WE'RE FUCKED

non-ionized radiation. Not dangerous at all, they exist for over the last 50 years
4G uses 1.8 GHz
WiFi uses 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz
5G will use similar frequencies and wavelengths.

Only 26 GHz band is higher but that one will be implemented last. In Europe, 700 MHz will be implemented first as I know.

>muh non ionized

There is literally no easier way to spot you pseudo intellectual reddit filth.

I heard something about 5g being harmful to the cornea in the eye.

>Hundreds of respected scientists

Why have none of them come forward?

yeah and I heard something about you being a cocksucker

Why do 2G and 3G still exist?
When 5G is implemented only 4G, 5G and DVB-T + Radio should be left.
TV can even be broadcasted through 5G stream and kill DVB-T imo

>why haven't they destroyed their career

I wonder

It was NOT what it looked like. I was tying my shoe in that photo.

Attached: CF41C412-7EDE-47C1-8A63-0B0272334E09.png (512x512, 3K)

>DVB-T - free
>5G - very, totally and absolutely not fucking free
not that I GAF about TV, but, I'd give even less of one if it was held entirely to ransom by cocksuckers like Verizon and Co. We can scrap our cable lines and stuff as well? one presumes. Totally wont be fucked over when its a monopoly single-provider service, nope.

I had many classes about the radio networks in university and also read about it in free

Just by saying non-ionizing radiation I can prove you wrong kiddo. It's a fact.

5G won't have wavelength or frequency big enough to cause any harm. DARPA already uses frequencies in Terahertz btw

>frequencies less than visible light being harmful

I think there's worst things to worry about if this is true. Jesus christ the sun is going to kill us all in 6 months at this rate

>muh ad hominum
If the 5G radiation doesn't have enough energy to ionize the atoms in your body, what mechanism are you proposing actual does the damage?

it could be free if the government invests in it same as they did in DVB-T transmitters.

Who's got the chart from the old thread that shows that the 5G hysteria is just that?

>it could be free
uhuh

If non ionizing radiation was NEVER harmful rats wouldnt be able to be harmed by WiFi and 5g signals

Go, count your sperm and come back later, also the reduction in birds and insects is very alarming

don't listen to scientist, they don't know shit

If I were wrong, then one [author] would have been enough!

Einstein’s retort with regard to his theory when he heard that a book titled 100 Authors against Einstein was published in Germany. Quoted in Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time (London: Bantam, 1988), 178

It's so the obamaphones they give out will be getting the equivalent to broadband that whites pay for. Equality n sheeit.

Enjoy the record climbing cancer diagnoses.

>opinions that aren't mine are reddit

recommended viewing for everyone who speaks german:
youtube.com/watch?v=gQ6h2huUdLA

Prof. Adlkofer is talking about the health risks of mobile data. He researched the health affects of 2G from 2000 to 2004 as a part of the REFLEX project financed by the EU

So what's his conclusion?

The last time I watched an InfoWars video it started, ended, and was split down the middle with ads for testosterone boosters.
Why are the people who watch InfoWars so low-T?

>all of these flatearthers worrying about non-ionizing radiation but still answer their phone calls with the cancer machine right next to their brains putting out watts of juice instead of using a bluetooth headset that just spits out milliwatts at best
BUY MY MIXTAPE OF PENIS ENLARGEMENT POEMS!

It seems to pretty much unopposed, causes tumors in rats:
ntp.niehs.nih.gov/results/areas/cellphones/index.html
That is US Govt siite and 10-yr study btw.
What should be worrying is, this is then dismissed with PR puff like Pic Related.
Rat testing is often used in medicine as similar applicability to humans.
The German here did a similar (earlier) study as the US one linked, over 4 years for the EU. It was certainly his opinion, would equally cause tumors in humans. This was pre 5G. His position re: 5G appears, more research should have been done before building 5G nets, he compared also mobile industry to cigarette industry (and he would know, he used to work for them). Compares standing next to mobile masts to passive smoking BUT jamming a phone next to your head is REAL FUCKING BAD IDEA. And for avoidance of doubt, guy definitive not Infowars-tier. Also no dog in this fight, was different user who posted link (cheers)

Attached: Cancer_Is_Great_Honest.png (648x799, 382K)

Daily reminder that 5G = mass surveillance. It's the fulfilment of the Total Information Awareness project that began in 2003. Every camera and smart device broadcasting data 24/7 that gets hoovered up and collated by Five Eyes and tech giants. Goodbye final semblance of privacy, hello social engineering.

>reduction in birds and insects
based mobile data

this is the reason 5G won't be stopped, even if it caused cancer at significant rates

brehs

I've been using 5g for the past 5-7 years non stop. Am I a mutant? Do I have xmen powers?

Attached: Screenshot_5.png (234x121, 3K)

Source on rats being harmed by wifi 5g signals then?

>infowars
K E K

Yall ready to get blasted by 100GHz microwaves?

see: ntp.niehs.nih.gov/results/areas/cellphones/index.html
That is US Govt site and 10-yr study btw.
This and other study mentioned was also rats being fucked by ONLY 2G. NO studies have been done into effects, never mind long-term effects, of 5G exposure. Industry is of the opinion, they can test as they go along, and, if its a problem? stop building 5G nets then. What could go wrong?

>LETS BUILD AND IF ITS BAD WELL STOP WE SWEAR GOYIM

Holy fuck

that's because they're mostly right about things besides stupid minutae to drive user interaction and sell water filter supplements

they're untrustworthy but if you discount what they say based on their name alone you've been brainwashed

Harmful effects of EMF radiation is caused by heating of tissues. This is why phone near your head for an extended period of time is bad you are concentrating heat to your brain

>Source is infowars though

Attached: 1551208963046.png (645x773, 23K)

but they haven't even been deployed for 2 years, user

Attached: yowza.jpg (474x316, 16K)

Did you even read the study you posted?

Attached: Screen Shot 2019-05-21 at 11.27.57 am.png (1256x1112, 322K)

>ignore all the objective findings for the opinions at the end
>MAY
>MAY

So, I've recently stumbled across these photos where you can kinda see how trees are being affected by conventional cellular transmitters. I dont know what to think of them, though

Attached: img1.png (585x358, 419K)

then why are the trees closer to the transmitter perfectly fine?

branches are thinning out in the direction of the transmitters

Attached: img2.png (633x440, 463K)

did you even read the OTHER EU study which started the conversation? Tumors in rats were also detected USING LEVELS -UNDER- THAT WHICH A HUMAN WOULD NORMALLY (OR ALLOWABLY) BE EXPOSED TO. The US study was linked as English - why they were using, or claiming to have used, levels above that which ppl 'may' receive from their phones? Who knows. That just gives industry plausible grounds to deny the whole thing - maybe, that was the point.
BUT as said, if that (levels) is your ground for denying the US study - go on, deny the EU one - you can't. And claiming rat testing is in no way applicable to humans, that is disingenuous horseshit.

True that, but this could also be due to the non linear pattern of radiation, could it not?

Attached: Untitled24620.png (665x275, 168K)

Underrated post. 5g is really the last step in full surveillance because of how much excessive data can be obtain from it's bandwidth. Ipv6 doesn't help either

Attached: 3.jpg (631x372, 97K)

Attached: redwood-gardens-smart-meters-shrub-after_2.jpg (399x293, 109K)

was a thread on this earlier:
youtube.com/watch?v=FcysZ65Mpp8

Attached: 5G_tree_murder.png (608x838, 857K)

>hundreds of respected faggots choke on each others' dicks
Get fucked faggot.

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

I guess Jow Forumstards don't read the newspaper because I haven't seen people discuss this much, but the whole "5G will give you cancer" is Russian fud

selective perception much? you can go outside and find millions of trees near transmitters that are absolutely fine. but of course some cave dweller nutjob will find a few pictures of trees that don't look perfect and create a whole fucking conspiracy.

>muh Russia
>nytimes

Kill yourself 2 bit no brain monkey nigger

Attached: freefight.jpg (1077x720, 104K)

LOL CHINA IS BETTER THAN USA AND THE KIKES OF THE WEST BECAUSE THEY ARE FIRST TO 5G LOL LOL LOL

OMGGGG 5G IS JEWISH OVERLORD KIKERY GUYS WE MUST BAN THIS SHITTTT

t. poltard

Attached: beastie.png (1040x650, 26K)

Oh sweet Jesus how do I protect myself against the dangers of 5G?

good thing they are RESPECTED scientists. makes me respect their opinion.

Attached: photo_2019-04-05_10-56-57.jpg (680x693, 106K)

Is that the study where even they found malignant tumors even in the fucking control group?

AND from the summary of that fucking study:
Now, in their own words, the levels tested were 'like that' which a user would expect to receive. Funny how afterwards, in editing, they became 'greater' than ppl would expect to receive. Odd, that. Isn't it

Attached: levels_LIKE_THAT.png (634x406, 82K)

>humans are rats
Based

Jow Forumstards falling for another russia hoax lmao
they lever learn....

Attached: 1557862958050.jpg (3024x4032, 1.83M)

wifi 5G is different from cell tower 5G isnt it? unless im smooth in the brain

>InconWars
>Lamestream media
Don't forget to buy the latest, all-artificial scrotum extract for all your male insecurity needs. Make sure to up on your BrainFarce supplements and get those IQs going.

Wrong. Water contamination altered hormonal expression, not change frog sexuality. Not to mention impact of chemical run off into natural waterways has been an environmentalist issue for decades, but anyone raising the issue was mindlessly called a "commie"...until it was politically convinient as right-wing hot-air. Hipocrisy as usual.

high levels of the shit in cellphones, not the same level as the shit in cellphones
basically they cranked it up to 100

Trees in city environments tend not to thrive because the city or landlords don't give a fuck. Thats got nothing to do wirh cellular transmitters and everything to do with people not taking care of shit.

its odd, how much time and effort medicine invests in testing animals who would have no applicable relation to humans, isn't it? BUT, they also use rats. A lot. As cancer behaviors same/similar. What was your point, again? Oh yeah, the entirety of the medical test industry is incompetent idiots, thas right

Duh..
One is 5GHZ(wifi) and the other is 3.5 GHz(5G)

It's claimed that the signwave of the microwave is smaller therefore it can penetrade easier but then you have to ask your self what about 2.4GHZ wifi that we have been using for over a decade.

Yet they're not idiotic enough to believe rats are humans like you

>tissue is different than tissue because they are rats and were humans!

Woah.... So based. It is an adequate analogue you fucking ignorant retard.

It's not about them not thriving. I'm talking about these clearly visible gradients. It could be caused by something else, though.. like lights or something.

which I never said, but don't let me interrupt.. Maybe, you should read the study in question, it went into the applicability to humans. But you probably don't want to know, do you? Not really

>Huawei wins the 5G race
>US proceeds to nuke them out of market
>Jow Forums starts getting flooded with anti-5G threads
Really makes you think... These same retards will be praising 5G when (((they))) finally make their own version with another name :^)

wat? Lower frequencies have longer wavelengths and better penetration. Higher frequencies have shorter wavelengths and worse penetration. That's why there is a need for 5G towers everywhere for it to be effective because your service is going to be shit without a tower in line of sight.

Why trees? Why not the grass or the bushes?
All the other images too show "branches receding" near the sideway. Are you guys just turbo autismos and have forgotten how landscaping works.

>a rat that weighs over 100 times less is more affected by thing X than a human
oh no

Sidewalks**

>it small we big so its useless
Oh no guess we better tell the scientists using rats, mice and fruit flies that everything they thought they knew is invalid.

Hang yourself nigger

That's a dying tree.

>all tissue is the same
The only ignorant retards here is (You)

Well I'd say trees cover a way larger area than smaller vegetation.
I'm wondering what else could cause the effect shown in this picture.

Attached: img3.png (625x448, 599K)

Nope not exactly the same, it can still can be used to extrapolate results on humans.

Scientists have been warning about climate change for decades and no one cared until we started feeling the effects. The same will be true for 5G. No one will do anything about it until it's almost too late because the corporations make way too much money off it.

You didn't read a fucking word of the study and the image you posted proves you don't have the mental capacity to read your own sources.
If you were to actually take time to read it through, you'd realise that what you sourced actually DISPROVES YOUR CONSPIRACY THEORY.

Attached: Screen Shot 2019-05-21 at 12.11.53 pm.png (1260x528, 144K)

I. Fucking. said. about three times already, those studies were done on 2G/3G, which is all your image says as well??? I can't point you to studies ACTUALLY DONE ON POSSIBLE HARMFUL EFFECTS OF 5G because, guess what? thas right, no-one done any. NOW STOP FUCKING FUDDING YOU OBTUSE CUNT

Are you retarded? It's middle school physics, nothing pseudo intellectual about it. Either you're a corner soldier that dropped out after the 7th grade or you're a complete brainlet.

>studies posted ITT en masse showing non ionizing radiation can be harmful
>huerrrrr middle school physics

Neck yourself reddit

>what effect
a good photography work and some coincidence, of course