5G Truther Wants To Debate Sam
Vložit
- čas přidán 21. 08. 2024
- Sam takes a caller who wants to discuss tinfoil theories about health risks posed to humans by 5G, WiFi, Bluetooth, and other technology.
Watch the Majority Report live Monday-Friday at 12 p.m. EST on CZcams OR listen via daily podcast at www.Majority.FM
www.house.gov/...
www.senate.gov...
#SamSeder #EmmaVigeland #MajorityReport #politics #news #progressive #leftist #democrats #liberal
SUPPORT the show by becoming a member: www.jointhemajo...
Download TMR's FREE app: www.majorityapp...
TMR MERCH: www.shop.majori...
CHECK OUT MORE from the MR crew:
Matt Binder DOOMED / mattbinder
Brandon Sutton DISCOURSE / expandthediscourse
Emma Vigeland ESVN / esvnshow
Matt Lech LEFT RECKONING / leftreckoning
OTHER LINKS:
Twitch: / themajorityreport
Facebook: / majorityreport
Twitter: / majorityfm
Instagram: / majorityreport.fm
A pro gun control, anti Israel, 5G truther is such a rare combo. This has gotta be a bingo
I'd assume that's like 80% of all American 5g truthers.
@@OneEyeShadow haha they sell mini faraday cages in the US to stop 5G, then they complain that their phone won't work lol
like a trans republican
Anti Israel for the online left is just anti semitism disguised in anti-imperialism. The socialist left is wrong about geopolitics in all counts. The last couple years have made that clear.
@@OneEyeShadow I always wonder why do we call them "truthers" when they aren't telling the truth? 🤔
When these people talk to us about the dangers of 5G and Wi-Fi, we should be encouraging them wholeheartedly to stop going on the internet.
I guess you think the WHO is part of the conspiracy too😊
Lmao, true
Exactly!
Honestly upset at these 5G people when the REAL issue at the time with 5G was the policy and laws around it that basically made it only available for big business to incorporate.
😂👍
Why is it always, "SAM, I LOVE YOU, I AM ON YOUR SIDE, I LOVE WHAT YOU SAY ! " is a forerunnner to a really terrible take ?
Lol its like clockwork 😂
Makes you think the kind of people this show and ideology attracts 🤣🤣🤣🤣
It's a tell for anxiety. Personally, I hope it's because some part of them recognizes they're not fully confident in these beliefs and want to have it changed.
It's like the precursor, "I'm not a racist, but..."
@cameronmcleod8419 If only you were correct . . . What a wonderful world it would be, lol.
He’s “tooken” philosophy classes.
That hit me like a rock to the face 😂
That little nugget was a foreshadowing of the coming logic.
That's a southernism. I have an uncle who has a PhD in Chemistry and has been worked as research lead for multiple companies over 30 years, and he talks like that. If I didn't actively counteract it, I would also talk like that. It's a tad annoying for people to be all on board with the "AAVE is also correct English" (which I 100% agree with), but for some reason, any other dialect is not.
@@boingodoingo1930 Du-hwuuutt?
Hwutt.
Inna hail.
Ur yew token bayout?
@@boingodoingo1930Thanks for sharing that, I actually didn’t know it was a southernism. Now I’ll keep it in mind if I hear the phrase again. 😊
Just off the top, governments can make laws that are not based on sound science. It happens all the time. The existence of these bans does nothing to prove WiFi is harmful.
Also, the no power lines and cell towers near schools might be because they're also big tall metal zappy things that kids could electrocute themselves with.
You mean the governments that pass anti-gay laws are capable of ignoring science and reason?
Surely, you jest.
@@Pluveus They are also massive lightning rods. If they are not grounded correctly they are extremely dangerous. Step and Touch potential.
Also kids like to climb on things.
@@samwild6630blah blah blah unless it’s actually doing damage it isn’t that serious. When it is you’ll be the first one I call
@@DontCallMeAaron I'm just stating some reasons why these sorts of infrastructure are not installed where unauthorized people can have easy access.
Does he sleep in a faraday cage? And he of course can't walk in the daylight, because of ionization. So my belief is this guy is secretly a vampire, and wants a more vampire friendly world.
I'm pretty sure humans give off radiation as well as everything.
Way to show your mortal privilege.
No hes afraid of nonionizing radiation so hes actually fine outside if only the UV rays hit him. I believe he lives in a nuclear reactor with only the sweet green glow of plutonium to help him watch this show... on his screen... which emits light... using radio signals..
@@MarcillaSmithdohoho 😂
If 5G is dangerous, then 4G is dangerous. If 4G is dangerous, then 2G is dangerous. If 2G is dangerous then radio and TV waves are dangerous. Does the caller want us to go back to the stone age?
Instant cult classic
Emphasis on cult
She sells pseudoscience
Brain Removal Machine?
@@mycosys That second one's a bit of a stretch, but I appreciate it all the same.
Him choosing not to answer the question shows an inability to say “I don’t know “, this presents a lot of problems in determining truth
Really nice of Chuck McGill to call in.
❤
caller: "I've 'tooken' some philosophy courses."
me: : I've gotta go."
😂 .. I laughed too, he should have taken grammar courses,.. he was trying hard to give weight to his arguments and capacity to think.
Actually gives away the common error in syllogism in this case..
- I took a few courses on Philosophy (sorry! "tooken"! 😂),
- Studying philosophy makes you smart,
- I'm smart! Believe me!
😂
Actually tooken is a valid word. Making sweeping judgments about someone based only on a perceived understanding of what constitutes correct grammar is not a good idea.
@@randomjabify I'd argue that with the way the english language is evolving, I'd say it's not really considered valid anymore - or at the very least it's definitely fallen out of fashion. To me, it sounds more 'olde english', and I've never had a professor let anyone get away with using 'tooken' in any assignments.
However, that's just me teasing about semantics. xD
I wholeheartedly agree with your point (even though I admit I did bark out a startled laugh when I first heard it....).
Back when I was a kid, the older generation believed we got radiation from sitting too close to a color TV
IKR? Turns out, that only applies to VERY old TV sets manufactured in the 1950s thru the 1960s, mainly because of changes in CRT shielding -- the potential dangers of high-proximity exposure had long been mitigated to negligible levels since then, especially since (a) the really old TVs have all but completely disappeared due to eventual breakdown, & (b) CRT television sets have become unfashionable due to the popularization of modern flat-panel display TVs.
Of course, all of this could go completely over the heads of some oldsters if one were to try & explain all this to them....
I remeber that except I was always told that is was bad for your eyes, and not for fear of radiation.
@@Drelam TV is bad for your eyes. Not catastrophically bad, or anything, but I'll bet humanity as a whole had better eyesight back before we spent all our time staring at flickering screens...
lol i remember my grandparents always getting on at me for sitting too close to the tv lol i am fine, been lucky enough to be healthy and fit my whole life.
Emma has a sunburn probrably caused by WiFi
Must've run out of Faraday lotion.
Should've listened to Wifi Guy!!!
That actually is uv non ionizing radiation.
Watching Sam & Emma's physical reaction to these bozos is my favorite part of these debates
Bahahaha agreed. Their facial reactions to certain statements got me dyinggggg 😂😂😂
This is what I love about leftist. They truly believe they have shit figured out. They don't, but that will never stop them from arrogantly asserting their soy based dominance 😅
Especially Emma's sly smile lol
He wasn't a bozo. I don't get the hostility toward this guy - like he said, he's not a flat earther. He's not claiming leprechauns are real. If you listen to his concern, it is a perfectly valid one, given the premises (beliefs he had coming into this) he laid out.
I believe his premises are wrong - there is no legit science stating cell phone non ionizing radiation can be damaging and the ppl pushing it are convincing woo sites and propagandistic places online (eg Facebook).
But yeah, given his premises, Caller's concern is 100% valid. He didn't deserve the immediate and unwavering disrespect of the hosts who are not themselves experts on radio-physics or health science.
@@teethgrinder83 Gives her a chance to stretch her neck apparently
His only relevant argument was that some European countries had removed WiFi from certain public places, like schools. What he didn't seem to realise though is that their reason for doing so has nothing to do with radiation possibly being harmful. It is because constant access to the Internet and social media rots your brain if you are not mature enough to handle it, as per his own example!
Public schools probably def still have wifi, but the public can't access it.
This is how conspiracy theorists always operate.. They find some little fact and then they go "see? This proves X!"
Any nation that put some pause on covid vaccines were used as evidence that the vaccines are the devil.. Even if the nation resumed vaccines shortly thereafter because they realized nothing was amiss..
Hmmm, have schools started removing WiFi because it's harmful to people's bodies, or so it's harder for kids to be online during school hours? I wonder...
The caller doesn't even understand that non ionizing radiation includes sunlight
Ehhh not all the sun's light is non-ionizing, and the sun is responsible for skin cancer, so not a very good example
@@beezusHrist the UV band of sunlight is a low key ionizing.
@anthonyrowland9072 Yes, and not a great example because the Sun's light actually does give people skin cancer. Just saying that. The real danger of very low frequencies such as this is that they have the ability, when concentrated, to move particles in space and long term we have no idea how that will effect the human body, but that's not cancer.
A better example would be radio waves because that's what they are
@@beezusHrist yes, but we aren't going to tell people to never expose themselves to sunlight
@@nosuchthing8a lot of anti 5g or anti-wifi hacks will simultaneously recommend people don’t use sunscreen or wear sunglasses because your body needs sunlight to function properly
As Emma points out, almost all the studies he cites are about banning KIDS USING phones in class. Like, because kids were making calls and texting and playing games there are a bunch of schools who are trying to figure out ways to block or ban cellphones. Not about radiation exposure, but about classroom disruption.
2:18 European Union regulations are all based on a “prove it is safe before it is allowed to cause exposure” model versus the US regulations are typically based on a reactive model exemplified by “we have found it to be unsafe, so we’ll prohibit its usage”. While electromagnetic fields may be damaging, and there is not enough substantial evidence to say it definitively and perfectly safe, it does not mean that it is unsafe (and there just isn’t a lot of concrete evidence to say it’s a very serious hazard either).
Risk reduction is awesome, and if something that might pose a harm can be prevented from harming people we should do that unless it poses some more realizable risk to not do it (like it might be more risky, harmful, or inconvenient to not have electricity in houses and hospitals, than the risk of the EM radiation poses). But that also doesn’t mean that EM radiation is also definitively bad for us.
I tried to look up some of the studies and info that this caller stated, but they only lead me to anti-5G websites. Shocking...
What you want to look for is fcc rf exposure limits. The fcc has studies. They heavily restrict rf exposure to safe levels.
There ought to be some CISPR standard, but they are expensive to purchase and read
@@gayasparagusfreak
@@gayasparagus They have restrictions on levels permitted, but that limit is many times higher than levels found near cell towers. You're misrepresenting what's actually going on.
Caller tried to appeal to Sam's ethos by bringing up Sam's friend who committed suicide. Disingenuous af
I don''t know. I think he is a true believer
@@AWildBardTrue believer or not, bringing up the suicide and then ranting about 5G shit is just plain asshollery.
@@leebrock4783your are genuinely insufferable
Not really, he was quite genuine when mentioning that
You're implying he's using the fact that his own friend killed themselves, knowing Sam's friend did, to gain some sort of advantage. Honestly man, that says more about you being a spiteful person than anything else. Dude could have just honestly related. If he's an actual listener, which I don't have any reason to doubt (usually those are the libertarians who find this show from clips on other shows), he's probably just doing what anyone does when they get to connect with someone they follow. If you're somehow immune to not shitting yourself and trying to connect with someone you have a semi parasocial relationship with having watched them for years and finally talking or meeting them, I guess you're just like a really cool dude. Too cool for school. When I first interacted with some people I had followed for almost a decade, I fumbled and mumbled like hell. I'm over that shit now, but the one-sided media relationship creates some awkward interactions.
‘I’ve tooken philosophy classes’
"I've takeneth philosophy classes"
I've stole philosophy classes’.
I'm wearing philosopher glasses.
.. and he wanted to leave the conversation on a high note. No can do buddy, ever since you demostrated what you learned on those "Philozoffee Klasses" you were undone.
As a 2 way radio technician, this is a fun subject for me. According to the FCC, normal ground-level exposure from cellular towers is much less than the exposure that might be encountered if one were very close to the antenna and in its main transmitted beam. Measurements made near typical cellular and PCS cell sites have shown that ground-level power densities are well below the exposure limits recommended by RF/microwave safety standards used by the FCC.
The answer to Sam's question is, yes. RF exposure damage is cumulative. And UV is non-ionizing radiation, which is why people can get skin cancer from sun bathing a lot.
RF exposure has been extensively researched and exposure from consumer devices and commercial antennas is extremely restricted by the fcc. Contrary to intuition, thats one reason there are cell phone towers EVERYWHERE. The power your cellphone puts out is maybe 200mW. Which is very low, requiring a tower to be within 2 miles or closer to get a marginally reliable signal.
Was hunting for you in the comments because I recall these same arguments that came out when 3g was rolling out
@@MatthewBaran yep 😂 5g is just a modulation scheme. Which does play a role in exposure, but it is a rather minimal role.
The caller also drastically misrepresented the lawsuit filed against the FCC as well.
It was not a cause- or harm-determinative decision; it was a judge telling the FCC to be more thorough in their process of updating guidelines.
I think your intention was to say that RF exposure within legal limits is safe, but your "RF exposure is cumulative" contradicts that (and it's wrong). Also, UV is non-ionizing but so is visible light, that's not the reason it causes cancer.
The frequencies used in radio communication can at most heat up the surface of your body a tiny bit. If it hurts you, you will feel it.
“Thank you for everything you do, it’s really important…. “ Goes on to a full on *TAKE THE TOWERS DOWN NOW* insane rant
Caller: ARE YOU AWARE
Sam: IM CALLING BLUFF
RM Brownheads in the cut!
WEIRD
TOILETSCH
THE MUSCULAR CLASS
I expected the caller to launch into 5G in the vaccines next.....disappointed to say the least🤣
5G in Vaccines that’s crazy!! 😂Everyone knows it’s chips in those things..
I mean hes literally talking about frequencies relatively equivalent to 5g waves so he might as well have lol
My ears perk up when I hear my area code. Then he proceeds to jump into 5g conspiracy crap... "Shit."
Lmaoo 503 is portland area right? I live right across the border in Washington and recognized it instantly
Yeah it's Northwest Oregon down to about Salem.
My mother is a lot like this caller, just far more delusional…this was depressing. I’m glad I’m in the minority, because people like me will never find amusement in this. These people are sick, and our entire system failed them. Propagators of this dangerous hooey like RFK, Joe Rogan, Andreas Kalcker, etc should be fined into oblivion
Yep, just like all of the functional drunks and drug addicts in our country, these people are mentally ill, but still functional in our society. Many of them even go on to become lawyers, doctors, business owners, politicians despite this mental illness ... I wish that weren't the case, because their mental illness will cloud their judgements and can even get worse.
I couldn't agree more. These people are this era's poison. So much damage is being done.
He almost defeated Sam by putting Sam to sleep. Defeated me that way that's for sure...
but he wanted to keep it short. lmao
Gave him more time than he deserves. In the meantime, our water supplies all have pfas, which seems like a more serious problem than something that could be solved with a tinfoil hat.
Seriously though, I remember there was a study decades ago about mobile phones causing brain tumors. It seems like some studies would have revealed something about that by now.
5G could literally be solved with tinfoil hats and that's not a joke. If any one is seriously concerned with 5G signals, just cover yourself in tinfoil.
Not all studies are correct. Some times you have data taken that doesn't isolate things well or misses things. There are a few studies that incorrectly show that coffee causes cancer but the bulk majority shows the opposite.
yeah but they are keeping it a secret, it turns out Big Pharma are in cahoots with Big Phones
I suspect they are chemtrail people with a new mission.
I got 99 problems, but wifi ain't one of them. Goddamn. Someone smart talked about political priorities and what it says about you and this caller embodies that point perfectly.
This was just after a seperate rough 20+ minute call about Ukraine, the collective groan in the chat as he kept going on.
You could tell that the Ukraine call was just a dumb kid.
Was it NATO/USA bad call?
@@FerreusNRGIt was about the immorality of supporting Ukraine against the Russian Invaders. Apparently Ukraine can't win, though it's currently winning.
@@FerreusNRG are they not?
@@edricaldones9639 that's stupid😭
Can't wait for the Tooken trilogy.
I'm starting to think the MR is getting targeted.
-On Friday a caller wanted to talk about engaging in violent protests.
-Today, a caller said it was immoral to support Ukraine because Russia is more powerful and is destined to win.
-And then this caller provided a litany of reports about potential harmful effect of WiFi without explaining the harm or causation.
All 3 of these people claimed to be big fans of the show. I'm having trouble buying that.
MR is yuge amongst fans of manifest destiny.
The Friday caller had perfectly reasonable questions about the apathy of the movement. He wasn't advocating for people picking up pitchforks, as I recall the word "violence" was used very loosely to mean actually disrupting daily life in his country, which is what a large portion of the left should and do advocate for.
@@pokeppokep Did you miss the part where he tried to sneak in a comment that hinted Sam was secretly pro-violence?
@@pokeppokep Yeah a real broad definition of violence totally makes it less sus. it really sounded to me like someone trying to get a soundbite to cause trouble.
@@nerag7459
manifest destiny?
Is there some kind of movement, or do you mean the original meaning of manifest destiny ?
Is this some kind of right wing ideology like incels or proud boys?
As somebody who lives in Australia, I definitely question the inclusion of Australia in his list of countries lowering or reducing 5G/Wi-Fi coverage.
As someone who visited Australia a few years ago there doesn’t seem to be much point to 5G there until you get internet that isn’t terrible
Yeah, 5G currently covers 80% of Australia's population, will be 95% by 2025.
@@stdesy wrong wrong, heavy investment in 5G in Australian cities...become standard. the caller is an idiot
The exact opposite is true
As an Austrian I have to concur.
Holy fuck, there's this type of person that just refuses to answer direct questions
The evolution of a libertarian
Dude just KNOWS that he's full of shit, or knows that if he tries to explain it, he'll show the holes in his bullshit argument.
Because they have no answers.
Yes, many of them are in the Biden Administration.
WIFI operates at frequency of 2.4Ghz which is 12.5cm wavelength which does not affect the human body in any significant way. We have had wifi tech for a long time where a lot of people are "exposed" to this for pretty much most of their day to day lives. If there was any truth to the harmful effects of this, we would be seeing an increase in cancer rates, health complications, mass die offs which could be attributed to this, but we dont. Countless studies including ones from WHO which specifically created a project for EMF have found no evidence of harm. In very select few studies on rats there was little discrepency from the consensus observed but it was mostly inconclusive and needed to be replicated and studied more to oppose the consensus. Most people dont understand radiation. Light is radiation. The important part about radiation is that its a spectrum, some of which is ionizing and some of which is non ionizing. Ionizing meaning it will throw electrons out of atoms which needless to say is worrying and fatal. Non ionizing radiation on the other hand can be harmful at high frequencies and shorter wavelengths because they can cause heating (like microwave ovens) and in some cases damage to your eyes because duhh. The frequencies for wifi and other wireless communication tech does not reach said harmful frequencies. I may have missed something out so I apologise but this is the gist of it.
Radio static is literally the oldest thing in the universe - the cosmic microwave background radiation
@@mycosys indeed. Imagine these morons ever read a book or two.
Ugh. This is why education is important. If this dude had a solid educational foundation, he'd have known enough about physics, or biology, or chemistry, or heck even advertising (because that's all "5G" is: marketing) to know that there's nothing to worry about here. Makes me sad :/
From a scientific perspective it makes absolutely makes no sense. If you are anti 5G you have to be anti FM and AM radio also. Hell you have to be like anti electronics in general as all electronics emit some form of ELECTROmagnetic frequency. The waves emitted from wifi/5G are at the complete opposite end of the spicy EMF (the ionizing radiation that causes cancer) that it’s ridiculous. I haven’t made it past the Caller’s opening salvo yet but he did mention that “scientists” are “concerned” about non-ionizing radiation and that was incredibly vague but I am curious if he elaborates
I agree. I’m only at 4:31 but so far it seems like this is a sweet guy and he’s coming from a good place
Current "5G" is a marketing term, but there is REAL 5G technology. That's not what you get on your phone. Real 5G needs to have transceivers or "towers" on every block. Real 5G has limited range. The marketing has made people unable to understand what 5G actually is.
"Oh 5G, I've had that forever already. It has to be fine!"
I'm not saying that this guy is right, but I can't say that he's wrong either. The average person knows so little about this this stuff that they can't argue either way. That's what ALL of them just proved.
As someone who worked in the RF emission regulation industry, there are a lot of people like this. I'll try to explain the essentials for those who want to learn more about RF radiation. RF radiation is non-ionizing, it does not alter or change DNA. The main reason why RF CAN be dangerous, though it almost never is, is due to user error. Essentially, RF heats up your body a little bit when you are exposed to it. This can be dangerous when exposed to thousands of watts of RF in close proximity. The eyes and the "family jewels" lack adequate cooling, so it is possible to become blind or sterilized. Likewise, it is possible to develop flu-like symptoms when exposed to high amounts of RF. For those who are concerned, iPhones/Android devices, or even WiFi routers, do not produce anywhere near enough radiation to be a concern. This is why it is possible to be in a classroom/office full of smart devices without becoming blind. In fact, I attempted to measure various devices around the office, but the radiation was too weak to be detected. Those who are most in danger are RF technicians. They want to work on as many cellular sites as they can each day, in order to maximize their bonuses; however, this often means skipping mandatory indoor emission breaks. The emissions on rooftops are dangerous, this is why there will be blue/yellow/red warning signs on the rooftop doors, as well as barriers surrounding the antennas. If you are going to be on the rooftop of office buildings or public garages, then make sure you are not standing near antennas - some of them are mounted to the sides of the buildings. This is only a concern if you're eating a meal there, since side-mounted antennas are facing away. The danger zone of antennas is a few feet in front of them, their emissions often take the form of a cone. It's worth noting that not all antennas are equally dangerous, yagis and omnis are pole-like antennas that are pretty weak, there are rectangular 4-8 ft antennas that can be pretty strong, and microwaves (dishes) can be quite strong. Nowadays, 5G is the main concern for a lot of regulation. 5G antennas can be VERY strong, sometimes spilling emissions all over the rooftop of office buildings. Though, as is the case with other antennas, 5G is not a concern to those that follow safety guidelines. Finally, RF emissions are not necessarily constant. It's common for antennas to not blast rooftops at their full potential, they are sometimes even turned off during repairs or rooftop events. So even if you have a very powerful antenna next to you, it is possible that you could do so and remain unharmed. If you are paranoid about RF, you can buy professional-grade devices, they kinda look like pagers. They'll beep if you're exposed to dangerous radiation. TL;DR: If you are not hugging rooftop antennas, then you have nothing to worry about.
As someone who worked on BTS software for major telecom infrastructure provider, I will only add that engineers usually block cell administratively when working on rooftops or masts.
Engineer does not need to be in close proximity of antenna to diagnose antenna problems so "site visit" is only really needed when something needs to physically installed or replaced. Network monitoring and RF diagnostic tools in telecom industry are so ridiculously sophisticated than everything can be and is done remotely.
Where are all the 1G,2G,3G 4G peeps at... Do they have Cancer now too? I am a higher risk of getting cancer from Airplane fuel than Radio waves from 5G Technology
5g is newer. Therefore bad.
Radio is like, natural man, or whatever
Next time call into Bret Weinstein or Glen Beck.
💯
I sure hope this guy doesn't own or ever use a microwave.
@mescouettes If your microwave turns on with the door open.. Throw it in the trash.
Belgium didn't ban the sale of smartphones to children under 7. Belgium banned certain phones MARKETED to children under 7 in September 2013. So, like phones that look like toys and not phones. Normal phones (even with cartoon characters on it) still can be bought for kids under 7. This just was a measure because the government hadn't a clear answer if it was harmful or not. Not because it concluded it WAS harmful. It was just never revised when more studies came in.
Just to put this myth to bed.
TBH this phone call made me want to "die suddenly" from my covid shots. As soon as as he was laying the gun violence heavily I knew he was buttering everyone up.
Yeah, I doubt everything he said before he went into the 5G spiel.
@@maxpowers123 Yes I was making fun of the conspiracy theory.
15:19 "I can understand why my cohosts and colleagues get mad at me."
Did they pick a caller more longwinded than Sam on purpose? 😆
😅😅😅self discovery
More people have died from TikTok alone than from exposure to wifi, BT and 5G.
Sam: Moving to the country. Gonna eat a lot of peaches
Caller: that poison will kill you faster than bluetooth
Bro did a whole ass podcast out front
Doctors are the ones that use MRI and X-ray machines. But there is a risk/benefit cost involved. The risk of low grade exposure is negligible compared to the positives of the technology.
100%, except that doctors write orders, and almost never touch the machines.
That's usually Radiologic Technologists like me and my homies.
@@stephenballard3759 You are technically correct, which is the right kind of correct. But I think if a doctor orders you to use the machine, the point still stands. Medical professionals use this stuff all the time at much higher yields. I imagine techs like yourself do need to wear radiological meters that track your exposure, but I think that also proves that there is a standard of acceptable dosage, and Wifi & 5G come nowhere near that level.
that's ionising radiation. That's the end of the spectrum that is, in laymans terms "more powerful" (higher frequency, and frequency is proportional to photon energy) than visible light.
Wifi uses non-ionising radiation which is the other end of the spectrum, the part that is **less powerful than visible light**. The part below infrared, not the part above ultraviolet. UV and above is the part with the cancer risk, which is why we have to carefully limit our exposure to X-rays, but radio stations broadcast far and wide all over the world, without any negative consequences to health.
@Muzikman127 Yes. That's what I said.
High - intensity microwave and radio wave frequency HAS been shown to cause some neurological reactions, because they act as voltage-gated calcium channel activists, meaning they open neuron cell walls to the passage of calcium ions, and THAT can cause synaptic fatigue or insufficiency, leading to headaches, insomnia, etc. But, that takes longer exposure to a very intense beam of field. Nothing like a cell phone or radio. Something like the radar emitter on a battleship.
@@Brinelious exactly.
Don't forgot when people blamed microwaves to cause cancer lol
I mean... a microwave wouldn't be great to run without the shielding.
I'm not sure if you'd get cancer or just burned, but i can't imagine it'd be pleasant lol
Yeah, microwaves just excite water molecules into higher energy vibrational states which is then noticed as the food warming up. I'm not sure what the mechanism behind it causing cancer would even be considering the waves are low energy. Maybe through causing skin damage, but it wouldn't be any worse than burning yourself with anything else.
world cancer deaths are up 70% from 1990, according to IHME 2019
I live for Sam debating anyone. It brings me Joy!
RIP to all those who tried to debate Sam.
mans cites dozens of studies, then all he can do to defend his position is essentially repeat the same sentence.
The problem is reading a study title (or even its synopsis) doesn't mean someone understands what the study actually says. Too many people explicitly seek out information which confirm their biases, even if its one sentence picked out of comtext from a 70 page study, then run around like they've proven everything. Its a very atupid way to live.
Why do cookers just make up crap about Australia?
a) We invented wifi
b) Wifi and mobile usage here is endemic and 5G uptake is huge (partial because our broadband is mediocre)
Exactly. I was sitting here in the Barossa Valley thinking wtf is this dckhead talking about 😅
Has your internet speed gotten any better in the last 5 years? I recall it was sub-par for a first world country at the time
@@stdesy nah it’s still a bit patchy but we’ll survive
Ah, ok, Matt has corrected himself - knew he wouldn't disappoint!!!😂
Seder: "Who's this? Where are you calling from?"
Caller: "This is Mathew?"
Oh, man...the first words out of his mouth sound like he's asking strangers if he got his own name correct. This can only get worse...
Hello is this me?
The title made me click so fast! Love when Sam debates kooks!! 😂
"The Nether Places" is my new favorite term for The Netherlands 😂 @ 2:45
And yet, the life expectancy of people in the civilized world has continued to rise, since the discovery and use of FM signals.
its actually currently going down in the USA, the shortest its been in 20 years. but the amounts its risen and fallen over time are so small as to be irrelevant.
@@rumfordc What is relevant is that the average life expectancy in the U.S. alone, from 1933 at 60 years, has risen to 76 years in 2023. FM transmission usage has risen exponentially since its discovery in 1933. Thus, proving my point.
@@AtariBorn why would you want to compare to one of the worst periods in human history?
@@rumfordc What are you on about?
@@AtariBorn why would you want to compare against the Great Depression?
So what is the medical condition he is alleging is caused by Wi-Fi? Bad stuff? Then what stuff, cancer, other diseases?
So many of these calls are the caller rambling for 10 minutes then Sam asks one question and the person falls apart
I swear I ask myself everyday "why are ppl like this" (tbh i stole it from hasan). I just found out my older cousin is a conspiracy theorist (which was cool cause we never really had anything to bond over) but of course it's the nwo, 5g, project blue beam types 😢
Somebody get this guy a wristband. Problem solved.
He made claims about WiFi and Switzerland. I am a native Swiss and still live there, and his claims are not true. WiFi is not in decline. Quite the contrary. It's expanding massively.
There’s always a guy like this in philosophy classes, and they are always a massive whinging, cringey mess.
He didn't seem so bad, his concern was at least genuine even if misguided. Seems like he agrees with Sam on most stuff
He’s from Portland, he has the same area code as me.
Sunshine consists primarily of radiation in infrared (IR), visible, and ultraviolet (UV) frequencies.
Lasers also emit EM radiation in these "optical frequencies."
The higher frequencies of EM radiation, consisting of x-rays and gamma rays, are types of ionizing radiation.
As someone in the RF field. There's more danger in holding a cell phone to your head than 5G. Use Bluetooth if you're worried about that. But it's still fairly minimal.
Other non-ionizing EMR:
AM radio
FM radio
HD radio
Satellite radio
Sound itself
Light itself
Satellite TV
The sun
The moon
Flying
Many of these are many, many times the level of WiFi and cellular and nobody cares because, for the 947th time... it's understood to be safe at levels *far* above what the maximum output of routers and the radiation from cell towers are.
I do love some of the proposed "solutions" to the "problem" by some of these people:
"Limit your child's screen time to limit exposure."
(Bruh, the device contributes very little to EMR exposure and you're still subjected it as long as the router is on.)
"Turn your devices off when not in use."
"Get your child tested for EMR exposure regularly."
(I don't believe such a test exists? It doesn't seem to.)
I did appreciate how quickly the caller folded and got defensive, though.
A total crash and burn at the first question and total humiliation" "I just heard about the case, I didn't follow it!!!"
Sound is shock waves in air, not EMR.
you missed the cosmic microwave background =- the literal oldest thing in the universe
I think Sams face in the thumbnail says it all. Appealing to "overall health" problems when saying something is harmful isn't how you convince anyone of anything. Can he point to a correlation in some specific health problems sonce the advent of wifi to at least make a real case, even that in and of itself would be shaky evidence since correlation does not necessarily equal causation, and you can find a lot of corrections that are in fact not caused by each other.
I think the implication is cancer. They think the invisible waves passing through their body are damaging their cells which will lead to cancer.
He's obviously referring to your health bar that goes down when you get hurt, and when it gets empty you die.
@@luodeligesi7238Roblox UUOOFF Sound
Poor dude. Not very well
"This is Matthew...?" 🤣
Sam has such fun demolishing these fatuous non-arguments😂
🤣🔥 Surgical Sam strikes again
@@TimiTamminen Yep, so much fun to watch.
Lol once again, Thunderf00t debunked this entire fallacy in the “Zorb” video.
The radiation from these things are far below the threshold of what human biology can regulate and regenerate. You get magnitudes more radiation on an average plane ride and that’s still safe.
They literally dont have enough energy to break the most simple bonds between molecules, thats what nonionizing means. Thats why a microwave heats up water without hydrolysing it, it has the energy to vibrate bonds but not break them to form a new substance.
Thunderf00t is a reactionary weirdo. Broken clock and all that.
@@AshiwiZuniHis Elon dunk videos are bangers, you shut your face.
@@AshiwiZuni Are you arguing with him on the science? Because that's his main thing and the subject of relevance here. Richard Dawkins is sus as fuck on trans issues and even ascribes undeserved seriousness to Jordan Peterson's bullshit, but that doesn't mean all his scientific knowledge now comes into question because of that
@@cosmosofinfinity bruh. You debate morons are so annoying. No. Go re-read the comment. I am quite literally agreeing that he got it correct.
In the ~1,000 Sam Seder debates I've watched, this one's at the bottom. Boo, Sam. Boo.
I sure hope this guy is calling from a landline while he’s getting his info from his hardwired (only) computer to rattle off at Sam 😂
I have owned and used cell phone since 1986 and I have been a regular on the internet since 1995 and my body is not racked with cancer or any other ailment so I guess I'll just carry on
Although the guy is right that Sam's analogy is faulty. Flat earth has no basis in science. A better comparison is someone who refuses to go outside in sunny weather for fear of skin cancer
“Peak indulgence for Sam.” I love it.😂
this guy is pretty smart, he's tooken philosophy classes you know
7:30 longest 5 seconds of this man's life
The problem is that people don't understand that sunlight is also radiation.
You go out in the sunlight?!
@@nerag7459 Anyone who leaves the house does.
Even if you leave under the moonlight you're still absorbing gamma radiation from the moon.
@@tim3172 Well thanks for that now I'm never leaving the house.
Ok, calling it: the caller is talking nonsense.
I named my WiFi CDC-5GDEATHRAYTESTING
I think what they really want to say is that this stuff is metaphysically tainted on their very, hyper-specific frequencies, so it doesn't need to be consistent or be contrasted to anything similar or identical. That is pretty much the insinuation when you keep wanting to keep complete focus on the narrow scope he's outlined and dismiss any broader implications.
Also, a case study in motivated reasoning when he preemptively declares that the FCC are either a trustworthy citation or complete liars depending on what conclusion they came to, that he never followed up on.
Your guy got it backwards right at the last minute, and I'm glad he fixed it. Ultraviolet and above are ionizing radiation. Everything with energys below visible light is non ionizing radiation.
There is some controversy around this, but it has long been known that ionizing radiation causes harm. Ionizong means it will destroy chemical bonds, causing genetic damage, as well as free radicals, free peroxide molecules, etc.. And ionizing radiation can cause tissue damage directly at known high doses, and random effects such as cancer, birth deffects. fetal death etc.
Non ionizing radiation has not been shown to cause any of these, but there are some hints that living in and around strong magnetic fields such as power lines MIGHT have some adverse effects. Still not in the textbooks, though
Microwaves are non-ionizing radiation, as an example.
Thank you
Except it has and the WHO has said so
No microwaves are not considered NI EMF
@Jayjaybay No, they have only been shown to act as voltage-gated calcium channel activators, and therefore cause certain neurological effects. They don't have enough energy to cause hydrolysis, or ionize DNA molecules.
Intense microwave exposure can cook you, of course, but literature distinguishes between thermal and sub-thermal exposures.
@@Jayjaybay Microwaves are definitely non-ionizing electromagnetic frequencies.
Hey MR crew, I really appreciate you posting this, while you may disagree with the caller, it's very big of you guys to still be fair about the record.
It's not impossible that the same way some chemicals were correctly identified in the 1960s, it may come to pass that we later recognise other forms of pollution.
Yes, sunlight has both ionizing radiation and non-ionizing radiation, however between several forms of supposedly identical non-ionizing radiation, there's a hell of a difference between visible light, xrays, ultraviolet infrared and microwaves. Yes, many of the types of radiation are present in space naturally/ just sunlight, we get exposed naturally in various ways, but proximity to source of some non-ionizing radiation should be judiciously managed.
You would need to be near a very high powered RF radiation compressor before your body actually would feel any effects from exposure to RF radiation.
@@TheEvolver311 I'm a layman, but I think it's a matter of degree as you have said. Telecommunications experts (who also staff and run the FCC) say that the risk is infinitesimally small-to-nonexistent, but I have seen oncologists and associated researchers who believe the risk is greater. At least in Australia I've seen this. The people with doctorates in mobile phone technology say it's fine, the cancer experts don't share that same high level of confidence about absence of harm. I know that sometimes it's true cell towers get blamed for supposed "cancer clusters" that would have emerged anyway just because sometimes case numbers bunch together slightly for no causal reason, but I don't see the harm in minimising unnecessary long and significant exposure of infants and children at least and limiting what must be unavoidable to what is genuinely necessary for a child. And maybe try a controlled trial... surely there's some ways that some trials wouldn't be completely worthless depending on how they were designed.
But as Sam correctly said, just the simple visible light the devices put out, plus the social distraction and pressure they create, is enough of a concern for psychological health and development and sleep hygiene without even needing to worry about radiation.
@@thomasrussell4674 I worked in Radar technology and IT for years all of the actual research has shown that it is safe. You have to be exposed to incredibly strong sources to actually feel even minor physical side effects. All of the " they are banning it in the EU in schools" is actually due to research showing that it is a distraction in the classroom that impedes the education process.
This is just the new wave of "vaccines cause autism" like the 5g scare propaganda is hilarious especially since the 5g network actually reduces the need for more wifi towers.
The amount of energy required to actually produce a level of rf radiation which would require you to want to be getting regular check ups from exposure would melt a wifi router and probably cause every circuit in your home to shut. It's seriously laughable.
Absolutely false about Wifi bans in France, especially not for health concerns, wtf is he talking about
The organizations cited do not say that electromagnetic radiation from wifi and mobile phones harms us, but only that they cannot rule out 100% that there is no risk. From this they draw the conclusion that you should avoid exposure to it if you don't have to. For example, they don't say that you shouldn't have a cell phone, but only that you shouldn't put it next to the bed where you sleep, for example.
this is SO hard to listen to 😅 how did Sam's head not pop? mine would have. the stupidity actually physically hurts 😂
Another thing. Of course the proposals in various countries on "banning" smart phones from kids or not having wifi at schools etc. have nothing to do with 5g or any consideration about radiation but they don't have much to do with studies of how smart phone usage influences mental development either. The are all about smart phone usage in schools, in classrooms, during classes. The one in Finland, by the way, is probably not going anywhere since schools and teachers already have tools to mitigate problems and a legislative solution wouldn't be sensible and would probably end up complicating things and working against digitalisation efforts and recent pedagogical reforms.
Matthew is unsure about his is own name. "My name is matthew?"
I've owned a mobile since pay as you go. I've attended at least one gig every year since that had 10s of thousand of people (with mobiles). All that radiation still hasn't made me a mutant 🤷♂️😂
Good try though.
Light?
What about water?
What about chocolate chip cookies?
Sam admits he doesn't know. So what is he trying to prove?
Where is he going with his line of questioning?
He is a dishonest fool
5G radiation is just electromagnetic radiation. Visible light is also electromagnetic radiation. As is ultraviolet and infrared light. And microwaves. In fact, the 2.5ghz (gigahertz) signal of a cell phone is nearly the same as many (most) microwave ovens.
It’s all just light. Some of it we can see, some of it is invisible.
It only becomes dangerous at higher frequencies because higher frequencies means higher energy. Ultraviolet light is the lower limit of the dangerous frequency range, with X-rays and gamma rays above that. All dangerous.
Below that, its all safe. Visible light is next weakest after ultraviolet, then infrared, then microwave, then short-wave radio, then regular AM/FM radio waves at the very bottom. The weakest.
Cell phone signals, cell tower signals, Bluetooth, wi-if, that stuff is all in the microwave range, so totally safe.
Think about it this way; we already live in a world flooded with radio waves and visible light. Adding cell towers just adds a little bit more light to the mix, its just light that our eyes don’t sense.
It cant hurt you, and it wont cause health problems.
This stuff is all so easy to figure out: if it was dangerous, people would be getting sick and dying from it.
Research complete.
as if people arent getting sick and dying from shit in our environment all the time??
@mescouettes It's not hard to tell. People get sick or die so you diagnose them, and if anyone is stuck from radio waves you report it and win a Nobel prize or else get laughed out of the business.
@mescouettesYou'd also see it in the city.......which you don't currently.
@@rob9726 If Wifi was bad, me, as a city dweller, would die FAR EARLIER than someone from the countryside. There are no fewer than 24 wifi routers on my list right now... I mean.. If this has any appreciable effect on us, it should have shown up in a HUGE way now, after 20 years of wifi being common...
Just imagine the cell phone signals wizzing around as well. WAY more cell phones than wifi routers for sure... Yet there hasn't been a massive reduction in life expectancy in cities...
New age people don't understand how radiation works, so they just assume everything is gamma radiation and then live in constant fear rather than taking the time to figure out... And now millions of right wingers and clowns are listening to new age goofballs and homeopaths and astrologers when it comes to technology and its effect on us... The antivaxx movement that comingled with the conservatives really brought with it a lot of fresh new delusions for conservatives to sink their teeth into.
You really think it's that simple? How do you know they're not? There is plenty of published peer reviewed research showing dangers.
My brain blood barrier is suffering from listening to people talk about WiFi at this point
Visible light doesn't *contain* non-ionizing radiation - it IS non-ionizing radiation.
7:54 A consensus among scientists? 😂
My health has actually improved since they've increased wifi and 5g.
I’m impressed Sam was able to parse through this call, I don’t expect everyone to be so well rounded.
_Hosts are being incredibly disrespectful to Caller_ : 👎👎
They were just in "prepared for a fight" mode, and they fought at the earliest, and every opportunity.
With the premises Caller laid out, his question of consideration is perfectly valid.
The correct answer (afaik) is that the sources he seems to be using and quoting are not legitimate or largely propagandistic. As I understand, no body of science or scientific paper has demonstrated any level of possible damage wit cell-phone band non-ionizing radiation.
And hey, you know what? What I said above could be complete bullshit, too! I'm in the same part of the Dunning-Kruger slope that Sam Seder is here. 📈
It's often very....irksome to have the online left commentary guys, even ones I love like Seder, venture into debates on complex topics they do not know well enough to understand the issues at play, or have thought through the nuances of their initial feelings on these issues they are unfamiliar with.
Sam should have defer'd the question to someone who would have completely understood Caller's 100% valid concern (given their current beliefs), and explained thoroughly what the answer to Caller's question is, and accurately why.
Also on Caller. Call a call-in show that has doctors n relevant scientists who can answer this question for you... Not political guy Sam Seder.