NSA Nanobot Attacks on US Civilians-Pain generators, body control, feeling influencing

Creekside

Active Member
I have shown that there is sufficient research showing that the current FCC 5g limits are dangerous.

I haven't read any of those studies in detail, but I expect they're the kind of research papers with poor methodology, possible manipulation of data, and lots of unproven assumptions, that are unfortunately so common today. Peer review does not mean good quality control. Unless some of these "microwaves are dangerous!!!" papers gets several repeat studies of good quality, I certainly wouldn't consider it "sufficient research". I get no benefit from supporting 5G systems, but I haven't seen any research that convinces me that there are significant biological effects from the low levels experienced by the existing or planned networks and other systems.
 

Creekside

Active Member
Yes, and believing that 5G is so dangerous that it must be banned is a bias too. At this point, there is still no conclusive evidence to support either side of the issue. Proving a negative, such as that EMF emissions are completely safe is difficult, so it's up to the other side to provide conclusive evidence that it does cause health problems. So far, I haven't seen any such papers, just ones with poor methodology and questionable results. If 5G emissions are definitely reliably harmful for humans, it should be easy to prove. If they're only slightly harmful for a few people in special circumstances, then it's much harder to prove ... and the issue is less critical. If the present limits are generally safe, then the anti-5G crowd is probably going to wait in vain for their desired paper, and will eventually give up (maybe to become anti-9G fanatics).
 

Get Our Free ME/CFS and FM Blog!



New Threads

Forum Tips

Support Our Work

DO IT MONTHLY

HEALTH RISING IS NOT A 501 (c) 3 NON-PROFIT

Shopping on Amazon.com For HR

Latest Resources

Top