Amazing Facts - 5G Cellular Causes COVID-19

[Phil Hobbs]

On 2020-03-19 16:27, Michael Terrell wrote:

On Thursday, March 19, 2020 at 1:23:27 PM UTC-4, Phil Hobbs wrote:
On 2020-03-19 13:21, David Brown wrote:
On 19/03/2020 17:07, Rick C wrote:
On Thursday, March 19, 2020 at 5:19:02 AM UTC-4,
jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:


Is 5G high power? What is especially harmful about 5G?

What is different about 5G is the frequency. In discussions in
a UK group they talk about it including bands well above the 5
GHz we use for cell phones and other devices.

As the frequency increases we do need to consider that at some
point it may start interacting differently with human tissues.
Chemistry does have effects due to specific wavelengths of
radiation. For sure we will find any harmful effects that may
exist if we start selling people millions and billions of
radiators. But it will take a while.


Certainly it is important to consider if the higher frequencies
are likely to have detrimental effects. That is why they /have/
been considered, and tested. So far, nothing conclusive has been
found - either in terms of test results or theoretical methods of
harm - for 5G frequencies. Of course there will be problems if
the signals are strong enough (then you get heating in the manner
of a microwave oven). But since there are many more 5G bases
than 3G or 4G bases, the signals are in fact a good deal lower
power.

As you say, time will tell. Well, it /might/ tell. Testing and
deployment can reveal that there /are/ health problems from 5G,
but they can't show that there are none.

All we know for sure is that there will be countless crackpots
(and some perfectly sane scammers) who claim they get health
problems from 5G. These will be some of the same people that
think they are sensitive to WiFi.

And we know there will be lots of people who think the best idea
is to be prudent and wait until we know more - which sounds very
sensible at first sight. But such skepticism can also backfire -
it is the same thing that gives people such an exaggerated fear
of radiation, and means we kill huge numbers of people with coal
smoke to avoid a miniscule increased risk of cancer in a few
people. There are no simple answers.


If radar technicians aren't dropping like flies, the rest of us
have very little to worry about.


Have you ever worked on RADAR, or at a RADAR site? I did both, in the
early '70s. The main system was a pair of 2MW Westinghouse systems at
Cairn Airfield, outside of Ft Rucker. The rest were portable systems
left over from the Korean war era. Those were the ones that I had to
service when the RADAR section was short handed. I did so well that
they tried to have me transferred from the Weathervision support
section before finished the week.

I also worked at a transmitter site that generated 95 KW of UHF RF,
and it had a 5MW EIRP from the antenna. It didn't affect my health.

Never had the privilege. BITD at least, the RF safety limits were based
on thermal effects, and as far as I know, that worked OK.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs
--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

http://electrooptical.net
http://hobbs-eo.com

 

[Bill Martin]

On 3/19/20 3:40 PM, Phil Hobbs wrote:

On 2020-03-19 16:27, Michael Terrell wrote:
On Thursday, March 19, 2020 at 1:23:27 PM UTC-4, Phil Hobbs wrote:
On 2020-03-19 13:21, David Brown wrote:
On 19/03/2020 17:07, Rick C wrote:
On Thursday, March 19, 2020 at 5:19:02 AM UTC-4,
jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:


Is 5G high power? What is especially harmful about 5G?

SNIP

If radar technicians aren't dropping like flies, the rest of us
have very little to worry about.


Have you ever worked on RADAR, or at a RADAR site? I did both, in the
early '70s. The main system was a pair of 2MW Westinghouse systems at
Cairn Airfield, outside of Ft Rucker. The rest were portable systems
left over from the Korean war era. Those were the ones that I had to
service when the RADAR section was short handed. I did so well that
they tried to have me transferred from the Weathervision support
section before  finished the week.

I also worked at a transmitter site that generated 95 KW of UHF RF,
and it had a 5MW EIRP from the antenna. It didn't affect my health.


Never had the privilege.  BITD at least, the RF safety limits were based
on thermal effects, and as far as I know, that worked OK.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

Long ago, when I was in the AF, I worked on a 5MW Magnetron height
finder radar...S band, I think. It was strongly suggested that you don't
want to be in the radome with power on...it was said to create cataracts
if you got too much exposure. Pretty sure it would cook hot dogs too.
There was a persistent story circulating while I was in school at
Keesler AFB that someone had once messed up the sector blanking and lit
up all the flashbulbs in the base exchange! Probably not, but it was a
good visual to contemplate.

bill m

 

[Don Kuenz]

Rick C wrote:

jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
Jeff Liebermann wrote:
jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
Jeff Liebermann wrote:
5G RF Causes COVID-19
https://fourfoldhealing.com/blogs/news/an-important-question-about-the-coronavirus-plus-immune-support-tips

High intensity radar in 1918?

Hardly but for fun, I'll argue the point on his behalf. During WWI,
the receivers and detectors were not very sensitive. To compensate,
the transmitters were designed to belch huge amounts of RF power. For
example, the Alexanderson alternator:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexanderson_alternator
"A large Alexanderson alternator might produce 500 kW of output
radio-frequency energy and would be water or oil cooled."
At less than 25kHz, one can do some real damage with 1/2 a megawatt of
RF. So, it's possible that some electrosensitive people in the
vicinity of these transmitters might have been affected by the RF.

As for the mention of RADAR, the author is obviously lacking in RF
expertise and probably meant high power naval shore stations intended
to communicate with ocean going vessels.

The problem I have with the author is his assertion that if two events
roughly coincide, then one must have caused the other. Coincidence is
not proof of causation. Yet, that's the basis of his entire argument
relating RF and viral pandemics.

Also, please don't assume that everyone involved in RF health effects
is a lunatic. Last month, I attended a talk by Dr Karl Maret on what
was essentially the possible health effects of 5G. Video of the talk:
Future of Wireless & Its Health Effects
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVnUJFAoudU> (2 hrs long)
I was pleasantly surprised that he was quite knowledgeable about RF,
RF associated buzzwords, acronyms, and cellular radio terminology.
More:
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=dr+karl+maret
http://www.emfawaresc.org
There was also a link to the slides used in his presentation, but I
can't seem to find it right now. His main point is that there has
been little or no research into possible health effects caused by 5G,
and that it should not be deployed without additional research. It
was an interesting talk, but was ruined (for me) because of the
lunatic fringe it attracted. I was also surprised that a fairly large
number of the attendees asked questions involving various maladies and
illnesses and whether these might be attributable to RF exposure.

Is 5G high power? What is especially harmful about 5G?

What is different about 5G is the frequency. In discussions in a UK group
they talk about it including bands well above the 5 GHz we use for cell
phones and other devices.

As the frequency increases we do need to consider that at some point it
may start interacting differently with human tissues. Chemistry does have
effects due to specific wavelengths of radiation. For sure we will find
any harmful effects that may exist if we start selling people millions and
billions of radiators. But it will take a while.

The jury's still out in regards to the health effects of a 5G "bath."

Impact of low intensity millimetre waves on cell functions

Despite the widespread use of millimetre-wave transmitters
for communications, radar and even non-lethal weapons
systems, only a handful of researchers have funded
programmes focusing on millimetre-wave interactions with
biological systems. As such, there is a growing need for
a better understanding of the mechanisms of these
interactions and their possible adverse and therapeutic
implications. Independent of the health impact of long-
term exposure to high doses of millimetre-wave energy on
whole organisms, there exists the potential for subtle
effects on specific tissues or organs which can best be
quantified in studies which examine real-time changes in
cellular function as energy is applied. In this Letter, a
series of experiments are presented which show changes in
cell membrane potential and the action potential firing
rate of cortical neurons under short (1 min) exposures to
continuous-wave 60 GHz radiation at mW/cm 2 power levels,
more than 1000 times below the US government maximum
permissible exposure. ...

[Results] indicate strong correlation between extremely low
millimetre-wave power densities and neuronal activity. All
eight patch clamped-probed neurons measured showed a similar
increase in the plasma membrane permeability. At power
levels of approximately 300 nW/cm 2 and above, we observed
strong inhibition of the action potential firing rate in
some of the neurons, and increased firing in others,
perhaps indicating the functional heterogeneity in the
studied neuronal population. The rise in bath temperature
during exposure was < 3 degrees C and could not fully account
for the dramatic changes in the membrane permeability, as
the equivalent radiant heating produced a much smaller change
in the membrane parameters.

http://www.thz.caltech.edu/siegelpapers/IET_Dec2010.pdf

Thank you,

--
Don Kuenz KB7RPU
There was a young lady named Bright Whose speed was far faster than light;
She set out one day In a relative way And returned on the previous night.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Friday, March 20, 2020 at 2:04:21 PM UTC+11, Don Kuenz wrote:

Rick C wrote:
jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
Jeff Liebermann wrote:
jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
Jeff Liebermann wrote:
5G RF Causes COVID-19
https://fourfoldhealing.com/blogs/news/an-important-question-about-the-coronavirus-plus-immune-support-tips

<snip>

Is 5G high power? What is especially harmful about 5G?

What is different about 5G is the frequency. In discussions in a UK group
they talk about it including bands well above the 5 GHz we use for cell
phones and other devices.

As the frequency increases we do need to consider that at some point it
may start interacting differently with human tissues. Chemistry does have
effects due to specific wavelengths of radiation. For sure we will find
any harmful effects that may exist if we start selling people millions and
billions of radiators. But it will take a while.

The jury's still out in regards to the health effects of a 5G "bath."

Impact of low intensity millimetre waves on cell functions

Despite the widespread use of millimetre-wave transmitters
for communications, radar and even non-lethal weapons
systems, only a handful of researchers have funded
programmes focusing on millimetre-wave interactions with
biological systems. As such, there is a growing need for
a better understanding of the mechanisms of these
interactions and their possible adverse and therapeutic
implications.

Actually, there isn't. There's no interaction that does anything, and lot of really badly designed experiments that investigators like to claim to be showing an effect.

Medical training is designed to stop medically trained people from ruminating on their mistakes, which is good for their mental health in clinical practice, but tends to wreck them as scientists. Throw in the attention-getting advantage of claiming that ubiquitous low level electromagnetic radiation is damaging and you have a recipe for generating a lot of anxiety-making nonsense.

<snip>

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney