Diyana's avatar
Diyana 3 weeks ago
Both are real. The left does, however, clearly impact the right. Electromagnetic fields interact with biological systems… this isn’t controversial science. Artificial EMF affects organic bioelectric processes, and that’s measurable. The question isn’t belief, it’s scale and exposure. The idea that humans can simply “out-vibrate” constant external signal saturation feels optimistic at best. Can organic coherence truly self-regulate when we’re immersed in constant artificial signal noise from Wi-Fi, 5G, and devices? I am not so sure. Minimizing exposure seems less like fear and more like basic biological intelligence… allowing our energy, frequency, and vibration to express as they were designed to, and allowing organic systems to operate with greater coherence and integrity. View quoted note →

Replies (4)

Diyana's avatar
Diyana 3 weeks ago
I don’t see 5G as uniquely controversial… it’s more like an inflection point. Earlier generations already introduced chronic EMF exposure. What’s changing now is density, proximity, and saturation. More antennas, higher frequencies, more devices, less recovery time for biological systems. So it’s not “5G vs 4G”… it’s cumulative load on organic life, and we’re clearly past the threshold where it’s negligible.
Elias's avatar
Elias 3 weeks ago
They were not, there were lawsuits in Italy literally 15 years ago. The difference is that 5G antenna arrays Are way more energetic, to the point where standing in front of one with beamforming off is like standong in front Of a 25kW microwave. Which you will not survive for very long. TLDR: lots of data needs lots of power going through your body.
John Satsman's avatar
John Satsman 3 weeks ago
I haven’t done enough research to be sure either way. I just see people freaking out about 5g specifically and it reminds me of this image