Like it or not, 5G (fifth generation) cellular technology will be up and running in your area soon. Experts believe that by 2020 virtually every country on the planet will have switched to this technology. Service providers boast that 5G will revolutionize the ‘Net, increasing download speeds by 100 times when compared to 4G technology. And 5G will likely facilitate more stable connections and greater capacity.
In simple terms, this means that several people in a household will comfortably be able to run high-demand applications simultaneously, and a full HD movie will take less than 10 seconds to download.
As reported by CBS San Francisco, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the cellular service providers themselves all insist that this technology is safe. But studies have found that 5G poses a serious threat to the health of the community, and anecdotal evidence of people who have developed tumors after exposure to even older generations of wireless technology has begun to mount. More and more people are starting to stand up and demand that regulatory bodies impose measures to protect people from exposure to the radiation emitted by cellular devices – exposure which will increase dramatically when 5G is rolled out across the country.
"Flying blind"
CBS reported that residents of the East Bay area of San Francisco recently scheduled a town council meeting to challenge local government to take steps to protect residents from radiation exposure.
This neighborhood is just one of many across the country that has decided to take a stand against the rollout of 5G in their area.
Ellie Marks is an East Bay resident who became outspoken about the dangers of cellular radiation after her husband was diagnosed with a brain tumor in 2008. The tumor was located on the right side of his head, exactly where he regularly held his cellphone to his ear. Marks had been a prolific cellphone user since 1986.
“He used it all the time; held it right to his right ear and the tumor developed right where he held the phone,” Ellie Marks noted.
Though Marks survived the tumor, the cancer scare mobilized his wife to speak up publicly in countrywide tours about the dangers of cellphone use and radiation exposure from other wireless devices.
“We may not see the full ramifications of this for 20-30 years,” she told CBS. “How can we just fly blindly into this? It doesn’t make sense.” And when it comes to the FCC’s approval of 5G technology she adds, “The FCC is lying to the general public.” (Related: Studies confirm: Potential risks of 5G wireless radiation are too serious to ignore.)
5G likely to prove more harmful than previous cellular technologies
As bad as older cellular technologies have proven to be, 5G is likely to be even more harmful. As Natural News previously reported:
It all has to do with the type of radiation that’s emitted from 5G – radiation that penetrates human skin more aggressively than any other type of radiation currently emitted from consumer electronics. It’s actually in the same frequency range as what’s blasted by the naked body scanners present at American and British airports.
“Today’s cellular and Wi-Fi networks rely on microwaves – a type of electromagnetic radiation utilizing frequencies up to 6 gigahertz (GHz) in order to wirelessly transmit voice or data,” explains the Environmental Health Trust (EHT) about the difference.
“However, 5G applications will require unlocking of new spectrum bands in higher frequency ranges above 6 GHz to 100 GHz and beyond, utilizing submillimeter and millimeter waves – to allow ultra-high rates of data to be transmitted in the same amount of time as compared with previous deployments of microwave radiation.”
Local government agencies generally shrug their shoulders and say they can do nothing about 5G being rolled out in a given area because the safety of cellphone towers is regulated at the state and federal level. Nonetheless, people like Ellie Marks believe that standing up and speaking out is the only way to secure protection from the dangerous effects of 5G radiation.
Learn more at Radiation.news.
Sources include:
Please contact us for more information.