correct that 4G and 5G telecomm systems are safe. But why would you dismiss all his analysis and evidence as simple, deliberate falsification?
 

Emma Robertson

Active Member
So you are saying that Martin Pall is a liar, with his theory about microwave effects on calcium channels?

It's certainly possible that he's mistaken, and that other scientists are correct that 4G and 5G telecomm systems are safe. But why would you dismiss all his analysis and evidence as simple, deliberate falsification?
It reminds me of those scientific explanations proving that microwave ovens cause cancer, or that computers radiations, especially Wi-Fi and anything coming from satellite beams cause cancer.

One of these applications in particular opened my eyes. In my country a satellite system of meter reading in households has been enforced. It means it is a wireless remote meter reading system. I was extremely worried as many sources claimed that that would be terrible for health, having the power of 40 routers all together, thus highly cancer causing. I started to fight to avoid it having installed in my building and I asked advice to friends on how to proceed. The answer of one of them startled me: he said he used to work for electrical companies and he measured the emissions of such apparatus in his house and they were nothing at all worrying. At the beginning I just felt alone against the giant electric company while I did not trust my friend assessment. But when I discovered what I have been sharing on this forum, about how advanced technology is being purposefully painted as highly damaging for health or the environment and why, the empirical evidence my friend found made sense and I believed him.

So I started to question all my previous beliefs about damaging technologies, like that of the microwave oven, which I abhorred before, and realized how ridiculous my worries were.
 
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
But when I discovered what I have been sharing on this forum, about how advanced technology is being purposefully painted as highly damaging for health or the environment and why, the empirical evidence my friend found made sense and I believed him.
As to whether advanced technology is being painted as highly damaging for health, it depends on who's doing the painting. Certainly the major telecomm industry vendors, the FCC and other government agencies, and the mass media, aren't admitting that microwaves are dangerous. It's only a few, marginalized scientists and websites that are making this particular assertion.

Your friend's advice was based on the scientific consensus, as I've described it above, that all the various microwave devices in our environment don't have any significant biological effects. And of course by "consensus" I mean what most scientists think, aside from a few dissidents.

Martin Pall doesn't claim that there is any evidence that microwaves cause cancer. He claims it can cause damage to DNA, which could indirectly cause cancer. He says that microwaves also cause neurological problems & reproductive problems.

The scary thing about Pall's hypothesis is: if he's correct that damage is caused by activation of calcium channels and other cell-wall receptors, there's no reason to believe those effects would be linear, or that they wouldn't be finely tuned to particular frequencies. I don't know how to extrapolate from test tube studies & animal studies, to human health effects. I don't see how to really understand the problem, short of very expensive long-term epidemiological studies. And it's not easy to find a control population these days. As long as those studies aren't done, one can always hope for the best, that perhaps humans have some evolved mechanism for coping with EMF waves.

This website is mainly dedicated to an analysis of religious propaganda and its relationship to the growing threat of global fascism. And as long as we're under the boot of the New World Order, I don't see how to make any progress towards fixing any of the other problems. But that doesn't mean the other problems aren't real.
 

Emma Robertson

Active Member
Beware of Russia's propaganda against 5G in the United States (not in their country):


https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/12/science/5g-phone-safety-health-russia.html

"The cellphones known as 5G, or fifth generation, represent the vanguard of a wireless era rich in interconnected cars, factories and cities. Whichever nation dominates the new technology will gain a competitive edge for much of this century, according to many analysts. But a television network a few blocks from the White House has been stirring concerns about a hidden flaw."

"The Russian network RT America aired the segment, titled “A Dangerous ‘Experiment on Humanity,’” in covering what its guest experts call 5G’s dire health threats. U.S. intelligence agencies identified the network as a principal meddler in the 2016 presidential election. Now, it is linking 5G signals to brain cancer, infertility, autism, heart tumors and Alzheimer’s disease — claims that lack scientific support.

Yet even as RT America, the cat’s paw of Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin, has been doing its best to stoke the fears of American viewers, Mr. Putin, on Feb. 20, ordered the launch of Russian 5G networks in a tone evoking optimism rather than doom."

"“It’s economic warfare,” Ryan Fox, chief operating officer of New Knowledge, a technology firm that tracks disinformation, said in an interview. “Russia doesn’t have a good 5G play, so it tries to undermine and discredit ours.”

The Kremlin “would really enjoy getting democratic governments tied up in fights over 5G’s environmental and health hazards,” said Molly McKew, head of Fianna Strategies, a consulting firm in Washington, D.C., that seeks to counter Russian disinformation.

RT’s assaults on 5G technology are rising in number and stridency as the American wireless industry begins to erect 5G systems.

The network distributes its programming by cable, satellite and online streaming. It also posts individual stories on Facebook and YouTube. A declassified U.S. intelligence report, released early in 2017, said that RT videos on YouTube have averaged 1 million views per day, “the highest among news outlets.”

Hundreds of blogs and websites appear to be picking up the network’s 5G alarms, seldom if ever noting the Russian origins. Analysts call it a treacherous fog.

Moscow’s goal, experts say, is to destabilize the West by undermining trust in democratic leaders, institutions and political life. To that end, the RT network amplifies voices of dissent, to sow discord and widen social divides. It gives the marginal a megaphone and traffics in false equivalence. Earlier campaigns took aim at fracking, vaccination and genetically modified organisms.

The network is now applying its playbook against 5G by selectively reporting the most sensational claims, and by giving a few marginal opponents of wireless technology a conspicuous new forum.

Over the years, plenty of careful science has scrutinized wireless technology for potential health risks. Virtually all the data contradict the dire alarms, according to public officials, including those at the World Health Organization.

RT America taps the ranks of existing anti-cellular activists to wage its 5G campaign. Some have railed for decades against cellphones, power lines and other everyday sources of electromagnetic waves. Much of their work appears not in reputable science journals but little-known reports, publications and self-published tracts, at times with copious notes of dubious significance. They tend to cite each other’s research.

It’s unclear how many RT experts realize they are aiding a Russian network or that it acts as Mr. Putin’s mouthpiece. At times, RT simply mines existing videotape and print materials, editing them to reflect its perspective. And the intelligence report noted that some network staffers fail to disclose their RT affiliation when conducting interviews.
 
Top