Category Archives: emf avoidance Fast to Claim “5G Not Dangerous to Health” in Light of Attacks on Celltowers

One strange article by “” claims to explain why 5G is supposedly not dangerous to health. The article can be found here:

What a level of “research” these guys out there plaster all over the internet. Let me explain why. The article’s headline matter-of-factly reads:

“5G is not accelerating the spread of the new coronavirus”,

and the text following under it refers to an article in the “Daily Star”. They go on trying to explain what cellular networks and mobile communications technologies do, how wonderful they are, and how useful an ever faster network and an ever higher bandwidth will be. The UK government adds to this mis-information, falsely claiming that the biophysical processes were well understood. They are far from being understood. If research was frozen at today’s level, we would live under the impression that the Earth is a dish and you can fall off at the edge. In fact, new studies into cell-signalling and other of those biophysical matters do increasingly discover fascinating new facts all the time, which the UK government is either ignorant of or lies about. All the industry-funded as well as official statements do not discuss how 2G, 3G and 4G networks are already under attack for damaging the immune system and causing all kinds of resulting illnesses and health problems. The Daily Star still tries to whitewash 5G technology and continues about 5G:

“5G uses a higher frequency of radio waves compared to its older generations. The frequency of this new wireless technology remains very low…”

So 5G has a “very low frequency“? They obviously do not even know the difference between frequency and energy or field strength, but they’re giving us advice…

What’s the matter with these losers trying to “educate” you out there about things they very obviously don’t know the first thing about: the entire point of a future 5G network is its ability of carrying higher payloads and, therefore, offering more bandwidth for our oh-so important Youtube-rubbish to be watched on tiny screens of dumb-people’s “smart” devices while riding the tube! This higher bandwidth is made possible by 5G’s proposed extremely high frequency (“millimeter band”, meaning future frequencies of between 22 GHz to 100 GHz which means wavelengths as short as down to 1 millimeter, hence the name). Present-day frequencies are between 900 MHz and 2.4 GHz for cell networks — and up to 5.4 GHz for some domestic and very unhealthy WiFi some naive users expose themselves and their neighbours to in their homes. So, clearly, 5G is not lower but HIGHER frequency than anything civil-level users have ever seen.

They make another point in an attempt to reassure you, stating:

“As mentioned above, the level of radiation from 5G is far below levels of electromagnetic radiation thought to cause damage to cells in the human body.”

“Thought to cause” is not the same a “it does not cause”. And these thoughts are always quoted by people who want to think that something is “safe” so they can sell it and profit from it — no matter i it may or may not make others sick. They prove nothing, as they are only thoughts which is a subjective belief that it should not be so dangerous. Had they discovered the numerous published studies finding that electro-magnetic fields or EMFs do, indeed, caus stress at the cell level, impact cell-to-cell communication at many vital points in the human body or, indeed, any living organism which also includes animals and plants, then they¬†simply would not think so, and the previously criticized opinion is, all of a sudden, true after all.

So, in fact, nothing debunked here about the dangers of 5G nor 5G’s accelerating the spread of coronavirus — because it does, only maybe not by sending some strange signals to the viruses but by weakening the organisms of humans under attack from the virus and making them more vulnerable to the coronavirus. Still, that’s “acceleration” of the increase in numbers of people falling ill.

5G’s extremely high proposed frequencies are similar to aviation radar. (And, hey, there are known and compensated-for occupational illnesses out there that affect radar workers. So everything “quite safe”, eh?)
So “” is full-fail, and certainly not suitable for “debunking” anything. Also, they didn’t tell us who paid them for this ignorant write-up attempt (but I good a pretty good idea who)…

and includes a statement by the UK government to say there is “no convincing evidence that 5G is dangerous”.

There being “no convincing evidence” means that even the UK government has to admit that there is at least some evidence then, only that it chooses to consider that “not convincing” — for whatever undisclosed political reason that may be.
If you are concerned about mobile technology use and the implications of EMF, you way want to check out AvoidEMF and see for yourself whether or not caution about something we do not know the exact effects about may be warranted.

earlier on Facebook:

“and you @Adam Charles do believe the BBC, that’s is quite telling. Just the kind of “facts” we need :))

FYI, it is true that 5G (as well as any other type of cellular network including 2G, 3G and 4G) is spectacularly upsetting for the human immune system (and animals) due to pulsed microwave radiation damaging cell-level communication in the gut, even if it’s “non-ionising” — this is an increasingly researched and reported fact that even the WHO is starting to catch on to lately.

So don’t be too surprised that some ppl overdo it just a little bit when they are stressed out by situations like the current one they — partly unjustifiably — associate with the current problem.

I agree with you that torching the towers will not be very helpful, particularly when one’s supposed to stay home. Don’t be too surprised though if these incidents repeat afterwards: when the industry and government doesn’t listen then they have to “feel” instead.

Switzerland and Slovenia are banning or putting on hold any 5G deployment, so there’s no need for ppl to beat them to it in these countries — it’s such a better approach, won’t you say?”