In 2015, three renowned scientists cooperated to publish a paper which explains why the violently erratic wave radiation seen in the charts above is so catastrophic for humans, who generate their own natural electromagnetic wave forms for regulation of biological functions. Annotated with 103 medical citations, this report notes that all living organisms perceive Wi-radiation as a potent environmental stressor, for which evolution has provided no adequate defense. The authors reference copious medical evidence showing that it is the perpetual change in frequencies and pulse modulations which stress living cells the most. They say that modulated radiation used for wireless technologies is actually more biologically stressful than excessive heat, cold, starvation and toxic chemicals. Living cells produce heat-shock proteins within minutes of exposure to RF/microwave assault. Heat shock proteins cascade into free radical formation, followed by drastic DNA damage, which precedes the development of cancer.
Reminder that schizo is a shill trigger word, if you see any post with this word in it, it's a guaranteed shill post. Actual people are concerned about this.
Jace Parker
I’m tarring you as a schizo because you refuse to read the shit you link
>actual people >samefagging this hard >makes this thread everyday The best part of schizos like this is that they are essentially shills that do it for free, without compensation, out of their own mentally ill volition.
>hundreds of studies show cells are extremely vulnerable to even low doses of RF radiation, let alone the ultramodulated versions found in 3G, 4G and 5G >must be a schizo theory
I've skimmed through four papers linked by 5G schizos, and like the paper in this thread, they never actually say what the posters think. Two of the papers I read were by that Turkish (IIRC) dude who almost exclusively cites his own research.
Adam Sanders
>shill replying to itself the actual schizo ITT lmao
>it’s impossible for two people to disagree with me
Hunter Powell
>let me just switch over my proxy for a sec
Hudson Parker
Steve, you’re posting on the technology board. The percentage of people with college degrees is higher than on other boards. This nigger tier cherry picking studies and taking them out of context wouldn’t fly in any college level course.
Lucas Johnson
>urbanite retard literally thinks a college degree means anything let alone your libarts afro papercraft phd
>Glyphosate is safe !! >Non-Ionizing radiations are safe ! >Eating large amounts of sugar is safe !! >Nitrites are safe !! (the microbiome is a myth, you don't need it at all, just drink lysol)
Lucas Miller
I imagine you registered an account for the site and read the article... ...right? >Time-trend analyses did not show an increased rate of brain tumours after the increase in mobile phone use. >Comparing those who ever used mobile phones with those who never did yielded an odds ratio (OR) of 0·81 >Although both the INTERPHONE study and the Swedish pooled analysis are susceptible to bias—due to recall error and selection for participation—the Working Group concluded that the findings could not be dismissed as reflecting bias alone, and that a causal interpretation between mobile phone RF-EMF exposure and glioma is possible. >The Working Group reviewed more than 40 studies that assessed the carcinogenicity of RF-EMF in rodents, including seven 2-year cancer bioassays. Exposures included 2450 MHz RF-EMF and various RF-EMF that simulated emissions from mobile phones. None of the chronic bioassays showed an increased incidence of any tumour type in tissues or organs of animals exposed to RF-EMF for 2 years. An increased total number of malignant tumours was found in RF-EMF-exposed animals in one of the seven chronic bioassays. Increased cancer incidence in exposed animals was noted in two of 12 studies with tumour-prone animals12 , 13 and in one of 18 studies using initiation-promotion protocols. > In view of the limited evidence in humans and in experimental animals, the Working Group classified RF-EMF as “possibly carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2B). This evaluation was supported by a large majority of Working Group members.
Sounds like a really clear-cut case for GSM -> cancer right? No. Oh yeah, almost all studies in the meta-analysis are concerned with GSM, not 5G. I asked about 5G, which is supposedly 1000 times more harmful than previous mobile data, you give me a 2011 study with a realistic conclusion.
Gavin Gutierrez
>replying to yourself again i hope the pay is worth your life
I'm still waiting for that one paper. How about you give me the "2016 paper signed by 6 radiation experts" from your OP picture? Or should we all just "use our common sense" like the image suggests? More information -> more cancer. That's just common sense, isn't it?
Carson Sanchez
>How about you give me the "2016 paper signed by 6 radiation experts" from your OP picture? Or should we all just "use our common sense" like the image suggests? More information -> more cancer. That's just common sense, isn't it?
>data sent over a modulated frequency resembles white noise at a band surrounding that frequency Colour me suprised
Angel Russell
Try posting this the next time you go concern trolling. I found this two links away from that inconsequential blurb written for the "Environmental Health Trust".
A NIH report saying "clear evidence" in the first paragraph is way more convincing than some motivated private bullshit publication. You owe me one, schizo.
Christian King
thanks for conceding
Dominic Martin
>gets btfo on g >reposts on pol because he knows the Nazis are too lazy to check his links
Elijah Diaz
>5G discord tranny mad his little game is up
Josiah Taylor
Remember that village full of retards who complained a new nearby wireless transmitter was giving them all headaches and flu and depression and shit from the "dangerous radiation" , then it turned out the company who owned hadn't even turned it on yet? Modern conspiracy theorists are always good for a laugh.
Logan Campbell
paid for by israel
Alexander Lee
>If I will show two different charts that cannot be compared and compare them, people will get spoopied I'm real spoopd right now
Adrian Myers
if you translate the bottom to a waveform it will look more aggressive than the top two
Hunter Cruz
really foking spoopedupd now
Caleb Garcia
not as spooked as your father was when you showed him your front hole
Jayden Rivera
5G is entirely a ploy to get people to allow businesses to map their homes and collect even more data about them. 5G is _not_ for cell phones. It cannot penetrate walls. They are going to sell 5G enabled devices, like lightbulbs, so that every room is mapped in real-time and can pinpoint your every movement. This allows them to put ads on your refrigerator as you walk by, or on tvs, or on your phone. It also is a great way to entrap you in a permanent debt cycle. This is the _true_ redpill about 5G. It cannot go through walls.
Joshua Myers
it goes through windows and gaps in walls though, and propagates very readily once it's in a zone (close to source)
Isaac Sanchez
Sure. Do you think every wall has gaps or windows? Do you think what they can do with software nowadays that it wouldn't take some stupid fuckery to account for those windows and gaps?
Benjamin Green
Are you trying to shit me user? >first 2 : x axis is time >third graph: x axis is frequency They aren't even remotely compatible, and the authors presenting it that way makes me think they're either idiots or acting in bad faith. >It is obvious that 4g wave patterns... are immeasurably more data dense... than 2g and 3g THEY AREN'T EVEN COMPARABLE YOU MOOK STOP HOODWINKING ME WITH SHITTY MATLAB PLOTS They aren't even professional enough to save the matlab png, they just screenshot the window, fucking amatures
Xavier Robinson
but I was only replying to the OP image, let's have a look at the article itself
Cooper Rivera
>top graphs are in the time domain >bottom graph is the spectrum
nice comparison there, jim
Gavin Lewis
>use wifi your whole life >get brain cancer from it when you're 70 Worth it! Is this even a question? What's the alternative, have a miserable life living like amish person so you don't die 3 years early.
Brayden Bailey
>They say that modulated radiation used for wireless technologies is actually more biologically stressful than excessive heat, cold, starvation and toxic chemicals. OK
Austin Rivera
umm, okay if phones were as cancerous as people are claiming they are ITT, wouldn't have the people posting right now have brain cancer considering everyone started using smartphones for the past 10 years?
Sebastian Mitchell
why even bother deploying 5g when everywhere is essentially wifi enabled and you can just use wifi calling to do whatever you need to do anyway?
