Support NeoGAF

[Airola]

What the fuck are people doing with their phones that require 10 times faster than 4G?

4K VR 3D porn.

 

[Rentahamster]

I would like to see results of a study done specifically on the effects of 5G, if there have been any.

To put this in context, it's like me asking you to provide a study on whether or not water is made out of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. The behavior of microwaves and radiowaves is well understood.

Let me put it this way - that thing you just quoted - there is nothing to compare it to to put it into a framework that contextualizes it to the rest of the world. Like, this part you underlined right here:

"As a direct consequence of the scientific research, in 2011 the International Agency for Research on Cancer has classified radiation emitted by the cell phones and cell towers as a possible human carcinogen. "

That sounds a little spooky, I guess. But, what does it mean? Let's check the source.

IARC Publications Website - Non-ionizing Radiation, Part 1: Static and Extremely Low-frequency (ELF) Electric and Magnetic Fields

publications.iarc.fr

Page 419

"Overall evaluation: Radiofrequency electromagnetic fields are possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B)."

Key word is "POSSIBLY". Not probably, not definitively. Possibly. You know what else is possibly carcinogenic? Video games, singing while driving, dancing to polka music, and taking money shots to the face and tits. Basically everything.

Let's see what else is in Group 2B.

IARC Publications Website - Some Naturally Occurring Substances: Food Items and Constituents, Heterocyclic Aromatic Amines and Mycotoxins

publications.iarc.fr

Page 109

"Overall evaluation: Pickled vegetables (traditional Asian) are possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B)

Pickled vegetables. Asian style pickled vegetables are in the same carcinogen class as the electromagnetic spectrum of 5G.

What else can we find?

IARC Publications Website - Red Meat and Processed Meat

publications.iarc.fr

Page 501

"Consumption of red meat is probably carcinogenic to humans (Group 2A). Consumption of processed meat is carcinogenic to humans (Group 1)"

Processed meat is more of a carcinogen to you than 5G.

Are you worried about meat and pickled vegetables as much as 5G?

 

[DrAspirino]

I really hate the rumors saying that 5g will hurt peoples.

This is not possible. If there was a evidence 5G hurt, then I would believe, but peoples are blindly believing that 5G hurts when it's not.

Oh, it could hurt people, but INDIRECTLY of course.

Global 5G wireless deal threatens weather forecasts

Meteorologists say international standards for wireless technology could degrade crucial satellite measurements of water vapour.

www.nature.com

TL;DR: the 24 Ghz band of 5G will cause disruptions on weather reports and hurricane predictions. Without that information, there may be people that could get hurt for not taking necessary precautions on time because the information wasn't available.

The solution? just use 25 Ghz band instead of the 24 Ghz band, since the 24 Ghz band comes dangerously close with the 23.8 Ghz band that weather satellites use to detect water vapor.

 

[Nymphae]

Key word is "POSSIBLY". Not probably, not definitively. Possibly.

I don't take a lot of comfort from that. Certainly doesn't disprove the idea that they might have long term health effects we have not observed or studied, would be interested in any long term studies that have been done on this.

New Studies Link Cell Phone Radiation with Cancer

Researchers call for greater caution, but skeptics say the evidence from rat studies is not convincing

www.scientificamerican.com

Still, evidence advanced by the studies shows prolonged exposure to even very low levels of RF radiation, perhaps by mechanisms other than heating that remain unknown, makes rats uniquely prone to a rare tumor called a schwannoma, which affects a type of neuron (or nerve cell) called a Schwann cell.

Since 2011 RF radiation has been classified as a Group 2B “possible” human carcinogen by the International Agency on Cancer (IARC), an agency of the World Health Organization. Based on the new animal findings, and limited epidemiological evidence linking heavy and prolonged cell phone use with brain gliomas in humans, Fiorella Belpoggi, director of research at the Ramazzini Institute and the study’s lead author, says IARC should consider changing the RF radiation designation to a “probable” human carcinogen. Even if the hazard is low, billions of people are exposed, she says, alluding to the estimated number of wireless subscriptions worldwide. Véronique Terrasse, an IARC spokesperson, says a reevaluation may occur after the NTP delivers its final report.

 

[Rentahamster]

I don't take a lot of comfort from that.

Do you take a lot of comfort from the fact that pickled vegetables are on the same threat level as 5G and that red meat has more evidence that it is more carcinogenic than 5G?

The time to believe something is when there is sufficient evidence to do so.

 

[eot]

I don't take a lot of comfort from that. Certainly doesn't disprove the idea that they might have long term health effects we have not observed or studied, would be interested in any long term studies that have been done on this.

There are a shit ton of studies, and there are meta-studies that look at the aggregate of other studies too, like this one:

https://ascopubs.org/doi/pdfdirect/10.1200/JCO.2008.21.6366

Not for 5G because it's not deployed. Anyway, if it's any comfort, most of the RF radiation you're exposed to is actually from your phone, because it's simply so much closer to you and intensity goes down quadratically with distance. If you don't use your phone much, or don't hold it up to your ear, you're getting rid of most of the exposure. Furthermore, phones nowadays actually transmit less power than they used to (GSM phones would, or at least were allowed to, transmit up to 2W).

Also, because of the shorter wavelength, 5G radiation is attenuated more quickly, so less of it would actually go through your skull and reach your brain if that's your concern.

 

[Slings and Arrows]

The time to believe something is when there's sufficient evidence for it. 5G is in the radiation spectrum of non-ionizing radiation, which isn't capable of damaging DNA. We should of course study its effects and keep tabs on it, but there isn't any evidence that it's a serious cancer risk.

The sun causes more cancer than 5G.

The sun and 5g are both on the electromagnetic spectrum. Just like HF radio waves, ultra-violet light and X-ray.

Like I said before, we know radio waves cause health problems, concerns etc

The conversation shouldn't be whether it causes an issue or not but how much of an issue it CAN cause.

 

[Rentahamster]

The sun and 5g are both on the electromagnetic spectrum. Just like HF radio waves, ultra-violet light and X-ray.

The EM spectrum is very large and there is a big difference between the 5G spectrum and sunlight.

Like I said before, we know radio waves cause health problems, concerns etc

Do we really?

The conversation shouldn't be whether it causes an issue or not but how much of an issue it CAN cause.

From all available studies so far, and from all of our life experiences, the answer so far is: not much.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't study it or that it's proven to be completely harmless, but the level of FUD surrounding this is vastly disproportional to its actual demonstrated or potential risk.

 

[Nymphae]

Do you take a lot of comfort from the fact that pickled vegetables are on the same threat level as 5G and that red meat has more evidence that it is more carcinogenic than 5G?

The time to believe something is when there is sufficient evidence to do so.

I'm not really surrounded by pickled vegetables or red meat all day every day, but will keep a closer eye on those, thank you.

 

[Rentahamster]

I'm not really surrounded by pickled vegetables or red meat all day every day, but will keep a closer eye on those, thank you.

But they are being consumed by human civilization on large scales for long periods of time dating back centuries. Do you not see how your concern might be misplaced or that it's being disproportionately signal boosted by the media?

As for your article above, here's one by Ars Technica about why that study isn't really that scary.

A critical analysis of the latest cellphone safety scare

In which we describe how we decided not to cover the newest cellphone-cancer study.

arstechnica.com

Like other studies of its kind, this new research involves long-term exposure of rats to cellphone signals. Like the US government study, it involves unusually long exposures (19 hours a day), but it uses much lower doses, ones similar to what someone might actually experience. It uses a very large number of animals (nearly 2,500 in total), which should provide good statistical power. So far, so good.


But things start to go wrong in the abstract. There, the authors of the paper talk about three increases in the incidence of cancer in animals exposed to cellphone radiation. But two of these weren't statistically significant, meaning there's a greater than five percent chance the difference would occur at random. If we're going to allow non-significant changes into the conclusions, then the data would just as easily support reporting that cellphones reduce the risk of cancer in some of the experimental groups.


That's bad. But there's still one significant increase in cancer in their data, so let's look more closely at that: "A statistically significant increase in the incidence of heart Schwannomas was observed in treated male rats at the highest dose." When it comes to this type of cancer, the control group of 817 rats developed four tumors. But critically, all of those tumors occurred in females; none in males. This apparent sex bias will necessarily exaggerate the impact of any tumors in any of the male experimental populations.


And that's exactly what you see happening. In one female population, 2.2 percent of an experimental group developed this type of tumor, but that was not a statistically significant result. By contrast, in this male population with the significant difference, only 1.5 percent of the animals developed these tumors. A low-dose group of males had the same number of tumors, but the group was larger and so the result slipped below significance.


These numbers suggest that the one statistical effect seen in this study is caused by the unusually low tumor incidence in the control group, rather than a specific effect of cellphone radiation.


As we mentioned above, the normal response to a study like this would be to simply ignore it unless it became widely discussed. But highlighting the process that we use to decide to ignore it should give you a sense of how we determine what to cover when it comes to scientific studies at Ars. And, if you decide to try this method at home, it can also help you determine which results to pay attention to.

 

[Nymphae]

But they are being consumed by human civilization on large scales for long periods of time dating back centuries.

I'm not, and thus am less concerned about how those are affecting me personally.

 

[Rentahamster]

I'm not, and thus am less concerned about how those are affecting me personally.

Their history and effects on centuries of human civilization should be a significant point of reference though, no?

 

[Ballthyrm]

Everything cause cancer more news at 11.

Seriously though, if you really care about cancer there is bigger fish to fry.
Like stupid stuff, putting sunscreen on, running an awareness AD on this would probably save more people from skin cancer than 5G ever killed.

Sugar in everything main cause of the obesity epidemic, causing cancer left and right, diabetes and heart disease.

Burning coal to make electricity, 100 times more radioactive than nuclear power plants. (look it up)
Coal kill 13000 Americans every year !

Not eating Fruits and vegetables , sounds crazy right, well you can get colon cancer -.-

And i could go on & on & on.

 

[Nymphae]

Their history and effects on centuries of human civilization should be a significant point of reference though, no?

Like I said, on the face of it I'm far less concerned about the potential radioactivity of foods I do not eat than I am the radiation that surrounds me every place I am to varying degrees, I don't think it's hard to understand where that concern comes from.

 

[Rentahamster]

Like I said, on the face of it I'm far less concerned about the potential radioactivity of foods I do not eat than I am the radiation that surrounds me every place I am to varying degrees, I don't think it's hard to understand where that concern comes from.

It's not hard to understand. I completely understand where it's coming from and that you want to do what you can to protect yourself.

What I'm trying to communicate is that your underlying reasons for this concern amplify it to a degree that is unnecessary at this point in time. There is more evidence that sunlight causes more cancer than 5G. Do you also think about how much daily sun exposure you get every day or how much sunscreen you wear? You also get exposed to more radiation than normal on an airplane flight. Are you concerned about that too? Or doe we all just go about our lives with the understanding that some activities have a certain amount of risk associated with them, but ultimately they are trivial in comparison to the benefit we receive from them.

 

[Rentahamster]

Also this:

https://xkcd.com/radiation/

(5G isn't even on this chart because it doesn't rise up to the level of ionizing radiation)

 

[eot]

Like I said, on the face of it I'm far less concerned about the potential radioactivity of foods I do not eat than I am the radiation that surrounds me every place I am to varying degrees, I don't think it's hard to understand where that concern comes from.

I completely understand where your concerns are coming from, in the literal sense, and it's not a scientific place.
That's fine, live your life however you want.

 

[Nymphae]

There is more evidence that sunlight causes more cancer than 5G. Do you also think about how much daily sun exposure you get every day or how much sunscreen you wear?

I am concerned about that as well, yes.

You also get exposed to more radiation than normal on an airplane flight. Are you concerned about that too?

Don't fly, not interested, but yes I would be concerned about that on some level if I was a frequent flyer, though exposure times still seem like they would be nowhere near what you get from the sun or various forms of electromagnetic radiation at ground level.

Or doe we all just go about our lives with the understanding that some activities have a certain amount of risk associated with them, but ultimately they are trivial in comparison to the benefit we receive from them.

I'm still interested in what the long term studies of this will show despite everyone telling me there's nothing to worry about.

 

[LOLCats]

there is no way this guy gets near any towers... fake as fuckin shit.

 

[Darkmakaimura]

What the fuck are people doing with their phones that require 10 times faster than 4G?

I'm stuck to my phone for Internet and 4G is slow af. I'd welcome 5G right about now.

 

[Rentahamster]

I'm not really surrounded by pickled vegetables or red meat all day every day, but will keep a closer eye on those, thank you.

One thing I forgot to add - this mindset is a kind of misunderstanding of what's being studied. It's not studying the effects of one "being surrounded by meat every day". It's studying the effects of moderate consumption of red meats or processed meats. Do you consume red meat or processed meat on a daily or near daily basis?

How does processed meat cause cancer and how much matters?

How does bacon cause cancer? Research shows that moderate processed and red meat eating increases bowel cancer risk.

scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org

The latest study analysed data from half a million UK adults and found that moderate processed and red meat eaters had a 20% increased risk of bowel cancer compared to low meat eaters. To put this in context, for every 10,000 people on the study who ate 21 grams of red and processed meat a day, 40 were diagnosed with bowel cancer. Eating 76 grams of processed or red meat a day caused 8 extra cases of bowel cancer per 10,000 people.


A 2018 review of the evidence found an increased risk of bowel cancer for every 50 grams of processed meat and 100 grams of red meat someone eats a day.


The latest study looked at even smaller amounts and found an increased risk starting at just 25 grams of processed meat a day, the equivalent of one rasher of bacon. This confirms that no matter how much processed meat you eat, eating less can reduce your bowel cancer risk.

You don't have to be "surrounded" by meat all day for it to have an impact on your risk of cancer.

I am concerned about that as well, yes.

Do you live your life differently because of it?

 

[Nymphae]

Do you consume red meat or processed meat on a daily or near daily basis?

No.

Do you live your life differently because of it?

Sure, in that knowing affects my interest in staying out in the sun for very long, and makes me take precaution when doing so for extended periods.

 

[Rentahamster]

No.

You do understand, though, that the relevant comparison is not radiowaves surrounding us all the time vs meat surrounding us all the time, yes? It's radiowaves surrounding us vs moderate consumption of meat that are equivalent.

 

[Nymphae]

You do understand, though, that the relevant comparison is not radiowaves surrounding us all the time vs meat surrounding us all the time, yes? It's radiowaves surrounding us vs moderate consumption of meat that are equivalent.

ok

 

[Rentahamster]

ok

Don't fly, not interested, but yes I would be concerned about that on some level if I was a frequent flyer, though exposure times still seem like they would be nowhere near what you get from the sun or various forms of electromagnetic radiation at ground level.

Sure, in that knowing affects my interest in staying out in the sun for very long, and makes me take precaution when doing so for extended periods.

So in regards to this, yes radiation you get from flying is nowhere near what you get from the sun or radiowaves on the ground, but that's because the radiation exposure from flying is 4 times more than what you get from just existing on Earth for a day. Compared to radiowave radiation, that's even less. Radiowave radiation is so much less energy than regular background radiation, that they can't even measure it in the same units.

You'll get more harmful radiation exposure from eating a banana (due to the potassium). You're not concerned about bananas, are you?

 

[Azelover]

What the fuck are people doing with their phones that require 10 times faster than 4G?

In the future it might be useful for certain technologies. What they really want is to create a huge web of inter-connected devices. Imagine having one billion high capacity phones all talking to each other. This opens vast possibilites, like a super intelligent AI for example.

By using the inter-connectivity we could get there much faster. Of course, there's always the danger that someone might use it for evil. Governments are not necessarily known for always being benign..

 

[psorcerer]

There is more evidence that sunlight causes more cancer than 5G. Do you also think about how much daily sun exposure you get every day or how much sunscreen you wear?

Sunlight produces more radiation for sure.
Overall anything that humans invented is but a speck in an ocean of the giant sunlight radiation.

 

[Nymphae]

You'll get more harmful radiation exposure from eating a banana (due to the potassium). You're not concerned about bananas, are you?

I've never seen an appeal by 241 scientists from 41 countries to take a serious look at banana radiation. I found this article from The Lancet that appears fairly well researched and reasoned.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(18)30221-3/fulltext

a discussion on the rapid global proliferation of artificial electromagnetic fields would now be apt. The most notable is the blanket of radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation, largely microwave radiation generated for wireless communication and surveillance technologies, as mounting scientific evidence suggests that prolonged exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation has serious biological and health effects.

However, public exposure regulations in most countries continue to be based on the guidelines of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (1) and Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (2), which were established in the 1990s on the belief that only acute thermal effects are hazardous. Prevention of tissue heating by radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation is now proven to be ineffective in preventing biochemical and physiological interference. For example, acute non-thermal exposure has been shown to alter human brain metabolism by NIH scientists (3), electrical activity in the brain (4), and systemic immune responses (5). Chronic exposure has been associated with increased oxidative stress and DNA damage (6) (7), and cancer risk (8). Laboratory studies, including large rodent studies by the US National Toxicology Program (9) and Ramazzini Institute of Italy (10), confirm these biological and health effects in vivo. As we address the threats to human health from the changing environmental conditions due to human activity, the increasing exposure to artificial electromagnetic radiation needs to be included in this discussion.

Unprecedented human exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation from conception until death has been occurring in the past two decades. Evidence of its effects on the CNS, including altered neurodevelopment (14) and increased risk of some neurodegenerative diseases (15), is a major concern considering the steady increase in their incidence. Evidence exists for an association between neurodevelopmental or behavioural disorders in children and exposure to wireless devices (14), and experimental evidence, such as the Yale finding, shows that prenatal exposure could cause structural and functional changes in the brain associated with ADHD-like behaviour (16). These findings deserve urgent attention.

At the Oceania Radiofrequency Scientific Advisory Association, an independent scientific organisation, volunteering scientists have constructed the world's largest categorised online database of peer-reviewed studies on radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation and other man-made electromagnetic fields of lower frequencies. A recent evaluation of 2266 studies (including in-vitro and in-vivo studies in human, animal, and plant experimental systems and population studies) found that most studies (n=1546, 68·2%) have demonstrated significant biological or health effects associated with exposure to anthropogenic electromagnetic fields.

We have published our preliminary data on radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation, which shows that 89% (216 of 242) of experimental studies that investigated oxidative stress endpoints showed significant effects (7). This weight of scientific evidence refutes the prominent claim that the deployment of wireless technologies poses no health risks at the currently permitted non-thermal radiofrequency exposure levels. Instead, the evidence supports the International EMF Scientist Appeal by 244 scientists from 41 countries who have published on the subject in peer-reviewed literature and collectively petitioned the WHO and the UN for immediate measures to reduce public exposure to artificial electromagnetic fields and radiation.

Evidence also exists of the effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation on flora and fauna. For example, the reported global reduction in bees and other insects is plausibly linked to the increased radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation in the environment (17). Honeybees are among the species that use magnetoreception, which is sensitive to anthropogenic electromagnetic fields, for navigation.

It has been widely claimed that radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation, being non-ionising radiation, does not possess enough photon energy to cause DNA damage. This has now been proven wrong experimentally (18) (19). Radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation causes DNA damage apparently through oxidative stress (7), similar to near-UV radiation, which was also long thought to be harmless.

Just sounds like there is a little more to this than some people want to give it credit for.

 

[Rentahamster]

I've never seen an appeal by 241 scientists from 41 countries to take a serious look at banana radiation. I found this article from The Lancet that appears fairly well researched and reasoned.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(18)30221-3/fulltext

Just sounds like there is a little more to this than some people want to give it credit for.

There isn't a one to one comparison between rats in the lab and humans in the wild, and the studies in question, while having relevant results in the context of what they were measuring, don't exactly have a lot to say in the context of how this impacts humans.

Like this one, which they cite as evidence:

It has been widely claimed that radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation, being non-ionising radiation, does not possess enough photon energy to cause DNA damage. This has now been proven wrong experimentally (18) (19). Radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation causes DNA damage apparently through oxidative stress (7), similar to near-UV radiation, which was also long thought to be harmless.

https://www.fda.gov/media/135043/download

As has been noted before, these extremely large whole-body RFR exposures (6 W/kg is 75 times higher than the limit for the public which is 0.08 W/kg) in rodents cannot be directly compared to real world partial body exposures to people using mobile phones.

The specific criteria for the categorization of data into the specific outcomes (e.g., clear evidence, etc.) remains unclear and there are inconsistencies in some of the interpretation of the data and the conclusions that have been drawn.

In addition to the inconsistencies in the data interpretation, the importance attributed to dose response was also unclear in the final conclusions of the NTP reports. The incidence of benign, complex, or malignant pheochromocytoma in the adrenal medulla in male rats subjected to GSM modulated RF (12.5%, 26.7%, 31.5%, 16.1%) were classified as some evidence of carcinogenicity despite there being no clear dose response and no statistical difference between the highest RF dose and the control animals (P=0.472).

Also:

The vast majority of reviewed studies, including multi-country studies (INTERPHONE 2010, 2011; de Vocht 2013), were conducted outside the US (mostly, in Europe), while very few studies assessed the risk of tumor in relation to mobile phone use based on the US population (Inskip 2010; Han 2012; Little 2012). There is compelling evidence from the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) program, a highly regarded cancer registry, that the incidence of brain cancer has not increased over the last 20 years despite cell phones becoming nearly ubiquitous16.

It might also be noted here that the failure to detect a real increase in brain cancer rates is exceedingly unlikely because of the high specificity and sensitivity of the non-invasive diagnostic modalities of computerized tomography and magnetic resonance imaging.

Finally, it is worthy of note that there are currently no primary or secondary prevention efforts to reduce brain cancer incidence. There are no countervailing forces that would offset a potential increase in the rate of brain cancer from cell phone use. With the findings from these three cited US studies mentioned in the Summary, “the very linear relationship between cell phone usage and brain tumor incidence” reported in an additional US study (Lehrer et al 2011) cannot be accepted as valid due the study’s fl awed statistical assessment

 

[ManaByte]

5G coronavirus conspiracists BURNING phone masts amid bizarre claim 'radiation' sparked killer bug

CONSPIRACY nuts are reportedly setting phone masts alight and targeting engineers after a bizarre claim 5G “radiation” caused the deadly coronavirus spread. The theory originated last m…

www.thesun.co.uk

 

[Rentahamster]

5G coronavirus conspiracists BURNING phone masts amid bizarre claim 'radiation' sparked killer bug

CONSPIRACY nuts are reportedly setting phone masts alight and targeting engineers after a bizarre claim 5G “radiation” caused the deadly coronavirus spread. The theory originated last m…

www.thesun.co.uk

Good grief, some people are morons.

 

[12Goblins]

If you're still on the fence about 5G I recommend you watch this

 

[Rentahamster]

If you're still on the fence about 5G I recommend you watch this

Welp, I'm convinced!

 

[Armorian]

 

[SpartanN92]

Also, because of the shorter wavelength, 5G radiation is attenuated more quickly, so less of it would actually go through your skull and reach your brain if that's your concern.

I came here to say something along this line. My understanding is that 5G is very poor at material penetration.

 

[PrellboGark]

5G wavelength is somewhere in between radio waves and visible light.
There is not a single shred of evidence pointing towards these wavelengths being harmful in any way.

I wonder if Adam and Eve sounded the alarm when god introduced visible light back in the day.

Alex Jones should really rebrand himself as a comedian at this point. If you look at his tirades as bits, they're quite funny.

Didn't he already use that defense in court? When the Sandy Hook parents sued him

 

[GymWolf]

even if it was true, governments from around the world probably don't give a shit about it.

i mean, cigarettes and alcohol kills a fuckload of people every year and they are fully legal everywhere, do you think that a little more of radiation are enough to stop progress or multi-billionaire company?

 

[Ailynn]

5G you say? No worries...
You just gotta be prepared.

 

[and 3 others]

These are the only 5G's you need to worry about.

 

[Jonsoncao]

5G wavelength is somewhere in between radio waves and visible light.
There is not a single shred of evidence pointing towards these wavelengths being harmful in any way.

I wonder if Adam and Eve sounded the alarm when god introduced visible light back in the day.

Essentially this, the visible light you are exposed every day has several magnitudes higher energy density (1000x or more) than your cellphone.

Even the supernovae light years away or the cosmic ray that causes northern light are more powerful than your cellphone.

People are afraid of microwaves due to its invisibility (to human) and permeability, if it can go through ways through an non-ionizing way (diffraction) then it should be much less harmful than sun light (much less frequency than sun light).

 

[Foamy]

These are the only 5G's you need to worry about.

Wonder how the guy in the coffin would feel knowing his death has become an internet meme?

 

[Jonsoncao]

I've never seen an appeal by 241 scientists from 41 countries to take a serious look at banana radiation. I found this article from The Lancet that appears fairly well researched and reasoned.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(18)30221-3/fulltext

Just sounds like there is a little more to this than some people want to give it credit for.

From a Bayesian statistical pov, after the massive populating of the cellphone devices, if it really causes cancer (or other diseases), we should see a spike in the collective number of cancer cases among population in the country which adopts mobile tech the earliest, i.e., US.

Yet it seems consistent with population growth rate (the graph at the bottom): https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/dcpc/research/articles/cancer_2020.htm

 

[bronk]

 

[EverydayBeast]

I kinda like 5G scaring everyone

 

[ManaByte]

 

[SiteSeer]

I have something for this guy

shhhhh. no thinking, just reacting.

 

[Bryank75]

 

[Yoda]

The only thing wrong w/5G is the lack of usefulness. With the average data cap is in the US, you can below through your monthly allotment in a day of streaming. 5G will give you more bandwidth you won't be allowed to use w/o paying an egregious sum of money.

 

[John Day]

This is MAGA country, son.

You f***** n*****!!

 

[sol_bad]