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

  • Is 5G dangerous?

    I've seen dire warnings about how dangerous 5G is, and it should not be deployed, but I can't seem to find anything to substantiate that.

    Is 5G dangerous? We asked an expert

    Harnessing millimeter wave (mmWave) spectrum for faster data speeds is one of the biggest breakthroughs of 5G, the next generation cellular networking technology following 4G LTE. But there are concerns this very high-frequency spectrum could pose adverse health effects for the public.

    These kinds of concerns aren’t new — consumer anxiety concerning whether radiofrequency radiation can increase the risk of cancerous tumors has existed for some time. To get some concrete answers on the subject, we reached out to the U.S. Food and Drug Association (FDA), a government agency that is not only responsible for protecting public health through the control and supervision of food and drugs, but also electromagnetic radiation emitting devices. We further supplemented those responses with information sourced from the American Cancer Society and the International Agency for Research on Cancer.

    ...
    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

  • #2
    5G phones are only dangerous if you throw one at someone's head.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
      I've seen dire warnings about how dangerous 5G is, and it should not be deployed, but I can't seem to find anything to substantiate that.

      Is 5G dangerous? We asked an expert

      Harnessing millimeter wave (mmWave) spectrum for faster data speeds is one of the biggest breakthroughs of 5G, the next generation cellular networking technology following 4G LTE. But there are concerns this very high-frequency spectrum could pose adverse health effects for the public.

      These kinds of concerns aren’t new — consumer anxiety concerning whether radiofrequency radiation can increase the risk of cancerous tumors has existed for some time. To get some concrete answers on the subject, we reached out to the U.S. Food and Drug Association (FDA), a government agency that is not only responsible for protecting public health through the control and supervision of food and drugs, but also electromagnetic radiation emitting devices. We further supplemented those responses with information sourced from the American Cancer Society and the International Agency for Research on Cancer.

      ...
      Whilst there's still room for the answer to be, "Yes," with further studies down the road, I think a lot of the concern comes from the fact your average Joe doesn't know much about radiation. I know someone who was part of a nuclear power plant tour, and another guy on-tour set off a Geiger counter because his wife had him on some fad diet revolving around bananas. Apparently, the type of potassium in bananas is radioactive, and if you eat a heavy enough concentration of them... well... you can set off a Geiger counter.
      Have You Touched Grass Today? If Not, Please Do.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
        I've seen dire warnings about how dangerous 5G is, and it should not be deployed, but I can't seem to find anything to substantiate that.
        There's no plausible biological mechanism for this wavelength to damage molecules or tissues aside from via heating, and the levels of radiation aren't high enough to cause significant heating of human tissue. In the absence of any evidence that it is harmful through a mechanism we haven't identified, i'm not at all concerned.
        "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Chaotic Void View Post
          Whilst there's still room for the answer to be, "Yes," with further studies down the road, I think a lot of the concern comes from the fact your average Joe doesn't know much about radiation. I know someone who was part of a nuclear power plant tour, and another guy on-tour set off a Geiger counter because his wife had him on some fad diet revolving around bananas. Apparently, the type of potassium in bananas is radioactive, and if you eat a heavy enough concentration of them... well... you can set off a Geiger counter.
          Bananas are a great source of potassium, but they don't have a greater ratio of K-40 than anything else.
          Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

          Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
          sigpic
          I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Chaotic Void View Post
            Apparently, the type of potassium in bananas is radioactive, and if you eat a heavy enough concentration of them... well... you can set off a Geiger counter.
            Potassium has a radioactive isotope that's relatively rare (0.012% of the total potassium), but the element itself is so common that its radioactivity contributes significantly to the background. It's also got quite a long half life (over a billion years), so there's still a lot of it around. Bananas concentrate potassium in general, and thus by extension get a fair bit of the radioactive stuff.
            "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
              Bananas are a great source of potassium, but they don't have a greater ratio of K-40 than anything else.
              That's the story I was told. Apparently, this dude's wife had him eating a LOT of bananas.
              Have You Touched Grass Today? If Not, Please Do.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Chaotic Void View Post
                That's the story I was told. Apparently, this dude's wife had him eating a LOT of bananas.
                Yeah, they have enough to affect radiation readings if you have more than a couple before the reading.
                Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                sigpic
                I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
                  There's no plausible biological mechanism for this wavelength to damage molecules or tissues aside from via heating, and the levels of radiation aren't high enough to cause significant heating of human tissue. In the absence of any evidence that it is harmful through a mechanism we haven't identified, i'm not at all concerned.
                  Thanks, Lurch, for the serious response. That's kinda what I'm finding.
                  The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                    I've seen dire warnings about how dangerous 5G is, and it should not be deployed, but I can't seem to find anything to substantiate that.

                    Is 5G dangerous? We asked an expert

                    Harnessing millimeter wave (mmWave) spectrum for faster data speeds is one of the biggest breakthroughs of 5G, the next generation cellular networking technology following 4G LTE. But there are concerns this very high-frequency spectrum could pose adverse health effects for the public.

                    These kinds of concerns aren’t new — consumer anxiety concerning whether radiofrequency radiation can increase the risk of cancerous tumors has existed for some time. To get some concrete answers on the subject, we reached out to the U.S. Food and Drug Association (FDA), a government agency that is not only responsible for protecting public health through the control and supervision of food and drugs, but also electromagnetic radiation emitting devices. We further supplemented those responses with information sourced from the American Cancer Society and the International Agency for Research on Cancer.

                    ...
                    The 5G technologies have not been tested for their effects on human physiology. So in the best case, one can say "we don't know."

                    There are papers raising concerns, e.g. https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...13935118300161

                    Things that have to be considered include the transmission frequency, signal types, signal levels, and environmental effects.

                    I've seen where signal bursts are worse than constant signals (such as sinusoidals). Our current cellphones generate a lot of bursts when trying to connect to a distant tower.

                    There are concerns in this (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29459303):
                    In the interaction of microwave radiation and human beings, the skin is traditionally considered as just an absorbing sponge stratum filled with water. In previous works, we showed that this view is flawed when we demonstrated that the coiled portion of the sweat duct in upper skin layer is regarded as a helical antenna in the sub-THz band. Experimentally we showed that the reflectance of the human skin in the sub-THz region depends on the intensity of perspiration, i.e. sweat duct's conductivity, and correlates with levels of human stress (physical, mental and emotional). Later on, we detected circular dichroism in the reflectance from the skin, a signature of the axial mode of a helical antenna. The full ramifications of what these findings represent in the human condition are still unclear. We also revealed correlation of electrocardiography (ECG) parameters to the sub-THz reflection coefficient of human skin. In a recent work, we developed a unique simulation tool of human skin, taking into account the skin multi-layer structure together with the helical segment of the sweat duct embedded in it. The presence of the sweat duct led to a high specific absorption rate (SAR) of the skin in extremely high frequency band. In this paper, we summarize the physical evidence for this phenomenon and consider its implication for the future exploitation of the electromagnetic spectrum by wireless communication. Starting from July 2016 the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has adopted new rules for wireless broadband operations above 24 GHz (5 G). This trend of exploitation is predicted to expand to higher frequencies in the sub-THz region. One must consider the implications of human immersion in the electromagnetic noise, caused by devices working at the very same frequencies as those, to which the sweat duct (as a helical antenna) is most attuned. We are raising a warning flag against the unrestricted use of sub-THz technologies for communication, before the possible consequences for public health are explored.
                    Here's from another abstract: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29402696
                    Preliminary observations showed that MMW increase skin temperature, alter gene expression, promote cellular proliferation and synthesis of proteins linked with oxidative stress, inflammatory and metabolic processes, could generate ocular damages, affect neuro-muscular dynamics. Further studies are needed to better and independently explore the health effects of RF-EMF in general and of MMW in particular. However, available findings seem sufficient to demonstrate the existence of biomedical effects, to invoke the precautionary principle, to define exposed subjects as potentially vulnerable and to revise existing limits.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I think it's fair to raise concerns. However I'm also all for it as long as the towers are spaced away from housing developments. Who knows, maybe 5G will let us finally contact Aliens
                      A happy family is but an earlier heaven.
                      George Bernard Shaw

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Your first reference is a perspective (not original research) from a plastic surgeon without any training in epidemiology whose mailing address is a PO Box since she has no affiliation with an academic institution. Your second is "Page not found" at NCBI. The last, again a review/perspective, says "more recent studies suggested reproductive, metabolic and neurologic effects of RF-EMF, which are also able to alter bacterial antibiotic resistance" (bolding mine). That is, frankly, garbage.

                        Are there studies that suggest that there could be health risks of cellular phone signals? Yes. Are they of dubious quality? Almost all of them.
                        "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
                          Your first reference is a perspective (not original research) from a plastic surgeon without any training in epidemiology whose mailing address is a PO Box since she has no affiliation with an academic institution. Your second is "Page not found" at NCBI. The last, again a review/perspective, says "more recent studies suggested reproductive, metabolic and neurologic effects of RF-EMF, which are also able to alter bacterial antibiotic resistance" (bolding mine). That is, frankly, garbage.

                          Are there studies that suggest that there could be health risks of cellular phone signals? Yes. Are they of dubious quality? Almost all of them.
                          Interesting.

                          Just for grins, lemme tell you from whence my concern comes.

                          Back in my police days, we had hand-held radar guns - MR-7 radar - that you would hold out the window and aim at oncoming cars. It was not at all unusual, then, that, when pursuing the car you clocked speeding, you would tuck the radar gun between your legs for safe keeping.

                          Suddenly, there were all kinds of reports of testicular cancer caused by the radar guns.

                          This was well before the internetzweb, so there wasn't any way to do individual research.

                          Long story short, I'm skittish on these things, but so far, research has been a bust --- mostly scaremonger hype.
                          The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                            Interesting.

                            Just for grins, lemme tell you from whence my concern comes.

                            Back in my police days, we had hand-held radar guns - MR-7 radar - that you would hold out the window and aim at oncoming cars. It was not at all unusual, then, that, when pursuing the car you clocked speeding, you would tuck the radar gun between your legs for safe keeping.

                            Suddenly, there were all kinds of reports of testicular cancer caused by the radar guns.

                            This was well before the internetzweb, so there wasn't any way to do individual research.

                            Long story short, I'm skittish on these things, but so far, research has been a bust --- mostly scaremonger hype.
                            Completely understand your nervousness. That sort of thing is almost always impossible to figure out - small group of people with a fairly unique set of circumstances, probably very different levels of exposure, etc. And it's very hard to overcome the sense that something might be going on even if the epidemiology clears it.

                            At least in the lab, when you work with a carcinogen (or neurotoxin, or what have you), you usually KNOW it's nasty stuff.

                            These days, the most dangerous stuff i work with is probably the gunk that builds up on my keyboard.
                            "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Catholicity View Post
                              I think it's fair to raise concerns. However I'm also all for it as long as the towers are spaced away from housing developments. Who knows, maybe 5G will let us finally contact Aliens
                              Actually they are placing small cell units potential of relaying 5G on telephone poles all over the cities in preparation of 5G conversion.
                              Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                              Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                              But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                              go with the flow the river knows . . .

                              Frank

                              I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                              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
                              47 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Working...
                              X