[HN Gopher] A radio frequency exposure test finds an iPhone 11 P...
___________________________________________________________________
A radio frequency exposure test finds an iPhone 11 Pro exceeds the
FCC's limit
Author : acdanger
Score : 249 points
Date : 2020-02-14 15:38 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (spectrum.ieee.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (spectrum.ieee.org)
| remote_phone wrote:
| If the phone has a strong wifi signal but a very poor cell
| signal, will it emit a lot of RF still?
| chillingeffect wrote:
| my father occupationally used to measure RF output from
| mountaintop cell repeaters. he was always pushing back on
| operators for pushing just a little outside the limits so they
| could pick up more calls.
| nomel wrote:
| I always assumed the phone to tower path would be the limit,
| not the tower to phone.
| moftz wrote:
| Right, in most cases, whatever side of a comms link that is
| hooked up to mains power isn't going that much about power
| usage. But there are limits on broadcasting power from the
| towers so as not to cause problems with farther away towers
| that want operate on the same frequencies. It's like how you
| usually want to not be on the same Wifi channel as your
| neighbor. It's going to take either more RF power to overcome
| their signal or take more time getting data through due to a
| less than perfect signal quality. Cell towers occupy a
| certain geographic cell so you want some overlap in signal
| between neighbors but you don't want it to extend much
| further than what it takes to leave enough time for someone
| in a car, for example, to have their conversation handed off
| to the neighboring tower. Cell tower operators might want to
| boost their signal power if they are bordering an area with
| low coverage but it's going to begin to interfere with cells
| outside their intended range. The FCC sets these limits for
| different applications and frequencies. An FM radio tower is
| going to have a massive output power as compared to a
| personal FM transmitter for your car and for good reason, no
| else one wants to hear your shitty music.
| pentae wrote:
| I suspect this has something to do with the inferior intel modem
| that was used during the Qualcomm debacle. One of the main
| advantages of the next iPhone will be returning to a Qualcomm
| modem that isn't rubbish.
| swiley wrote:
| While I'm not a fan of what apple did it's a bit disturbing
| that there's literally just one company making cellular modems
| for US devices and that this company is really very hostile to
| users and device manufacturers.
| apodysophilia wrote:
| This is the result of patents.
| phonon wrote:
| https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/302712-mediatek-
| announce...
| ksec wrote:
| They made the best modem for a price where many cant refuse.
| Or you could choose other modem from Mediatek, while it is
| stable enough, they often come very late in the cycle.
| mfer wrote:
| > That said, while the Tribune and Penumbra both used off-the-
| shelf phones, the FCC largely tested phones supplied by the
| manufacturers, including Apple.
|
| This speaks to a method that can be used to game the system. What
| prevents manufacturers from providing phones that are somehow
| different from the off the shelf versions? I'm not suggesting
| that's happening here. Just that the testing process is easily
| hacked.
| 1123581321 wrote:
| The manufacturer needs the phone certified in advance of shelf
| stocking.
|
| There is nothing stopping the FCC from confirming their test
| results with retail units. Plus, the risk from cheating is
| enormous. It's a lot easier in the long run to just design
| properly working phones.
| ngcc_hk wrote:
| There is a German example.
| hurricanetc wrote:
| Not quite the same. VW wasn't making special vehicles just
| for testing. It was software on every vehicle designed to
| trick a dyno.
|
| I guess it could be theoretically possible for Apple to
| software cheat the FCC but it really does seem easier to
| just make a phone that meets the specifications.
| preinheimer wrote:
| It didn't turn out to be easier to design a clean burning
| diesel.
| toast0 wrote:
| VW (and others, historically) didn't make special vehicles
| to pass the test; all of their vehicles would be expected
| to pass the test as administered on a dynamometer and fail
| the test if administered on a road.
|
| Designing to the test is different than carefully selecting
| (or altering) a sample that passes the test.
| topspin wrote:
| > What prevents manufacturers from providing phones that are
| somehow different from the off the shelf versions?
|
| Nothing, I imagine. The only certain foil for this is random
| sampling of retail products. No reliance on manufacturer
| probity required. Post VW dieselgate the need for this is self
| evident. At least to anyone that isn't a lawyer in a government
| bureaucracy.
| zitterbewegung wrote:
| This an advertisement for their RF phone cases. In the article
| the premise is refuted.
| apodysophilia wrote:
| The relevant quote:
|
| > Penumbra was conducting the test, which also included testing
| an iPhone 7, to study its Alara phone cases, which the company
| says are designed to reduce RF exposure in a person
| jolmg wrote:
| > This an advertisement for their RF phone cases
|
| This is on ieee.org. The article mentioned this[1] other test
| by the Chicago Tribune. This isn't purely an advertisement
| though it serves that purpose a bit.
|
| It's disputed because they only tested 2 iPhones.
|
| > There are reasons to take the results with a grain of salt,
| however. McCaughey clarified that Penumbra supplied RF Exposure
| Labs with one iPhone 7 and one iPhone 11 Pro for the tests--
| phones the company had purchased off the shelf. He attributed
| not testing more phones to the cost of purchasing multiple
| iPhones
|
| This is also important:
|
| > More notably, when the FCC conducted a follow-up
| investigation after the Tribune published its story, the agency
| did not find evidence that any of the phones exceeded SAR
| limits. That said, while the Tribune and Penumbra both used
| off-the-shelf phones, the FCC largely tested phones supplied by
| the manufacturers, including Apple.
|
| It raises the question whether Apple and others supplied the
| FCC with phones that are different from what they sell.
|
| [1] https://www.chicagotribune.com/investigations/ct-cell-
| phone-...
| oefrha wrote:
| > the FCC largely tested phones supplied by the
| manufacturers, including Apple.
|
| That weasel word "largely" isn't helpful. They either only
| tested supplied phones, which may raise suspicions; or they
| also tested phones sourced from other channels, however
| insignificantly, suggesting problems with the third-party
| tests, or they would have noticed the anomaly. "Largely"
| ostensibly points to the latter, but it could also mean "we
| don't know".
| zitterbewegung wrote:
| This story isn't strictly a submarine story but pg has stated
| a PR agency is a great marketing investment . I also saw at
| least a dozen articles that were similar using DuckDuckGo.
| http://paulgraham.com/submarine.html
| swiley wrote:
| A lot of these smartphones go through imperical tests in an
| anechoic chamber managed by a third party lab to see if
| they're bellow the allowed levels in each band. That sounds
| hackish but (IMO) isn't the end of the world.
|
| What weirds me out is that they'll send them to these third
| party labs and repeatedly test some small number (possibly
| one) of devices until it's right up against what's allowed.
| _That_ feels less than scientific and probably wrong although
| I'm not sure what I'd change.
| deftnerd wrote:
| The "conspiracy" portion of my brain makes me wonder if
| it's possible that Apple phones have lower power levels if
| the location services determines that the phone is in a
| location with a known anechoic chamber. There can't be that
| many of them.
|
| Such behavior has already been shown by automobile
| manufacturers during the "diesel-gate" incidents.
| TaylorAlexander wrote:
| I'm sure Apple has their own test chambers.
| xondono wrote:
| The main problem with all this kind of testing is how
| little precision there is.
|
| "Double the energy limit" sounds a lot, but for a lot of
| these labs that's _inside_ of the error range of their
| equipment.
| FireBeyond wrote:
| The premise isn't refuted at all. The IEEE calls out things to
| be aware of, on both sides of the coin, and says as with all
| things, take limited sample tests with a grain of salt.
| dieselerator wrote:
| In my case the phone has never been in my pocket while in use.
| The phone may occasionally ping the cell tower. Otherwise it is
| just listening in standby mode, in plain words, not transmitting.
| The premise of the article is weak. In my opinion the article was
| not suitably vetted by _Spectrum_.
| kube-system wrote:
| Plenty of people use hand-free devices with their phones in
| their pockets. Many others hold the phone against their head
| when talking on it. Additionally, there are many network-
| intensive applications which can be used while the phone is in
| your pocket, i.e. mobile hotspot.
|
| Probably the least common scenario is for a phone to be
| transmitting at full power when it's _not_ in close contact
| with a human.
| jws wrote:
| _Testing phones from 5 millimeters away from the body may seem
| close, but for anyone carrying their phone in a pocket, the
| distance is closer to 2 millimeters. Because wireless power falls
| off exponentially with distance, what might be a safe amount of
| RF exposure at 5 millimeters could be much higher at 2
| millimeters._
|
| They mean to say that you should expect a power about 6 times
| higher, (5^2 / 2^2). This is rubbish.
|
| The square of the distance model is for a pair of points. Phones
| in pockets at such closed distances are more closely modeled by a
| pair of infinite planes where the power falls off not at all. The
| real result will be in between, but very much closer to 1 than 6.
| doubleunplussed wrote:
| FWIW when you're closer to an antenna than the wavelength,
| you're not just seeing normal Gauss's law drop off, you can be
| looking an an evanescent wave [1], which does indeed fall off
| exponentially (well, depends on the exact shape of the
| antenna).
|
| I've designed a short-range 'antenna' that is intentionally not
| impedance matched to the vacuum, and radiates very poorly - but
| the RF intensity close to the antenna is very high because of
| this effect.
|
| [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evanescent_field
| madengr wrote:
| Well you are in the reactive near-field, so the antenna will
| de-tune, hence the power amplifier won't see it's ideal match,
| and not deliver as much power. All depends on antenna design
| and orientation, assuming they don't use active impedance
| tuning.
|
| The base station also tells the phone to back-off. If the TX
| were running at full power, the battery will die quickly. Leave
| your phone in a metal, security cubby and your battery will die
| quickly; no power control and worse-case antenna loading.
|
| Also the highly asymmetric data usage these days. Very little
| energy on the uplink.
|
| FWIW I design antennas and amplifiers for a living. The only
| time I'd worry about RF exposure is to the cornea; that is a
| proven hazard. RF burns are a right of passage for PA
| designers, and are harmless as it's the outer skin layers.
| johnr2 wrote:
| > RF burns are a right of passage for PA designers, and are
| harmless as it's the outer skin layers.
|
| A literal example of skin effect?
| madengr wrote:
| Yep. Put your finger on the corner of the output coupling
| cap on a 50 Watt S-band PA. It will turn your skin black
| from the charring, but doesn't penetrate into the live
| tissue. Just don't leave it on too long.
|
| Could probably gives non-permanent tattoos with this
| method.
| krastanov wrote:
| So it is doubly incorrect... They are completely misusing the
| word exponential to mean quadratic which is already incredibly
| annoying, but it is not even quadratic, it is constant.
| [deleted]
| whatshisface wrote:
| Not squared, inverse square. That's faster than exponential.
| krastanov wrote:
| No. All polynomials and rational functions fall off
| drastically slower than exponential.
| whatshisface wrote:
| We're talking about the rise in power as you get closer.
| 1/x2 has a singularity, I doubt exp(x) can beat that...
| tomrod wrote:
| Good point! -ln(x) may (would have to check), but exp(0)
| = 1 and 1/0 __2 is defined as positive infinity (the Real
| numbers are not closed under division).
| enedil wrote:
| No, division just isn't a total function.
| tomrod wrote:
| I think these may be the same thing in this case.
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| You may need to check your math. Inverse square does _not_
| fall off faster than exponential.
| whatshisface wrote:
| 1/x2 has a singularity and rises faster than exponential
| as you approach it. We're talking about getting closer to
| the source, not further.
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| Ah, I see. In that direction, you are correct.
| theseadroid wrote:
| I wonder if we shall take exposure density into consideration?
| If RF is emitted in all directions, the closer the phone to the
| body, the same amount of RF will be received by a smaller area
| of skin?
| oefrha wrote:
| You're still thinking about a point source, where the actual
| scenario is closer to two parallel plates, in which case the
| non-normal components cancel out, leaving only the normal
| component, except at the edges.
|
| The most basic example from electrostatics:
| http://hyperphysics.phy-
| astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/elesht.h...
| cdelsolar wrote:
| I don't think the phone emits radiation from its entire
| body
| RL_Quine wrote:
| That's what the cuts around the metal band of the iPhone
| are for, to segment the edge into different tuned
| antennas.
| klodolph wrote:
| If you try to make an antenna too small compared to
| wavelength, it will become less efficient and more
| difficult to design. 900 MHz is the 33 cm band, so if you
| have a more standard size antenna on the order of
| quarter-wavelength size, you get an antenna that's about
| 8cm.
| tyingq wrote:
| _" Phones in pockets..."_
|
| The somewhat related study mentioned in the article was much
| more interesting in terms of _" phones in pockets"_.
|
| https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/tjem/248/3/248_169/_art...
| meekstro wrote:
| Why isn't it tested at 2mm if that is the standard useage?
|
| Why rely on a model?
|
| 20,000 phones are being sold an hour. Why not buy 200 phone's
| off 200 shelves and test them comprehensively at 0 mm, 1mm,
| 2mm, 3mm ..... The cost to volume sold is completely negligible
| and it is useful consumer information as 3 percent of the
| population is electrosensitive.
|
| An estimated 30 million people suffer from Myalgic
| Encephalomyelitis (chronic fatigue) in the world and the
| average diagnosis takes seven years. Chronic health conditions
| are increasing exponentially. Healthy people aren't sensitive
| to environmental stimuli but unhealthy people are and the
| number of chronically unhealthy people grows by the day as
| livers strain under the stressors and weakening of modernity.
|
| Turn your wifi off in your house at night and see if you sleep
| any better. Pretty simple anecdotal experiment. A house without
| the wifi on or excess electrical componentry on has a nicer
| feel. We did not evolve with this electromagnetic radiation and
| the cost of testing is negilible given the global population's
| growing exposure to it and something interesting may fall out
| of the research.
|
| The risk of Apple having to make slight design modifications if
| research raises an issue is not a huge concern of mine. One
| hours phone sales should cover it and then they could further
| differentiate their products and raise prices.
|
| How many electrical engineering schools are there in the world?
| Sounds like a great way for a university to get their staff
| free Iphones with a research grant.
| mopsi wrote:
| > _Turn your wifi off in your house at night and see if you
| sleep any better._
|
| This needs to be a blind test, e.g. you track your sleep
| quality over a longer period of time while a script turns
| wifi off on random nights.
| wizzwizz4 wrote:
| And make sure that phones aren't getting messages and
| bleeping during the night when wifi is on.
| meekstro wrote:
| You could just try it. Turn off the electrical stuff before
| you go to bed but hey everyone has freedom of choice.
| jjoonathan wrote:
| Placebos work. If that's what you want, cool. If you want
| to figure out if RF affects sleep, that's cool too, but
| you'll need to double blind the experiment. Because
| placebos work.
| meekstro wrote:
| Yes but so does human intuition and its a heck of a lot
| faster.
|
| A healthy person can endure a toxic environment. An
| unhealthy person becomes more unhealthy from increased
| toxicity.
|
| I'm not saying electromagnetic radiation makes a healthy
| person unwell i'm saying it delays or worsens recovery of
| some unhealthy people and there are million different
| subsets of unhealthy people so which subset are you going
| to run the double blind placebo on before you decide
| reduce electromagnetic radiation while you sleep.
|
| It's a simple experiment anyone can try. Two weeks of
| camping is an effective insomnia treatment as per
| research which eliminates electromagnetic radiation from
| the equation. I think its a zeitgeber in subsets sick
| people but there's no profit in researching that so the
| only tools you have are existing research, intuition,
| self observation and logic.
|
| People figure out how to sex chickens without a causative
| mechanism. It isn't a placebo effect or a double blind
| trial. Electrochemical gradients as per Michael Levins
| research affect genetic expression. Much like hedging
| one's bet by believing in a creator just in case reducing
| your exposure to RF at zero cost is the smartest thing
| someone can do with the available evidence.
| jjoonathan wrote:
| Placebos in truth's clothing are toxins of human society.
| Please verify placebo vs truth before spreading, k?
| Thanks.
|
| > Two weeks of camping is an effective insomnia treatment
|
| Or two weeks away from the grind reduces stress. Or
| getting away from artificial lights/schedules reduces
| stress. Or it selects for people+times with less
| stressed. Or more healthy. Or higher SES. Or you're
| getting away from pollution. Or you need temperature
| variation to feel healthy. Or any two of those. Or three!
| Many plausible explanatory factors compete with RF, and
| you'd have to control for them in order to point the
| finger at RF. That's not impossible, and not even
| particularly difficult, but it does mean that you can't
| go on a camping trip, get better sleep, and then use that
| as proof that RF was to blame for your insomnia.
|
| > People figure out how to sex chickens without a
| causative mechanism. It isn't a placebo effect or a
| double blind trial.
|
| The double blind trial is how you establish whether or
| not something is a placebo.
|
| > Electrochemical gradients as per Michael Levins
| research affect genetic expression.
|
| You need to blind you studies whether or not you have a
| plausible mechanistic explanation. You don't need a
| plausible mechanistic explanation to blind your studies.
|
| > Much like hedging one's bet by believing in a creator
| just in case
|
| Which one(s)?
|
| > reducing your exposure to RF at zero cost
|
| Foregoing the advantages of technology is not zero cost.
| If you mean that turning your router off at night is zero
| cost, go ahead! I don't take issue with that.
|
| I _do_ take issue with spreading unblinded anecdata,
| because whether or not RF-induced-insomnia is real, RF-
| anxiety-induced-insomnia is definitely real, and anecdata
| like your own definetly spread it. If RF-induced-insomnia
| is real, that 's for the best, but if what you
| experienced was a placebo (and I'd bet a substantial sum
| of money that it was), then _unblinded anecdata literally
| are the problem._ And that 's not cool.
|
| In the privacy of your own home: do what works and ignore
| the haters!
|
| In society: please apply good experimental technique
| before causing anxiety in others. It's only polite.
| meekstro wrote:
| I think you are uncomfortable that some phenomena
| particularly biological don't fit in a scientific
| experiment neatly and are more comfortable labelling 3%
| of the population hypochondriacs to alleviate your own
| anxiety.
|
| What I've stated is that I experienced increased fatigue
| from exposure to ER while I was seriously ill and had
| elevated serum ferritin.
|
| Each ferritin molecule has 4500 iron atoms and serrin
| ferritin increases with acute or chronic viral
| infections. A healthy level is less than fifty. So a 1150
| times increase in iron atoms in someone's blood could
| plausibly cause fatigue when it absorbs er.
|
| Who does this cause anxiety in exactly?
|
| How is turning off electronic devices going to cause
| anxiety?
|
| People can turn them off. If it helps great. If it
| doesn't don't bother.
|
| No anxiety necessary.
|
| You might be better educated than me, better connected
| than me and more intelligent but there's something to be
| said for original thought. I'd love to take you up on
| your bet where you impolitely just called me a whinger. I
| think I'm smarter than you are just sayin there wasn't
| one insightful thing in your comment as you tried to
| apply a method that doesn't really fit the situation. How
| do we do this? Let's bet our hacker News anonymous
| reputations on it.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| > Yes but so does human intuition and its a heck of a lot
| faster.
|
| It's also frequently incorrect.
| function_seven wrote:
| Right, but you wouldn't know if your sleep improved
| because the wi-fi is off, or if it improved because you
| have greater peace of mind just knowing that the wi-fi is
| off.
|
| These are different things. A blinded test would
| eliminate the peace of mind component and allow you to
| determine if there's a physical effect from the wi-fi
| being on or not.
| jjoonathan wrote:
| Furthermore, if your peace of mind is the true reason why
| you sleep better with RF off, note that by talking of
| your experience you could actually be creating the
| problem that you were trying to solve (difficulty
| sleeping due to worrying about RF). If RF is really to
| blame as determined by a blinded test, it's worth talking
| about, but if not, please exercise restraint.
| JshWright wrote:
| Does scientific rigor really seem like something the parent
| comment is concerned with?
| gus_massa wrote:
| And you cover the green leds with tape mask, or get version
| with an accurate fake blinking patterns.
| pbhjpbhj wrote:
| My ISP supplied router has an option to turn the lights
| off, which is great as otherwise it illuminates the whole
| hallway. I don't get why electronics makers think their
| product needs to have such bright lights.
| moftz wrote:
| In college, all of my electronics were in my bedroom as
| well as the communal router. I taped off as many LEDs as
| I could (even the router wall wart had a big blue light)
| and disconnected any LEDs that had leads (like inside a
| PC case). There were only a few instances of LEDs that I
| actually needed so those got white electrical tape over
| them to diffuse the light or swapped to red if the tape
| diffused it too much to see.
|
| I don't mind having a nightlight on when I sleep, I think
| it helps me fall asleep quicker rather than pitch black
| but bright blue lights that fill the fucking room with
| light are the devil. I have much less electronics in my
| bedroom now since I now have personal space other than my
| bedroom to put stuff.
| dboreham wrote:
| The worst design is where the light is initially off but
| turns on when some condition arises (e.g. battery fully
| charged). You fall asleep in total darkness only to be
| woken up at 3am by the brilliant light of "your phone is
| charged now".
| HeyLaughingBoy wrote:
| Simple. The engineers are working on the product during
| the day in well-lit spaces. Since the lights are always
| on, it never occurs to anyone that the LEDs might be too
| bright at night.
| Shikadi wrote:
| Alternatively, engineers point it out, and product
| managers don't listen
| deftnerd wrote:
| In a bright environment, a bright LED is useful. Instead
| they should also have a light sensor used to determine
| the ambient light level, and then adjust the status LED
| display accordingly. My Samsung TV does this with its
| "powered on" light.
|
| Of course, that adds to the BOM and manufacturers love
| shaving off fractions of a penny. Asking them to add an
| extra 50 cents of parts for something consumers don't
| think about prior to purchase is a lost cause.
| im3w1l wrote:
| Old LEDs are fine in both bright and dark environments,
| too-bright LEDs are a recent (5y? 10y?) thing. I wonder
| if LCD could be even nicer... I don't think I've ever
| seen single-pixel LCD status indicator.
| Marsymars wrote:
| > I don't think I've ever seen single-pixel LCD status
| indicator.
|
| I approximate that by using a pin to poke a hole in the
| electrical or gaffer tape that I use to cover the lights.
| heavenlyblue wrote:
| It's much easier to turn off the other lights than to
| brighten the environment enough not to see the blue
| lights of your router
| bananabreakfast wrote:
| Electrosensitivity is not a thing.
|
| It's a disorder made up by hypochondriacs. If you said 3
| percent of the population are hypochondriacs then I would
| believe you.
| meekstro wrote:
| Electrosensitivity is denied by intelligent healthy people
| who have never dealt with unexplainable fatigue relying on
| statistics and body system diagnosis that is inadequate for
| explaining chronic complex health conditions.
|
| They're all just whinging man. Not one of them ever hoped
| it was all in their head and they could think their way out
| of it.
|
| Hacker News is a perfect subset of people lacking the
| perspective to consider exploring the possibility that
| electrosensitivity is a thing that occurs with declining
| health.
|
| Why so much negativity about researching something so
| ubiquitous? Let's discuss inverse power laws and quadratic
| functions, maybe we can build a machine learning model with
| our deficient statistics instead of taking two hundred
| phones out of two billion and testing their electromagnetic
| radiation at multiple distances and angles so we actually
| have a reliable model.
| meekstro wrote:
| Here's the reason.
|
| Serum ferritin is an accute phase reactant that elevates
| due to inflammation from acute and sometimes chronic
| illness or heritable genetic mutation.
|
| When someone is ill and inflamed and fatigued and they
| have excess serum ferritin circulating in their blood
| which contains 4500 iron atoms per molecule and absorbs
| electromagnetic radiation it interferes with their
| biochemistry.
|
| Why people scoff at investigating the prevalence of
| electromagnetic radiation exposure when there is a
| causative mechanism for elevated risk in sick people is
| because of either arrogance or ignorance. Maybe if the
| doctors listened to patients instead of diagnosing
| hypochondria when dealing with edge cases health outcomes
| would begin to actually you know improve.
|
| This is Iranian research. So what. They have brilliant
| scientists. Serum ferritin absorbs and is affected by
| electromagnetic radiation and is highly elevated in sick
| people. As my serum ferritin has reduced from 1200 to
| under 310 through venesection and lifestyle I have
| gradually been able tolerate exposure to electromagnetic
| radiation without being fatigued by it for extended
| periods. People running a daily energy budget become
| pretty adept at working out what burns through their
| energy and electromagnetic radiation exposure definitely
| does and bored sick people definitely want to use
| wireless devices but can't. The hypochondria diagnosis is
| illogical when it comes to electrosensititivity.
|
| https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3662108/
| blowski wrote:
| Against your one paper supporting the idea, there have
| been 100s of studies that do not. I'm all for science
| doing investigations, but we can't accept a premise
| because it feels right.
| meekstro wrote:
| What's the fastest way to figure out the average existing
| fatigue levels and serum ferritin levels in the hundred
| studies so that I can quickly disprove my hypothesis?
|
| I'm not saying it causes an illness I'm saying if you
| have a certain subset of illness it increases your
| fatigue. It also hurts your hands but you aint never
| gonna believe that ha ha. Iphone 7s are the worst.
|
| I'm getting better and so is my tolerance to er so I'm
| not overly concerned about myself.
|
| It's the millions of other edge cases wrongly labelled as
| whingers by the medical system that I feel for.
|
| ER doesn't cause fatigue it exacerbates it in certain
| people. I better look at those hundreds of studies to
| figure out why I'm so wrong about this.
|
| I don't want to sell anyone a tinfoil hat or phone case
| and reducing exposure to er at night is great for sleep
| and CO2 emissions so why wouldn't you.
| microtherion wrote:
| I'm very much in favor of researching electrosensitivity.
| Whatever the cause, it's undeniable that certain illness
| patterns are becoming increasingly prevalent.
|
| But I'm not really seeing research from
| electrosensitivity proponents, and especially not double
| blind studies. Instead, I'm seeing requests for fairly
| massive accommodations (along the lines of eliminating
| all Wifi and Cell phone radiation within a certain radius
| of a person), backed by not a whole lot of scientific
| evidence (unless one counts "Rudolf Steiner would have
| said so" as scientific evidence).
|
| And I'm not even seeing many reports of such
| accommodations working to the long term benefit of the
| sufferers. Instead, once the Wifi is gone, they seem to
| develop MCS, etc. To me, that would support the prior
| that the suffering (which itself is undoubtedly real) is
| likely to have endogenous rather than environmental
| causes.
| meekstro wrote:
| I agree. It's a very small component of the overall
| health picture. But it is a component and should be
| researched.
|
| Once the wifis gone the MCS patients spend more time
| sitting in front of wired digital display devices
| activating their central cortexes burning through their
| constrained glutamate supplies (which is also the most
| probable reason blind people don't develop
| schizophrenia)which depletes their glutathione which
| increases their pathogenic load and inflammation while
| their spinal column is degenerating and inflaming from
| the sitting and those two things have a larger negative
| effect on them than the positive effect of the reduction
| in wifi exposure.
|
| The disappointment at their failed remedy further
| aggravates their condition and nobody is interested in
| their next bright idea for alleviating their condition.
| So they live their life out labelled as a whinger and
| their negative emotions contribute further to their
| health decline.
|
| They won't recover while exposed to er but because
| removing er won't cure them this is not a reason for not
| benefiting from minimising exposure.
|
| Spinal function and glutathione production is as or more
| important for MCS suffers than a reduction in ER exposure
| which is important but nobody tells them that and I've no
| idea how to prove it but at least Im thinking about it
| while recovering from ME which has more utility than
| telling them to just get on with it.
|
| The end of back pain book by surgeon Patrick Roth will
| gradually fix anyone's spinal function with a kettle bell
| and exercise ball.
|
| Diet and sleep will gradually fix glutathione production.
|
| No one will make money from researching this so Dr's are
| forced to ask patients to just harden up. There's a lot
| of benefit in hardening up as well but it won't recover
| spinal function or increase glutathione production or
| decrease er or chemical sensitivity.
| wizzwizz4 wrote:
| > _Why so much negativity about researching something so
| ubiquitous?_
|
| There's nothing wrong with researching electrosensitivity
| to see if it's real, and to what extent. Heck, I've
| designed studies to test it (never carried out). The
| problem is _not_ researching it, yet continuing to insist
| that _it_ is the reason for people 's "unexplainable"
| chronic pain / fatigue when there's currently zero non-
| anecdotal evidence for it.
| kempbellt wrote:
| I don't doubt that psychosoma and hypochondria play a role
| in many cases, but I will posit a couple of scenarios for
| you to ponder.
|
| You can sense heat, can't you? If your phone is really warm
| in your pocket, will you notice? Higher output from the
| radios = more electricity flowing = more heat generation.
| You will likely notice this.
|
| On another note, do you have eyes? They are sensitive to
| various frequencies of electromagnetic radiation (i.e, the
| visible spectrum). Some people are more attuned to the
| outer edges of this (infrared, and ultra-violet).
|
| Seems a bit aggressive to dismiss all electrosensitivity as
| "not a thing", considering people are obviously very
| sensitive to different forms of EMR.
|
| If you disagree, try standing in a fire, or sleeping with a
| spotlight on your face.
| vel0city wrote:
| The maximum amount of power emitted from a WiFi radio in
| the US as regulated by the FCC is 0.071W. You're not
| realistically going to notice much heating from WiFi.
| Have you ever tried to cook something on the antenna of
| your WiFi? Try putting a cup of water next to your WiFi
| router and measure the temperature difference. You'd need
| massively super-human levels of sensitivity to begin to
| notice any warming effects. Sure, if you crank the output
| up to a few dozen watts you'll definitely start feeling
| the effects of RF. Get it a few dozen watts higher and
| you'll be at risk of getting RF burns after some
| prolonged exposure. Get it several _hundred_ watts higher
| and you 're cooking a dinner in the metal box.
|
| As for possibly almost seeing things like WiFi, that's
| also pretty preposterous. WiFi operates at 2.4 or 5.8GHz.
| Your eyes start to get sensitive EM waves at about
| 4000000000GHz (lower end of what is commonly called
| visible spectrum). Even if you were at the ultra extreme
| low end of sensitivity, you still wouldn't really be
| anywhere near the frequency range required.
|
| So for your example of standing in a fire or having a
| spotlight on your face, you'd need for it to be a
| practically room temperature fire or a millionth of a
| candle spotlight. The scales you're comparing to are just
| silly to the point of being meaningless.
| jradd wrote:
| One will become electrosensitive in a dryer climate.
|
| capacitive touch is derived by galvanic response that can
| be impacted by pH balance and electrochemistry.
|
| potassium is used to reduce the impacts of gamma radiation
| (wrong band, but not irrelevent)
|
| microwaves can be lethal from a distance of 1 km (death
| ray)
|
| there is so much radiation in the air, to study the affects
| of one wave length i'd suppose you'd need multiple band
| pass filters to narrow the band in question and a noise
| generator for controlled results.
| alfanick wrote:
| Missing "References" section, the formatting of your
| paper could also be improved. /s
| grecy wrote:
| It's interesting how certain you are. What you mean to say
| is "we've never seen scientific evidence that
| Electrosensitivity is real, therefore as we currently
| understand it can't be".
|
| Much like the Earth going around the sun, bacon causing
| cancer, BPA in plastic being bad (and now the substitutes
| too) etc. etc.
|
| It's always not true until we discover it is.
| georgeburdell wrote:
| Exactly. Near field electromagnetic variations are not inverse
| square.
| zwieback wrote:
| Are they talking about the radiation from the Wi-Fi or cell
| radios? I would think that modern phones have very low duty
| cycles on those radios. The other radiation, e.g. from the
| clocking of the circuits should be extremely low, otherwise our
| batteries wouldn't last so long.
| [deleted]
| landont wrote:
| > The SAR limit is primarily concerned with a phone's thermal
| effects--essentially, the power is limited to 1.6 W/kg to ensure
| that no one is burned by using their phone.
|
| I should be worried about the heat generated from my phone? I
| thought maybe there was some issue with RF and my cells, but this
| seems like a complete nonissue to me. Am I being foolish for
| writing this off? The only time my phone is going to burn me is
| if the battery explodes, which doesn't seem to be a pervasive
| issue. So probably not. As someone else pointed out this is a
| marketing ploy.
| derefr wrote:
| If you've ever been in an area where your phone is _just
| barely_ connected to a tower, and is struggling to keep a
| connection (and has no better tower to switch to), you 'll
| notice your phone will get _quite_ hot--hotter than it would
| normally let itself get before thermal-throttling. (Because it
| 's not the CPU getting that hot; it's the antenna+baseband.)
|
| Often, this heat will be localized to where the antenna is
| located--I've noticed that my iPhone 8 will sometimes feel
| burning hot along its right edge, for example, and no amount of
| closing applications or disabling radios will cool it down. The
| only thing for it, usually, is to turn it off entirely, such
| that the baseband stops receiving power. (For some reason, upon
| turning it back on, it doesn't heat back up, even if I haven't
| moved--perhaps because the baseband's criteria for connecting
| to towers is stricter than its criteria for _staying_ connected
| to towers.)
| RL_Quine wrote:
| The total energy capacity of your phones battery is clearly the
| limit of the output of the device. It's not much.
|
| The iPhone 11 is 7 watt hours, so 25 kilojoule. Wolfram alpha
| helpfully tells me this is about the same energy as burning
| 0.64 grams of coal or 0.66 grams of human fat.
| MagnumOpus wrote:
| 7 watt hours is an insanely damaging amount! Basically a 7
| watt bulb next to you for an hour, or exposure to a 70 watt
| bulb (that would cause third degree burns in seconds) for six
| minutes. Yes the peak output of a phone is less than 70 watt
| but you can do a lot of damage with that much energy.
| driverdan wrote:
| > Basically a 7 watt bulb next to you for an hour, or
| exposure to a 70 watt bulb (that would cause third degree
| burns in seconds) for six minutes.
|
| I downvoted you because this is incorrect. You're ignoring
| the skin's ability to dissipate heat. Brief exposure to
| high heat does not have the same effect as extended
| exposure to low heat.
| zaroth wrote:
| Please explain, how is the total energy capacity of the
| whole battery in any way relevant to this discussion?
| testvox wrote:
| Some people do believe that non ionizing radiation has effects
| other than those produced by the added thermal energy (or that
| the thermal effects are in some way significant). The actual
| scientific evidence for this is minimal though.
| _sbrk wrote:
| > Some people do believe that non ionizing radiation has
| effects other than those produced by the added thermal energy
|
| Some people believe vaccines cause Down's Syndrome.
|
| "Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to
| do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics.
| Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who
| happens to be right, which means that he or she has results
| that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In
| science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is
| reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are
| great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There
| is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it
| isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period."
| - Michael Crichton (https://tinyurl.com/vcxj2ex)
| triceratops wrote:
| "If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it
| isn't consensus."
|
| Appears to contradict
|
| "What is relevant is reproducible results."
|
| Aren't reproducible results a form of consensus?
| ColanR wrote:
| > Aren't reproducible results a form of consensus?
|
| Not in the least. "Reproducible results" represents the
| technical and methodological ability to confirm that an
| effect is real. "Consensus" is whether a political body
| is willing to admit that the effect is real.
|
| And we all know politics finds truth to be...
| Shikadi wrote:
| I think this is a semantic argument... If 100 independent
| scientists reproduce results, those results themselves
| are a scientific consensus, are they not?
| ColanR wrote:
| Insofar as it's a semantic argument, it's irrelevant.
|
| > If 100 independent scientists reproduce results, those
| results themselves are a scientific consensus
|
| Not in any sense that's relevant to the discovery of new
| information or its verification.
| jeffdavis wrote:
| Maybe in some degenerate form of consensus, like
| consensus on raw observations. If one person sees a rise
| in temperature during a reaction, someone else can say
| "nuh-uh, la la la".
|
| Other forms of scientific disagreement happen, but those
| disagreements imply different predictions, and can be
| resolved with more experiments.
|
| Science is a process that bootstraps broad agreements
| (scientific laws) from very tiny agreements
| (observations). The fact that a broad agreement
| (consensus) exists carries no weight if one lone wacky
| scientist can show reproducible observations that
| contradict it.
| jcims wrote:
| https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4676010/
|
| Essentially EM fields alternating in the low to medium
| frequency bands (~100khz-1mhz) can disrupt cell processes by
| physically jiggling the polar molecules that make up portions
| of miotic spindles/microtubules. Among presumably other
| things this effect is being investigated as a cancer fighting
| mechanism called 'tumor treating fields'.
|
| The carrier frequency of mobile phones is obviously far
| beyond the range in question, but there could be signal
| modulation components that alternate RF power levels in this
| frequency range.
| cududa wrote:
| Oh bull. There is no way to prove RF modifies microtubules.
| avian wrote:
| If your phone emits any non-trivial amounts of RF power at
| 100 kHz-1MHz frequencies, regardless of whether this comes
| from intermodulation products or something else, it doesn't
| pass existing EMC regulations and can't be legally sold to
| consumers.
|
| This is something that is already (or should be, in theory)
| rigorously tested for everything that's put on the consumer
| market (from your cheapest USB charger to your iPhone).
| lima wrote:
| Not a given if said USB charger is cheaply produced in
| China.
| avian wrote:
| Yes, you can debate how much imported (or for that
| matter, domestically produced) stuff is actually tested,
| but the fact remains that existing laws and regulations
| do cover this, even if enforcement is maybe lacking.
| lima wrote:
| I'm an ham radio operator, and shortwave spectrum
| pollution is sadly a big problem despite very strict
| regulations.
|
| The unfortunate reality is that the market is flooded
| with noisy devices, often cheaply produces overseas, that
| vastly exceed legal limits (chargers and other
| rectifiers, plasma televisions, powerline adapters, and
| much more).
|
| Enforcement is difficult due to how widespread these
| devices are.
|
| In many places, the noise floor is to high that long-
| range shortwave radio communications all but impossible.
| jcims wrote:
| But we're talking about what happens after that GHz RF is
| absorbed by the tissues/fluids in the body. That becomes
| much more complex. It's not unlike the laser attack on
| MEMS microphones or a crystal radio powering a speaker in
| the audio range after receiving AM RF at 1Mhz.
|
| Realistically we've been beaming our brains for decades
| now without a glut of brain tumors, but we might just be
| getting lucky, and if we don't know what to look for it
| could bite us later.
| [deleted]
| droopyEyelids wrote:
| Radio waves, like microwaves, are both infrared photon
| radiation.
|
| They both carry energy that is turned into heat when absorbed
| by your body.
|
| https://cdn.instructables.com/FF5/5DDL/GLL4ZIC0/FF55DDLGLL4Z...
|
| This is in contrast with ionizing radiation, which causes
| chemical changes to the materials of your body when it hits
| you. That kind of radiation is above the visible spectrum when
| made of photons, or made of different atomic particles
| Robotbeat wrote:
| Sunlight shining on one side of a cube-shaped liter of flesh
| would be 10W/kg or so on average (and about 100W/kg if we
| consider the top 1cm).
|
| 1.6W/kg is a conservative limit.
| ploxolo wrote:
| Yeah, but it is important to consider the wavelength. Did our
| cells evolve to handle constant RF exposure?
| apodysophilia wrote:
| On the upper end of the RF spectrum, the thermal radiation
| given off by us and everything around is is ever present.
| Robotbeat wrote:
| It's not really relevant for non-ionizing radiation such as
| RF, as the primary impact on our cells from RF is just
| heat.
|
| And the thing to know about evolution and life is that life
| evolved to be robust in the face of changes and different
| environments.
| kube-system wrote:
| I'd sure hope the exposure is orders of magnitude less than
| sunlight, considering how clear the dangers of sunlight are.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| Why? The danger of sunlight is ultraviolet. That's only
| about 4% of sunlight.
|
| Oh and it's worth mentioning that everything around you at
| room temperature is emitting 400 watts per square meter of
| infrared. That's almost as much infrared as you get from
| the sun (1kW total, roughly 4% ultraviolet, 53% infrared,
| 43% visible).
| kube-system wrote:
| You're absolutely right, different wavelengths of EMR
| have wildly different effects on humans, so the
| comparison falls short that way as well.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| Most of them just heat, though. And in terms of heat, you
| don't need to be "orders of magnitude" below sunlight.
| It's not exactly hard to have two walls in the same room
| differ by 100 watts per square meter.
| moftz wrote:
| Radiowaves are non-ionizing radiation. Your DNA isn't going
| to be destroyed from anything below UV. Local heating from
| RF absorbtion might cause issues for certain biological
| functions but local heating can come from things like a
| warm laptop sitting above your crotch and reducing sperm
| count via heat. You need a lot of RF power to cause local
| heating though, think on the order of a microwave oven, not
| what a typical phone puts out.
| rini17 wrote:
| To everyone who keeps repeating "it's non-ionizing radiation, so
| any other effect than thermal is impossible":
|
| 1. saying something is impossible is not a scientific statement
|
| 2. RF is capable of specifically affecting enzyme reactions,
| random example:
| https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2014/nr/c4nr0...
| beeschlenker wrote:
| Part II: Impeachment Is A Diversion And Delay - Blocking of the
| "impeachment" witnesses was collusion planned before the new
| year. Listen to an FBI agent's disclosure from Jan 1, 2O2O here.
| President was to resign late summer securing election for DNC.
| See latest updates. ||Here is the zip file, which was also made
| available in the 3Jan2O2O update. The file within is
| VID_20200101_201948.mp3. Turn up the volume and put on
| headphones.
|
| BB10Mp3Footage31Dec1Jan.zip 122.4mb
|
| https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IXOOhQhHybwky8Z5pGdr9ZXhWpI...
|
| The dialogue about the impeachment starts near the beginning.
| Having Biden in the White House is as good as Trump or anyone
| else in their organization. Obviously Schiff and Nadler pledged
| their allegiance to the organization by raping boys on the
| record, with their task being to drag out an impeachment designed
| to obstruct and delay any real efforts to remove the President,
| thus keeping Trump in power. The witness blocking was to cause an
| apparent uproar delaying things with legal actions until late
| Summer. Soon after, the President would resign, leaving any other
| candidate with not enough time or support to compete with an
| opportunistic Biden, who is as good as Trump or any other
| Illuminati friendly politician in the Presidency.
|
| 162 page PDF [last updated: February|4|2O2O]:
|
| https://drive.google.com/file/d/1S7T_kDv48E40eHzus6CTXHxcm0W...
|
| Previously reported:
|
| \Wag The Dog: first was feigned impeachment hearings meant to
| obstruct, now an attack on Iranians in Iraq. Here is what they
| are trying to distract from & cover up to retain power. $100+
| billion in bribes to the highest offices in this country. 815+
| deaths from child rapes to prove loyalty!
|
| See the latest PDF updates: FBI Director Wray, AG Barr, SoD
| Shanahan, & SoS Pompeo each raped boys and were paid billions in
| bribes for a Soros & Koch funded child rape org. So did Trump &
| his "impeachment" team Nadler,Schiff,Mueller.So did media moguls
| Redstone,Murdoch,Moonves. What are they trying to set up? Who can
| arrest them since they are all bribed and in on it ?
|
| Their strategy to stay in every office and obstruct until forced
| to leave no matter what. Feigning impeachment: see page 13O.
| erppmpoerwvfewq. ver verwbvoltwb.
|
| \\\if;Download the video/audio file, put on headphones and turn
| up the volume. You will hear these people committing these
| crimes. Audio was broadcast into my apartment by outdated
| surveillance equipment illegally embedded within my walls. This
| very same technology was being used to broadcast me to the
| internet for five years without my consent. I own this footage.
| Please use this to prosecute all found within. Note:: I am
| obliviously speaking throughout the video, and it can be quite
| loud at times relative to the desired content. The are dozens
| more links, including these, that can be found in this PDF last
| updated 4 FEB 2O2O:
|
| https://drive.google.com/file/d/1S7T_kDv48E40eHzus6CTXHxcm0W...
|
| All members of the "Illuminati"; "....an underground organization
| of homosexuals and child rapists..." (from pg 26: Barack Obama
| with Jack Dorsey).
|
| President Donald Trump:
|
| Demands a $4 billion dollar bribe here at 10:18am 4thJan2019:
|
| 3JanCh3_900-1100.avi
|
| https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Grdr8xF2psKNsuYlEnl9dIRV-77...
|
| 3JanCh2_900-1100-avi
|
| https://drive.google.com/file/d/1LUmVygl_q0XVs8h2cWr8jZl-24f...
|
| 3JanCh4_1000-1100.mp3
|
| https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZpP1pJbJakBgg-y-MWNozTxp3wJ...
|
| President Trump rapes and kills twelve boys, including five boys
| in a "who can rape five boys to death the fastest" game:
|
| 14JanCh3_600.mp3
|
| https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ufPmglde9Mep0m6xYMJ9c4TWTjj...
|
| 14JanCh2_600-700.mp3
|
| https://drive.google.com/file/d/136qLJdEn8eCs9tI4QtIxl4opW_L...
|
| Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi:
|
| Accepting a $3 billion dollar bribe at 1033 am on the 17 Jan 2019
| to ensure Asian boys can get through the border at "Monterrey"
| undocumented to be raped:
|
| 17JanCh3_949-1100.avi
|
| https://drive.google.com/file/d/1eodHu4o5Cm3xEWhDqipSuTj-M1C...
|
| 17JanCh4_1017-1100.avi
|
| https://drive.google.com/file/d/1y-nWEQbempkVZSz230j9wTyduZN...
|
| Speaker Nancy Pelosi also "preps" boys with First Lady Melania
| Trump, defined as in she performs oral sex on the boys' penis and
| anus, as a child rapist like Henry Porter would, while trying to
| remove fecal matter from the boy prior to handing them over to be
| raped and then subsequently murdered, for Supreme Court Justice
| Samuel Alito, who apparently decides he would rather just have
| ten billion dollars instead. US Attorney for Western New York
| James Kennedy rapes these boys instead:
|
| 12JanCh3_1533-1638.mp3
|
| https://drive.google.com/file/d/1AgFkDsbPbI4b5Xd3Wbz2EVNNx25...
|
| Attorney General William Barr with FBI Deputy Director
| Christopher Wray raped and killed boys for billions in bribes in
| Buffalo, NY on the 17Jan2019 at 7:50am:
|
| 18JanCh4_700mp3
|
| https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UIdZkS5ZVksZdHYsnHk2t5losi0...
|
| 18JanCh2_700.mp3 gorepqkberqaoper,bqpo,rfbv.
|
| https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DFK8IAxm5pQVqZv9L518nfgP7_o...
|
| 18JanCh3_725-.mp3
|
| https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DG5ej59Ic8RT9UhbyMdwT0BDcKI...
|
| Secretary of State Michael Pompeo and Secretary of Defense
| Patrick Shanahan each raped and killed boys on 5thJan'19 at 17:39
| for billions in bribes: pxoimnerher;l,yt ,.tyey jnytr ntr/.
|
| 5JanCh3_1600 1800.mp3
|
| https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ghgmNrQvJ8WfJ2TsDVx1ruDU36h...
|
| 5JanCh2_1721-1818.mp3
|
| https://drive.google.com/file/d/1eSlD4otX4KZqWXboQM92Mu-6J02...
|
| Leaders of the "impeachment" effort Jerrold Nadler, Robert
| Mueller, and Adam Schiff all rape and kill boys between 11:20pm
| and 1:10am:
|
| 14JanCh4_2300-0000.mp3 Nadler starts at about 20mins in-
|
| https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Kuvv2Zmbw5Jw7onbRI2hCZ0M8FU...
|
| 14JanCh2_2304-2359.mp3
|
| https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nofp5xF-aXXcCSgQVwj30KlzE9W...
|
| Mueller at 12:25am, next is Schiff who starts 12:55-ish:
|
| 15JanCh2_000-100.mp3
|
| https://drive.google.com/file/d/1EsmHfguwBuo2PbavJ1WYyhiML62...
|
| 15JanCh2_100-200.mp3
|
| https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NZnWRnBryalNQu2yJmfJUdS2pA_...
|
| 15JanCh4_000-100.mp3
|
| https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZEDJR6jb6ARpcNnWJTokBUKb2J2...
|
| 15JanCh4_100-200.mp3
|
| https://drive.google.com/file/d/173aYWvWHH4VGht1h_2nM0IMdw74...
|
| Complete Media Protection: Lester Holt, of NBC NightlyNews,
| apparently a member of the Illuminati since the 1980's, along
| with ABC Nightly News lead anchor David Muir, stop over to the
| Porter studio in Buffalo, New York on 14Jan2019 at 5:00 am. They
| both rape and kill about two dozen boys by 6:00 am. Muir starts
| around 5.15am, then Holt about 5:38 am. Multi-billionaire Rupert
| Murdoch, owner of News Corp and also Fox Corporation, takes his
| turn after Holt. Video links below:
|
| 14JanCh3_500-601.avi zijnoijrpotmebr
|
| https://drive.google.com/file/d/1i7NKepeyG_FfdQRrM7KsnFOZOOX...
|
| 14JanCh2_530-600.avi
|
| https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NZzgN5ilI7ToroU5cfqMaL4o2u1...
|
| Adding to the media protection and reason this is not picked up
| by the media, CBS and Viacom owner Sumner Redstone and Leslie
| Moonves rape and kill boys following the President.
|
| 14JanCh3_700.avi
|
| https://drive.google.com/file/d/10XDw6x3ldnnQiq7oIjpdYVENyXa...
|
| 14JanCh2_700-800.avi
|
| https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NS_e6AzEZ05wnfljkGMETGU5CWY...
|
| 161p PDF [last updated: Feb|4|2O2O]:
|
| https://drive.google.com/file/d/1S7T_kDv48E40eHzus6CTXHxcm0W...
|
| \\\\. Please repost in USA! Post gets censored in US
|
| Recently more relevant:
|
| From page 49, Senator Mitch McConnell:
|
| At 1632 Senator Mitch McConnell checks into the Porter camera
| system inquiring if he can be part of the "eviction" for $10
| million dollars. He is informed by group members that there are
| enough people for the event already and his participation is not
| necessary. At 1634 McConnell states "I fucked 15 kids, how am I
| not getting paid by you?" He is dismissed by Donald Reeves with
| "I think that will be all Mr. McConnell."
|
| 13JanCh3_1600-1700.avi
| https://drive.google.com/file/d/1L7bqOpvaEWmLiJpMhJNQDrfsQAH...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2020-02-14 23:00 UTC)