5G: The Unacknowledged Risks Of The Next Big Thing In Tech

The next big thing in technology, the must – have for every self disrespecting, crowd following, narrative believing hipster is 5G wireless technology, from cellphone networks to your home Wi – Fi, we are told that everything will be so much better if we go 5G. And once again the scienetits and technology nerds of Silicon Valley are pushing a technology on us that is known to have detrimental effects on human health. You’ve heard of Fukushima, Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, three of the most notorious accidents in the short history of nuclear technology? The problems resulting from them was caused by leaked radio active energy, or radiation. And the radiation from your wi – fi router, cellphone, laptop, any wireless technology including the microwave oven is the same as that emitted from those nuclear power disasters, just many degrees of magnitude less powerful.

The problem is radiation damages not by the strength of what you are exposed to, but by the strength multiplied by the duration (that’s a gross oversimilification but it will do for now). When I worked in the nuclear industry in the 1980s the physicists talked jokingly of the banana equivalent dose – i.e. how much radiation to which you would have to be exposed to equal the amount absorbed from eating a banana a day for a year (bananas are the most radio active of fruits due to the type of potassium atoms they contain,) The energy of 5G networks is many times more intense than 4G and this is concerning many scientists. And they are right to be concerned because not only is 5G more intense than previous wireless technologies, it is planned to be right in our homes, around us every day as the Silicon valley control freaks roll out the ‘Internet Of Things’ so they can spy on you not just through your smartphone and computer by through yout TV, cooker, fridge and, bugger me with a bargepoole, even through your internet enabled toilet.

Shouldn’t we be asking a lot of very difficult questions about this technology?

https://www.collective-evolution.com/2019/07/31/5g-is-the-ultimate-directed-energy-weapon-system-says-particle-physicist/?fbclid=IwAR2f7RPZ3-XHYj86LgiD7iDcHTfrl8AEzkqrX6NK5-aLvIao8ksmoUzFzrI technology technology

5G Is The Ultimate Directed Energy Weapon System, Says Particle Physicist

Dr. Katherine Horton sees the current rollout of the 5G network in a way that is different from mainstream perception. And for good reason. To begin with, she is a particle physicist with a PhD from prestigious Oxford University. She worked as a high energy physicist on the particle collider at the …

collective-evolution.com

RELATED POSTS:
The Nuclear Banana
Not Only Do Mobile Phones Cook Your Brain, They Cook Men’s Bollocks Too.
More Emerging Truth On The Dangers Of WiFi
Science: Are Nicola Tesla’s Scalar Waves The Answer To Clean Energy?
Scaremongering IPCC Pushes Climate Hysteria with New Doomsday Report

The Science Of Mistaking Fiction For Fact

Those clowns at NASA are at it again, phishing for research grants by mixing fact and science fiction. This time they think they have discovered a planet orbiting a nearby star, that may be ripe for colonisation by humans. Before we know it that retatd Brian Cox will be jumping up and down on our television screens, babbling about how we must spend a trillion zillion pounds on getting to this planet (or phenomenon that might be a planet, because it will be so exciting to explore space and science is just so fucking brilliant!

Well as usual the reality is not quite a brilliant as the science.

from RT:

NASA has just discovered a potential “super-Earth” outside our solar system which is located comfortably inside its star’s habitable zone, meaning it could be ripe for human colonization.

While monitoring the star named GJ 357, which sits just 31 light years away in the constellation Hydra, the space agency’s Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite (TESS) caught the star dimming every 3.9 days, indicating the presence of at least one transiting exoplanet.

Did you catch that distance. 31 light years. It takes light, moving at 186,000 miles per second thirty one years to get here from that star system. So travelling at a tenth the speed of light it would take us 310 years, 4 lifetimes, to get there. What a disappointment it would be if the great, great, great, great grandchildren of the astronauts who set off finally arrived to find a barren lump of rock.

And that’s if we could travel at a tenth the speed of light or 18,600 miles per second. If only. At the moment our fastest spacecraft will get up to 15 miles per second. And at that sluggish pace it would take over 300,000 years to get there. I’ve explained it all previously HERE

In spite of not needing to know much rocket science to work that out, (I did calculate the number precisely, in my head, without needing a calculator or even a pen and notebook,) I know from experience that pointing out that little snag to scientists would earn me only ridicule. “You don’t understand science,” they would say and call me an ignorant clown, a dinosaur or an arts graduate. Such things don’t bother me, but sometimes one feels trying to educate such deluded window lickers is just not worth the effort.

What we have to do, those of us lucky enough to live in nations that maintain an illusion of democracy, is take back power, vote against the establishment parties and for the realists, the people who seem competent enough to tacke the problems we have here and now, instead of spending our hard earned cash on funding lunatics to chase their impossible dreams. There is no point in exploring space, the cluer is in the name, there’s nothing there.

These NASA scientists and the saience fan boys like Brian Cox and Bill Nye the Science Guy need to go back to junior school, learn basic arithmetic and then work out exactly how long it would take us to get to the nearest star, Proxima Centuri (about 4.25 light years from the sun,) in a vehicle powered by any technology likely to become available to us in the foreseeable future.

Never mind the ‘warp speed’ engines proposed by theoretical physicists that would hurl us through space at many times the speed of light, what is possible in theory may look achievable when you work it out in equations on a computer screen, but doing it for real is a very different proposition. And currently so far beyond reality it is on a par with anything in Star Trek or Star Wars.

We’ve said it before and we’ll say it again:

Scientists are wankers.

 

US Democrat Presidential Hopeful Attacks Big Tech Censorship

Democratic presidential candidate Rep. Tulsi Gabbard has released a new video calling for Americans from both sides of the aisle to unite and fight political censorship by the Big Tech monopolies.

Rep. Gabbard recently filed a $50 million lawsuit against Google for censoring her campaign’s ability to buy ads following the first Democratic primary debate when she was the most searched candidate.

“Join me in this fight to end big tech monopolies power to censor & undermine Americans’ freedom of speech—because whether we are progressives or conservatives, left or right, if we do not stand united to protect our freedoms, we all lose,” Rep. Gabbard tweeted.

READ ALL at Gateway Pundit

More Fake News Supporting Electric Cars

 

Another advertisement in The Telegraph today for electric cars, this on claining it only costs £4 to charge the batteries to the same level as filling the tank of a conventional car.

I fill up my car’s tank for just £4′: have electric cars reached tipping point?

Screams the headline over a picture of a couple of proud (and surprisingly unburned) Tesla owners and their pride and joy, £75,000 worth of what looks like a family sized car with nothing special about it, apart from the fact that by the time you get to the end of the street you will probably need to stop for several hours to recharge the batteries.

Tony Cuthbert with £75,000 Tesla (picture Telegraph)

 

But does the owner’s boast stand up to scrutiny?

The cost of owning an electric car could come down to equal petrol and diesel within two years, according to auditor Deloitte, but for savvy drivers, going green could already make financial sense  the Telegraph says.

The market for electric vehicles (EVs) is growing at a rapid rate, with the number of models available set to exceed 200 in the next two years. Analysts predict another 10 million electric cars will be on British roads by the end of the next decade. But while the number of models has increased, growth in the numbers of actual sales is positively sluggish.

As combating climate change becomes increasingly important to many consumers, according to maker’s publicity, yet electric cars accounted for only 1.15% of global sales in 2017. I could not find a figure for 2018, but reports say there was modest growth. There are also reports that energy providers are flooding the market with innovative tariffs specifically aimed at drivers of electric cars, but here too the low cost of energy does not compensate for the high initial cost of installation. .

Tony Cuthbert, 59, from Gateshead, has been driving his Tesla Model S for just over a year after deciding he could be doing more to save the planet. His conscience has paid off as the company’s national network of free-to-use charging points, combined with cheap energy at home, means his running costs have fallen. Mr Cuthbert, an IT manager, mainly charges his vehicle overnight at home. He uses Octopus Energy’s Go EV tariff, which provides power at the reduced rate of 5p per kilowatt hour for several hours overnight, meaning a full charge of the Tesla costs around £4.

 

It costs £4 to fill up the tank because the tank isn’t very big.

At 14p/kWh, £4 would get you 28kWh of electricity. 1 litre of petrol is equivalent to 10kWh.

Electric engines are more efficient, so it would give you the same number of km as 5kWh.

£4 is therefore the equivalent of putting 6 litres of petrol in your car, which would cost £7.38 at £1.23 per litre, which is what I paid on Thursday.

The tax on £7.38 (6 litres) of petrol is £4.82, meaning it costs £2.56 for the actual petrol. The tax on £4 of electricity is 19p, meaning the actual electricity costs £3.81. So the only reason electricity is cheaper for filling your car is because the tax is cheaper.

And while it does not entirely account for the discrepancy, I guess the tax is cheaper partly because electricity doesn’t pump exhaust fumes into the air as much at the point of use as petrol/diesel do, but simply moves the dirt to the places where mining of materials and manufacture of batteries takes place, (i.e. not in countrys that have committed to zero carbon targets.

When a newspaper publishes an advertisement disguised as an article isn’t there some law that says readers must be clearly informed the content is advertising material.
The article is just another ad for EVs and Tesla in particular, none of the problems of EVs are mentioned, not even the tendency of Tesla vehicles to barbecue theior occupants.

It isn’t until we get to the comments we read of the vast subsidies governments are giving EV makers due to the punitive taxes on petrol and diesel, or the absolutely filthy and energy intensive industrial processes involved in manufacturing batteries (especially the mining and refining of rare earth metals,) and the equally filthy and energy intensive processes involved in recycling or scrapping batteries.

 

 

Dr. Robert Epstein: Google’s Ephemeral Experiences Manipulate People on a ‘Massive Scale’

Dr. Robert Epstein, senior research psychologist at the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology and wel known critic of Google’s use of psychologial techniques to manipulate users decision making process by heavily censoring the information search users are fed, appeared on SiriusXM’s Breitbart News Daily to discuss Google’s latest tactics in election manipulation ahead on the us 2020 presidenyial election, and how voters and political campaign managers can combat them with host Alex Marlow.


Robert Epstein – warning us about Google’s evil ambitions

Epstein and Breitbart News editor-in-chief  Marlow discussed the current state of Google’s business and political activities and how the company could use its technology to influence voters.

Host Alex Marlow examined Epstein’s research saying: “I think you put out some pretty hard data on how many votes you think were moved in the 2016 election and I think you estimated it was over two million or so, is that not the case?”

Epstein responded: “Well it was at least 2.6 million and it could have been as many as 10.4 million depending on how aggressive google was in using the various tools they have available to them to shift votes. I can’t pin it down exactly but I know it’s in that range.”

Discussing the need for a system capable of analysing Google search results and suggestions to detect political and commercial bias, Epstein stated: “We need big monitoring systems in place, I’m so far the only person that’s created monitoring systems, I did one in 2016 and one in 2018. I’m trying now to raise funds to build a very big monitoring system for 2020 and to monitor a lot more than Google search results, to monitor newsfeeds, answers that people are getting from their personal assistants.”

Epstein explained that monitoring search results and auto-suggest terms are so important when monitoring election interference, stating: “If you don’t monitor, you can’t go back in time and figure out what these companies were showing people because what they’re showing people is ephemeral. That’s the term that Google’s own employees use internally, they’re showing ephemeral experiences, those really short-lived experiences that kind of appear before your eyes and then disappear, like search results for example.”

Google have openly acknowledged that their algorithms are set up to skew search results against content or sites favouring conservative or libertarian politics, while raising the visibility of liberal or progressive supporting content.

Epstein continued: “They’re using ephemeral experiences to manipulate people on a massive scale, people don’t know they’re being manipulated, and there’s no record kept of those experiences, they’re just generated for you on the fly and then they disappear.”

Listen to the full interview on Breitbart News Daily here.

To us the only question here is why are people still using Google as a search engine? Any pretence to neutrality in raking search relults was abandoned long ago, now search results are ranked in whether they serve Google’s political or financial interests.

 

Research Shows Google’s Search Manipulations Tried To Rig Election For Hillary

Hillary Clinton was narrowly beaten by Trump, in fact her supporters still claim she won by virtue of gaining te larger number of votes, although they cannot possibly be unaware that the U.S. system is not quite that simple. Trump won under the rules as they have stood for many decades. Now in depth analysis of new media and internet content during the campaign shows Clinton would likely have lost by a much larger margin had Google, and other internet corporations including Facebook, Amazon, Apple and Microsoft not manipulated the search results and news feeds in her favor.

Even trending negative searches about the corrupt democrat were suppressed. According to an exclusive report from conservative news site Breitbart, the results are based on a 16 months long experiment involving a total of 1,800 people from across 50 U.S. states.

Participants were selected from diverse ideological and social backgrounds, including liberal, conservative, and moderate, professional, skilled and manual workers and various religious commitments. In order to account for prior biases, participants were required to judge political candidates that they were unfamiliar with.

The research showed clearly that the manipulation of search results pages in search engines can shift voting preferences of undecideds by anywhere between 20 and 80 percent, depending on the demographic –showing beyond reasonable doubt that Google’s algorithmic manipulation of results was attempting to rig the 2016 election for Hillary Clinton.

The voting preferences of participants who saw no search suggestions shifted toward the favored candidate by 37.1%. The voting preferences of participants in the search suggestion groups who saw only positive search suggestions shifted similarly (35.6%). However, the voting preferences of participants who saw three positive search suggestions and one negative search suggestion barely shifted (1.8%); this occurred because the negative search suggestion attracted more than 40% of the clicks (negativity bias). In other words, a single negative search suggestion can impact opinions dramatically. Participants who were shown four negative suggestions (and no positives) shifted away from the candidate shown in the search bar (-43.4%). -Epstein, Mohr, & Martinez, The Search Suggestion Effect, 2018

Led by Dr. Robert Epstein, the researchers concluded that by using this method of manipulation, search engines can shift a “50/50 split among people who are undecided on an issue to a 90/10 split without people’s awareness and without leaving a paper trail for authorities to follow.”  Therefore the Russian collusion meme pushed by the Democrats and mainstream media was always a hoax, probably created to divert attention from the scandals relating to various scandals Hillary Clinton’s time as Secretary of State, the real collusion during the 2016 election was not between Trump and the Russians, but between tech giants and their propaganda scheme and the Hillary Clinton campaign. This news page had reported many times on the unhealthily close relationships between The Obama Administration and Google, along with other tech companies.

It is no longer a conspiracy theory that Google is manipulating people who use its services. The company acknowledges it employes techniques recommended by psychologists and sociologists with the intention of influencing public opinion and personal decisions. Look at the amount of manipulation in Google’s “suggested” searches in comparison to those of Bing, Yahoo and DuckDuckGo. The researchers showed that the search suggestion manipulation used against Trump during the 2016 election when the tech giant, as it has now admitted, suppresed negative search suggestions for Hillary Clinton while promoting through search suggestions, negative stories relating to Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, remain in place and are being used to promote commercial products as well as political campaigns.

This is not a coincidence, especially when considering Google was the Clinton campaign’s largest corporate contributor. Google employees, including at least six high-ranking executives, donated more than $1.3 million to Clinton’s 2016 campaign.

Call it censorship or manipulation, but the truth is…Google attempted to rig the election for Hillary Clinton by manipulating searches and suggestions, and therefore, voters minds.

RELATED POSTS:
They’re at it again for 2020

Zuckerberg Admits Facebook Interfered In Irish Abortion Vote

After three years of Facebook being among the most vociferous campaigners for the impeachment and removal from office of President Trump because of his camaigns alleged cooperation with the government of Russia in rigging the 2016 US election, the Social Media giant’s CEO Mark Zuckerberg has at last admitted what many of us ‘conspiracy theorists’ suspected all along, that it is Facebook itself, rather that hostile governments which interfere in the political processes of democratic nations.

During a recent talk, Zuck admitted that the social media network banned a number of pro-life advertisements ahead of the Irish abortion referendum, thus slewing the weight of propaganda visible on Facebook news feeds in favour of the pro – choice campaign.

He also confirmed the suspicion that the Irish referendum on abortion is not the only political campaign Facebook has taken sides in, another act of corporate malfeasance that was always strongly suspected. Facebook’s support for Britain staying in the EU was highly evident in the UK Referendum campaign, and the smearing of new populist and nationalist Eurosceptic parties in EU member states as ‘racist’ and ‘fascist’ has been ever present on Facebook pages.

PJ Media reports that during a recent interview at this year’s Aspen Ideas Festival, the Facebook CEO began to explain how the social media firm is attempting to work with the governments of other countries to determine what political speech should be allowed on the site. Zuckerberg gave an example of Facebook’s interaction with the Irish government ahead of a 2018 referendum on the legalization of abortion in the country.

In other words, Zuckerberg is trying to set Facebook up as an official censor, helping authoritarian regimes subvert democracy by suppressing opposition supporters presenting their case to the public.

Zuckerberg justified interference in the Irish abortion debated by explaining that American pro-life groups wanted to run Facebook ads targeted towards Irish citizens. Facebook reached out to the Irish government to determine whether or not the ads should be allowed at the time. Zuckerberg stated: “Their response at the time was, ‘we don’t currently have a law, so you need to make whatever decision you want to make.’”

“We ended up not allowing the ads,” Zuckerberg stated. Abortion activist Lila Rose commented on how Silicon Valley tech executives have reacted towards the issue of abortion in a tweet which can be seen below:

In other words, Facebook helped the Irish government ensure the side supported by the Europhile liberal Prime Minister achieve the result they wanted. Zuckerber is of course an enthusiastic suppoter of the far left wing of the US Democratic Party, a group which not only supports the right of abortion but actively promotes the idea that women should choose abortion over contraception as their preferred method of birth control.

Breitbart News recently reported that Facebook has been removed from Standard & Poor’s Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) Index after the company received a score of 22 for social responsibility and only 6 for governance, out of a possible 100. This is quite justified for a company with a huge outreach to the general public which it uses to promote its founder’s own, extremist, political positions. Facebook has been caught out censoring supports of the ‘Leave’ campaign in the Brexit referendum, groups presenting perfectly reasonable arguments against abortion, the work of independent journalists, including scientists, who challenge the  consensus position on such things as climate change, vaccines, transgenderism, human rights and many more topics that are counted among the left’s ever growing herd of sacred cows.

Reid Steadman, S&P’s social and governance chief, stated that the growing number of privacy concerns around the company including “a lack of transparency as to why Facebook collects and shares certain user information, resulted in low scores for the firm. S&P cited the Cambridge Analytica scandal as one of the reasons for the tech giant’s poor performance.”

“These events have created uncertainty about Facebook’s diligence regarding privacy protection, and the effectiveness of the company risk management processes and how the company enforces them,” Steadman said. “These issues caused the company to lag behind its peers in terms of ESG performance.”

This has to be good news, because along with statistics showing Facebook is haemorrhaging users to newswer, les politically biased sites like MINDS and STEEMIT, it shows Zuckerberg’s megalomaniacal bid for world domination is faltering.

RELATED:
Facebook catalogue
Facebook megalomania
Facebook privacy piracy
Facebook fake news