So 5G is actually cancer.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Nov 20, 2018
486
444
235
#1
Black Mirror future is closer than we thought.


More bandwidth – more dangers of 5G
Let’s start with some basic background on 5G technology. Faster processing speeds require more bandwidth, yet our current frequency bandwidths are quickly becoming saturated. The idea behind 5G is to use untapped bandwidth of the extremely high-frequency millimeter wave (MMW), between 30GHz and 300GHz, in addition to some lower and mid-range frequencies.
High-frequency MMWs travel a short distance. Furthermore, they don’t travel well through buildings and tend to be absorbed by rain and plants, leading to signal interference. Thus, the necessary infrastructure would require many smaller, barely noticeable cell towers situated closer together, with more input and output ports than there are on the much larger, easier to see 4G towers. This would likely result in wireless antennas every few feet, on every lamp post and utility pole in your neighbourhood.
Here are some numbers to put things into perspective: as of 2015, there were 308,000 wireless antennas on cell towers and buildings. That’s double the 2002 number. Yet 5G would require exponentially more, smaller ones, placed much closer together, with each emitting bursts of radiofrequency radiation (RFR)–granted, at levels much lower than that of today’s 4G cell towers–that will be much harder to avoid because these towers will be ubiquitous. If we could see the RFR, it would look like a smog that’s everywhere, all the time.

Serious health concerns
First, it’s important to know that in 2011, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer classified RFR as a potential 2B carcinogen and specified that the use of mobile phones could lead to specific forms of brain tumors.
Many studies have associated low-level RFR exposure with a litany of health effects, including:
  • DNA single and double-strand breaks (which leads to cancer)
  • oxidative damage (which leads to tissue deterioration and premature ageing)
  • disruption of cell metabolism
  • increased blood-brain barrier permeability
  • melatonin reduction (leading to insomnia and increasing cancer risks)
  • disruption of brain glucose metabolism
  • generation of stress proteins (leading to myriad diseases)
As mentioned, the new 5G technology utilizes higher-frequency MMW bands, which give off the same dose of radiation as airport scanners. The effects of this radiation on public health have yet to undergo the rigours of long-term testing. Adoption of 5G will mean more signals carrying more energy through the high-frequency spectrum, with more transmitters located closer to people’s homes and workplaces–basically a lot more (and more potent) RFR flying around us. It’s no wonder that apprehension exists over potential risks, to both human and environmental health.
Perhaps the strongest concern involves adverse effects of MMWs on human skin. This letter to the Federal Communications Commission, from Dr Yael Stein of Jerusalem’s Hebrew University, outlines the main points. Over ninety percent of microwave radiation is absorbed by the epidermis and dermis layers, so human skin basically acts as an absorbing sponge for microwave radiation. Disquieting as this may sound, it’s generally considered acceptable so long as the violating wavelengths are greater than the skin layer’s dimensions. But MMW’s violate this condition.
Furthermore, the sweat ducts in the skin’s upper layer act like helical antennas, which are specialized antennas constructed specifically to respond to electromagnetic fields. With millions of sweat ducts, and 5G’s increased RFR needs, it stands to reason that our bodies will become far more conductive to this radiation. The full ramifications of this fact are presently unclear, especially for more vulnerable members of the public (e.g., babies, pregnant women, the elderly), but this technology
Furthermore, MMWs may cause our pain receptors to flare up in recognition of the waves as damaging stimuli. Consider that the US Department of Defense already uses a crowd-dispersal method called the Active Denial System, in which MMWs are directed at crowds to make their skin feel like it’s burning, and also has the ability to basically microwave populations to death from afar with this technology if they choose to do so. And the telecommunications industry wants to fill our atmosphere with MMWs?

Other distressing research
Unfortunately, innocent animals have already been the victims of testing to see MMW’s effects on living cells. Extrapolating the results from animal testing to humans isn’t straightforward, but the results nonetheless raise some serious red flags. Perhaps most significantly, a US National Toxicology Program study noted that male rats exposed to RFR for nine hours a day over two years developed rare forms of tumours in the brain and heart, and rats of both sexes developed DNA damage.
The researchers noted that the increased risk to the rats was relatively small; but if these findings translate to humans, the widespread increase in cellphone use could have a significant impact on populations. Thus the NTP study served to renew the debate about the potential harmful effects of cellphones on human health. Not only that, it caused a significant shift in the American Cancer Society’s understanding of radiation and cancer, and sparked them to state that our ignorance of RFR’s impact on human health could be compared to our previous obliviousness to the connection between smoking and lung cancer.
Other animal research worldwide illustrates how microwave radiation in general and MMW’s in particular can damage the eyes and immune system, cell growth rate, even bacterial resistance. An experiment at the Medical Research Institute of Kanazawa Medical University showed that 60GHz millimeter-wave antennas produce thermal injuries in rabbit eyes, with thermal effects reaching below the eye’s surface. This study, meanwhile, suggests low-level MMW’s caused lens opacity–a precursor to cataracts–in rats’ eyes. A Chinese studydemonstrated that eight hours’ of microwave radiation damaged rabbits’ lens epithelial cells. A Pakistani studyconcluded that exposure to mobile phone EMF prevented chicken embryo retinal cells from properly differentiating.
This Russian study revealed that exposing healthy mice to low-intensity, extremely high-frequency electromagnetic radiation severely compromised their immune systems. And a 2016 Armenian study concluded that low-intensity MMW’s not only depressed the growth of E. coli and other bacteria, but also changed certain properties and activity levels of the cells. The same Armenian study noted that MMW interaction with bacteria could lead to antibiotic resistance–distressing news, considering immunity to bacteria is already compromised due to the overuse of antibiotics.
Again, if these findings translate to humans, our rampant cellphone use would likely cause profound, adverse health effects; an increase in MMW’s as more bandwidth is introduced could further complicate the matter. But what’s also important to note here is that 5G technologies will not only have a profound impact on human health, but on the health of all living organisms it touches, including plants, as we shall see.

5G harms the planet, too
Equally disturbing, 5G technology puts environmental health at risk in a number of ways. First, MMWs may pose a serious threat to plant health. This 2010 study showed that the leaves of aspen seedlings exposed to RFR exhibited symptoms of necrosis, while another Armenian study suggested low-intensity MMW’s cause “peroxidase isoenzyme spectrum changes”–basically a stress response that damages cells–in wheat shoots. Plant irradiation is bad news for the planet’s flora, but it’s bad news for us, too: it could contaminate our food supply.
Second, the 5G infrastructure would pose a threat to our planet’s atmosphere. Network implementation will require the deployment of many, short-lifespan satellites via suborbital rockets propelled by hydrocarbon rocket engines. According to this 2010 California study, launching too many of these babies will vomit enough black carbon into the atmosphere to pollute global atmospheric conditions, affecting distribution of ozone and temperature. Worse, solid-state rocket exhaust contains chlorine, an ozone-destroying chemical. How can any government seriously concerned about climate change allow for this?
Third, 5G will potentially threaten natural ecosystems. According to several reports over the last two decades–some of which are summarized here–low-level, non-ionizing microwave radiation affects bird and bee health. It drives birds from their nests and causes plume deterioration, locomotion problems, reduced survivorship and death. And bee populations suffer from reduced egg-laying abilities of queen bees and smaller colony sizes. More evidence of ecosystem disruption comes from this 2012 meta-study, which indicates that 593 of 919 research studies suggest that RFR adversely affects plants, animals and humans.
It bears repeating: 5G is bad news for all living creatures and the planet we share.

Beware the propaganda deluge
Despite being fully aware of all these unsettling results, threats and concerns, the US corporatocracy continues to maintain a gung-ho attitude about 5G. The Mobile Now Act was passed in 2016, and many US states have since gone ahead with 5G plans. The telecom industry’s biggest players have basically co-opted government powers to enforce their 5G agenda, with companies like AT&T and Qualcomm having begun live testing. And despite research showing serious threats to humans and the planet, the FCC Chairman announced intentions to open low-, mid- and high-frequency spectrums, without even mentioning a single word about the dangers.
They’re going to sell this to us as ‘faster browsing speeds’ – but the truth is, you’ll barely even notice the difference. They’re going to call anyone who protests against 5G a ‘Luddite’ or ‘technophobe’. But why such a willingness to embrace another new technology – even though it carries serious risks and brings spurious benefits? Why not heed the lessons learned from killer products like asbestos, tobacco and leaded gasoline?
Because a tiny percentage of people will gain an awful lot of money, is one reason. And because companies and governments will be given unprecedented amounts of power over civilians is the other.
All isn’t doom and gloom, though. At least one US politician is maintaining some level-headedness: in October, California Governor Jerry Brown stopped legislation that would have allowed the telecom industry to inundate the state with mini-towers. Brown’s bold actions have permitted localities a say in where and how many cell towers are placed.
The state of Hawaii has stopped 5G and smart meters by collectively threatening to charge every person who installed such meters with liability for any health problems residents may suffer. Moreover, 180 scientists have started a petition to warn of 5G potential health effects. Maybe these actions will afford more time for additional studies and data collection. Just as importantly, maybe they’ll cause other politicians and figureheads to reflect on what they’ve been pushing for.
 
Last edited:
Nov 20, 2018
486
444
235
#8
Soooo is this a flat earthers type view or is it scientifically legit?
Even Verizon knows it has many problems, they listed in their reports that they are not liable for any damage they cause.


More bandwidth – more dangers of 5G
Let’s start with some basic background on 5G technology. Faster processing speeds require more bandwidth, yet our current frequency bandwidths are quickly becoming saturated. The idea behind 5G is to use untapped bandwidth of the extremely high-frequency millimeter wave (MMW), between 30GHz and 300GHz, in addition to some lower and mid-range frequencies.
High-frequency MMWs travel a short distance. Furthermore, they don’t travel well through buildings and tend to be absorbed by rain and plants, leading to signal interference. Thus, the necessary infrastructure would require many smaller, barely noticeable cell towers situated closer together, with more input and output ports than there are on the much larger, easier to see 4G towers. This would likely result in wireless antennas every few feet, on every lamp post and utility pole in your neighbourhood.
Here are some numbers to put things into perspective: as of 2015, there were 308,000 wireless antennas on cell towers and buildings. That’s double the 2002 number. Yet 5G would require exponentially more, smaller ones, placed much closer together, with each emitting bursts of radiofrequency radiation (RFR)–granted, at levels much lower than that of today’s 4G cell towers–that will be much harder to avoid because these towers will be ubiquitous. If we could see the RFR, it would look like a smog that’s everywhere, all the time.

Serious health concerns
First, it’s important to know that in 2011, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer classified RFR as a potential 2B carcinogen and specified that the use of mobile phones could lead to specific forms of brain tumors.
Many studies have associated low-level RFR exposure with a litany of health effects, including:
  • DNA single and double-strand breaks (which leads to cancer)
  • oxidative damage (which leads to tissue deterioration and premature ageing)
  • disruption of cell metabolism
  • increased blood-brain barrier permeability
  • melatonin reduction (leading to insomnia and increasing cancer risks)
  • disruption of brain glucose metabolism
  • generation of stress proteins (leading to myriad diseases)
As mentioned, the new 5G technology utilizes higher-frequency MMW bands, which give off the same dose of radiation as airport scanners. The effects of this radiation on public health have yet to undergo the rigours of long-term testing. Adoption of 5G will mean more signals carrying more energy through the high-frequency spectrum, with more transmitters located closer to people’s homes and workplaces–basically a lot more (and more potent) RFR flying around us. It’s no wonder that apprehension exists over potential risks, to both human and environmental health.
Perhaps the strongest concern involves adverse effects of MMWs on human skin. This letter to the Federal Communications Commission, from Dr Yael Stein of Jerusalem’s Hebrew University, outlines the main points. Over ninety percent of microwave radiation is absorbed by the epidermis and dermis layers, so human skin basically acts as an absorbing sponge for microwave radiation. Disquieting as this may sound, it’s generally considered acceptable so long as the violating wavelengths are greater than the skin layer’s dimensions. But MMW’s violate this condition.
Furthermore, the sweat ducts in the skin’s upper layer act like helical antennas, which are specialized antennas constructed specifically to respond to electromagnetic fields. With millions of sweat ducts, and 5G’s increased RFR needs, it stands to reason that our bodies will become far more conductive to this radiation. The full ramifications of this fact are presently unclear, especially for more vulnerable members of the public (e.g., babies, pregnant women, the elderly), but this technology
Furthermore, MMWs may cause our pain receptors to flare up in recognition of the waves as damaging stimuli. Consider that the US Department of Defense already uses a crowd-dispersal method called the Active Denial System, in which MMWs are directed at crowds to make their skin feel like it’s burning, and also has the ability to basically microwave populations to death from afar with this technology if they choose to do so. And the telecommunications industry wants to fill our atmosphere with MMWs?

Other distressing research
Unfortunately, innocent animals have already been the victims of testing to see MMW’s effects on living cells. Extrapolating the results from animal testing to humans isn’t straightforward, but the results nonetheless raise some serious red flags. Perhaps most significantly, a US National Toxicology Program study noted that male rats exposed to RFR for nine hours a day over two years developed rare forms of tumours in the brain and heart, and rats of both sexes developed DNA damage.
The researchers noted that the increased risk to the rats was relatively small; but if these findings translate to humans, the widespread increase in cellphone use could have a significant impact on populations. Thus the NTP study served to renew the debate about the potential harmful effects of cellphones on human health. Not only that, it caused a significant shift in the American Cancer Society’s understanding of radiation and cancer, and sparked them to state that our ignorance of RFR’s impact on human health could be compared to our previous obliviousness to the connection between smoking and lung cancer.
Other animal research worldwide illustrates how microwave radiation in general and MMW’s in particular can damage the eyes and immune system, cell growth rate, even bacterial resistance. An experiment at the Medical Research Institute of Kanazawa Medical University showed that 60GHz millimeter-wave antennas produce thermal injuries in rabbit eyes, with thermal effects reaching below the eye’s surface. This study, meanwhile, suggests low-level MMW’s caused lens opacity–a precursor to cataracts–in rats’ eyes. A Chinese studydemonstrated that eight hours’ of microwave radiation damaged rabbits’ lens epithelial cells. A Pakistani studyconcluded that exposure to mobile phone EMF prevented chicken embryo retinal cells from properly differentiating.
This Russian study revealed that exposing healthy mice to low-intensity, extremely high-frequency electromagnetic radiation severely compromised their immune systems. And a 2016 Armenian study concluded that low-intensity MMW’s not only depressed the growth of E. coli and other bacteria, but also changed certain properties and activity levels of the cells. The same Armenian study noted that MMW interaction with bacteria could lead to antibiotic resistance–distressing news, considering immunity to bacteria is already compromised due to the overuse of antibiotics.
Again, if these findings translate to humans, our rampant cellphone use would likely cause profound, adverse health effects; an increase in MMW’s as more bandwidth is introduced could further complicate the matter. But what’s also important to note here is that 5G technologies will not only have a profound impact on human health, but on the health of all living organisms it touches, including plants, as we shall see.

5G harms the planet, too
Equally disturbing, 5G technology puts environmental health at risk in a number of ways. First, MMWs may pose a serious threat to plant health. This 2010 study showed that the leaves of aspen seedlings exposed to RFR exhibited symptoms of necrosis, while another Armenian study suggested low-intensity MMW’s cause “peroxidase isoenzyme spectrum changes”–basically a stress response that damages cells–in wheat shoots. Plant irradiation is bad news for the planet’s flora, but it’s bad news for us, too: it could contaminate our food supply.
Second, the 5G infrastructure would pose a threat to our planet’s atmosphere. Network implementation will require the deployment of many, short-lifespan satellites via suborbital rockets propelled by hydrocarbon rocket engines. According to this 2010 California study, launching too many of these babies will vomit enough black carbon into the atmosphere to pollute global atmospheric conditions, affecting distribution of ozone and temperature. Worse, solid-state rocket exhaust contains chlorine, an ozone-destroying chemical. How can any government seriously concerned about climate change allow for this?
Third, 5G will potentially threaten natural ecosystems. According to several reports over the last two decades–some of which are summarized here–low-level, non-ionizing microwave radiation affects bird and bee health. It drives birds from their nests and causes plume deterioration, locomotion problems, reduced survivorship and death. And bee populations suffer from reduced egg-laying abilities of queen bees and smaller colony sizes. More evidence of ecosystem disruption comes from this 2012 meta-study, which indicates that 593 of 919 research studies suggest that RFR adversely affects plants, animals and humans.
It bears repeating: 5G is bad news for all living creatures and the planet we share.

Beware the propaganda deluge
Despite being fully aware of all these unsettling results, threats and concerns, the US corporatocracy continues to maintain a gung-ho attitude about 5G. The Mobile Now Act was passed in 2016, and many US states have since gone ahead with 5G plans. The telecom industry’s biggest players have basically co-opted government powers to enforce their 5G agenda, with companies like AT&T and Qualcomm having begun live testing. And despite research showing serious threats to humans and the planet, the FCC Chairman announced intentions to open low-, mid- and high-frequency spectrums, without even mentioning a single word about the dangers.
They’re going to sell this to us as ‘faster browsing speeds’ – but the truth is, you’ll barely even notice the difference. They’re going to call anyone who protests against 5G a ‘Luddite’ or ‘technophobe’. But why such a willingness to embrace another new technology – even though it carries serious risks and brings spurious benefits? Why not heed the lessons learned from killer products like asbestos, tobacco and leaded gasoline?
Because a tiny percentage of people will gain an awful lot of money, is one reason. And because companies and governments will be given unprecedented amounts of power over civilians is the other.
All isn’t doom and gloom, though. At least one US politician is maintaining some level-headedness: in October, California Governor Jerry Brown stopped legislation that would have allowed the telecom industry to inundate the state with mini-towers. Brown’s bold actions have permitted localities a say in where and how many cell towers are placed.
The state of Hawaii has stopped 5G and smart meters by collectively threatening to charge every person who installed such meters with liability for any health problems residents may suffer. Moreover, 180 scientists have started a petition to warn of 5G potential health effects. Maybe these actions will afford more time for additional studies and data collection. Just as importantly, maybe they’ll cause other politicians and figureheads to reflect on what they’ve been pushing for.

https://eluxemagazine.com/magazine/dangers-of-5g/
 
Likes: TheGreatYosh
Feb 15, 2018
628
371
215
United States
#20
The three video you posted are over an hour long combined... dude wtf do you want from me.

You didn't even list your opinion on them.
The issue as I understand it, (and btw I never said I was convinced one way or the other, but I do think it's a concern) is that the frequency of 5g is so much higher than previous frequency and instead of one tower you have additional mini towers surrounding your city. Every radio signal emits some level of radiation but the amount from 5g is much higher - is the concern.

And I haven't read or watched much about this but it's the little bit that i've heard.
 
Likes: Damage Inc
Nov 20, 2018
486
444
235
#21
The three video you posted are over an hour long combined... dude wtf do you want from me.

You didn't even list your opinion on them.
I posted the articles in one of the posts. And heres a condensed video for the impatient minds like you


EU 5G Appeal – Scientists warn of potential serious health effects of 5G

In an appeal to the European Union, more than 180 scientists and doctors from 36 countries warn about the danger of 5G, which will lead to a massive increase in involuntary exposure to electromagnetic radiation. The scientists urge the EU to follow Resolution 1815 of the Council of Europe, asking for an independent task force to reassess the health effects.
“We, the undersigned scientists, recommend a moratorium on the roll-out of the fifth generation, 5G, for telecommunication until potential hazards for human health and the environment have been fully investigated by scientists independent from industry. 5G will substantially increase exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) on top of the 2G, 3G, 4G, WiFi etc. for telecommunications already in place. RF-EMF has been proven to be harmful for humans and the environment.”
Link to the full-text PDF
Go to the website
Initiatiators
One of the initiators is Dr. L. Hardell, Professor of Oncology at Örebro University in Sweden. He states: “The telecom industry is trying to roll out technology that may have very real, unintended harmful consequences. Scientific studies, both recently and over many years, have identified harmful effects on health when testing wireless products under realistic conditions. We are very concerned that the increase in radiation exposure by 5G leads to damage that cannot be reversed”.
Hardell: “The fifth generation (5G) of radio frequency radiation is now being developed. This is done without dosimetric determination or study of the possible health effects. The media praise in particular all the possibilities that this technology promises to offer, such as the self-propelled car and Internet of Things (IoT). The consequences for the health of humans, plants and animals are not discussed at all. Politicians, governments and the media are responsible for unbalanced information. Ordinary people are not informed of conflicting opinions about this technological development. Health effects from radio frequency radiation are a non issue in the media, at least in Sweden, but also in most other countries”.
5G Network
The expansion of the 5G network, intended to enable faster wireless transmission of larger amounts of data, requires the installation of many more antennas in urban areas. In this way, the scientists argue, there is no longer anyone escaping the potentially harmful effects of radiation. After all, we are already exposed to 2G, 3G, 4G and Wi-Fi radiation.
Industry’s influence on studies
It has been shown that studies on the health impact of radiation in the past have often been influenced by industry. The scientists insist that independent studies on the effects of 5G radiation “to ensure the safety of the population” should now be carried out. They therefore ask the European Commission to postpone the expansion of the 5G network “until the potential risks to human health and the environment have been thoroughly investigated by scientists independent of industry”.
 
Aug 3, 2011
1,028
38
480
#22
The issue as I understand it, (and btw I never said I was convinced one way or the other, but I do think it's a concern) is that the frequency of 5g is so much higher than previous frequency and instead of one tower you have additional mini towers surrounding your city. Every radio signal emits some level of radiation but the amount from 5g is much higher - is the concern.

And I haven't read or watched much about this but it's the little bit that i've heard.
So it's just new technology scare, even with no new evidence?
 
Dec 22, 2007
3,816
169
895
#23
You're saying these reports on 5G are silly, but what exactly makes them silly? Is this another feeling check?
Posting random videos from random people on Youtube is not a good way to convince somebody. It may work for you, but not for many others.

In Post #8 many of your links don't work, or just link to random stuff like Google Maps.
Of those which do work, many of them are referring to microwave and EMF radiation; neither of which are RFR radiation, which is what 5G is based upon.

There are other studies which show that RFR is about as dangerous as sunlight. It can hurt you, but it doesn't during normal usage.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9258703
https://www.arpansa.gov.au/sites/g/files/net3086/f/legacy/pubs/rps/rps3_cas_rep01.pdf
https://www.public.navy.mil/navsafecen/pages/acquisition/radio_frequency-radiation.aspx
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9498896
https://hps.org/hpspublications/articles/rfradiation.html
https://www.cancer.org/latest-news/updated-cell-phone-study-findings-still-inconclusive.html

Of those who have been harmed from RFR, it's typically due to exceptionally high doses, usually done on purpose in a medical situation to alleviate some other type of issue.
I'm not saying there's nothing to the concern about radiation. I think pretty much anybody can agree that constant exposure to radiation is probably going to sound a bit suspicious.

I'm not convinced that radio antenna, which have been around since before either of us was born and already cover much of the planet, are going to suddenly become a problem; any more than the sun is.
Posting context-less Youtube videos from people nobody has ever heard of outside of conspiracy-theorists, and studies that don't even refer to what you're talking about, does not help convince me. Using hyperbolic terms like "actually cancer" in the title doesn't help your point either.

And it's not like people aren't already aware of the dangerous of radiation. We've been making shielding technology for decades. There's no reason to assume 5G is any more dangerous than your grandpa's radio.
 
Last edited:
Aug 3, 2011
1,028
38
480
#24
I posted the articles in one of the posts. And heres a condensed video for the impatient minds like you


EU 5G Appeal – Scientists warn of potential serious health effects of 5G

In an appeal to the European Union, more than 180 scientists and doctors from 36 countries warn about the danger of 5G, which will lead to a massive increase in involuntary exposure to electromagnetic radiation. The scientists urge the EU to follow Resolution 1815 of the Council of Europe, asking for an independent task force to reassess the health effects.
“We, the undersigned scientists, recommend a moratorium on the roll-out of the fifth generation, 5G, for telecommunication until potential hazards for human health and the environment have been fully investigated by scientists independent from industry. 5G will substantially increase exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) on top of the 2G, 3G, 4G, WiFi etc. for telecommunications already in place. RF-EMF has been proven to be harmful for humans and the environment.”
Link to the full-text PDF
Go to the website
Initiatiators
One of the initiators is Dr. L. Hardell, Professor of Oncology at Örebro University in Sweden. He states: “The telecom industry is trying to roll out technology that may have very real, unintended harmful consequences. Scientific studies, both recently and over many years, have identified harmful effects on health when testing wireless products under realistic conditions. We are very concerned that the increase in radiation exposure by 5G leads to damage that cannot be reversed”.
Hardell: “The fifth generation (5G) of radio frequency radiation is now being developed. This is done without dosimetric determination or study of the possible health effects. The media praise in particular all the possibilities that this technology promises to offer, such as the self-propelled car and Internet of Things (IoT). The consequences for the health of humans, plants and animals are not discussed at all. Politicians, governments and the media are responsible for unbalanced information. Ordinary people are not informed of conflicting opinions about this technological development. Health effects from radio frequency radiation are a non issue in the media, at least in Sweden, but also in most other countries”.
5G Network
The expansion of the 5G network, intended to enable faster wireless transmission of larger amounts of data, requires the installation of many more antennas in urban areas. In this way, the scientists argue, there is no longer anyone escaping the potentially harmful effects of radiation. After all, we are already exposed to 2G, 3G, 4G and Wi-Fi radiation.
Industry’s influence on studies
It has been shown that studies on the health impact of radiation in the past have often been influenced by industry. The scientists insist that independent studies on the effects of 5G radiation “to ensure the safety of the population” should now be carried out. They therefore ask the European Commission to postpone the expansion of the 5G network “until the potential risks to human health and the environment have been thoroughly investigated by scientists independent of industry”.
Dude all I'm saying is if you make an OP, post some shit,.

I'll review and respond to this shit tomorrow. Key factor is...

Stop making threads of just youtube videos
 
Nov 20, 2018
486
444
235
#26
Posting random videos from random people on Youtube is not a good way to convince somebody. It may work for you, but not for many others.

In Post #8 many of your links don't work, or just link to random stuff like Google Maps.
Of those which do work, many of them are referring to microwave and EMF radiation; neither of which are RFR radiation, which is what 5G is based upon.

There are other studies which show that RFR is about as dangerous as sunlight. It can hurt you, but it doesn't during normal usage.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9258703
https://www.arpansa.gov.au/sites/g/files/net3086/f/legacy/pubs/rps/rps3_cas_rep01.pdf
https://www.public.navy.mil/navsafecen/pages/acquisition/radio_frequency-radiation.aspx
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9498896
https://hps.org/hpspublications/articles/rfradiation.html
https://www.cancer.org/latest-news/updated-cell-phone-study-findings-still-inconclusive.html

Of those who have been harmed from RFR, it's typically due to exceptionally high doses, usually done on purpose in a medical situation to alleviate some other type of issue.
I'm not saying there's nothing to the concern about radiation. I think pretty much anybody can agree that constant exposure to radiation is probably going to sound a bit suspicious.

I'm not convinced that radio antenna, which have been around since before either of us was born and already cover much of the planet, are going to suddenly become a problem; any more than the sun is.
Posting context-less Youtube videos from people nobody has ever heard of outside of conspiracy-theorists, and studies that don't even refer to what you're talking about, does not help convince me. Using hyperbolic terms like "actually cancer" in the title doesn't help your point either.

And it's not like people aren't already aware of the dangerous of radiation. We've been making shielding technology for decades. There's no reason to assume 5G is any more dangerous than your grandpa's radio.
As if if your sources are any more credible. EU and UN has already stated that 5G is way more powerful in radiation than anything before it.

In an appeal to the European Union, more than 180 scientists and doctors from 36 countries warn about the danger of 5G, which will lead to a massive increase in involuntary exposure to electromagnetic radiation. The scientists urge the EU to follow Resolution 1815 of the Council of Europe, asking for an independent task force to reassess the health effects.
“We, the undersigned scientists, recommend a moratorium on the roll-out of the fifth generation, 5G, for telecommunication until potential hazards for human health and the environment have been fully investigated by scientists independent from industry. 5G will substantially increase exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) on top of the 2G, 3G, 4G, WiFi etc. for telecommunications already in place. RF-EMF has been proven to be harmful for humans and the environment.”
https://www.jrseco.com/european-uni...rn-of-potential-serious-health-effects-of-5g/
 

Makariel

Gold Member
Jan 14, 2018
1,426
1,190
350
#28
Did a quick search and found this from April 2018:
Agostino Di Ciaula said:
The spread of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) is rising and health effects are still under investigation. RF-EMF promote oxidative stress, a condition involved in cancer onset, in several acute and chronic diseases and in vascular homeostasis. Although some evidences are still controversial, the WHO IARC classified RF-EMF as "possible carcinogenic to humans", and more recent studies suggested reproductive, metabolic and neurologic effects of RF-EMF, which are also able to alter bacterial antibiotic resistance. In this evolving scenario, although the biological effects of 5G communication systems are very scarcely investigated, an international action plan for the development of 5G networks has started, with a forthcoming increment in devices and density of small cells, and with the future use of millimeter waves (MMW). Preliminary observations showed that MMW increase skin temperature, alter gene expression, promote cellular proliferation and synthesis of proteins linked with oxidative stress, inflammatory and metabolic processes, could generate ocular damages, affect neuro-muscular dynamics. Further studies are needed to better and independently explore the health effects of RF-EMF in general and of MMW in particular. However, available findings seem sufficient to demonstrate the existence of biomedical effects, to invoke the precautionary principle, to define exposed subjects as potentially vulnerable and to revise existing limits. An adequate knowledge of pathophysiological mechanisms linking RF-EMF exposure to health risk should also be useful in the current clinical practice, in particular in consideration of evidences pointing to extrinsic factors as heavy contributors to cancer risk and to the progressive epidemiological growth of noncommunicable diseases.
Source:
International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health
Volume: 221
Issue: 3
Pages: 367-375
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijheh.2018.01.011

So it's being investigated and some findings seem still contraditory, an action plan on the health effects of 5G has started more than a year ago. We'll find out soon enough if these shiny new 5G phones are safe to use or if this is the new asbestos.
 
Feb 15, 2018
628
371
215
United States
#30
I think they are pushing 5G without having done their due diligence. They are racing to get it o9ut and corners are being cut.

“We have some questions about the long term affects of 5G that require further study. Isn’t it irresponsible to roll it out nationwide?” Nah. It’ll be fine. Let’s blanket California with it...
Only if we save the few sane people they have first lol. Maybe just blanket hollywood.

In all seriousness I think people like to intelligence signal and automatically agree with the makers of a technology to make them seem smarter, as if no new technology was ever harmful!
 
Apr 15, 2018
2,483
2,860
230
#31
You're saying these reports on 5G are silly, but what exactly makes them silly? Is this another feeling check?
How about the fact that none of them make any sense. I mean c'mon it won't be faster than 4G? You need telephone poles need to be ibstalledeverywhere. It will give us cancer and poison our food.

Many of the same FUD was spread about WiFi and 4G. I mean the exact same. Why should I believe you now?

Only if we save the few sane people they have first lol. Maybe just blanket hollywood.

In all seriousness I think people like to intelligence signal and automatically agree with the makers of a technology to make them seem smarter, as if no new technology was ever harmful!
You were wrong about cellphones, you were wrong about mobile data and you were wrong about WiFi. You don't get the benefit of the doubt anymore
 
Last edited:
May 20, 2007
10,142
505
950
#39
I was actually hoping that at a certain point I could be so brazenly wrong that people would get that it was a joke.

Unfortunately Poe's Law is too strong. :(
 
Likes: Antoon

Mihos

Gold Member
May 10, 2009
5,490
480
800
steamcommunity.com
#41
I have been working with RF for the last 28 years in just about every frequency and power range (including what Verizon 'calls' 5G (separate rant for that later)). Until you get into the ionizing frequencies, all you are really talking about is absorption rate (how much energy is actually converted to heat), the absorption rate for a human body is at it's maximum at 70Mhz and drops off sharply higher frequencies and lower. So if your looking for a non-ionizing EM boogy man, go after the short wave radio guys.

As for the symptoms listed in those studies, comparing 5G to microwave ovens.... microwaves are also nonionizing and use a frequency specifically chosen because it is the maximum absorption rate of water. Even at the specifically chosen frequency to be as efficient as possible, it is still only about 70% efficient and requires hundreds of watts (not millwatts like your phone) concentrated in a ridiculously small area at prolonged exposure to raise the temperature of your burrito.
You know what other EM sources are concentrated at an even higher frequency, at much higher wattages than 5G concentrated in a small area, has all the 'raises surface are temperatures and gene expression' and other silly symptoms listed? Every light in your house.

Now if you want to get into the ionizing, ultra violet and beyond... that can be some nasty shit.
 
Last edited:

Mihos

Gold Member
May 10, 2009
5,490
480
800
steamcommunity.com
#43
Filament, florescent, or LED?
The input wattage is just a matter of efficiency, its the output that matters. LEDS are much better at emitting the same radiation with lower input requirements (and in much narrower bandwidths) I am not sure the ERP on a 60 watt incandescent, but I remember a lot was 'lost' to radiation outside the visible spectrum. Just like your 1100 watt microwave oven actually only puts out about 700watts.
 
Nov 19, 2018
96
56
150
#45
Despite all that there is actually a real privacy and security concern. I love mesh networks but not a centrally controlled one sponsored by the alphabet gang and ATT

When every IOT thing is acting as a cell tower relaying signals there are so many points of vulnerability.

Then also the fact you can’t turn this “feature” off even when the phone is off.

It’s just begging for some sort of data collection. It’s also wide open for some sort of exploit to permeate the network. In a post Snowden area this should be a major concern

Also it’s conpletely unnecessary for mobile devices. Who needs 20gig speed when watching YouTube on a 6 in phone display. 4K is a complete joke ok mobile

Awesome break down

https://pca.st/episode/cb706a9f-ea9f-4cd8-87f3-c4c88fa2e551?t=439.0
 
Last edited:
Aug 3, 2010
21,166
3,464
675
In a cave outside of Whooville.
#48
What bothers me most about 5G right now is that ISPs in my area just barely got around to making 100mbps the standard plan, but phones are going to get insane data speeds? Why the hell can't I get regular internet with 5G speeds for my home? I don't give a shit about my phone opening instagram 0.284 seconds faster.
 
Nov 25, 2012
770
472
535
Edmonton
#49
First, it’s important to know that in 2011, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer classified RFR as a potential 2B carcinogen and specified that the use of mobile phones could lead to specific forms of brain tumors.
You need to fix this. First link is to google maps and the second goes to cellphonecancer.com which has nothing on it (is says "This domain has recently been listed in the marketplace" when I tried to open it). You are kinda shooting yourself in the foot with this sort of shotty citing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.