December 21, 2022

Cell phone emissions


I’m interested in all takes.
Lauren Whiteman—yours in particular and at 6:42 mark.
Thank you!


Terrain answer:

I hesitate to even approve this because I know that it is just going to get overrun with the usual fearmongering comments about FG that disregard biological principles in exchange for something to be afraid of.
Cell phone emissions are a type of non-ionizing radiation. All radiation causes burns when it injures. Radiation is PROXIMITY and DURATION dependent. Can a cellphone potentially cause a tumor? Sure, possibly. But is it the sole cause? Absolutely not. A person has to make a lot of other mistakes to have the tumor grow. First they need proximity and duration. Talking with the phone against your face – proximity, but then you need duration – holding it to your face for a long time. Then realistically you are looking at some local damage to cells. However in order for a tumor to be formed we need to take that damage and block off the bodies ability to expel and repair. In a healthy body if a cell is damaged it is simply eliminated by a properly functioning elimination system. In order for the cell to stay in place and require a tumor to be formed by the body, the elimination system has to be compromised.
We had a post on the FG narrative in the group that explains radiation, emfs and FG in detail from the terrain perspective, but the “fact checkers” removed it. I have reposted it to my website here:…/
The cell phones we can hit the proximity and duration requirements even though it is still stretching to blame disease on them. But when it comes to the towers and airborne EMFs and all of the other fear mongering there is the huge missing piece – proximity. Towers are 30 or more feet in the air, not up against your skin.
Blaming disease on emfs is a great way to disempower people, a great way to cause division and fear. A great way to take the blame off a disease causing diet, but simply not reasonable or realistic when we look at how our physiology operates.