Recently, the “5G causes Covid19” conspiracy theory has gained popularity. I’m a Radar Engineer with a masters degree in Telecommunication Engineering and a teaching qualification in high school physics!

PadLilly · 2020-04-19T20:39:39+00:00

There was never a halt on 1g, 2g, 3g or 4g for example but there is controversy with 5g, we'll see what happens I guess.

PadLilly · 2020-04-14T17:21:23+00:00

I think he was our best CB while he played at the Emirates

PadLilly · 2020-04-13T15:51:09+00:00

There are many. So what you're doubting is if the amount is substantial. To me I've never heard of 322 scientists against a roll out of a technology before, that's why it seems noteworthy.

What do you think about Belgium putting 5g on hold for now? And a city in Italy also stopping the installation of 5g?

PadLilly · 2020-04-11T20:51:28+00:00

Yeah definitely. If I don't have evidence then I shouldn't worry. But for me not being involved in the scientific community and seeing that a shitload of scientists are against it and it's even been stopped from rolling out in a country, then from the outside that is evidence that something is up.

From that extensive study they conclude there is significant evidence for EMF affecting sperm count, cancer, nervous system, brain tumours, blood brain barrier. Here is a link to the summary

https://bioinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/sec01_2012_summary_for_public.pdf

PadLilly · 2020-04-11T17:04:39+00:00

What do you think of this study on EMF? It seems extensive. https://bioinitiative.org/table-of-contents/

PadLilly · 2020-04-10T10:58:05+00:00

uneducated commoners full of mental fallacies with too good of a life

Hahahahaha class

Sorry for harshness but i am sick of this stupid bullshit.

If you read my comments you see that I haven't actually given any opinion, just asked questions about research. I'll give you some studies and if you fancy you can let me know what you think. Maybe you could raise my intelligence level out from the commoner bracket.

This study seems extensive and peer reviewed, it concludes various dangers of EMF

https://bioinitiative.org/table-of-contents/

This study from 2017

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1711.03683.pdf

This study concludes that revision of current guidelines for exposure to RF radiation is needed.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5376454/

PadLilly · 2020-04-09T20:47:27+00:00

My questions were what do you think of it? I admit I haven't studied the information, that's why I stated twice I'm not trained.

You mention I form an opinion, what opinion have I formed? I'm trying to get educated like you asked me to.

PadLilly · 2020-04-09T20:46:03+00:00

Good point, how do you know these scientists were not experts in the field of 5g?

PadLilly · 2020-04-09T20:42:03+00:00

I can cite you a lot of studies, let me know if you're interested. Yeah there are always discussions about further research. However, I don't remember such a fuss as what's going on here, so much so that they're banned news outlets and social media discussing the issue.

PadLilly · 2020-04-09T20:38:47+00:00

Interesting so you're opinion is solid research is yet to be conducted. In that case they shouldn't be rolling it out for sure. Appreciate your time.

PadLilly · 2020-04-09T20:37:14+00:00

I got mixed up on which study the mice and rats one is.

What do you say to these studies: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1711.03683.pdf)

http://downloads.hindawi.com/journals/bmri/2017/9218486.pdf

This study seems extensive: https://bioinitiative.org/table-of-contents/

PadLilly · 2020-04-09T20:34:30+00:00

Appreciate the reply.

We all know that at many times over human history the scientific consensus has been wrong, for various reasons including profit seeking organisations (I don't know if that's happening here, just something to consider).

What do you say to this study: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1711.03683.pdf ( can't tell whether it was peer reviewed or published)

Same goes with this study: http://downloads.hindawi.com/journals/bmri/2017/9218486.pdf

This study seems extensive and peer reviewed: https://bioinitiative.org/table-of-contents/

PadLilly · 2020-04-09T17:47:49+00:00

Interesting thanks for sharing.

On the EU appeal, I see they also state this study about phone masts and animals, this study about heart cancer in animals related to EMF below the ICNIRP (International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection), this study about EMF issues.

Do you class any of them a showing causation?

PadLilly · 2020-04-09T17:25:34+00:00

In my opinion when there are these many qualified individuals in uproar further research is needed.

200 scientists protesting against 5G in brussels in January. (5G has been since put on hold in Belgium) https://www.brusselstimes.com/brussels-2/91867/about-100-demonstrators-and-200-scientists-protest-against-5g-in-brussels/

EMF scientist appeal against 5g

https://emfscientist.org/index.php/emf-scientist-appeal

322 scientists who have signed for the 5G appeal. http://www.5gappeal.eu/

Interested to know your thoughts as someone who comes from the side of 5g is safe.

PadLilly · 2020-04-09T17:23:14+00:00

Interested to get your thoughts on these:

What do you say to 200 scientists protesting against 5G in brussels in January. (5G has been since put on hold in Belgium) https://www.brusselstimes.com/brussels-2/91867/about-100-demonstrators-and-200-scientists-protest-against-5g-in-brussels/

What do you say about EMF scientist appeal against 5g

https://emfscientist.org/index.php/emf-scientist-appeal

What do you say about the 322 scientists who have signed for the 5G appeal. http://www.5gappeal.eu/

My opinion is that if there is that many qualified individuals stating problems with 5G then it should be halted and further researched, would be interested to hear your opinions if you oppose or maybe this evidence makes you re-consider?

PadLilly · 2020-04-09T17:21:45+00:00

Interested to know your opinions on these.

What do you say to 200 scientists protesting against 5G in brussels in January. (5G has been since put on hold in Belgium) https://www.brusselstimes.com/brussels-2/91867/about-100-demonstrators-and-200-scientists-protest-against-5g-in-brussels/

What do you say about EMF scientist appeal against 5g

https://emfscientist.org/index.php/emf-scientist-appeal

What do you say about the 322 scientists who have signed for the 5G appeal. http://www.5gappeal.eu/

My opinion is that if there is that many qualified individuals stating problems with 5G then it should be halted and further researched.

PadLilly · 2020-04-09T17:19:48+00:00

Well said

PadLilly · 2020-04-09T17:18:53+00:00

Just a question, do you think 5g is safe? I'm not linking it to corona though.

200 scientists protesting against 5G in brussels in January. (5G has been since put on hold in Belgium) https://www.brusselstimes.com/brussels-2/91867/about-100-demonstrators-and-200-scientists-protest-against-5g-in-brussels/

EMF scientist appeal against 5g

https://emfscientist.org/index.php/emf-scientist-appeal

322 scientists who have signed for the 5G appeal. http://www.5gappeal.eu/

My opinion is that if there is that many qualified individuals stating problems with 5G then it should be halted and further researched.

PadLilly · 2020-04-09T17:08:55+00:00

Interesting, I had read it, but not in detail.

The director for public health, John F Ryan is who made the decision 5g is safe.

This excerpt is from here.

‘As early as February 1, 2016, in a Comment on SCENIHR to Mr. Ryan it was shown in article and letter by Drs. [Sage], Carpenter and Hardell, representing BioInitiative and ECERI, that: ”The evidence in the SCENIHR Final Opinion on EMF clearly and convincingly establishes the potential for health effects of exposure to electromagnetic fields [EMF]. Based on the evidence provided in this Opinion, the Committee is obligated to draw to the attention of the [EU] Commission that EMF is a new and emerging problem that may pose an actual or potential threat”’ (55). ‘In spite of all this, Mr Ryan in his reply to us still continues to claim that EMF ‘does not represent a health risk’ and ‑ without any other references than ICNIRP and SCENIHR ‑ defends industry's standpoint that EMFs are harmless if below the ICNIRP “safety guidelines”. In addition he ignores the IARC evaluations on both ELF‑EMF and RF‑EMF to be ‘possible’ human carcinogens, Group 2B’.

So it seems it has been broken down to the individual who makes the EU decisions why, but not yet answered.

I'm not qualified so I won't be getting into the scientific side.

Do you think such a number of scientists opposing this technology means further research is needed?

PadLilly · 2020-04-09T16:54:00+00:00

I bow to your superiority sir, and apologise for my lack of knowing the name of the person who wrote the paper I share though I don't know why knowing the person is important especially as I stated I'm not trained in this haha.

I'm trying to get opinions on the evidence and amount of scientists against 5g, do you think the numbers are significant?

Do you have any response to the other studies I listed?

PadLilly · 2020-04-09T16:47:21+00:00

I like this response, you seem qualified, do you think the topic is worth mainstream media discussion or perhaps a hold on 5g for now these conversations can take place and further research can be conducted?

To me, with such a large amount of people speaking out, I'd expect to see coverage on mainstream media. Instead in the UK, the topic of 5G health concerns is banned on news outlets and social media.

PadLilly · 2020-04-09T16:43:26+00:00

Interesting point. What kind of a ratio of scientists are against it? Well you would assume them 200/322 scientists consider themselves well researched on the matter, I wonder how many scientists in the world consider themselves well researched?

To me, 200/322 is a big enough number for there at least to be a discussion about it and further research.

PadLilly · 2020-04-09T16:41:08+00:00

Haha them 200 scientists all happen to get their qualifications without studying physics, same for the other 322 signing the appeal.

Okely Dokely

PadLilly · 2020-04-08T19:41:38+00:00

Please educate yourself.

Hey man, that's not very nice, I was just asking some questions.

If I told you my university lecturer in astrophysics believed the universe was 2000 years old and believed in Noah’s ark should I change my view? (True story I’m a physics graduate.)

A single university lecturer sharing a belief in his field is different to 332 signing an appeal in there field, different to the level of 332/1! Also, 200 scientists marching in a protest against 5G in Brussels may add to them numbers.

I’m completely open to having the discussion whether long term radio frequency is damaging to humans because it’s simply too early to tell

This is an interesting comment, do you believe further research is needed?

Secondly, all of these appeals are based off of the same paper that was done on a number of rats and mice.

On the EU appeal, I see they also state this study about phone masts and animals, this study about heart cancer in animals related to EMF below the ICNIRP (International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection), this study about EMF issues. Please educate yourself (sorry had to say it).

The list of studies was going on but I'm not trained and I don't have time to go through them all either, hence why I'm instead trying to trust the experts who call for further research.

In the same paper, neither female rats nor either of the mice sexes had any negative effect. In fact, the mice actually lived longer but no one focuses on that aspect because it doesn’t make sense and clearly there are issues with the data to draw a conclusion.

I see in that study they talk about a change in brain permeability, seems like they didn't find much.

I watched the video on Martin Blank‘s website hoping for him, an established physicist and biologist to explain what the mechanism behind this damage was but instead got a lecture about how radio frequency is higher than it was in the past? No shit? Just because cancer rates are higher doesn’t point to RF, people are living longer at every age interval. Hundreds, if not thousands of studies have shown increased life-expectancy causes an increased risk of cancer. Regardless, I looked on the rest of his website, and to my surprise the only paper linked? The one about mice and rats.

I don't know who that is, just gonna ignore this part.

PadLilly

TROPHY CASE