Monday, May 13, 2019
RUSSIAN_FACTS
Today's headline:
Russia wants you to think 5G is dangerous.
The form of this headline tells us what's happening. It's a classic Deepstate trick, common in the '50s and '60s and resurrected for Cold War 2.
Any fact that Deepstate wants us to fight or ignore becomes a RUSSIAN_FACT. We are then required to believe the opposite.
Well, how about the fact itself? Is 5G dangerous?
It's not a yes/no question. It's a gradation, with a parabolic shape.
Static and magnetic fields of all frequencies, including plain old DC, can do damage if the intensity is strong enough. Intensity and penetrating power depend on distance and frequency. Closer distance is obviously stronger, and higher frequency is stronger. There are some specific frequencies that resonate with specific atoms, causing disruption of specific compounds or proteins.
Cellphones are transmitters normally held IN CONTACT WITH THE SKULL, so distance is zero. As the frequency of the transmission gets higher and higher. the penetration gets stronger and stronger.
We already have some rather loose correlations of cellphone usage and brain cancer. As the frequency gets higher, we can expect the incidence to grow.
Is this a risk worth taking?
NYTimes shouts an unequivocal YES because cellphones are the mark of COOOOOOOOOOOLNESS and high status. The higher frequency forms of cellphones (5G versus declasseG and vulgarG) are more expensive and thus COOOOOOLER, which means they are AUTOMATICALLY AND TAUTOLOGICALLY SAFE.
Anyone who dares to question the HOLINESS AND PURITY of the most fashionable idiocy must be RUSSIAN_HACKER and must be EXTERMINATED EXTERMINATED EXTERMINATED.
Russia wants you to think 5G is dangerous.
The form of this headline tells us what's happening. It's a classic Deepstate trick, common in the '50s and '60s and resurrected for Cold War 2.
Any fact that Deepstate wants us to fight or ignore becomes a RUSSIAN_FACT. We are then required to believe the opposite.
Well, how about the fact itself? Is 5G dangerous?
It's not a yes/no question. It's a gradation, with a parabolic shape.
Static and magnetic fields of all frequencies, including plain old DC, can do damage if the intensity is strong enough. Intensity and penetrating power depend on distance and frequency. Closer distance is obviously stronger, and higher frequency is stronger. There are some specific frequencies that resonate with specific atoms, causing disruption of specific compounds or proteins.
Cellphones are transmitters normally held IN CONTACT WITH THE SKULL, so distance is zero. As the frequency of the transmission gets higher and higher. the penetration gets stronger and stronger.
We already have some rather loose correlations of cellphone usage and brain cancer. As the frequency gets higher, we can expect the incidence to grow.
Is this a risk worth taking?
NYTimes shouts an unequivocal YES because cellphones are the mark of COOOOOOOOOOOLNESS and high status. The higher frequency forms of cellphones (5G versus declasseG and vulgarG) are more expensive and thus COOOOOOLER, which means they are AUTOMATICALLY AND TAUTOLOGICALLY SAFE.
Anyone who dares to question the HOLINESS AND PURITY of the most fashionable idiocy must be RUSSIAN_HACKER and must be EXTERMINATED EXTERMINATED EXTERMINATED.
Labels: infinite evil
¶ 5:46 AM
