The only people I've seen suggesting that it has health implications have been hanging out in my city centre also claiming that 9/11 was an inside job and that InfoWars is a legitimate news source. This is in the UK!
That seems a fairly accurate observation, but that alone isn't a good reason to be dismissive of health concerns.
Personally I'm more worried about the privacy concerns. There is money to be made from mass surveillance after all, I'm not sure what the motivation would be to give citizens a higher rate of cancer.
No, that's just what people who believe in conspiracies (like "everything is Russian propaganda") believe.
Except if you consider the "US department of health" as Russian agents:
"The NTP studies found that high exposure to RFR used by cell phones was associated with: 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."
"The results also show that the peak-to-average ratio of 1,000 tolerated by the International Council on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection guidelines may lead to permanent tissue damage after even short exposures, highlighting the importance of revisiting existing exposure guidelines."
"Our results show that 5G downlink RF fields generate significantly higher power density (PD) and specific absorption rate (SAR) than a current cellular system. This paper also shows that SAR should also be taken into account for determining human RF exposure in the mmW downlink."
"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."
"The analysis of various antioxidants in the plasma of exposed individuals revealed a significant attrition in glutathione (GSH) concentration (p < 0.01), activities of catalase (CAT) (p < 0.001) and superoxide dismutase (SOD) (p < 0.001) and rise in lipid peroxidation (LOO) when compared to controls. Multiple linear regression analyses revealed a significant association among reduced GSH concentration (p < 0.05), CAT (p < 0.001) and SOD (p < 0.001) activities and elevated MN frequency (p < 0.001) and LOO (p < 0.001) with increasing RF power density."
Thank you. It's nice to see references to real studies as opposed to the social logic saying 'It's the same as anti-vaxers, so there's no basis to that!'
Although we should always be studying potential risks, I have little concern.
Just keep it in perspective, you walk around outside under a nuclear fusion fireball receiving around 1000 watts of terahertz radiation some of it ionizing and known to cause cancer.
Wifi, Cell including 5G are in the Gigahertz range, non-ionizing, which means they can basically heat your flesh like a microwave and nothing more and are at milliwatt power levels from the phones transmitter and maybe a hundred watts from the towers transmitter.
This would be like worrying about what an led flashlight (the phone) or street light (the cell station) does to you.
It’s a difficult issue, as the people carrying the water on it tend to overlap with ignorant constituencies like anti-vaxers.
I know there was concern in the 90s about military exposure to millimeter wave radars, and I’ve never read anything credible about the outcome of whatever studies were done, good or bad. I know that the 24 GHz bands are part of 5G and also related to vehicle networks, so I assume that all major roads will be blanketed with coverage.
My biggest concern with 5G is the FCC declaring every telephone pole “critical infrastructure” and removing or limiting the ability of local governments set rules. In my city, the incompetent response on the city’s part means that Verizon is dropping poles in the optimal (from a cost/radio pov) spot, period. So people have wooden telephone poles in the middle of their lawn. A block from my house, they dropped a pole in the middle of the curb cut for crossing the street, 5 feet from another utility pole. (To avoid renting pole space)
I think 5G unsafe, because in 5G download data 20 times faster and some genuines is argue on them. Some Engineers are said that is safe some others unsafe. In Switzerland, objections are raised against every new antenna. They said it is unsafe for humans or birds also.
15 comments
[ 0.25 ms ] story [ 41.4 ms ] threadMy first uninformed impulse reaction:
More cell towers means lower signal strength which means less risk of health issues.
...so I'm not convinced of any issues so far.
Personally I'm more worried about the privacy concerns. There is money to be made from mass surveillance after all, I'm not sure what the motivation would be to give citizens a higher rate of cancer.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19595450
Except if you consider the "US department of health" as Russian agents:
"The NTP studies found that high exposure to RFR used by cell phones was associated with: 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."
https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/results/areas/cellphones/index.htm...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29530389
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006291X1...
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/298533689_Internati...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29459303
"The results also show that the peak-to-average ratio of 1,000 tolerated by the International Council on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection guidelines may lead to permanent tissue damage after even short exposures, highlighting the importance of revisiting existing exposure guidelines."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30247338
"Our results show that 5G downlink RF fields generate significantly higher power density (PD) and specific absorption rate (SAR) than a current cellular system. This paper also shows that SAR should also be taken into account for determining human RF exposure in the mmW downlink."
https://arxiv.org/abs/1711.03683
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016041201...
"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."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29402696
"The analysis of various antioxidants in the plasma of exposed individuals revealed a significant attrition in glutathione (GSH) concentration (p < 0.01), activities of catalase (CAT) (p < 0.001) and superoxide dismutase (SOD) (p < 0.001) and rise in lipid peroxidation (LOO) when compared to controls. Multiple linear regression analyses revealed a significant association among reduced GSH concentration (p < 0.05), CAT (p < 0.001) and SOD (p < 0.001) activities and elevated MN frequency (p < 0.001) and LOO (p < 0.001) with increasing RF power density."
...
Just keep it in perspective, you walk around outside under a nuclear fusion fireball receiving around 1000 watts of terahertz radiation some of it ionizing and known to cause cancer.
Wifi, Cell including 5G are in the Gigahertz range, non-ionizing, which means they can basically heat your flesh like a microwave and nothing more and are at milliwatt power levels from the phones transmitter and maybe a hundred watts from the towers transmitter.
This would be like worrying about what an led flashlight (the phone) or street light (the cell station) does to you.
I know there was concern in the 90s about military exposure to millimeter wave radars, and I’ve never read anything credible about the outcome of whatever studies were done, good or bad. I know that the 24 GHz bands are part of 5G and also related to vehicle networks, so I assume that all major roads will be blanketed with coverage.
My biggest concern with 5G is the FCC declaring every telephone pole “critical infrastructure” and removing or limiting the ability of local governments set rules. In my city, the incompetent response on the city’s part means that Verizon is dropping poles in the optimal (from a cost/radio pov) spot, period. So people have wooden telephone poles in the middle of their lawn. A block from my house, they dropped a pole in the middle of the curb cut for crossing the street, 5 feet from another utility pole. (To avoid renting pole space)
Want to know some health tips: https://www.fitnesshealthforever.com/