Monday, May 13, 2019

How Label of "Propaganda" is Used by NYT to Denounce Real Uncertainties Regarding Biological Risks



In fact, the real "propaganda" here is the argument that 5G and radio waves generally pose NO biological risks at all -

NYT "Your 5G Phone Won’t Hurt You. But Russia Wants You to Think Otherwise." https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/12/science/5g-phone-safety-health-russia.html


SOME EXCELLENT RESPONSES 

Bob
Portsmouth3h ago
According to an article published last year in the Nation magazine about cell phones and 5G, "the World Health Organization classifies cell-phone radiation as a possible carcinogen." The article, "How Big Wireless Made Us Think That Cell Phones Are Safe: A Special Investigation" goes on to state that cautionary findings reported by the Wireless Technology Research project (WTR), "were replicated by numerous other scientists in the United States and around the world, leading the World Health Organization in 2011 to classify cell-phone radiation as a “possible” human carcinogen and the governments of Great Britain, France, and Israel to issue strong warnings on cell-phone use by children."

New York3h ago
"The National Agency ANFR of France recently released the cell phone SAR test data for 450 cell phones that measure 10-g SARs reducing by 10%–30% for each millimeter distal placement from the planar body phantom. Their data corroborate our findings that most cell phones will exceed the safety guidelines when held against the body by factors of 1.6–3.7 times for the European/ICNIRP standard or by factors as high as 11 if 1-g SAR values were to be measured as required by the U.S. FCC." This is an abstract from one of scores of studies that question RF safety claims. And readers should note, the last time I checked the French National Agency was not designated as a pawn of Vladimir Putin. But according to the Times if RT ran this story the science should be disregarded as Russian propaganda. So if you don't like the message, kill the messenger? What kind of journalism is that?

Chicago3h ago
(1) Observation: X-rays and Gamma rays lie at the highest end of frequency spectrum (2) Quote from NY times: "The truth is exactly the opposite, scientists say. The higher the radio frequency, the less it penetrates human skin, lowering exposure of the body’s internal organs, including the brain." From (1) and (2), should we infer that X-rays and Gamma rays are safe? Note that I am not claiming that 5G is unsafe but the utter lack of logical consistency with NY Times writing. Is RT really that worse than NY times?
Reply6 Recommend
Share


Marie-Pierre
An article about the influence of a foreign news channel in American should not result in reducing a legitimate inquiry and timely debate about the potential adverse impacts of a fast deployment of 5G technology. How many people know that the 1996 Telecommunication Act forbids environmental claims to be even raised? As a result, the question of safety got sidelined, research underfunded with not enough data to prove safety (please check US Senate Hearing 2/19/2019 on the future of 5G wireless communication for example). Has anyone read the warning sent by the Lancet scientific magazine on this? (Vol 2, Issue 12, Dec 01, 2018). These links challenge the assertion that "over the years, plenty of careful science has scrutinized wireless technology for potential health risks. Virtually all the data contradict the dire alarms". To go the opposite route, as the article does, not do good to your trustful readers. Pinning the concerns as a Russian hoax discourages from investigating further a very complex subject. Thank you for allowing my voice to be heard as well.
Reply10 Recommend
Share



11 comments:

  1. Russia Russia Russia the go to scary meme

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Geez I wonder why this happened:

      Nuke Pro: "stock" banned from ENE, and then IP blocked as DOS ...
      www.nukepro.net › 2016/02 › stock-ban...
      Feb 10, 2016 · Second --- ENENEWS returns to service, but "stock" who had been there since the BP oil spill and ...

      Delete
  2. ever accidentally put metal in some food, in microwave? it sparks inside the meat or bowl of food in the microwave. That occurs from the absorbed microwaves eddying into electrical energy and heat in the metal as it reflects the microwaves. 5G do a similar thing inside u. The 5g means a highly increased density of microwave energy around everyone. Microwaves can catalyze chemical changes and reactions in the delical biochemical cascades of living organisms and cells. Microwaves from 5G can vibrate and activate and effect bioccumulated radionuclies and metals in your blood and body in the same way microwaves do in a microwave oven! mega free radicals and tissue damage.
    como pendejo the asses of technology are!
    Remunds me of tetraethyl lead in gasoline. 1 mililiter of tetraethyl lead, will give u instant irreversable, alzeimers disease!

    Tetraethyl lead caused inner city violence in sixties 70s 80s. Hi blood levels of lead in inner city kids, was from tetraethyl lead, not lead paint . i know i helped do a retrospective study on it. they lie. they lie they lie more

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How does it feel to be played. A lie within a lie. Russia and Moscow have been bragging about having 5G in Russia by 2020 since 2017. Just like the counterintelligence nonsense that Putin is antivaxine when thwre is a great deal of forced vaccination in russia.
      sites/zakdoffman/2019/04/07/moscows-cio-confirms-105000-facial-recognition-cameras-and-huawei-5g-plans-for-2019/#33af398d460b

      https://www.rbth.com/science_and_tech/2017/04/10/moscow-hopes-to-become-first-5g-city-by-2020_739446

      Russia and Teump bothe are completely Pro 5G, are provax are pronuclear.

      The russians do give Russia today some autonomy. The NYT is a tool in many ways as they were in beatinbg the drums for the wars in iraq and soon will be for iran. The stock is entirely protrump and the only reason it posts here is if people see the BS about trump is geeting too thick . Especially when it comes to nuclear

      Delete
  3. "genrally pose NO threat" How should we interpret "genrally"? I generally tell the truth or I tell the truth? Generally this substance does not combust and explode.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. https://amp.axios.com/iran-military-troops-john-bolton-1d4a714c-ea52-483f-b392-2ac2af01f423.html

      Delete
    2. Trumps plan to deploy 120,000 troops for Iran

      Delete
    3. You mean Bolton's plan. . .

      Delete
    4. Bolton was picked by trump, long before trump was elected. Bolton helped engineer Trumps campaig and donated hundreds of thousands to his campaign so dont give us that cock and bull

      Delete
  4. Two Minutes to Midnight and Missing Uranium
    Beyond Nuclear

    Discussione with Dun Renard and Linda Puence about the overwhelming nonsense of the Nuclear deterence meme missing uranium potentials for Nuclear war
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oui6MSeOKSs&feature=share

    ReplyDelete
  5. Linda Penz Gunter and Dun Renard
    The link between Nuclear Reactors and Nuclear
    Weapons
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=share&v=oui6MSeOKSs

    ReplyDelete