Share this comment
Yes. Non-ionizing electromagnetic waves can cause damage. You always need some antenna like system and a resonator to get force/energy transfer to the system. Some biological structures can do that. Here is explained how non-ionizing EM-waves affect biological systems. thescienceanalyst.subst…
Don't get confused about the word Graphene. G…
Yes. Non-ionizing electromagnetic waves can cause damage. You always need some antenna like system and a resonator to get force/energy transfer to the system. Some biological structures can do that. Here is explained how non-ionizing EM-waves affect biological systems. https://thescienceanalyst.substack.com/p/how-non-ionizing-radiation-affects
Don't get confused about the word Graphene. Graphene is a strip of graphite (pure carbon). It is a neutral substance. But toxicity research should indeed be done, especially if stuff is added to it.
Due to the many different ways it is used and due to futurism (science fiction), a lot of people think that the substance graphene is something magical that can do all sorts of technical stuff at the same time. Don't get confused. It is like silicon. Silicon is used to fabricate chips in very big and precise machinery. And it is in sand grinding the gears or in silicon oil that lubricates the gears.
The graphene-oxide that is in the patents about vaccines, are using graphene like a very small rope. A rope on which they can stick all kinds of stuff, like mRNA. So it is clearly not used as some antenna or technical component. The liquid substance is grey due to the carbon fibers (=graphene). And Covid-vax is transparant and fluorescent with ultra-violet. So the covid-vax does not contain the graphene or graphene-oxide. It is very toxic in other ways.
> Is it possible that graphene is magnified by the EMF emitted by mobile phone antennas
Graphene is not related to mobile phones or EMF. Unless you make some antenna-like system. For that you need to make an antenna system, and an amplifier. But the graphene usually folds itself and is of different sizes, making it useless as some antenna. It may replace the aluminum components on silicon chips one day, but it is currently very hard to work with.
I designed some micro-chips myself and have technical knowledge of antennas. If there are any questions, I will try answering them. There are not many technical people who understand that microwaves can be harmful. Most "experts" are very biased towards ignoring all such dangers.
Thanks for the link. I read through it. I have a technical question.
I have a Trifield EMF meter. I have surveyed my apartment. On the RF setting, by the window, the meter is pegged (> 20 mW/m^2). This seems bad, since in front of the microwave while heating water is similar. In the bathroom, furthest from the windows, the sensor measures 0.2-0.4 mW/m^2. On my bed, it varies. If I point the sensor directly into contact with the mattress, it ranges from 8-20 - depending on location. It does the same thing on my own body when I'm lying on the bed, although it is less (2-8). I now try to sleep in the area with the lowest signal.
So all this seems bad. But how bad? Perhaps my biggest problem is, I can't convert the units very well. Too many zeros.
I did all this because I've been having relatively new sleep issues, and I wanted to rule out EM radiation as a cause.
You might like to read my Health Alarm Part 2, especially the second half that discusses nutritional and other ways to detoxify from EMFs and from the pollutants in our bodies that are both harmful in themselves and become far more harmful when exited by EMFs. https://ernestdlieberman.substack.com/p/health-alarm-part-2-nanoparticles
There are 4 types of EMF - dirty electricity, RF, electric fields and magnetic fields. If you are interested in this topic and making your living space safe, I would suggest you get good meters that measure them- not the cheap, 3-in-1 Trifield. There are shielding materials you can use, such as regular uncoated aluminum window screen and fabrics/textiles, like Naturelle and if you have a smart meter, you can hopefully opt out of that.
The Safe Living Technologies website is a very good place for RF meters and shielding materials and they also have the best RF meter for lay people (their Safe and Sound Pro II, which I own). Less EMF (https://lessemf.com) is another good place to shop.
You can learn a lot from watching Youtube videos by building biologists specializing in EMR like Oram Miller (https://createhealthyhomes.com/) and Michael Neurert (https://emfcenter.com). And while you're at it, don't forget about chemicals and mold. Good luck.
Thanks for the references. I originally got my Trifield to measure magnetic field gauss, and I have repurposed it for RF (it being 3-in-1 and all). I was just wondering if my Trifield was telling me that I'm in danger.
Assume for a moment that I don't want to spend months of research to become an EMF subject matter expert. Ideally, there's a table somewhere that shows "the mice died after N mw/m^2 over a 3 period" so I can assess whether or not this is an issue for me.
Personally, I think it is in everyone's interest to really dig into this subject because we will be exposed to it all for the rest of our lives, and once you learn the subject, you can make informed decisions about things. And it is biologically hurting us whether we feel it or not. Youtube videos are great because they spoon-feed you info in a very short amount of time.
That being said, my RF meter says 0-10 mW/m2 is slight, 11-100 is moderate, above 100 is high and somewhere at least below 800 it registered extreme. The gaussmeter I own is from Less EMF and it is this one https://lessemf.com/product/switchable-31-axis-gaussmeter/. Oram Miller told me electric fields have more to do with sleep as opposed to magnetic fields, which are more dangerous. I used my RF meter to discover that my TV, even though everything in our house is hardwired, was still putting out Bluetooth I didn't know about, which was making me dizzy. It also revealed that my hardwired satellite receiver box near the TV was putting out wifi to the nearby tower at night, which could not be turned off and that caused dizziness, too. Both those signals were in the extreme, like tens of thousands.
First try to get your sleeping room to a reduced level of microwaves using shielding. There are some coatings that you can put on the walls, floors and ceilings. You can best start with simple cheap things like aluminum foil to see if that works for you. Start with the walls first. Or ceiling if there is a transmitter on the roof. With the meter you can see if it works.
Don't forget to connect them to ground. Most buildings have grounded connectors, and usually the metal of the water tap is grounded. Electricity can be dangerous. If you are not sure how it works, don't be afraid to ask friends to verify it. There are also some professionals that can help you to shield a room.
Thanks for your recommendations. I tried your simple foil approach, and it measurably helped reduce the signal in the room - maybe a 50% reduction. And that's only with maybe 60% window coverage. I did not ground the foil or use foil on the walls - the walls are cement, frames are metal, and my hope is that the entire building (its a large building) is grounded. My conclusion: shielding is an approach worth trying.
Something cheap like Chicken-fence may work for windows. Looks ugly though, but you can test how it works. You can later replace it with a (more expensive) fine metal grid that looks like a mosquito net/fence.
Note that the wave-length of the 5G can be very small. Your grid must be 50% smaller than the wavelength. With a <5 GHz transmitter the wavelength is >6 cm. So your fence should be like 3cm. But for short-distance transmissions 5G stations may also use much higher frequencies of 24–71 GHz (4 and 12 mm). Which is smaller than chicken-fence.
If you know what the source of the microwaves is, what frequencies are used, you can match your protection to it. You can also quick-test the protection by putting the metal grid around the meter. Or around your 5G telephone.
Found an article with is a perfect example of BAD understanding of what is going on.
The article has great images of all kinds of things found under a microscope. It seems impressive, but it is mostly nonsense. The writer does not understand what it sees under the microscope and makes all kinds of weird assumptions. Everything that he does not understand is "graphene oxide". And the "graphene oxide vaccine" assertion is not even requiring any proof.
Here is the article: "Teslaphoresis of Graphenated Hydrogel with Antennae Surrounded by Microfilarae Parasites" -> https://www.drrobertyoung.com/post/teslaphoresis-of-graphenated-hydrogel-with-antennae-surrounded-by-microfilarae-parasites
A - Dust-ball pictures: So what are the balls under the microscope? 1) Most look like fungi or mold. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gm4_GIVG1vA Yeast infection. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_50A3nOcn4 2) Could be a known disease. 3) Pollution. Ryan Cole explained in a video how a feature called "hydra" is actually from plants.
The "Teslaphoresis" is a difficult word for something very simple. The manipulation of dust by an electrical field. It can be done with most kinds of dust in an electric field. Something that you can not just do inside a body without a laboratory equipment. Example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IoaPm-VTtCM
B- Black balls. 1) They are all gas bubbles. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tSl_eKBoqE 2) More gas bubbles: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/8CLmlWlIVFw
But what does graphene oxide actually look like? They are much smaller, and just simple threads. Graphene is a hexagonal crystal thread, and tends to fold 60 /120 degrees. It can not form any threaded-ball structures.
And that is ALL the evidence. There is a lot of garbage in the serums. But let's look what is actually in there. Start doing real science and stop writing science fiction horror stories.