#RF Safety

[questioningespecialy]

Are EMF’s safe? (come, child, ruin your night)

y’all ready for this? I’m not anti-5G, btw turn your wifi off before bed and maybe stop keepin’ ya phone so close all the time

But like... why, though?

I've had my suspicions about cell towers being hazardous to health for a few years now and felt convinced enough to not bother researchin' it for confirmation. Now that I'm blah blah blah, I decided to actually bother. Since it got kinda heavy, I had to ask myself if I should put in hella more effort creatin' a damn research report of sorts for y'all asses present the info for others like it's a damn PSA. And my conscious won. T~T

But like... what, though?

A base station (aka: cell phone tower) is that shit you see everywhere but never notice. It's usually tall af and has panel antennas on it. It's "used for the transmission and reception of the radio signals between the mobile phones and the network." The problem with 'em is the electromagnetic field (EMF) their equipment can give off... for half a mile. 😐

In short, they've been found to cause health problems. Like cancer. 🤷🏿‍♂️

Fun fact, panel antennas can be installed on the roof/side of buildings that may be directly across the street from someone's workplace... with the antenna at their elevation. 🤷🏿‍♀️

Real Quick

For those who don’t trust EMF-Portal, it (sometimes) has links to the study/article. Full-text PDF can be requested directly from the authors on ResearchGate.net’s article for the study. Full-text PDF can (usually) be found online in English and German with the right search.

5 Studies

V/m = volts per meter 7191 cancer deaths were selected according to the above mentioned criterias out of a total of 22,493 cancer deaths. The most significant causes were lung cancer (19.6 %), stomach cancer (14.1 %), prostate cancer (12.6 %), and breast cancer (11.5 %). The mean electric field intensity of the measurements in 2008 was 7.32 V/m, varying from 0.4 to 12.4 V/m. At a distance of up to 100 m [328.08 ft], the absolute number of deaths was 3569, (49.6 % of all deaths), the mortality rate was 43.4 persons per 10,000 [0.43%] and the relative risk was 1.35 in relation to the mortality rate of 32.1 per 10,000 [0.32%] inhabitants of the entire Belo Horizonte municipality [in Minas Gerais, Brazil]. A mortality rate of 34.8 per 10,000 [0.35%] inhabitants was observed for the residents living within 500 m [1,640.42 ft] of the base stations; this rate decreased for residents living farther from the base stations.

—Mortality by neoplasia and cellular telephone base stations in the Belo Horizonte municipality, Minas Gerais state, Brazil; Science of The Total Environment (2011); EMF-Portal

ResearchGate.net’s article

The result of the study [of 967 permanent residents] shows that the proportion of newly developing cancer cases was significantly higher among those [320] patients who had lived during the past ten years at a distance of up to 400 metres [1,312.34 ft] from the cellular transmitter site, which has been in operation since 1993, compared to those patients living further away, and that the patients fell ill on average 8 years earlier. In the years 1999-2004, ie after five years' operation of the transmitting installation, the relative risk of getting cancer had trebled for the residents of the area in the proximity of the installation compared to the inhabitants of Naila[,Germany,] outside the area.

—The Influence of Being Physically Near to a Cell Phone Transmission Mast on the Incidence of Cancer (original title: ‘Einfluss der räumlichen Nähe von Mobilfunksendeanlagen auf die Krebsinzidenz’); Umwelt · Medizin · Gesellschaft (2004); ResearchGate.net

EMF-Portal

9 cancer cases were observed in the first period 2000 - 2004 and 14 cases in the period 2005 - June 2007 among [1,283] residents living within a radius of 400 m [1,312.34 ft] to a mobile phone base station [in Germany (Hennen, suburb of Iserlohn, Westfalia)]. The mean age of disease onset was 59.2 years in the first period and 59.3 years in the second period in comparison to the expected value of 66.4 years evaluated from the Saarland Cancer Registry. The authors concluded, that a statistically significant increase of cancer incidence was observed 5 years after the base station has been started operating.

—[Incidence of cancer adjacent to a mobile telephone basis station in Westfalia] (original title: Krebsinzidenz von Anwohnern im Umkreis einer Mobilfunksendeanlage in Westfalen - Interview-basierte Piloterhebung und Risikoschätzung); Umwelt · Medizin · Gesellschaft (2009); EMF-Portal

Area A: ≤ 350 m / 1148.3 ft from base station Area B: > 350 m / 1148.3 ft from base station Of the 622 people of area A, 8 cases of different kinds of cancer were diagnosed in a period of one year (from July 1997 - June 1998). The cancer incidence rate was 129 cases per 10,000 [1.29%] persons per year in area A compared to 16/10,000 [0.16%] in area B and 31/10,000 [0.31%] in the town of Netanya [in Israel]. Relative cancer rates for females were 10.5 for area A, 0.6 for area B and 1 for Netanya. The authors conclude that the study indicates an association between increased incidence of cancer and living in proximity to a mobile phone base station.

—Increased incidence of cancer near a cell-phone transmitter station; International Journal of Cancer Prevention (2004); EMF-Portal

ResearchGate.net

Took forever to get this damn infographic just right. >.>

A long-term study was conducted in Germany to investigate the influence of a mobile phone base station on neurotransmitters under true-to-life conditions. µW/m² = microWatts per square meter 24 out of 60 participants were exposed to a power density of < 60 µW/m², 20 participants to 60 - 100 µW/m², and 16 participants to more than 100 µW/m² . The values of the stress hormones adrenaline and noradrenaline grew significantly during the first 6 months after starting the GSM base station; the values of the precursor substance dopamine substantially decreased in this time period. The initial condition was not restored even after 1.5 years. Due to the not regulable chronic difficulties of the stress balance, the phenylethylamine levels dropped until the end of the investigation period. The effects show a dose-effect relationship and are situated far under the valid limit values.

—[Modification of clinically important neurotransmitters under the influence of modulated high-frequency fields - A long-term study under true-to-life conditions] (original title: Veränderung klinisch bedeutsamer Neurotransmitter unter dem Einfluss modulierter hochfrequenter Felder - Eine Langzeiterhebung unter lebensnahen Bedingungen); Umwelt · Medizin · Gesellschaft (2011); EMF-Portal

ResearchGate.net’s German article EMF:data page (German)

While I did find 17 different figures for it, I’mma save myself the bother of describin’ dat noise and not include ‘em thanks~.

But what does the FCC say?

FCC.gov’s conclusion seems to be that they’re generally safe for civilian life as long as you don’t get close and aren’t directly in front of the antenna’s trajectory (don’t climb a fuckin’ tower or enter those rooms/buildings). A very “it’s fine” set of conclusions tbh. Hella contrasted by other sources.

Nonetheless… below is the index...

FCC’s RF Safety FAQ Index:

What is "radiofrequency" and microwave radiation?

What is non-ionizing radiation?

How is radiofrequency energy used?

How is radiofrequency radiation measured?

What biological effects can be caused by RF energy?

Can people be exposed to levels of radiofrequency radiation and microwaves that could be harmful?

Can radiofrequency radiation cause cancer?

What research is being done on RF biological effects?

What levels are safe for exposure to RF energy?

Why has the FCC adopted guidelines for RF exposure?

How safe are mobile phones? Can they cause cancer?

How can I obtain the specific absorption rate (SAR) value for my mobile phone?

Do "hands-free" ear pieces for mobile phones reduce exposure to RF emissions?   What about mobile phone accessories that claim to shield the head from RF radiation?

Can mobile phones be used safely in hospitals and near medical telemetry equipment?

Are wireless and PCS towers and antennas safe?

Are cellular and other radio towers located near homes or schools safe for residents and students?

Are emissions from radio and television antennas safe?

How safe are radio antennas used for paging and "two-way" communications?   What about "push-to-talk" radios such as "walkie-talkies?"

How safe are microwave and satellite antennas?

Are RF emissions from amateur radio stations harmful?

What is the FCC's policy on radiofrequency warning signs?  For example, when should signs be posted, where should they be located and what should they say?

Can implanted electronic cardiac pacemakers be affected by nearby RF devices such as microwave ovens or cellular telephones?

Does the FCC regulate exposure to radiation from microwave ovens, television sets and computer monitors?

Does the FCC routinely monitor radiofrequency radiation from antennas?

Does the FCC maintain a database that includes information on the location and technical parameters of all the towers and antennas it regulates?

Which other federal agencies have responsibilities related to potential RF health effects?

Can local and state governmental bodies establish limits for RF exposure?

Where can I obtain more information on potential health effects of radiofrequency energy?

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) prepared a [2012] report of its investigation into safety concerns related to mobile phones.  The report concluded that further research is needed to confirm whether mobile phones are completely safe for the user, and the report recommended that the FDA take the lead in monitoring the latest research results.

Professional Opinion...

Safe Distance from Cell Towers…

It is also difficult to predict a safe distance from cell towers.  For example, cell towers are designed to transmit most of their radio frequency (RF) energy horizontally.  Some areas below the tower may have lower levels than locations farther away that are more in line with the vertical height of the antennas. The exposure from a cell tower will depend on the type of antennas, the number of antennas, how much the antennas are actually being used, the time of day, etc.  The distance needed to reduce exposures down to the General Public Precautionary Level of 100 microwatts per meter squared (μW/m²) is often around a quarter of a mile (1320 feet) or more.  Due to the uncertainty, on-site testing with a broadband RF test meter is strongly recommended. A German study reported that people living within 400 meters (1312 feet) of cell towers had over 3 times the normal rate for new cancers (City of Naila 2004).  In an Israeli study, the relative risk for cancer was about 4 times greater within 350 meters (1148 feet) of the cell tower (Wolf et al. 1997).  Based on findings like these, a minimum safety distance of 1/4 mile (1320 feet) might be considered prudent. (...) The suggestions for safety distances in this chart are generally based on Michael Neuert’s [engineer, licensed electrician, and health educator] professional on-site testing of the various EMF sources in the San Francisco Bay Area since 1992.

—What Distance is Safe? By Michael R Neuert, MA, BSME, ©2023

helpful table if you want all that info: What EMF Level is Safe? By Michael R Neuert, MA, BSME, ©2023

i know what i said

Based on the accumulated evidence, we recommend that IARC [the International Agency for Research on Cancer] re-evaluate its 2011 classification of the human carcinogenicity of RFR [radio-frequency radiation], and that WHO [the World Health Organization] complete a systematic review of multiple other health effects such as sperm damage. In the interim, current knowledge provides justification for governments, public health authorities, and physicians/allied health professionals to warn the population that having a cell phone next to the body is harmful, and to support measures to reduce all exposures to RFR.

—Risks to Health and Well-Being From Radio-Frequency Radiation Emitted by Cell Phones and Other Wireless Devices; Front Public Health (2019 Aug 13); NCBI

Lookup (or pull out) your cellphone’s manual and search for the sections on “radio frequency exposure” and “Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) information” to see how close the phone can safely be kept near your body… and that it should be kept away from “the bellies of pregnant women and for teenagers, away from the lower abdomen.” 😐

For an informative giggle, here’s the “Harmful Cell Phones” segment from season 7 of The Colbert Report.

[sukimas]

oh yeah one last note about NMR spectrometers: when i say you don't need to worry about any other metal besides iron, I REALLY mean it. you see, i wear wire-frame glasses.

[scleracentipede]

btw if you send a request it’ll likely a take me a few days to get to them alongside other art and requests but they’ll be on my list

[sigalrm]

A white safety pin on a white thread in front of a white background. by Pascal Volk

[svsembedded]

Female Safety bag Using RF With Arduino Based Location Tracking Using GPS

[meeda]

I really need to follow more non-transphobic radical feminists im tired of seeing radical feminism constantly thrown under the bus for being “man-hating” or discredited because of the ones who can’t be normal about other people’s private parts and sex lives

[aroshitbcitstheshit]

Also block @/ bittern-badfem-harpy, another radfem, Transphobe and transandrophobe and aphobe, who promotes the antisemitic and appropriative worship of a Jewish demon, and user @/teddykaczynski for the preceding reason.

@gay-jewish-bucky , @spacelazarwolf , @queerasaurus-rexx , some more for your blocklists

Pictures and descriptions under cut

Text ID:

Photo 1 is of reblogs of this post. User elfyprincess reblogged, "I don't even know what a transandrophobe is. Y'all are making up words." User bittern-badfem-harpy then reblogged "Aromantics should just kill themselves at this point like you're not special for being unable to form attachments you're just a fucking loser"

Photo 2 is of a reblog of the post by user teddykaczynski. The user posted a photo reading "Why Lilith?

Why do I worship a bone-crushing, blood-gulping, baby-strangling, lamb-devouring, flesh-rending, screaching, raging, furious, fearsome, terrifying, violent, rapacious, malicious, heartless, child-stealing, marrow-sucking demon Goddess? Well, every woman has her little personality quirks: I don't hold these against Her. In fact, I find these traits rather endearing in her." User teddykaczynski added the caption, "im exploring old web goddess worship sites and. based"

Aromantic safety post:

If you don't want to see aro phobia, please block this person:

Text ID: A photo of username, the username being @/ elfyprincess. The photo includes the user's icon, a picture of Wednesday from the 2023 Netflix series. End ID

Photo of specific aro phobia below cut

Text ID: Photo begins a line before user elfyprincess' reblog. The final text line of the previous post reads, "aromantic bisexuals are so cool". Elfyprincess revlogged, posting "Unpopular opinion: 'aromanticism' is unhealthy. It is the result of pornography and hookup culture. Sex should always involve emotional intimacy.

You're not an 'aromantic bisexual.' You're an emotionally stunted bisexual." End Text ID

Listen, I don't know how to explain it to you that this such puritanical and r/adf/em ideology bs, but I know it is.

The warmest bowls of soup and the toastiest mugs of tea and all the spoons to @spacelazarwolf for taking people like this on

[brf-rumortrackinganon]

About the hospital photocall, I believe them when they said they were concerned about Archie’s safety. Meghan said she wanted to do it but the palace didn’t ask her. The briefing at that time was that it was Harry and Meghan who didn’t want to do it. At that time, the spin was they want to protect Archie’s privacy and that by Meghan not doing a photocall, she isn’t setting unrealistic expectations for mothers (unlike Kate), but Meghan later claimed on Oprah that that was the palace lying and spinning. I think maybe that was the doing of their communications head(?) at that time, Sara Lantham. I’m not sure if we can say for sure that Meghan has nothing to do with that spin. But anyway, Harry and Meghan said on Oprah that they would’ve done the photocall, but they didn’t because Archie was not going to be made a prince and not given the appropriate security, and so they didn’t want to do it because they were afraid of the threats to Archie.

Meghan then claimed that the palace lied and spinned the story so they don’t have to explain why they aren’t giving Archie a title. But the real problem was that the palace isn’t going to give Archie a title. Meghan then threw a tantrum about that. We can’t say for sure if she threw a tantrum because she wanted a title so badly for her kids or if she was really very very concerned about Archie’s security. Tbh, with all the neonazi racist stuff said about Archie, it’s possible they really were just very very concerned about Archie’s security. And they couldn’t understand why the palace didn’t give Archie title and security despite the threats. So Meghan then assumed the palace was being racist against Archie, hence the implication of racism accusation on Oprah. Or let’s be real, she probably knew it wasn’t really about racism and just brought that up to get back at the palace.

I’m actually really quite curious about the conversations that went on within the key members of the family. Tbh, I hardly think they really would’ve allowed Archie to be unsafe. My suspicion is that that was the conversation about the skin color was about, if there was ever one. They were discussing all matters about how Archie would fit in the rf in the future. And maybe something about skin color was mentioned, which tbh is quite racist, although I hardly think the intention was racist. They were being realistic and honestly discussing all aspects about Archie’s future. Let’s be real, it’s quite a complicated matter. It really would’ve been nice and things worked out well.

Tbh, I’m also quite tired of rf supporters who dismiss everything as down to Harry and Meghan’s pettiness. Would everyone (i mean not the family but the weirdos out there) really have accepted Archie? Are you all trying to deny that racism exists? My problem with Harry and Meghan is they messed up really badly. They aren’t sensible people. They exaggerate and are addicted to drama. But there are some very real, important points in this saga.

You must be new here. I honestly have no idea where to start with your ask. I guess we'll go line by line.

About the hospital photocall, I believe them when they said they were concerned about Archie’s safety.

Ok, fair.

Meghan said she wanted to do it but the palace didn’t ask her. The briefing at that time was that it was Harry and Meghan who didn’t want to do it.

This sounds like a classic palace miscommunication. The palace expected the Sussexes to say something and they didn't, ergo the palace thought the Sussexes weren't interested. The Sussexes expected the palace to say something, but they didn't, ergo Meghan said she wasn't asked.

At that time, the spin was they want to protect Archie’s privacy and that by Meghan not doing a photocall, she isn’t setting unrealistic expectations for mothers (unlike Kate),

Sure, and wearing white two days after giving birth - when medical practice says that women are still bleeding from childbirth and so much that they're using postpartum diapers - with an actual belt cinching her waist, and sky-high heels isn't setting unrealistic expectations?

but Meghan later claimed on Oprah that that was the palace lying and spinning. I think maybe that was the doing of their communications head(?) at that time, Sara Lantham.

You do realize that Sara Latham worked for Harry and Meghan at the time, right? She wouldn't have done anything without their direct and explicit say so.

I’m not sure if we can say for sure that Meghan has nothing to do with that spin. But anyway, Harry and Meghan said on Oprah that they would’ve done the photocall, but they didn’t because Archie was not going to be made a prince and not given the appropriate security, and so they didn’t want to do it because they were afraid of the threats to Archie.

If there were real and legitimate security threats, the RPOs would be right there next to Harry and Meghan when they made their post-hospital appearance with baby Archie. The RAVEC lawsuit made that very clear; if there are real and legitimate threats, the Sussexes' status, including Archie's, would have been appropriately escalated.

Meghan then claimed that the palace lied and spinned the story so they don’t have to explain why they aren’t giving Archie a title.

The BRF didn't need to give Archie a title. He already had one: his father's subsidiary title, Earl of Dumbarton.

The Telegraph reported that neither Harry nor Meghan wanted Archie to use the title because it had "dumb" in the name and they were worried kids would pick on him.

But the real problem was that the palace isn’t going to give Archie a title.

Actually, the Sussexes' real problem was that the palace wasn't going to upgrade Archie to a HRH style and a prince title at birth. Archie was already eligible to become HRH Prince, he just had to wait for Grandpa Wales to become King in accordance with the 1917 Letter Patent, which allowed all grandchildren of the reigning sovereign to use HRH Prince/Princess. Queen Elizabeth issued a new letter patent in 2012 granting HRH Prince/Princess to all children of the eldest son of the eldest son of the reigning monarch (aka William's children) because the 1917 LP only allowed the eldest son to of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales to have a title. Meaning, if William's firstborn was a daughter (aka a future queen), she would have been untitled and outranked by a younger brother until Charles ascended and she became the grandchild of the reigning monarch because the Succession to the Crown Act of 2013 eliminated the practice of male-preferred primogeniture (brothers will inherit before sisters - it's why Anne is ranked lower than Andrew and Edward despite being older than them) and installed absolute primogeniture (the firstborn inherits regardless of gender).

What the Sussexes wanted - which Meghan made very clear in the Oprah interview - was for The Queen to issue a wholly new LP giving Harry's children HRH Prince/Princess at birth because she did it for William's children. Which the palace declined because they didn't see a need; the line of succession was secure with William's three children, Harry was the second/youngest son of the Prince of Wales, and Harry's children would have the titles eventually anyway.

Meghan then threw a tantrum about that. We can’t say for sure if she threw a tantrum because she wanted a title so badly for her kids or if she was really very very concerned about Archie’s security.

It's both. How much of it was because of the title vs how much was because of security concerns is probably different for all of us.

I'll reiterate what I said before: if there were real, serious, legitimate threats to Archie's safety, RAVEC would have given him security or upgraded Harry and Meghan's status to give Archie security. Archie did not need to be a prince for RAVEC or the BRF to take his security seriously.

Tbh, with all the neonazi racist stuff said about Archie, it’s possible they really were just very very concerned about Archie’s security. And they couldn’t understand why the palace didn’t give Archie title and security despite the threats.

A title does not guarantee anyone security. Anne, Andrew, and Edward have titles but they only get security when they're actually at an engagement.

And someone actually attempted to kidnap Anne once.

So Meghan then assumed the palace was being racist against Archie, hence the implication of racism accusation on Oprah. Or let’s be real, she probably knew it wasn’t really about racism and just brought that up to get back at the palace.

Ding ding ding, we have a winner!

I’m actually really quite curious about the conversations that went on within the key members of the family. Tbh, I hardly think they really would’ve allowed Archie to be unsafe.

Ding ding ding, another winner!

My suspicion is that that was the conversation about the skin color was about, if there was ever one.

It's been unofficially confirmed by the rota that the family was wondering what Archie would like - e.g. would he have Harry's red hair or Meghan's black hair? Would he have Harry's beady blue eyes or Meghan's nice brown eyes? Very normal and very ordinary conversations to have when there's a baby on the way.

They were discussing all matters about how Archie would fit in the rf in the future. And maybe something about skin color was mentioned, which tbh is quite racist, although I hardly think the intention was racist. They were being realistic and honestly discussing all aspects about Archie’s future.

Annnnnnnd you lost the plot. There was nothing to discuss about Archie's future. He was the grandson of the future king, so he was getting HRH Prince anyway, he just had to wait a bit for it. The modern BRF has been slimming for years (Charles's vision for the monarchy involving just William and his family and Harry and his wife, no kids, had been publicly known for years) so it was pretty much guaranteed Archie would not have any official role or do any work for the monarchy, regardless of whether he had a title or not.

Let’s be real, it’s quite a complicated matter. It really would’ve been nice and things worked out well.

I agree. But unfortunately it didn't go that way.

Tbh, I’m also quite tired of rf supporters who dismiss everything as down to Harry and Meghan’s pettiness.

But quite a lot of what Harry and Meghan have done over the years has been petty - like timing their own announcements and appearances with BRF events. Like complaining publicly that they weren't told beforehand about Kate's illness and that they had to find out on the news. Like complaining that William won't return Harry's calls. Like complaining they weren't thanked for flowers they sent to Kate. Like complaining there were security problems preventing Harry from seeing his father, when his father lives in one of the most secure facilities in the world because he's the King, head of state, and commander-in-chief.

No, not everything the Sussexes do is petty, but certainly enough that it's a default opinion for many people.

Would everyone (i mean not the family but the weirdos out there) really have accepted Archie?

You'll have to be more specific about "weirdos."

The general royal-watching public? The fandom? Yes, absolutely. No one had any problems with the Sussexes and/or Archie.

The neonazi racists you mentioned earlier? No, never.

Are you all trying to deny that racism exists?

No one here has ever said that. We have always acknowledged that racism exists. I have always said that Meghan absolutely faced and dealt with racism in the UK. I have always supported Meghan's right to call out racism and defend herself from racism. I have always given Meghan the benefit of the doubt because it's her life. It's her experience. I can't presume to speak for her experience as a biracial woman living in another country anymore than you can speak for my experience being a deaf woman.

What I have said is that Meghan has used racism in certain situations to deflect accountability, ignore protocol, and erase history. Pointing out inconsistencies in one's narrative is not denying racism. It's saying "things aren't adding up here."

My problem with Harry and Meghan is they messed up really badly. They aren’t sensible people. They exaggerate and are addicted to drama. But there are some very real, important points in this saga.

Yes, there are some real points and real feelings at matter here. But asserting BRF history and protocols doesn't mean we don't validate what Meghan experienced and what she went through. It means that there's three sides to every story - the BRF's, Meghan's, and the truth - but right now we're only getting one side: Meghan's. And there are things in it that aren't adding up.

[morsobaby]

Transfems and amab nonbinaries + genderfluids + genderqueers + people with penises who aren't men + drag Queens + Everyone who people brand as inherently evil and predatory due to their anatomy or upbringing I love you I love you so much. You deserve to be what you are, you're not a monster, you deserve support and safety I love you. T/rfs and r/dfems get fucking obliterated by lazers and stomped on

[midwestemokilledmygrandma]

in 2020 i was very pro normalisation of pronouns in bio and thought everyone should do it if they had the safety to do so ... however i am now starting to regret that opinion bcs someone with she/they or he/they in their bio... even some they/thems (which is CRAZY to be transphobic and a they/them) be saying the most heinous transphobic shite online... girl why do u even have ur pronouns in bio if ur gonna sound worse than a t*rf

[theaccidentfactory]

hello everyone! welcome to my blog!

~ Sage, he/she, 19, lesbian, white (Dutch/Mexican)

~ Definitely not new to tumblr, just needed a new blog because I'm no longer that 16 year old who made my original blog (I used to be @detentiontrack)

~ College junior psychology major hoping for a MA or PHD in clinical psychology eventually

~ auDHD, bipolar 1, OSDD

Interests

~ Media interests I will post about: amphibia, inside out 2, gravity falls, the magnus archives, the owl house

~ general interests I may post about: general and clinical psychology, neurochemistry, psychopharmacology, writing, baking, sewing, I'm also learning how to crochet :)

~ Fanfiction writer, ao3: springbreaksloose (mostly amphibia & toh currently)

Tagging system

~ Things that make me happy (positivity): joy & whimsy

~ Things that make me laugh out loud: laugh rule

~ Triggers: tw thing (I tag the major common triggers, but if you need something uncommon or specific tagged, let me know! /gen)

~ Anything nsfwish: nsft (I will not post anything graphic or explicit. This is just a tag for mature jokes or brief mentions of anything sexual.)

~ Asks: chatting

~ Anon asks: anon

~ General life things: silly little life

~ Posts about my kitty: the beast

~ Posts about mental health/being a system: the accident factory

~ Posts where i'm just talking: confabbing

~ General writing: writing tag

~ Posts about the podcast i'm writing/my OCs: my pod

Boundries, etc

~ Asks: anon is usually on! Feel free to send me an ask about anything! I love talking. I do have a bad memory and tend to forget things, so if it's been a while since I've responded, please send me a follow up reminder!

~ Messages: same as asks! I love talking so feel free to message me at any time, but I do have a busy life so I might take a bit to respond. You can remind me if it's been a while

~ Tags: I love being tagged in things!

~ Messages/asks/tags/etc regarding potentially triggering topics: I don't have any triggers that can be triggered on social media, so feel free to talk about things uncensored! If it's an ask, I'll tag it appropriately before posting for the safety of others

~ DNI: any kind of bigotry, t*rfs, fake claimers, etc

This is a safe space for everyone! Just be kind :)

[aux-squiggle]

I've made radfem centric pride flags everyone! Some are radfem only and some are for more than just rf's but will likely be used by mainly rf's.

Here's my favourite one I've made today:

Optimistic communist/socialist radical feminist flag. This flag is for any radfem post-capitalist (e.g socialist, syndicalist, communist etc) who has faith in a brighter future for women and the working class. Someone who believes the total destruction of the patriarchy is possible, and who believes the destruction of capitalism is likely/guaranteed.

The blue stripe is for disabled people and solidarity with same (particularly disabled women/female people). The colour blue represents wisdom, health, and medical affairs.

The purple stripe is small because it's a transitional shade for visual appeal. It stands for homosexual/same-sex attracted females.

The pink represents women, and is a striking/distinct colour to represent the distinctness of radical feminism from mainstream feminism. It also is one of the colours of the sunset and shows that women's possibilities are as high as the sky.

The yellow background is mainly for visual appeal, however it also represents the happiness and energizement of optimistic radical feminists. It also represents wealth and the redistribution of resources.

The sun itself represents clarity, paths to progress, "light at the end of the tunnel" and optimism in general. The sun also represents life and vitality. The "childishness" of the sun's corona represents safety for children.

The reddish-gold is goldish because of the sun shining on it. The reddishness represents anti-capitalism, and the struggle/will of the proletariat.

The golden-brown stripe is thin for visual appeal. It represents land/earth/soil and is a symbol of anti-imperialism, landback, and solidarity with the people (especially women) who live on colonized or ex-colonized land.

The brown stripe represents women of colour, especially black and brown women of colour. It is at the bottom because women of colour are at the foundation of radical feminism.

The hammer and sickle represents socialism/communism, and the female fist represents the undying thirst for liberation by female people. It's a widely accepted feminist symbol.

This one is the optimistic radical feminist flag. The red stripe still means anti-capitalism but this flag may be more suitable for optimistic radical feminists who are optimistic about culture change and significant destruction of patriarchy but not necessarily a total socialist revolution.

Here's the standard radfem flag I made. Brown means WOC, blue is disabled women, pink is women/distinctness from mainstream feminism, and red means anti-capitalism.

The land stripe and the homosexual female stripe unfortunately looked ugly on this flag and in terms of aesthetics this flag is mid. I think the meaning is powerful but I don't want to make it uglier 😭

Optimists, pessimists, neutrals and really any form of radfem may enjoy this flag.

This is the socialist/communist radfem flag, essentially a radfem who has more emphasis on post-capitalism. Neo-marxfem radfems may enjoy this flag.

This is another version of the above but it's a lil ugly 💀

Ok onto some sexuality flags! These are all febfem (female exclusive bisexual female) flags because I'm febfem and I wanted to focus on these. I'll def make more SSA and gnc women flags but I got tired today.

Standard febfem flag (made my own bc the ones online are strangely low quality).

I personally don't know what the individual stripes mean but it conjours thoughts of both the bisexual and lesbian flags because febfems are ofc, bisexual women. But also strongly decenter men like lesbians do. Being febfem is a distinct experience, thus the distinct colour pallette.

This is an asexual febfem flag! So female exclusive biromantic females who are on the asexual spectrum may enjoy this flag.

This is an aromantic febfem flag, so for febfems who are on the aromantic spectrum.

This is specifically a demisexual febfem flag.

This is specifically a demiromantic febfem flag.

Enjoy!

[way-too-cool-skeliton-dude]

TW: torture, brainwashing, extreme conditions, and murder

D-DIN was a multiverse traveler before landing in RegicideFell

Because the Sans of that world was unavailable, D-DIN was put into the position by King Papyrus. D-DIN had a choice when getting stuck in RF!, assimilate or die. At first he refused, but eventually he was brainwashed into believing he was a Sans. He had his cheek bones drilled down, his eye sockets widened, his scars melted to try to smooth down his face, and parts of his spine were taken out by the Alphys of RF! to make him the same height as the Sans of that world. The original RF! Sans still exists, living with Toriel in the ruins and Papyrus understands that D-DIN isn't Sans, but he's so delusional with his powers as King of the underground that he believes that he created the perfect Sans, a version of his brother that he has full control over.

D-DIN started out as a confident skeleton, he was tall and very intelligent. He traveled the multiverse in order to discover other Outcodes and to help solve problems with certain timelines. D-DIN soon stumbled across RF! and became infatuated with the idea of a continued timeline after the original end of the natural route of the world.

Nowadays, he spends his time as RF! Papyrus's royal advisor, telling him whatever he wants to hear. He has no say in how he's treated and barely remembers who he was before, finding it difficult to talk about his life as D-DIN. When encountering other AUs, he finds himself disgusted with "Un-Sans like" Sanses, in his head it's his sole purpose to play up the Fell Sans stereotypes and be a constant companion to "his Papyrus", even though the actual Sans of that world is leading the fight against the tyrannical King. He was basically forced to become the version of Sans that Papyrus wanted and now he can't separate himself from Papyrus's insecurities around the loss of his actual brother.

"Gill Sans", as he's now referred to, is someone with a complete loss of his original personality. He's now nothing without RF! Papyrus and he constantly suffers from anxiety over the possibility of not being Sans enough. He has a high LOVe due to executing people for the King and experiences extreme side effects of his LV (he's LV 15)

Gill Sans is solely dependent on Papyrus for everything, almost refusing to speak to anyone but him. He's his source of information, food, safety, and everything that's hard to find in this world. Alphys gets freaked out by him because he pretends to be the same Sans she knew all those years ago.

[celticcrossanon]

Celta, you're right about Hazbeen. Closer magazine has put out a Harkle puff piece, saying Harry doesn't understand why the Royal Family has cut him off and he believes that if he shows up at Windsor Castle or Buckingham Palace, then the RF will have to talk to him. Apparently, whoever wrote this forgot the Royal Family did not make any time to see Harry the last time he was in London for the IG 10th anniversary. I hope the RF continues to gray rock and ignore Harry for their own well-being.

Jun 27 Ask

Hi Nonny,

I hope the grey rocking continues as well, both for their own mental health and because they can't trust Harry - anything you say in front of him is going to be twisted and reported to the press. There is no safety in having anyone like that aroundyou.

I can't work out if Harry is so stupid that he genuinely believes he has done nothing wrong, or if it is a case of him telling himself that and believing that because he does not want to face the alternative (that he maliciously hurt his family for material gain).

[sigalrm]

Six safety pins by Pascal Volk

[svsembedded]

Women Safety👜bag Using RF, GSM,🛰️GPS and Arduino with Location📍Tracking📱Alertshttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GonQzt5phLs