The safety of 5G technology is finally being brought into serious question

In case you haven’t noticed, tech industry fascists working in lockstep with corrupt governments all around the world are pushing really hard to get “super fast” 5G wireless technology fully and globally deployed over the next several years. But what they’re not doing is making any attempt whatsoever to prove that the technology is in any way safe.

The reason for this is that it isn’t. Five G technology, which will require cell towers every couple hundred feet in order to work, is perhaps the greatest technological fraud to date. It’s never been proven safe – and, in fact, has been shown to be threatening to the health of plants, animals, and humans.

This entry was posted in WTF?. Bookmark the permalink.

16 Responses to The safety of 5G technology is finally being brought into serious question

  1. arc says:

    Hopefully I can either get to a location without much network coverage or outright leave the country for northern Norway before this becomes an issue in my area. I need to make money before thats possible though.

    • Duke says:

      5G is a grand improvement in ways that populations will be monitored by tyrants. That is what globalism is all about. The prod is climate change. The goal is world domination by a cabal and enforced by a well -ed army …. then population reduction goes into full bloom.

      See Venezuela for a model of this theory, in action.

  2. B says:

    Lots of technical errors in that article. I’d take what they claim with a grain of salt.

  3. brent says:

    its natural news. better than zerohedge, i’ll grant but hit science sites for real information.

  4. BSHJ says:

    5G? Here at home I am lucky to get a couple of bars of 3G…..with a booster

    • MT says:

      I’m at 2 bars right now but where we live is worth the crappy service. I’ll take the mountains and forests over lightning fast internet any day.

  5. Ohio Guy says:

    Our evil administrators can’t possibly guard every cell tower can they? Methinks it would be rather easy to administer signal loss.

  6. ChuckN says:

    I, for one, am all for 5G being used. Anyone who knows anything about electronic radiation has been sounding their concerns; and promptly shouted down as conspiracy nuts and troglodytes. I mean, what’s the problem with using a literal microwave transmitter. A large part of of Europe has already banned 5G, but what do they know either. I mean it’s not like Geneva and other cities has already started their 5G networks and started seeing more & more patients with identical symptoms that in NO possible way could be from EM radiation.

    Let’s put the networks in. Due to the spacing requirements, cities and maybe dense suburbs are the only practical places to put the transmitters. I say we start the networks in D.C., then move on to San Francisco, Boston etc.. Let the blue bastions have another way to destroy themselves. After all, what do us ‘anti-science’ deplorables know.

  7. Tsquared says:

    WC, with your microwave training in the Army you know most of the problems 5G is going to have on people and our environment. The frequency range they are using will kill insects and birds near the towers. Another issue is the side lobe frequencies screw up dopler radar because it is so close to the resonate frequency of water.

    I want nothing to do with a G5 phone.

  8. waitingForTheStorm says:

    I don’t see this happening where I live. Hell, I don’t even have cell service on my property now. On a good day, if I stand at exactly the right place on my porch, I can sometimes get enough signal to push a small text message, and even that takes a minute or two. At a couple of hundred feet spacing, they could not even place a tower that would reach my house from the road, and I sure as hell ain’t granting them an easement.

    • Wirecutter says:

      Yeah, there’s no cell service here either and I don’t see many of these farmers giving permission to put a cell tower on their land, or it would’ve already happened.

      • DCE says:

        Much of the hoopla over 5G is based upon partial information, misinformation, and disinformation.

        5G operates in two different parts of the radio spectrum: <6GHz where, where 3G and 4G/LTE presently operate; and in the millimeter-wave bands, basically 24GHz and up.

        Much of 5G will use the <6GHz bands. 3G is going away starting after the end of the year. 5G will 'overlay' 4G/LTE.

        The "OMG" really high-speed data part of 5G will be carried by the millimeter-wave bands. Regardless of any claims made, very little of that part of 5G will make it outside of the urban and heavily settle suburban areas. The nature of signal propagation at those frequencies means a lot of cell sites will be needed to provide the same coverage as the 'older' bands, between 5 and 20 times the number of sites presently in existence. The 5G cell sites will have a coverage range of between 200 and 2000 feet. That's fine for the urban and suburban areas, but the cost of providing that coverage in thinly settled suburban and rural areas would be cost prohibitive. The return on investment wouldn't be there because the customer density isn't high enough to justify the expense. While some town centers may see limited 5G mm-wave deployment, they will be the exception. The existing <6GHz bands will have to suffice for those areas.

  9. Natural News is The Onion without the humor. As has been noted in other comments, there are quite a few technical errors in the article (believe me, 5G isn’t going to operate at the same frequencies as a Rapiscan backscatter X-ray machine).

  10. WestcoastDeplorable says:

    While 5G will change virtually everything, including the way you get your broadband connection at home, it will result in further bathing of our animal bodies and tissues in a complex blend of invisible RF or “radio frequency”.
    To my knowledge there have been no tests to determine the long-term effects. It’s all about the dinero.

  11. rightwingterrorist says:

    I don’t know…
    Pretty much figure if the .gov is for it, I should naturally be against it.
    This seems to be to me not so much about the harmful health “issues” (although that may be a feature, not a bug) but more about surveillance and control. Possibly this technology is more in tune with the human extinction movement (for those with a mean IQ above 85) in conjunction with our current Orwellian nightmare.
    But hey, I’m not one of those 11k scientists who think that to heal Gaia we need to eliminate the worlds population. Nor do I play one on TV.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *