Main Coronavirus / Covid-19 Discussion Thread

[BLOCK F]

Isn't one of the big dangers with 5g and 4g that they use the body as an antenna? If so, this could be extremely dangerous for people fighting epilepsy and might help me understand a few things which have been happening to me of recent.

I don't wish to be unduly harsh, Jeff, but this perhaps explains some of these odd posts you have been making.

 

[Jeff Minton's Corners]

I don't wish to be unduly harsh, Jeff, but this perhaps explains some of these odd posts you have been making.

Really? Why's that?

 

[WATFORD zero]

Did I see that Johnson has said that we will carry out 200,000 tests a day by the end of May ?

Because that worked so well last time. Good to see he's learning from experience

 

[Jeff Minton's Corners]

Three masts were due to be installed near Hove Park in Brighton, but the council have since said they would create "visual clutter" and damage the area's character,

Nothing about health

The council joins Glastonbury, Frome and Totnes as the authorities that have agreed so far to block the erection of the critical networking infrastructure until more conclusive evidence has been published about the safety of the next-gen network's emissions

 

[Springal]

The council joins Glastonbury, Frome and Totnes as the authorities that have agreed so far to block the erection of the critical networking infrastructure until more conclusive evidence has been published about the safety of the next-gen network's emissions

That is not true. The local council cannot block 5G on those grounds - that is up to central government.

The council’s assitant director for development and regeneration Max Woodford told the board that the council could not stop the spread of 5G from a planning perspective “even if it wanted to”.

He said that the council could object to specific sites based on design and location – for example, those close to a “heritage asset” or on a listed building – but otherwise it could not use planning policy to oppose 5G.

 

[Jeff Minton's Corners]

That is not true. The local council cannot block 5G on those grounds - that is up to central government.

The council’s assitant director for development and regeneration Max Woodford told the board that the council could not stop the spread of 5G from a planning perspective “even if it wanted to”.

He said that the council could object to specific sites based on design and location – for example, those close to a “heritage asset” or on a listed building – but otherwise it could not use planning policy to oppose 5G.

So is 5G safe then?

 

[Joey Jo Jo Jr. Shabadoo]

The council joins Glastonbury, Frome and Totnes as the authorities that have agreed so far to block the erection of the critical networking infrastructure until more conclusive evidence has been published about the safety of the next-gen network's emissions

If you actually read further and checked the other links there is no evidence to support the idea that B&H council blocked them for health reasons. The link you provided states

Three masts were due to be installed near Hove Park in Brighton, but the council have since said they would create "visual clutter" and damage the area's character, according to The Argus.

The Argus story linked (https://www.theargus.co.uk/news/17966374.win-anti-5g-group-mast-plans-rejected/) again only mentions them being blocked on grounds of how they look. The only people to mention health concerns on either link are the campaigners who have jumped to the conclusion the council have banned them after their complaints as this backs up their narrative.

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

This link says otherwise:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.it...growing-list-of-local-authorities-banning?amp

Please quote from that link where it says Brighton council barred the masts for health reasons. Thanks.

 

[Springal]

So is 5G safe then?

It's as safe as the microwave in your kitchen, the analogue TV you used to have, the radio clock on your wall, or the WiFi router, or 4G mobile phone.

These arguments come up every time something new comes along, it is nothing new. You're aware part of 5G uses the old analogue TV signals right? Did you have these same concerns in the 1990s?

You say you have had some health issues recently - but if there is no 5G in Brighton how can that be?

Plenty of examples of countries with significant Coronavirus deaths and infections with no 5G deployment. And in reverse examples of countries with widespread 5G deployments and minimal coronavirus deaths / infections.

 

[Yoda]

So is 5G safe then?

Yes, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C137OyVrzVA

 

[Jeff Minton's Corners]

It's as safe as the microwave in your kitchen, the analogue TV you used to have, the radio clock on your wall, or the WiFi router, or 4G mobile phone.

These arguments come up every time something new comes along, it is nothing new. You're aware part of 5G uses the old analogue TV signals right? Did you have these same concerns in the 1990s?

You say you have had some health issues recently - but if there is no 5G in Brighton how can that be?

Plenty of examples with significant Coronavirus deaths and infections with no 5G. And in reverse examples of countries with widespread 5G deployments and minimal coronavirus deaths / infections.

Since EE installed 4G last year, my health has been like never before. I'm not at all sure it began because of its installment, but it's made me wonder. This condition I have kicked off about 3 months after I started using a smartphone 4 years ago, so I do wonder if there's a link?

 

[oldboyroy]

Less tests yesterday yet more new infections over 6000....not good!

 

[Guinness Boy]

Since EE installed 4G last year, my health has been like never before. I'm not at all sure it began because of its installment, but it's made me wonder. This condition I have kicked off about 3 months after I started using a smartphone 4 years ago, so I do wonder if there's a link?

There isn't. Now you can stop worrying.

 

[Deportivo Seagull]

Isn't one of the big dangers with 5g and 4g that they use the body as an antenna? If so, this could be extremely dangerous for people fighting epilepsy and might help me understand a few things which have been happening to me of recent.

Where did you get that from? The body as antenna is a new one on me!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Swansman]

So is 5G safe then?

Of course not.

In itself - perhaps not harmful to humans. The massive telecom lobby and their army of corrupt scientists is saying its no problem, so if you trust them - its no problem.

How more sensitive creatures respond is a different question.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225679194_Mobile_phone-induced_honeybee_worker_piping

Even if it hypothetically dont harm humans directly, a mass death of insects would be pretty ****ing bad for us humans in the long run as well.

Mass death of insects is already happening:
https://www.euronews.com/2019/10/31/decline-of-insects-in-germany-is-frightening-scientists-warn

Of course most people wont link it to wireless technology etc, since it believing that a technology you use a lot is also dangerous would creative cognitive dissonance, so its much easier to listen to the telecom lobby.

If we return to humans, there's a massive increase in mental health issues, especially with the introduction of social media.



You have self-harm in young girls, and lots of young boys giving up social life, school etc just to sit in front of screens 24/7.

5G is going to increase the capability of creating more addicting digital bullshit and to stay online wherever you go and whatever you do.

Of course, people are not going to admit that digital technology has anything to do with the increase of mental health issues, since that would a) mean that the technology they are using themselves have negative effect on mental health and b) that it was a pretty bad idea forcefeeding your two year old with an Ipad. People would never accept that, because both admitting that you are wrong and dealing with that same dissonance as mentioned before is just too much, and its easier and feels better just to trust the telecom business.

5G is not harmless.

 

[Titanic]

Less tests yesterday yet more new infections over 6000....not good!

Tests are readily available to a very wide range of people now. There is clearly plenty of spare capacity. I am not sure what the government can do to increase the number of tests if the medics and people in general don't request the tests.

As the current tests are only useful to tell you if you presently are infected with the virus, random compulsory testing seems unlikely to be useful.

Seems like what we really need is the test to show if you have had it... and that doesn't seem to exist??

 

[vegster]

I'm assuming the unnecessary journeys rule is being waived then now …....Jenrick: If you can buy a newspaper...
Robert Jenrick explains that today he will be taking questions from regional media.
"The local press are under significant financial pressure," he says and urges "everyone who can" to buy a newspaper.

 

[The Clamp]

Of course not.

In itself - perhaps not harmful to humans. The massive telecom lobby and their army of corrupt scientists is saying its no problem, so if you trust them - its no problem.

How more sensitive creatures respond is a different question.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225679194_Mobile_phone-induced_honeybee_worker_piping

Even if it hypothetically dont harm humans directly, a mass death of insects would be pretty ****ing bad for us humans in the long run as well.

Mass death of insects is already happening:
https://www.euronews.com/2019/10/31/decline-of-insects-in-germany-is-frightening-scientists-warn
Isn’t
Of course most people wont link it to wireless technology etc, since it believing that a technology you use a lot is also dangerous would creative cognitive dissonance, so its much easier to listen to the telecom lobby.

If we return to humans, there's a massive increase in mental health issues, especially with the introduction of social media.

View attachment 123198

You have self-harm in young girls, and lots of young boys giving up social life, school etc just to sit in front of screens 24/7.

5G is going to increase the capability of creating more addicting digital bullshit and to stay online wherever you go and whatever you do.

Of course, people are not going to admit that digital technology has anything to do with the increase of mental health issues, since that would a) mean that the technology they are using themselves have negative effect on mental health and b) that it was a pretty bad idea forcefeeding your two year old with an Ipad. People would never accept that, because both admitting that you are wrong and dealing with that same dissonance as mentioned before is just too much, and its easier and feels better just to trust the telecom business.

5G is not harmless.

I happen to agree that excessive use of social media and smartphones can contributes to poor mental health, mainly by exacerbating some existing conditions that are triggered by the kind of anxiety and disconnect that these mediums can induce.

However, please don’t post up random graphs that you have little or no understanding of to back up your claims.
A graph showing institution admissions in one very particular group of people (females who have self harmed but not fatally within a fourteen year age bracket) is practically useless for analysis, especially the kind of analysis your assertion would require in order to support it.

 

[Jeff Minton's Corners]

Where did you get that from? The body as antenna is a new one on me!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Yeah, I watched a video of a Russian scientist explaining the dangers of 5G. He mentioned something about how 5G can send information through your brain. It won't work out in the countryside because it requires humans close by. I'm no expert on this so this could and hopefully not be true.

 

[Swansman]

However, please don’t post up random graphs that you have little or no understanding of to back up your claims.
A graph showing institution admissions in one very particular group of people (females who have self harmed but not fatally within a fourteen year age bracket) is practically useless for analysis, especially the kind of analysis your assertion would require in order to support it.

I disagree.