5G is coming, and people are worried. Well, should we be?

To answer that question, we need to know what studies have been done on the safety of microwave-frequency digital radio transmissions.

We need to look at WiFi, Bluetooth, 3G, and 4G studies, as well! After all, much of the concern about 5G is based on the results of those studies.

It turns out that there ARE a ton of studies out there that indicate that yes, it looks bad.

Of course, there is also the SAR "heating effect" argument, which is part of the problem as we'll see...

Now, as bad as this stuff sounds, the fact is we need more studies - or rather, a thorough, long-term study with control groups, the proper consideration of other toxins, and so on.

In short, we need a continuation of the studies mentioned in these papers. At the moment, that seems unlikely to happen.

So, there you have it: Why I don't like to use and be saturated in WiFi, Bluetooth, and cell phone signals!

Links mentioned in the vid:

1. Wi-Fi is an important threat to human health

2. Various, including: 5G Wireless Technology: Is 5G Harmful to Our Health?

More techie tips: scottiestech.info


    • ScottiesTech.Info

      What to do about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmezSfrGDHw

      about 11 months ago
    • Gary Mabs
      Gary Mabs In reply to ScottiesTech.Info

      @ScottiesTech.Info what were the university papers you referenced? Are they downloadable? Thanks!!!

      about 11 days ago
    • LAM Alien
      LAM Alien In reply to ScottiesTech.Info

      The starlink megaconstellation wont be 5G, its impossible to transimit WIFI from that distance, itll be a dish based system that is why they need so many. Also EMF radiation disperses quickly based on the cubic volume of distance from a transmission source.

      about 1 month ago
    • The Kaiser
      The Kaiser In reply to ScottiesTech.Info

      Scottie - I like your co-host Clitoris.
      What about radar? Radar is the same frequency range and has been covering the entire USA through the entire cold war for now almost a century at much higher energies than 5G. You look very waxy. Are you ill?

      about 2 months ago
    • Coach Ryan
      Coach Ryan In reply to ScottiesTech.Info

      Hey, man! Thank you for this very informative video. May I have your permission to take some of the content from your video so I can assemble and awareness campaign that I'm launching here in SLC? I would of course include the source it came from so people can find the video.

      about 3 months ago
    • The Last Relevant Sage 2
      The Last Relevant Sage 2 In reply to ScottiesTech.Info

      @Astro Forum Professional Name Thank you. I did re-upload the series on my present YouTube channel. You can find it as a playlist on my front page. Cheers.

      about 3 months ago
    • Theresa Ramirez
      Theresa Ramirez

      Mass destruction will be.... caused by military activity science test to humanity. DEATH SHALL BECOME YOU ALL🙏

      about 3 days ago
    • Roy Rice
      Roy Rice

      Abbreviated summary...EMF IS DANGEROUS. (period)

      about 7 days ago
    • Roy Rice
      Roy Rice

      You are programmed that all is OK.

      about 7 days ago
    • Roy Rice
      Roy Rice

      Test your ground and ground out.

      about 7 days ago
    • Roy Rice
      Roy Rice

      EMF..... there is nothing good about it .

      about 7 days ago
    • Abinico Arts
      Abinico Arts

      Yet another shill from Monsanto spewing out more lies just to distract attention from GMOs.

      about 12 days ago
    • Marie B.
      Marie B.

      5G is a harmful frequency. It is a military weapon. See The Fullerton Informer here on youtube. In one video he tells all about 5G being a military weapon. Also to protect yourself search out Q WAVE. It is a pendant you wear around your neck or in the pocket for protection. It will emit a GOOD frequency of 7.83. It will surround your body up to 3 ft around you. It uses a battery that lasts a year. 7.83 is the earths natural frequency and the frequency of our brain. More harmful frequencies can cause various problems like insomnia, agitation, depression, etc. I just bought a Q Wave. On sale for $99. Don't know how long the sale will last. Supposed to wear 24/7 except when bathing or swimming of course. They do have a water proof one for a bit more. I like the cheaper one cuz we can change the battery ourselves. Other ones you have to send in.

      about 13 days ago
    • Joel Bridgman
      Joel Bridgman

      Your hair follicles will serve as antennae, what could go wrong???https://www.saferemr.com/2017/09/5g-wireless-technology-is-5g-harmful-to.html

      about 13 days ago
    • sierra juliet
      sierra juliet

      Too academic for 99% of people. But no to 5g etc.

      about 14 days ago
    • ToNLiT


      about 17 days ago
    • M Leightle
      M Leightle

      look man, one thing is for certain, no matter good for us or bad or us and good for them, they (corporations or governments) will advance any and all technologies that increase someone's bottom line or power...and even if the end results are some or all end up pushed over a cliff, someone will be smiling all the way to the bank or next election and advancing the next cause. That's the insanity we live in and endure. Until "the people" wake up, and that is just not likely, the insanity will continue because people only give a shit about their own lives.. there's a lot of selfishness about the world we live in even as populations increase and the ways of communicating and relating to each other also increase, crazy but true, we won't catch the end until it smacks everyone in the face

      about 21 day ago
    • G McKay
      G McKay

      You better know it is not Good for you .

      about 22 days ago
    • Dragos W
      Dragos W


      about 22 days ago
    • shimwillynonkin

      Did you assess the following as well? In the interests of being thorough....


      This correspondence refers to the Environmental Research article by Martin L. Pall entitled "Wi-Fi is an important threat to human health". Author presented a biased review about 7 potential effects of Wi-Fi exposure. Most of articles cited are in vitro or in animals and lab conditions, not in humans. In this letter to the editor I analyse the articles cited in Pall's work in order to demonstrate that neither the conclusions nor the title are appropriate.
      Given the interest of the subject and the controversy existing in several countries, such as France or Malta, also in Spain, on the possible effects that Wi-Fi could have on human health, I read with great interest the article by Martin L. Pall entitled "Wi-Fi is an important threat to human health" (Pall, 2018).

      The author of this work provides a series of evidences to demonstrate the threat that Wi-Fi networks pose to human health. For this purpose, it carries out a review of articles without a detailed methodology, inclusion or exclusion criteria, neither temporary, search keywords, etc., which results in the inclusion of a biased and interested series of inadequate articles to prove his thesis. It focuses mainly on 7 effects: oxidative stress, sperm and infertility, neuropsychiatric and neurological effects, cellular DNA damage, Calcium overload, endocrine changes, and cellular apoptosis. Likewise, it provides a detailed list of non-thermal effects with a no less numerous list of articles and reviews, in almost every occasion includes his own works (8 papers cited 28 times along the text). From the careful analysis of the bibliography provided, it appears that no articles have conclusive effects on human effects. In the worst case, he refers to parts of the Bioinitiative report that has been questioned for its bias.

      Finally, Pall criticizes the Foster and Moulder systematic review in Health Physics (Foster and Moulder, 2013) referring to it in the introduction as “Telecommunications industry-linked individuals and groups have claimed that there are no and cannot possibly be any health impacts of Wi-Fi” and including in the same citation a text published in The Baltimore Sun, what does not seem appropriate. Nor does it seem very appropriate to summarize his own work in the introduction as "This paper is not focused on anecdotal reports but rather on 23 controlled, scientific studies of such health-related effects in animals, cells including human cells in culture and in human beings.

      Pall reviews 7 possible effects of 2.4 GHz radiofrequency radiation (Wi-Fi), namely: DNA damage, effects on sperm and fertility, neurological and neuropsychiatric effects, apoptosis or cell death, overload of the channels of Calcium, endocrine effects and oxidative stress. As I have indicated, by not having inclusion and exclusion criteria or methodology, Pall includes those articles that are suitable for his thesis, which is not correct because, obviously, it is biased and makes a partial analysis clearly interested.

      In addition, to justify the 7 effects studied (Table 1 of the article) 42 citations are included, but really many duplicate articles that are valid for several effects, because, in reality, there are 23. Finally, and most importantly, studies are mixed with different approaches that should be treated with care: in vitro and in vivo studies, which are mixed with studies in cells, in animals and, very few, in humans. While the title of the article is clear “important threat to human health”, only 3 of the 23 articles included in Table 1 are of human studies.

      In the case of the effects on sperm and infertility, effects should exclusively be included in humans (or human cells), but of the 8 articles cited in this section, only 1 was in humans (Yildirim et al., 2015) based on anonymous questionnaires. It is not an adequate study to conclude any possible effect of exposure to Wi-Fi in humans since no other variables were controlled (food, air pollution, antecedents, previous pathologies ...). Even, the sample was obtained from an infertility clinic and there was no control group and the authors claim that no differences were found. The rest of citations are to in vitro experiments, or in animals under experimental conditions and away from reality.

      The same, or worse, happens in terms of the effects of oxidative stress. The 11 articles cited are in rats or in vitro, none in humans. In the section about neurological effects, 5 studies were included, 4 in rats and 1 in humans (Papageorgiou et al., 2011), in which a sample of 30 people, 15 men and 15 women, was available, in which they wanted to show differences between sexes in a Hayling sentence completion test in the presence of Wi-Fi. Experiments were done in a Faraday cage instead of an anechoic chamber. Results decreased for males and increased for females during exposure while performing a Hayling Sentence Completion task.

      About apoptosis effects, 4 studies are included, 3 in rats and 1 in vitro (Çiğ and Nazıroğlu, 2015), with human cells in which they find differences but only if the exposure was carried out at distances less than 10 cm from the cells that were irradiated for 1 h, without indicating the exposure values reached. Between 20 and 30 cm the authors indicate that there were no differences and indicate that more than 10 cm would be enough to protect the cells.

      About effects on DNA only 3 studies are included, none in humans and all of them included in previous sections. The same happens with the overload of the Calcium channels, including 3 studies already mentioned above. And, finally, regarding to the endocrine effects of the 3 articles cited, only 1 is new with respect to those included in the previous sections and, surprisingly, it is not human either, but in rabbits.

      Other effects are included in which either articles cited above are mentioned again, or they are in animals, none, again, in humans.

      In Table 2, a variety of articles are included in a “review of non-thermal effects of microwave frequency EMF similar to those found in multiple wi-fi studies”. A mix of articles and reviews, many of them in animals, in vitro and at different frequencies than Wi-Fi, publications since 1971, reports, books and a series of recent works by Pall.

      Finally, in Table 3, the author details probable mechanisms, that do not possible mechanisms, based on voltage-gated calcium channels (VGCC) that would justify his hypothesis. A list of mechanisms that is not supported by a complete and adequate bibliographic references and, in the case of offering them, are studies at different frequencies than Wi-Fi, once again, no conclusive studies in humans.

      Finally, in section 9, the author makes an unjustified and unfounded attack on the work of Foster and Moulder (2013). A systematic review with a clear methodology in comparison to Pall’s article. In which in vitro studies of exposure studies are separated. In their conclusions, authors indicate that “on the biological studies of Wi-Fi are to be done, they should be done in vivo, with endpoints that have a plausible connection to human health risk” and “The model systems chosen should take into account the limited penetration of Wi-Fi signals in the body; there is little point in evaluating organ systems in rats or mice that are too deep in humans to receive any real exposure from a Wi-Fi device”.

      In conclusion, from the title to the conclusions of Pall's article are not based on adequate evidence. A dangerous extrapolation of some in vitro and animal findings is carried out, even at frequencies and levels of exposure very different from those provided by Wi-Fi networks, to warn about unlikely effects on human health that, in any case, the evidence would justify how “an important threat”. At the usual exposure levels (Sagar et al., 2017), it does not seem appropriate to think about any biological effects due to the low penetration of Wi-Fi waves, so the publication of this frightening article, can be misinterpreted by part of society concerned, even at pathological levels, by this type of technology. The errors, bias, a non-existing methodology, the interested choice of the articles, as well as the conclusions not based on human evidences, indicate that it is an intentional academic misconduct, so I ask for the retraction of this article by the journal.

      about 23 days ago
    • Gospel Ninja
      Gospel Ninja

      got to ware my emf boxers so i can get ready to repopulate the whole world :D

      about 24 days ago
    • Andrés Miguel Cervantes
      Andrés Miguel Cervantes

      😂😂😂 please stop ... that you don’t understand science is not our problem, but stop spreading your false propaganda.. 5g nor WiFi is not dangerous for any living organisms

      about 25 days ago
    • ScottiesTech.Info
      ScottiesTech.Info In reply to Andrés Miguel Cervantes

      I would rather read actual studies and come to my own tentative conclusions instead of just taking your word for it.

      about 25 days ago
    • The weird kid who sits alone at lunch
      The weird kid who sits alone at lunch

      Ever played one chance?

      about 27 days ago
    • Mel Rivera
      Mel Rivera

      What about the use of like black obsidian for deflecting some of the emf energy? Im curious if crystals or like salt rocks could or can reduce emf energy levels? Just a pondering question 🤔 all this 5 G stuff scares me. But besides reducing exposer im wondering if there anything that can deflect that energy wave from ur body in every day life from everything else giving off negative energy singnals? 🤔😐

      about 28 days ago
    • ctwatcher

      We are the impact study for all experimentation by the wealthy to control. Has anyone ever thought to boycott and turn the tech off for a month or two? No? No. The addiction is real, life is now fake unless living in virtual world. AT&T in Denver turned on the 5G, I called for the impact study that doesn't exist.

      about 28 days ago
    • Cali Killa Klown
      Cali Killa Klown

      I have a new iPhone Max that has 5Ge. I’ve already done my research and understand it is basically 4.5 g cellular data. My question is how dangerous is this?

      about 29 days ago
    • Cali Killa Klown
      Cali Killa Klown In reply to Cali Killa Klown

      ScottiesTech.Info it hardly ever kicks into 5 ge mode. I use my phone all day but I never put it by my brain, always use speakerphone

      about 29 days ago
    • ScottiesTech.Info
      ScottiesTech.Info In reply to Cali Killa Klown

      As far as I can tell, maybe not quite as bad as millimeter wave 5G, but still bad enough that it's probably a good idea to limit your exposure as much as possible (keep it off when not needed, or in airplane mode).

      about 29 days ago
    • ToNLiT

      Merkel launches 5G RFID Program https://youtu.be/LJX9_e0bGoQ

      about 1 month ago
    • Skeptisk

      It would be fun to tape a wifi-transmitter to the head of those deciding to implement 5G, and turn the power fully one, with pulsed transmission. Maybe when they're released with brain-tumors they might change their tune... Hey! It's perfectly safe, so why would they protest? Right????

      about 1 month ago
    • ScottiesTech.Info
      ScottiesTech.Info In reply to Skeptisk

      They would probably agree to it, and then insist that the tumors came from anything and everything EXCEPT the 5G...

      about 1 month ago
    • Schpankme Verimuch
      Schpankme Verimuch

      5G covers 600-700 MHz bands and the 50 GHz millimeter-wave end of the spectrum. 850 MHz was the first cellular band in the US.

      The FCC cellular assignments in the US utilize the following frequency bands:

      600 MHz (5G Re-Packed TV Channels)
      700 MHz (5G Former Analog TV Channels)
      850 MHz (4G Cellular Channels)

      FCC Frees Up More Money for TV Station Re-pack
      In 1996, within the US, they saw the final push to Digital Television (Cable) so that more than 1,500 cities in 37 states and Puerto Rico could "re-pack" into 5G Cellular using the currently allocated TV frequencies. That's twenty three years (23) it took to complete the, "Transition Scheduling Plan and the Commission’s rules, procedures, and systems are operating as designed and anticipated." ~ said, the Incentive Auction Task Force and Media Bureau

      "According to National Association of Broadcasters the FCC was authorized to repack the television band by assigning television stations to new channels."

      Why use 600-700 MHz?
      These signals penetrate buildings and walls easily and to cover larger geographic areas with less infrastructure (relative to frequencies in higher bands).

      600-700 MHz, Television bands, OK?
      600-700 MHz, 5G bands, "invisible killers"?

      about 1 month ago
    • sproutlicker 2000
      sproutlicker 2000

      Everyone watching this video is exposed to radioactive waves, infrared, wifi and many other. We even breathe in millions of viruses per second so what are you nerds worried about.

      about 1 month ago
    • Peter Christo
      Peter Christo

      Another great 5G presentation

      about 1 month ago
    • Septembers Whisper
      Septembers Whisper

      Verizon is the main company behind all these 5G towers.

      about 1 month ago
    • schmickeyΔ86

      I find it so strange that only in the Tech world, they seem to feel that there are no limitations. Like we can progress past our biology, clearly not at that level yet they are choosing to sprint before walking. It's downright moronic and the fact that we don't get a personal choice in whether we want to live in this shit, is criminal

      about 1 month ago
    • John Carwithen
      John Carwithen

      Thanks for reading something many of us probably would fall asleep to, which is how propaganda rules us.

      about 1 month ago
    • Jim Sia
      Jim Sia

      exhaust gas from cars more harful than 5G. read false scientific journal

      about 1 month ago