The constant deluge of media articles supportive of 5G network technology has been making me nervous for the past year (as if national and world politics wasn't bad enough) due to the fact that certain large companies stand to make trillions of $currency by rolling out potentially dangerous technology for human health.
We Have No Reason to Believe 5G Is Safe
The technology is coming, but contrary to what some people say , there could be health risks
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/we-have-no-reason-to-believe-5g-is-safe/
π³π±
@ScottMortimer Except that 5G is safe..
@freemo
Prove it Doc! :-)
@ScottMortimer Its been done countless times by countless scientists far more knowledgeable than either ofus on the topic.
Though to be fair it only takes some basics to understand why its safe and the body of evidence in general.
@freemo
Fantastic. I'd love to read your peer reviewed conclusions on the health effects of 5G networks for human health.
@freemo
Granted, I am only a technologist interested in the field of study, but I have some serious doubts about the methods and interests behind the push for 5G.
@ScottMortimer The frequencies and power range for 5G were studied for a very long time before anyone even considered using them for cell phones.
They have been studied as well as in general use for other protocols for a very long time.
@freemo
If I actually believed that all of peer reviewed research backed your assessment, I would be convinced. I guess we will see how it all works out over time.
@ScottMortimer Really, name the peer-reviewed research you know of which has showed it is harmful. I really dont know even a single paper capable of passing peer review that has showed it is harmful, but a quick search shows countless PR publications that show it is harmful.
Thats the problem with the truth, it doesnt really care what you believe.
@freemo
This is what is difficult for me to understand, this is a measurable thing, what is giving that uncertainty for proper conclusion of its damage to human health? Its not my field of proffession so help me to understand it if you have will. There are sources claiming that its harmful and other sources claiming that it isn't, is it because of the nature of it?
@ScottMortimer
Sure.
So first off no legitimate sources say "it is harmful under 150 meters".
In fact every study we have that has passed scrutnity has told us that the frequency and power involved in 5G is harmless even if you happen to be standing right in front of the tower.
There is an exception to this. I know of one study where they pumped twns of thousands times the power you would be exposed to by standing right in font of a tower into a cage of rats over extended periods of exposure. In this particular study a very small percentage of male rate showed some cancer while none of th female rates did. The numbers were so small however, even in this exagerated case, and the sample size was so small, it is hard to tell if the cancer we saw was just random or actually the result of the EM, because even at such insanely high levels it appeared that if there was an effect on cancer, that effect was very small.
So is it measurable, yes it is, but the thing is, 5G frequencies at any power level (withink reason) are well within safety margins because these frequencies simply dont cause cancer, it isnt a power issue (for the most part)
When it comes to cancer and radiation it all come sdown to frequency. Pump up the frequency high enough and even at low power it will easily cause cancer. But around the 25 ghz range you cant get cancer even if you tried, you can sleep on top of a transmitting cell antenna (they are actually very low power) and you'll be fine.
@freemo
Thanks for explanation. I guess we will see in time how will this show for human health. I just feel that there isn't much transparency in all this. My gf got another project to do, so she didn't do all work that needs to be done, some other people got that assignment
@ScottMortimer
Why would time need to tell? The frequency and power used in 5G has been in use for a long time already. You've already been bathing in 5G frequencies 25Ghz) for a long time along with the rest of society.
No need for time to tell, time already has told. 5G is a new protocol, but the frequency itself is not.
@freemo
First towers are installed few months ago in city where I live (Belgrade) and in this city time always showed real consequences of long term radiation. We had nasty NATO bombing with depleted uranium in '99 and people also told that its consequences wouldn't be too large. Cancer rates are higher 3-5 times than before bombing. Just saying this for you to understand my paranoia
@ScottMortimer
@nikolal @freemo @ScottMortimer There are many places I know in Poland and Russia that never saw *any* depleted uranium, yet particular cancer rates are higher than elsewhere.
The problem with Eastern Europe is that it was polluted beyond any standards first by communist industry, then in modern times by "entrepreneurs" engaged in car parts recovery, large-scale illegal waste storage and regular citizens dumping or burning rubbish everywhere.
@kravietz
That is true, but there is this spike in cancer rates where I live because of bombing
@freemo @ScottMortimer
@nikolal @freemo @ScottMortimer
There's quite a lot of interesting research on this on PubMed:
"Our results suggest that the majority of the examined sites contain natural uranium, while the area of Kosovo appears to be most heavily afflicted by depleted uranium pollution, followed by Bosnia & Herzegovina. Furthermore, the results indicate that it is not possible to make a valid correlation between the health effects and depleted uranium-contaminated areas." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28395154
@kravietz
Article also says that needs further research and that conclusion can't be made. On proffessional side my source is my mother, she is gynecologist and she is saying there is increase in cancer since bombing because its her job to identify cancer cells. Maybe reasons isn't just bombing related, but there is increase since that time
@freemo @ScottMortimer
@kravietz
There is also this article from Guardian from 2001 so you can see that some shady business is going on https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/jan/01/balkans
@freemo @ScottMortimer
@kravietz
Luckily thats why we have good data scientists who can make sense of the data. We also dont just rely on background radiation rates, its much more involved in that.
For example despite the fact taht many people get cancer for many different reasons, if you set off a nuke we can still see the statistical effect of that. Plot out the heat map of cancer rates and there will be a big red dot near any place a nuke was set off.
Combine that with the countless lab experiments and other ways to test the theory and it comes up with a pretty solid picture.
@nikolal @ScottMortimer