/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.10708724]

NON-IONIZING GOOD
IONIZING BAD

NON-IONIZING CAN NEVER HURT YOU
NON-IONIZING IS GOOD
NEED MORE NON-IONIZING TO CHARGE BATTERIES

[Anonymous No.10708728]

Why are you shouting?

[Anonymous No.10708732]

>>10708724
shut up 5gger
t. EE

[Anonymous No.10708737]

>>10708732
>t. cultist

[Anonymous No.10708973]

OP is right I carry my personal Co-60 source everywhere and it's already made my dick bigger and increased my IQ by 12

[Anonymous No.10709847]

>there are people on this board right now who think corporations should be held to standards beyond stock value
I hope you know you're holding progress back with your concerns about "safety" and "the environment".

[Anonymous No.10710051]

In the early 1900's people used xray for everything until they found out it gives people cancer. Why just use 5g and find out it has harmful side effects the hard way?

[Anonymous No.10710071]

Broke: 5G isn't bad for you
Woke: Even visible light and radios bad for you

[Anonymous No.10710143]

>>10708724
How does non-ionizing hurt? What's your proposed model for damage?

[Anonymous No.10710151]

>>10710143
None of these luddites ever seem to answer this question.

[Anonymous No.10710154]

>>10710071
Bespoke: 5G is actually bad for you because it enables further surveillance

[Anonymous No.10710162]

>>10710143
>>10710151
Any radiation frequency can be ionizing to some molecule or other. The term ionizing vs non-ionizing is a misnomer because "non-ionizing" can in fact ionize molecules/proteins we never thought of.

[Anonymous No.10710167]

>>10710162
What part of non-ionizing don't you understand?

[Anonymous No.10710168]

>>10710162
Prove it.

[Anonymous No.10710176]

>>10710162
You probably think that microwaves "ionize" water molecules, huh?

[Anonymous No.10710190]

>>10710176
Exactly the opposite of what he said, he said it could ionize other molecules besides the ones ionized by ionizing radiation

[Anonymous No.10710201]

>>10710190
Like which ones?

[Anonymous No.10710214]

>>10710201
Dunno, I'm not this guy >>10710162. But it makes sense that different types of radiation ionize different molecules.

[Anonymous No.10710217]

>>10710214
>>10710167

[Anonymous No.10710223]

>>10710214
>But it makes sense that different types of radiation ionize different molecules.
It also makes sense that some radiation doesn't contain enough energy to ionize anything.

[Anonymous No.10710232]

>>10710143
what is a microwave oven?

[Anonymous No.10710240]

>>10710232
>he thinks non-ionizing radiation can be harmful because it would hurt if you dropped a microwave oven on your toe

[Anonymous No.10710242]

>>10710223
Depends on the amplitude of the radiation. If the amplitude is high enough then it would contain the same amount of energy as other radiation.

[Anonymous No.10710243]

>>10710143

[Anonymous No.10710247]

>>10710162

[Anonymous No.10710250]

>>10710243
>>10710247
Lasers don't count. That's cheating.

[Anonymous No.10710251]

>>10710250
all of these are examples of dangerous non-ionizing radiation

[Anonymous No.10710258]

the main danger from microwaves is dielectric heating. the microwave oven example is the most relevant, but also focusing of microwave energy using dynamic microwave lenses for spatial multiplexing will be an issue. don't want to cook your customers

[Anonymous No.10710259]

>>10710258
>don't want to cook your customers
Don't want to cook them too fast. Just don't kill them and it's fine.

[Anonymous No.10710264]

>>10710259
>the 5G has irradiated your balls
>but at least you get to watch your highly compressed 8k movies on the go

[Anonymous No.10710268]

>>10710232
>>10710242
>>10710243
>>10710251
You know what all these things have in common that 5G doesn't have?
You can feel the heat from them.

[Anonymous No.10710270]

>>10710268
you do know 5G uses microwave frequencies, right?

[Anonymous No.10710283]

>>10710268
Okay, so let's put you inside a microwave, but we'll turn it down so that it doesn't heat you up too much.

[Anonymous No.10710287]

>>10710270
Non-ionizing tho, it's fine.

[Anonymous No.10710323]

>>10710283
Yeah perfectly fine.

[Anonymous No.10710337]

>>10710323
Yeah, except that did that to rats and they got cancer.

[Anonymous No.10710342]

https://europaem.eu/attachments/article/131/2018-04_EU-EMF2018-5US.pdf

[Anonymous No.10710356]

>>10710337
>Rat cancer models
Kek, I bet they used Sprague Dawley rats too

[Anonymous No.10710360]

>>10710356
Yeah, no way the radiation wasn't dangerous. Would you like to participate in the next study?

[Anonymous No.10710365]

>>10710360
Those rats will get cancer if you look at them wrong and they also get cancer if you don't look at them.

[Anonymous No.10710366]

>>10710337
I don't know if you know this but rats are much smaller than humans. Any external affect will be increased on them.

[Anonymous No.10710370]

>>10710366
>being this hyperbolic

[Anonymous No.10710373]

>>10710370
>>being this hyperbolic
Being this ignorant of physics.

[Anonymous No.10710383]

>>10710360
I want a model for a molecular basis of carcinogenesis that isn't based on a fucking meme like rat models

[Anonymous No.10710385]

>>10710373
Hyperbolas are math, retard.

[Anonymous No.10710400]

>>10710385

[Anonymous No.10711410]

Hey OP how much sun exposure do you get?
You know that UV light is much higher energy than microwave right? Do you wear sunscreen?

[Anonymous No.10711428]

Non-ionizing radiation harming you literally breaks the laws of physics though.

Because it means the "damage"=chemical change being done to your cells and DNA is higher in energy than the energy of the radiation.

If Non-ionizing radiation was truly harmful humanity would be in a golden era right now. We'd have fixed entropy. We could build time machines, unlimited free energy and faster than light engines.

But SADLY non-ionizing radiation isn't harmful so we are still slaves to thermodynamics and this boring life.

I always think it's better to show to people that instead of why something isn't true. Show them how things would be if it were actually true that makes the idea usually seem more outlandish.

Non-ionizing radiation causing any chemical change in the body would immediately lead to free energy and all the advanced tech that would give humanity.

It's time for people to realize non-ionizing radiation can't possibly harm because it breaks the laws of thermodynamics and it would require for more energy being released than is generated which is magic.

[Anonymous No.10711584]

>>10711428
Thank you. Now I can go back to taking the door off my microwave so it can heat my house too.

[Anonymous No.10711647]

>>10711584
Heat causes damage. how heat is convected (infrared like you holding your hand above a hot plate, or microwaves) doesn't matter.

It's not the radiation that causes damage it's the energy that the radiation propogates from one medium into the other. In this case from the power supply onto the object in the heater by heat convected by microwaves.

You should know that this is very different from actual damage caused by the radiation itself.

This is like saying drinking water is dangerous because people drown in water. It makes no sense and is a false metaphor.

[Anonymous No.10711689]

>>10711647
I’ll be worried when I could conceivably use my phone to stay warm in the winter

[Anonymous No.10712381]

>>10710154
>>>/x/
>>>/pol/
>>>/trash/

[Anonymous No.10712399]

>>10710337
Show me the paper and I'll read the controls. 99/100 odds that you're citing a study using a rat model that spontaneously generates tumors, such as Sprague-Dawley.

>>10710232
Microwave oven takes like a kilowatt and uses it to heat food that's at most 10 inches from the detector.

Cell tower height is like 100-200 feet, but let's generously assume that it's only 80 feet tall. That means, standing right at the base of one, you're at a distance 96x farther from the radiation source than a microwave oven.

So because radiative flux scales quadratically with distance, that means you need 96^2 the power of a microwave to 'cook' somebody at the bottom. That's roughly 10mW. When in reality, cell towers use somewhere around 5kW.

Is it safe to stand within inches of the microwave emitter on a 5G cell tower? Probably not, but you can easily avoid any potential health effects by just not climbing the tower and hanging out next to the microwave emitter.

[Anonymous No.10712400]

>>10710242
Fucking hell, learn how photons work
People knew that 100 years ago and you should feel bad for not researching before posting

[Anonymous No.10712401]

>>10712399
correction:
>10 inches from the emitter

[Anonymous No.10712406]

>>10710242
If it isn't ionizing though, the danger comes from radiative heating, not DNA damage. You will literally feel yourself being cooked if you are in danger of being injured by non-ionizing radiation.

To put it in a larger context: when you stand next to a campfire, most of the heat you feel on your body is infrared radiation. Should we ban campfires for potential cancer risk?

[Anonymous No.10712408]

>>10712399
Rats are for being pets, not giving cancer.

[Anonymous No.10712411]

>>10712408
What does that statement have to do with anything we were talking about? If you want to get into the ethics of generating animal cancer models, then make a new thread about it.

[Anonymous No.10712419]

>>10710143
It's a matter of transduction and amplification. The same way all of the other senses work. How can a signal well below the threshold of ambient thermal noise produce biological effects (what was dubbed the "kT paradox")? Because structures in biological systems are designed to resist random noise and selectively amplify polarized or periodic signals. How can non-ionizing radiation damage DNA? As a downstream effect of excessive calcium signalling ultimately leading to oxidative and nitrosative stress beyond what normal processing pathways can handle. In the case of 2.45GHz, and other frequencies near the maximum dielectric loss of water, they can damage DNA kinetically, as continuous wave exposure has been noted to make the DNA molecule "thrash about violently", with indications that it actually breaks it off its histones. Part of the frequency band used by wi-fi is used to cook food for a reason.

There are a few other mechanisms, but the major one is altered calcium flux, probably as a result of action on the charge groups composing its voltage sensing subunit, thus activating it. The most important thing is it's not speculation. There's now well over one hundred years of hard data, all the way back to d'Arsonval, Tesla, and others. We know what this stuff does.

Refer to my post chain here for more. There are answers.
>>10712026

[Anonymous No.10712425]

>>10712419
>as continuous wave exposure has been noted to make the DNA molecule "thrash about violently", with indications that it actually breaks it off its histones
You got a pub for that? Very interesting if that's true

[Anonymous No.10712428]

>>10712425
>Very interesting
but not enough to convince you 5g is dangerous. nothing is. you're too emotionally invested in it.
(not him)

[Anonymous No.10712429]

>>10712425
It's included in the book "Nonlinear Electrodynamics in biological systems" in the mediafire link. Search for the word "kangaroo".

[Anonymous No.10712436]

>>10712419
This is high-grade bullshit coming from someone with a cell bio background. Microwaving DNA will absolutely detach histones and cause damage, but it would also literally cook your flesh. There is no way that the exposure levels from cell towers are doing this to your DNA while you're just standing on the ground.

>As a downstream effect of excessive calcium signalling ultimately leading to oxidative and nitrosative stress beyond what normal processing pathways can handle.

This is just word-salad and I challenge you to show me any literature that supports low-grade microwave radiation causing calcium channels to open.

You want to know how I'm confident that cell tower signals aren't opening my ion channels? My muscles aren't involuntarily contracting and I'm not going into cardiac arrest.

[Anonymous No.10712445]

>>10712429
Books aren’t peer-reviewed studies

[Anonymous No.10712446]

>>10712429
He's just trying to pretend he's interested in science with that post - doing so is necessary to sell what he's selling. I doubt he'll bother checking out the book. And in the next thread he'll act as if no such science exists again.

[Anonymous No.10712449]

>>10712428
>>10712446
The fuck you going on about you crack baby? I think 5G is a shit tech, I just want(ed) a valid model.

>>10712429
Thanks senpai

[Anonymous No.10712455]

>>10712449
Just explaining how tech salesmen tend to operate.

[Anonymous No.10712456]

>>10712449
I mean, check out this slimy weasel, for example >>10712445

[Anonymous No.10712459]

>>10712456
Still waiting on the paper showing that background levels of microwave radiation are tripping ion channels.

[Anonymous No.10712478]

>>10712436
Occurred at low intensities. Read the paper.
"However, most thermal experimental work indicates that heat cell killing occurs before -chromosomal aberrations can be induced by heat (Dewey et al.,13,14 Westra and Dewey15). Heat does, however, induce point mutations. (Mitler,16 Smith and Corwin6 ).

There is one observed aberration that is unique to RF energy exposure - despiralization - the uncoiling of chromosomes, which may suggest the breakage of histone bonds."

>This is just word-salad
I'm not sure how to respond to this. That's just how it works. You have Ca2+ influx, calmodulin and protein kinases, and eventually upregulation of NO synthesis. When NO and superoxide reach a threshold concentration, they begin to react ~5x faster than superoxide dismutase can act on the latter. Peroxynitrite etc then produces a runaway effect. This is the reason for the long noted disturbances in glutathione with microwave irradiation. It's also why calcium channel blockers are beneficial after ischemia reperfusion injury to the brain.

>I challenge you to show me any literature that supports low-grade microwave radiation causing calcium channels to open.
Refer to the post chain I linked.

>My muscles aren't involuntarily contracting
That's not how aberrant calcium flux works. In short, the existence of genetic polymorphisms like Timothy syndrome alone indicate that. Muscle contraction and seizure kindling involve a lot more than elevated intracellular calcium.

>I'm not going into cardiac arrest.
It actually can cause sudden cardiac death, this received military interest. Refer to [DIA] Adams 1976 - [...] Eurasian communist countries.pdf

[Anonymous No.10712487]

>>10712478
>"However, most thermal experimental work indicates that heat cell killing occurs before -chromosomal aberrations can be induced by heat (Dewey et al.,13,14 Westra and Dewey15). Heat does, however, induce point mutations. (Mitler,16 Smith and Corwin6 ).

That's exactly what I claimed in my post - you would be cooked before any DNA damage occurs. Remember that cancer cells need to survive their DNA damage in order to make a tumor.

>I'm not sure how to respond to this. That's just how it works. You have Ca2+ influx, calmodulin and protein kinases, and eventually upregulation of NO synthesis. When NO and superoxide reach a threshold concentration, they begin to react ~5x faster than superoxide dismutase can act on the latter. Peroxynitrite etc then produces a runaway effect. This is the reason for the long noted disturbances in glutathione with microwave irradiation. It's also why calcium channel blockers are beneficial after ischemia reperfusion injury to the brain.

This is still bullshit. You haven't shown that ion channels are being opened by background microwave radiation.

[Anonymous No.10712492]

>>10712487
>background microwave
is 1/1000th what 5g is
(not him)

[Anonymous No.10712497]

>>10712487
>you would be cooked before any DNA damage occurs.
That's just a short excerpt.
"such as effects on gene expression, i.e., alterations in cellular
functions, which are under genetic control. Heritable changes,
i.e., RF induced alterations in the number and/or structure of
chromosomes in somatic animal and plant cells were first reported
by Heller and Teixeira-Pinto,1 almost a quarter of a century
ago. These findings were confirmed and expanded by many authors,
e.g., Heller,2 Kapustin et al.,3 Janes et al.,4 Yao and Jiles,S
Stodolnik-Baranska,6 Yao,7, 8 Cieciura et al.,9 and Chen et al. 10
(see Leach 11 for review). Aberrations which have been observed
include changes in the number of chromosomes (aneuploidy), formation
of dicentrics, gaps or chromosome breaks, acentric fragments, and
translocations. The majority of this work was done at frequencies
between 2 and 10 GHz."

You'll have to read the paper.

>You haven't shown that ion channels are being opened by background microwave radiation.
I linked posts where these citations are provided.
>>10712026

[Anonymous No.10712500]

>>10712399
you do know that cellphones are transceivers, right? they emit radiation to talk with the tower.

[Anonymous No.10712502]

>>10712487
>by background microwave radiation.
You mean modern "background" exposure, or natural background which is ~1 quintillion times less intense, relative homogeneous, unmodulated, and unpolarized?

[Anonymous No.10712520]

>>10712492
That's just me being loose with terminology - by 'background' I mean the exposure levels caused by cell towers, as opposed to sitting in a microwave oven.

>>10712497
Let's just organize the information that you have actually provided evidence for:

1. Microwave radiation can cause chromosomal damage, but it doesn't happen until after the cells have already been killed by heat.
>"However, most thermal experimental work indicates that heat cell killing occurs before -chromosomal aberrations can be induced by heat "

2. Heat can cause point-mutations, but the effect isn't specific to microwaves.
>Heat does, however, induce point mutations.

And in this post:
3. Lots of chromosomal mutations can occur if you bathe animal and plant cells in microwave radiation.

So if chromosomal damage occurs long after the point where heat has destroyed the cells, why should we care about this? Obviously 5G isn't causing that level of exposure if you don't feel yourself being boiled to death by it.

[Anonymous No.10712523]

>>10712500
>you do know that cellphones are transceivers, right? they emit radiation to talk with the tower.

They are also extremely weak emitters of radiation and are obviously not pulling a kilowatt of power from their battery. The myth of cellphones causing brain cancer was tested to death around like 2008 and the overwhelming consensus is that only the really old brick phones from 1990s stockbrokers pose any potential danger.

[Anonymous No.10712525]

>>10712502
Modern background. I'll just call it 'cell-tower levels' from now on, to avoid conflating it with the cosmic microwave background radiation.

[Anonymous No.10712530]

>>10712520
You're focusing on the wrong things and operating on incomplete information.

Simplified to two things.
-Read the paper the excerpts are from
-Refer to this post chain >>10712026

I do not expect you to do this in realtime. There's a lot to go through. If you want to continue the conversation immediately skim the post chain, you should see what you're looking for pretty quickly.

[Anonymous No.10712537]

>>10712530
>You're focusing on the wrong things and operating on incomplete information.

Tell me specifically what you think I'm misinterpreting. You have shown that extreme amounts of microwave radiation cause chromosome damage, and the more minor effects are indistinguishable from damage that's just caused by heat.

The whole calcium channel angle is pseudoscience and you have yet to link me a single paper suggesting that cell-tower levels of microwave exposure are resulting in dysregulated calcium transport.

[Anonymous No.10712541]

>>10712523
https://microwavenews.com/

>>10712537
If you don't acknowledge the information provided, the conversation cannot continue.

[Anonymous No.10712545]

>>10712541
>https://microwavenews.com/

Not a paper and not peer-reviewed. Link me to something that has a DOI number.

>If you don't acknowledge the information provided, the conversation cannot continue.

I have acknowledged everything you've written so far that comes from a reputable scientific source (>>10712520). The findings you have cited do not suggest that 5G cell-phone towers will cause cancer.

Likewise, you have completely omitted any citations dealing with calcium channels and microwave radiation, probably because it's just an idea you invented yourself.

[Anonymous No.10712551]

>>10712545
If you don't acknowledge the information provided, the conversation cannot continue.

It's a post chain. I've highlighted the posts for viewing here.

>>10712026
>>10712042
>>10712045
>>10712058
>>10712062
>>10712068
>>10712073
>>10712079
>>10712082
>>10712091
>>10712097
>>10712098
>>10712107
>>10712112
>>10712116
>>10712129

[Anonymous No.10712558]

>>10712551
I'm not pouring through 8 hours worth of irrelevant research just to discredit one claim that can be addressed by a single paper.

If calcium transport is affected by cell-tower levels of microwave radiation, that shouldn't require a bibliography of 30+ papers to demonstrate.

The only reason you're hitting me with a deluge of dense reading is because you're hoping I'll get tired and leave and you can silently claim victory for getting the last word.

[Anonymous No.10712561]

>>10712558
>>10712068

[Anonymous No.10712582]

>>10712558
I'm a non expert on this and my impression is that you don't know as much about this stuff as the guy you're arguing with.

[Anonymous No.10712587]

>>10710242
Oh god no please we had this debate a hundred years ago no not again.

>>10710243
If it was dumping this much energy into the air then you could cheaply transform it into lots of electricity.

[Anonymous No.10712594]

>>10712561
>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23802593

I'm having trouble finding what the author here thinks 'low level' exposure counts as. Also - lots of the papers he's citing here are saying that the same effect happens at 60Hz frequency, which you should be already exposed to at much greater amplitude since it's the form of EMF radiated by your own home's power grid.

Most of this has been performed on cell lines, and I seriously doubt the whole nitric oxide angle would hold up in vivo. I did some research back as an undergrad into nitric oxide pathways, and the long and short of it is that if EMFs were randomly screwing with your NO synthases, you would have both systemic inflammation and poorly controlled blood pressure.

[Anonymous No.10712600]

>>10710270
Microwave frequencies, but not the amplitude of a microwave oven.

[Anonymous No.10712603]

>>10712558
You're obviously a lot smarter than most of the posters here if you realize that strategy. Board is shit nowadays.

[Anonymous No.10712604]

>>10708724

International Comission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection.

ICNIRP

[Anonymous No.10712610]

>>10712603
At any rate, some of the papers he has cited are interesting. It does look like it's possible to fuck with calcium transport in vitro if you blast cell lines with some amount of microwave radiation. Whether that happens in actual animals and with the levels of exposure created by cell towers is not established by those papers, but it does show some interesting new biology.

Worth noting but not necessarily discrediting his work - Martin Pall appears to make a living by publicly speaking about how wifi and cell phones give you cancer. That doesn't mean his review papers are wrong, but there's obviously a financial conflict of interest here.

[Anonymous No.10712619]

>>10712558
>>10712603
>>10712610
To properly study the effects of phones and cell towers with all variables taken into account would take hundreds, if not thousands of years

The evidence shown by contemporary studies is that mobile phone signals are not consistent levels of power and modulation as used in studies (which still show carcinogenic effects), but massively random and unpredictable.

Biology can adapt to '10 minutes on, 10 minutes off' as seen in the NTP study, but in actual use cases the radiation is extremely sporadic, therefore extremely deadly.

This whole issue is going to blow up and hit governments and the economy very hard.

It's worse than asbestos.

Anyone that denies this is an industry shill.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adGtb0kxsDM

[Anonymous No.10712622]

>>10712610
>Martin Pall appears to make a living by publicly speaking about how wifi and cell phones give you cancer.
Source for this?

[Anonymous No.10712623]

dfgdgdfg

[Anonymous No.10712624]

>>10712610
>appears to make a living by publicly speaking about how...
Smells like Andrew Wakefield all over again.

[Anonymous No.10712626]

>>10712619
>To properly study the effects of phones and cell towers with all variables taken into account would take hundreds, if not thousands of years

Probably, yeah, but starting in mice or rats would be a good start. I've worked in cell lines extensively, and their biology rarely if ever recapitulates in a whole animal. They are literally just cancers grown outside of their host and flattened out onto glass.

If there's still unexplained changes in intracellular calcium and NO in mice exposed to levels of microwave radiation that are typical in a city, then that's a legitimate cause for concern. The problem is that evidence doesn't exist, and we've already looked for similar trends in other parts of the spectrum back when the hysteria focused on smartphones.

[Anonymous No.10712629]

>>10712622
Just google his name. He's notable for having an emeritus professorship and also speaking at a bunch of conferences about why he thinks WiFi and cell towers cause cancer.

Again, I won't claim that being a bit of an ideologue means that his views are wrong - just that there's clearly a conflict of interest and good reason to try to scope out other authors.

[Anonymous No.10712634]

>>10712626
All lab studies will not apply to real situations. There are enormous amounts of man-made radiation flying around, resonating, clashing, synergizing with each other at all times.

NONE of the effects of these other signals are accounted for at all. It is impossible to scientifically understand what is going to happen when such an enormous amount of extremely high-powered, ultra-modulated and collimated microwave beams are suddenly blanketing humanity.

[Anonymous No.10712638]

>>10712629
>being a bit of an ideologue
he bases all of his claims and predictions on peer-reviewed science you faggot shill

[Anonymous No.10712639]

>>10712594
Yep, there's a lot of overlap between the underlying action of ELF, power frequency, and microwaves modulated at ELF frequencies. Refer to his and other's later papers for more data. Influx of calcium occurs at very low power densities.

>if EMFs were randomly screwing with your NO synthases, you would have both systemic inflammation and poorly controlled blood pressure.
Indeed, that's what we see in animals depending on their condition and exposure parameters. Part of this is a direct action , part of it is an action on the hypothalamic adrenal pituitary axis. There are several lines of evidence besides mechanistic studies.

>>10712610
>Martin Pall appears to make a living by publicly speaking about how wifi and cell phones give you cancer.
Source? I've not seen any instance where he was overtly paid, or required payment. He called into our radio show from across the country, long distance for 2 hours or so for free.

Cancer is part of what he goes over, but it's a small part of the whole thing. I think you're making it sound a bit more trendy than it is.

[Anonymous No.10712641]

>>10712634
>All lab studies will not apply to real situations. There are enormous amounts of man-made radiation flying around, resonating, clashing, synergizing with each other at all times.

So put the mice in a Faraday cage to rule out other parts of the spectrum. I don't think IACUC would be too upset about that.

>high-powered, ultra-modulated

[citation needed]

[Anonymous No.10712643]

>>10712641
LMAOOOO this flagrant and intentional misinterpretation of my post makes me believe you're a panicking kike

[Anonymous No.10712644]

>>10712638
>he bases all of his claims and predictions on peer-reviewed science you faggot shill

>low-impact papers working entirely in immortalized cell lines

I don't know what to tell you besides work in biology for awhile and gain a feel for what counts as reason for panic.

For the record, pouring strawberry juice on a cell line will probably cause calcium transport issues too.

[Anonymous No.10712646]

>>10712643
what is that image supposed to show me besides the true power of Mathworks Matlab™?

[Anonymous No.10712647]

>>10712644
http://it-takes-time.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Shinjyo-2014-Significant-Decrease-of-Clinical-Symptoms-after-Mobile-Phone-Base-Station-Removal-.pdf

>Our intention was to examine whether there were health impacts on residents from
RF-EMFs emitted by the mobile phone base station erected on the roof of their
condominium building. We conducted thorough research on whether there were any
other factors to account for the improvements of the residents’ health other than the
removal of the base station.

>The results of this case report indicate that health problems of the residents were
associated with the operation of the mobile phone base station and that these
problems improved after its removal. Although this report is not a double-blind study,
it can be used as an example indicating the potential effects of RF-EMFs emitted
from mobile phone base stations erected on the roofs of condominium buildings on
human health. It is imperative that further detailed research is conducted regarding
the impact of RF-EMFs on human health.

>>10712646
the intensity of LTE modulation, you've seen simulations of signals before right?

[Anonymous No.10712648]

>>10712641
>So put the mice in a Faraday cage to rule out other parts of the spectrum.
Oh man, you gotta go back and look at the early heavily funded research, particularly post project Pandora research in the 70's. After Bawin and Adey of UCLA brain research institute published on the 16Hz AM VHF induced Ca2+ efflux effect and it was replicated by CArl Black et al of the EPA, a massive effort was undertaken. They were well funded and meticulous, they controlled for everything. Subtle whine of coils. Restraint stress. Air ionization and content. Hypofield effects from shielding. They used anechoic materials. They documented the location and character of the geomagnetic field, ambient fields, and to my recollection even the Schumann resonances.

Like I said in my post chain, there's over 100 years of data. A lot of work has been done. International symposiums have been held. Cold War research competition with the Soviets has gone on. There's a lot.

[Anonymous No.10712649]

>>10712639
> Influx of calcium occurs at very low power densities.

Sidestepping the fact that you're talking about something different than radiation intensity, can I get a ballpark figure for what level of exposure he thinks is pathological? Like maybe a number that can be compared to what a person typically receives in the city.

[Anonymous No.10712651]

>>10712648
Carl Blackman* that is.

[Anonymous No.10712663]

>>10712648
>Oh man, you gotta go back and look at the early heavily funded research, particularly post project Pandora research in the 70's. After Bawin and Adey of UCLA brain research institute published on the 16Hz AM VHF induced Ca2+ efflux effect and it was replicated by CArl Black et al of the EPA, a massive effort was undertaken. They were well funded and meticulous, they controlled for everything. Subtle whine of coils. Restraint stress. Air ionization and content. Hypofield effects from shielding. They used anechoic materials. They documented the location and character of the geomagnetic field, ambient fields, and to my recollection even the Schumann resonances.

It does look like Bawin and Adey did their work in vivo, so I'll read some of their work. I'll start with "EFFECTS OF MODULATED VHF FIELDS ON THE CENTRAL NERVOUS SYSTEM" since that seems to be the paper you're talking about.

[Anonymous No.10712668]

>>10712649
>Sidestepping the fact that you're talking about something different than radiation intensity
when you try to nitpick to make yourself look smart but really you're talking out your ass

[Anonymous No.10712672]

>>10712647
>the intensity of LTE modulation, you've seen simulations of signals before right?

Sure but what about that image is supposed to make me think that normal city RF exposure is 'high-powered and ultra-modulated'? It's just a signal you plotted on Matlab. I don't even know what the X-axis is supposed to represent.

[Anonymous No.10712677]

>>10712668
>when you try to nitpick to make yourself look smart but really you're talking out your ass

Please address the latter half of my post so that we can establish what levels of exposure are supposed to be pathological.

[Anonymous No.10712681]

>>10712672
this image applies, though replace the 4g spectrum with the MATLAB waveform in my earlier image and you'll understand

[Anonymous No.10712685]

>>10712677
I wasn't the anon you were replying to, just pointing out the fact that you're a fraud

[Anonymous No.10712686]

>>10712681
I'm interested in the papers showing that all organisms perceive RF signals as 'environmental stressors'. Do you have the original source of that image so that I can look at their bibliography?

[Anonymous No.10712689]

>>10712649
You mean peak intensity or pulse width? They're all relevant parameters. Very short ride time (nanosecond pulses) in particular yield strong effects.

As far as a reliable dose response range it's fairly complex and depends on the exposure parameters and the system under test. Some research has identified 30-60 uW/m2 for humans as the threshold for effects. Some studies in single celled organisms see changes at the ~5picowatt/cm2 range. The former is generally accepted in humans. In some systems there isn't a threshold, you get effects based on the character of the signal, and you get hypofield effects when a frequency band is blocked. Either way, they definitely occur at mobile device intensities.

https://bioinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/BioInitiativeReport-RF-Color-Charts.pdf

[Anonymous No.10712690]

>>10712686
wi-cancer.info
click on the colored squares to go to fully sourced info pages
sources in separate pages at the bottom of each
have fun

[Anonymous No.10712691]

>>10712685
here's your (you)

[Anonymous No.10712692]

>>10712663
You can check the file "_Index.txt" in the mediafire link as well. Pubmed should get all of their papers, but I have them listed there.

[Anonymous No.10712693]

>>10712691
Thanks, pseudanon.

[Anonymous No.10712697]

>>10712689
rise time*

[Anonymous No.10712698]

>>10712689
>30-60 uW/m2
that's so low wtf

[Anonymous No.10712700]

>>10712647
>That study
oy vey

[Anonymous No.10712713]

>>10708724
BROTHERS, UNIONIZE!

[Anonymous No.10712716]

>>10712713
DEPLOYING UN-IONIZATION BEAM

[Anonymous No.10712719]

>>10712689
>https://bioinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/BioInitiativeReport-RF-Color-Charts.pdf
>A single, 2-hr exposure to GSM cell phone radiation results in serious neuron damage (brain cell damage) and death in cortex, hippocampus, and basal ganglia of brain- even 50+ days later blood-brain barrier is still leaking albumin (P<.002) following only one cell phone exposure
...

[Anonymous No.10712727]

>>10712719
2 hours is a pretty long time
most people feel fried after about 15 minutes

[Anonymous No.10712813]

>>10712716
yea I need to go on another lsd trip
>tfw no idea where to get it :(

[Anonymous No.10712891]

>>10708732
Nigger

[Anonymous No.10712899]

>>10712813
Doing drugs is clearly what every Evangelical Christian does? Is Meth next my Alabama brother?

[Anonymous No.10712900]

>>10712891
Reggin.

[Anonymous No.10712909]

>>10712681
Oh look it's the anti-5G tranny spamming his literal nonsense again. I'm going to copy and paste this response from a previous thread where you got BTFOd and failed to respond:
>I suggest you actually learn about signals and systems before posting this.
There are so many errors in this I do not know where to begin, if this is a students work, they are failing their paper.
Take for example in the text it refers to the claimed frequency spectrum plot of 5G as a waveform, it also compares the frequency domain plot to the time domain plots of GSM and 3G, which of course cannot be done without first doing Laplace transforms.

[Anonymous No.10712913]

>>10712681
>2G : time division multiplexing
3G : code division multiplexing
3G+ and 4G : mix of multiplexing (phase, time and code)
this is why the waveforms aren't the same. Output power is much less in 3G. first 2G mobile phones where in the 2W range, that's fucking crazy, now they are in the mW range.
Moore law (if multicore is taken into account) gives us more calculation power to extract very weak signals from background noise, all in all, we need less and less power to transmit the same bandwidth, or at same power level, bandwidth is increasing dramatically.

[Anonymous No.10712914]

>>10712909
>5G discord tranny seething
read the post you're replying to retard

>>10712913
wow almost like current research shows more intense modulation damages more than power

[Anonymous No.10712919]

>>10712914
Dilate, tranny. You don't have a clue what you're talking about, your HRT meds have fucked with your brain.
>current research
Current research shows that you're mentally ill.

[Anonymous No.10712923]

>>10712919
cope
5G is a failure and the class actions are coming

[Anonymous No.10712931]

>>10712923
>cope
>5G is a failure and the class actions are coming
Go make another five threads about it you deluded tranny, you're not convincing anyone with your nonsense. Imagine being so obsessed over literal waves that you respond to posts on your 2-day-old thread within 3 minutes.

[Anonymous No.10712932]

>>10712931
>all these seething assumptions
>"y-you're the NPC tranny!"
BPD tranny behavior
your dad wishes you would kys

[Anonymous No.10712936]

>>10712931
Matter and energy are waves checkmate atheist

[Anonymous No.10712937]

>>10712919
What am I reading.

[Anonymous No.10712939]

>>10712937
the last gasp of a failed industry shill

[Anonymous No.10712941]

>>10712939
Ah yes. A true classic.

[Anonymous No.10712948]

>>10712932
>>10712936
>>10712939
>>10712937
>>10712941
Keep seething and replying instantly to me multiple times in your two day old thread, schizo tranny. You might even make a few more of these threads before you become another statistic.
Obvious samefag btw

[Anonymous No.10712953]

>>10712948
>that uncanny valley """meme"""
SLOPPY JOB

[Anonymous No.10712961]

>>10712948
>it gives me fast internet, therefore it's healthy

[Anonymous No.10712962]

>>10712953
>>10712961
>he thinks people wouldn't notice him replying to himself with posts exactly 1 minute apart each when the cooldown expires
>>10712937
>>10712939
>>10712941
I'd tell you to seek help but I don't actually want you to live a long and happy life.

[Anonymous No.10712965]

>>10712948
>>10712962
Uh.

[Anonymous No.10712966]

>>10712962

[Anonymous No.10712972]

>>10712965
>>10712966
>t.

[Anonymous No.10712974]

>>10712972
Trannies aren't anti-5G, they'd be the first ones who'd want to merge with technology.

[Anonymous No.10712976]

>>10712972
He has a good fashion sense, at least. That's about it...

>Hey I saw a cute Asian dress like this once

[Anonymous No.10712977]

>>10712972
low energy post
likely braindamaged from all the microwaves

[Anonymous No.10712979]

>>10712974
This. The driving force behind transhumanism is conformity, authoritarianism, and the destruction of people's physical health and individuality. Trannies will be quite polarized.

[Anonymous No.10712986]

>>10712972
What the fuck is this corporate shilling about?

[Anonymous No.10712987]

>>10712979
>trannies will be polarized
haha is funny because artificial emf polarizes cells haha and trannies want 5G enabled dilation stations haha yes

[Anonymous No.10712992]

>>10712986
see
>>10712647

[Anonymous No.10713010]

>>10712986
I've seen better, honestly. He really needs to step it up. My jimmies aren't even slightly rustled.

[Anonymous No.10713576]

>>10711428
>Non-ionizing radiation causing any chemical change in the body would immediately lead to free energy and all the advanced tech that would give humanity.
kek, how do you think photosynthesis and sight work? Also, UV-A and UV-B is non-ionizing but has enough energy to cause cancer through breaking chemical bonds.

[Anonymous No.10713582]

>>10712582
>I'm a non expert on this topic and I'm a fucking retard that uses logical fallacies to form my beliefs about facts

[Anonymous No.10713676]

>>10712974
>>10712977
>>10712979
>>10712986
>>10712987
>>10712992
>>10713010
Stop samefagging, tranny.

[Anonymous No.10713744]

[Anonymous No.10713845]

Industry shills trying to derail the thread with "tranny" spam

[Anonymous No.10713847]

Tranny shills trying to derail the board with "industry" spam

[Anonymous No.10713848]

>>10713847
cope

[Anonymous No.10713853]

>>10713848
Why did you spam the board with multiple threads, tranny? You already have two.

[Anonymous No.10713855]

>>10713853
>lose debate
>try to get thread deleted by replicating OP's format
>fail because you're a low IQ bottom feeder
mods actually BASED

[Anonymous No.10713858]

>>10713853
and you're probably a pedophile too
hang soon pedo jew

[Anonymous No.10713860]

>>10713855
>>10713858
>debate
What debate? Take your HRT meds, samefag tranny, you're delusional.

[Anonymous No.10713864]

>>10713855
>tranny trying to pretend he didn't have a meltdown over people not caring about his fearmongering and spammed the board with even more nonsense threads
Holy fuck I feel embarrassed for you kek

[Anonymous No.10713866]

>>10713860
this is what they're paying you to post now? yikes
at least before you tried to adhere to scientific method
now you're just embarrassing yourself

>>10713864
same

[Anonymous No.10713868]

>>10713845
>>10713847
>>10713848
>>10713853
>>10713855
>>10713858
>>10713860
This is all one person
>>10713866
You feel embarrassed for yourself?

[Anonymous No.10713871]

>>10713868

[Anonymous No.10713873]

>>10713866
>scientific method
?
tranny ranting is not scientific, Ivan.
>>10713871
>tranny thinks people don't know about inspect element
jej

[Anonymous No.10713875]

>>10713873
>Ivan
that dementia is setting in hard hilldawg

[Anonymous No.10713886]

>>10713875
Doesn't Russia look down on your kind? What would your supervisor do if he found out about your nocturnal activities?

[Anonymous No.10713887]

>>10713886

[Anonymous No.10713889]

>>10713886
haha funny organic "meme" there my corporation-backed fellow Anonymoose!

[Anonymous No.10713892]

Guys you're missing the point. Israel will have 5G so therefore it is completely safe.

[Anonymous No.10713895]

>>10713886
>>10713875
>>10713873
>>10713871
>>10713868
>>10713866
>>10713864
>>10713860
>>10713858
>>10713855
>>10713853
>>10713848
>>10713847
>>10713845
>>10713676
>>10713582
*PARP* 5G is b- *SPLLLURRRRRRT* 5G is bad for y- *PHRRRRRRRRRTT* proven health eff- *SQUELCH* fuuuu

[Anonymous No.10713898]

>>10713895
biggest cope yet

[Anonymous No.10713900]

>>10713887
>>10713889
>>10713892
>>10713898
>russian tranny schizo shill is also an election tourist
Imagine my shock.

[Anonymous No.10713909]

>>10713895

ill never meet a girl like this :(

my fiance hates pee and feces >:(

[Anonymous No.10713910]

>>10713900
sloppy job
worldwide embarrassment

[Anonymous No.10713916]

>>10713910
>sloppy job
Yes, I'm going to be having words with your supervisor over your poor performance at sowing fear and mistrust within the west
>worldwide embarrassment
Indeed russia is

[Anonymous No.10713922]

>>10713916
very low iq

[Anonymous No.10713953]

Can we all just agree that Vladimir Puting invented 5G and had it introduced in America to drive a wedge between the democratic and republican parties. We don't need to be devided by this we need to stand together. Thanks and god bless