5G test in Holland killed hundreds of starlings made ducks freak out!

[stj]

btw,
i study history - you can see a lot of parallels when you do that.
the same stunts, lies and playbooks often get re-used once they think people wont remember.

[0culus]

One thing that makes getting scientific results hard in this area, is difficulty of doing actual controlled studies. I doubt there's any place on the planet left that is free of significant RF (and other man made EM fields) outside of (relatively tiny by comparison) shielded rooms at research labs and other types of secure facilities. Emphatic assertions as to whether 5G is going to kill us all or it's harmless are meaningless without sound controlled studies into the matter.

[cdev]

You're aware that there is a long history of use of exactly those same arguments to delay regulation of dangerous things, like tobacco, long after they should have been regulated.

There is a fascinating archive at UCSF of tobacco industry disinformation related documents which were revealed by discovery in a number of lawsuits. I highly recommend checking it out.

You want to know a bizarre fact, I have a friend who is mentioned in those documents. He was actually part of those efforts. Of course he couldn't share his name openly, nor could he put this decades long experience on his resume, so they found a way he could still prove he was involved, without attaching his name to it. 

Anyway, I had not seen my friend in decades, until I ran into him in NYC a few years ago. He still knew a lot about the disinformation industry and what he told me was disturbing. Now the disinformation industry is very active on the Internet. They confuse issues, exactly as before. This is evidently still a huge business, much larger now than it was before, totally under the radar.

One thing that makes getting scientific results hard in this area, is difficulty of doing actual controlled studies. I doubt there's any place on the planet left that is free of significant RF (and other man made EM fields) outside of (relatively tiny by comparison) shielded rooms at research labs and other types of secure facilities. Emphatic assertions as to whether 5G is going to kill us all or it's harmless are meaningless without sound controlled studies into the matter.

[0culus]

Note that I didn't say whether it was dangerous or not. I'm saying it may be difficult to impossible to establish either way, assuming honest research. I am quite aware of dishonest corporate research suppressing results that are detrimental to the bottom line.

[stj]

it's not difficult once it's running,
it's a fact that people living on the top floor of buildings with cell arrays on the roof suffer from huge clusters of brain and blood cancer.

the problem is, by then it's too late because the shit's already installed everywhere!

[apis]

Haven't there been one of these alarms for every new generation of base stations?

If low frequency em-radiation was so bad we would all be dead by now. It would be evident in all epidemiological statistics that some since so many are exposed. If there is any negative effect it's going to be small.

[0culus]

it's not difficult once it's running,
it's a fact that people living on the top floor of buildings with cell arrays on the roof suffer from huge clusters of brain and blood cancer.

the problem is, by then it's too late because the shit's already installed everywhere!

Correlation != causation. There are plenty of other ways to get cancer. Establishing a causal relationship is going to require a controlled study. Again, this is NOT saying there is not a causal link, and I wish people would engage their brains and realize that. BUT we don't know enough (publicly, anyway...open access to research is a whole other can of worms!) to definitely say.

[cdev]

That doesn't make sense to me from what I know about what kinds of statistics are taken of where people live.I don't think that information that breaks down where people live in such detail exists yet, although thanks to 5G it likely will exist soon.

Generally geocoding addresses doesn't reveal such fine grained location information yet, stj.

Although, thanks to advances in GPS technology, seems newer phones supported under the 5G system will be so accurate the data will reveal where people are much less than a meter. (multi-band RTK gps will be extremely accurate, as in so accurate it will be possible to evaluate peoples health status by their physical activity, heartbeat etc. Health insurers really want this, so they can price health insurance by how healthy people appear to be from this data!)

it's not difficult once it's running,
it's a fact that people living on the top floor of buildings with cell arrays on the roof suffer from huge clusters of brain and blood cancer.

Do you have a source, STJ? I wouldn't be surprised if proximity to a cell site eventually resulted in cancers a few years down the line, but it might take quite some time because the repair capacity of cells seems to be based on the number of times they have divided. (In some cases, apoptosis i.e. 'programmed cell death' in response to DNA breaks, leading to more cell division only needs to occur if not enough glutathione is available to quench a free radical, for example, thats much more likely to be the case as people age because of the glycation of cells and the formation of cross links.) Telomere length might be a biomarker for cell division but as its been shown that certain interventions may effectively re-lengthen telomeres over time (!) it may not an definitive one.

[apis]

Many years ago now there was a lot of media reporting here about a local epidemiological study whose preliminary results indicated that, after having collected several years worth of data, they could show there was a slight increase in ear-cancer for people using cell phones. But when the study was finally published they hadn't been able to find any statistically significant relation after all.

[cdev]

Because of the way apoptosis, cell repair and cell division work drawing connections between cancer causing environmental chemicals (cell phones are likely to involve similar processes) often takes a long time and a lot of detective work. New ways of determining such things are coming on line (oxidative stress, DNA repair adducts, imaging cell repair by means of tracers of various kinds, these are the tools biologists use now)

But unfortunately, as discussed elsewhere, it seems that organizations like that UK advisory panel that are supposed to pay attention to such things may not be doing so as they should.

When I read studies on the issue of whether cell phones cause adverse health effects, I consistently see information which makes me think there likely may be effects, and I also repeatedly see problems with studies we have now. Who is using cell phones a lot? Those are the people who should be looked at. But where are cell phone users broken out by usage? Not all cell phone owners use phones that much. Also, usage is rising in some groups and falling in others. Phone SAR ratings also are deceptive. There are a lot of complicated issues.

[MT]

http://theduran.com/why-we-must-stop-the-5g-network/
https://youtu.be/kBsUWbUB6PE

[Halcyon]

it's not difficult once it's running,
it's a fact that people living on the top floor of buildings with cell arrays on the roof suffer from huge clusters of brain and blood cancer.

Could you link us to these "facts"? Maybe Australian cell towers aren't as nasty, but we fail to see huge clusters of people developing cancer in our built-up areas.

Also, aren't sector antennas directional? Meaning that there is essentially a "dead spot" directly under cell towers?

[cdev]

The EU *used to have laws* that were very explicit that the main axis of directional antennas needed to not point at human habitation for some fairly long distance, hundreds of meters, but then they changed it, I recently read, and it no longer requires that.

I don't remember where I read that, but I read it recently. It was likely while I was reading up on the issue for this and similar threads.

If anybody knows the actual law, presumably being an EU-wide law it was from some EU or EC based organization.

The most problematic situation as I see it is in urban areas where both sides of streets are occupied to several stories by continuous rectangular apartment buildings with people living on all the above street level floors. In order to cover these streets often cell sites will be located on utility poles located quite close to apartments, with their directional antennas facing up and down the streets. One would hope that the directional aspect - if facing away, would prevent the signals from being very strong in apartments right nearby but...

[cdev]

Halcyon, I honestly don't think any statistics existed anywhere a few years ago (when carcinogenesis would putatively been initiated) (although there likely will be soon) that gave such fine level of location accuracy that a person's residential location could be pinpointed so accurately, especially in the vertical direction where GPS systems, especially pre multi-constellation systems as were the norm until recently, have had accuracy issues. However, such precise data clearly has existed for a long time for the actual cells, due to the use of their GPSs as base stations to provide the AGPS ephemeris data. The combined effect of AGPS, raw-data capable (RTK-capable) handsets, fast update times (20 Hz) and so on however is now allowing the collection of extremely precise location data. (at least a few centimeters, probably even better, even when indoors, especially if you average it over time, and throw out the obvious cycle slips- (the outliers).)

So even though I am skeptical about the existence of such data now, in the future it definitely will be possible to retrospectively ascertain if a particular user has spent any appreciable time living right next to or in front of a cell site antenna (or any other health risk, also to determine their level of physical activity, strength and rate of their heart beats, etc.) and then price their health insurance, etc. accordingly.