/ BBC reports 160 foot towers 2 be in rural areas

Please Register as a New User in order to reply to this topic.
paul mitchell 29 Nov 2019

The BBC reports that  phone companies (with which it has investments)  will most likely be  building 5G towers in the countryside.The incredible height of the towers, around 50 metres, is designed for the microwave beams (around 28 gigaherz, carcinogenic at close range) to be above  cluttering trees  that might block the signal. The Labour party sadly supports these proposals.I imagine the Tories do too.   

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49480560

Effects of 35 gigaherz.   https://glitch.news/2017-01-09-cops-radar-guns-emit-36-ghz-frequency-radiation-that-causes-testicular-cancer-who-knew.html?fbclid=IwAR3Dr2-LfgMwnH3sJ6lk_kTGoC_Sn0GXaiBHWWfgn3nBc8imRa5aV2Q11Wk

Post edited at 08:49
Report
DaveHK 29 Nov 2019
In reply to paul mitchell:

I'll be fine, I've already had all my metallic fillings removed.

Report
Ridge 29 Nov 2019
In reply to paul mitchell:

5G coverage so I'm not paying through the nose for BT broadband thats little better than dial up? I'll have one near me please.

Report
DancingOnRock 29 Nov 2019
Dave Garnett 29 Nov 2019
In reply to paul mitchell:

>  incredible height of the towers, around 50 metres, is designed for the microwave beams (around 28 gigaherz, carcinogenic at close range)

Just as well you won't be able to get within 50m of it then.

Report
Deadeye 29 Nov 2019
In reply to paul mitchell:

Get in the sack

Report
Ridge 29 Nov 2019
In reply to Dave Garnett:

> >  incredible height of the towers, around 50 metres, is designed for the microwave beams (around 28 gigaherz, carcinogenic at close range)

> Just as well you won't be able to get within 50m of it then.

<applause>

Report
c9smith8 29 Nov 2019
In reply to paul mitchell:

Do you have any published evidence re the carcinogenic properties of that freq. radiation?

Not click-bait news articles, youtube videos etc.. but actual research papers published in a respected journal.

Report
DubyaJamesDubya 29 Nov 2019
In reply to paul mitchell:

Shouldn't we be primarily concerned by the visual impact?

Report
mullermn 29 Nov 2019
In reply to paul mitchell:

> The Labour party sadly supports these proposals.I imagine the Tories do too.  

The Labour party and the Tories have trouble agreeing what colour the sky is. If they both agree that this is a good idea then do you think just maybe that this might be evidence in favour of what everyone was trying to tell you for 200 posts on the other thread - these things are, as best as science can confirm for us, harmless and really quite useful.

And what is this:

> The BBC reports that  phone companies (with which it has investments)  

Supposed to imply? That because the BBC has investments (I'll take your word for it) in companies backing 5G it is in some way.. more.. motivated to publish articles exposing the plans to build more masts? How does that make any sense? Surely they should be suppressing the information, shouldn't they?

Report
Eric9Points 29 Nov 2019
In reply to paul mitchell:

Paul,

There really isn't anything to be worried about. Unless you climb the towers and suspended yourself in front of the antennas for a few days you won't be in any danger.

Note that most mobile phone traffic in the UK and Europe (anyway) has been transmitted at 23 GHz for the last twenty years and "landline" phone traffic at 4 or 8 GHz for decades before that and nobody's dropping dead because of it.

Report
DancingOnRock 29 Nov 2019
In reply to Eric9Points:

It’s the main cause of obesity but Big Diet are in league with mobile phone companies and the government and so all research in this area is swiftly quashed. 
 

Allegedly. 

Report
Toby_W 29 Nov 2019
In reply to paul mitchell:

I have some special tin foil pants I can sell you with a high frequency digital mesh built into them that have a high dynamic range as well as stopping signals well into the dBm range.  They're also breathable.

Cheers

Toby

Report
Andy Hardy 29 Nov 2019
In reply to paul mitchell:

An invasion of 50m carcinogenic towers, spreading across our green and pleasant land? I think the Daily Mail should be informed, they'll want to run a campaign.

😜

Report
Toerag 29 Nov 2019
In reply to mullermn:

> > The BBC reports that  phone companies (with which it has investments)  

> Supposed to imply? That because the BBC has investments (I'll take your word for it) in companies backing 5G it is in some way.. more.. motivated to publish articles exposing the plans to build more masts? How does that make any sense? Surely they should be suppressing the information, shouldn't they?

Why would the BBC have investments in mobile phone companies? I guess their employees' pension funds might be, but the BBC itself?

Report
jkarran 29 Nov 2019
In reply to paul mitchell:

From your link: For all those concerned now about microwave ovens, in comparison to radar guns, typical kitchen “nukers” produce an average of 2.4 GHz, less than 1/12th that of some radar guns, yet are still capable of causing immediate and drastic changes to the human heart from just three feet away, and with the door closed.

Nothing like a good technically illiterate piece of anecdote based pseudo-epidemiology with hints of government conspiracy to brighten up a Friday afternoon. The muddling of frequency, field strength and alarmist bullshit is a lovely little cherry on the top.

jk

Report
gravy 29 Nov 2019
In reply to c9smith8:

He quoted a few discredited, bullshit and withdrawn papers before.  He tends to favour a juicy title over reading the content and is, apparently, unable to read anything that contradicts his starting assumption so he is in a tizz as a result of confirmation bias.

Whomever it was who called troll is not far off right.

Post edited at 15:30
Report
Mike Stretford 29 Nov 2019
In reply to paul mitchell: Whow! If that's what 35GHz does to a person what does 600TeraHertz do? How long do you think a person could be exposed to that? Pretty concerned as there's a source near me!!!!

Report
deepsoup 29 Nov 2019
In reply to Mike Stretford:

> Whow! If that's what 35GHz does to a person what does 600TeraHertz do?

It has a well documented effect on your circadian rhythm and too much of it can definitely make it difficult to get to sleep. 

Only slightly higher frequencies than that have definitely been known to be carcinogenic, and for what it's worth I would advise against stripping naked and lying or standing inside a machine designed to emit that kind of radiation.

Report
MonkeyPuzzle 29 Nov 2019
In reply to paul mitchell:

It's better for you than supporting Wigan.

Report
Sean_J 29 Nov 2019
In reply to paul mitchell:

I'd be more concerned about the lizard people and the chemtrails they lay down when they fly their UFOs back and forth from Area 51.

Report
wintertree 29 Nov 2019
In reply to DubyaJamesDubya:

> Shouldn't we be primarily concerned by the visual impact?

Or the diversion of harmonically resonant thunder energy from it’s natural pathways?

Report
The Wild Scallion 29 Nov 2019
In reply to deepsoup:

> It has a well documented effect on your circadian rhythm and too much of it can definitely make it difficult to get to sleep. 

> Only slightly higher frequencies than that have definitely been known to be carcinogenic, and for what it's worth I would advise against stripping naked and lying or standing inside a machine designed to emit that kind of radiation.

I'm thinking Spock in Wrath of Khan.  

Live long and prosper .

;-)

Report
deepsoup 29 Nov 2019
In reply to The Wild Scallion:

> Live long and prosper.

Yeah, good luck with that.  Khaaaaaaaaaaaannnn!

But no - dial it back a bit from that, I was thinking more Dale Winton at Tantastic. ;-)

Report
paul mitchell 29 Nov 2019
In reply to deepsoup  EMF radiation,in chronic doses,can cause DNA mutation and cancer.Fact.https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=154160689276664&set=gm.2270141419764088&type=3&theater&ifg=1

Report
Wainers44 29 Nov 2019
In reply to Toby_W:

> I have some special tin foil pants I can sell you.....

Have you got any photos....for a friend of mine obviously?

Report
deepsoup 29 Nov 2019
In reply to paul mitchell:

Nonsense.  Spock was fine in the end.  (Dale not so much sadly, I would have to admit.)

Report
Toby_W 29 Nov 2019
In reply to Wainers44:

Made my day, spat my tea

I’ll just go and try and pull them on without tearing.. in the mean time, imagine a Wookiee from starwars wearing Wilma’s pants from buck rogers in the 25th century. Bidi bidi bidi!

cheers

Toby

Report
Dave 88 29 Nov 2019
In reply to paul mitchell:

Paul, radar is in a similar frequency range and covers the entire country multiple times over. It has done for some years. The technology in 5g is nothing new, just the way it all works together. Second thread on this now and I’m honestly telling you; it’ll be fine.

Report
trouserburp 29 Nov 2019
In reply to c9smith8:

> Do you have any published evidence re the carcinogenic properties of that freq. radiation?

> Not click-bait news articles, youtube videos etc.. but actual research papers published in a respected journal.

More of a systematic review but it is in a respected journal: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(18)30221-3/fulltext

Report
Stuart William 29 Nov 2019
In reply to paul mitchell:

Really? Your response to a request for robust sources of evidence is a photo on someone's Facebook page? 
 

At least go and find the source they pulled the graph from, rather than expect others to finish your research for you. Poor show. 

Report
marsbar 30 Nov 2019
In reply to paul mitchell:

> //www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=154160689276664&set=gm.2270141419764088&type=3&theater&ifg=1

Water in large doses can cause drowning.  

Oxygen can catch fire. 

Too much burnt toast could give you cancer.  

Report
The Wild Scallion 30 Nov 2019
In reply to marsbar:

> Water in large doses can cause drowning.  

> Oxygen can catch fire. 

> Too much burnt toast could give you cancer.  

Let's say nothing about the poisonous trees and plants.  

Or have I said to much.  

Report
malk 30 Nov 2019
In reply to gravy:

a review of millimetre wave research: https://memoryholeblog.org/2019/01/07/5g-wireless-technology-millimeter-wave-health-effects/

in summary: the peer-reviewed research demonstrates that short-term exposure to low-intensity millimeter wave (MMW) radiation not only affects human cells, it may result in the growth of multi-drug resistant bacteria harmful to humans. Since little research has been conducted on the health consequences from long-term exposure to MMWs, widespread deployment of 5G or 5thgeneration wireless infrastructure constitutes a massive experiment that may have adverse impacts on the public’s health.

Report
NathanP 30 Nov 2019
In reply to malk:

Memory Hole Blog - isn't that the one that promotes the conspiracy theory that the US "deep state" is behind almost all terrorism and the bereaved parents of the children killed at Sandy Hook are really actors, paid by the US government to just pretend it had happened?

Report
Deadeye 30 Nov 2019
In reply to malk:

> in summary: the peer-reviewed research demonstrates that short-term exposure to low-intensity millimeter wave (MMW) radiation not only affects human cells, it may result in the growth of multi-drug resistant bacteria harmful to humans. Since little research has been conducted on the health consequences from long-term exposure to MMWs, widespread deployment of 5G or 5thgeneration wireless infrastructure constitutes a massive experiment that may have adverse impacts on the public’s health.


I'm really fascinated by this.  The shallowest of scrapes into that reference shows it to be very far from a reputable scientific source.  It's a blog post drawn from the "Electromagnetic Radiation Safety" site, which in turn is a collection of conspiracy articles.  The whole is wrapped up to try to look like credible science.  It's not.

And yet folk like yourself and Paul will grasp on any suggestion there's a problem without so much as thinking about challenging the source; but won't accept or research the far better evidenced counter view.  Why is that?

Report
marsbar 30 Nov 2019
In reply to malk:

I think that site is rather biased.  

Report
wercat 30 Nov 2019
In reply to paul mitchell:

I fear my health might be compromised by a 1000 foot mast not so very far away.  The wavelengths are ENORMOUS and must shorely be fatale in the long rung

The red lights on it at night are clearly to warn those who are in the know to stay away from it.  Alarming.  I live in fear

And don't even start about the Beryllium Gas hazards

Post edited at 10:37
Report
Blue Straggler 30 Nov 2019
In reply to paul mitchell:

What is the ground impact velocity of heavy electricity dropping from 160 feet? Can it flatten a cow? 

Report
The Wild Scallion 30 Nov 2019
In reply to Blue Straggler:

> What is the ground impact velocity of heavy electricity dropping from 160 feet? Can it flatten a cow? 

It's in part due to sodomized electrons.  

Report
Blue Straggler 30 Nov 2019
In reply to The Wild Scallion:

It could catapult parts of southern England as far as Finland. 

Report
wercat 30 Nov 2019
In reply to The Wild Scallion:

Electrons Proteins and NeuterDons

Report
Hooo 30 Nov 2019
In reply to paul mitchell:

On your previous thread I posted two very sensible suggestions for you.

1. Get outside and stop searching the web for conspiracies that make you worried.

2. Do the experiment in one of the videos you posted, so you can see for yourself that it's rubbish.

At that point you abandoned the thread. I was really hoping you'd taken option 1, but unfortunately not. How about you try option 2? It's an easy experiment that will clearly show that these scaremongers are making this shit up.

Report
Lurking Dave 02 Dec 2019
In reply to Toby_W:

>  imagine a Wookiee from starwars wearing Wilma’s pants from buck rogers in the 25th century.

if the Wookie has her pants... what is Wilma wearing???  8-)

Report
Toby_W 02 Dec 2019
wercat 02 Dec 2019
In reply to paul mitchell:

Have you heard about that new and terrible MOD installation on top of Helvellyn?   I read somewhere that they used Dark Matter to shield it so it is invisible.  Must be really quite something of a dark project for the deep state to go to all that trouble.

Post edited at 08:31
Report
jkarran 02 Dec 2019
In reply to paul mitchell:

> EMF radiation,in chronic doses,can cause DNA mutation and cancer.Fact.

Quite! More than once I've received painful mutogenic 300nm EMR burns over half my body even though I was minding my own business many miles from the source, often well hydrated. It's scandalous. And that's just nanometer radiation, tiny. Imagine how bad the really big kilometre scale stuff like the BBC pumps out must be

Thread: Any ideas where this 5G nonsense is coming from, who benefits? I can't believe it's entirely organic.

jk

Report
Tom V 02 Dec 2019
In reply to jkarran:

> >

> : Any ideas where this 5G nonsense is coming from, who benefits? 

As an  example: Scientific American 17/10/2019

Report
Hooo 02 Dec 2019
In reply to jkarran:

Are you suggesting that there is a conspiracy to start conspiracy theories about 5G? How deep does this go?

Report
Mike Stretford 02 Dec 2019
Tom V 02 Dec 2019
In reply to Mike Stretford:

Yes, I read that as well before you linked it.

But if JK is asking where the 5g doubts are coming from and means from the point of view of "the man in the street", consider that person's dilemma. One week it's an article saying there are reservations; the next there's one saying it's all ok.

Report
Mike Stretford 02 Dec 2019
In reply to Tom V: Sure, I was just on the phone so posted quick. Looks like a cockup at SA.

Report
Tom V 02 Dec 2019
In reply to Mike Stretford:

A  "cockup"  would have earned more than a simple rebuttal, wouldn't it?

And I am a bit puzzled, the same as JK: who stands to benefit from this.?

Though I can fairly easily grasp who stands to benefit from the rebuttal.

Report
captain paranoia 02 Dec 2019
In reply to Tom V:

> And I am a bit puzzled, the same as JK: who stands to benefit from this.?

Who benefits from any of the foil-hat conspiracies...?

Report
jkarran 02 Dec 2019
In reply to captain paranoia:

> Who benefits from any of the foil-hat conspiracies...?

Ay, that's my question. Historically they've served different purposes and none: cover for military testing, sowing social division, destabilising governments, discrediting commercial rivals... Not sure why I'm more suspicious of the 5G guff than usual but something about it doesn't sit quite right, it cropped up early and a little too organised or message disciplined when field trials started, but maybe it's just the world moving on around me, cranks got organised? 

Jk

Post edited at 21:40
Report
Tom V 02 Dec 2019
In reply to captain paranoia:

No -one, as I can see it. 

But while ever scientific journals, "quality" newspapers  and international bodies such as the EU and the WHO publish stuff which implies that it isn't 100% certain that EMF transmissions are harmless over the long term, who can blame the ordinary man for giving some credence to what he has read?

Report
mullermn 05:41 Tue
In reply to captain paranoia:

> Who benefits from any of the foil-hat conspiracies...?

> ‘Journalists’ attempting to manufacture clickbait from thin air as part of the desperate competition for internet views and advertising money. Same group responsible for the general degradation in news reporting. 

Report
WaterMonkey 07:01 Tue
In reply to paul mitchell:

At 50m you’ll need to do it in a couple of pitches..

Report
In reply to mullermn:

> ‘Journalists’ attempting to manufacture clickbait from thin air as part of the desperate competition for internet views and advertising money. Same group responsible for the general degradation in news reporting.

That's a distinct, depressing possibility.

Report
johnjohn 13:35 Tue
In reply to paul mitchell:

...59, no 60 now responses with no reply from the OP shows the benefits of a long game: 8/10

Report
Blue Straggler 00:05 Wed
In reply to johnjohn:

His profile is fun 

Report
Tom V 00:33 Wed
In reply to Blue Straggler:

....and can also lead us to the record of a considerably talented climber.

Not that it's relevant, any more than how "fun" his profile is.

Post edited at 00:35
Report
In reply to Blue Straggler:

> His profile is fun 

Full marks for using both the 'about' and 'anything else' sections, certainly. Shows an organised mind.

Report

Please Register as a New User in order to reply to this topic.