What’s the deal with 5G – and why it’s a much bigger deal than we can possibly foresee

By now, though, pretty much off of us have heard the term “5G”: heck, wireless carriers are practically giving away 5G phones as we speak. But there wasn’t any cause for alarm over the previous generations of network coverage. No one protested 2G flip phones, so why all the fuss over the “latest and greatest” generation? We’ve got a lot of ground to cover, so be sure to stick with me to the end.

You probably know a bit about 5G works, but here’s the nutshell version: Touted for its lightening-fast download speeds, 5G is meant to be the solution to tomorrow’s problems, today.

The aim is provide ultra-fast, reliable coverage everywhere so that the “internet of things,” or IoT, can connect everything from self-driving cars, Amazon/mail-delivery drones – every other component of future “smart cities” all the way to your phone and every other wireless gadget in your home – because the tech industry has unanimously decided you’ll eventually want every electronic device you own to connect to the internet.

One of these wireless gens is not like the others

Most 5G networks operate on much higher bandwidths than previous generations (or they will eventually), which means their wavelengths are far shorter than radio and other microwaves (hence the term “millimeter” waves). They produce a greater frequency, or and carry much more information per second than older generations of wireless.

We’re told that these high frequency waves don’t transmit as effectively as their lower-frequency counterparts over greater distances due to their inability to pass through denser surfaces, which is why technocrats claim their 5G network requires its “small cell” nodes to be much more densely installed than cell and radio towers.

Don’t be fooled. Here’s why that reasoning is patently false. 

Ladies and gentlemen, here it is straight from the horse’s mouth: according to Verizon’s own CEO, Lowell McAdam,

We have now busted the myth that [5G frequencies] have to be line-of-sight – they do not. And 200 feet from a home? We are now designing the network for over 2,000 feet from transmitter to receiver, which has a huge impact on our capital need going forward.

They’ve known this since at least 2018. So why, then, are we told that we need towers everywhere? Even if that were true, they still audaciously reassure us that their technology is “safer.”

“Safer” than what? Those huge cell towers that are often times spaced several miles apart? On what basis do the tech gurus insist that those 5G towers really are “safer”? The short answer is that there is none. It’s literally just platitude to make you feel better about installing cell towers all throughout your neighborhood. 

Let’s break it down.

To start with the obvious, installing a 5G tower where there previously was not one is by no means “safer” than the empty real estate that was there before. It’s akin to rationalizing smoking in a nursery because your filtered cigarette is “safer” than an unfiltered one.

To add, 5G is an addition to the 4G network, not a replacement. As it is, we’re already exposed to a wide range of radio and microwaves from our broadcasters on top of the EMF produced by our devices and routers, plus those of our neighbors’, etc.

5G towers don’t just transmit signals in the 5G range, either: most can and will broadcast every bandwidth (per carrier) between 700Mhz and 39Ghz, possibly as high as 60Ghz in the near future. So no matter what, you will be subjected to several simultaneous bands of EMF.

But perhaps the techies are right: maybe they operate at such a low output already, they really aren’t any worse than having an extra wifi router across the street?

That, my friends, is a steaming pile of deep-fried, chocolate-dipped, icing-drizzled cow pie.

These small cells have the capacity to reach almost half a mile (if not more), yet they’re being installed under the (false) pretenses that service peters out after a few hundred feet, which means you could very be encased within a blanket of several towers’ worth of coverage.

Let’s put these claims to the test!

To demonstrate, one Sacramento family measured the output of a new 5G tower built only 60 feet away and captured readings of 460,000 µW/m² (or 400 mW/m²). As a basis of comparison, the (very) loose consensus suggests “safe” levels of RF to be less than 200 µW/m² – that’s 2,300 times higher than safe levels (but still perfectly acceptable according to the FCC’s antiquated reulations)!

In fact, I decided to test a 5G tower a few miles away from my own home. While thankfully, the readings weren’t nearly as high as the 4G tower in Sacramento, but they were high enough to make anyone sick. From 20′ away, or about the same distance as the house next to it, my Trifield 2 measured a field reading of 15.844mw/m². According to the BioInitiative Report, that’s high enough to affect your heart, your cells, learning and behavior, as well increase the risk for leukemia among children.

It’s not just the towers, either.

With the addition of 5G compatible smart phones, wearable tech, as well as the eventual upgrading appliances and other household items like thermostats, locks, refrigerators, etc., we’re adding sources of RF emission where there previously were none.

Every device will be continuously pulsing to send and receive signals, which not only means your baseline level of RF will be constantly higher with so many gadgets, but you’ll now have mini danger-zone “hotspots” throughout your house that can expose you and your family to stronger signals than those at the base of a cell tower.

The impact of 5G will hit much harder than any other generation.

We’ve already established that elevated levels of electromagnetic fields across a wide variety bands contribute to a host of physical and mental problems. Because they interfere with our body’s foundational processes on a cellular level – even physically dysregulate our body’s electrical signaling and cause a monumental load of oxidative stress, just like cigarette smoke or toxic mold, the presence of chronic exposure to EMF prevent our bodies from functioning at optimal levels, leaving them susceptible to host of illnesses, both acute and chronic.

5G waves are also unique in that they do not penetrate the body nearly as deeply as longer-wave frequencies. While some voices tout this as a benefit, these higher-energy waves still penetrate our soft tissues with more oscillations, which may actually exacerbate the damage, as we have not evolved with RF-shielding exoskeletons.

It has also been well established that frequencies in the 5G range cause excruciating physical pain, as they’ve been implemented into our military’s non-lethal weapons arsenal. Known as the Active Denial System (ADS), this application of 5G uses directed energy beams at the 95Ghz range to stop terrorists in their tracks. Since these are brief pulses that only heat the surface of the skin, ADS is considered “safe” in small doses – therefore chronic lower levels of this range are acceptable living conditions.

Despite Uncle Sam’s fixation with actually heating the skin, reports of “burning” and “stabbing” sensations at our everyday levels have already been recorded (I’ve even experienced it myself), so I assure you their reasoning is once again flawed.

If that’s not reason enough to avoid these signals like a plague, other risks specific (but not limited) to increased exposure, especially in the higher-frequency (5G) range include:

 • Double and single strand breaks in DNA (within FCC “safe” limits)

 • Cataracts and other potential eye disease like glaucoma and macular degeneration

 • Infertility, miscarriage; increased chance of birth defects or autism

• Melatonin disruption (which also protects us against cancer)

 • Increased blood brain barrier permeability (which means substances that ought not pass over into our brains – such as heavy metals – now can)

Is the “smart” world really worth your longevity and quality of life? We don’t have to accept this.

Check out what Dr. Martin Pall has to say about this unchecked exposure to EMFs and the perils that will unfold by 5G infrastructure.

If you’d like to read more on Dr. Pall’s work, you can check out one of his papers here (only the abstract is available unless you have access).

We must act because our government won’t. 

What few of us are aware of is that the FCC hasn’t updated its guidelines on non-ionizing radiation since 1996, and they weren’t based off the country’s most meticulous research, either. In fact, their levels were and are so astronomically high the only biological effects taken into consideration involved physical heating of the skin (like your microwave oven does). But like our smoking analogy, this is similar to dismissing UV radiation as harmful because we’re not standing on the surface of the Sun.

Now think back to all the wireless devices you had back in 1996 (if you were even around back then) and compare that to everything you use today. Kind of a big difference, huh? Imagine if that were the case with anything else – imagine if our cars adhered to safety standards from the 90s! 

Now back to 5G. See, tech companies are fully aware of these lenient guidelines, which have subsequently allowed them to exploit these gaping safety loopholes to the furthest extent. And mark my words, they will indiscriminately install their equipment where they see fit, be it commercial or residential zones, near schools, even daycare centers.

As it stands, you can’t say “no,” either, since bills have been fast-tracked in virtually every state to prevent cities from refusing these towers the right of way.

The good news is that the the Environmental Health Trust just won a landmark case against the FCC, who, after decades of negligence, will be required to update their neolithic regulations for the 21st century. To ensure these new regulations have teeth, it is our duty to contact the FCC and tell them to examine the research urging and set their thresholds at levels that are safe for even our youngest members of society. Or, like I did, write to them and explain how their lenient standards have caused physical harm.

In addition, please contact your local representative and senators and tell them 5G is a environmental pollutant that must be viewed with the same scrupulous standards as a coal-burning power plant in their neighborhood.

We must be the change we wish to see.