Jump to content
BANGKOK
snoop1130

What will 5G do for me?

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, rwill said:

The biggest impediment to 5G here is the buildings.  The higher frequency 5G signals are not good at penetrating solid objects with cement and brick structures being among the worst.  

How about flesh and bone?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, canuckamuck said:

Now even your toaster will be an agent of the state, while it fills you with tumors, as you watch all the birds die. 

 

Well said, for those who don't think they know everything, this video explains why. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, rwill said:

The biggest impediment to 5G here is the buildings.  The higher frequency 5G signals are not good at penetrating solid objects with cement and brick structures being among the worst.  

You can include water droplets i.e. rain in there too.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Number 6 said:

Faster FB, IG and YouTube. Instant win for zombie populus.

Indeed, better for the sheeple. Normal people won't give a monkey's

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Tounge Thaied said:

Why were my health warning posts about 5G removed?

Probably just an error. Please re-post so we can all have the benefit of your contribution on this vital issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Krataiboy said:

The other day, under banner headlines, a UK national newspaper ran a story bewailing the loss of insect life allegedly caused by global warming/climate change. Yet not even a passing mention was made of how 5G radiation is anticipated to decimate millions of bees, butterflies and other essential pollinators.

 

Resistance to the reckless roll-out of the new, totally untried and untested 5G technology is growing as people all over the world wake up to the threat it poses not only to our health, but to national security and personal privacy.

 

The mass media, of course, will not tell us the scary truth about 5G, any more than will governments and representatives of the telecoms industry. All stand to profit massively from its introduction.

 

The reality is that we humans are being used as guinea pigs to test an invisible form of pollution (EMF radiation) which scientists and medical experts claim poses a danger to every living organism on the planet.

 

A welter of peer-reviewed evidence presents 5G as arguably a more prescient threat to all our futures than climate change. Yet the United Nations, the EU, and most national governments are turning a deaf ear to the growing chorus of concern.

 

The Green Party, Greta Thunberg and Al Gore appear to be unaware of, or surprising indifferent to, the "inconvenient truths" about EMF radiation pollution which 5G will ramp up up to unprecedented levels.  

 

If we want to protect our families and future generations, we are going to have to get the ball rolling ourselves.

 

An online petition has been launched calling for a morotorium on 5G until it has been independently tested and declared safe. For the uninitiated, a mass of evidence gathered in support of the petition is available on the website.

 

https://www.change.org/p/leah-presley-stop-5g

 

First the loss of insect life is not proven but it is worrying if it is.

Second, yes there is definitely resistance to the roll out, especially as the health risks are unknown & are unlikely to be proven in the relatively short time to roll out.

You are right about the mass media refusing to focus on the potential health issues or even attempt to mention them when extolling the benefits of 5G - the Op is an example of this totally skewed reporting, more of an advertorial than news.

It's a pity that you have to denigrate the UN, Al Gore & Greta Thunberg for their stance on climate change. The latter two have focused on what they know and it is whataboutism to use their names regarding 5G.

I strongly disagree that 5G is more of a threat than climate change - the difference is that the former might be but the latter certainly is a threat.

I tend to agree with you that a delay to the roll out is warranted until some more evidence points to whether it is safe for humans.

  • Confused 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My wife complained to 3BB because our internet was slow. 20mps usually at 10mps or less. They offered to upgrade us from 20mps to 100mps for no extra charge. They guys came and installed today, and as I connected to the new router what did I see? 5G. I speed tested it at a 165mps.

Luckily, they left the old router which still works. I've been speed testing it for the past few hours and getting 40mps from it. Coincidence? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, khunken said:

First the loss of insect life is not proven but it is worrying if it is.

Second, yes there is definitely resistance to the roll out, especially as the health risks are unknown & are unlikely to be proven in the relatively short time to roll out.

You are right about the mass media refusing to focus on the potential health issues or even attempt to mention them when extolling the benefits of 5G - the Op is an example of this totally skewed reporting, more of an advertorial than news.

It's a pity that you have to denigrate the UN, Al Gore & Greta Thunberg for their stance on climate change. The latter two have focused on what they know and it is whataboutism to use their names regarding 5G.

I strongly disagree that 5G is more of a threat than climate change - the difference is that the former might be but the latter certainly is a threat.

I tend to agree with you that a delay to the roll out is warranted until some more evidence points to whether it is safe for humans.

Thanks for the balanced response. However. . . I was not "denigrating" the UN by highlighting their inaction on the 5G issue. I was simply stating a fact.

 

Al Gore is not a scientist (as the numerous flaws in his assertions regarding global warming/climate change testify). He is a political opportunist and shrewd businessman who continues to profit from the climate alarmism which he has helped nourish.


As it happens, I have a great deal of sympathy with little Greta, a vulnerable child with mental health issues whose ruthless exploitation by said Gore, her parents, and the climate apocalypse movement in general deserves be called out for what it is - systematic child abuse.

 

Oh, and the effects of EMF radiation on insects are well documented.

https://ehtrust.org/science/bees-butterflies-wildlife-research-electromagnetic-fields-environment/

Edited by Krataiboy
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Krataiboy said:

Thanks for the balanced response. However. . . I was not "denigrating" the UN by highlighting their inaction on the 5G issue. I was simply stating a fact.

 

Al Gore is not a scientist (as the numerous flaws in his assertions regarding global warming/climate change testify). He is a political opportunist and shrewd businessman who continues to profit from the climate alarmism which he has helped nourish.

 

Oh, and the effects of EMF radiation on insects are well documented.

https://ehtrust.org/science/bees-butterflies-wildlife-research-electromagnetic-fields-environment/

 

I have a great deal of sympathy with little Greta, a vulnerable child with mental health issues whose ruthless exploitation by said Gore, her parents, and the climate apocalypse movement in general deserves be called out for what it is - systematic child abuse.

No, the effects of EM on birds, bees & plants is not proven. Some extracts from the piece you link to above:

Researchers concluded, “This could lead to changes in insect behaviour, physiology, and morphology over time….” (Thielens 2018)
 
Balmori, Alfonso.............Further research in this area is urgent.
 
EKLIPSE REPORT  It concluded this radiation could indeed pose a potential risk to bird and insect orientation and plant health.
 
It is researched but most papers have caveats of 'could', 'can' or 'further research is needed.
 
I know full well that Al Gore is not a scientist but that doesn't mean he's not allowed to present his opinions and including him in a 5G thread is both deflection & whataboutery.
As far as Greta is concerned I don't believe for a minute your attempted put-down and it is also deflection & whataboutery.
Stay on topic & stop trying to include climate change into a 5G topic as it only serves to deduct from reasonable 5G arguments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, khunken said:

No, the effects of EM on birds, bees & plants is not proven. Some extracts from the piece you link to above:

Researchers concluded, “This could lead to changes in insect behaviour, physiology, and morphology over time….” (Thielens 2018)
 
Balmori, Alfonso.............Further research in this area is urgent.
 
EKLIPSE REPORT  It concluded this radiation could indeed pose a potential risk to bird and insect orientation and plant health.
 
It is researched but most papers have caveats of 'could', 'can' or 'further research is needed.
 
I know full well that Al Gore is not a scientist but that doesn't mean he's not allowed to present his opinions and including him in a 5G thread is both deflection & whataboutery.
As far as Greta is concerned I don't believe for a minute your attempted put-down and it is also deflection & whataboutery.
Stay on topic & stop trying to include climate change into a 5G topic as it only serves to deduct from reasonable 5G arguments.

Nitpick all you like. The fact remains that there is more than enough credible  evidence to indicate 5G will exacerbate a variety of health, security and privacy problems already associated with 2,3 and 4G systems - and, therefore, for the precautionary principle to be applied.

 

Of course, Al Gore is entitled to ventilate his opinions, just as the rest of us are entitled to question his credentials and motivation for expressing them. Are you aware of just how much he has personally profited from the fruits of his alarmist propaganda?

 

I am sorry you "don't believe" what I wrote about Greta Thunberg. The facts as I stated them are easily checkable, though only part of a much darker story:

http://www.wrongkindofgreen.org/2019/01/17/the-manufacturing-of-greta-thunberg-for-consent-the-political-economy-of-the-non-profit-industrial-complex/

 

On the same link you will find a wealth of material which will probably spare me from further amplification of my original posting.

 

It certainly is not "off topic" for me to contrast the lack of government/media concern over the imminent threat posed by 5G with their frequently hysterical exaggerations of the problems posed by possible long-term effects of global warming - assuming, that is, that the IPCC projections prove to be correct; in the past, many have proven embarrassingly wrong.

 

The climate is Nature's invention, not ours, and as such may ultimately prove to be beyond human control. In contrast, 5G is a man-made, profit-motivated phenomenon under the direct supervision of those elected to represent us - assuming they are willing to exercise it. That they are proving stubbornly reluctant to do so should be a cause for concern for any thinking individual.

 

 

 

Edited by Krataiboy
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I digress a little but to those who are conversant with this subject I ask , bandwidth is a major part in reception quality regardless of download speeds , so now there is a massive investment with the launch of over 1000 communication  satellites that will mitigate the bandwidth problem ? and offer the internet and mobile phone usage to all around the globe where before there was no service available , or so I have read .

Is this a goer ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AT&T will lunch officially its 5G network in the US on Dec,6...……………...it was in the news 3 weeks ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Krataiboy said:

Nitpick all you like. The fact remains that there is more than enough credible  evidence to indicate 5G will exacerbate a variety of health, security and privacy problems already associated with 2,3 and 4G systems - and, therefore, for the precautionary principle to be applied.

 

Of course, Al Gore is entitled to ventilate his opinions, just as the rest of us are entitled to question his credentials and motivation for expressing them. Are you aware of just how much he has personally profited from the fruits of his alarmist propaganda?

 

I am sorry you "don't believe" what I wrote about Greta Thunberg. The facts as I stated them are easily checkable, though only part of a much darker story:

http://www.wrongkindofgreen.org/2019/01/17/the-manufacturing-of-greta-thunberg-for-consent-the-political-economy-of-the-non-profit-industrial-complex/

 

On the same link you will find a wealth of material which will probably spare me from further amplification of my original posting.

 

It certainly is not "off topic" for me to contrast the lack of government/media concern over the imminent threat posed by 5G with their frequently hysterical exaggerations of the problems posed by possible long-term effects of global warming - assuming, that is, that the IPCC projections prove to be correct; in the past, many have proven embarrassingly wrong.

 

The climate is Nature's invention, not ours, and as such may ultimately prove to be beyond human control. In contrast, 5G is a man-made, profit-motivated phenomenon under the direct supervision of those elected to represent us - assuming they are willing to exercise it. That they are proving stubbornly reluctant to do so should be a cause for concern for any thinking individual.

 

 

 

Yes, I will nitpick as much as I like as I'm not 100% convinced although I agree that the 5G roll out should be delayed.

 

Of course you are entitled to question Al Gore's motivation & opinion but no, his credentials are irrelevant just as yours & mine are.

 

You continue your character assassination of Greta Thunberg too and the linked piece is complete rubbish.

 

Three final points. One, attacking the character of those you disagree with is disgusting and just serves to reveal your lack of ethics - and argument for that matter. Two, doing it in a thread that is not about climate change is downright dishonest.

 

Three, the climate change that those who you attack are working against, IS man-made. That's the whole point and no deflection is going to alter it.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...