New Study shows 5G does not pose health risks

Wait a minute... what was I trying to say there? You're very obviously right but now I'm confused by what I meant... Whatever, doesn't really matter much anyway.

Yes, there can be a resonant frequency, but my point is that resonance isn't the reason a molecule heats up: it is whether the molecule absorbs or reflects the wave that determines if it heats up or not. In some cases, molecules can absorb a wavelength and re-emit a lower-energy one (which is why certain things glow under UV light). So having said that, there is a very wide array of frequencies that can heat up water molecules, almost none of which resonate with water. So, those frequencies emitted from the sun collectively will create a lot of heat.
If your point is to say that the resonance is the thing to be worried about, perhaps it is - I don't know. But we both acknowledge the sun doesn't emit enough of whatever frequency is resonant with water (and it isn't 2.45GHz).

According to what? This source for example says 10GHz is more readily absorbed by water:
https://books.google.com/books?id=usqqDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA163&lpg#v=onepage&q&f=false

I know that... did you not see my whole thing about how the building blocks have nothing to do with a species' ability to recover or prevent damage? Even if hypothetically a rat's DNA is equally as prone to damage from electromagnetic radiation, their ability to recover from that damage is not the same.

As we had already established, the sun gives off a wide frequency range of microwave radiation that will have the same warming effects as a wifi radio. Sure, at exactly 2400MHz, the phone has got to emit far more energy per m^2 than the sun (at ground level), but as said before: the frequency itself is not inherently dangerous. The only danger of increased microwave wattage is the fact it will be absorbed as heat. So, the collective microwave radiation from the sun that can be absorbed as heat is most likely higher. If fearing heat is the problem, why is nobody afraid of IR heat? Why does nobody get afraid of their black shirt getting irradiated when it gets hot from a bright white light? Microwaves are less intense, so surely they're not going to be more dangerous than a wide spectrum of energy in the hundreds of THz range. I don't get what the fear is here.

The whole reason we're having this discussion is about whether or not we should be afraid of these frequencies. People hear "radiation" and they immediately think "cancer". The frequencies to be afraid (because of their frequency, not their wattage) of are around 800THz and higher.

 

Life expectancy in the United States has been on the decline for almost a decade, mostly due to suicide, drug overdoses, and interestingly... liver cancer. Most attribute the latter to alcoholism, there is a 2018 study linking cell phone radiation to these cancers. When you consider where one keeps their phone 95% of the time when carrying it (in their pocket), its easy to speculate that the organ that could be most affected by it would be the largest one in close proximity, the liver. That last part is clearly just speculation on my part but enough evidence exists to warrant further investigation. Also, i find it odd that the age demographic that is having this large increase in liver cancer is exactly the group who use cell phones the most, ages 25-45. Older people aren't seeing this rise in liver related cancer.

I love it when idiots chime in just to insult anyone who might question the mainstream narrative. There is nothing wrong with questioning anything that is not a proven absolute fact, of which there are very few to begin with. Trying to put people who may disagree into a box to be ridiculed is about as anti-science as you can get.

 

I read every post you made in this thread. Nearly every single one is wrong and technically inept. You're apparently unaware of PRF or radiated power or average power. Not a single claim of yours is backed by science or physics.

 

If you would have linked evidence backing your claims and to that study it would have been great. Otherwise, you're just another one here that makes random claims about something causing cancer but get offended when it's pointed out your evidence is on the level of anti-vaxxers. Only YOU can change that with EVIDENCE. Making a claim that x seems to cause y with zero backing it, might be a reason your arguments are mocked or ridiculed.

 

Shocking: 5G poses risk to your G-Spot. Find more about this revolutionary anti-radio underwear! Protect your G-Spot today!

Can't prove me wrong!

 

The risk of cancer is due to chemical reaction of our skin, not because it is ionizing and actually destroys cells. But hey, by that logic water is dangerous too, like there was a woman who drank too much water and died within hours. Is water deadly then ?

My point is that the frequencies and powers used are absolutely safe for the users.


also

 

You are wrong and do not understand problematic at hand.

See, I did exactly same thing you did with your post. You just mark thing wrong without providing correct information.
(Generally not helpful behavior in discussion as it gets you nowhere. And it is sadly your usual approach. Please be helpful.)

I wrote same thing you did. I could have used wrong wording that made you think I meant it other way around.

Yes, and that's why I point out all those errors in judgement which say it is safe. Study (data produced) itself may be conclusive and technology may not contribute to risk of cancer at all. But way it is presented is rather bad.
Conclusion should be based on clear data, not on absence of information.

Study result is analog to testing bullet proof vest with tank fire and then saying:
One shot from tank completely obliterated our new bullet proof vest. But in usual situation where vest is about to be used, you'll be shot with low caliber handgun and therefore vest will endure.

(Instead I expect them to use guns with different projectile velocity, energy and make to determine what ammunition gets through.)

I may not agree in many points with @Andrew LB , but here is the thing. You did accuse him from something that this study is guilty of to begin with.
And your issue is again that you mark his post as wrong and ask him to prove something... while you do not deliver any constructive work/information at all.
- - - -
Maybe you should understand that people here can have large scale and long discussion about topic. But you bring it to ad hominem level in an instant. And at that point discussion turns from factual which tries to establish something to personal off-topics.
- - - -
And sadly, in many cases you do it because you do not even correctly read what has been written or twist that inside your head. And then you do continue with that twisted image even after you are 5 times told that you base your reply on something that was not written, nor implied. And that accusations you make based on impression you got are wrongful.

I kind of like you, but not when you bring this particular approach to any discussion. Because then it does not matter who I agree with and who is right/wrong. Then it is no longer discussion as one side practically does not listen.

 

I would bet liver cancer is because of excess use of sugars especially if you think standard american diet... Since liver deals with sugar. And Carbs are the best way to get fatty liver apart from alcohol.

Also older people most likely eat healthier then the younger generations all in all. Less shite

 

I would say that methods of diagnostic have gotten better due to advances in technology resulting in those increased cancer rates.

 

hear hear 5G sheeple, this was also safe:

https://www.pinterest.com/yetifeher/radium/

a taste:



US safety standards are a joke.

 

Fake study!
One more poison to contaminate us...

Anyway, DNA/cancer remember me that most of the population has big nutrients(vitamins/minerals) imbalance.
At least there is a test that will show the mineral imbalances.
https://blog.bulletproof.com/hair-analysis-test/
(make sure the test includes iodine)

Optimum Levels of Iodine for Greatest Mental and Physical Health
https://www.optimox.com/iodine-study-1
Iodine Deficiency — An Old Epidemic Is Back
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...201108/iodine-deficiency-old-epidemic-is-back

 

It has an effect on rats because they literally sit them right next to the antenna and pump them with way more output than they would ever put on a person.

Linus Tech Tips did a demo of 5g coverage. An umbrella blocked the signal.

So now that we know that umbrellas are enough to stop the signal because it's so weak, let's consider how much of that would ever make it past our skin... or even influence the skin.

None, is the amount.

I can't even believe how dumb some of the comments here are - like who the hell brings out 100 year old tooth paste and say "OH LOOK 5G IS DEADLY" - that's so dumb it's not even worth acknowledging.

 

Did he retry experiment with same umbrella without cloth? Because there is blocking and breaking. Last time I checked thin layer of slag in floors of old houses had similar effect on your's truly WiFi that can do hundred meters outside or send data right through you with minimal interaction.

If it does not pass, it is absorbed/deflected/scattered by some particle. Same goes for crystal structures like glass. IIRC 5G has trouble to penetrate certain types of materials while it goes easily through others.
- - - -
Now to that "enough to stop the signal because it's so weak" of yours.
Standard for indoor use of 5G has same 100mW transmit power limit as your home WiFi! It does not get through certain objects because it gets absorbed or scattered.

 

So... 5G can be blocked by an umbrella? What crap is this? Can't be true at all, sorry @AlmondMan this can't be the final scenario, since it would be utterly useless in that case.
Don't even think about having your phone in a pocket, bag, backpack... inside a car or building, or underground.

 

can't we just use a different wavelength or something else? why does it have to be this particular setup? current phone compatibility? we can start from scratch and change all of this can't we?
I can pick up a TV station 70 miles away clear as a bell. somehow we managed to communicate with men on the moon 50 years ago? surely we can find something better with less infrastructure no?

 

Starlink

 

TVs use longer wavelengths so they can propagate further. It was actually the reason why they were picked. For TV signal, things like people, trees, cars, small hills are irrelevant. That's why you can pick a signal 70 miles away. Newer technologies, like cellphones had to use different unnocupied wavelengths, which are kinda crap for transmission, so carrier companies had to build a lot of BTS. But similarly how for TV signal people or hills are irrelevant, so our cells are irrelevant for 5G wavelengths. We are talking about mm and cm wavelengths.

Love the picture though.

 

Look it up . They have to stand completely in line of sight of the antennas or the connection falls back to 4G.

 

hahaha sorry can't help but laugh at this... sure it's early adopting etc. but it doesn't make the impression it's the answer to all problems and the cornerstone of the IoT (which is stupid imho too).
Thanks for sharing

 

https://www.engineering.com/Electro...ive-But-Weather-Forecasting-Could-Suffer.aspx