/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15518163
RF exposure has always caused cancer. If you've ever read the reports from Navy and Air Force radar personnel you'd know how it destroys your body.

>>15518163
>Why are people saying non-ionizing radiation causes cancer
because it does

literal research dating to the 50s showing over a hundred ways that non-ionising radiation harms the human body.
almost all of it suppressed
Literal UN commissions with all their reports hushed up.

>>15518169
>>15518170
How bad is it for an average person who's draped in wifi every day?

>>15518175
I don't think anyone knows the answer to that question.

>>15518175
>How bad
if the worthless urbanites all die from it then its good. between this and the vaxx and monkeypox the future is looking brighter and brighter

wait a sec that shits real?

>>15518442
You thought it wasn't?

>>15518175
Not bad enough for a pattern to be noticed.

>>15518442
how many times have you heard it called a "conspiracy theory"?
when something is called a "conspiracy theory", that means its real

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mnn2HWb8iVQ

>>15518163
>crosses the blood brain barrier
Oh look, it's retarded

>>15518501
It honestly seems like well-poisoning at this point. Whip up the retarded boomer schizos with shit like this and then if anything actually does happen you can just sick the schizo army to discredit it.

Conspiracy theorists are the ultimate conspiracy enablers.

>>15518501
>>15518520
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-YQ1Y7c_Pk

>>15518525
at 1:05

microwaves damage your immune system

>>15518546
says who?

>>15518552
The science.

>>15518562
Yeah, I don't buy it.

>>15518574
You already did, or you wouldn't have anything to worry about.

Why are cancer cases rising worldwide, especially among young people? It's not only the vaxx. It's also the smartphones and wifi.

read the body electric and invisible rainbow

body electric i older but Becker actually touches on topics like energy weaponry because he's not contolled op like urstenburg

>non-ionizing radiation causes cancer
>crosses the blood-brain barrier

I'm a physicstard but I think you're just saying random shit. Non-ionizing means that if it interacts with any electron, it wouldn't have enough energy to scatter it or move it to a different energy level. I don't know how you jumped from nanometers to micrometers without even thinking about it

>>15518678
watch >>15518525

>>15518678
microwaves, wifi, radio, etc are all forms of non-ionizing radiation.

>>15518678
>I'm a physicstard but I think you're just saying random shit.
You can actually train a model to speak like this very easily. It'll continuously throw in random political shit though.

>>15518682
Ok
>Wifi radiation is a lot worse than people think it is
He's right.
>Wifi radiation [...] causes cancer
I've heard that from my dad who's a doctor, but it's such a minutely small bump in the chances of you getting cancer that it virtually is undetectable unless you go 40 or 50 years into the future. At that point, though, nearly everything accelerates your risk of cancer so it's almost irrelevant to say that it causes cancer since your body's immune system is substantially weaker anyways.
>Wifi radiation opens up your blood-brain barrier
This is retarded. Please do not believe this.
>All these toxins in your body can go into your brain
PLEASE do not believe this. It is tantamount to saying your chakras are misaligned.

He said he's not an expert in the subject so I don't think anyone has to care about what he's saying. He's just saying things.

>>15518685
Yes?

>>15518697
>>Wifi radiation opens up your blood-brain barrier
>This is retarded. Please do not believe this.
>>All these toxins in your body can go into your brain
>PLEASE do not believe this. It is tantamount to saying your chakras are misaligned.
Ok, thanks. That was the answer I was looking for.

>>15518699
What's your point here

>>15518647
>It's not only the vaxx.
its mainly the vax, SV40 instigates cancer and the cancers grow faster in younger, healthier bodies so long as their immune systems don't get in the way. 5g helps by suppressing immune response.

>>15518699
I'm the OP, I literally wanted people to opine on those points. I thought it was retarded but was asking if there was something I didn't know.

>>15518163
>>15518678
> as well as it crosses the blood brain barrier?
no, it can weaken or damage the cell wall of the blood brain barrier, this allows other things to enter your brain

5G enabled phones that ping 5G are disastrous but so are other type of phones.
Cellphones (like in the case of iPhone see https://radiationresearch.org/newswire/mobile-phones/a-radio-frequency-exposure-test-finds-an-iphone-11-pro-exceeds-the-fccs-limit-ieee-spectrum/)) regularly exceed federal mandated radiation limits.

https://publichealth.berkeley.edu/news-media/video-room/joel-m-moskowitz-radio-frequency-radiation-health-risks-implications-for-5g/
Dr. Moskowitz has directed the Center for Family and Community Health in the School of Public Health at the University of California, Berkeley since 1993. He has published research on disease prevention programs and policies for almost 40 years. In 2009 he served as the senior author on a hallmark paper reviewing research on mobile phone use and tumor risk. There has been extensive research and irrefutable evidence over the years to support the fact that radiation emitted from cell phone towers is damaging to both human and animal biological systems. This ultimately leads to irreversible health issues

after continued exposure1. However, despite big corp funded studies insistence on claiming that living near cell towers (and 5g towers) is safe, These manufactured claims have little basis in scientific fact. Sources continued in next tweet:


(1) Can Cell Towers Near Me Cause Health Problems? The Truth Here. https://educateemf.com/cell-towers-near-me-cause-health-problems/..
(2) The Safety of Cell Towers: The Truth vs the Myths - Tower Leases. https://towerleases.com/debunking-the-myths-understanding-the-truth-about-the-safety-of-cell-towers/..
(3) Are Cellphone Towers Hazardous to Your Health? | Fox News. https://foxnews.com/tech/are-cellphone-towers-hazardous-to-your-health..
4) Cell Tower Health Risks | EM Watch. https://emwatch.com/cell-tower-health-risks/.. (5) Moskowitz: Cellphone radiation is harmful, but few want to believe it. https://news.berkeley.edu/2021/07/01/health-risks-of-cell-phone-radiation/..

>>15518163
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7123033/

53% of the mice developed cancer when exposed to 3G cell phone. The study was the longest and the most thorough study done on cellphones and cancer. It took 10 years to complete. Study was done by National Toxicology Program in 2007.

>>15518163
There is a difference in magnitude between sporadic non-ionizing radiation, and constant NIR. That magnitude is both the amount, as well as the total time under NIR.
This difference in magnitude could well map onto some phase shift, just like water is liquid at 90C just like at 5C, but at -20C is is frozen.
The phase shift (I am not talking necessarily chemically here, but conceptually) is most likely detrimental because the body has not evolved in line with it.
Physically, it's completely trivial that the statement "more energy added to a system" = "more chaotic system" holds true. It's information non-grata to NPCs with a 5G brainchip, though.

5g was designed to cause cancer because urbanites are all "useless eaters" that are earmarked for population reduction

>>15518479
Looks pretty noticeable to me

>>15519699
6G, the new hotness that is used in conjunction with graphene, is being fielded in China and being used to target people.
One would have to be stupid to think it is not being used in the UK, USA, and EU as well.

>>15519699
Should I be upset? Urbanites are pretty awful to be around.

>>15520494
>Should I be upset?
no, i was mentioning the facts about 5g because its good news

>>15518163
On the topic of radiation: the principles of resonance apply at every scale, and with them risk of a resonance catastrophe. The only difference between "ionizing" and "non-ionzing" radiation is that the resonance catastrophe caused by "ionizing" radiation concerns vital cells and causes immediately visible, tangible damage.
The only difference between exposure to "ionzing" radiation causing your body to immediately fall apart at its seams and exposure to "non-ionizing" radiation causing your body to malfunction in a myriad of easily-rationalized ways is rather slim really, both will ultimately kill you. You may be inclined to argue that in the case of "non-ionzing" radiation you atleast have a chance to prevent the worst damage, but if the radiation happens to obliberate your memory or higher cognitive function it's an alltogether more agonizing death that potentially stretches over decades.
If you had to pick between a rather swift, yet agonizing physical death, and a long-drawn out just agonizing, primarily social and and only in the last instance physical death - what would you choose?
You can see if you like the latter state of being by saying out loud the same word in a dozen or so times in quick sucession. That uncanny feeling of meaninglessness? That's what it's like to be subject to "non-ionizing" radiation. Don't worry, you'll be able to speak and understand the word again after a short moment.
(cont.)

>>15521251
Ponder:
Every single cell in your body, every single one of its function - your thoughts in particular - are mediated by radiation in the form of electromagnetic frequency. Moreso, all constituients of your body, every single element and every single structure has its own resonant spectrum. There is no difference between a wine glass being shattered by it's resonant pitch and your cells being shattered by their resonant pitches. Entropy itself, decay it its most abstract, is just a continous series of resonance catastrophes happening at infinite scales of existence.
I'd wager the guess that before the advent of electrioncs and especially wireless communication of any form, there existed some chemical compound, some cell, some universal thought pattern or metabolic process that mediated basic common fucking sense, that upon large scale implementation of the technologies has been annihilated.
How would you even hope acknowledge its existence if one or more aspects of cognition necessary to do so are annihilated with it? How would you hope to proof it's existence, if it is being annihilated the very moment you switch on your measuring devices?

In short: the difference between "ionizing" radiation and "non-ionizing" radiation is the same as the difference between a "wood-chopping" axe and a "non-wood-chopping" axe: the limits of your perception and observation, not it's potential.

>>15521252
>If you had to pick between a rather swift, yet agonizing physical death, and a long-drawn out just as agonizing, primarily social and only in the very last instance physical death - what would you choose?**
Meh.

>>15518163
Would be sweet if they could constructively interfere with a common background of radiation to target individuals. In that case, 5G on it’s own maybe not be particularly destructive but if you combine it with another frequency it will vibrate your brain’s grey matter

>>15521252
I believe that this is the same mechanism by which people defend flouridating drinking water. By the time they'd be old enough to consider the ramifications, they've been dulled by it for 15+ years.

>>15519699
>vax'd
>zapped
>microwaved
>goyslop'd
>fluoridated
>circumcised
>monkeypox'd
>HIV'd
>miscegenated
>brainwashed
>atheized
average urbanite, its kind of amazing more of them aren't dropping dead

>>15521712
True. Maybe they're undercounting the 600,000.

>>15518702
Colon cancers are also the result of terrible diets with filled wacky industrial oils.

>>15518163
Alex Jones says its true and the government says its false, so that means its true.

>>15518163
people are brain damaged you as well you cannot even correctly state what was said by him its important to stress that rfk was talking about alternative causes for the rise in autism and other health issues causes that were not related to the vaccine wifi was one such recent tech that was introduced and its effect on the human body isnt well studied thats all what he said. He continued and named a paper he once read he wanted "the science" to take these problems serious and investigate what could be the cause and not peddle the same bullshit they have done for the past 20 years

>>15521252
>we are all too dumb to think about this because we didn't think about it before and now we can't
Sounds highly contrived to me. Wouldn't that make visible light is bad too? Wouldn't warm things be bad too because they emit IR?

>>15518693
Didn't this artist die suspiciously?

>>15518489
What about Flat Earth?

>>15518785
Where's the control group?

>>15523139
You are the actual most retarded person in the universe. Light is non-penetrating. It doesn't even make it past the skin. Though it still causes skin cancer, in case you were curious.

>>15523161
He unironically got the TrumpVax.

>>15523161
Yes, David Dees "died suddenly of cancer" or was murdered on May 31, 2020 and nobody learned about it because of the George Floyd hullabaloo.

>>15518163
>radiation doesn't cause cancer

>>15523801
"smart" phone addicts have to force themselves to believe this absurdity because doing otherwise would mean giving up the "smart" phones that they are permanently attached to for life. their phones do all the thinking and decision making in the addict's relationship with it, the phone is smarter than they are

>>15523764
I really am under the impression that these people are being paid to do their work by the government. There's no way a guy who believes that mobile phone radiation is causing your child to develop brain cancer in accordance with the protocols of Zion is shilling for Trump...

>>15518163
ever hear of spanish flu?