5G Network Radiation?

[pongo]

Anyone old enough to remember The Changes knows where this is going.

 

[ballaughbiker]

Those Hillman Imps are worth a few bob now.

[ballaughbiker]

Seriously though, I have spent a working lifetime dodging various forms of ionising radiation so I am particularly interested in this despite it being the much more biocompatible non-ionising variety.

No doubt the concerns are valid if near the source of rf but all the 'research' I have been able to find talks very generally about tests on mice. There are no references so how close the mice were when the suffered the myriad of ill effects so risk is hard to determine.

I am not playing this down at all but if rain droplets can attenuate the base station signal, I bet the skin can. As with 2-4G I would be much more concerned with the proximity of the portable device what with the inverse square law working against you.

If I was designing this, I'd have a duplex system using 4G (up to 2.3 GHz) from the handset to the base station and 5G (up to 300 GHz) from the base station down. Everyone wants a fast download speed and usually upload speed is less important. I understand however that this does introduce a bandwith issue on the up direction.

[Lxxx]

12 hours ago, ballaughbiker said:

Seriously though, I have spent a working lifetime dodging various forms of ionising radiation so I am particularly interested in this despite it being the much more biocompatible non-ionising variety.

No doubt the concerns are valid if near the source of rf but all the 'research' I have been able to find talks very generally about tests on mice. There are no references so how close the mice were when the suffered the myriad of ill effects so risk is hard to determine.

I am not playing this down at all but if rain droplets can attenuate the base station signal, I bet the skin can. As with 2-4G I would be much more concerned with the proximity of the portable device what with the inverse square law working against you.

If I was designing this, I'd have a duplex system using 4G (up to 2.3 GHz) from the handset to the base station and 5G (up to 300 GHz) from the base station down. Everyone wants a fast download speed and usually upload speed is less important. I understand however that this does introduce a bandwith issue on the up direction.

Hebrew University in Israel has done a lot of in depth studies on the effect on the skin. The human body has about 4 million sweat ducts which act like an array of antennas for these wavelengths meaning the whole body is more conductive, leading to a whole multitude of health problems.

The findings were such that they seemed to think it would be quite possible to show a causal relationship between 5G and health issues.

[ballaughbiker]

Yeah, I did read that Lxxx. Proximity of the rf and the link to alleged increase in risk was not really gone into in great detail in that study.  I would like to know much more before even starting to arrive at a personal belief.

[manxman1980]

On 7/13/2018 at 12:35 AM, manxy said:

Its quite strange to see so many negative remarks from a technology which is supposed to enhance our future, but who's future is actually being enhanced?

If the radiation is known to be harmful, then one wonders how the US Govt empowers and forces this through without proper safety checks? Is it about money, control or something else?

It's like opening a can of worms as the more you look into it, the more you see connections to areas which wasn't known previously. Now I'm always up for a laugh and a leg pull but when you start looking through the videos, then you have to wonder as to whats going on and thankful that the information and harm about such technology is out there for all to see if looked for.

This isn't another flat earth conspiracy but these towers are being put up to form a grid in the US at an astonishing rate.

Look into it guys and the question you need to ask is if its safe and would you have a tower on your lamppost outside your house or shop or school etc?

 

1. The US Government does whatever the person with the most money wants it to.  See the tobacco companies & NRA for examples;

2. Stop getting your information from YouTube and look for research papers on the subject instead.  I know they are much less accessible but they will generally give you the important details.

3. I have no idea what the effects of 5G are but if you want to get taken seriously when discussing the subject then do some good groundwork .

[Lxxx]

29 minutes ago, manxman1980 said:

1. The US Government does whatever the person with the most money wants it to.  See the tobacco companies & NRA for examples;

2. Stop getting your information from YouTube and look for research papers on the subject instead.  I know they are much less accessible but they will generally give you the important details.

3. I have no idea what the effects of 5G are but if you want to get taken seriously when discussing the subject then do some good groundwork .

Bit harsh. He/she is only voicing doubts. No need to go all schoolteacher about it.

[manxman1980]

12 minutes ago, Lxxx said:

Bit harsh. He/she is only voicing doubts. No need to go all schoolteacher about it.

I have no problem with people voicing concerns and seeking answers but it is important to think about the sources that you draw from.  Youtube and social media in general is full of stories that have been proven over and over again to be fake and yet they still regularly turn up and people repeat them as truth.  That is what happens if people to do not checks facts and details and just "share" and post more of the same.

[manxy]

4 hours ago, manxman1980 said:

I have no problem with people voicing concerns and seeking answers but it is important to think about the sources that you draw from.  Youtube and social media in general is full of stories that have been proven over and over again to be fake and yet they still regularly turn up and people repeat them as truth.  That is what happens if people to do not checks facts and details and just "share" and post more of the same.

Nothing wrong with finding material in youtube providing that you accept that some people lie, some people are wrong but this also applies in todays world like Newtonian gravity. Everyone believed in what he said and this was one of the key topics in school. I'm not sure who checked his facts out but maybe we shouldn't blindly accept peoples facts before they are shared around the world?

See what I'm saying?

It works both ways and doesn't have to be on youtube

[manxman1980]

@manxy I refer you to your original post;

On 7/5/2018 at 10:23 PM, manxy said:

I came across a Youtube video about people having issues with 5G in the USA Link Here and I remembered the island was looking to discuss this is 2019 Link Here

Apart from showing another video on Youtube to you (sorry) and If the video is to be believed, my initial thought was - How can they build something without checking to see if they were safe and if they are a risk to peoples health, will these be popping up around the island?

You appear to have made no attempt other than posting here to investigate whether or not your fears had any foundation.  Really the answers you will get here are probably only slightly more informing than any random YouTube video.  

New technology always has scare stories linked with it and some people are easily taken in by them (Frankenstein Foods anyone?).  As I have said I have no issue with you or anyone else posting up threads such as these for discussion but please can we use something other than a random Youtube video?  

[the stinking enigma]

Isn't that the whole point of a forum? To garner opinion then decide you were right in the first place

[manxy]

1 hour ago, the stinking enigma said:

Isn't that the whole point of a forum? To garner opinion then decide you were right in the first place

Fully agree.

It is only by comparing notes and seeing alternative views that we can end up with a better understanding of the subject. I have always been ready to listen and even accept someones more examined and critical view providing that there's sufficient evidence.

In this case, it seems that they are rail roading the 5g network out without tests being completed. There are many articles of dangers using known parameters of radiation including the skin absorbing this radiation etc and a nice cosy explanation of how good they are from those making the money out of them. 

I found this link HERE interesting and seems reasonably well balanced.

Please note that I'm not saying stop looking at new technologies but I would like to convey my concerns on an area which has not been tested and even then, by unbiased people where truth speaks louder than money.

[Chinahand]

At least the Guardian allowed a rebuttal. 

There is no valid data that mobile phones are causing cancer and the evidence in the study cited in the earlier story could be just as reasonably interpreted as RF frequency radiation increases longevity and the higher cancer incidence is entirely down to this longer life span than the control group.

More results are needed, but the strong consensus of the WHO is that:

A large number of studies have been performed over the last two decades to assess whether mobile phones pose a potential health risk. To date, no adverse health effects have been established as being caused by mobile phone use.

With Tobacco and Climate Change the science developed clearly and has accumulated clear evidence over decades - those with an interest in smoking and fossil fuels have failed to disrupt that process but rather have politicised the message.  There is no sign of such evidence with respect to mobile phone use other than occasional one off studies, which is exactly what you'd expect in an actively researched area.

[Lxxx]

15 hours ago, Chinahand said:

At least the Guardian allowed a rebuttal. 

There is no valid data that mobile phones are causing cancer and the evidence in the study cited in the earlier story could be just as reasonably interpreted as RF frequency radiation increases longevity and the higher cancer incidence is entirely down to this longer life span than the control group.

More results are needed, but the strong consensus of the WHO is that:

A large number of studies have been performed over the last two decades to assess whether mobile phones pose a potential health risk. To date, no adverse health effects have been established as being caused by mobile phone use.

With Tobacco and Climate Change the science developed clearly and has accumulated clear evidence over decades - those with an interest in smoking and fossil fuels have failed to disrupt that process but rather have politicised the message.  There is no sign of such evidence with respect to mobile phone use other than occasional one off studies, which is exactly what you'd expect in an actively researched area.

China, you do usually try and offer a balanced perspective on things but do you really believe this? Really? Or are you just being contrary?

[manxy]

5G Towers of Death and some interesting notes:

FCC regulations make it illegal for government entities to try to delay or stop cell tower installation on the basis of health risks.

Telecom companies can sue cities and states that attempt to use health concerns to impede their cell tower building plans. 

Link HERE that is not YouTube