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

  • #31
    When I saw this had been bumped, I was pleasantly surprised this was not a repeat of the claim going around that 5G is the cause of coronavirus (this is something directly relevant to my job, and I deal directly with the public, so this rumor is very relevant to me, though I'm mostly astounded that anybody believes it).

    Concerns relating to, say, cancer are at least plausible.
    "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
      I just ran into this one. It is sort of a bad date to post a message of concern on a heated topic.


      The site for the Canadian group is: http://c4st.org/5g/
      The former president of Microsoft Canada uses books to raise his monitor. I feel validated.
      The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

      Comment


      • #33
        From Snopes: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/5g...n-china-covid/
        When I Survey....

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Faber View Post
          Snopes is not generally a good source of information on political issues. Plus, there has to be testing to show that there is no combination of effects of 5G with coronavirus. The answer to such complex problems cannot be determined without scientific investigations. There will be many uncertainties caused by introducing new un-tested technology on a mass scale into places across the world. The worse part is that the spectrum for 5G is so broad that it will be hard to test all the variations of 5G that could be deployed.

          Comment


          • #35
            5G summit this week

            Sorry for the late news. There are a series of speakers on 5G this week.

            There should be good coverage of the evidence discovered about 5G.

            https://the5gsummit.com/

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
              Plus, there has to be testing to show that there is no combination of effects of 5G with coronavirus.
              Wouldn't we do better with exploring things like whether smoking, obesity, hypertension, diabetes, etc. - all things that, unlike 5G, we know influence human health - influence coronavirus' impact on health?

              Why go chasing after something where there's no evidence, and no plausible mechanism, when we have plenty of things to look at where there's both?



              Originally posted by mikewhitney View Post
              Sorry for the late news. There are a series of speakers on 5G this week.

              There should be good coverage of the evidence discovered about 5G.
              CIA and world government conspiracies? Alternative medicine? Blatant lies about the state of scientific evidence? You have extraordinary low standards for the things you consider evidence based.
              "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
                Wouldn't we do better with exploring things like whether smoking, obesity, hypertension, diabetes, etc. - all things that, unlike 5G, we know influence human health - influence coronavirus' impact on health?

                Why go chasing after something where there's no evidence, and no plausible mechanism, when we have plenty of things to look at where there's both?
                I started the thread because I was curious, and 5G seems to be a very hot topic.
                The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                Comment


                • #38
                  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've got no issues with curiosity. I was objecting to what appeared to be the suggestion that we start setting research policy priorities.
                  "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
                    I've got no issues with curiosity. I was objecting to what appeared to be the suggestion that we start setting research policy priorities.
                    This is one of those things that, to me, there'd need to be some serious proof that it's a problem worthy of my attention. I wouldn't be surprised, however, that somebody gets government funding to "study" it.
                    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
                      Wouldn't we do better with exploring things like whether smoking, obesity, hypertension, diabetes, etc. - all things that, unlike 5G, we know influence human health - influence coronavirus' impact on health?

                      Why go chasing after something where there's no evidence, and no plausible mechanism, when we have plenty of things to look at where there's both?
                      Maybe 5G is becoming a hot topic because of the desire to implement technologies in a wide range of frequencies within broad regions of the world (and through satellites). It may make sense to make sure these are safe before we expose everyone to each of the new technologies.

                      These other diseases have been studied to death. If there are no solutions there, we should put off those studies until we can get a fresh look -- sometime into the future. I would think people already have studied smoking and found there may be some health problems caused by that.

                      Certainly it is not required that everyone just examine 5G. There are people that still can make a living looking for new things in the other areas that you mentioned. Science is expanded by people exploring their theories and curiosities in diverse areas, not just a limited set like you gave.

                      Originally posted by TheLurch View Post

                      CIA and world government conspiracies? Alternative medicine? Blatant lies about the state of scientific evidence? You have extraordinary low standards for the things you consider evidence based.

                      I am interested in hearing from different groups because the mass media lies too much You can follow the series and see if there are leads to evidence or not.

                      I think this topic is worth more than a handwaving away of the topic. Let's discuss more things rather than just saying the whole discussion lacks evidence.

                      How about checking what related studies there are and share from both sides -- those showing 5G as safe and those that question the safety?
                      Last edited by mikewhitney; 06-01-2020, 05:18 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        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."

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          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, 06:21 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            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, 08:59 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              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?

                              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."

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                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, 11:42 AM.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                                48 responses
                                136 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