5G network - do you know what it is?

[blindman]

What can be done to prevent 5G coming to Australia?
Any smart suggestion?
Did you fall on false promise that you would be able to download movie in seconds?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqkGrhTipe4

Hope you will have nerves to watch some downsides of 5G (link above).

[Octane]

Reputable source. Not.

To save everyone, here's the about section of that nutjob's YouTube channel:

<quote>
THANKS FOR CHECKING OUT MY CHANNEL, THIS STARTED OUT AS A SHOWCASE FOR MY WORK, AND AFTER NOT TOO LONG I STARTED POSTING CHEMTRAILS. I LIVE IN A TOWN SLIGHTLY NORTH OF BOSTON MA. AND BEING TRAPPED IN THE LIBERAL CAPITOL OF THE WORLD FOUND MYSELF QUACKING AWAY AT MY CELL PHONE TO SPREAD THE THOUGHTS I WAS HAVING ON THE FAKERY, AND BULL**** BEING FOISTED ON US A SOCIETY EVERYDAY, IF YOUR CLOSE MINDED OR SET IN YOUR WAYS. LEAVE, LEAVE NOW. THERES NO WAY TO KNOW ANYTHING IN THIS LIFE BECAUSE THE WEALTHY OR ELITES HAVE WRITTEN OUR HISTORY AND ONLY ALLOWED US TO KNOW WHAT THEY ANT US TO KNOW, THAT GOES FOR THE INTERNET AS WELL, THEY OWN IT AND THEY STARTED IT BACK IN 89 AT NONE OTHER THE CERN(THE LARGE HADRON COLLIDER) SO BE CAREFUL ABOUT WHAT YOU THINK YOU "KNOW" BECAUSE AGAIN, WERE LIVING IN A RICH MANS WORLD, AND ALL "TRUTHS: ARE UP FOR DEBATE AND NO DOUBT AN ILLUSION. RFB
</quote>

Says it all.

H

[Marke]

:lol::lol: Think someones tin foil hat fell off

[LewisM]

He scaled his tinfoil hat up to lead sheet and it crushed his skull and caused lead sepsis

[blindman]

So you think it is healthy, etc....
OMG

[doppler]

I'm sure it was not that long ago that we were warned not to talk on our mobiles too long as we were slowly cooking our brains. With unlimited talk now available we are really baking them. Capitalism doesn't care about health or well being.

[Marke]

Yes very I love bathing in 5g radiation it kills off any early cancer cells and helps you live longer :thumbsup:

[FlashDrive]

It must be true ...I saw it on ' YouTube ' ... :P

[OICURMT]

Healthy, as in it promotes a change in health? no
Healthy as is destroys your health? no
Healthy, as in it improves your health? no
Don't know in what context "etc...." means... so.

A lot of people disemminate misinformation without rigorous scientific backing. I understand the urge to propagate fear and conspiracies as it give some individuals their 15 minutes of "fame", but honestly, on this forum you should select sources that are much more bullet-proof in their scientific method than the one you provided. Anything less will really get ridiculed.



umm... what's you question again?




P.S. as for chemtrails... I seem them all the time when I drive through Colorado (they recently legalized marijuana).

[Lee]

Chemtrails.... yawn..... read enough.

[LewisM]

He's even less interesting than the really camp Secureteam on PooTube.

[The_bluester]

I got as far as "AND AFTER NOT TOO LONG I STARTED POSTING CHEMTRAILS" before "Not wasting oxygen by watching that" set in.

Mention chemtrails, and I would have trouble making myself agree with you that the sky is in fact blue when it is clear.

[Lee]

So now do I have to ridicule the 5G conspiracy theorists along with the chemtrail/flat earther/Apollo-hoax crowds? I don't have time to poke fun at more clowns.....

[Marke]

Yep apparently :D:D

[silv]

Stopped watching at 2:14. Stopped reading at "chemtrails" :D

I'm not concerned about the huge required buildup on antenna cells on structures. (Interesting economic driver though as per the beginning of the clip.)

I'm concerned about the wearables we'll be carrying at our bodies their antennae and their radiation concentration.


Regarding the bands of 2.5GHz and below where some ISPs plan to reserve for InternetOfThings (German Telecom said they'll be reserving 900MHz for IoT in a Berlin's test network. So 900MHz is a relevant figure for things we might be carrying around in the future.) :

From this year's published experiments https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29537695on the 900 and 1900MHz bands, we know there's a chance that hours long exposure causes cancer in humans if the cells don't get a recuperating phase before the next dose. Experiment was done with rats and mice. The 900Mhz exposure did it for old rats, not the young, the damage was smaller if there was a recuperating phase of x days. Nothing happened for mice at 1900MHz, though.
Other peer-reviewed articles look at memory loss and other effects on brain organs.
I have not read of experiments like the rat-mice one where effects of different frequencies plus exposure length are compared. So there's a huge gap in the science.


Why is that concerning? For example, BMW is developing a smart suit for motor cyclists: a lot of antennae in almost direct contact with all sorts of body parts, soft and hard tissue, bone and muscle. You will want to know that you shouldn't wear that suit for, just as an example, more than 6 hours per week, wouldn't you? Or BMW would want to know that their little smart dots shouldn't be placed directly above body part X. Or their communication should, just as an example, use frequencies upward from 5GHz and not the Telecom band for IoT.

Alas, the science in this field is not yet advanced enough. Partly because there's a lot of money in the mobile business and disinformation tactics from BigTobacco and BigOil did and do get applied here, as well. What the different frequencies do to our different body areas/cells has not been established, yet.


Body cells are different within one body and do differ from body to body, too, in terms of water content and whatnot. So not every person develops cancer or other cell damaging from an exposure. And frequencies don't affect all body cells alike.
But you'll want to know whether your body cells are prone to suffer damages. Once you'll all be wearing headgear, wristbands, smart suits - you - or your kids&grandkids - will want to know :)

[doppler]

Didn't watch any of "that" video, but not knowing anything about 5g networks did a bit of googling and some of the information out there does raise concern especially about the lack of research on it's effects on us, more so given the massive size of the projected deployment.

I googled 5g radiation, there seems to be a lot of web sites discussing the harmful effects of EMF radiation, surely they are not all conspiracy nutters?

[netwolf]

Setting aside all the conspiracy nutters to one side. We are in a bit of mess in this world in a large part because we jump to capitalise on new technology before we think through the consequences. There is no denying that it’s human nature to want capitalise and get ahead, and often as history has shown this has been at the expense of future consequences. Recently I watched a video where Google invited Frank Abagnale, Jr. (the man who’s life the movie “catch me if you can” was based). In that talk Frank raised a very good point regarding security and how we race towards adopting and selling technology before thinking through consequences in terms of security. Like the home Echo (another example is home IP security cameras) devices that potentially could allow someone to hack and listen to your conversations. The point he was making is that before releasing such technology what has the company behind it done to test its security. Similarl6 with any technology what requirement is government making of new technology innovators to check and verify that there are no long term consequences. An example one could give is Asbestos.

I also have a 3d printer which I have connected via Octoprint, but I don’t allow access to it via internet. However I am sure someone with enough time on there hands could hack it. Recently there was an article on how many 3d printers are open to the internet because people have not secured them properly. Just another example.

I am far from being a conspiracy nut and have worked in IT for over 20 years (most of that at HP and some at Optus) and have a degree in Engineering. So I am the last one to be anti technology , but age and experience have enlightened me to think that we often look before we leap. And a great part of that is that is also due to bottom line thinking in our business world.

[Oddity]

Is hacking of 3d printers a common problem? What do the hackers print?

[DarkArts]

Maybe it's just me, but my mind immediately goes to the kind of prank that gets pulled at the proverbial office Christmas party.

Your 3D printer designs get hacked; you think you're printing that children's toy, but out comes a lifesize ____. :eek:

[OICURMT]

I LOL'd... reminded me of the saying "Wikipedia is a lot like the bible. Just because a lot of people contributed to it does not make it accurate."

[blindman]

OK,

last try to educate you about environment.

https://geoengineering.environment.harvard. edu

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHr1jvrMrSM

You believe Harvard, right?

Enjoy.

[OICURMT]

Non-sequitur, your OP was about 5G.


I'll review your material and comment, but let's be clear, a thread on the environment regarding GHG's is NOT the same as how 5G affects humans on a physiological level.


OIC!
<Std Disclaimer> I am a Petroleum Engineer. While the industry I work in tends to be sceptics regarding Climate Change, I am not. I believe that the science is over and what we are left arguing is the what level of impact is due to anthropogenic sources.
<Std Diclaimer 2> I am part of a startup company in the USA studying ways in which we can use GHG's for Enhanced Oil Recovery and/or Enhanced Coal Seam Gas Recovery with the view to sequester and store the GHG's permanently to reduce the impact of climate change.

[silv]

#17 netwolf, security is yet another matter. And mentioning Amazon's devices like Echo is necessary, yes. When their Alexa with camera and display was first reviewed on wallstreetjournal they reported that if you covered the camera with a Postit the device turned itself off and there was no setting to disable turn-off.
Meaning: Amazon's developers didn't even remotely think of the privacy concerns they need to be aware of and build their hard- and software accordingly. That's typical for the bunch of irresponsible people who are already occupying our lives with devices and software.
And that device was launched in 2017.. After the privacy scandals around NSA, Snowden, Facebook and Android (and more, if your professional horizon reaches further than mainstream news).

And regarding health concerns, as I already said, mobile devices have not been scrutinized deeply enough. Because of the same disinformation tactics we already know from BigTobacco and BigOil.

[OICURMT]

Just got back from vacation. Have not forgotten about this thread…. Where to start…

Reviewed the supplied information and I then authored a four-page diatribe and concluded that my response fell squarely in the TL;DR category. Sooo… better a do a pithy post into a single page.


Since this post is going to be critical of a particular narrative, I feel compelled to give reference to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemtrail_conspiracy_theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemtrail_conspiracy_theory) as background for anyone interested in the overall point of view for most, if not close to all, people in the world.


Geo-engineering has been a subject for decades. I know someone (a researcher from Australia) who worked at JPL last year studying the potential for space mining (Geophysics). He spent a year trying to design how to shoot seismic on asteroids. Oddly enough, there is now an actual degree (https://space.mines.edu/ (https://space.mines.edu/)) at the Colorado School of Mines (my alma mater). So, the concept of geoengineering has obviously progressed. I believe that soon, we will start to talk about terraforming as the next logical step to geoengineering.


Regarding the video… A couple of comments here.
1) You ask, “You believe Harvard, right?” Actually, no… an institution does not make comments, representatives of institutions do. Dr. Cottrell is not a representative of Harvard, he is a student and
2) I think we all need to have full disclosure here and recognize that Dr. Paul Cottrell is a Financial Analyst. He is currently getting a post-doctorate degree in Biology and pre-Med (https://www.linkedin.com/in/paulcottrell156/ (https://www.linkedin.com/in/paulcottrell156/)). The video you provided is from 2017, just as he entered Harvard. I suspect that he is only now being trained in the scientific method, so I suggest that you might want to reach out to him to see if he’s gathered any hard evidence since posting video or possibly changed his view on the subject.


It was difficult for me to follow Dr Cottrell’s narrative, as it was disjointed in some areas. He wanders from point to point while trying to sell a story that has clear gaps in his conclusions while trying to support his hypothesis. Overall, he is articulate, but lacks the direct Hypothesis, Experiment, Analyze, Conclude style debate required to convince people that his ideas are supportable.


That said, my response will be just as problematic, as I’m reviewing his video and therefore will be just as disjointed as I comment…



00:50 – Research focuses on reflective nature (i.e. albedo) of SoX, and an “Al particulate” and the third “I don’t remember the 3rd one, OH!, it’s a carbonate, it’s sodium carbonate, maybe”. This is very interesting to me in that 1) Jet-A does not contain any Aluminum compounds; 2) flue gases are classic SoX and NoX along with minor unburnt hydrocarbons (kerosene), CO2 and CO. The same thing that is produced by cars and 3) Sodium Carbonate is benign (I use it to regulate acidity and increase the pH of my spa).
02:10 – States, “I’ve been seeing a trend…” This is opinion unless he has data, which he states he does not.
02:40 – Claims to have seen a “shift in the planting seasons” earlier. He clearly states it’s “anecdotal evidence”. That said, believe it or not, his statement has a basis in fact, though his perception does NOT align with reality. (https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-length-growing-season (https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-length-growing-season)). Note that he contradicts himself here stating “earlier” and then flips to “farther and farther” into the year. Once again, makes is difficult to ascertain what he is talking about.
03:46 – states that his observations are for North America and anecdotal. IMO, if you don’t take the time to do the research, then you have no hope in convincing me. Sticking to NA rather than viewing the climate as global is the same measuring urine in a bath tub versus a swimming pool… (I use this analogy a lot when it comes to explaining why understanding GHG in the context of climate change is important).
04:35 – He states that he is “not a climatologist”. This should have been enough for me to stop, but hey!, I’ve got time to waste!
05:16 – states this is a “multi-dimensional problem”, but let’s only look at the “terrestrial side” of this (he was discussing the ocean as a sink). Sorry, not good with respect to the scientific method if you ignore one of the most important items with respect to climate change and the environment.
06:45 – His statement indicates that he does not understand how much oxygen is really in the atmosphere. For the record, there is about 21% or 210000ppm, which overwhelms the current 400ppm of CO2, so that while his statement that there is “less oxygen” is factual (on a normalized basis), it’s irrelevant from a material point of view. His view that the “ratio” is important then a change from 340/210000 to 400/210000 is small. (i.e. bath tub vs swimming pool).
08:55 – His narrative changes to a potential for natural “ebb and flow” of ice ages as a cause for the surface changes along with solar activity and “magma moving closer to the crust” (considering my geology background, this one cracked me up).
10:38 – Talks about cloud seeding in Vietnam as the start of Geo-engineering for military purposes, CLEARLY states “chemtrails”. This is where I want to explain what a Phase diagram is, but I suspect that people will fall asleep.
12:00 – he clearly “remembers” what water vapor trails look like when he was a child vs what he sees now, which are “chemtrails” today. There is ample evidence that contrails (the correct term btw) have not changed much over decades (i.e. WWII photo’s as evidence when the first jets were flying around through the Korean and Vietnam wars).
13:20 – SKYNET?????

For the record, Jet-A fuel is a simple hydrocarbon, better known as Kerosene (with additives to prevent icing). I could explain what a phase diagram and steam tables are and give you an exact explanation as to why you see condensed water vapor trails in the sky and not toxic, exotic chemicals, but I think I’d lose a lot of people here and not make many friends. Note that chemicals are released a lot from airplane for use in agriculture, specifically “crop-dusters”.


Don’t mean to be so harsh, but my BIGGEST problem with society today is that for some reason, unknown to me, people have outsourced critical thinking.


Apologies to anyone I may have offended, but if you are going to come to any forum filled with sophisticated and intelligent people, you better be armed to the teeth. I for one am willing to be proved wrong. As an engineer (I also consider myself a scientist), I must concede this.



In closing, As Neil deGrasse Tyson once tweeted,
“To be scientifically literate is to empower yourself to know when someone else is full of ****.”

[julianh72]

Great post, OICURMT!

I'm really glad somebody took the time to debunk the video point-by-point. Sadly, it won't stop bunkum like this from spreading, but it's great that the evidence is laid out for those who care to read it.

On the subject of "chem-trails" - they have been around a lot longer than most people realise. The sky above London was full of them in 1940. The official explanation given by the British government was that these were just vapour trails left by the RAF and Luftwaffe aircraft in combat, but of course this was just an excuse to avoid panicking the already traumatised people of Britain with the much scarier news that the Nazis were using alien technology to spread all sorts of experimental chemicals over Britain.
[/conspiracy mode]

[AndrewJ]

Gday Julian

Nah, much simpler explanation.
Earths atmosphere is really just a projection of an alien childs "etch a sketch" screen.
Andrew

[JA]

Yes, but it is also to recognise that we can't know what we don't know.

Best
JA

[OICURMT]

I LOL'd... :lol: