So, we entered “5G dangers” into google. Practically every single result was completely disarming and either reads or implies “safe.” The first link to appear in the search results, which is conveniently a website called “wirelesshealthfacts.com.”
Upon clicking the above link, the general public may easily and quickly find that every important sounding three letter government panel out there has deemed 5G technology safe. The thing is, it isn’t. How is that 5G technology is stamped and sealed, across the board, as “safe” by an international group of “experts”? Who are these “experts?”
Here’s a few quotes:
US Court of Appeals “The consensus of the international scientific community is that radiofrequency energy from wireless devices and networks, including 5G, has not been shown to cause health problems.” (1) – excerpt from US Court of Appeals determination, which states that “mobile phones and networks do not cause cancer.” The determination of safety is based on “thousands of peer – reviewed studies conducted over decades and includes input from expert organizations such as the FDA, World Health Organization, and American Cancer Society.” So a big part of the Court of Appeals decision in 2019 to deem 5G towers as “safe” is drawn from two decades of data which were gathered during a time when 5G technology did not even exist? The 5G roll out began in April of 2019. “On April 3, 2019, we introduced 5G mobile service in parts of Chicago and Minneapolis. Customers in those cities were the first in the world to have a 5G-enabled smartphone connected to a 5G network.” (2) (Verizon)
What does Australia have to say?
2: Austraila ““Current research indicates that there is no established evidence for health effects from radio waves used in mobile telecommunications. This includes the upcoming roll-out of the 5G network. ARPANSA’s assessment is that 5G is safe.” (1) Maine Anchor Response: So these blokes, hold on a minute, did they just say there is no “established evidence” for health effects on “the upcoming 5G Rollout?” Quite honestly, I would rather facebook fact check 5G. How can one presume to know that a thing is safe, before it is even up and going on a large scale?
“The consensus of the international scientific community is that radiofrequency energy from wireless devices and networks, including 5G, has not been shown to cause health problems.” (1)
“…there is no convincing scientific evidence that the weak RF signals from base stations [cell towers] and wireless networks cause adverse health effects.” (1)
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/we-have-no-reason-to-believe-5g-is-safe/
powerwatch.org/uk: Peer Reviewed Scientific Studies on EMF – Related Subjects
Here’s 1,600 links : This will be an ongoing conversation.
Powerwatch has been researching the links between EMF and health risks for more than 25 years. The
organization, which is completely independent of government and industry, gathers information to help the lay
person understand this issue. Powerwatch recently added a search engine to its website which enables the
user to search specific fields in their database for specified time periods. For more information about
PowerWatch go to: https://www.powerwatch.org.uk/docs/aboutus.asp.
There is actually a search engine to look at the dangers of EMF’s, that is how much information there is out there. emfscientist.org
Well, after getting shut down and slandered and ridiculed time and time again they posted an appeal in which they stated that this technology is incredibly dangerous.
“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.
These findings justify our appeal to the United Nations (UN) and, all member States in the world, to encourage the World Health Organization (WHO) to exert strong leadership in fostering the development of more protective EMF guidelines, encouraging precautionary measures, and educating the public about health risks, particularly risk to children and fetal development. By not taking action, the WHO is failing to fulfill its role as the preeminent international public health agency.” – an excerpt from the full statement.
This is about the very beginning of what we wish to share. There is so much in fact, that this may even be a continued story. For instance, did you know that many countries and neighborhood have fought these monstrosities and their owners and won? Yes, I know. I thought Erin Brockovich was the only one, too. Check out a few of these stories in the following links:
https://twitter.com/i/events/1393158717848363016
The parents in the following story wanted the tower down from across the school and it even hit the news. (This is back when parents were actually allowed to be concerned about the safety of their children.) https://www.cbs8.com/article/news/investigations/your-stories-8/lakeside-parents-want-5g-tower-removed/509-37bc1171-ee0c-4da5-9ff3-152863abf559. Little did theu know however, that across the country many elementary schools were the first to be exposed to 5G.
A woman named Vicki Sievers, involved with the EMF Safety Network, went to her city council with concerns about the technology. “The 5G towers, which would allow for faster and higher-capacity video streaming and other transmissions, could exacerbate health symptoms already suspected as a result of exposure to electromagnetic fields, Vicki Sievers, of the EMF Safety Network, told the San Rafael City Council on Monday... According to According to the EMF Safety Network website, those symptoms can include fatigue, headaches, sleep problems, anxiety, heart problems, learning and memory disorders, ringing in the ears and increased cancer risk.” (3)
0 Comments