Why I’m Inherently Skeptical of 5G

Lately there’s a lot of talk about 5G.

Does it cause coronavirus? I don’t know.

Is it bad for you in general? I don’t know.

There’s a lot I don’t know about 5G. I’m not an expert in this field so I’m not going to pretend to be one.

But I’m inherently skeptical of 5G for one simple reason: because there is no obvious need for it.

4G LTE works perfectly fine for me. It’s plenty fast. I’ve never once thought “Damnit, LTE sucks! I wish we had something faster!”

There is nothing wrong with 4G. I can watch YouTube videos perfectly fine with no buffering 99% of the time. Netflix, Hulu, Disney+ and HBO Go work perfectly over LTE.

Yet 5G is sold to us as being super fast:

“Remember in “The Amazing Spider-Man” when Peter Parker runs a Bing search (we know, Bing?) on Dr. Kurt Connors and instantly gets results? Your Web pages never load that fast. “That’s Darth Vader’s computer there,” Ericsson Chief Technology Officer Ulf Ewaldsson quipped. Pages usually take a second or two to load, even on a fast connection. With 5G, those results will come immediately.

Or if you wanted to kick back and download the movie “The Guardians of the Galaxy,” it would zip to your device in 15 seconds instead of the 6 minutes it takes via 4G.”

Yes, how did we ever live with one second loading times for search engine results and six-minute movie download times?

We don’t need 5G. LTE is fast enough.

Yet they’re selling 5G to us based on how much faster it will be.

I’m not buying it. There’s got to be some other reason for 5G.

And as if there weren’t enough reasons to be wary of 5G, the New York Times has already played the “RUSSIA!!!” card:

external-content.duckduckgo.png

Putin wants you to be afraid of 5G! If you are skeptical of 5G, you are a Russian Agent!

You wouldn’t want to be a traitor now, would you? Good. Then shut your damn mouth while the 5G antenna is installed on the streetlight in front of your house.

Scientific American published an op-ed in October 2019 entitled, “We Have No Reason to Believe 5G is Safe.”

“The chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) recently announced through a press release that the commission will soon reaffirm the radio frequency radiation (RFR) exposure limits that the FCC adopted in the late 1990s. These limits are based upon a behavioral change in rats exposed to microwave radiation and were designed to protect us from short-term heating risks due to RFR exposure.  

Yet, since the FCC adopted these limits based largely on research from the 1980s, the preponderance of peer-reviewed research, more than 500 studies, have found harmful biologic or health effects from exposure to RFR at intensities too low to cause significant heating.”

In other words, the FCC’s radio frequency radiation exposure limits are out of date.

“Citing this large body of research, more than 240 scientists who have published peer-reviewed research on the biologic and health effects of nonionizing electromagnetic fields (EMF) signed the International EMF Scientist Appeal, which calls for stronger exposure limits. The appeal makes the following assertions:

“Numerous recent scientific publications have shown that EMF affects living organisms at levels well below most international and national guidelines. Effects include increased cancer risk, cellular stress, increase in harmful free radicals, genetic damages, structural and functional changes of the reproductive system, learning and memory deficits, neurological disorders, and negative impacts on general well-being in humans. Damage goes well beyond the human race, as there is growing evidence of harmful effects to both plant and animal life.”

So all these bad things can happen to us (and animals and plants) even at radio frequency radiation exposure levels that the FCC has deemed “safe.”

Here’s where 5G comes in, and why it’s unique compared to previous generations of wireless technology (4G, 3G, etc.):

“The latest cellular technology, 5G, will employ millimeter waves for the first time in addition to microwaves that have been in use for older cellular technologies, 2G through 4G. Given limited reach, 5G will require cell antennas every 100 to 200 meters, exposing many people to millimeter wave radiation. 5G also employs new technologies (e.g., active antennas capable of beam-forming; phased arrays; massive multiple inputs and outputs, known as massive MIMO) which pose unique challenges for measuring exposures.”

So what are the effects of millimeter waves on humans? I’m sure you’ll be shocked to learn that they’re not good:

“Millimeter waves are mostly absorbed within a few millimeters of human skin and in the surface layers of the cornea. Short-term exposure can have adverse physiological effects in the peripheral nervous system, the immune system and the cardiovascular system. The research suggests that long-term exposure may pose health risks to the skin (e.g., melanoma), the eyes (e.g., ocular melanoma) and the testes (e.g., sterility).”

Virtually every part of the elite’s overall agenda has depopulation in mind: abortion, LGBT rights, female empowerment, male disempowerment, vaccines, etc. It can’t be a coincidence that 5G can cause sterility.

The government doesn’t seem to care what health risks 5G–or any wireless technology at all, for that matter–cause:

“Since 5G is a new technology, there is no research on health effects, so we are “flying blind” to quote a U.S. senator. However, we have considerable evidence about the harmful effects of 2G and 3G. Little is known the effects of exposure to 4G, a 10-year-old technology, because governments have been remiss in funding this research. Meanwhile, we are seeing increases in certain types of head and neck tumors in tumor registries, which may be at least partially attributable to the proliferation of cell phone radiation. These increases are consistent with results from case-control studies of tumor risk in heavy cell phone users.

5G will not replace 4G; it will accompany 4G for the near future and possibly over the long term. If there are synergistic effects from simultaneous exposures to multiple types of RFR, our overall risk of harm from RFR may increase substantially. Cancer is not the only risk as there is considerable evidence that RFR causes neurological disorders and reproductive harm, likely due to oxidative stress.”

Neurological disorders? That’s some scary shit.

“As a society, should we invest hundreds of billions of dollars deploying 5G, a cellular technology that requires the installation of 800,000 or more new cell antenna sites in the U.S. close to where we live, work and play?

Instead, we should support the recommendations of the 250 scientists and medical doctors who signed the 5G Appeal that calls for an immediate moratorium on the deployment of 5G and demand that our government fund the research needed to adopt biologically based exposure limits that protect our health and safety.”

I don’t trust 5G.

If you do trust it, that means you’re simply accepting the word of telecom industry “experts” and leaving your fate in their hands. What, exactly, have the elites done to earn your trust?

There is no obvious, pressing need for 5G, yet they’re rolling it out anyway. This, to me, has always struck me as suspicious. “5G is faster,” they tell us. But LTE is fast enough.

There’s something else they’re not telling us.

I’d advise getting out of cities as soon as possible.

***

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on 5G:

Screen Shot 2020-04-07 at 2.05.57 PM.png