It is undisputed that more than 240 scientists who have published peer-reviewed research on the biological and health effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields (EMFs) have signed the International EMF Scientists’ Appeal:
"Many recent scientific publications have shown that EMFs affect living organisms at levels far below most international and national guidelines. Effects include increased risk of cancer, cellular stress, increased harmful free radicals, genetic damage, structural and functional changes in the reproductive system, learning and memory deficits, neurological disorders, and negative effects on overall human well-being. The damage goes far beyond the human, as there is increasing evidence of harmful effects on both plant and animal life."
Yet, since the FCC adopted these limits based largely on research from the 1980s, the preponderance of peer-reviewed research, more than 500 studies, have found harmful biologic or health effects from exposure to RFR at intensities too low to cause significant heating.
Citing this large body of research, more than 240 scientists who have published peer-reviewed research on the biologic and health effects of nonionizing electromagnetic fields (EMF) signed the International EMF Scientist Appeal, which calls for stronger exposure limits. The appeal makes the following assertions:
“Numerous recent scientific publications have shown that EMF affects living organisms at levels well below most international and national guidelines. Effects include increased cancer risk, cellular stress, increase in harmful free radicals, genetic damages, structural and functional changes of the reproductive system, learning and memory deficits, neurological disorders, and negative impacts on general well-being in humans. Damage goes well beyond the human race, as there is growing evidence of harmful effects to both plant and animal life.”
The scientists who signed this appeal arguably constitute the majority of experts on the effects of nonionizing radiation. They have published more than 2,000 papers and letters on EMF in professional journals.
Millimeter waves are mostly absorbed within a few millimeters of human skin and in the surface layers of the cornea. Short-term exposure can have adverse physiological effects in the peripheral nervous system, the immune system and the cardiovascular system. The research suggests that long-term exposure may pose health risks to the skin (e.g., melanoma), the eyes (e.g., ocular melanoma) and the testes (e.g., sterility).
Cancer is not the only risk as there is considerable evidence that RFR causes neurological disorders and reproductive harm, likely due to oxidative stress.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/we-have-no-reason-to-believe-5g-is-safe/
“If the more advanced nations of the West are strict in the enforcement of stringent exposure standards, there could be unfavorable effects on industrial output and military functions.”
"The above statement and the entire report quite clearly reveal what the government knew and when it knew it. This also reveals WHY Western governments have subsequently been unwilling to acknowledge the bio-toxic effects of wireless systems or the legitimacy of Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity (EHS), and why “safe limits” of exposure have been raised in subsequent years when, in fact, they need to be lowered."
Adverse Health Effects of 5G Mobile Networking Technology under Real-life Conditions
This article identifies adverse effects of non-ionizing non-visible radiation (hereafter called wireless radiation) reported in the premier biomedical literature. It emphasizes that most of the laboratory experiments conducted to date are not designed to identify the more severe adverse effects reflective of the real-life operating environment in which wireless radiation systems operate. Many experiments do not include pulsing and modulation of the carrier signal. The vast majority do not account for synergistic adverse effects of other toxic stimuli (such as chemical and biological) acting in concert with the wireless radiation. This article also presents evidence that the nascent 5G mobile networking technology will affect not only the skin and eyes, as commonly believed, but will have adverse systemic effects as well.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S037842742030028X PDF: https://iervn.files.wordpress.com/2020/02/adverse-health-effects-of-5g-mobile-networking-technology-under-real-life-conditions.pdf
FYI: I was also talking about them weaponzing it which they can easily do.
It is undisputed that more than 240 scientists who have published peer-reviewed research on the biological and health effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields (EMFs) have signed the International EMF Scientists’ Appeal:
"Many recent scientific publications have shown that EMFs affect living organisms at levels far below most international and national guidelines. Effects include increased risk of cancer, cellular stress, increased harmful free radicals, genetic damage, structural and functional changes in the reproductive system, learning and memory deficits, neurological disorders, and negative effects on overall human well-being. The damage goes far beyond the human, as there is increasing evidence of harmful effects on both plant and animal life."
Yet, since the FCC adopted these limits based largely on research from the 1980s, the preponderance of peer-reviewed research, more than 500 studies, have found harmful biologic or health effects from exposure to RFR at intensities too low to cause significant heating.
Citing this large body of research, more than 240 scientists who have published peer-reviewed research on the biologic and health effects of nonionizing electromagnetic fields (EMF) signed the International EMF Scientist Appeal, which calls for stronger exposure limits. The appeal makes the following assertions:
“Numerous recent scientific publications have shown that EMF affects living organisms at levels well below most international and national guidelines. Effects include increased cancer risk, cellular stress, increase in harmful free radicals, genetic damages, structural and functional changes of the reproductive system, learning and memory deficits, neurological disorders, and negative impacts on general well-being in humans. Damage goes well beyond the human race, as there is growing evidence of harmful effects to both plant and animal life.”
The scientists who signed this appeal arguably constitute the majority of experts on the effects of nonionizing radiation. They have published more than 2,000 papers and letters on EMF in professional journals.
Millimeter waves are mostly absorbed within a few millimeters of human skin and in the surface layers of the cornea. Short-term exposure can have adverse physiological effects in the peripheral nervous system, the immune system and the cardiovascular system. The research suggests that long-term exposure may pose health risks to the skin (e.g., melanoma), the eyes (e.g., ocular melanoma) and the testes (e.g., sterility).
Cancer is not the only risk as there is considerable evidence that RFR causes neurological disorders and reproductive harm, likely due to oxidative stress.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/we-have-no-reason-to-believe-5g-is-safe/
“If the more advanced nations of the West are strict in the enforcement of stringent exposure standards, there could be unfavorable effects on industrial output and military functions.”
"The above statement and the entire report quite clearly reveal what the government knew and when it knew it. This also reveals WHY Western governments have subsequently been unwilling to acknowledge the bio-toxic effects of wireless systems or the legitimacy of Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity (EHS), and why “safe limits” of exposure have been raised in subsequent years when, in fact, they need to be lowered."
Adverse Health Effects of 5G Mobile Networking Technology under Real-life Conditions
This article identifies adverse effects of non-ionizing non-visible radiation (hereafter called wireless radiation) reported in the premier biomedical literature. It emphasizes that most of the laboratory experiments conducted to date are not designed to identify the more severe adverse effects reflective of the real-life operating environment in which wireless radiation systems operate. Many experiments do not include pulsing and modulation of the carrier signal. The vast majority do not account for synergistic adverse effects of other toxic stimuli (such as chemical and biological) acting in concert with the wireless radiation. This article also presents evidence that the nascent 5G mobile networking technology will affect not only the skin and eyes, as commonly believed, but will have adverse systemic effects as well.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S037842742030028X PDF: https://iervn.files.wordpress.com/2020/02/adverse-health-effects-of-5g-mobile-networking-technology-under-real-life-conditions.pdf
FYI: I was also talking about them weaponzing it which they can easily do.
It is undisputed that more than 240 scientists who have published peer-reviewed research on the biological and health effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields (EMFs) have signed the International EMF Scientists’ Appeal:
"Many recent scientific publications have shown that EMFs affect living organisms at levels far below most international and national guidelines. Effects include increased risk of cancer, cellular stress, increased harmful free radicals, genetic damage, structural and functional changes in the reproductive system, learning and memory deficits, neurological disorders, and negative effects on overall human well-being. The damage goes far beyond the human, as there is increasing evidence of harmful effects on both plant and animal life."
The scientists who signed this appeal undoubtedly constitute the majority of experts on the effects of non-ionizing radiation. They have published more than 2,000 articles on electromagnetic fields in professional journals.
Yet, since the FCC adopted these limits based largely on research from the 1980s, the preponderance of peer-reviewed research, more than 500 studies, have found harmful biologic or health effects from exposure to RFR at intensities too low to cause significant heating.
Citing this large body of research, more than 240 scientists who have published peer-reviewed research on the biologic and health effects of nonionizing electromagnetic fields (EMF) signed the International EMF Scientist Appeal, which calls for stronger exposure limits. The appeal makes the following assertions:
“Numerous recent scientific publications have shown that EMF affects living organisms at levels well below most international and national guidelines. Effects include increased cancer risk, cellular stress, increase in harmful free radicals, genetic damages, structural and functional changes of the reproductive system, learning and memory deficits, neurological disorders, and negative impacts on general well-being in humans. Damage goes well beyond the human race, as there is growing evidence of harmful effects to both plant and animal life.”
The scientists who signed this appeal arguably constitute the majority of experts on the effects of nonionizing radiation. They have published more than 2,000 papers and letters on EMF in professional journals.
Millimeter waves are mostly absorbed within a few millimeters of human skin and in the surface layers of the cornea. Short-term exposure can have adverse physiological effects in the peripheral nervous system, the immune system and the cardiovascular system. The research suggests that long-term exposure may pose health risks to the skin (e.g., melanoma), the eyes (e.g., ocular melanoma) and the testes (e.g., sterility).
Cancer is not the only risk as there is considerable evidence that RFR causes neurological disorders and reproductive harm, likely due to oxidative stress.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/we-have-no-reason-to-believe-5g-is-safe/
“If the more advanced nations of the West are strict in the enforcement of stringent exposure standards, there could be unfavorable effects on industrial output and military functions.”
"The above statement and the entire report quite clearly reveal what the government knew and when it knew it. This also reveals WHY Western governments have subsequently been unwilling to acknowledge the bio-toxic effects of wireless systems or the legitimacy of Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity (EHS), and why “safe limits” of exposure have been raised in subsequent years when, in fact, they need to be lowered."
Adverse Health Effects of 5G Mobile Networking Technology under Real-life Conditions
This article identifies adverse effects of non-ionizing non-visible radiation (hereafter called wireless radiation) reported in the premier biomedical literature. It emphasizes that most of the laboratory experiments conducted to date are not designed to identify the more severe adverse effects reflective of the real-life operating environment in which wireless radiation systems operate. Many experiments do not include pulsing and modulation of the carrier signal. The vast majority do not account for synergistic adverse effects of other toxic stimuli (such as chemical and biological) acting in concert with the wireless radiation. This article also presents evidence that the nascent 5G mobile networking technology will affect not only the skin and eyes, as commonly believed, but will have adverse systemic effects as well.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S037842742030028X PDF: https://iervn.files.wordpress.com/2020/02/adverse-health-effects-of-5g-mobile-networking-technology-under-real-life-conditions.pdf
FYI: I was also talking about them weaponzing it which they can easily do.
It is undisputed that more than 240 scientists who have published peer-reviewed research on the biological and health effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields (EMFs) have signed the International EMF Scientists’ Appeal:
"Many recent scientific publications have shown that EMFs affect living organisms at levels far below most international and national guidelines. Effects include increased risk of cancer, cellular stress, increased harmful free radicals, genetic damage, structural and functional changes in the reproductive system, learning and memory deficits, neurological disorders, and negative effects on overall human well-being. The damage goes far beyond the human, as there is increasing evidence of harmful effects on both plant and animal life."
The scientists who signed this appeal undoubtedly constitute the majority of experts on the effects of non-ionizing radiation. They have published more than 2,000 articles on electromagnetic fields in professional journals.
Yet, since the FCC adopted these limits based largely on research from the 1980s, the preponderance of peer-reviewed research, more than 500 studies, have found harmful biologic or health effects from exposure to RFR at intensities too low to cause significant heating.
Citing this large body of research, more than 240 scientists who have published peer-reviewed research on the biologic and health effects of nonionizing electromagnetic fields (EMF) signed the International EMF Scientist Appeal, which calls for stronger exposure limits. The appeal makes the following assertions:
“Numerous recent scientific publications have shown that EMF affects living organisms at levels well below most international and national guidelines. Effects include increased cancer risk, cellular stress, increase in harmful free radicals, genetic damages, structural and functional changes of the reproductive system, learning and memory deficits, neurological disorders, and negative impacts on general well-being in humans. Damage goes well beyond the human race, as there is growing evidence of harmful effects to both plant and animal life.”
The scientists who signed this appeal arguably constitute the majority of experts on the effects of nonionizing radiation. They have published more than 2,000 papers and letters on EMF in professional journals.
Millimeter waves are mostly absorbed within a few millimeters of human skin and in the surface layers of the cornea. Short-term exposure can have adverse physiological effects in the peripheral nervous system, the immune system and the cardiovascular system. The research suggests that long-term exposure may pose health risks to the skin (e.g., melanoma), the eyes (e.g., ocular melanoma) and the testes (e.g., sterility).
Cancer is not the only risk as there is considerable evidence that RFR causes neurological disorders and reproductive harm, likely due to oxidative stress.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/we-have-no-reason-to-believe-5g-is-safe/
“If the more advanced nations of the West are strict in the enforcement of stringent exposure standards, there could be unfavorable effects on industrial output and military functions.”
"The above statement and the entire report quite clearly reveal what the government knew and when it knew it. This also reveals WHY Western governments have subsequently been unwilling to acknowledge the bio-toxic effects of wireless systems or the legitimacy of Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity (EHS), and why “safe limits” of exposure have been raised in subsequent years when, in fact, they need to be lowered."
Adverse Health Effects of 5G Mobile Networking Technology under Real-life Conditions
This article identifies adverse effects of non-ionizing non-visible radiation (hereafter called wireless radiation) reported in the premier biomedical literature. It emphasizes that most of the laboratory experiments conducted to date are not designed to identify the more severe adverse effects reflective of the real-life operating environment in which wireless radiation systems operate. Many experiments do not include pulsing and modulation of the carrier signal. The vast majority do not account for synergistic adverse effects of other toxic stimuli (such as chemical and biological) acting in concert with the wireless radiation. This article also presents evidence that the nascent 5G mobile networking technology will affect not only the skin and eyes, as commonly believed, but will have adverse systemic effects as well.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S037842742030028X PDF: https://iervn.files.wordpress.com/2020/02/adverse-health-effects-of-5g-mobile-networking-technology-under-real-life-conditions.pdf
FYI: I was also talking about them weaponzing it which they can easily do.
It is undisputed that more than 240 scientists who have published peer-reviewed research on the biological and health effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields (EMFs) have signed the International EMF Scientists’ Appeal:
"Many recent scientific publications have shown that EMFs affect living organisms at levels far below most international and national guidelines. Effects include increased risk of cancer, cellular stress, increased harmful free radicals, genetic damage, structural and functional changes in the reproductive system, learning and memory deficits, neurological disorders, and negative effects on overall human well-being. The damage goes far beyond the human, as there is increasing evidence of harmful effects on both plant and animal life."
The scientists who signed this appeal undoubtedly constitute the majority of experts on the effects of non-ionizing radiation. They have published more than 2,000 articles on electromagnetic fields in professional journals.
Yet, since the FCC adopted these limits based largely on research from the 1980s, the preponderance of peer-reviewed research, more than 500 studies, have found harmful biologic or health effects from exposure to RFR at intensities too low to cause significant heating.
Citing this large body of research, more than 240 scientists who have published peer-reviewed research on the biologic and health effects of nonionizing electromagnetic fields (EMF) signed the International EMF Scientist Appeal, which calls for stronger exposure limits. The appeal makes the following assertions:
“Numerous recent scientific publications have shown that EMF affects living organisms at levels well below most international and national guidelines. Effects include increased cancer risk, cellular stress, increase in harmful free radicals, genetic damages, structural and functional changes of the reproductive system, learning and memory deficits, neurological disorders, and negative impacts on general well-being in humans. Damage goes well beyond the human race, as there is growing evidence of harmful effects to both plant and animal life.”
The scientists who signed this appeal arguably constitute the majority of experts on the effects of nonionizing radiation. They have published more than 2,000 papers and letters on EMF in professional journals.
Millimeter waves are mostly absorbed within a few millimeters of human skin and in the surface layers of the cornea. Short-term exposure can have adverse physiological effects in the peripheral nervous system, the immune system and the cardiovascular system. The research suggests that long-term exposure may pose health risks to the skin (e.g., melanoma), the eyes (e.g., ocular melanoma) and the testes (e.g., sterility).
Cancer is not the only risk as there is considerable evidence that RFR causes neurological disorders and reproductive harm, likely due to oxidative stress.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/we-have-no-reason-to-believe-5g-is-safe/
“If the more advanced nations of the West are strict in the enforcement of stringent exposure standards, there could be unfavorable effects on industrial output and military functions.”
"The above statement and the entire report quite clearly reveal what the government knew and when it knew it. This also reveals WHY Western governments have subsequently been unwilling to acknowledge the bio-toxic effects of wireless systems or the legitimacy of Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity (EHS), and why “safe limits” of exposure have been raised in subsequent years when, in fact, they need to be lowered."
Adverse Health Effects of 5G Mobile Networking Technology under Real-life Conditions
This article identifies adverse effects of non-ionizing non-visible radiation (hereafter called wireless radiation) reported in the premier biomedical literature. It emphasizes that most of the laboratory experiments conducted to date are not designed to identify the more severe adverse effects reflective of the real-life operating environment in which wireless radiation systems operate. Many experiments do not include pulsing and modulation of the carrier signal. The vast majority do not account for synergistic adverse effects of other toxic stimuli (such as chemical and biological) acting in concert with the wireless radiation. This article also presents evidence that the nascent 5G mobile networking technology will affect not only the skin and eyes, as commonly believed, but will have adverse systemic effects as well.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S037842742030028X PDF: https://iervn.files.wordpress.com/2020/02/adverse-health-effects-of-5g-mobile-networking-technology-under-real-life-conditions.pdf
FYI: I was also talking about them weaponzing it.