You're clearly in denial.
To talk about some effects, you have to properly describe effects of what exactly you are talking about.
"oxidative stress, disruption of membranes, disruption of blood brain barrier, and reproductive harm at low intensity levels of wifi and cell phone RF. " as I already stated. If you don't know that, you've never seriously studied the literature.
You've fallen into the trap that Dr Cindy Russell pointed out in that presentation. The engineer or physicist writes off all biological effects with some factoid they learned in school. "It is non-ionizing", or "all it can do is heat" then you set the safety limit to the thermal threshold and call it a day.
Sorry but that is pure and simple denial.
I'm seeing your secondary tactic is to overanalyze a health study you are shown to paint all other studies (99% which you will never read) with a broad brush.
Sorry but you don't get to dismiss every study based on one or two you've nitpicked. You don't get to dismiss the 100 studies reviewed by Igor Yakymenko on oxidative effects https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26151230/. You don't get to dismiss the series of studies by Salford on the blood brain barrier and cell phone radiation https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19345073/, nor do you get to dismiss the many studies cited in their literature of others who make similar findings.
You don't get to invoke some grand conspiracy among researchers (paid for by no one) to deny all the findings. The only conspiracy is on the corporate side with a trillion dollar industry who funds studies to muddy the waters.
Regardless of all that, the findings are what they are and will continue to be real and the effects continue to be reproduced using the same or similar frequency bands (even if not the exact phone model every time). Some use an actual phone or router. Others use a phone radiation simulator. But the same effects are shown over and over again.
Holy Scripture is not "a heretic". Every pastor I listen to and church I've been to preaches from God's word. 99.9% of sermons only use the Bible and don't focus on Church history or quote any writing from Luther.
Luther's writings are not used to preach the gospel. Period.
You deny the successors of Pope St Peter
Because there is no real Biblical evidence of that. There is only one discussion between Jesus and Peter that is misinterpreted. It's literally only your Church, who pushes this teaching so they can usurp the authority of Jesus Christ!
bishops again established by Jesus
It's not there in the Bible
just like any other shitskin heretic.
Once again your intemperance and vulgarity shows your status with God. Real born again believers know this.
It's how we can see Nick Fuentes isn't saved, he is just as hateful and vulgar. He also steers people away from scripture and tells people to listen to Catholic priests instead.
Frankly it may hurt to hear, but you're on a path to hell. You're the heretic, and you murder the actual saints.
You're only proving my point by your intemperance over the facts presented.
Why would you let tradition and people in funny hats keep you away from the real Jesus? What could be more important? Social acceptance? Family acceptance? Personal pride? Unfortunately that cannot take priority.
Try to keep your language less vulgar to at least keep up the appearance that you're the saved one. If you can't even keep it together for theological matters, it's not looking good for the rest of your life, (or showing much respect for the Lord).
Right, as if Protestantism had some organized intelligence network capable of overthrowing the Vatican and their Jesuit espionage agents.
It's the other way around. The Vatican is invading Protestantism and supporting ecumenism. The Vatican wants unification so they can dominate.
If Freemasons linked up with the Vatican, that's just one Satanic group joining with another. The many blasphemies of the Vatican started long before the 1960s Second Council. The Pope taking on a title only allowed to God himself "Holy Father", diverting worship away from the one true God in multiple ways (such as invoking Mary as co-redeemer), and slaughtering Christians who dared disagree with them or dare translate the Bible into a language people could understand.
And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Keith Thompson once made a 10 hours documentary on the subject. The amount of wickedness in high places there is mind blowing.
So you said a lot, and made a couple valid points along the way. However, your objections tend to favor the effects being DOWNPLAYED not OVERSTATED. For example you mentioned less audio being input could perhaps scale down the phone to a lower power mode. In that case, the fact they still observed significant effects is only more damning.
And even if this heavy protection is penetrated, the effect of EM waves interaction with living being organs is heat.
"Only heat, only heat" That is a pure denialist industry line, and not surprising from someone who gets visibly upset when presented with facts about low intensity microwave studies.
The fact you immediately resorted to attitude / ridicule over clear and concise logic told me all I needed to know, but parroting that line confirms it.
Despite you claiming I am lacking knowledge in the subject, by claiming heat is the only effect, you've proven you never even bothered to do research into this topic. You only research from the perspective of an engineer, not a medical researcher.
All it takes is a day or two looking through Google Scholar to find enough articles to know that it's not "just heat", it's oxidative stress, disruption of membranes, disruption of blood brain barrier, and reproductive harm at low intensity levels of wifi and cell phone RF. You've fallen into exactly the trap that Dr Cindy Russell called out in her presentation.
The truth is that for completely unknown reason, life on planet Earth have a very strong protection from EM waves.
That's dogma rather than health science. You don't get to simply lump in all EM waves together, because these microwave patterns are NOT ambient levels in nature. We are designed for our natural environment.
UHF therapy is well established medical treatment since at least 1950s and used routinely in treatment of many diseases.
I looked it up. Let's see contraindications
"Therapy is contraindicated in malignant neoplasms; blood diseases; cardiovascular insufficiency; pregnancy; hypotonic disease; presence of metal implants in the body (pacemakers, prostheses); pancreatic diseases; diabetic retinopathy; individual intolerance; lack of blood circulation; predisposition to bleeding; acute heart attack and stroke; feverish conditions in infectious diseases."
and
"The duration of UHF therapy is 10-15 minutes. The course of treatment includes 5-15 procedures,"
So I sure as hell wouldn't want to be subjected to a medical therapy 24/7 for something meant to be 10-15 minutes for a limited number of sessions and that has all those contraindications (including for pregnancy, which relates to that rat study).
Remember, chemotherapy is a therapy, but it's also a poison. It has it's place, and that place is few and far between, not forced onto the public.
Frequencies used in cellular network at power levels used are unable to reach inside human.
Maybe that's what they teach you engineers, but medical researchers know better than this.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26151230/
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15368370802344037
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4503846/
There are far too many studies to choose from showing these effects. That's why it doesn't make much sense to nitpick one. If it's not penetrating the tissue, how could sperm be effected and how could oxidative stress be so clearly elevated? 93/100 show oxidative effects in one meta-analysis
Does the entire Vatican power structure have Jewish roots, because that's who voted him in.
Maybe it's no coincidence that the seat of power long identified by Protestants as antichrist is pushing the NWO agenda. Occam's razor...
The Pope also pushed the jabs btw.
inb4: "the Pope isn't Catholic!"
The sooner Palestinians get out of there the sooner God's judgement can begin.
Your arguments have been more than a bit bizarre and frankly sound a little desperate to try to deny this.
First you posted a paragraph and told me to "guess" rather than being able to show anything. That is pretty suspect.
Now you're upset that you don't know how it was "deactivated"?
there will be no any significant differences between "uninterrupted active call" on "silenced" phone and "deactivated phone"
That doesn't make much sense, no such thing as an active call on a "silenced" phone, so I have no idea what you're saying there. It's not that deep, one phone was making a call, the other was either not turned on or was on airplane mode. It's not rocket science.
800-1900MHz band... :)
What could possibly be your problem with that band? That band includes the standard GSM 900/1800 seen around the world. And your argument is ":)" which I assume is equivalent to "guess" once again.
They didn't provide any real data about differences in setup between test and control groups
Here is where the phones were placed "The phones were positioned above each cage over the feeding bottle area at a distance of 4.5–22.3 cm from each mouse" with a phone of "SAR of 1.6 W/kg"
You can send them an email if you need the exact phone model.
I find it funny with the denialists. If they don't use a phone you'll say "well that machine isn't a real phone, so it doesn't count". Then they do show effects with a real phone making a phone call and it is "800-1900MHz band...:)" and "I need more detail or I'm going to just deny everything".
Shouldn't you just say? I see that the control and experiment rats both have the same "scary phone" above them, so that looks like a legitimate control group.
Also you're really hung up on the ADHD label. Whether you think it's a single definable disorder or not, the researchers are measuring different negative cognitive and behavioral outcomes. That's really what matters.
You seem to have an axe to grind with the definition of ADHD. Just because a label can be abused doesn't mean there isn't an underlying problem shown in the study.
how ADHD in rats was detected exactly? There is no single word about it in article.
I find plenty of words about it in the article. For example
"we chose to conduct a battery of tests that identify impairments in memory, hyperactivity, anxiety and fear, which are often associated with ADHD."
"To explore fearful behavior we performed the light/dark box test measuring hyperactivity/anxiety and the step down assay assessing fear of exploring the environment."
"The number of transitions between the two compartments was used to determine locomotion and in turn hyperactivity. Anxious behavior is measured by recording the time spent in each compartment"
They also explain their tests on memory.
"The mice were allowed to explore two identical objects for 15 minutes per day for two days and on the third day one object was replaced with a novel object. On day 3 the mice were filmed for 5 minutes exploring the novel and familiar objects."
All the findings showed significant differences between experiment and control
"Overall, the mice exposed in-utero to radiation were hyperactive, had decreased memory and decreased anxiety."
Whether you think ADHD is a valid single diagnosis or not, issues with memory and hyperactivity is a bad thing.
Why all effects of basically just more cautious mice are attributed to cellphone radiation, not just to prescence of object above cage during pregnancy of their mothers?
It turns out these scientists were not retarded, and have proper controls described in the article.
"A control group of forty-two female mice was kept concurrently under the same conditions, however using a deactivated phone. "
I'm not saying this one study is the end all be all, but it's part of a pattern. As you can see in this video there are several studies discussed which point in this direction https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWhDOg5ON2Q
I don't work for you, nor do I demand you make certain posts.
If I thought it was worth calling out I would. A shill banning me from a forum he controls is just* doing me a favor.
Why should I make the posts you tell me to? I don't work for you, nor do I demand you make certain posts. So pipe down.
claims jg5 is a problem
spends all his time defending jg5
He is concerned about derailing the discussion showing the effects of RF.
He admitted to you he is trying to make people abandon conspiracies, and you are here defending him as an honest actor with a different opinion https://communities.win/c/Conspiracies/p/1ARdaayQyY/thanks-to-all-the-telecom-shills/c/4eZBdwcn4cN
Telecoms poisoning our children, and shills coming here disrupting that conversation.
So can you answer the question?
u/scoredInternal u/PutinLovesCats
This user JG5 and his alts are doing nothing but stink up this place.
This is classic forum sliding and shilling. Please remove him and all alts.
u/PutinLovesCats u/gaw-mods-are-gay
See this is the shill trash that should be removed from conspiracies. I'm just here calling it out.
This guy is a Telecom shill, inventing spurious arguments to defend them and also starting drama (forum sliding). There is no evidence that the children discussed by teachers are of any particular race. And it certainly doesn't pertain to the science presented which looked at lab rats.
Why defend the Telecom poisoning of our children unless you work for the enemy? It's quite simple, these are fucking shills.
It's this type of post stinking this place up. Don't be mad at real users for calling it out.
What non-sequitur? I made a post showing valuable information about what Telecoms are doing to our children. I then exposed the shills who support it.
I'm asking you, do you think it's important to call out the wireless poisoning of our children by these Telecoms? That's a real question, not a non-sequitur. Please answer.
I'm just calling out the garbage that came here. I have no problem keeping conspiracies about conspiracies.
Shills are a conspiracy though, and so is the Telecom poisoning of our children.
Do you think it's important to call out the poisoning of our children by these Telecoms?
Odd you attack me and not jg5, the guy literally covering up for the Catholic church and Telecoms poisoning kids.
The one who came here with his alts making this place a shillfest.
I see no issue calling out Telecom shills. I care about the future of this country.
Are you against the wireless poisoning of our children?
And this Telecom shill (likely jg5 alt) admits he doesn't care about white children, unless they are his own. https://communities.win/c/Conspiracies/p/1ARdaay9Sg/x/c/4eZBdwcksE9
What happened to all the pro-White stuff? Pro-White now means "I care about my kids and everyone else can go to hell?" And even if you were that selfish, wouldn't you still be up in arms that corporations are poisoning your own children with cell towers in schools?
These shills defend wireless so much because it is essential for the agenda playing out. It's why they demonized discussion on 5G during covid. It's why the former FCC chairman was an absolute batshit zealot for 5G https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EnYlUYKHdS8
I can't speak to your speculation Mr Fed. The teachers only reported that ipad kids are performing far worse than previous kids were and it lines up with the studies on wireless
Another post by the liar https://communities.win/c/Conspiracies/p/1ARd3nRpov/jews-owned-75-of-the-slaves-/ and Romanist shill.
The stupid and proud of it routine also reeks of mental illness