المدة الزمنية 26:1

5G Truther Wants To Debate Sam

بواسطة The Majority Report w/ Sam Seder

80 036 مشاهدة

2.6 K

تم نشره في 2023/08/01

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 YouTube OR listen via daily podcast at http://www.Majority.FM https://www.house.gov/representatives/find-your-representative https://www.senate.gov/senators/senators-contact.htm #SamSeder #EmmaVigeland #MajorityReport #politics #news #progressive #leftist #democrats #liberal SUPPORT the show by becoming a member: http://www.jointhemajorityreport.com/ Download TMR's FREE app: http://www.majorityapp.com TMR MERCH: http://www.shop.majorityreportradio.com CHECK OUT MORE from the MR crew: Matt Binder DOOMED /MattBinder Brandon Sutton DISCOURSE https://www.patreon.com/ExpandTheDiscourse Emma Vigeland ESVN /ESVNShow Matt Lech LEFT RECKONING /LeftReckoning OTHER LINKS: Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/themajorityreport Facebook: http://facebook.com/MajorityReport Twitter: http://twitter.com/MajorityFM Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/majorityreport.fm/

الفئة

الكلمات

Sam Seder

Majority Report

Emma Vigeland

Matt Lech

Politics News

Democrat

Liberal

Progressive politics

Left politics

Seder Majority

عرض المزيد

تعليقات - 991

@

@pearltothejamقبل 9 أشهر A pro gun control, anti Israel, 5G truther is such a rare combo. This has gotta be a bingo 252
@

@quackaholicsanonymous7210قبل 9 أشهر 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 ? 350
@

@EvilJawaقبل 9 أشهر 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. 71
@

@sticki_قبل 9 أشهر 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. 437
@

@AstroXenoقبل 9 أشهر Back when I was a kid, the older generation believed we got radiation from sitting too close to a color TV 19
@

@thirdagainstthewallقبل 9 أشهر caller: "I've 'tooken' some philosophy courses."
me: : I've gotta go." 68
@

@thejosh3866قبل 9 أشهر 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. 363
@

@Wise_Thatقبل 9 أشهر 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 id="hidden4" class="buttons"> 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. ....وسعت 39
@

@raymonds.9021قبل 9 أشهر 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 42
@

@LiamRproductionsقبل 9 أشهر Really nice of Chuck McGill to call in. 23
@

@stinkybojangles4128قبل 9 أشهر Watching Sam & Emma's physical reaction to these bozos is my favorite part of these debates 211
@

@54tisfactionقبل 9 أشهر 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 id="hidden5" class="buttons"> 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! ....وسعت 54
@

@alejandroyanez5685قبل 9 أشهر Emma has a sunburn probrably caused by WiFi 40
@

@politicaltroll8920قبل 9 أشهر “Thank you for everything you do, it’s really important…. “ Goes on to a full on TAKE THE TOWERS DOWN NOW insane rant 74
@

@nosuchthing8قبل 9 أشهر The caller doesn't even understand that non ionizing radiation includes sunlight 162
@

@jeffreycarman2185قبل 9 أشهر 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. ....وسعت 12
@

@petew5399قبل 9 أشهر Sam: Moving to the country. Gonna eat a lot of peaches
Caller: that poison will kill you faster than bluetooth 6
@

@ScottDaniels1977قبل 9 أشهر 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. 44
@

@LuigiMordelAlaumeقبل 9 أشهر "I can understand why my cohosts and colleagues get mad at me."
Did they pick a caller more longwinded than Sam on purpose? 12
@

@mikeh.1916قبل 9 أشهر My ears perk up when I hear my area code. Then he proceeds to jump into 5g conspiracy crap. "Shit." 21
@

@profroeقبل 9 أشهر I expected the caller to launch into 5G in the vaccines next.disappointed to say the least 26
@

@leafyroxقبل 9 أشهر 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 id="hidden8" class="buttons"> 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. ....وسعت 40
@

@soyborne.bornmadeandundone1342قبل 9 أشهر He almost defeated Sam by putting Sam to sleep. Defeated me that way that's for sure. 25
@

@Duke00008قبل 9 أشهر This was just after a seperate rough 20+ minute call about Ukraine, the collective groan in the chat as he kept going on. 55
@

@KaoticVibesقبل 9 أشهر 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. 18
@

@fredericomolina1692قبل 9 أشهر Caller tried to appeal to Sam's ethos by bringing up Sam's friend who committed suicide. Disingenuous af 113
@

@critapocalypse1836قبل 9 أشهر Can't wait for the Tooken trilogy. 7
@

@Bozeman42قبل 9 أشهر Holy fuck, there's this type of person that just refuses to answer direct questions 44
@

@derspook8969قبل 9 أشهر 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 ....وسعت 36
@

@christopherholder9925قبل 9 أشهر 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. 96
@

@gayasparagusقبل 9 أشهر 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 id="hidden11" class="buttons"> 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. ....وسعت 22
@

@fskate2قبل 9 أشهر 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 id="hidden12" class="buttons"> 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. ....وسعت 5
@

@Heinrich_Von_Schnellfahrerقبل 9 أشهر More people have died from TikTok alone than from exposure to wifi, BT and 5G. 6
@

@idontwantahandlethoughقبل 9 أشهر 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, id="hidden13" class="buttons"> or heck even advertising (because that's all "5G" is: marketing) to know that there's nothing to worry about here. Makes me sad :/ ....وسعت 14
@

@eworrقبل 9 أشهر Ah, ok, Matt has corrected himself - knew he wouldn't disappoint!!! 7
@

@roc8179قبل 9 أشهر 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 id="hidden14" class="buttons"> 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. ....وسعت 9
@

@Brineliousقبل 9 أشهر 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. 11
@

@ThisSteveGuyقبل 9 أشهر I sure hope this guy doesn't own or ever use a microwave. 21
@

@TreesRaccoonsAndPizzaقبل 9 أشهر I live for Sam debating anyone. It brings me Joy! 4
@

@auntypha5958قبل 9 أشهر mans cites dozens of studies, then all he can do to defend his position is essentially repeat the same sentence. 3
@

@Krushak8888قبل 9 أشهر Don't forgot when people blamed microwaves to cause cancer lol 6
@

@NicholasSeamansقبل 9 أشهر TBH this phone call made me want to "die suddenly" from my covid shots. As soon as he was laying the gun violence heavily I knew he was buttering everyone up. 59
@

@AtariBornقبل 9 أشهر And yet, the life expectancy of people in the civilized world has continued to rise, since the discovery and use of FM signals. 12
@

@kait2972قبل 9 أشهر Somebody get this guy a wristband. Problem solved. 4
@

@connor3650قبل 9 أشهر RIP to all those who tried to debate Sam. 4
@

@JohnCrembozقبل 9 أشهر 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 id="hidden17" class="buttons"> 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. ....وسعت 4
@

@davec1406قبل 9 أشهر "The Nether Places" is my new favorite term for The Netherlands @
@

@PoeInTheDitchقبل 9 أشهر Seder: "Who's this? Where are you calling from?"
Caller: "This is Mathew?"
Oh, man.the first words out of his id="hidden19" class="buttons"> mouth sound like he's asking strangers if he got his own name correct. This can only get worse. ....وسعت 3
@

@duncanbmcقبل 9 أشهر 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) 7
@

@ronthorn3قبل 9 أشهر He’s from Portland, he has the same area code as me. 3
@

@TheGamingDandyقبل 9 أشهر He didn't seem so bad, his concern was at least genuine even if misguided. Seems like he agrees with Sam on most stuff 3
@

@edricaldones9639قبل 9 أشهر Sam has such fun demolishing these fatuous non-arguments 16
@

@kcolonelx6181قبل 9 أشهر Next time call into Bret Weinstein or Glen Beck. 20
@

@brandonbarnett1658قبل 9 أشهر 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 1
@

@TheNewblade1قبل 9 أشهر 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 id="hidden21" class="buttons"> (which was cool cause we never really had anything to bond over) but of course it's the nwo, 5g, project blue beam types ....وسعت 8
@

@gabrielmccray3457قبل 9 أشهر 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. 1
@

@ComradeCatpurrnicusقبل 9 أشهر 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 id="hidden23" class="buttons"> 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. ....وسعت 5
@

@Dradeeusقبل 9 أشهر 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 id="hidden24" class="buttons"> 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. ....وسعت 2
@

@mgm8822قبل 9 أشهر So what is the medical condition he is alleging is caused by Wi-Fi? Bad stuff? Then what stuff, cancer, other diseases? 4
@

@mito88قبل 9 أشهر Sunshine consists primarily of radiation in infrared (IR), visible, and ultraviolet (UV) frequencies.
Lasers also emit EM radiation in these "optical id="hidden25" class="buttons"> frequencies."
The higher frequencies of EM radiation, consisting of x-rays and gamma rays, are types of ionizing radiation. ....وسعت 1
@

@korpsofkreig1359قبل 6 أشهر I know it was a 5G based convo, but their discussion non ionizing & ionizing radiation effects on the body almost made me yell at my phone
@

@yasminesteinbauer8565قبل 9 أشهر 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 id="hidden26" class="buttons"> 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. ....وسعت 1
@

@ScoothofWrathchildقبل 9 أشهر So many of these calls are the caller rambling for 10 minutes then Sam asks one question and the person falls apart 10
@

@jzilla1234قبل 9 أشهر Matthew is unsure about his is own name. "My name is matthew?" 2
@

@kerseyHardingقبل 9 أشهر I work with people who have personality disorders and I do have to say that I see a lot of similarities between that caller and people I've worked id="hidden27" class="buttons"> with that struggle with paranoia and anxiety. Generally they are aware of their diagnosis and are sensitive about it so they try to justify their paranoia/anxiety by using semi real data. They read something that is similar to their delusion and disregard the part that doesn't map onto their worldview. It seems that caller believes that radio waves are hurting him and is justifying that paranoia by citing those sources which also explains why he was so mad and defensive when you asked basic questions about it. The same thing happens to me when I do that with my clients. It pierces the bubble and they have to come to terms with their delusion which is emotionally difficult to cope with. I hope this guy gets some counseling to work through those issues because they can turn dark quick. ....وسعت 1
@

@DarkPuppy9قبل 9 أشهر Where does he get this info on who's reducing or considering reduction of these technologies? Cause I can't find it.
@

@galvanaut7119قبل 9 أشهر "Non-ionizing radiation"??? Wow, so basically everything in the world. 2
@

@tim3172قبل 9 أشهر Other non-ionizing EMR:
AM radio
FM radio
HD" class="buttons"> 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!!!" ....وسعت 3
@

@taranullius9221قبل 9 أشهر "I've tooken some philosophy classes" is an interesting opener. Let's see how this turns out. 1
@

@coosoorlogقبل 9 أشهر Another thing. Of course the proposals in various countries on "banning" smart phones from kids or not having wifi at schools etc. have nothing id="hidden29" class="buttons"> 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. ....وسعت 1
@

@robmckennie4203قبل 9 أشهر this guy is pretty smart, he's tooken philosophy classes you know 2
@

@argenieuwenhuijzen2557قبل 9 أشهر I live in The Netherlands, I have heard that schools in Belgium and France have banned mobile phones in the classroom. But that has all to do with teachers don’t want their pupils being distracted.
@

@LeTrashPandaقبل 9 أشهر Oh dear God.they are coming for our microwave ovens.
@

@catherinecox573قبل 9 أشهر this is SO hard to listen to how did Sam's head not pop? mine would have. the stupidity actually physically hurts 3
@

@dankprole7884قبل 9 أشهر longest 5 seconds of this man's life 1
@

@alexkats30قبل 9 أشهر I can certainly see a day in the future were there are no lines any more, everything is connected via wifi and the networks all around us maybe constantly id="hidden31" class="buttons"> as strong as holding a smartphone next to your head and it's ok to be concerned about something like that, but we're definitely not there yet ....وسعت 1
@

@mikek3658قبل 9 أشهر Lmao the tin foil people never realize that they're the tin foil people. They think they're the smartest person in the room. 2
@

@alterego6075قبل 9 أشهر Once we figure out how to space travel at the speed of 5G, we've hit the peak.
Light is dumb.
Lol wtf
@

@mattburgess5697قبل 9 أشهر It’s interesting that they’re always bringing up what countries legislate. Because countries ALWAYS legislate on the basis of sound science. 1
@

@brianisbsقبل 7 أشهر Watching this on Wifi using my Bluetooth headphones while on hold through my 5G phone. OH NO!
@

@furniture7851قبل 9 أشهر There’s always a guy like this in philosophy classes, and they are always a massive whinging, cringey mess. 11
@

@NeoRipshaftقبل 9 أشهر Visible light doesn't contain non-ionizing radiation - it IS non-ionizing radiation. 1
@

@pangea02قبل 9 أشهر What an enigmatic debate lord – truly fascinating. Would love to hear his thoughts on the PFAS chemicals and carcinogens we're (more) exposed to on a daily basis vs. the unsubstantiated dangers of 5G and WiFi.
@

@Hotlog69قبل 9 أشهر You can tell when someone takes this so personally. Don't make it your belief.
Also, said he came prepared but was woefully unprepared. 1
@

@GeraLaresقبل 9 أشهر Watching debates like this makes me miss Michael's background cackle a lot. 1
@

@ciaranhughes7089قبل 9 أشهر 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 ‍♂️ 3
@

@brian177قبل 9 أشهر This is one of those things where I am okay being agnostic, and the proof will be in the pudding - the pudding, in this case, being brain tumours. id="hidden34" class="buttons"> />If no tumours, then no concern. If tumours, then concern. Time will tell us for certain. ....وسعت 1
@

@beansnrice321قبل 9 أشهر &min in and Sam's asking a simple question and the troll on the horn is starting to growl liek he's feral. Yup, coulda predicted that ten seconds into the call, lol. 1
@

@KoRntechقبل 9 أشهر As an amateur radio operator the output of the consumer wifi and our mobiles is tiny most 100milliwatts with a maximum of 1 watt, in the ISM bands like id="hidden36" class="buttons"> 2.5ghz I have 1500 watts under my license, same with ship tonsjip radars use even higher power in the 2-4kilowatts range so our seamen are in serious trouble if this guy thinks wifi is a danger. ....وسعت 1