So 5G is actually cancer.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Feb 15, 2018
644
393
215
United States
#51
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.
Link

@Mihos I researched a bit, and well microwaves are pretty much at the highest level of non ionizing radiation similar to the frequency 5g will have around 300ghz. Btw I don't use a microwave for this reason, but yeah I guess a microwave would be a similar risk to this new type of cell transmission just going by the frequency. I'm just trying to understand this subject ; i'm not claiming i'm all knowing in this.

With that said, we do absorb some energy at all frequency levels used in wifi to 5g or microwaves, and i'm not convinced that the latter 2 are safe even if ionizing radiation is the known and accepted cause of damage while non isn't. The issue is cumulative exposure correct? Theoretically wouldn't a long exposure time to microwaves be comparable to a far shorter exposure to something like x-rays? For example if you get one cat scan, wouldn't a certain amount of microwave exposure equal that?
 
Last edited:

Mihos

Gold Member
May 10, 2009
5,496
489
800
steamcommunity.com
#52
Link

@Mihos I researched a bit, and well microwaves are pretty much at the highest level of non ionizing radiation similar to the frequency 5g will have around 300ghz. Btw I don't use a microwave for this reason, but yeah I guess a microwave would be a similar risk to this new type of cell transmission just going by the frequency. I'm just trying to understand this subject ; i'm not claiming i'm all knowing in this.
Microwaves are no where near ionizing range..... I mean like orders of magnitude away 300Ghz is the high end of microwave and you need to get to about 3-30Phz get in the ionization zone. ). Also, where are you getting 300Ghz? ATT/Verizon is using 28Ghz and 30Ghz. Many of the others are just using the existing 4G bands around 600Mhz.

I mean, do what you want. Some people are afraid of 13th floors in buildings. It's only when blocking things in the public space based on personal fears that it becomes an issue. You can shake your rake at the 18.3Ghz signal DTV is raining down on you from space if you want also
 
Last edited:
Likes: greyshark
Feb 15, 2018
644
393
215
United States
#53
Microwaves are no where near ionizing range..... I mean like orders of magnitude away 300Ghz is the high end of microwave and you need to get to about 3-30Phz get in the ionization zone. ). Also, where are you getting 300Ghz? ATT/Verizon is using 28Ghz and 30Ghz. Many of the others are just using the existing 4G bands around 600Mhz.

I mean, do what you want. Some people are afraid of 13th floors in buildings. It's only when blocking things in the public space based on personal fears that it becomes an issue. You can shake your rake at the 18.3Ghz signal DTV is raining down on you from space if you want also
Yeah, I said micro waves were non ionizing, maybe I could've worded it better. What I meant was 300ghz is pretty high for non ionizing radiation compared to your standard wifi. As to your question, various links. I've seen 30-300ghz, 90ghz etc. all listed. Obviously I don't work with this shit, so I wouldn't know, and I said as much. "5G uses new and so far rarely used radio millimeter bands in the 30 GHz to 300 GHz range. Current 4G networks operate on frequencies below 6GHz." Link Perhaps later 5g towers will be higher? Do you set up the towers or something else?

However, my question of cumulative exposure of non ionizing radiation remains.
 
Jul 19, 2018
879
534
230
#56
I wonder if any of you skeptics have anything useful to say besides calling OP crazy.
Skeptics are just liberal establishment defense force at this point. Seriously questioning, and looking in to every move the system makes is wise. How many times do corporations, scientists, governments have to be exposed before people start giving “conspiracy theorists” a fair shake?
 
Likes: Antoon
Dec 22, 2007
3,816
169
895
#57
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/
The sources I posted are unquestionably more credible than Youtube interviews of Youtube personalities, yes.
I already pointed out the issues I found with your other sources, though some of them are perfectly fine.
Beside that point, we're saying the same thing:

-Radiation may be bad, so don't rule anything out.
-It should be looked into before being mass-produced.

We're just landing on opposite sides of the coin. You seem to be leaning more toward "it's dangerous," whereas I'm more toward "it's probably not dangerous."
Call me crazy; I trust scientists to design things safely. Or, at least, I trust them to be aware of the same dangers random video-posters are postulating.
 
Last edited:
Jan 27, 2018
373
487
240
#58
I'm not sure why people are crapping on the OP. New technology is always a danger, just look at Pharma, as one giant example.

At some point X-Rays were used like it was no problem, until they figured out bad things happen of you expose someone often. There are entire documentaries you can watch on medical devices that crippled people for the rest of their lives despite getting approval. Then we have smoking.

You would have to be pretty thick to blindly trust a new rollout of technology that will simultaneously affect everyone. Also don't forget when people stand to make billions do you really think potential health issues will get in their way?
 
Jul 26, 2018
234
108
180
#59
Isn't it true that South Korea has a pretty solid G5 coverage?
Not yet. It has 4G coverage virtually throughout the country, but 5G is not widespread as of yet--although LG U+ (the telecommunications branch of LG) is advertising 5G pretty hard in the past few months. Think they're trying to ride the wave first to eat into the dominance of SK Telecom and KT in the mobile industry, although it may be a tough task.

Currently, there really isn't a killer use case for 5G that you can't do with 4G--with an emphasis on "currently." Demand for it isn't high, although I think they are trying to utilize self-driving cars as a breakthrough, but I have my doubts as to whether that will be the thing to shift the major demographic's trends towards 5G.

It'll take some time before it gets traction, methinks, and I believe that South Korea is the leader when it comes to widespread adaptation of mobile tech (maybe Japan?).

Source: Am Korean living in Korea currently.
 
Jun 3, 2013
5,219
2,519
435
Canada
#60
Last edited:
Likes: Damage Inc
May 24, 2005
315
167
1,120
forums.wuggawoo.co.uk
#61
Skeptics are just liberal establishment defense force at this point. Seriously questioning, and looking in to every move the system makes is wise. How many times do corporations, scientists, governments have to be exposed before people start giving “conspiracy theorists” a fair shake?
Being liberal or not has nothing to do with your belief on a thread like this. Cut the crap.
 
Aug 22, 2018
2,289
3,156
275
#63
You make a lot of anti-LGBT threads. To a point where I wasn't even the one who noticed it. You seem to latch onto whatever Youtube video you watched last
Pretty much this. The impression I get from all these hot-take youtubes is that he's gone down the rabbit-hole in Youtube and it's recommending all the crazy - and he's kindly sharing it with the rest of us.
 
Likes: azz0r
Nov 20, 2018
486
445
235
#64
Pretty much this. The impression I get from all these hot-take youtubes is that he's gone down the rabbit-hole in Youtube and it's recommending all the crazy - and he's kindly sharing it with the rest of us.
'Oh, no! Information that offends my feelings!! Make it staahp! Staahp!'. I figured you fanboys would get better material by now, but no, its all the same empty posts without any backup.
 
Apr 15, 2018
2,517
2,906
240
#68
'Oh, no! Information that offends my feelings!! Make it staahp! Staahp!'. I figured you fanboys would get better material by now, but no, its all the same empty posts without any backup.
Fanboys of what? Science? Evidence? An expectation of proof?

Bullshit isn't going to be trusted just because you found a YouTube video
 
Likes: hariseldon

Arkage

Gold Member
Sep 25, 2012
2,266
951
540
#69
TIL OP is a conspiracy theorist. No wonder he's the one also posting weekly/daily trans bait threads.

Saying "X number of scientists have protested Y" is the oldest conspiracy theory trick in the book. You can find X number of scientists claiming there's a link between autism and vaccination as well that is also being covered up by the government/being paid for by big pharma, big fuckin deal. How many of those X scientists specialize in this field? How many have actually published papers in this field? How many would end up signing up for protests on 3G and microwaves ovens (likely all)? Do the leading experts and organizations in the field agree with those scientists, or are they part of the "bought out by the cell phone company" conspiracy, meanwhile letting their own children suffer these apparent horrible effects of cancer because of dat Sprint money. Yawn.

What's especially ironic is that all the actual science you quote is based off of technology that was not 5G. Yet you weave all these clearly separate threads and studies into a diverse tapestry of shit, something nobody who actual cares about the truth would do. Your strongest claim is that the IARC labels ELF-EMF as possibly carcinogenic. Meaning there were either no correlations or weak correlations. Guess what else is possibly carcinogenic? Aloe vera. Engine exhaust. Pickled vegetables. And there was a follow-up study and assessment four years later which determined :

The question receiving most attention is whether RF field exposure is involved in carcinogenesis. The previous opinion stated that, based on epidemiological findings, mobile phone use for less than ten years is not associated with cancer incidence.

Since then, a few additional epidemiological studies have been published. Unfortunately they do not significantly extend the exposure period. These studies do not change this assessment.

New improved studies on the association between RF fields from broadcast transmitters and childhood cancer provide evidence against such an association.

Animal studies show that RF fields similar to those from mobile phones, alone or in combination with known carcinogenic factors, are not carcinogenic in laboratory rodents. Certain studies have also employed higher exposure levels (up to 4 W/kg), still with no apparent effects on tumor development.

Furthermore, the in vitro studies regarding genotoxicity fail to provide evidence for an involvement of RF field exposure in DNA-damage.

It is concluded from three independent lines of evidence (epidemiological, animal and in vitro studies) that exposure to RF fields is unlikely to lead to an increase in cancer in humans.
I'm sure you were aware of this data as you're clearly invested in the topic. And I'm sure you chose to purposefully omit it because of how it throws your narrative in the trash bin where it belongs. Such is debate on an internet forum.
 
Nov 10, 2013
3,825
1,450
435
#70

People at this school are protesting because of the cell tower located close to he school. From the story 4-5 kids have developed cancer.

Personally I wouldn’t be shocked if high exposure has harmful affects on the body. Considering how many things get passed and really we won’t know long term effects until we are basically old.

I recently read an article saying that Lasik was pushed through too fast and it shouldn’t have been.

Who knows what most of this technology does to our bodies. It’s naive to disregard it without getting some serious research on it.

Edit: missed that this video was already posted.
 
Last edited:
Jan 16, 2013
4,910
168
415
#71

People at this school are protesting because of the cell tower located close to he school. From the story 4-5 kids have developed cancer.

Personally I wouldn’t be shocked if high exposure has harmful affects on the body. Considering how many things get passed and really we won’t know long term effects until we are basically old.

I recently read an article saying that Lasik was pushed through too fast and it shouldn’t have been.

Who knows what most of this technology does to our bodies. It’s naive to disregard it without getting some serious research on it.

Edit: missed that this video was already posted.

Wasn't there a case somewhere in London or something where people where claiming that the 4g cell service was making them sick etc etc. The company then turned that tower off completely but didn't tell anyone. The people in that apartment next to it then went on to complain that they were getting sick and documented all these days it was happening etc. Turned out the company never even turned the antenna on and it was something else entirely causing the problems. But they tried to get the company to take down the towers etc when it hadn't caused any problems at all.
 
Likes: Arkage
Nov 10, 2013
3,825
1,450
435
#72
Wasn't there a case somewhere in London or something where people where claiming that the 4g cell service was making them sick etc etc. The company then turned that tower off completely but didn't tell anyone. The people in that apartment next to it then went on to complain that they were getting sick and documented all these days it was happening etc. Turned out the company never even turned the antenna on and it was something else entirely causing the problems. But they tried to get the company to take down the towers etc when it hadn't caused any problems at all.
It could be from something else environmental. Regardless something at that school is causing cancer. I’m sure they noticed something around a certain time that may have caused them to correlate it to the tower.

Or they could be hearing 5G causes cancer and are blaming it due to coincidence. But who knows. Could be the water for all we know. But I would assume they noticed an uptick around a certain time of sick kids.
 
Sep 19, 2018
132
67
160
#73
TIL OP is a conspiracy theorist. No wonder he's the one also posting weekly/daily trans bait threads.

Saying "X number of scientists have protested Y" is the oldest conspiracy theory trick in the book. You can find X number of scientists claiming there's a link between autism and vaccination as well that is also being covered up by the government/being paid for by big pharma, big fuckin deal. How many of those X scientists specialize in this field? How many have actually published papers in this field? How many would end up signing up for protests on 3G and microwaves ovens (likely all)? Do the leading experts and organizations in the field agree with those scientists, or are they part of the "bought out by the cell phone company" conspiracy, meanwhile letting their own children suffer these apparent horrible effects of cancer because of dat Sprint money. Yawn.

What's especially ironic is that all the actual science you quote is based off of technology that was not 5G. Yet you weave all these clearly separate threads and studies into a diverse tapestry of shit, something nobody who actual cares about the truth would do. Your strongest claim is that the IARC labels ELF-EMF as possibly carcinogenic. Meaning there were either no correlations or weak correlations. Guess what else is possibly carcinogenic? Aloe vera. Engine exhaust. Pickled vegetables. And there was a follow-up study and assessment four years later which determined :



I'm sure you were aware of this data as you're clearly invested in the topic. And I'm sure you chose to purposefully omit it because of how it throws your narrative in the trash bin where it belongs. Such is debate on an internet forum.
This. I think it's time that someone closes this thread.
 
Last edited:
Mar 14, 2019
97
66
95
#74
Is 5G really this cancerous? I thought I had heard companies like T-Mobile here in the US were going to deploy 5G on digital TV signals that were restructured and auctioned off by the FCC, once those channels moved the frequency they sent their signal off of (band 71, I believe). If they do like what T-Mobile does, it doesn't seem like it would be any more cancerous than TV or Wi-Fi signals.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.