THIS IS HOW YOU'RE GOING TO LOOK AFTER 5G ANTENNAS WILL BE ALL OVER THE PLACE !

don't do this guys it makes mustard gas

Soon

Attached: 1556995179584.gif (300x225, 2.25M)

>keeps making stupid 5g threads day after day
Even through all of these, you still haven't presented even a shred of evidence for why you think this will be the case, retard.

Pic related, it's how retarded you look.

Attached: sao-1.jpg (2764x1843, 525K)

even if 5G is a carcinogen, it's 10000000x more likely that you are going to get cancer from something else before you have any kind of 5G related cancer.

just a flesh wound

The telecom zionist industry gonna lie us about 5G just like the soviets lied the civils around chernobyl...

Go hug a cellphone tower antenna and see what happens

You're far more likely to get cancer from air pollution, but you faggots never post about that. What gives?

>go hug a high power RF source and see what happens

uh, no thanks? I'm not denying that micro and millimeter waves and the like aren't dangerous or aren't cancerous even, but really. even the sun is a well established carcinogen that's much more likely than some skeptical and not entirely robust science around the carcinogenic properties of millimeter waves.

Because muh invisible boogeyman is always easier to shill against (eg. nuclear power).

i humped two towers tonight but the only thing that burned me was your mum

>stick your hand in a microwave oven and see what happens
Radiating yourself with 100 kW of visible light isn't going to be good for you either. That doesn't mean that being in the sun simply has 1% as much lethal effects.

Pollution is easier to tackle. Improve vehicle emissions standards, tighten power plant standards. Basically the polar opposite of what Trump's EPA is doing right now.

>non-ionizing microwave radiation
no

How can you know? There hasn't been any long-term research on the subject.

Do you just go around and assume that everything that hasn't had long-term research done on it is harmful? Aren't you afraid of that new burger on the menu, after all that specific combination of ingredients hasn't had long-term research on it?

>even the sun is a well established carcinogen
And mind you that is because sunlight does contain UV-C radiation, which is in the ionizing band, unlike mm-waves.

It is? Just downloaded it yesterday but haven't watched it yet.

It's a 5 episode miniseria, 3 come out until now.

No, but I'm careful about "new and groundbreaking" tech. Remeber when we thought nuclear radiation from nuclear bombs was ok? Remember when research proving that smoking was dangerous got silenced by tobaco lobbies?

>radios
>new and groundbreaking

Attached: a.png (283x185, 51K)

Given people are bombarded with millimeter waves at airports just to get on plane, I find this to be unlikely. Hell a body scanner is much worse than 5g in terms of exposure.

redpill me on ionizing waves

In order to be harmful, each photon needs the energy (see the photoeletric effect) to sever molecular (eg. covalent) bonds. Such bonds typically have a binding energy roughly in the ~3-10 eV region, which corresponds roughly to UV-B or UV-C photons.
Photons with longer wavelengths are literally incapable of breaking such bonds, which is why eg. visible light is considered completely, entirely safe, until you're exposed to enough of it that it causes purely thermal issues. The same goes for all lower wavelengths as well. The only reason being irradiated by a microwave oven is harmful is, again, due to simple thermal reasons.

stop trying to trick me again

I'm not trying to trick anyone, dumbass. What I'm saying is that we've been around EM radiation for a very long time now, and the effects are very well mapped out. Pretty much the only precedent of "unexpected things" suddenly starting to happen at specific frequencies was when ionizing frequencies were discovered, and that was like a century ago. It's very much unlike eg. chemistry, where it is well known that even the slightest variations of common compounds can have startlingly unexpected interactions with other compounds. There's just no reason to assume that EM radiation behaves like that. The only reason you're worried about it is because you're ignorant of its nature and what interactions it takes part in.

Attached: a.jpg (581x717, 232K)

agreed

If 5G is harmful, then the light from light bulbs are also harmful.

did not know there was a Chernobyl TV show. Is it good?

not good, but not terrible

Coping amerimutt.

It's not simply about cancer or not, this is a well known tactic when industry wants to push something unhealthy but profitable, like some artificial sweeteners - a study ( often industry funded ) shows no cancer and then thry pretend that anyone objecting is some sort of Luddite. However much like how aspartame and sucralose have shown evidence of other negative effects ( namely excitoxcity or endocrine disruption etc) , same with some frequencies used in tech.

There is already evidence for harm ( or in some cases benefits ) done by non ionizing radiation. Most of the legit studies are European and they have to do with both standard mobile frequencies ( gsm 2g - 4g ) and millimeter wave 5g. The potential harm depends on frequency but also the power and distance from transmitters. WiFi/mobile frequencies for instance aren't just about cancer but also more subtle things like blood brain barrier permeability or hypoprofusion and other metabolic effects. Millimeter wave has been shown to have negative effects on DNA - there were lots of studies suppressed in the years after 9/11 and millimeter wave scanners were pushed out into airports and transportation hubs worldwide , as Bush admin Homeland Security director Chirtoff was heavily involved in a company that makes them.

5g uses very high frequency and requires lots of antennas broadcasting close to users which can amplify potential issues . It's not that every form of wireless is harmful and we definitely need more study , but when we have such a status quo and vested interests that would rather oppose any suggestion of harm and manufactures consent with considerable resources, it's troublesome....just like tobacco and pesticides/herbicides

3.6 Roentgens is not enough to cause radiation poisoning. You need to either go 2 orders of magnitude higher for it to start being lethal or add a time unit.

he looks so peaceful

>It's not simply about cancer or not
Neither did any of the posts you responded to claim that it was. All of your so-called "objections" are already answered by .

>Most of the legit studies are European and they have to do with both standard mobile frequencies
The studies may be legit, but the evidence they present for microwaves being harmful is hardly. Even the most aggressive studies display a weak correlation (and no causation whatsoever) between microwaves and harmful effects, and even then only at levels of radiations that are orders (plural!) of magnitude higher than normal exposure.

And look, I'm not saying that it's logically impossible for specific frequencies to have unexpected effects. What I'm saying is that there's no reason to go around assuming that they do, as the overwhelming majority of prior experience makes a strong case against that.

it's a scene from hbo's chernobyl

authorities and responsible parties flat out lied about the radiation coming from the reactor to plant workers and emergency responders, the actual amount was closer to 15.000 roentgens

/tv/ is probably already meming the shit out of it by now

>at levels of radiations that are orders (plural!) of magnitude higher than normal exposure
It's like those studies that are used to "prove" that you need terminal glasses to protect your eyes because rats' eyes were damaged after being irradiated with blue LEDs directly into their eyes 24/7 for half a year.

pic related should do the trick.

Attached: original-cinnamon-rolls-8-ct_v2.jpg (500x282, 21K)

>bait thread
>46 replies
what were you thinking Jow Forums

>In order to be harmful,
this is why no amount of heat can damage you. it's non-ionizing after all.