The Truth About 5G

[astr0144]

I do not have very much Chemistry or Electrical background ..

but I am familar with parts here and there... and can be reminded and can recall some of it when I read some ref to it..
rather than being able to fully memorize or recite it on the spot.

Its amazing that Atoms were only suggested since the 1800s and that electrons were suggested only as far back as in 1897 by JJ Thomson.

From I think I recall all Atoms are said to have Electrons that go around or orbit the atoms nucleus...protons / neutrons.
and different atoms have variable ammount of photons/ neutrons /electrons.   and can gain or lose elections.. that can alter their state or what they become or combine with. and I assume  alter its mass / shells / energy levels, vibration etc .
and maybe also SPIN effect...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atom

Some images as a reminder how Atoms can be.... from just Electron to elements that have atoms with more or several electrons...   I think that maybe the electrons an atom has maybe the heavier or more dense that it is..

such as from one atom for the likes of Hydrogen that has just one  proton and just one  electron to the heavy type atoms  like as Uranium that can have 92   ... (A uranium atom has 92 protons and 92 electrons).

The electron is a subatomic particle, symbol e− orβ−
, whose electric charge is negative one elementary charge.[9] Electrons belong to the first generation of the lepton particle family,[10] and are generally thought to be elementary particles because they have no known components or substructure.[1] The electron has a mass that is approximately 1/1836 that of the proton.[11] Quantum mechanical properties of the electron include an intrinsic angular momentum (spin) of a half-integer value, expressed in units of the reduced Planck constant, ħ. Being fermions, no two electrons can occupy the same quantum state, in accordance with the Pauli exclusion principle.[10] Like all elementary particles, electrons exhibit properties of both particles and waves: they can collide with other particles and can be diffracted like light. The wave properties of electrons are easier to observe with experiments than those of other particles like neutrons and protons because electrons have a lower mass and hence a longer de Broglie wavelength for a given energy.

Electrons play an essential role in numerous physical phenomena, such as electricity, magnetism, chemistry and thermal conductivity, and they also participate in gravitational, electromagnetic and weak interactions.[12] Since an electron has charge, it has a surrounding electric field, and if that electron is moving relative to an observer, said observer will observe it to generate a magnetic field. Electromagnetic fields produced from other sources will affect the motion of an electron according to the Lorentz force law. Electrons radiate or absorb energy in the form of photons when they are accelerated. Laboratory instruments are capable of trapping individual electrons as well as electron plasma by the use of electromagnetic fields. Special telescopes can detect electron plasma in outer space. Electrons are involved in many applications such as electronics, welding, cathode ray tubes, electron microscopes, radiation therapy, lasers, gaseous ionization detectors and particle accelerators.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron

atomic charge. [ə′täm·ik ′chärj] (atomic physics) The electric charge of an ion, equal to the number of electrons the atom has gained or lost in its ionization multiplied by the charge on one electron.

which I assume determines if they are positively or negatively charged.  IF so...

In one one of your other articles you posted however.. from https://www.leedskalnin.com/

who seems to be saying that Electrons do not exist.
see  :  The Individual Magnet VS. The Electron.

  Millions of people all over the world are being fooled by the non-existing electrons.

I May have have misunderstood his comment..or not fully read the full details that may later explain diffeent.. but I thought that Id raise the point...

Is he just making some statement that later refers to how Atoms came about...or just referring that statement to in terms of magetism or in general ..

I just wanted to ask if you had any view on that... as they both would seem to contradict each other.

Although its the 1st time that I have been made aware of an alternative theory.

I want to add something basic about oxygen.

It is negatively charged.
hydrogen is positively charged.
thus they are attracted together to bond into H2O.

Carbon is positively charged so oxygen is attracted to bond into carbon dioxide.

[ArMaP]

Why are the clouds in the sky???

Because their density makes them float in the air or because the winds that caused them keep the water droplets or ice crystals from falling.

because of attraction and repulsion zones, when one overloads it causes a discharge we call lightening.

Or vertical winds inside cumulonimbus clouds create a kind of Van de Graaff generator that creates different polarities at the bottom and top of the clouds.
(How those attraction and repulsion zones appear?)

I used to teach welding, and we used huge amounts of argon, one week at the other end of the factory they were digging out foundations for a new heavy machine, the argon filled the foundations and nearly killed two workers, I have never forgot how different elements LAYER at different altitudes.

Different densities do that.

There are more things in heaven and earth than meets the eyes Armap.

That's true.

[ArMaP]

I want to add something basic about oxygen.

It is negatively charged.
hydrogen is positively charged.
thus they are attracted together to bond into H2O.

Carbon is positively charged so oxygen is attracted to bond into carbon dioxide.

If they are negatively or positively charged then they are ions, not atoms, so I suppose you mean something else, not "negatively charged". Could it be the "oxidation state"? That would work as you say, as Oxygen has an oxidation state of -2, Hydrogen +1 and Carbon +/- 4 and 2, according to my old periodic table.

Plants breath carbon dioxide, we breath oxygen.

With that I agree.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/iron-atom

If You read through the above link You may begin to understand in magnetic terms how oxygen is coupled with the four iron atoms that bond to make haemoglobin, and then try to consider what would occur if the oxygen magnetic direction was changed and how it would be repelled from iron.

What are you calling "magnetic direction"?

[ArMaP]

I contacted a Physical & Theoretical Chemistry professor that studies spin chemistry, the influence of spin in atoms and electrons in the way chemical reactions happen, and asked him two things:
a) Is it possible for a change in spin to prevent a chemical reaction from happening?
b) If the answer is yes, does it happen with Oxygen in haemoglobin?

His answer was:

Chemical transformations that proceed through short-lived intermediates known as radical pairs can sometimes be affected by weak electromagnetic fields in such a way that the yields of reaction products are changed. The 60 GHz electromagnetic fields used by 5G are too high in frequency and too low in intensity to affect radical pair reactions. The binding of oxygen to haemoglobin is not  a radical pair reaction. I would be astonished if it could reliably be shown that 5G had any effect on oxygen transport in the blood.

[Ellirium113]

[kevin]

https://cetv.one/programs/cal-cetv-ac1bb8

There is a legal document available at the end of that video to send to your local representative making them PERSONALLY responsible for any harm caused by 5g.

Kevin

[ArMaP]

https://cetv.one/programs/cal-cetv-ac1bb8

There is a legal document available at the end of that video to send to your local representative making them PERSONALLY responsible for any harm caused by 5g.

I'm not a lawyer, but I doubt that document has any legal value to make them responsible for any harm.

[kevin]

https://stop5g.cz/us/5g-60ghz-wireless-network-oxygen-absorption-unable-to-breath/?fbclid=IwAR3lvnLM01y0RjQWAdB8ESTUQIm7B9Ano_BeK_lzrN38rPqk5gRGK8CD13Y

Kevin

[kevin]

https://stop5g.cz/us/study-on-correlation-5g-coronavirus-more-evidence-of-the-fake-plannedemic/

Kevin

[ArMaP]

https://stop5g.cz/us/5g-60ghz-wireless-network-oxygen-absorption-unable-to-breath/?fbclid=IwAR3lvnLM01y0RjQWAdB8ESTUQIm7B9Ano_BeK_lzrN38rPqk5gRGK8CD13Y

Kevin

This is supposed to be a discussion forum, not a place where you drop links without making any comment about what's in that link, so please add some text explaining what we can find in the link.

PS: it's also possible that some people cannot access some sites, as corporate firewalls can block access to specific sites, so a description is always the best option.

[Ellirium113]

After a lot of digging I think Kevin does have a valid point that 60Ghz does cause varying degrees of harm to any biological entity that uses oxygen. The harm may not be directly from the radiation but the radiation may "trigger" pre-existing ailments. I do NOT think it is causing COVID-19 symptoms. I think it may be assisting the virus but not solely responsible for what is happening. On another note... This 60Ghz radiation has an extremely limited range. It is NOT beamed from satellites. Satellites mostly use Ku band frequencies. The atmosphere would absorb 60Ghz, therefore the only place it is going to be streamed from is a tower. 

[Sgt.Rocknroll]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4997488/

I know nothing about this subject, but after reading the above article, I assume that 60ghz has no effect on the human body.

From the article:

Conclusions

The findings from the present study suggest that exposure of HCE-T and SRA01/04 cells to millimeter-wavelength radiation at 60 GHz for 24 h has no significant effect on MN frequency, single-strand breaks in the DNA, or Hsp expression. In conclusion, the exposure of cells to millimeter-wavelength radiation at 60 GHz does not seem to have adverse effects on the genotoxicity or Hsp expression of cultured HCE-T and SRA01/04 cells using our specific experimental conditions, although the possible effects of other frequencies require further study.

Tell me if I'm wrong

[Ellirium113]

Tell me if I'm wrong

It seems you could go wither way much like the global warming shenanigans...

1. Introduction Wireless communications have been expanding globally at an
exponential rate. The latest imbedded version of mobile networking technology is called4G(fourth generation),and the next version(called 5G- fifth generation) is in the early implementation stage. Neither 4G nor 5G have been tested for safety in credible real-life scenarios. Alarmingly, many of the studies conducted in more benign environments show harmful effects from this radiation. The present article overviews the medical and biological studies that have been performed to date relative to effects from wireless radiation, and shows why these studies are deficient relative to safety. However, even in the absence of the missing real-life components such as toxic chemicals and biotoxins (which tend to exacerbate the adverse effects of the wireless radiation), the literature shows there is much valid reason for concern about potential adverse health effects from both 4G and 5G technology. The studies on wireless radiation health effects reported in the literature should be viewed as extremely conservative, substantially underestimating the adverse impacts of this new technology.

https://iervn.files.wordpress.com/2020/02/adverse-health-effects-of-5g-mobile-networking-technology-under-real-life-conditions.pdf

Like the old multiple choice questions... Farmer A) says.... Farmer B) says... Which is right?

[Sgt.Rocknroll]

Ellirium113 , what i meant by 'tell me I'm wrong' was my conclusion from reading the article that 60ghz had no effect on the human body. I would hope someone else would read the article and then 'tell me I'm wrong'.



Rock 

[ArMaP]

Tell me if I'm wrong

I think you're right, but they may not be, as that study used a radiation at 1 mW/cm², the limit antennas are subjected to. Cell phones reach a much higher value, close to 50 mW/cm² when used right next to the head.