New Study shows 5G does not pose health risks

Discussion in 'Frontpage news' started by Hilbert Hagedoorn, Jan 28, 2020.

  1. Hilbert Hagedoorn

    Hilbert Hagedoorn Don Vito Corleone Staff Member

    Messages:
    38,344
    Likes Received:
    6,945
    GPU:
    AMD | NVIDIA
    New cellular technologies are often associated with a higher health risk and there has been a share of that with the upcoming 5G network. Some believe that 5G could increase radiation exposure and, wi...

    New Study shows 5G does not pose health risks
     
  2. fantaskarsef

    fantaskarsef Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    11,565
    Likes Received:
    3,521
    GPU:
    2080Ti @h2o
    So... that study's worthless. Like most tech studies anyway :rolleyes:
     
    BetA, Dragam1337, 386SX and 1 other person like this.
  3. AlmondMan

    AlmondMan Master Guru

    Messages:
    502
    Likes Received:
    42
    GPU:
    5700 XT Red Dragon
    Not really, no. But whatever :rolleyes:
     
  4. fantaskarsef

    fantaskarsef Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    11,565
    Likes Received:
    3,521
    GPU:
    2080Ti @h2o
    Well I'm sure you're particularly happy that it says 5G isn't dangerous, but in reality tech never is tested for real.
    Not that I believe the dangers are there, but nothing's tested over a human's lifetime to have any real intel on long term influence on the body.
    Or would you disagree?
     

  5. Fox2232

    Fox2232 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    10,368
    Likes Received:
    2,470
    GPU:
    5700XT+AW@240Hz
    Well, 5GHz is not any better than 2,4 GHz. It is question of energy radiated and absorbed. And question of type of molecules which do the absorption.
    For H2O, 1st "resonating" frequency is around 23 GHz, but it is tiny absorption. Big absorption is around 180 GHz and then around 320 GHz.

    But then there are all those other molecules and mainly our DNA which atomic structure may be damaged due to excessive energy absorption.
    And that brings us to study itself. Rats did develop cancers => DNA/protein/... damage.

    Idea that cancers they did develop are not common to humans does not change fact that source of those cancers is damage to complex molecules which enable living organisms to function properly. And that's exactly same kind of damage people can expect in high enough exposure areas.
     
  6. Cplifj

    Cplifj Active Member

    Messages:
    56
    Likes Received:
    14
    GPU:
    290X
    Professor Martin Röösli is a criminal of denial. Doesn't have enough info but has no problem denying for Money.
     
  7. emperorsfist

    emperorsfist Maha Guru

    Messages:
    1,115
    Likes Received:
    603
    GPU:
    NVIDIA GTX 1080 8Gb
    Spot the conspiracy nut...
     
    Alessio1989 and schmidtbag like this.
  8. anticupidon

    anticupidon Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    4,988
    Likes Received:
    1,551
    GPU:
    Polaris/Vega/Navi
    The only proven study is time. We will see if we will flourish, or develop tumors.
     
    fantaskarsef and airbud7 like this.
  9. airbud7

    airbud7 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    7,843
    Likes Received:
    4,747
    GPU:
    pny gtx 1060 xlr8
    [​IMG]

    Oh crap, wrong scientific study!......:p
     
    gx-x, Evildead666, bemaniac and 5 others like this.
  10. Hypernaut

    Hypernaut Member Guru

    Messages:
    121
    Likes Received:
    27
    GPU:
    5700XT Red Devil
    Do people really believe a multi-billion dollar industry study that if proven deadly would cost so much? Of course, any study they sanction will say it is safe. They want to see a return on investment. They won't let a few cancer victims or mass animal die-offs stop them. Meanwhile, 1 in 2 people gets cancer lol. Funny how cancer rates have gone through the roof with the advent of cell phone tech.
     
    anticupidon and fantaskarsef like this.

  11. Hypernaut

    Hypernaut Member Guru

    Messages:
    121
    Likes Received:
    27
    GPU:
    5700XT Red Devil
    Spot the coincidence nut.

    I got more time for conspiracy theories regarding a multi-billion dollar industry than "Oh, it's just a coincidence, move along tin foil hate brigade".
     
  12. Fox2232

    Fox2232 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    10,368
    Likes Received:
    2,470
    GPU:
    5700XT+AW@240Hz
    G*addict, JAMVA and anticupidon like this.
  13. Denial

    Denial Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    12,792
    Likes Received:
    2,055
    GPU:
    EVGA 1080Ti
    They haven't gone through the roof.

    And while I don't necessarily have faith in single studies and remain skeptical of industry led ones, multiple studies have been done by various government bodies, academic researchers, etc and have all concluded that there is no evidence cell phones cause cancer.

    Further the cancer death-rate has declined in the last 30 or so years.

    Stop posting tinfoil nonsense.
     
    AlmondMan, HandR and schmidtbag like this.
  14. emperorsfist

    emperorsfist Maha Guru

    Messages:
    1,115
    Likes Received:
    603
    GPU:
    NVIDIA GTX 1080 8Gb
    Buddy, screaming "criminal", "big money" and other buzzwords into the void is worthless, if you have nothing to back them up. The study, however flawed, is still more than just saying: "Oh yeah, well they're lying!"
     
    AlmondMan likes this.
  15. Astyanax

    Astyanax Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    6,672
    Likes Received:
    2,113
    GPU:
    GTX 1080ti
    thats because on the autopsy report the cause is from a secondary illness post chemo or radiotherapy - not because cancers have reduced in occurrence.
     
    Dragam1337 likes this.

  16. slyphnier

    slyphnier Master Guru

    Messages:
    748
    Likes Received:
    51
    GPU:
    GTX1070
    excuse me for abit OOT, first put aside 5G

    natural selection is a thing for life-being (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest, https://www.thoughtco.com/survival-of-the-fittest-1224578)
    lookback human history and we seeing evolution in human itself

    on other side, if there anything that bring destruction to human-race, it have good possibility its human themselves doing it, rather than other-factor
    such current extreme-climate that happening
    what earth (universe in extended/wider view) is make balance

    then what currently hot-topics, corona-virus
    people died because of it (reported over 100+people for now), but there also quite sum of people said recovering from it
    now the origin of corona-virus also interesting, while it reported transfered from wild-animal, but it also rumored its bio-weapon (sort of leak from wuhan P4 virology lab?)
    eitherway, its human doing, if u get what i mean


    back to 5G...
    if it proved to have some effect to animal (rat), then its obviously 5G have some sort of effect to environmental, even if, say it have no effect to human whatsoever

    but in tech advancement, everyone want better tech for sure, right ?
    even sometimes it might pose some risk, people tends to take the risk as long its not proven
    japan (NTT) for one, trying ahead with 6G



    so now do u prefer stuck with 4G and get no health concern
    or join 5G but with possible health concern ?
    eitherway (both) have positive and negative, just like everything else in life
     
  17. Denial

    Denial Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    12,792
    Likes Received:
    2,055
    GPU:
    EVGA 1080Ti
    I never said cancer rates reduced in occurrence. I said the deathrate from them has declined - those are two separate things.

    Regardless, the rate hasn't gone through the roof, our ability to detect cancer and properly diagnose it has, which leads to higher numbers of cancers being reported.

    Also I'd like to see a source that the decline in deathrate is due to secondary illnesses being reported as cause of death - because I don't believe that either and I can't find any concrete study for that.
     
    Backstabak likes this.
  18. Nictron

    Nictron Master Guru

    Messages:
    268
    Likes Received:
    2
    GPU:
    ASUS 1080Ti
    At a recent security event we discussed the peak power profile and directed energy wave capability of 5G.
    The below quote is quite important:

    "than the expected exposure to 5G for humans"

    At normal range and exposure short term effects are low with long term unknown.

    - Incorrect configuration could lead to higher than defined power output which could cause DNA damage.
    - 5G can be configured at peak power as a directed energy weapon. Imagine Epstein being targeted via 5G exposure over a period of time?

    Interesting!
     
  19. Fox2232

    Fox2232 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    10,368
    Likes Received:
    2,470
    GPU:
    5700XT+AW@240Hz
    cancer-Death-rate != cancer-Developing-rate

    For example death rate to rate of getting cancer is smaller in USA than in Czech Republic. Yet in USA, there is higher chance per capita to get cancer.
    Death rate may go down because of better available drugs (certification).

    Then there is actual per capita rate of getting cancer. And that speaks much clearer about environments people live in. (Or quality of data.)
    Yes, you can say that developing countries have lower cancer rates not because of absence of heavy industry pollution or harmful radiation, but because of lack of good health care itself. => Natural selection. Or actually too low general life expectancy itself. (People not having enough time to die from cancer due to other causes of death.)
    https://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/cause-of-death/all-cancers/by-country/
    But in general, developing countries without other types of pollution have much lower cancer rates.

    And study itself confirms that it does cause damage that leads to cancer. Question is energy level and exposure time required to get cancer causing damage at certain normalized rate.

    If one can compare that for other technologies people get exposed to. And actual energy levels once fully deployed for general population, we could easily understand if it is more harmful than 2,4 GHz or older lower frequencies cellphones were using in past.
     
  20. Denial

    Denial Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    12,792
    Likes Received:
    2,055
    GPU:
    EVGA 1080Ti
    Like you said, developing countries have lower life expectancy, worse reporting, worse diagnosing - which all lead to lower rates.

    Any study worth it's weight is considering these things. Most studies show a decline in death-rate. Which again, as I stated, is not linked to cancer rate.

    The point is, if cellular radiation was causing some massive increase in cancer rates, we'd see it and yet we don't so his opinion that "cancer rates are increasing through the roof" is irrelevant.
     
    Last edited: Jan 28, 2020

Share This Page