Translate This Page
Via Post & Email
To: Stefan Häberli of NZZ
Copy: Dr. Felix Graf, CEO, NZZ Mediengruppe
Neue Zürcher Zeitung AG
firstname.lastname@example.org, Stefan.Haeberli@nzz.ch, Felix.Graf@nzz.ch
Letter to Stefan Häberli of NZZ -- by Reza Ganjavi
I just read the stupidest article of my life, written by you, about 5G. I see in your biography that you have no formal education in the topic. Your article shows it. Your article also doesn't show any great skills in critical thinking, logic, sound reasoning. So without the subject matter expertise, and without the analytic touch, your article can be considered as horse manure, which is a polite way of saying Bullshit! Utter BS.
Before we go into the reasoning, let me disclose that I am the person who wrote the line you quoted, from the supposed 5G citizen group, which I'm not a part of, if it refers to the esoterically driven group who put together the weak demonstration in Bern. But I did help them a great deal for 6 weeks from grounds up, and the line you sloppily ridiculed, and quoted, is from me, i.e., that we need a moratorium on 5G deployment until...
"...there is a sufficient number of independent scientific studies that confirm the safety of this technology". Actually what I wrote was not even "confirm" but to "show". It got lost in translation. "confirm" and "prove" are much stronger than "show". We'll come back to that, but I'm not sure if you'll understand it.
So you call the above "nonsensical" -- but your argument shows itself to be the real nonsense. Here's your argument. For anyone else reading this, please fasten your seat as this might cause a stupidity jolt!
Stefan Häberli wrote (using rough translation -- and the original):
"It is nonsensical and misleading. Why? Whether electromagnetic radiation is a health concern depends on two factors: frequency and strength. Whether the waves originate from a 4G or a 5G antenna is irrelevant to their biological effect."
NO KIDDING! So all you just said is that frequency and strength matter. Of course they do -- so what?! Who said 4G is safe? Your masterpiece continues:
"Swisscom, Sunrise and Salt bought the frequencies... the three mobile operators together paid nearly 380 million francs to the federal treasury."
SO WHAT? What difference does it make how much money was paid, if what was traded is toxic?!
"You have to know that these frequencies were previously used for decades for mobile radio or the transmission of radio and television signals."
That's one big fat stupid deceptive statement. Regardless, SO WHAT? Even if you're right, which you're not, does it make it any better if something toxic was used for years? Does it make it less toxic? Your stupid argument is just like saying, because people smoked in restaurants for decades, smoking in restaurants is ok for your health! DUH!!!
How many 4G and 5G cell towers did we have in Zurich 20 years ago? 30 years ago? The answer is ZILCH! ZERO! But you, are making Swiss people, your readers, falsely believe that they have been exposed to 4G and 5G for decades, and so it's just fine! Shame on you! Even if 5G masts are starting at current limits (which are very unhealthy), the fact that they can be "turbo-boosted" makes them even more dangerous.
Who's going to control an industry which is on record for bluntly lying to people, and the government itself can't be trusted to protect people, and when measurement devices for higher frequencies is not something an average person can afford. So deployment of these masts adds to an already huge problem. Yes, 4G is already a huge problem because it's based on outdated, irrelevant standards (see below).
I won't bother quoting the rest of your drivel. But basically, you're wrong time and again in your stupid logic. We KNOW about those temporary limits. We still want a moratorium because even within those limits, the exposure of humans, animals, insects, bees, birds, trees, etc., are WAY TOO HIGH.
This is something that you're either intentionally ignoring for the benefit of Big Bad Telecom/Wireless -- or you're ignorant about. If you're ignorant, you shouldn't be writing this article -- blind can't blind!
Did you know that the current standards you so much boast about are decades old, are based on physics, and totally ignore biological damage. Ha?! All they protect us from is burning -- heat! Science, via thousands of independent studies, has shown indisputably that BIOLOGICAL DAMAGE happens at sub-thermal level due to exposure to RF-EMF at levels much below you're exposed to. Just ask Swisscom. They know all about it -- but they still lie to people. Go to www.no5g.ch and click on "industry lies". Or Google: "proof swisscom lies": https://end5g.yolasite.com/swisscomdeception.php
So Swisscom is basically discarding your stupid argument by admitting DNA damage, cancer, etc. happening at sub-thermal levels, which modern science confirms -- in other words, the current standards used by BAFU, BAG, you, and your masters, don't have ANY relevance and do NOT protect our health.
That is why we need to put a stop to this travesty NOW.
The excuse of faster download, driverless-cars (nobody with a brain would want to be in one of those cars which fast-tracks them to cancer), are all fabrications of a greedy industry.
We do NOT need 5G -- it's unsafe, untested, and unnecessary. You can lie all you want, and use stupid arguments -- but I hope your readers are smarter than you and are not duped into accepting to live in a microwave oven just because someone wants their money!
Mr. Häberli, I don't know you but my guess is you're not a stupid person. But if you get too much exposure to RF-EMF (e.g. WiFi, cell phone, 4G, 5G), studies show that it can lower cognitive function (i.e., make a person stupid). So lower your exposure to this toxic radiation, and maybe your next article will be bit smarter.
And while you're at it, have a look at what these top scientists are saying about the toxic radiation you and NZZ are promoting. https://end5g.yolasite.com/videos-by-doctors-and-scientists.php There's more to life than money. You and NZZ have a social responsibility that you're not living up to by publishing such deceptive nonsense.
Lastly, have a look at these links: hundreds of top, specialist, peer-reviewed, published scientists who are not in the pocket of the industry, disagree with you: www.5Gappeal.eu -- look at www.emfscientist.org.
You have my permission to publish this response, but I'm sure you won't because it's against your apparentagenda.