Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 69

Thread: Is 5G dangerous?

  1. #41
    tWebber TheLurch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Northeast USA
    Faith
    MYOB
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,541
    Amen (Given)
    95
    Amen (Received)
    663
    Quote Originally Posted by mikewhitney View Post
    How about checking what related studies there are and share from both sides -- those showing 5G as safe and those that question the safety?
    I've read, in detail, the ones that purportedly show it's unsafe. Many are badly flawed. A few are only limited by things like retrospective reporting of exposure - not ideal, but subject to bias.

    Let's look at some of the most widely promoted ones. There's this:
    https://ehtrust.org/wp-content/uploa...ation-2018.pdf

    "A statistically significant increase in the incidence of heart Schwannomas was observed in treated male rats at the highest dose (50 V/m)."
    Sounds bad, right? But if you look at the data, that's because all the cancers in the control group happened to occur in females. So in females, it looks like exposure to cell phones actually protects from cancers. The authors selectively chose to highlight results that are misleading.

    There's the one from the US National Toxicology program:
    https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/whatwestud...nes/index.html

    "Clear evidence of tumors in the hearts of male rats. The tumors were malignant schwannomas.
    Some evidence of tumors in the brains of male rats. The tumors were malignant gliomas.
    Some evidence of tumors in the adrenal glands of male rats. The tumors were benign, malignant, or complex combined pheochromocytoma."

    Again, sounds really bad. But the researchers did a parallel study in mice and saw... absolutely no effect of cell phone radiation. In this study, the male rats in the control group died unusually often, ensuring that the controls were biased young, when tumors were less frequent. This didn't occur in female controls, and there was no significant increase in tumors in then. Again, the researchers are selectively presenting their results to make things look bad.

    When you read enough studies, and the ones that supposedly show risk are this badly flawed, you have to start concluding that there's no risk. Otherwise, it should be easy for a study without flaws to find it.
    "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

  2. Amen shunyadragon amen'd this post.
  3. #42
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    SoCal!!!
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    3,083
    Amen (Given)
    403
    Amen (Received)
    1014
    Quote Originally Posted by TheLurch View Post
    I've read, in detail, the ones that purportedly show it's unsafe. Many are badly flawed. A few are only limited by things like retrospective reporting of exposure - not ideal, but subject to bias.

    Let's look at some of the most widely promoted ones. There's this:
    https://ehtrust.org/wp-content/uploa...ation-2018.pdf

    "A statistically significant increase in the incidence of heart Schwannomas was observed in treated male rats at the highest dose (50 V/m)."
    Sounds bad, right? But if you look at the data, that's because all the cancers in the control group happened to occur in females. So in females, it looks like exposure to cell phones actually protects from cancers. The authors selectively chose to highlight results that are misleading.

    There's the one from the US National Toxicology program:
    https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/whatwestud...nes/index.html

    "Clear evidence of tumors in the hearts of male rats. The tumors were malignant schwannomas.
    Some evidence of tumors in the brains of male rats. The tumors were malignant gliomas.
    Some evidence of tumors in the adrenal glands of male rats. The tumors were benign, malignant, or complex combined pheochromocytoma."

    Again, sounds really bad. But the researchers did a parallel study in mice and saw... absolutely no effect of cell phone radiation. In this study, the male rats in the control group died unusually often, ensuring that the controls were biased young, when tumors were less frequent. This didn't occur in female controls, and there was no significant increase in tumors in then. Again, the researchers are selectively presenting their results to make things look bad.

    When you read enough studies, and the ones that supposedly show risk are this badly flawed, you have to start concluding that there's no risk. Otherwise, it should be easy for a study without flaws to find it.
    I understand that your goal is to provide sort of a calm, rational understanding of 5G, based on science. However, the studies on 5G are limited and will not cover the frequencies and waveforms (including pulse levels, magnitudes, complex combinations of "safe" signals", and constant exposures) being deployed. We also have to take into consideration different physiologies of people that will be subjected to these 5G signals. Have you seen whether 60Ghz signals can change the molecular spin within oxygen molecules (I hope I said this in decent terminology)? Or the military use at 95Ghz for causing burning sensation in the skiin?

    Have you examined studies about EMFs used for healing in the body?

    How much of the 5G technology has been tested and proven in many ways to be SAFE?
    Last edited by mikewhitney; 06-01-2020 at 04:21 PM.

  4. #43
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    SoCal!!!
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    3,083
    Amen (Given)
    403
    Amen (Received)
    1014
    One speaker, Jason Bawden-Smith , has mentioned that the 5G has defined specs at https://3gpp.org and that the frequency range is more narrowly defined. However, I was not able to find the frequencies utilized in the technologies within a quick search. This would help narrow the number of studies that would be needed to check the safety. I would hope more scientists would study these areas -- but it often requires broad specialties of physics and medical fields.

    Bawden-Smith still gives the general warnings concerning illnesses that the technologies can cause. He takes a lot of precautions to lower the exposure to EMF, especially because he had gotten about 20 conditions which made him seriously ill. Many of these conditions (or all?) were related to decades of overworking himself without health precautions. I know he can't be trusted though, since he recommends eating raw oysters. (Actually, he got a similar recommendation from some aboriginals.)
    Last edited by mikewhitney; 06-01-2020 at 06:59 PM.

  5. #44
    tWebber TheLurch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Northeast USA
    Faith
    MYOB
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,541
    Amen (Given)
    95
    Amen (Received)
    663
    Quote Originally Posted by mikewhitney View Post
    I understand that your goal is to provide sort of a calm, rational understanding of 5G, based on science.
    Correct. Do you think there's a better way to understand it?

    Quote Originally Posted by mikewhitney View Post
    However, the studies on 5G are limited and will not cover the frequencies and waveforms (including pulse levels, magnitudes, complex combinations of "safe" signals", and constant exposures) being deployed.
    What if the science indicates that these don't make any differences for how molecules interact with the photons?
    "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

  6. Amen Boxing Pythagoras amen'd this post.
  7. #45
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    SoCal!!!
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    3,083
    Amen (Given)
    403
    Amen (Received)
    1014
    Quote Originally Posted by TheLurch View Post
    Correct. Do you think there's a better way to understand it?
    I'm not sure why you are asking this. Is the science of planned 5G settled?

    What if the science indicates that these don't make any differences for how molecules interact with the photons?
    One scientist was talking about the problem of the safety guidelines is that they address the average energy level over 6 seconds. But, if you do a high level 100 nanosecond pulse, that would have a very low average energy but still have negative effects on people.

    There are probably some things that I'm hearing are false ideas ... someone doing too much speculation. The incorrect ideas should be rejected.
    Last edited by mikewhitney; 06-02-2020 at 09:42 AM.

  8. #46
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    SoCal!!!
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    3,083
    Amen (Given)
    403
    Amen (Received)
    1014
    Some of the speakers (and the host) in this series have a weird spirituality view.

  9. #47
    Technology Staff Leonhard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Denmark - Jutland
    Faith
    Catholic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    6,844
    Amen (Given)
    1119
    Amen (Received)
    3478
    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.

  10. #48
    See, the Thing is... Cow Poke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    64,723
    Amen (Given)
    14024
    Amen (Received)
    28882
    Quote 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!!!)
    "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

  11. #49
    Troll Magnet Sparko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    54,636
    Amen (Given)
    5601
    Amen (Received)
    23885
    Obviously the answer is to get to 6G as fast as possible.

  12. Amen TheLurch amen'd this post.
  13. #50
    tWebber TheLurch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Northeast USA
    Faith
    MYOB
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,541
    Amen (Given)
    95
    Amen (Received)
    663
    Quote 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."

  14. Amen Boxing Pythagoras amen'd this post.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •