Why New Orleans got hit so hard with Corona while Houston has been relatively contained (to this point) - https://www.fox8live.com/2020/01/23/tech-companies-begin-installing-g-poles-new-orleans/ NYC - https://www.fiercewireless.com/5g/nyc-allows-5g-equipment-streetlamps Close proximity of people is a part of the equation, but external factors have contributed. It's a valid argument. 5g emits incredibly powerful waves that weaken human immunity and destroy cell communication - kind of like how sleeping with a cell phone next your head or always having it pressed against your head leads to higher rates of severe brain cancer. These are situations corona thrives in.
You think trillions of dollars worth of corporations would allow that to publicly happen? Heard of vested interests? This is the furthest it's "allowed" to go from a research standpoint - https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/new-studies-link-cell-phone-radiation-with-cancer/ Either way, consumers and residents of neighborhoods should be allowed to vote on whether or not 5g towers are installed near them. It's a fundamental right to health.
Corona is bad in cities that have highly dense populations and mass public transit. Mardi Gras was New Orleans' undoing. Let me guess, you're against social distancing, too, and want to open things up, even though the leading statement I made is absolute fact.
So as as an alternative to science, let's believe internet conspiracy theorists with no evidence at all. They don't have any vested interests, of course.
Wait a second - the science proves a clear correlation between cell phone frequencies , the kind of stuff you have coming out of 5g towers and human cell death. Do you sleep with a cell phone under your pillow? Would you recommend your kids do it? This has nothing to do with an internet conspiracy theories - if anything, it's like the tobacco companies claiming lung cancer and cigarettes were not correlated because no definitive studies were out (studies they spent decades suppressing).
Lot of big words, you're going to have to read them all. https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/whatwestudy/topics/cellphones/index.html One recent study was released by the National Toxicology Program (NTP), an agency run by the Department of Health and Human Services. In this widely quoted study about cell phone radio frequency radiation, scientists found that high exposure to 3G RFR led to some cases of cancerous heart tumors, brain tumors, and tumors in the adrenal glands of male rats. After 19 (rats) or 14 (mice) weeks of exposure, animals were examined for evidence of RFR‐associated genotoxicity using two different measures. Using the alkaline (pH > 13) comet assay, DNA damage was assessed in cells from three brain regions, liver cells, and peripheral blood leukocytes; The NTP studies found that high exposure to RFR (900 MHz) used by cell phones was associated with: Clear evidence of tumors in the hearts of male rats. The tumors were malignant schwannomas. Some evidence of tumors in the brains of male rats. The tumors were malignant gliomas. Some evidence of tumors in the adrenal glands of male rats. The tumors were benign, malignant, or complex combined pheochromocytoma. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/em.22343 NTP scientists found that RFR exposure was associated with an increase in DNA damage. Specifically, they found RFR exposure was linked with significant increases in DNA damage in: the frontal cortex of the brain in male mice, the blood cells of female mice, and the hippocampus of male rats.
Hmmmm...didn't see anything in that study regarding 5G cell towers except for the fact they haven't tested them yet. I did find this on the American Cancer web site in regard to the study you linked to: A recent large study by the US National Toxicology Program (NTP) exposed groups of lab rats and mice to RF energy over their entire bodies for about 9 hours a day, starting before birth and continuing for up to 2 years (which is the equivalent of about 70 years for humans, according to NTP scientists). The study found an increased risk of tumors called malignant schwannomas of the heart in male rats exposed to RF radiation, as well as possible increased risks of certain types of tumors in the brain and adrenal glands. But some aspects of this study make it hard to know just how these results might apply to RF exposure from cell phone towers in people. For example, there was no clear increased risk among female rats or among male or female mice in the study. The doses of RF radiation in the study were also generally higher than those people are exposed to when using cell phones (much less being near a cell phone tower). The male rats in the study exposed to RF waves also lived longer, on average, than the rats who were not exposed, for unclear reasons. Still, the results add evidence to the idea that the signals used in cell phone communication might potentially impact human health.
Let’s all pitch in for ol Senator and get him a new hat to protect from those pesky waves... I heard it protects from the cancer windmills cause, too.
Cover cell towers with disinfectant. That plus the sunlight will eradicate the bad mojo they emit. Boom, problem solved.
In a February 2 statement, Jeffrey Shuren, director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, wrote that despite the NTP study’s results, the combined evidence on RF exposure and human cancer—which by now amounts to hundreds of studies—has “given us confidence that the current safety limits for cell phone radiation remain acceptable for protecting the public health.” Chonock says that for him, evidence from the Ramazzini study does not alter that conclusion. “We continue to agree with the FDA statement,” he says. So apparently this study didn't do nuthin to change the FDA's decision about the cell towers. It's also weird that the study doesn't actually give a number of what is considered 'statistically higher', hell 0.1% is 'statistically higher' lol. Some other studies the article talks about shows lifespans of some of the RF'd mice actually increasing? Cool.
