🧵 Untitled Thread
Anonymous at Thu, 13 Feb 2025 22:40:33 UTC No. 16585212
>lmao of course wireless technology is totally safe! it's non-ionizing, that means it's fine! me? i keep my 5g iphone 20 max pro next to my balls 24/7! i need to be wired to the internet 24/7! i live in the 21st century pal!
the non-thermal effects seem more concerning to me, a self described autist who won't be convinced otherwise. the unnatural qualities of how this type of radiation behaves is what i'm more concerned about, since it doesn't replicate any type of natural exposure to other sources of radiation. it's used as a form of communication which is why it's modulated to pulse and change rapidly within fractions of an instance, almost constantly 24/7. a bit like trying to use a light bulb to communicate where you flicker the light up and down in rapid succession.
that type of light exposure would obviously be unnatural and being in that kind of man made environment would probably be sub-optimal and stress the body. even if you were blind and couldn't see the light, there are still photo sensors in the skin. likewise, cells use electrical signaling for function and the constant exposure to the man made pulsating radiation emitted from phones, bluetooth devices, towers, routers, radios, etc can't be good for you in the long term.
i've read about how it can potentially affect things like ion channels and such, personally more concerned about something like this since my own central nervous system has had complications over the last few years and i can see the difference dropping these devices has made just by switching to ethernet. not to mention my balls are now hyper active in a way i've never experienced before in my life.
i expect to get roasted here by a bunch of stem fag coomers with a screen addiction. dont give a fuck desu, stick with your low t internet devices fren.
Anonymous at Thu, 13 Feb 2025 22:44:39 UTC No. 16585219
>>16585212
There was research done that has since been buried that tied big leaf maple die-off to 5g.
Anonymous at Thu, 13 Feb 2025 22:51:20 UTC No. 16585233
>>16585219
not surprised desu since the fcc buries research on this as they are directly in bed with the telecom faggots
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiQ
Anonymous at Thu, 13 Feb 2025 22:56:38 UTC No. 16585242
>>16585212
Most people concerned with 5G are perfectly fine with eating goyslop, using LED lights, buying clothes and bedsheets laced with carcinogenic and xenoestrogenic chemicals, being addicted to screens, and countless other harmful things we know are fucking our health and rotting our brains. Yet some radiation that's weaker than light which there's no evidence causes harm, let's freak out about that.
Anonymous at Thu, 13 Feb 2025 23:03:40 UTC No. 16585246
>>16585233
The current safety regulations that restrict the Cellular network are based on 1990s radiation research... The FCC has been a revolving door between the Cell companies and the government for decades.
Anonymous at Thu, 13 Feb 2025 23:04:09 UTC No. 16585247
>>16585242
because you can choose not buy led lights or be a screen addict or eat goyslop but you can't avoid a bunch of stupid cunts who have their phones, routers, and vibrating eggs on all day long around you.
Anonymous at Thu, 13 Feb 2025 23:09:50 UTC No. 16585254
>>16585242
>No evidence it causes harm
>>16585246 <--
>>16585247
Most people that have cellphones have them for status symbols not functionality. Most people just need a flip phone with fold out keyboard. You know what group of people absolutely does not give their children under the age of 17 smartphones?: CEO's of Tech empires like Steve Jobs and Zuckerberg.
Anonymous at Thu, 13 Feb 2025 23:11:40 UTC No. 16585255
>>16585247
>you can choose not to
But do they? No. They don't actually do anything that would meaningfully improve their health. Instead that schiz out over something that is probably harmless, or at worst, just a drop in the bucket of all the unhealthy shit we're exposed to constantly.
Anonymous at Thu, 13 Feb 2025 23:20:59 UTC No. 16585260
>>16585255
not everyone who is concerned about it is a vaping, goyslop slurping social media addict. some people are generally looking to optimize their physiology like the huberman watchers
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qye
Anonymous at Thu, 13 Feb 2025 23:21:12 UTC No. 16585261
>>16585247
There you go, into to the cagie
Anonymous at Fri, 14 Feb 2025 09:33:58 UTC No. 16585585
>>16585247
do you even understand the emission power for these devices? they are similar to the total power output of a fucking LED. and the LED visible light is more energetic than 5G light. how can you be so clueless
Anonymous at Fri, 14 Feb 2025 10:13:12 UTC No. 16585615
>>16585585
did you miss the part when i alluded to the idea that it's not about power output or heating bud? if you pulsated an LED light in a rapid way constantly 24/7 you don't think that would have a negative consequence on your physiology? try living under a strobe light 24/7 for a month and see what type of stress markers you end up with by the end of it.
Anonymous at Fri, 14 Feb 2025 10:14:32 UTC No. 16585616
>>16585585
Do you understand that humans have evolved under vastly different circumstances than modern society and that this has been causing all sorts of trouble? It's not unreasonable to assume that the sum of all novel lights, sounds, vibrations and waves are stressing the body in ways scientists don't understand yet.
Anonymous at Fri, 14 Feb 2025 10:17:08 UTC No. 16585617
>>16585212
Now image if we had wireless electricity this Tesla faggots talk about. We'd be literally living in oven.
Anonymous at Fri, 14 Feb 2025 10:33:02 UTC No. 16585629
>>16585615
Your oldtimey incandescent lightbulbs would pulsate constantly at 100Hz or 120Hz, depending on where you live. Has that fucked you up yet? The answer is that you cannot even tell, though your phone's camera can.
Anonymous at Fri, 14 Feb 2025 10:39:09 UTC No. 16585630
>>16585616
>Do you understand that humans have evolved under vastly different circumstances than modern society and that this has been causing all sorts of trouble?
you sound like an idiotic monkey who doesn't understand the details and defaults to getting scared of demons.
Anonymous at Fri, 14 Feb 2025 10:40:09 UTC No. 16585631
>>16585615
>what if it's bad but I can't prove it
>>16585630
Anonymous at Fri, 14 Feb 2025 10:44:10 UTC No. 16585637
>>16585629
the rate of which it pulsates is obviously going to matter, if it's virtually indistinguishable from a continuous pouring of radiation the effects would be minimal but even having a perfectly functioning light without any flickering would still ruin you pretty quickly if you had it on 24/7 with zero exposure to darkness. this isn't even getting into the idea that your oldtimey light wasn't being used as a form of language and all of the variations within it, there would still be a synchronized rhythm to it that would be easier for your body to adapt to.
keep putting your phone next to your balls and brain though, that's real smart zack, it's non-ionizing! what could go wrong!
Anonymous at Fri, 14 Feb 2025 10:46:07 UTC No. 16585641
>>16585637
maybe we'll soon develop the ability to wirelessly control our phones with our balls
Anonymous at Fri, 14 Feb 2025 10:48:34 UTC No. 16585643
>>16585631
>all of the studies showing negative consequences are faulty!
>the 50% decrease of testosterone since the middle of last century and the 1-2% increase of cancer rates within newer generations are from microplastics!
>even if it decreases sperm health and testosterone, which it doesn't, i don't care enough to stop roasting my balls with radiation!
Anonymous at Fri, 14 Feb 2025 12:24:13 UTC No. 16585700
>>16585212
>seem
>won't be convinced otherwise
>unnatural
>probably
Very scientifc. Can you leave and go back to having gay sex now?
Anonymous at Fri, 14 Feb 2025 13:36:28 UTC No. 16585726
>>16585700
Water, fire, air, and dirt
Fucking wifi, how does that work?
And I don't wanna talk to a scientist
Y'all motherfuckers lying, and getting me pissed
listen retard the studies are out there but there's no point in discussing them directly because cock jockeys like yourself are so indoctrinated in industry talking points you've been fed that there's no point. there's not going to be a scientific consensus on this topic because it would cripple western international competition since it would lead to massive widespread regulations around wireless technology, meanwhile countries like china would just lie to their people and say that it's safe so they could get a leg up. look hard enough, use your brain and you'll find the truth. or don't and keep roasting your nut sack with your brain rot device, i'm more than happy to let you guys continue to be digital dunces.
think mcfly, think
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1h3
Anonymous at Fri, 14 Feb 2025 13:38:57 UTC No. 16585727
>>16585726
I find it very funny that you call anyone indoctrinated when by your own admission no amount of evidence would change your mind. You're a self admitted cultist, there's no point discussing this with you, which is why you should go back to having gay sex now.
Anonymous at Fri, 14 Feb 2025 13:45:06 UTC No. 16585728
>>16585727
i've seen enough evidence of biological harms from rfr that i'm not going to believe a bunch of telecom talking points since the evidence of harm directly correlates with my own anecdotal experience. i'm more than fine letting zesty faggots with low t like you keep on non-ionizing your nutsack into a coma.
Anonymous at Fri, 14 Feb 2025 15:37:17 UTC No. 16585784
>>16585212
Even if the radiation is not ionizing, it can still cause damage. This is because radio waves can make the water molecules in your body oscillate and heat up the tissue hit by the wave. The thing with millimeter waves (which are used in 5G) is that they cannot penetrate the skin as deeply. They are absorbed near the skin. Microwaves can penetrate much deeper. It is also true that the amplitude modulated waves in particular can cause additional problems compared to a pure sine wave. But the important thing is the power density of the wave hitting your body, or a better measure is the absorption rate (SAR). You can find the safety limits of these values set by the authorities and you have to trust them, otherwise wear one of these >>16585261
Anonymous at Fri, 14 Feb 2025 15:39:49 UTC No. 16585786
>>16585784
Skull reflects and bend waves in a very specific way, that'll create location with higher gain in your brain. I've seen pictures where there was one specific region in brain involved from all the interference it creates as it passes the skull.
Anonymous at Fri, 14 Feb 2025 15:44:47 UTC No. 16585789
>>16585786
post the pictures
don't rely on random hearsay from the internet
Anonymous at Fri, 14 Feb 2025 15:47:11 UTC No. 16585790
>>16585789
So I get out of glory of frying dumbass just by pure inaction? No, I'm not going to do simple search for you.
Anonymous at Fri, 14 Feb 2025 15:48:18 UTC No. 16585792
>>16585790
This entire rant thread is designed to get other people to do research for you, is it not?
Post the material that you looked at.
Anonymous at Fri, 14 Feb 2025 15:49:23 UTC No. 16585795
>>16585792
No, thanks. Fry up.
Anonymous at Fri, 14 Feb 2025 16:24:18 UTC No. 16585810
>>16585792
>to do research
NTA but you know full well that controlled experiments are not allowed. Take two cities: leave one as is and in the other city prohibit light and sound pollution from any technology after sunset such that everyone can see the milky way and hear a pin drop at night. Next measure stress levels or any marker of human wellbeing. It's common sense that there will be significant differences but it will never be allowed. So your call for studies is dishonest and you know it.
Anonymous at Fri, 14 Feb 2025 16:28:47 UTC No. 16585817
>>16585810
That is not the type of study being referenced.
I was asking for the evidence that anon looked at regarding conductivity of non-ionizing EHF wavelength radiation in the skull creating dangerous 'hot spots'.
Anonymous at Fri, 14 Feb 2025 20:14:56 UTC No. 16585996
>>16585630
>TRUST THE SCIENCE
You dunning krugers are simply remarkable.
Anonymous at Fri, 14 Feb 2025 20:15:57 UTC No. 16585997
>>16585792
Wireless safety research isn't funded.
The current cellphone safety regulations are based on 1990s research.
Anonymous at Fri, 14 Feb 2025 20:17:19 UTC No. 16586001
>>16585997
Not only not funded. Silenced, because network is what controls media.