Holanda: Manifestantes também danificam antenas 5G

Sandra Mendes says:

Não existe prova ou evidência que seja 100% irrefutável, e isso é parte do método científico. É por isso que todo procedimento tecnológico, fruto de conhecimento aplicado, possui margens de segurança e condutas a serem respeitadas a fim de evitar ou minimizar as falhas identificadas dos sistemas.
Qual carro é 100% seguro? Qual bateria é 100% segura? Qual medicamento é 100% seguro?
Reveja os seus conceitos.

Antonio says:

Sim vou visitar para te dar mais umas visualizacoes e assim ganhares mais uns trocos!!!!

José says:

Chamava-se a esse movimento “Ludismo”. Os Ludistas tinha receio que com o desenvolvimento de máquinas que efectuassem parte do trabalho realizado por pessoas lhes retirasse trabalho e como consequência desemprego. Isto numa altura que na Europa ou em qualquer lugar do mundo não existia qualquer segurança social. A questão aqui é diferente, Trata-se de assuntos de saúde. O facto é que não sabemos ao certo porque razão há crianças em certas zonas urbanas com torres eléctricas ou de telecomunicações ficam com leucemia. E no meu caso pessoal, não sei porque razão a minha esposa, sem historial de câncer na familia vai já no segundo. Mais sou de uma geração, que em Africa, tinha de permanecer em casa enquanto os aviões fumigassem certos bairros com DDT, para combater os mosquitos! Entendia-se então que não fazia mal algum. Como em tempos o tabaco foi considerado um medicamento, até que em meados do século XX se descobriu que as coisas eram bem diferentes. Não faltam exemplos destes.

Gonçalo says:

LOL o teu nickname diz tudo…és deveras inteligente realmente

José says:

Nestes casos, sempre substituem a madeira para fazer umas fogueiras 😉

André says:

Adverse health effects of 5G mobile networking technology under real-life conditions

“This article identifies adverse effects of non-ionizing non-visible radiation (hereafter called wireless radiation) reported in the premier biomedical literature. It emphasizes that most of the laboratory experiments conducted to date are not designed to identify the more severe adverse effects reflective of the real-life operating environment in which wireless radiation systems operate. Many experiments do not include pulsing and modulation of the carrier signal. The vast majority do not account for synergistic adverse effects of other toxic stimuli (such as chemical and biological) acting in concert with the wireless radiation. This article also presents evidence that the nascent 5G mobile networking technology will affect not only the skin and eyes, as commonly believed, but will have adverse systemic effects as well.
”
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S037842742030028X?casa_token=cZXxsIE8GoEAAAAA:DMbUT6vWPlbNsY28cNs4fWGO3gUaeN1eqYzYU7ZO2-XS-eIW03hnhJWDEUfDCKvbFef-dYN78nc
___________________________________________________________

Towards 5G communication systems: Are there health implications?

“The spread of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) is rising and health effects are still under investigation. RF-EMF promote oxidative stress, a condition involved in cancer onset, in several acute and chronic diseases and in vascular homeostasis. Although some evidences are still controversial, the WHO IARC classified RF-EMF as “possible carcinogenic to humans”, and more recent studies suggested reproductive, metabolic and neurologic effects of RF-EMF, which are also able to alter bacterial antibiotic resistance. In this evolving scenario, although the biological effects of 5G communication systems are very scarcely investigated, an international action plan for the development of 5G networks has started, with a forthcoming increment in devices and density of small cells, and with the future use of millimeter waves (MMW). Preliminary observations showed that MMW increase skin temperature, alter gene expression, promote cellular proliferation and synthesis of proteins linked with oxidative stress, inflammatory and metabolic processes, could generate ocular damages, affect neuro-muscular dynamics. Further studies are needed to better and independently explore the health effects of RF-EMF in general and of MMW in particular. However, available findings seem sufficient to demonstrate the existence of biomedical effects, to invoke the precautionary principle, to define exposed subjects as potentially vulnerable and to revise existing limits. An adequate knowledge of pathophysiological mechanisms linking RF-EMF exposure to health risk should also be useful in the current clinical practice, in particular in consideration of evidences pointing to extrinsic factors as heavy contributors to cancer risk and to the progressive epidemiological growth of noncommunicable diseases.
”
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1438463917308143?casa_token=gF_c-9c230gAAAAA:2y6dkdHefBGIhmfs0YqCV09jrmBjUVKmOkbApRoQHWIekKrjwP3cfVRD0Ie7AZ_pVamN886Q-60
___________________________________________________________
5 G wireless telecommunications expansion: Public health and environmental implications☆

“A growing body of scientific literature documents evidence of non-thermal cellular damage from non-ionizing wireless radiation used in telecommunications. This RF EMR has been shown to cause an array of adverse effects on DNA integrity, cellular membranes, gene expression, protein synthesis, neuronal function, the blood brain barrier, melatonin production, sperm damage and immune dysfunction (Dasdag et al., 2015a, Dasdag et al., 2015b, La Vignera et al., 2012, Levine et al., 2017). Human health effects associated with wireless radiation include infertility, neurodegenerative changes and brain cancer (Wyde, 2016; IARC, 2011) (; Sage and Carpenter, 2012; Kim et al., 2017; Kesari et al., 2011; Kesari et al., 2012a, Kesari et al., 2012b; Zhang et al., 2016; Agarwal et al., 2011, Agarwal et al., 2008, Al-Quzwini et al., 2016, Banik, 2003, Consales, 2012, D’Andrea and Chalfin, 2000, Desai et al., 2009: Prasad et al., 2017). In addition, electrosensitivity to wireless and electrical devices is being increasingly recognized by scientists and physicians (Hojo et al., 2016, Singh and Kapoor, 2014, Belpomme et al., 2015). A biologically based standard has been recommended with a scientific benchmark to a “lowest observable effect level” for RF EMR at 0.003 uW/cm2 (Sage and Carpenter, 2012). There is also growing evidence of harm to trees, wildlife and other biosystems (Sivani and Sudarsanam, 2013).
”

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935118300161?casa_token=0ZpcByDcqbEAAAAA:iVzvpSTxPLya5VyTVWNR1DrPjycor_FlhTp3A830Iml3ou2MGWG6vL32t1taNfF6Q3Zs7Mifg_4
___________________________________________________________

E há muito mais estudos feitos é só pesquisarem nas bases bibliográficas cientificas… Isto no meu ver é normal… Reparem a história vai sempre se repetir, o chumbo também não fazia mal nenhum… apesar de existir fortes criticas pela comunidade académica ele foi usado e usado até… Pesticidas idem… A longo prazo qualquer radiação vai provocar algum tipo de dano em algum tipo de material biológico… A tecnologia será sempre uma questão do beneficio superar o custo (não monetário)…