As I mentioned at the end of the video, I welcome your thoughts in the comments. However, I do not tolerate bullying and harassment; users engaged in this will be blocked. If you cannot make a comment on RUclips without resorting to abuse, I suggest you avoid making comments at all.
Please take a look at my reply to your other post. I'm afraid both of your assertions are simply incorrect. For the record, since my expertise seems to bother you, I have a master's degree in electrical engineering and a decade's experience as a physics teacher.
Thank you, remarkably clear and convincing demonstration for laypeople. As a radiation oncologist I knew that but always had trouble explaining it as I learned the basics a very long time ago. This video refreshed my memory. Thanks again, for your incisive and brilliant talk.
Great video, the physics here is a very powerful argument, thanks! I believe Ofcom are also planning to release spectrum in the 24.25-27.5 GHz (the 26 GHz band) and 66-71 GHz band, do you think that they will just cause heating of biological tissue as well? I read that the max downlink power of one of the 26GHz masts is 78dBm, how do you convert that to watts? Many thanks! This is a pdf document I was looking at: ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=7983335
Yes, nothing in the electromagnetic spectrum below UV is sufficiently energetic to ionise. I think the main point of my video was to highlight how many orders of magnitude below being ionising it is, as well as how negligible the heating effect is in comparison to the radiation we're naturally absorbing the whole time.
If the intensity is increased perhaps it can increase heating effect, but the energy will always remain less than ionization energy of cesium. Even still, the heating will always be negligible (proportional to 1/distance^2) so if you are say, 1000m from 5G tower, you get order of microwatts/square meter intensity or so. If they wanted to cook us they would certainly be using stronger invisible forms of radiation.
Hello. I think there is a counting error: Let's define ^ as "to the power" operator first. So, 10^(-34) * 10^(9) =10^(9 - 34) = 10^(-25) so 10^(-24) is wrong Of course it doesn't change the conclusion that correct value of energy is not enough to ionization of caesium.
you forgot the power that comes from multiplying 6.63 with 3.6 that would be 23.87 so in standard form that is 2.4 x 10^1. this adds to the (-25) and becomes (-24) so he is correct.
I recently climbed on top of dustbins to view stickers (15cm x 10cm) attached to lampposts (they have been stuck 5m from the ground), which have 5G transmitters installed on them. The stickers all contain a 'warning of danger' pictogram of a tower emitting waves (in black) on a yellow background within a equilateral triangle which has a black border, a 'prohibition' pictogram of a man (in black) on a white background within a red circle with a red diagonal line through it, the wording, "Radio frequency hazard", contact details for Arqiva and the site's location number. Were 5G of no danger to human beings, why would the individuals responsible for the installation of these transmitters have stuck the aforementioned stickers beneath them? Equally, were parking restriction signs displayed in such small print and at such a distance, would it be fair to argue that they weren't designed to be reasonably viewed from the ground, and therefore informative?
Is this the sign you are concerned about: www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/bvban5/so_my_local_council_have_started_putting_up_5g/. The sign says that if you stand too close or stay too long around a 5g pole or lamppost, there is risk of radiation. Evening for such a warning, the video would still justify such an issue. The intensity increases when the distance decreases. When too close to the tower, you would be more than likely to receive exposure to radiation, but at some larger distance, such as 5 m if the pole creates 50 Watts of power, you are more than likely to be safe. Again, intensity is inversely proportional to the square of the distance, so there is more radiation exposure when too close to the pole or lamppost than farthest from the object.
5G is a revolutionary technological format. It includes 5G pulse wave modulation and heterodyne leading to technologies such as deepmind surgery, heterodyne EEG cloning and remote neural monitoring/networking; eg. (from what I understand of) Remote neural monitoring: 5G sets up a carrier wave to target(persons brain) as a focussed beam(Beamforming technology) through interference patterns. The reflected wave of the modulated carrier wave resonating at the EMF frequency of the target is recorded, decoded by a computer then transmitted to a user who can have their own brainwaves heterodyned. The overpowering input leads to the user hearing, seeing and feeling what the target does. This is true also of the target being projected an EMF signal, or fed back their altered EMF signal, which alters their brainwaves and brain function (This I have experienced). Remote neural stimulation(leading to behaviour and mind control): Modulation enables a pulse of microwave to overcome the action potential of a cell wall and penetrate the body. Another use of the heterodyne mechanic enabling specific targeting within the body, eg a particular cell, whose temperature can be raised enough to trigger nervous stimulation. (Again I have experienced this) These mechanics are not being reported in the public domain and that is making 5G a point of significant contention. My question is, can you explain how 5G microwave frequencies might be used to structure extremely low frequency waves (ELF >0-100Hz)? Might it be possible by heterdyne and modulation? Perhaps increasing amplitude of a standing wave by combining pulses? Or would it be more simply put that 5G roll-out also includes the lower bandwidths too? I have heard the example that Ptolemny first discovered pulses of sunlight from a spinning wheel in front of a persons eyes can produce mood changes depending on how fast the wheel was spun. Barrie Trower(Mi5 whistleblower and microwave researcher) on 5G ruclips.net/video/bCrKQmri6w8/видео.html
You didn't consider the Specific Absorption rates. The sun emits a broad spectrum of electromagnetic bands with different wavelengths and frequencies that contribute to the total energy absorbed by humans, most notably UV poses the most threat although most is filtered by the atmosphere. 300gHz may not be ionizing, but it possesses enough energy to excite electrons inducing a reverse in spin. Over time this may be very detrimental to biological functions like oxygen transport and bonding.
Can you please give a link to peer reviewed research in a reputable technical journal regarding 'exciting electrons causing a reverse spin detrimental to biological functions like oxygen bonding?'
Photons at 300GHz only carry 100 times more energy than 5G photons. That's 2.4 x10^-22 J. That's still not enough to perturb caesium electrons, let alone electrons from biologically relevant atoms. Safe SARs are measure in the order of 1 or 2 W/kg. The average man in the UK is around 80kg. This means that a full absorption of 160W is considered safe. Even if a person was standing right next to a 5G antenna, they'd still only be absorbing a third of this safe level.
The whole human body is at a temperature of 38C and so bathed in higher frequency thermal radiation. The photons of thermal radiation have much higher energies so why would the lower energy microwaves photons be any more problematic?
As I mentioned at the end of the video, I welcome your thoughts in the comments. However, I do not tolerate bullying and harassment; users engaged in this will be blocked. If you cannot make a comment on RUclips without resorting to abuse, I suggest you avoid making comments at all.
Please take a look at my reply to your other post. I'm afraid both of your assertions are simply incorrect. For the record, since my expertise seems to bother you, I have a master's degree in electrical engineering and a decade's experience as a physics teacher.
Thank you, remarkably clear and convincing demonstration for laypeople. As a radiation oncologist I knew that but always had trouble explaining it as I learned the basics a very long time ago. This video refreshed my memory. Thanks again, for your incisive and brilliant talk.
Absolutely phenomenal video, really helped me out with my Physics research assignment! Massive kudos to you sir!
Thank you so much for this.
The video is really amazing... But how ur are converting phone power is 50 watts ???
I can't understand it ,please explain it...
This video is just perfect
Great video, the physics here is a very powerful argument, thanks! I believe Ofcom are also planning to release spectrum in the 24.25-27.5 GHz (the 26 GHz band) and 66-71 GHz band, do you think that they will just cause heating of biological tissue as well? I read that the max downlink power of one of the 26GHz masts is 78dBm, how do you convert that to watts? Many thanks! This is a pdf document I was looking at: ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=7983335
Yes, nothing in the electromagnetic spectrum below UV is sufficiently energetic to ionise. I think the main point of my video was to highlight how many orders of magnitude below being ionising it is, as well as how negligible the heating effect is in comparison to the radiation we're naturally absorbing the whole time.
www.rfglobalnet.com/doc/fixed-wireless-communications-at-60ghz-unique-0001 60Ghz 5G Oxygen absorption
Can 5G radiation be increased to the extend that it can harm people? Just like increasing volume of music system.?
If the intensity is increased perhaps it can increase heating effect, but the energy will always remain less than ionization energy of cesium. Even still, the heating will always be negligible (proportional to 1/distance^2) so if you are say, 1000m from 5G tower, you get order of microwatts/square meter intensity or so. If they wanted to cook us they would certainly be using stronger invisible forms of radiation.
Isn't 5G considered millimeter waves rather than microwaves?
How will 5G interfere with new micro-wave weather satellites? Will this cause considerable noise in densely populated areas?
Hello. I think there is a counting error:
Let's define ^ as "to the power" operator first.
So, 10^(-34) * 10^(9) =10^(9 - 34) = 10^(-25) so 10^(-24) is wrong
Of course it doesn't change the conclusion that correct value of energy is not enough to ionization of caesium.
you forgot the power that comes from multiplying 6.63 with 3.6 that would be 23.87 so in standard form that is 2.4 x 10^1. this adds to the (-25) and becomes (-24) so he is correct.
What an excellent video. I knew it wasn't harmful but, didn't realise it was THAT safe. Very easy to follow
I recently climbed on top of dustbins to view stickers (15cm x 10cm) attached to lampposts (they have been stuck 5m from the ground), which have 5G transmitters installed on them. The stickers all contain a 'warning of danger' pictogram of a tower emitting waves (in black) on a yellow background within a equilateral triangle which has a black border, a 'prohibition' pictogram of a man (in black) on a white background within a red circle with a red diagonal line through it, the wording, "Radio frequency hazard", contact details for Arqiva and the site's location number.
Were 5G of no danger to human beings, why would the individuals responsible for the installation of these transmitters have stuck the aforementioned stickers beneath them? Equally, were parking restriction signs displayed in such small print and at such a distance, would it be fair to argue that they weren't designed to be reasonably viewed from the ground, and therefore informative?
Is this the sign you are concerned about: www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/bvban5/so_my_local_council_have_started_putting_up_5g/.
The sign says that if you stand too close or stay too long around a 5g pole or lamppost, there is risk of radiation. Evening for such a warning, the video would still justify such an issue. The intensity increases when the distance decreases. When too close to the tower, you would be more than likely to receive exposure to radiation, but at some larger distance, such as 5 m if the pole creates 50 Watts of power, you are more than likely to be safe. Again, intensity is inversely proportional to the square of the distance, so there is more radiation exposure when too close to the pole or lamppost than farthest from the object.
5G is a revolutionary technological format. It includes 5G pulse wave modulation and heterodyne leading to technologies such as deepmind surgery, heterodyne EEG cloning and remote neural monitoring/networking; eg. (from what I understand of) Remote neural monitoring: 5G sets up a carrier wave to target(persons brain) as a focussed beam(Beamforming technology) through interference patterns. The reflected wave of the modulated carrier wave resonating at the EMF frequency of the target is recorded, decoded by a computer then transmitted to a user who can have their own brainwaves heterodyned. The overpowering input leads to the user hearing, seeing and feeling what the target does. This is true also of the target being projected an EMF signal, or fed back their altered EMF signal, which alters their brainwaves and brain function (This I have experienced).
Remote neural stimulation(leading to behaviour and mind control): Modulation enables a pulse of microwave to overcome the action potential of a cell wall and penetrate the body. Another use of the heterodyne mechanic enabling specific targeting within the body, eg a particular cell, whose temperature can be raised enough to trigger nervous stimulation. (Again I have experienced this)
These mechanics are not being reported in the public domain and that is making 5G a point of significant contention.
My question is, can you explain how 5G microwave frequencies might be used to structure extremely low frequency waves (ELF >0-100Hz)? Might it be possible by heterdyne and modulation? Perhaps increasing amplitude of a standing wave by combining pulses? Or would it be more simply put that 5G roll-out also includes the lower bandwidths too? I have heard the example that Ptolemny first discovered pulses of sunlight from a spinning wheel in front of a persons eyes can produce mood changes depending on how fast the wheel was spun.
Barrie Trower(Mi5 whistleblower and microwave researcher) on 5G ruclips.net/video/bCrKQmri6w8/видео.html
You didn't consider the Specific Absorption rates. The sun emits a broad spectrum of electromagnetic bands with different wavelengths and frequencies that contribute to the total energy absorbed by humans, most notably UV poses the most threat although most is filtered by the atmosphere. 300gHz may not be ionizing, but it possesses enough energy to excite electrons inducing a reverse in spin. Over time this may be very detrimental to biological functions like oxygen transport and bonding.
Can you please give a link to peer reviewed research in a reputable technical journal regarding 'exciting electrons causing a reverse spin detrimental to biological functions like oxygen bonding?'
source?
What are the frequencies 5g uses? This video says 24ghz & this question says 300ghz. I’ve heard conflicting reports.
Photons at 300GHz only carry 100 times more energy than 5G photons. That's 2.4 x10^-22 J. That's still not enough to perturb caesium electrons, let alone electrons from biologically relevant atoms.
Safe SARs are measure in the order of 1 or 2 W/kg. The average man in the UK is around 80kg. This means that a full absorption of 160W is considered safe. Even if a person was standing right next to a 5G antenna, they'd still only be absorbing a third of this safe level.
The whole human body is at a temperature of 38C and so bathed in higher frequency thermal radiation. The photons of thermal radiation have much higher energies so why would the lower energy microwaves photons be any more problematic?