What Do YOU Mean When You Say “5G”?

Revised from 11/7/19

By Peter Tocci

Introduction

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.

Two Summaries have been published separately for fast-trackers. A Bullet Summary for those who’d rather pick and choose detail, and a Text Summary, for those who want a more general sweep. Both provide means for quickly accessing areas of particular interest. But reading the full text is strongly encouraged. A small number of revisions might not appear in the Summaries.

“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 electrical 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.

By embracing scientific fraud, the FCC very poorly regulates telecom/WiFi RF interference in biosystems. 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 isn’t “5G,” but wireless ‘techn-all-the-G’s’, not to mention the “Stop 5G!” campaign itself. 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”.

Particulars/Warnings

Without any help from “5G” opposers, the “next generation” wireless is very dangerous — all by itself — as is each previous G by itself. But due to hysteria (illogic, inaccuracies and omissions), most opposition is also dangerous by itself.

Not much has changed since this PC Mag article was published in 1/2019. And that doesn’t cover all critical aspects.

Confusion begins right off the bat with the term “5G.” It’s being flung carelessly about, in articles, protests, news reports, corporate bulletins, by politicians – even by scientists, and in submissions and comments to official bodies.

Almost always implied when “5G” is uttered – especially, “Stop 5G!” or “5G crisis” – is use of the ‘extremely high frequency’ (EHF) range of microwave radiation often called “millimeter wave” (MMW). This causes misunderstanding and potential danger.

Overall, EHF is specified as 30 GHz to 300 GHz, and wavelength 10 millimeters to 1mm respectively. Only a small portion of that range is used in high-frequency 5G operation, and is defined in the US by the FCC as 24 GHz to 90 GHz.

As explained below in 5G Rollouts, for accuracy one must at least distinguish between 1) ‘small-cell’ infrastructure and 5G/small cells per se; 2) between 5G infrastructure and 5G high-frequency radiation; 3) between antennas and their enclosures, and **4) between high frequency 5G and mid-/low-band 5G, the signaling long used for 2G-4G iterations.

New terms are offered here for consistency and for clarifying hysteria-induced misunderstanding and confusion: “5G millimeter wave” (5Gmmw) for high frequency; “5G mid-/low-band” (5Gmlb) for traditional 2G-4G frequencies being called 5G (more below). “Enclosure” is a housing for antennas (sending/receiving elements). A “fixture” is a mounted enclosure.

One might see warnings such as: 1) “5G small cells are not small”; 2) the installations can be “hundreds of pounds, right in your front yard”; and 3) antennas will be densely located — “every few homes.”

“Small cell” is regularly misused, even by the Industry. Accurately speaking, a cell is not an antenna, but the effective area/range of an antenna’s radiation. 5Gmmw has a short range, which decreases with higher frequency. Thus, its cell is comparatively small.

Also, MMW can easily be blocked, even by even leaves and heavy rain, which deficiency increases with increasing frequency. Both drawbacks can be improved with a substantial power boost, but this also becomes a problem with energy cost and exposure levels, and so is not under consideration. Energy consumption is a major concern for the industry, which is feverishly at work to solve it.

Short range and easy ‘blockability’ require more fixture locations, which hysteria frets about, rarely noting the distinction that 5Gmlb makes a large cell and is not blocked. Call it nitpicking if you will, but why not be accurate instead of creating misconception or ‘making cases’?

“FLD” is for fixture location density, and common hysteria about how it will be implemented are in serious question (more later).

One interesting discovery came up while working on this article: Small cells are small but not new, and were not developed for 5G. Small cells have long been deployed in 3G and 4G networks and have become an industry choice to deliver MMW and enable better MLB performance if needed.

Traditionally, there have been three types of small cells (more now), identified as they should be by antenna range. Some early deployments were in the US in 2007 and in the UK and Europe in 2009. “According to Small Cell Forum (who would have thought?), 18 million small cells had been deployed globally for various applications by the end of 2016.”

But haven’t we been led in a virtually deliberate way from the outset, and even continue to be, to think that 5G is small cells/MMW? Saying “5G” to indicate only these two things, or not specifying what you mean, is irresponsible, inaccurate, and misleading, as we’ll see.

A 10/8/19 bulletin from Project Censored was forwarded to me via an email group that received it from Joel M. Moskowitz, PhD, director of the Center for Family and Community Health at UC Berkeley. A typically careless statement consisting of an error and a question mark says, “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…” As a generalization, this is either shameful unawareness of the current scenario or untruth/propaganda, as we’ll also see.

5G opposition also asserts that the skin’s (spiral) sweat ducts act as “receiving antennas.” This refers to an Israeli study, “The human skin as a sub-THz receiver – Does 5G pose a danger to it or not?”

Frequency ranges don’t transition abruptly, but sub-THz usually means a range of 300 GHz down to 90, which is the upper end of FCC 5Gmmw.

The study Abstract uses two unquantified terms, “sub-terahertz band” and “sub-THz region.” I think “region” is more accurate, meaning the range, or “spectrum” as understood in tech circles. “Band” is used to designate a single frequency, but also is an interval between a lower and upper frequency. For instance, a transmission between 40 and 50 MHz is a 10 MHz band (width).

Study frequencies were 75 GHz to 110 GHz. No wireless provider I’m aware of (in the US) has announced a mobile 5Gmmw service anywhere near 75 GHz. There was no explanation in the Abstract why announced commercial frequencies were not used.

Power-level exposure limits at the user end are expressed in watts per area, usually square meter or square centimeter. No such levels are provided for the targets used, but maybe that’s not relevant in this case.

The highest commercial frequency I could find being tested is in the UK (though also approved for US), is 60 GHz. At least one rural test area is reportedly using a 60 GHz “wireless mesh” (interior network of interacting antennas) for ‘super WiFi.’ Not for mobile and still not up to 75 GHz.

Interesting is that other UK rural testbeds are running unused TV bands called “TV white space” — the old VHF to UHF frequencies, mostly MHz bands. This is 5G, mind you.

However, bandwidths 71 to 76 GHz, 81 to 86 GHz and 92 to 95 GHz are available in the US for “high-density” (high power) “fixed wireless access” services: “…the operation of wireless communication devices or systems used to connect two fixed locations (e.g., building to building or tower to building) with a radio or other wireless link…”, which would have to be line-of-sight and are not for mobile.

As noted, the higher the frequency, the greater are transmission challenges, so high-density bands would be very tight beams, with minimal to no obstacles and no human exposure (watch out, pigeons). Due to excess electricity consumption, MMW signals probably won’t be power boosted sufficiently to penetrate buildings, but be brought in via cable from an external receiver, then be distributed via a wireless network.

Study conclusion: “We are raising a warning flag against the unrestricted use of sub-THz technologies for communication, before the possible consequences for public health are explored.” This seems sane enough – within the insane context called wireless telecom/WiFi. See Wireless Technology: The Plain Physics & Biophysics (needs updating).

But “unrestricted” at least suggests the impossible, that restrictions could prevent all trouble. Note also “possible consequences.” This can’t be valid for harm in general, which is a fact long understood – almost three decades before 2G came out (see History of Official Awareness).

When this warning is given, we don’t hear that the “warning flag” would apply conceptually to all G’s; presumes there is a safe dose of MLB somewhere; and, as usual, neglects the ecosystem. But — enough for protesters to say sweat ducts are “5G” antennas? Making cases? I confess I fell for this one in my early research on wireless. A more likely, but still speculative, concern is discussed in Reports of “5G” Harm.

Another common warning, “5G is a weapon,” usually refers to the military’s Active Denial System, a “non-lethal” microwave device for dispersing crowds by heating the skin. It’s a high density (power) millimeter wave at 95 GHz – hardly commercial 5Gmmw.

MMW is no more weapon than 2G-4G. Wireless telecom, beginning with 2G, is adapted stealth-weapon technology which uses very low power. The entire wireless system, not just “5G”, is a potential weapon on various levels (more below).

Also, high-enough density microwave — at a ‘lowly’ 2.5 GHz, for example — will cook you like a microwave oven (2.45 GHz). That is, through and through, unlike ADS. At commercial power levels, 5Gmmw will not.

A powerful Air Force radar system called Pave Paws at three US locations will cook you in a nanosecond at 420 to 450 MHz. Installations have two large circular arrays of antenna elements, each array radiating 580 kilowatts (!) It can detect a basketball at 12 miles, and small planes caught in the beam have blown up. So don’t swallow the rhetoric about telecom MMW weaponry.

I was unable to find a range of ADS power output, but did find a military “directed energy” study calling out 75 milliwatts per square centimeter (75 mW/cm2) at 94 GHz (see Reports of Harm). ADS power is adjustable, however, enough to be used as a lethal weapon. But – ‘making cases’ again?

Microwave ovens operate from 600 to 1200 watts. By comparison, maximum output of traditional cell towers is 10 watts – phones, 2 watts. The higher frequency/shorter wavelength was chosen for ADS to limit penetration depth. Not saying that’s a good thing, not to mention it’s misleading (see Reports of Harm).

Finding a wattage output figure for new, 5G MLB or MMW antennas proved fruitlessly time consuming (anyone?), but I did find a study establishing a Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) for a particular 5Gmmw antenna design for 28 and 38 GHz.

SAR is an expression of how much radiation from a phone is absorbed over time by the body. It’s expressed in watts per kilogram (W/kg). Values were “…0.37 and 1.34 W/kg [up to] 2 W/kg. Current FCC SAR standard is 1.6W/kg. This is given just for a sense of comparison, because SAR is useless for determining the amount of radiofrequency (RF) absorption in biosystems during typical conditions of use. See Safety Testing below.

Many opposers suggest that 3G/4G/WiFi can be made reasonably safe. Others understand that impossibility, but seem too habituated and addicted to do the right thing. As noted in the Introduction, techno-humans are adept at sickening and killing themselves, poisoning the kids, and destroying environment for money, convenience and entertainment.

Safety Testing

“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. No such claims provide the facts.

That the FCC and Industry openly admit this is sometimes tossed into the pot of “5G” terror, whereas, the real terror is wireless tech per se. Inherent in this ploy is the erroneous implication that 2G-4G were tested (a yes and no proposition).

In 1996, FCC adopted the standard identified as ANSI/IEEE C95.1-1992. There were ‘window dressings’ in 2004, 2005, and 2010, and, like the original, covered frequencies from 3 KHz to 300 GHz, in which range MMW is included. The latest is ANSI/IEEE C95.1-2019. (Overall ‘microwave’ is considered to be 300 MHz (.3 GHz) to 300 GHz.

The Commission’s assertion that “5G” poses no risk and needs no testing is based on the fraudulent IEEE ‘testing’ it adopted in 1996 to run interference for 3G. That is, 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: Could Opposition to 5G (per se) Be Ill Advised? Exposure limits worldwide are based on the ANSI/IEEE C95.1 fraud.

Peer reviewed independent science, as early as the 1950s and still going, demonstrating myriad effects at non-heating levels, brings the integrity of C95.1-1992 through 2019 into question. Was *proper* testing ever done? Instead of clarifying this, hysteria makes the blanket claim. Making cases.

The FCC discredits or merely dismisses existing science and such questions: ‘No convincing evidence exists, but we’re keeping an eye on it.’ The blatant criminality of the FCC with respect to wireless/EMF is clearly demonstrated by older historical documents (see History of Official Awareness below).

Hysteria often resorts to another ‘ploy on words’ pertaining to 2G-4G, and used even by scientists, as seen near the end of this report: “The current FCC exposure limits are outdated.” The word implies that standards were at one time valid or sufficient, when they were never any such thing, for any living thing.

“Outdated” always comes with the even more irresponsible suggestion that “safe”, “safer”, or “biologically based” exposure limits are needed, when no such thing has been demonstrated or can exist. Despite this, new limits are proposed and stubbornly called for — in spite of the consensus that no safe level has even been published for fetuses.

Apparently, that’s not of sufficient concern to call for “Stop Wireless Technology!” instead of “Stop 5G!” We’ll figure that fetus part out later.

For details on the original ‘safety’ testing – scientific fraud, that is, on which power-level exposure limits worldwide are based – see Sections Cell Phone Output and Exposure Limits for Users in the article Wireless Technology: Ultra Convenient. Endlessly Entertaining. Criminally Instigated. Terminally Pathological.

5G Rollouts

Major emphasis from the outset in mainstream opposition has been on millions of new, closely spaced installations nationwide, up and down ‘Your Street USA,’ due to the short range and easy block-ability of MMW. But things seem to be developing differently for now, as we’ll see. As noted, even the Industry hasn’t settled on final arrangements (pun intended).

The following synthesis is the result of wading through too many articles to give credit to any one. Some sources tell varying stories about the same thing, and even disagree with each other considerably.

So here goes: A new “5G NR” international wireless standard has been issued, specifying two frequency ranges: 5G NR bands FR1 & 5G NR bands FR2. Number one is for current bands below 6 GHz (5Gmlb), such as 600MHz, 1900MHz, and 2.5GHz; 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 entails several new technologies needing only a mention at this point, including especially “MIMO” antennas for small cells and ‘beamforming’ (more later).

However, 5G NR FR1 can use the same towers as 4G, but will need 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 for deployments using the unlicensed, Citizens Broadband Radio Service 3.5 GHz band, and all key players really want in. This is MLB called 5G, mind you.

Things get a bit stickier when it comes to needing a new phone or not. 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, and here’s an example with Samsung’s $1300 5G Galaxy S10 being tested in Chicago (good shot of a 5Gmmw “node” here).

The “hold off” sentiment is conveyed also in this article. What it amounts to at this writing is that 5Gmmw is virtually at a “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 for “5G” hysteria, or maybe just the effect it’s having, is to create a threat on the ground to draw resistance and to distract attention from the satellite program, a much more sinister development (see Examining Priorities below).

The disconnect about dangers brings up a story that drew wide attention at the time, especially in the UK, and one that seems to present a puzzle. It’s about the 6/26 2019 Glastonbury Festival in Pilton, Somerset County, England. It’s not strictly a “rollout” story, more a system demo/test, but a decision was announced about installing “5G” network towers on festival grounds,

Despite the fact that “Glastonbury officials [said] that move will allow festival attendees to access the Internet on their smartphones at faster speeds,” the announcement created a huge protest. In this story, 2G, 3G, 4G, 5G are mentioned, but “5G” is not specified as MLB or MMW — as anything, in other words. Is this hysteria-induced negligence?

The protest article is laced with dubious statements, notably the wearingly repeated one that “5G” constitutes a “massive experiment on all species”. Even some much-admired professional associates/contacts promote this irresponsible notion. I must respectfully, but strongly, disagree, because the erroneous implication is that 2G-4G were/are not an experiment. Paradoxically, they were/are and were/are not experiments. Distinctions must be made (more below).

Confusion again: “While obviously not many festival-goers are likely to have a ‘5G’ phone by June, EE will be showing off what the network can do at its stand.” Once again, unspecified 5G. So, was the Glastonbury demo about 5Gmmw or 5Gmlb? Whatever, tickets sold out in less than 45 minutes.

The grand protest by potential attendees was both tragic and macabrely amusing: They were prepared to irradiate themselves constantly in huge numbers (up to 200,000 fans in attendance potentially using phones/smartphones), but fretted over “5G”, not even knowing it could have been their beloved 4G poison…reborn. Phone radiation is often overlooked.

Similarly, reports on the 9/21/19 protest in Bern, Switzerland clearly reflect the confusion and negligent use of “5G.” This Agence France-Presse story says, “By early July, 334 antennae (sic) stations for 5G were operational across the country, authorities have told AFP.” Boy, watch out for authorities.

Antenna location and density info aren’t revealed, but it could be urban or ‘near-urban.’ The number doesn’t seem to correspond to FLD in neighborhoods, but who knows, thanks to incomplete reporting (and perhaps misled authorities). The news reader is therefore in the dark about exactly what’s going on, but probably assumes it’s MMW. Due to… “5G” hysteria?

It’s crucial to keep in mind that all deleterious effects of EMF/RF were well understood by the wider scientific community, the UN/WHO, militaries and governments by the mid-1970s (but beginning much earlier). What was known then was later hushed in the runup to digital mobile telecom in 1991-2.

The decision was callously made long ago to put life/people at risk to have the technology (see History of Official Awareness below). Thus, the yes/no “experiment” is not whether there will be harm from telecom/WiFi microwave, but the time window in which ongoing exposure damage — across all frequencies and regardless of power level — will manifest in a cascade of widespread intractable illness.

Not to worry, though, that fate might be avoided: Ecosystem collapse could bring the house down beforehand. You might hear/see, “The 5G race is on,” meaning market competition. The race of note, though, is between ecosystem collapse and human-health collapse.

In any case, here’s some of what’s happening in ‘real’ life. The two 5G FR setups can be illustrated by looking at what just three carriers are doing: T-Mobile, Sprint and Verizon. Carriers are choosing service areas for FR1, FR2 very carefully.

T-Mobile has announced a nationwide 5Gmlb rollout at 600 MHz and an undisclosed application of “28 and 39” (see video), which means some 5Gmmw, almost certainly in cities.

Sprint’s plans are to run “LTE and 5G” simultaneously in the 2.5 GHz band using “massive” MIMO (more below). Which means it’s not bothering with MMW at all (although plans a merger with T-Mobile, who is).

Mentioned earlier, Verizon’s “5G Ultra Wideband” (UWB) called “Verizon 5G Home Internet” (5Gmmw) is being run in Houston, Indianapolis, LA and Sacramento. But Verizon “…will also deploy 5G technology on lower frequency bands including 700 MHz-2500 MHz frequency range to cover wide area” (5Gmlb), doesn’t say where.

Sacramento seems to be the most enthusiastic victim host for wireless. Here’s a gushing PR piece about a Verizon UWB installation at one Sacramento citizen’s home, with City officials attending. It features an external receiver. Sacramento also prides itself on opening the floodgates for “Smart City” status (more later).

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

The forgoing rollouts are all being called 5G. As noted earlier, drawing most early 5G protest was, and is, the expected need for “18 million new” closely spaced fixtures nationwide. Given the above information on FR1 rollouts, there seems to be serious question about this.

A report on new Qualcomm smartphone antennas supports the foregoing. It covers four bands between 26.5GHz and 40 GHz, but also 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… The QPM56xx RF module family works with the Snapdragon X50 modem to work in the sub-6GHz bands…” (5Gmlb, emphasis added).

One puzzle: It’s widely held that the Internet of Things (IoT) as specific to 5Gmmw, but two Israeli Qualcomm techs seem to disagree, saying 4G can handle IoT. Propaganda? Careless chatter? Who knows. It’s safe to assume, however, they refer to the new 4G/5Gmlb.

Some opposers say MMW isn’t needed for car-to-car communication. What, then – 4G is? Hysteria mentality? And the attempted widespread deployment of smart utility meters on 4G WiFi supports what the Qualcomm techs say. 5Gmlb makes sense for IoT, because if IoT’s exclusive to MMW, and if that won’t be everywhere (on the ground), it trashes the concept.

I didn’t bother spending the rest of my life trying to find if/where FLD installations are occurring. Anyone who’s seen close installations in any area, please share details in Comments.

Now, if FLD is occurring outside major cities or populous areas, question arises about the purpose. One, possibility of course, is optimized 5Gmlb performance, as in the past, although this shouldn’t often be necessary, due to the large cell and penetration of MLB.

In the entrained, FLD frame of mind, I was suspicious in Wireless Technology: … (The 5G Locomotive section) of Verizon CEO Lowell McAdams’ statement in a 5/15/18 CNBC interview that antennas in your face is “…one of the myths about 5G…” I’d say he was being coy, implying MLB, and being careful not to depict 5G accurately, since 5Gmmw must have increased FLD, while 5Gmlb, not for the most part.

McAdam touted 5Gmmw for smart cities, driverless cars and virtual reality, all good reasons for planetary and health destruction. But remember, all the “Smart” out there now is WiFi, for which there is no 5Gmmw (although Verizon’s UWB Home Internet might qualify). “Smart” is the wireless tech word for monumentally stupid — and for total surveillance and centralized coordination and control of daily life. See link just below: The Real Reason for the Wireless “Season?”

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. If MMW gets a toe-hold and no one’s coming up provably sick, and people like it, it could weaken opposition and open floodgates.

And there’s the question of how the many thousands of planned satellites (looking now like well more than 50,000) fit into the overall picture. Obviously, coverage comes immediately to mind, such as saturation in outlying areas? For IoT? One issue for satellites, though, is increased delay time (“latency”) due to distance. There could be a ‘division of labor’ among various services, such as ground for mobile and sats for entertainment.

(And if you’re curious to see a total-surveillance and human-control system rapidly gestating in the name of “Smart City,” public safety/benefits etc. in Sacramento, follow the the links on the Smart-City page under “Public-Private Partnership” – especially “public safety real-time response system” – and see “Projects in Progress”. See also The Real Reason for the Wireless “Season?” in Wireless Technology: …

Note the promise of the sySTEMic, nationwide programming to make kids into corporate plug-ins or hitech drones: “STEM education emphasizes the value of a rigorous, interdisciplinary approach to education, allowing students to compete and succeed in a modern global marketplace.” How many dubious assumptions, claims and buzzwords in that PR flak?

STEM promises a wondrous, prosperous, techno-shiny future. It exerts direct impact — to advantage or disaster. In the developed world, the former hasn’t begun to “justify” the sum total of the latter. Speaking of which, once a city is immersed in “smart” tech, it’s likely to become a special target of hackers. Imagine the potential chaos.)

Reports of Harm

There have been various reports of adverse effects when “5G” is turned on, almost certainly implying 5Gmmw. This would seem unlikely, virtually impossible, outside cities/populous areas.

Apparently, people see new infrastructure dense or not, or/and feel effects, and apparently assume MMW is in use, as we saw in the Bern example.

“5G” harm stories consistently report symptoms existing before anyone even heard of 5G. Long before. All reported harms I’ve seen are classic 2G-4G symptoms, and mostly of the ‘Electrohypersensitivity’ type (“EHS,” a misnomer, see Idaho story near end of this section).

Radiation/RF-level meters have been used to support claims. But RF meters don’t display frequencies, only power level within a range of frequencies. Ordinary meters, costing from around $120 to $400, top out at 8 GHz. 3G/4G mobile frequencies range from 600 megahertz to 2.5 GHz in the US, with 3.5 GHz coming. WiFi is 2.4 and 5 GHz. Recall, FCC defines 5Gmmw as 24 GHz to 90 GHz. Thus, current meters can’t read MMW.

A true 5G phone would identify MMW (and MLB at this point). Professional (very expensive) meters cover low and high ranges into the upper GHz (I found one 10 MHz to 220 GHz), but also don’t display frequencies, so all frequencies present still couldn’t be identified.

Long-term exposure, perhaps having cumulative effect, is playing into “5G” harm. Thus, if there is harm when “5G” is turned on, what’s shown by existing meters? Not understood by victims and reporters? 4G, one way or another. Hysteria-induced confusion.

One hawker claims its meter can read “5G” based on the fact that two new MLB frequencies are used for 5G (mlb). Any old meter does this. This ruse brought to you by “5G” hysteria.

Meters are interesting, but not really helpful for most people. Radiation is everywhere; no amount of exposure is safe; most bio-effects below heating are power-independent; and effects may be cumulative (see History of Official Awareness below).

A meter might come in handy for someone with outward symptoms and using some form of shielding, for example. It could be seen at what level symptoms abate – which doesn’t mean harm stops. Most likely, it’s palliation, but it can still save much grief and help people function.

We can come to cautious conclusion about the frequency present by type of effect. Known effects of MMW (a limited volume of science, though growing) differ from MLB effects long reported in the voluminous dismissed science.

MMW potentially threatens skin and eyes, but more effects are being reported, although sometimes ‘stretched.’ For example, a paper cited (in an article by a prominent scientist who must remain anonymous) to show that 5Gmmw impacts “heart rate variability” was a military directed-energy study (see Author Information) using 94 GHz at 75 milliwatts per square centimeter (75 mW/cm2). That’s essentially the “ADS” system noted earlier.

Not only is 75 mW 75 times the main FCC limit (limits vary with frequency), but 94 is a frequency higher than the upper limit of 5Gmmw defined by the FCC, and certainly wouldn’t be used in mobile applications. Making cases?

It’s not that MMW can’t create 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” (see section 5G is qualitatively and quantitatively different from 4G)

Antenna technology called MIMO (pron. my-mo) has been around for about a decade now for MLB. The more recent development is “massive” MIMO, meaning many antenna elements in one enclosure for aiming (and receiving) beams of radiation. It looks to be destined for both FR1 and FR2 (a virtual necessity for MMW). As noted, Sprint will use this at for 5G at 3.5 GHz.

One question is whether massive MIMO antenna arrays themselves pose an additional threat. It’s possible they have an effect different from traditional antennas. Also, it seems one could get caught in a ‘crossfire’ of many focused beams, although being immersed in a sea of radiation hardly seems better.

In any case, aiming doesn’t necessarily mean higher power hitting you just because the beam is focused. Relaying a beam from point to point (line of sight) avoids high power output per beam, since penetration of intervening structures isn’t required.

Hysteria often warns of outrageously high power output with “5G” and “small cells.” As noted, effects occur at all levels below heating, which is why 3G/4G need to go. And it would not behoove the industry for people to suddenly be suffering heat damage.

Details of several typical news reports follow. Most demonstrate the fatal error of thinking that shutting down or moving a tower is going to make people safe or “safer” in general (of course, no one’s talking ecosystem). Three show the effect of 5G hysteria – one outrageously, and one shows a more general concern about wireless, per se.

The story of a Sacramento family alleging harm from a Verizon antenna installed near the home illustrates confusion. The first video on this page shows testimony before the Sacramento City Council, 6/25/19 – with the mayor present.

The type of antenna isn’t given. But it’s probably a MMW fixture for “5G Home Internet”. We learned from the “gushing PR piece” cited in the 5G Rollouts section that Verizon 5G UWB launched 10/1/19 in Sacramento — again with the mayor attending.

It’s strange that the testimony date precedes the stated launch date. Maybe there had to be tests prior to the grand “unveiling,” so it could have been an early “Home” antenna. Or maybe the PR announcement date was carefully chosen for whatever reason.

The opening video display screen says, “Children Sick After 4G/5G Small Cell Installation…” What does that ambiguous statement mean to the person who wrote it? To the viewer? The incident suggests harm (cold/flu symptoms) 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 (although her prepared speech commits the “outdated” faux pas), 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 too, she seems not to consider that power level below heating, along with 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.

One of the more outrageous opposition-induced hysterias in recent times is a story from Gateshead, a town in northern UK near the North Sea, that new LED street lights (no microwave fixtures on them, just the lights) were emitting “5G” and causing health issues. This was carelessly picked up by other outlets. No one gave a moment’s thought to the likelihood that it might be LED lights themselves.

A news report from Cincinnati clearly demonstrates that folks are in the dark about what 5G is, thanks to hysteria. And a fairly well-known one from Ripon, San Joaquin County, CA, to its credit, shows a better general awareness of wireless threat. But both demonstrate questionable thinking that shutting down or moving a tower is going to make them safe or “safer” in general (of course, no one’s talking ecosystem).

Scroll down this page to see an RT America report on Cincinnati, based on the original story. Regardless of one’s opinion of RT, this one’s a great and accurate example of common confusion, misleading information and “5G” hype sprinkled with fact.

The original story from 9/20/19 (now includes an update) is a case of “new infrastructure” hysteria since no one seems to have been upset by 4G wireless or its towers up to this point. It involves a tall, cylindrical “mystery tower” that “people fear” will soon be sending out “5G signals”.

The 9/27/19 update shows a video interview with a concerned nurse, a conditioned “5G-hysteria” victim lacking understanding of the wireless threat. She’ll feel safer if that nasty tall tower with the ‘unknown effects’ goes away. Will she be safer?

The tall, new-look tower with the cylindrical fixture (shown in picture and video) is clearly not the massive MIMO 5Gmmw/small-cell type shown in the 5G-phone report in the 5G Rollouts section. That was Verizon’s.

The update also says the tower is Sprint’s. As noted, Sprint’s plans are to run in the 2.5 GHz band using massive MIMO. It being a Sprint tower, it’s not MMW. The “5G” fear was an assumption driven by hysteria.

So what’s in the cylindrical fixture? Could be 4G (LTE), 5Gmlb (“5G”), WiFi as well? WiMax? One question – is it MIMO? Massive? Anyone’s guess.

The update notes that shorter, cylindrical black towers are also popping up — Verizon’s. Verizon spokesman David Weissmann confirms they’re new small cellular towers currently broadcasting 4G LTE, but convertible to future “5G” (similar to Sprint’s story?), meaning what? From what we’ve seen of Verizon, probably 5Gmlb, i.e., 4G LTE on FR1 steroids.

The San Joaquin report, from 3/12/19 also concerns a tall tower with a cylindrical fixture. But this isn’t about 5G, but about “a cell tower” being too close to an elementary school in Ripon with a ‘cluster’ of cancer victims.

“All in all, three teachers and four students have been battling various cancers since 2016,” as well as a 22-year-old former male student. Of course, those teachers and that young man ‘never’ used a wireless device, and never near that tower. Nor were they exposed to another tower or anyone else’s phone. This doesn’t seem to dawn on people.

The Ripon case is interesting. An independent expert was consulted, who contradicted official assurance that the tower tested within federal standards. He said he wouldn’t send his kids there, because kids are still developing and shouldn’t be exposed – as if they’re not exposed 24/7 anywhere a phone/tower system is working, not only from towers, but many phones as well. And does he think that once you’re “developed” it’s OK?

Sprint subsequently shut it down and agreed to relocate, guilty or not. The move was good PR, and indicates that companies and municipalities will back down – probably to avoid litigation, since that could open floodgates.

Ripon is important for two more reasons. The first is that it recalls what’s been said about the usually overlooked threat of long-term exposure and its corollary, cumulative effect (see History of Official Awareness below). It’s well known, for example, that effects from cigarette tobacco and ionizing radiation (like a hospital X-ray), are cumulative. There’s no reason wireless radiation should be any different.

Most kids are heavily exposed in our wireless world, wherever they are – many from conception, and even before that, especially to ovarian DNA damage. This is one egregious crime of the technology.

The second reason is the bogus advice that ‘distance is your friend’ — the false argument for slow death over quicker death, or the futility of “reducing exposure.” Greater distance can even make things worse. The farther the source, the greater are reflection and refraction of signals, creating a far more chaotic condition for the body to handle. Any telecom/WiFi antenna to which any living thing is exposed is too close.

Reducing exposure comes in two forms – usually usage tips but also lower exposure limits. Despite calls for the latter, it holds mostly for heating. For non-heating effects, lower power could even increase the threat, since there’s a good chance that the closer we get to the minute power levels used by biosystems for intercellular communication, a greater confusion sets in.

Reducing exposure with usage tips again recalls long-term exposure/cumulative effect. Of course, no one’s talking ecosystem, whose damage increases with clever warnings for humans, because they imply continued use.

The problem is that reliance on power level alone to determine safety is largely a convenience (there’s that fatal word again), not science. The reader doesn’t need to understand the following terms, just that there are several factors in play, including whether the signal is continuous or pulsed, the shape of the pulsations, the rise time, fall time and duration of the pulsations, the type and depth of modulation, the frequencies, and the bandwidth.

Try to set a “safe” exposure limit based on all that. So they keep it simple-y deadly.

A corollary is that folks claiming harm seem to think it’s for the first time. Fatal error. People have no way of knowing they weren’t ‘due’ anyway. For a great interactive map demonstrating this please see Geneva Telecom Antenna Map Illustrates How the “Stop 5G!” Campaign Misleads Supporters.

There are also stories wherein people or animals affected by, say, a Smart meter, regard symptom abatement when the meter is removed as complete recovery. More fatal error, and 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, ehsidaho.com, 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.”

Claire Edwards, a former UN staffer, top writer and wireless activist said to me in an email that an estimated 100 million suffer ‘OES’ globally. The rest of society is virtually thumbing its nose at these unfortunate people. But they’ll also suffer if this red flag is ignored: 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, even though there are lists and categories of issues attributed to it. A disease symptom can be caused by any number of influences, and a single influence can cause various symptoms.

So a big question is, how much of today’s ongoing ecosystem decline and rampant illness – that is, defined and named prior to the wireless era – is attributable in whole or part to telecom/WiFi radiation (or even the whole radiation gamut to which we expose ourselves)?

If officials even know (doubtful), they’re not telling. I suggest no one knows (although the perpetrators might be more aware), and not that many seem even to care; but it’s almost certainly huge.

Thus even for EMF-sick users — who are much habituated, obsessed, and addicted — seeing and feeling nothing doctors (oblivious) attribute to wireless, 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 *overt* 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 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 before and during the fact to criminal behavior leading to ecocide and slow genocide. And, some researchers say, global enslavement in the technosphere (see The Real Reason for the Wireless “Season?” in Wireless Technology: …).

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

History of Official Awareness

Of the several historical documents acknowledging the deleterious effects of artificial electromagnetic fields denied by FCC, the definitive one for wireless tech seems to be a 1981 World Health Organization (WHO) report entitled Environmental Health Criteria: Radiofrequency and Microwaves. Biologic Effects and Health Hazards of Microwave Radiation: Proceedings on International Symposium 1973. (I’ve always thought it unfortunate and instructive that “environmental health” is not about techno-human torment of Earth, but concern about just payback for the tormentor).

The report is long, covering many aspects. It covers all telecom/WiFi frequencies, including MMW; but real-world harm for the last three decades has come, and continues from digital 2G-4G frequencies.

As forthright as the WHO publication purports to be, the Summary reveals a distressing ruthlessness. It’s all most people need to understand that ‘they’ knew. For reader convenience, a brief review follows.

Section 1.1.3 Biological effects in experimental animals: It has been demonstrated that low-level, long-term exposure may induce effects in the nervous, haematopoietic (production of blood cells and platelets), and immuno-competent cell systems of animals. Such effects have been reported in small animals (rodents) exposed to incident power density levels as low as 0.1-1.0 mW/cm2” (“mW” = milliwatt – one thousandth of a watt). So this is one tenth of one thousandth of a watt to one thousandth of a watt per square centimeter. FCC limit: one thousandth of a watt – 1 mW/cm2 (for frequencies 1500 MHz – 100 GHz).

“The reported effects on the nervous system include behavioural, bioelectrical, metabolic, and structural (at the cellular and subcellular levels) changes. Erythrocyte production and haemaglobin synthesis may be impaired and immunological reactivity changed.” OK so far (except for exploiting/hurting animals).

Section 1.1.6: Health risk evaluation as a basis for exposure limits: … A highly conservative approach 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.”

Is “highly conservative” a euphemism for “safe”? And what does “close” mean? In any case, the “background level,“ called the cosmic background is 0.0000000001 – 0.000000000000001 µW/cm2 (µW = microwatt – one millionth of a watt). Thus, the higher background limit (first one) is one ten billionth of a millionth of a watt (sounds like just a few electrons to me 🙂

FCC limit is on the other side of the decimal point at 1000 µW/cm2. a thousand millionths of a watt – per square centimeter, that is. Frankly, the author’s head goes into a spin with these minuscule decimals, but it’s safe to say there’s a bit of a margin between FCC and Cosmos 🙂

The FCC limit is outrageous even compared to the most conservative proposed “biologically based” limit: .003 – .006 µW/cm2. and the BioInitiative Report authors say it might even need to be lower..

Importantly, however, the cosmic variety is analog, not artificial, digital, polarized or modulated (pulsed). That means there is a safe, “biologically based” exposure limit after all: zero.

“Not technically feasible”? Well, of course. Technology is more important than health in some minds. “Reasonable risk-benefit”? The Summary doesn’t say how many sick or dead per million is reasonable. (Please see also)

One wonders if they were aware of earlier studies, referred to by Andrew Michrowski, PhD at the 2009 Toronto Whole Life Expo (see section, Key Testimony in Toronto in Wireless Technology: …

…Precise, quality, straightforward medical and scientific research since 1950s details radiofrequency and microwave effects – without influence of stocks, PR and lawyers. By 1970s, electromagnetic, electrochemical, cascade effect equations were well defined for tissues, cells, intracellular & extracellular fluids and macromolecular effects on living systems…

Michrowski interprets the data for us: “Analysis of 1950 -1974 mortality of 40,000 Korean War veterans shows that microwave exposure effect is cumulative [emphasis added] it affects all deaths … doubling to tripling cancers of eye, brain and central nervous system, lymphatic and hematopoietic [blood-cell/platelet-forming] and digestive systems. This means that even ‘weak’ and short exposures from wireless systems accumulate over the years and decades to engender serious diseases” (can’t be said too often).

Nor do we know if the Warsaw International Symposium or its WHO reviewers were aware that the US military and others conducted microwave stealth-weapon research in the 1950s. This technology became 2G. See Sections Assault: From Weapon to Telecom and Ultimate Atrocity in the Wireless Technology: …

Examining Priorities

Opposition warnings frequently emphasize ‘protecting you and your family.’ The point having been made several times is worth repeating: The most dire threat is to the ecosystem, not humans. No exposed living thing is immune.

Environment usually suffers in the background of hysteria. One will see lists something like this: “health, privacy, security, and the environment.”

Those who offer exposure “solutions” or “tips” seem to forget that no form or amount of human protection does so for Nature. A false sense of security in being “safer” leads to continued use and support of the overall system, immeasurably intensifying that threat.

Insects, for example, are highly susceptible to telecom/WiFi microwave, especially to MMW, which we haven’t even had yet. In the last quarter century or so, coinciding closely with the introduction of 2G, 75% of the biomass of insects has disappeared in otherwise protected areas in Germany. Meaning it’s probably worse where other threats co-exist.

Emphatically: The wireless threat to planet isn’t just about radiation, but about the entire process involved in creating it. We need to look at the context of wireless, which is technology, per se. And one thing is certain about most of that, regardless of benefit – its toxic.

In almost all cases, somewhere along the line from resource acquisition (especially mining) to manufacture, use, and disposal, advanced technology is chemically/energetically toxic to planet and biosphere. Wireless encompasses the entire line of a process of Earth liquidation/sacrifice for human “needs” – money, convenience, and entertainment (see section The Price of Techno-Civilization in Wireless Technology: …

Moving to “wired” telecom/WiFi will not stop this assault. Countries are under siege for resources. Nor will the Elite psyops “Sustainable Development” and “Clean Renewable Energy” stop it. But that’s another article.

The attitude revealed in the WHO document about safety – “not technically feasible” – hasn’t changed. I ask that anyone who can name a major environmental or health crisis in which technology isn’t the cause or doesn’t play a major role, comment about it.

Looking at the overall output of “concerned” EMF scientists and activists, however, if one isn’t careful, one could 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. At one point, up to 20,000 satellites were planned to blanket the globe. But the number keeps growing.

Madman Elon Musk’s SpaceX had dibs on 12,000 for 5Gmmw. Here is news that Madman is applying for 30,000 more. Just 42,000 satellites will be about 5 times the total spacecraft launched since 1957 (8,500).

Several other companies, including Boeing, OneWeb, Amazon, Facebook, not to mention Russia and China, mean many thousands more. Total madness could bring it to somewhere between 50,000 and 60,000. This considered sane. Why? Because insanity unrecognized as such has become the norm in the culture of toxic-technomasturbation.

Pollution. Some 150 tons of refined kerosene and 340 tons of liquid oxygen per Musk 5G launch (60 satellites, 400 kg each). Do the math, even for 12,000. There seems to be no concern for consequences, such as potential damage to the ozone layer, major interference with earth’s energy field, or even increased atmospheric CO2 (for the faithful). Not to mention, decline of breathable free oxygen (very cool dynamic graph).

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. In Europe, there are currently calls for papers on satellite integration with 5G, with submissions deadline being the Ides of March 2020.

NASA, NOAA, meteorologists, (and radio astronomers) have issued valid concerns about MMW. FCC has dismissed them, too. Yet, NASA intends to participate in this bit of insanity.

Might such arrogance indicate a certain level of supra-CorporateGovernmental power from which this atrocity originates? Insane is a good word for it, but psychopathic puts a more specific tag on it. See subsections Same Old Story… and …with a Twist in Wireless Technology: …

The best way to beat 5G, on the ground at least, is to quit wireless tech flat. Little demand ‘down here’ could greatly reduce incentive to invest ‘up there’. If there is a total-surveillance and human-control system gestating in the technosphere, how much of a role could satellites play?

It’s strongly suggested that an outcry on satellites – and drones, for that matter – should drown out the one 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 unnoticed effects accumulating over time in living systems; 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 classic 4G (or even just 5G FR1) to continue potentiates imminent disaster. Both scenarios are in progress, but at the ‘deniable’ stage. When ‘undeniable’ sets in, the slope will almost certainly 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 due to multiple factors, including corruption, disbelief, and intimidation. Old and chronic conditions.

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, then welcome all 5G, especially the satellites. Surrender to it 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

Image credit

Subscribe to Activist Post for truth, peace, and freedom news. Become an Activist Post Patron for as little as $1 per month at Patreon. Follow us on SoMee, Flote, Minds, Twitter, and Steemit.

Provide, Protect and Profit from what’s coming! Get a free issue of Counter Markets today.


Activist Post Daily Newsletter

Subscription is FREE and CONFIDENTIAL
Free Report: How To Survive The Job Automation Apocalypse with subscription

Be the first to comment on "What Do YOU Mean When You Say “5G”?"

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


*