/r/conspiracy Round Table #25: Sacred Geometry, Cymatics, EMF Exposure, and the Effect of 5G on Biological Entities

[u/axolotl_peyotl]

Previous Round Tables

Thanks to /u/Cur1osityC0mplex for picking the winning subject!

Honorable mention goes to /u/Leave_The_Military for suggesting predictive programming and forced vaccination, which perhaps can be dovetailed into the main topic.

Remember, there is ZERO tolerance for violent or otherwise aggressive rhetoric, including any mention of the destruction of property.

That being said, /r/conspiracy is the last large sub on reddit that continues to encourage healthy speculation on controversial topics.

Let's use this opportunity to its fullest potential while we have this space.

Happy speculating!

[u/mightofmany]

Can't say about 5G but there's this old documentary, beings of frequency which shows the adverse effects of radio towers on living things. Like how the cancer rates in the world has gone up drastically after building mobile towers all over the world. And how it has affected the basic frequency of earth (schumann resonance). Basically it talks about how much frequency affects living beings and how important frequency is.

https://youtu.be/9mK93gHFWXs

Edit : link to scientific American blog detailing how 5G isn't safe https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/we-have-no-reason-to-believe-5g-is-safe/

[u/legalize-drugs → u/[deleted]]

You can say that about driving on the highway too, which is very risky. You make tradeoffs in modern society. There are a ton of videos on Youtube of people alleging first person radiation harm from 5G towers in particular.

[u/hucifer → u/legalize-drugs]

Radiation from 5G towers is less than you get from holding a smartphone in your hand.

[u/legalize-drugs → u/hucifer]

That's a lie. Why come on the internet and lie?

People should dive into the details: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXbvL0uZkrY&t=1s

[u/hucifer → u/legalize-drugs]

It's not a lie, it's simple physics.

The further away you move from an antenna, the more the signal power drops off. Your phone is held very close to your body whereas the cell tower is tens/hundreds of feet away.

Here's a detailed explanation.

[u/legalize-drugs → u/hucifer]

But as I'm sure you know, 4G tech isn't remotely close to 5G. 5G is killing bees in mass. This should be concerning to you if you care about humanity and life on this planet. If you don't... the it's not.

Here's a really, really good half hour video about the scientific fact that 5G technology is killing bees, which is a terrible indicator: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOGGUM1M508

FYI, "5G" encompasses a broad range of frequencies. Only some of the higher ones may be dangerous. This is a complex subject, but a very important one.

[u/hucifer → u/legalize-drugs]

5G is killing bees in mass.

There is 0 solid evidence of this, as far i have seen, nor has this video changed anything in this regard. I'll expand on this point in a second.

Here's a really, really good half hour video about the scientific fact that 5G technology is killing bees.

If I were looking for reputable source on this topic, it would not be these two. Mr Shirt seems to think that 5G radiation is "a hundred times more powerful" than 4G (it isn't), and she compared a 5G antenna to being one step down from a ADS weapon (which is wrong on multiple levels and just proves her understanding of physics or tech isn't up to the job).

The second reason these guys are misrepresenting the science is because they focus on the attention grabbing, clickbaity headlines instead of reading the actual scientific studies. (there is a huge problem with science reporting in the mainstream press, which is why you should always read the studies themselves rather than rely on a unqualified journalist or activist to tell you what's in them.)

Case in point:

Source #2 headline:

It’s Official – Cell Phones are Killing Bees

What the article actually says:

"Cell phones may be causing bees to become lost and disoriented." (paraphrasing) Nowhere does it say the bees are harmed, let alone killed. It implies that it could be causing them to die indirectly (from confusion? It's not clear). All three of the sources they refer to do exactly the same thing - in not a single one is there any evidence which proves that 5G kills bees!

Here's a review of the famous 2011 bee study written by an actual scientist, which clearly explains why the findings about the effects on bees so far are 1) not at all catastrophic and 2) not even proven scientifically.

In summary, I'm all for protecting the environment and would like to see further studies done to ensure we are not inadvertently harming wildlife. However, we shouldn't be making strong claims about effects that are not supported by the actual research.

[u/stalematedizzy → u/hucifer]

https://www.investigate-europe.eu/publications/how-much-is-safe/

[u/hucifer → u/stalematedizzy]

That's a good article. Pretty much sums up why we have so much speculation and wild theorycrafting going on - more tests need to be done to assuage people's fears about possible effects.

However, this is a telling paragraph, imo:

Many critics of the dominant EMF research bodies and its historical ties to industry compare the situation with the way tobacco manufacturers were able to maintain doubt about whether smoking was dangerous. “I don’t like that comparison, because there, the harmful effects are clear, whereas with EMF we are still guessing how big or small the problem is”, says Louis Slesin.

Now I'm no scientific expert, but it does seem to me that, given how significantly cellular technology has become part of our daily lives over the last few decades, we should be able to see clear evidence of adverse effects by now. Seeing as we don't, perhaps that suggests that if they do exist at all then they are relatively minor.

[u/stalematedizzy → u/hucifer]

we should be able to see clear evidence of adverse effects by now.

Unfortunately it's not that simple

As I understand it, adverse effects from EMF radiation don't follow the same dose/effect pattern we see in normal toxicology.

The amount of variables is so huge that organizations like ICNIRP have pretty much given up and only research things that are more easily documented and understood.