Amazing: A Global 5G Protest! More Amazing: Few People Seem to Know What 5G Is (Text Summary)

By Peter Tocci

Author’s Note: This Summary is a distillation of the article What Do YOU Mean When You Say “5G”? (majorly revised and updated). The full text is strongly encouraged; but two Summaries have been published for fast-trackers. A more detailed Bullet Summary, for those who’d rather pick and choose, and this one for those who prefer a more general sweep. Both provide a means for seeing “5G” more clearly, and quickly accessing areas of particular interest.

Introduction to Full Text

When you say, “5G” or “Stop 5G,” please be sure you haven’t been misled about what it is, what you are opposing – or want. Most “5G” opposition presents more like hysteria than fact.

“5G” (in quotes) indicates the lack of a critical distinction that forms the basis of this article. Although “5G” and its implementation are confusing enough (not even the Industry has settled all details), compounding the problem unnecessarily is the output of most opposers, which suggests they don’t really know what it is – or aren’t saying.

Opposition includes erroneous information, omissions, sometimes propaganda – and sometimes utter nonsense – alongside some truth – even from those who should know better, such as “concerned scientists”.

The “Stop 5G!” mantra irresponsibly leaves environment, people, and communities in greater jeopardy than do the ominous facts. This article attempts to raise some ‘dust’ and clear the air at the same time.

Because carrier rollouts and stories of harm are major opposition concerns, much detail is given to show how “5G” hysteria makes things worse in various cases. Safety testing, history of official awareness of harm, and opposition priorities are also discussed.

“5G” confusion revolves around some technical things, but non-techies need not be intimidated. Easily understood basics are all one needs. Like musical notes, the signals to and from devices and towers are just vibrational frequencies. Comparison ends there, however, because telecom/WiFi frequencies are microwave radiation like in your microwave oven, not acoustic.

Many people are familiar with frequency designations used in telecom/WiFi. But for a quick and easy ‘course’ in frequency (and wavelength) if needed, please read the first 4 paragraphs of The Physics section of Wireless Technology: The Plain Physics & Biophysics (the section and article need key revisions in certain specifics, but the principles remain).

Natural microwave radiation of vanishingly low power comes to Earth from the universe. It’s called the ‘cosmic background level’ – what life has evolved in. Like man-made microwave, this energy wave has electric and magnetic properties and is called an electro-magnetic field (EMF). Opinions vary on its frequency range, one being that it covers the same range as artificial microwave, 300 MHz to 300 GHz – the top section of the entire manmade radio frequency spectrum (3 KHz to 300 GHz).

Telecom/WiFi microwave is greatly amplified compared to the background. It’s also digital. It’s an artificial, amplified, digital, polarized, modulated (pulsed) electrical and magnetic force.

All biological systems have electrical and magnetic properties as well. Thus, why you can be electrocuted; and why magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) does what it does.

Despite “5G” hysteria, all telecom/WiFi signals are fundamentally identical: Life-negative.

Their electromagnetic force interferes with critical functions controlled by the very low-power, highly sensitive electrical/magnetic properties of living systems — regardless of frequency or any power level, including far below what would ‘microwave’ (heat or cook) you.

If an electrical device causes static or otherwise interferes with a radio (as in static), music system, or any electrical circuit, it’s called “radio frequency” (RF) interference. The FCC strictly regulates this.

Wireless telecom/WiFi radio frequency interference gives living systems inaudible static. By embracing scientific fraud, the FCC very poorly regulates this. One reason is, it can’t be properly regulated anyway – and they know it.

While acknowledging that 2G-4G is seriously harmful, even ultimately fatal (but only if not properly ‘managed,’) opposers argue (with a straight face) that “5G” frequencies and infrastructure will make a terminal situation worse. More fatal (no laughing now).

Instead of “Stop Wireless!” they emphasize the “new” threat. Which it is not, fundamentally. Several ploys are ‘em-ployed’ to ‘make cases,’ as we’ll see.

The horrendous threat that opposition hysteria warns of is not “5G” per se, but wireless ‘techn-all-the-G’s’ per se. Wireless epitomizes the long-standing willingness of techno-adults to wreck the planet, poison the kids, and create illness in numerous ways, for money, convenience, and entertainment — the three main selling points of wireless ‘technolo-G’.

With few exceptions, “5G” opposers cling to the fatal hope of continuing with 3G/4G wireless – via proper use and management, of course. There have been appeals by scientists to (corrupted) official bodies, asking for what can’t exist – safe, safer, or biologically based exposure limits. This is discussed in more detail in the ‘physics’ article above.

There is also every manner of device, gadget, clothing, shrouds, paint and metal to protect humans from a pathological threat that shouldn’t even exist. This is considered sane and clever. And does it make business.

While business is being made, the worst threat by far proceeds – ecosystem damage/collapse. It gets mentions in the hysteria, but rarely the keen, priority-one emphasis it demands.

Some assertions below are solid, others “depend,” some are of necessity speculation. Things can change rapidly. Therefore, anyone having verifiable information clarifying, enhancing, correcting, or, especially, refuting anything said here, PLEASE share via Comments. The goal is truth.

By reviewing this material, the reader should be well equipped to evaluate the output of pundits/scientists, websites, forums, summits, writers and reporters stressing the “5G crisis”.

Text Summary

Particulars/Warnings

“5G” is indeed dangerous all by itself, as are all the G’s by themselves. However, most opposition is dangerous by itself. Much confusion is based on the term “5G” being flung carelessly about, even by scientists.

Important distinctions must be made, especially between 5G infrastructure and 5G high-frequency radiation; and **between high frequency 5G and mid-band to low-band 5G, the ‘classic’ signaling used for 2G-4G.

When “5G” is uttered – especially, “Stop 5G!” or “5G crisis” – it usually implies microwave radiation often called “millimeter wave” (MMW). This is confusing and potentially dangerous. Frequency ranges are discussed.

“5G” comes in two parts – the new high-frequency waves and the old 3G/4G wolves souped-up in new ‘clothing’ and being called 5G. Hysteria pays no attention.

New terms are introduced. “5Gmmw” (meaning millimeter wave – MMW) for the higher frequencies. “5Gmlb” (meaning mid-/low-band frequencies – MLB) is used for the souped-up 4G LTE being called 5G. A “fixture” is a mounted enclosure of antennas.

Routine misuse of “small cell”. A “cell’ is not an antenna or an installation. The extreme importance of terms is brought out in the sections about rollouts and reports of harm.

Short range and easy ‘blockability’ of MMW require more fixture locations, which Hysteria frets about, without noting the distinction that 5Gmlb makes a large cell and is not blocked. “FLD” is for fixture location density.

Small cells ARE relatively small. Also, not new, not developed for “5G”. Early deployments were in the US in 2007 and in the UK and Europe in 2009. Opposition has led us to believe that “5G” IS small cells/MMW.

Typically careless/misleading statement: “The telecom industry is promoting the replacement of the current cellular network, known as 4G, with a new generation of higher frequency 5G wavelengths to power the “Internet of Things…” This is either shameful unawareness or untruth/propaganda.

Two common hysterical warnings, “sweat ducts are antennas” and “5G is a weapon” are dissected. Both show that “cases” are being made about “5G” via deception. One is exposed as applicable fundamentally to all the G’s.

MMW is no more weapon than 2G-4G. Case-makers should know that wireless tech, beginning with 2G, is adapted stealth-weapon technology that uses very low power, and that the entire wireless system is a potential weapon on various levels (more later).

Microwave ovens, powerful Air Force radar, the military Active Denial System (ADS), frequencies/bandwidths, power output levels and SAR (mostly useless) are discussed, making the point that MMW is not needed for weaponry.

Safety Testing

A childish scare tactic: “No ‘5G’ safety studies have been conducted or funded by the Federal Communications Commission or the telecom industry, and none is planned.” Or simply, “5G has not been tested for safety,” or the like. With this ploy comes the foolish, erroneous and dangerous implication that 2G-4G were tested.

The Commission’s assertion that “5G” needs no testing is based on the fraudulent ‘testing’ it used originally to run interference for 3G in 1996: If the radiation doesn’t heat you, it can’t harm you.

This author warned of this response by FCC in February 2019 as “5G” hysteria was powering up.

Power-level exposure limits worldwide are based on a heating standard adopted by FCC in 1996, and identified as ANSI/IEEE C95.1-1992. The latest is ANSI/IEEE C95.1-2019.

Peer reviewed independent science, as early as the 1950’s and still going, demonstrates myriad effects at non-heating levels. Was *proper* testing ever done? Hysteria often omits this.

The FCC discredits or merely dismisses existing science and such questions: ‘No convincing evidence exists, but we’re keeping an eye on it.’ It also ignores foreknowledge (see History of Official Awareness below).

Another childish ploy: “The current FCC exposure limit is outdated.” It implies that standards were at one time valid or sufficient. Never, for any living thing.

“Outdated” always comes with the even more irresponsible suggestion that “safe”, “safer”, or “biologically based” exposure limits are possible.

New limits are proposed in spite of the consensus that no safe level has been found for fetuses. This is apparently not of sufficient concern to call for “Stop Wireless Technology!” We’ll figure out the fetus part later.

See full text for link to details on the scientific fraud on which power-level exposure limits worldwide are based.

Rollouts

From the outset, opposition emphasis has been on millions of new, closely spaced installations nationwide. But things seem to be developing differently. As noted, even the Industry hasn’t settled on final arrangements (pun intended).

The following synthesis is the result of wading through many articles. Sources vary and even disagree with each other considerably.

A new international “5G NR” wireless standard has been issued, specifying two 5G frequency ranges: 5G NR bands FR1 and 5G NR bands FR2. Number one is for current bands below 6 GHz (5Gmlb); two is for MMW — mostly 24 to 40 GHz for mobile, and higher for special applications (not mobile).

In the near term, public WiFi will remain separate at MLB, 2.45 GHz and 5 GHz, but Verizon, for example, is offering 5Gmmw home internet/WiFi (not mobile) in limited areas of four cities.

5G NR FR1 – 5Gmlb – can use the same towers as 4G, but needs new antennas. It has the same reach and penetration, but with shorter delay, while providing up to 35 percent more speed. The wireless addict’s dream. When you think about it, FR1 should really be 5G, and 5Gmmw, 6G.

Plans are also in place to use 3.5 GHz frequency, and all key players really want in. This is called 5G, mind you.

Many current phones should be able to get updates to process FR1, but a new phone is needed for FR2. Generally, the “tech” advice is not to move yet, shown in two stories about testing Samsung’s 5G Galaxy S10 phone. What it amounts to is 5Gmmw is at a virtual “demo” stage, not full coverage and service, even in town.

Many “5G” opposers continue to use traditional 3G/4G/WiFi wireless, either knowing the danger or believing it’s safe, or will be, because they just want it. A possible motive driving hysteria?

Another possible motive, or maybe just the effect opposition is having, is to distract attention from the satellite program, a much more sinister development (see Examining Priorities below).

News stories reflect the MMW vs MLB confusion caused by “5G” opposition hysteria. Two are discussed – the 6/26 2019 Glastonbury Festival in Pilton, Somerset County, England, and the 9/21/19 protest in Bern, Switzerland. In neither case did protesters know what they were opposing, nor was it clear in reports which “5G” was involved.

Reports on unspecified 5G are laced with dubious statements, including the tiring one that “5G” constitutes a massive experiment on all species, the erroneous implication being that 2G-4G were/are not an experiment. Paradoxically, they were and were not experiments (see below). Distinctions must be made.

Crucial to keep in mind that widespread knowledge of harm existed by the mid-1970s. The decision was callously made to put life/people at risk to have the technology. What was known was later hushed in the runup to mobile telecom in 1984.

The “experiment” is not whether, but when, ongoing exposure and probable cumulative damage will manifest in a cascade of widespread intractable illness. But that fate might be avoided: Ecosystem collapse could bring the house down beforehand. The race is on — between ecosystem collapse and human-health collapse.

Implementation of the two 5G FR setups can be illustrated by looking at what just three carriers are doing: T-Mobile, Sprint and Verizon. T-Mobile has announced a nationwide 5Gmlb rollout at 600 MHz.

Sprint’s plans are to run in the 2.5 GHz band using “massive” MIMO (more below). No MMW at all.

Verizon’s “5G Ultra Wideband” – “Verizon 5G Home Internet” – is MMW – 5Gmmw. But it “…will also deploy 5G technology on lower frequency bands including 700 MHz-2500 MHz frequency range (5Gmlb).

Verizon’s 5Gmmw for mobile, is being offered/tested in urban areas, which could be its final destination.

The foregoing rollouts are being called 5G.

A report on new Qualcomm smartphone antennas discusses antennas for MLB: “…a four-member family of radio modules designed for larger cell 5G coverage – that is, outside the dense urban areas and indoor environments… to work in the sub-6GHz bands…” (5Gmlb, emphasis added).

Given the information on FR1 rollouts, protest about “18 million new” closely spaced fixtures is brought into serious question.

Sacramento seems to the most enthusiastic victim host. Link to a gushing PR piece about a Verizon UWB installation at one Sacramento citizen’s home, with City officials attending.

Santa Rosa typifies cities forestalling “5G” for precautionary reasons. Right move, very wrong reason. Ecocidal, terminally pathological 3G/4G still rages, again reflecting the danger of “5G” hysteria.

It’s widely held that the Internet of Things (IoT) is specific to 5Gmmw, but two Israeli Qualcomm techies seem to disagree, saying 4G can handle it. Propaganda? Careless chatter? Safe to assume they refer to the new, faster 4G. The attempt at widespread deployment of smart utility meters on 4G WiFi reinforces what the Qualcomm techies say.

5Gmlb makes sense for IoT, because if it’s exclusive to MMW, and if that won’t be everywhere as it seems at this point on the ground (unless … satellites?), it trashes the plan to “connect”: (read, “track, index, control”) all THINGS. Including you, one day soon.

None of the above means things can’t change. It’s early. The MLB rollout could be just a prelude to an FLD/MMW invasion.

In a 5/15/18 CNBC interview, Verizon CEO Lowell McAdam said that antennas in your face is “…one of the myths about 5G…” I’d say he was being coy, implying MLB.

McAdam touted 5Gmmw for Smart cities, driverless cars and virtual reality — all good reasons for planetary and health destruction. That is, “Smart” is another word for monumentally stupid and for total surveillance and centralized coordination and control of daily life.

I didn’t bother spending the rest of my life trying to find if/where FLD installations are occurring. Based on the foregoing, it would seem to be only in dense residential areas very close to or within cities. Anyone who’s seen close installations in any area, please share details in Comments.

If FLD is happening outside populous areas, question arises about purpose. And how do the many thousands of planned satellites fit into the overall picture. Possibly divvying services.

(If you’re curious, check out the total-surveillance and human-control system rapidly gestating in the name of “Smart City” and public safety/benefits, etc in Sacramento. See full text for details and link).

Reports of Harm

Reports of adverse effects from “5G” – almost certainly implying 5Gmmw – are unlikely/virtually impossible outside cities/populous areas. Apparently, people see new infrastructure, dense or not, or/and feel effects, and assume MMW, as in the Bern example.

“5G” harm stories consistently report classic 2G-4G symptoms existing long before anyone even heard of 5G, especially of the ‘Electrohypersensitivity’ type (“EHS,” a misnomer, see Idaho story near end of section).

Radiation/RF-level meters have been used to support claims. But RF meters top out at 8 GHz. Recall, FCC defines 5Gmmw as 24 GHz to 90 GHz. Thus, current meters can’t read MMW.

Professional (very expensive) meters cover low and high ranges, but no frequencies. Thus, anyone claiming harm from “5G” (implying mmw) should have a phone with MMW function, or have official information.

Thus, if there is harm in outlying areas when “5G” is turned on, what’s shown by existing meters? 4G, one way or another. Hysteria-induced confusion? One meter hawker claims that its product can read “5G” based on the fact that two new MLB frequencies are used for 5G. Any old meter does this. Courtesy of “5G” hysteria.

Meters aren’t really helpful for most people. A meter might come in handy for someone with outward symptoms and using some form of shielding, for example. But symptom abatement doesn’t mean harm stops.

Differences between known effects of MMW (a growing but limited volume of science) and those of MLB might help determine the frequencies present.

MMW potentially threatens skin and eyes. More effects are being reported; but a paper cited by a prominent scientist (in a ‘5G danger’ article) to show that MMW impacts “heart rate variability” turns out to be a military directed-energy study, using virtually the “ADS” system noted earlier at 75 times FCC limit and a frequency that would not be used in mobile applications. Making cases?

MMW might cause MLB effects, but it’s a bit speculative at this point. It’s possible, however “…since nerves, blood vessels and other electrically conducting structures can carry radiation-induced currents deep into the body.” Document submitted to the UN is cited.

Antenna technology called MIMO looks to be destined for both FR1 and FR2 (a virtual necessity for MMW). The more recent development is “massive” MIMO for aiming (and receiving) beams of radiation. Aiming per se doesn’t necessarily mean higher power hitting you just because the beam is focused. Possible that massive MIMO antenna arrays themselves pose an additional threat.

Hysteria often warns of outrageously high increase in power output with “5G” and “small cells.” Worst effects are below the heating power level, and power is the lesser of several factors (see Ripon story in main text).

Details of typical news reports follow, illustrating general confusion about wireless and hysteria-induced effects. See main text for details, document-search “typical news”.

The story of a Sacramento family alleging harm from a Verizon antenna installed near the home illustrates confusion. A video shows testimony (particularly a mother’s) before the Sacramento City Council, 6/25/19 – with the mayor present.

No antenna info given, but it’s probably MMW for “5G Home Internet” (recall the PR story from 5G Rollouts) — also with the mayor attending. Strange that testimony date precedes stated launch date. Maybe it was an early “Home” antenna being tested, or the PR announcement date was carefully chosen for whatever reason.

The video display screen says, “Children Sick After 4G/5G Small Cell Installation…” What does that ambiguous statement mean? Harm (cold/flu symptoms) is likely from 5Gmmw, but still reinforces the importance of knowing what we mean when we say “5G” – or “4G/5G”.

The mother seems to understand the general threat of wireless, but the suggestion that “shielding” solved the illness, even though levels “are still very high” will certainly be taken officially as “correlation,” not proof or even evidence. Typically, she’s not discovered that power level below heating, and antenna proximity, make little to no difference in terms of ongoing harm.

Bottom line: Which 5G is present is academic, since the pre-“5G” endgame is the same – fatal. Focus on “5G” is like fretting about a wildfire 10 miles away while your house is burning down.

An outrageous hysteria-induced incident hails from Gateshead, a town in northern UK. Residents claimed that new LED street lights were “emitting 5G” and causing health issues. Numerous other outlets regurgitated, with no thought given to the LED’s themselves.

Two news reports are discussed — one about Cincinnati, demonstrating that folks are in the dark about what 5G is. And a fairly well-known one from Ripon, San Joaquin County, CA shows a better general awareness of wireless threat. Both show questionable thinking that shutting down or moving a tower will make them safer in general (of course, no one’s talking ecosystem).

Lots of juicy detail in the main text on these two stories for those who want it. The Cincinnati story is one of “new infrastructure hysteria,” illustrating how “5G” opposition creates misunderstanding, unnecessary stress and drama. It involves a tall, cylindrical “mystery tower” that “people fear” will soon be sending out “5G signals”.

There’s also a link to a page containing an RT America report, a great example of common confusion, errors and “5G” hype sprinkled with fact.

Ripon story interesting. Tower was officially said to have tested within federal standards. An independent expert said it exceeded standard. Sprint subsequently shut it down and agreed to relocate, guilty or not. The move was good PR and indicates carriers/government shy away from conflict and enforcement/litigation.

Ripon is important for two more reasons. The first is the usually overlooked threat of imminent disaster from long-term exposure and cumulative effect (see History of Official Awareness below). Most kids (also embryos and fetuses) are heavily exposed in our wireless world, wherever they are – one egregious crime of the technology.

The second reason is the bogus advice that ‘distance is your friend’ — either the argument for slow death over quicker death, or the futility of “reducing exposure.” Greater distance can even make things worse.

Reducing exposure comes in two forms – usually usage tips but also lower exposure limits. Despite calls for the latter, it holds mainly for heating. For non-heating effects, any telecom/WiFi antenna to which any living thing is exposed is too close.

Lower power could even increase the threat. With regard to usage tips, even ‘weak’ and short exposures accumulate over time.

Reliance on power level to determine safety is largely a convenience (there’s that fatal word again), not science. There are several below-heating factors complicating exposure limits, including pulsing details, frequencies, and bandwidth. So they keep it simple-y deadly.

A corollary is that folks claiming harm seem to think it’s for the first time. This is fatal error. People often regard symptom abatement when a threat (e.g., a smart meter) is removed as complete recovery. More fatal error. People have no way of knowing they weren’t ‘due’ anyway. By now, the reader should know why.

(Dear reader, based on what’s been shared here, see what you think of this short Verizon promo?)

An Idaho organization collects reports on the incidence and effects of what’s being called electrohypersensitivity, or EHS (the term is misleading, because no living thing is unaffected by the radiation, whether it manifests outwardly or not. “OES” – Overt ElectroSensitivity – is suggested).

An estimated 35% of the population suffers mild to moderate symptoms, with 3% to 10% “devastating, life-altering.” An estimated 100 million suffer ‘OES’ globally. As bad as this sensitivity is, it’s not nearly as bad, either in incidence or severity, as things could quickly and easily get.

You’ve heard of “pre-diabetes”? Call this “pre-terminal-disaster.”

A Big Question

Illness caused by wireless radiation is not new or unique to it. So how much of today’s environmental decline and rampant illness is attributable in whole or part to telecom/WiFi radiation (or even the whole radiation gamut to which we expose ourselves)? No one knows – or they’re not telling.

Thus even for EMF-sick users — who are much habituated, obsessed, and addicted — there’s little incentive to quit 3G/4G.

But quitting 3G/4G — at the retail level — is what must be done for survival, and that’s how to beat 5G — on the ground, anyway. Allowing 4G to continue, with ANY level of exposure, potentiates the noted imminent effects – eco-collapse and massive health crises.

It’s going to explode, folks.

Manifesto: Anyone who understands the fatal threat but still uses wireless technology – for whatever tiring, self-involved ‘excuse’ – or for the (false) promise of safe exposure limits and exposure reduction – is irradiating our source of life and fellow humans directly, with devices and by supporting the tower system ‘bathing’ everything 24/7. Such a user is an accessory to criminal behavior leading to ecocide, slow genocide and global enslavement in the technosphere.

If we don’t stop 3G/4G, welcome all 5G. It will mercifully hasten an end to the coming agony.

History of Official Awareness

Of the several historical documents acknowledging and describing the deleterious effects of artificial electromagnetic fields, the definitive one for wireless tech seems to be a 1981 World Health Organization (WHO) report.

The Summary is all one needs to understand that “they knew.” Excerpts and a link are provided. One section outlines the specific effects, a later section discusses exposure limits, saying the “conservative approach [euphemism for “safe”] would be to keep exposure limits close to natural background levels. However, this is not technically feasible [emphasis added]. A reasonable risk-benefit analysis has to be considered.”

Yes, technology (where war and big money lie) is more important than environment and health in some minds. “Reasonable risk-benefit”? It doesn’t say how many sick or dead per million is reasonable.

Cosmic background is 0.0000000001-0.000000000000001 µW/cm². FCC limit: 1000 µW/cm². Most conservative proposed “biologically based” limit: .003 – .006 µW/cm². Importantly, however, the cosmic variety is analog, not digital, polarized or modulated (pulsed), so it might need to be ZERO.

One question is if the 1973 Warsaw International Symposium or its WHO reviewers were aware of medical and scientific research since the 1950s detailing radiofrequency and microwave effects, and that the U.S. military and others conducted microwave stealth-weapon research beginning in the 1950s. This technology essentially became wireless telecom.

Examining Priorities

Repeating: The most dire threat is to the natural world. Hysteria forgets that no form or amount of human protection does so for Nature. Continued use immeasurably intensifies that threat.

Those who offer exposure “solutions” or “tips” seem to forget that no form or amount of human protection does so for Nature.

For example, a German study has shown that 75% of the biomass of insects has disappeared in otherwise protected areas in the last quarter century or so, coinciding closely with the introduction of 2G.

Emphasized is that threat to planet isn’t just about microwave radiation, but about the entire process involved in creating it. Somewhere along the line from resource acquisition (especially mining) to disposal, most advanced technology is chemically/energetically toxic to planet and biosphere. Wireless encompasses the entire line.

Moving to “wired” telecom/WiFi will not stop this assault, nor will “Sustainable Development” and “Clean Renewable Energy.”

Based on the overall protest, if one is not careful, one might conclude it’s thought that humans can do quite well without the planet.

Another major concern is disproportionate attention on local antennas, while a massive satellite program proceeds. This could come to a total to somewhere between 50,000 and 60,000.

Launch pollution is horrendous, with no concern for consequences, such as potential damage to the ozone layer, interference with earth’s energy field, or even decline of breathable free oxygen (very cool dynamic graph linked).

Much seems to be up in the air on the satellite program. Since launches proceed in haste, the plan seems to be shoot them up first, answer proprietary questions later, dismissing anyone else’s.

NASA, NOAA, meteorologists, (and radio astronomers) have issued valid concerns about MMW. FCC has arrogantly dismissed them, too. Might such arrogance indicate a certain level of para-corporate/governmental power from which this atrocity originates?

The best way to beat 5G, on the ground at least, is to quit wireless tech flat. And reduced demand ‘down here’, will greatly reduce incentive to invest ‘up there’.

It’s strongly suggested that an outcry on satellites – and drones, for that matter – should drown the ones on earthbound antennas.

Conclusion

Taking into account what physics and biophysics suggest about power levels and biosensitivity respectively; and what the WHO document (and other historical documents) report about effects and safe level; what’s known about long-term exposure and effects not yet apparent; and the fact that environment and humans have been exposed for almost 3 decades now, does anyone feel that 2G-4G wireless isn’t, of itself, a quite sufficient terminal nightmare?

Again, a race is on between ecosystem collapse and human health collapse. Allowing 4G to continue spells disaster. Both scenarios are at the ‘deniable’ stage now. At the ‘undeniable’ stage, almost certainly the slope will have become too steep and slippery.

Experience shows that science-based appeals, to governments at all levels; to national and international regulatory bodies, and so on is an exercise in futility.

It’s in the People’s hands now, at the commercial level. Either common sense prevails over addiction and selfishness, or we wait for the race to end and hope it’s not too late.

Give up wireless per se or give up the future – liberty first, then life. If not, welcome all 5G, especially the satellites. Surrender will mercifully shorten the coming agony.

Peter Tocci is a retired massage therapist and wellness consultant with an abiding interest in exploring ‘managed’ history, nefarious covert agendas, and mainstream/mainstream-alternative news-media dereliction, distortion and suppression. He can be reached at [email protected]

© 2020, Peter G Tocci
All Rights Reserved

Subscribe for natural health news to your inbox. Follow Natural Blaze on YouTube, Twitter and Facebook.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)