Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Is 5G dangerous?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Some of the speakers (and the host) in this series have a weird spirituality view.

    Comment


    • #47
      What I don't see is any plausibility to the claim. How would 5G radiation cause cancer? It is microwave energy, so all it could do is heat up tissue a little bit. But so will a pillow, your hand, a sauna, running, etc... There's no prior plausibility to the claim, so the evidence of danger would have to be significance, and there's hardly any threat here from the data.

      On that I think we can proceed.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
        What I don't see is any plausibility to the claim. How would 5G radiation cause cancer? It is microwave energy, so all it could do is heat up tissue a little bit. But so will a pillow, your hand, a sauna, running, etc... There's no prior plausibility to the claim, so the evidence of danger would have to be significance, and there's hardly any threat here from the data.

        On that I think we can proceed.
        The only difference I could think of between microwave radiation and those things you suggested - those are all external, radiating in, where microwave energy can be internal, radiating out. (maybe, I don't know - I just remember the ALLEGED WWII story of the guy who was working the rotation of the radar dish on a cold night, and discovered if he slowed it down when it passed his body, he would warm up -- PLEASE don't tell me that's a myth!!!)
        The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

        Comment


        • #49
          Obviously the answer is to get to 6G as fast as possible.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
            I'm not sure why you are asking this. Is the science of planned 5G settled?
            The science of what those wavelengths are capable of, in terms of how much energy they carry, is pretty well settled.
            "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
              What I don't see is any plausibility to the claim. How would 5G radiation cause cancer? It is microwave energy, so all it could do is heat up tissue a little bit. But so will a pillow, your hand, a sauna, running, etc... There's no prior plausibility to the claim, so the evidence of danger would have to be significance, and there's hardly any threat here from the data.

              On that I think we can proceed.
              Ah. A scientist would see the need for scientific studies to find out what the biological effects are, not just assume that heating is the only mechanism. Science tries to takes us beyond what our intuition is and to find out if our intuition is correct or something more is happening.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                Obviously the answer is to get to 6G as fast as possible.
                I think the body can only handle 3Gs

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
                  I think the body can only handle 3Gs
                  Unless you're a fighter pilot with a pressure suit, then you can handle 6 or 7 Gs.
                  The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
                    Ah. A scientist would see the need for scientific studies to find out what the biological effects are, not just assume that heating is the only mechanism. Science tries to takes us beyond what our intuition is and to find out if our intuition is correct or something more is happening.
                    That's not actually the way it works.

                    If a group of people started claiming that, say, the increase in global average temperature observed over the last two centuries has been caused by a decline in Caribbean sailship piracy, we don't need to commission studies to prove this claim wrong in order to recognize that it is specious and untenable.

                    Similarly, 5G radiation is non-ionizing. The physics behind the interaction of photons and molecules is very well established and understood. We don't need to commission widescale studies to dismiss health concerns about 5G radiation as being specious and untenable.
                    "[Mathematics] is the revealer of every genuine truth, for it knows every hidden secret, and bears the key to every subtlety of letters; whoever, then, has the effrontery to pursue physics while neglecting mathematics should know from the start he will never make his entry through the portals of wisdom."
                    --Thomas Bradwardine, De Continuo (c. 1325)

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View Post
                      The physics behind the interaction of photons and molecules is very well established and understood. We don't need to commission widescale studies to dismiss health concerns about 5G radiation as being specious and untenable.
                      I can't find the court decision, but one came out a while back that (paraphrasing) said "we don't have to re-derive atomic theory every time the EPA considers regulating carbon dioxide".
                      "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
                        Ah. A scientist would see the need for scientific studies to find out what the biological effects are, not just assume that heating is the only mechanism. Science tries to takes us beyond what our intuition is and to find out if our intuition is correct or something more is happening.
                        That isn't how risk assessment works, we test for things that have a prior plausibility mostly. Sometimes it can be worth it to explore far out and novel situations, however in this case there is no proposed mechanism, nor is there any expectation of something like that happening. And if there is, the focus should be on demonstrating something like that, rather than presuming danger.

                        If anyone is willing to do research like that they should be allowed to, however, until we have clear evidence that it is dangerous it is perfectly valid to presume that there is no danger, based on current theories showing that microwave radiation only causes heating.

                        And as it stands there's simply no plausible mechanism by which microwave radiation can cause changes to DNA.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                          I started the thread because I was curious, and 5G seems to be a very hot topic.
                          I think it's because the waves from 5G are slowly cooking our brains. But I'm safe, I have my tinfoil hat for when I go out, and there are no transmitters near my house.
                          ...>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
                            I think the body can only handle 3Gs
                            What about Bee Gees?

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              This video is interesting by Martin Pall,PhD, concerning harm from EMF

                              5 Most Critical Areas of Harm (Part 2)with Martin Pall, PhD

                              https://the5gsummit.com/expert/martin-pall-2/

                              This link is only available today (Saturday, june 6)

                              In part, he discusses EMF calcium gates, VGCCs. Earlier in the video he mentions of a Chinese study on rats exposed to pulsed EMF in their earlier years who then had characteristics of alzheimers later, without being exposed to such pulses, after the initial test. The design of 5G is that these short pulses will be characteristic and essential to 5G
                              Calicium Gates VGCCs.jpg

                              I'm not sure yet where this Chinese study can be found. This video acts more as an introduction to the science.

                              If the smaller copy of the VGCC diagram appears (within a larger white area), I was unable to delete that from the post after adding the better copy. Oh well.
                              Attached Files
                              Last edited by mikewhitney; 06-06-2020, 01:07 PM.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                                What about Bee Gees?
                                Those are also proven to be harmful

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                                48 responses
                                135 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                                16 responses
                                74 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                                6 responses
                                48 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X