• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

cellphone, wifi radiotion etc are extremely dangerous.

and more...

The second paper I would like to comment on (Appendix 5, Reference 5) has 80
references and as well as a lot of the illnesses written in Dr Cherry's paper goes on to
mention that with regard to mobile phone handsets you should avoid keeping the
handset when switched on adjacent to the body, in particular in the vicinity of the waist
or heart. There have been deaths due to colon cancer from the Royal Ulster
Constabulary who wore radio or microwave transmitters in the small of their backs for
extended periods of time.
Dr Hyland recommends keeping the duration of calls to an
absolute minimum and on his back page relating to pulse mobile phone radiation on
alive humans and animals, the following may occur:

SmartMetersMurder
 
and more..

My final paper by a very highly respected New Zealand doctor, Dr Eklund (Appendix 7,
Reference 7) which has 37 references shows leukaemia clusters in and around ordinary
radio and TV transmitters around the world
. She says on page 13 that adult leukaemia
within 2 kilometres of a transmitter is 83% above expected and significantly declines
within increasing distance from the transmitter.

SmartMetersMurder
 
So, it is very clearly not only ionisation. there is more going on.

The more you delve into this area the more become aware how damaging it all is!
 
And more...


Two recent surveys printed in Electromagnetic Hazard & Therapy 1998, Volume 9 and2000, Volume 11; the first of a study of 11,000 mobile phone users, the second a studyof 17,000 mobile users showed the symptoms already mentioned of fatigue, headache,warmth behind the ear, warmth on the ear and burning skin in various degrees,depending on the use and type of person.

SmartMetersMurder
 
Nothing to worry about!

Guilty as charged
By Rob Edwards and Duncan Graham-Rowe

THE radiation given off by pylons, power cables and electrical appliances may
be giving two children in Britain cancer every year.
A new study commissioned by
the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) says that the 1 in 200
children exposed to high levels of electromagnetic radiation in their homes
could be doubling their chances of contracting leukaemia.

For years controversy has raged over the possible links between
electromagnetic fields and cancers, fuelled by a series of contradictory and
inconclusive investigations worldwide
(New Scientist, 9 August 1997, p 16).
This week, however, the argument has shifted significantly in favour of a
causal link, with the publication of a long-awaited report by a team of
scientists headed by epidemiologist Richard Doll of the Cancer Studies Unit at
Oxford.

The report, which is the first major review of the issue since 1992 by the
NRPB’s Advisory Group on Non-Ionising Radiation, finds no evidence that
extremely low-frequency fields cause cancer “in general”. But there are some
statistical associations. “Taken by themselves these results could be due to
chance,” says Doll. But the report concludes that “the possibility remains that
intense and prolonged exposures to magnetic fields can increase the risk of
leukaemia in children”.

The danger arises, says the NRPB, when children are exposed to
electromagnetic fields of 0.4 microteslas or more, as are 1 in 200 children in
Britain and many more abroad. Less than half of the radiation comes from nearby
high-voltage power lines and electricity substations. The report reveals for the
first time that the remainder probably comes from a combination of wiring,
computers, TVs and other electrical equipment, but ...



https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg16922810-700-guilty-as-charged/
 
but you can't proof any of it here. Why is the video not reputable?

Because i already know what the reputable sources say, i studied them.

"Exposure to ionizing radiation, such as from x-rays, is known to increase the risk of cancer. However, although many studies have examined the potential health effects of non-ionizing radiation from radar, microwave ovens, cell phones, and other sources, there is currently no consistent evidence that non-ionizing radiation increases cancer risk (1).

The only consistently recognized biological effect of radiofrequency energy is heating. The ability of microwave ovens to heat food is one example of this effect of radiofrequency energy. Radiofrequency exposure from cell phone use does cause heating to the area of the body where a cell phone or other device is held (ear, head, etc.). However, it is not sufficient to measurably increase body temperature, and there are no other clearly established effects on the body from radiofrequency energy."

Cell Phones and Cancer Risk Fact Sheet - National Cancer Institute

you are saying that the damage can only be done if the radiaton or EM wave is ionizing. Is that correct that you think that?

No, i'm saying that there are two ways: if the radiation is ionizing or if the radiation is sufficiently high power.
 
No, i'm saying that there are two ways: if the radiation is ionizing or if the radiation is sufficiently high power.

well, if you have read the other articles abopve you would have understood there is more to it then that
An, as I have written before, more power is not more damage by definition.

But ah, well, if you ignore a lot of postings, well, what is the whole point then?
 
Because i already know what the reputable sources say, i studied them.

That is kind of circular reasoing from your part.

You think you already know from the start, so that makes it circular and you reject everything that is
not in line with your thoughts.

Did you consider the melatonine? the hotspots? the children with cancer because of radiation?


You mention none of these and only repeat your own opinion.
 
Last edited:
well, if you have read the other articles abopve you would have understood there is more to it then that
An, as I have written before, more power is not more damage by definition.

But ah, well, if you ignore a lot of postings, well, what is the whole point then?

At a given frequency, more power would necessarily mean more damage if any such damage occurred in this context. You can switch from high power radio to low power X-ray and cause more damage with less power.

That is kind of circular reasoing from your part.

You think you already know from the start, so that makes it circular and you reject everything that is
not in line with your thoughts.

Did you consider the melatonine? the hotspots? the children with cancer because of radiation?


You mention none of these and only repeat your own opinion.

Melatonin ? Melanin ? What hotspots ? Where people report feeling warm ?

Sorry, there is no physical mechanism that we are aware of for nonionizing radiation to damage living tissue other than by direct, absorptive heating.
 
WiFi; The Invisible Killing Fields

Z5Tyu7yE2JWpsL9J24QxDEMP8hqBcsFol5whk6ComgNGBkguXW  ZrYErHHwh6cnEUgcCQRp8h0LL_gEUAj6nFeX9Cn98lDHK33Klo  fBFZOU2Nsphy1Sd_cn-a6sTcPQxT97MjGOs=s0-d-e1-ft

 
Melatonin ? Melanin ? What hotspots ? Where people report feeling warm ?

Sorry, there is no physical mechanism that we are aware of for nonionizing radiation to damage living tissue other than by direct, absorptive heating.

Again, you are ignoring the report I linked to and quoted from.

You just very simply ignore all this and then keep repeating your opinion.


But sorry, mate. You are very wrong here. There is much more going on in the human body .when radiated. then the things you mention. But again, you choose to ignore all that.
 
Nothing to worry about, go back to sleep!

5G Telecomm Radiation the Perfect Tool to Mass Modify Human Brain WavesElectromagnetic-Radiation.jpg

‘The implications of 5G on consumer well-being and safety do not look good for one reason: devices that will operate within the 5G electromagnetic spectrum will use antennas that are physically small i.e. from a few millimetres to a centimetre in length. This means that industry will produce a variety of different antenna systems to do different things.

The weird fact of operating within this very high frequency range is that signals are mostly line of sight or they are easily reflected, refracted or ‘lost’ within the differing build composition of urban environment structures. In other words, without careful antenna design and recognition of many of the pitfalls trying to propagate microwave signals within urban environments, the signal can be easily degraded or completely lost.

In response to these challenges, the advantages in using very small physical size antennas in the millimetre wavelength is you can feed many antennas in various configuration arrays e.g. vertical or horizontal arays, waveguide, coned or highly directional beam type designs.’

5G Telecomm Radiation the Perfect Tool to Mass Modify Human Brain Waves : Waking Times
 
Back
Top Bottom