5G - health hazard?

fryup

The hippies and eco warriors are getting their knickers in a twist about 5g and the apparent health ramifications from it.

do they have a point?

None whatsoever.

"Absolutely no 5G anywhere ! It would nuke everyone everywhere ! Most insane idea ever in the history of the world !" Some insightful commentary.

dan1895

They remind me of anti-vaxxers

Trigger Happy

This has been going on since 088 numbers first came out. But here we are...no brain cancer after 25 years of mobiling.

alchemist33

Remember when 1G was supposed to give us all cancer?

Yer Da sells Avon

I know nothing about it, other than the fact that the people getting their knickers in a twist over it are the very same people who get their knickers in a twist about chemtrails, fluoride and vaccinations. That alone has convinced me not to worry about it.

Force Carrier

alchemist33 wrote: »

Remember when 1G was supposed to give us all cancer?

But this is five times more :eek:

banie01

Jesus H Christ!

There is zero credible evidence to support their claims.
As for the water absorbing EMF, what does it do with it?
Ask a radio network engineer about the issues lakes can cause with cellular coverage.
This are the same wagons who will bang on about Vaccines, Big Pharma and homeopathy!

I'm always happy to review actual evidence and where needed adjust my views or support change to protect health.
That said, I've yet to come across any evidence supporting this nutters stance!

It was the same issue with 4G and with WiFi.
If 5g is so harmful one would wonder why the entire isn't a cancer ridden wasteland given the years of MMDS and Deflector transmission systems were used.
Let alone UHF Television.....

The internet is a wonderful thing, unfortunately those idiots that used to be so easily ignored!
Are now using it to band together and drown out rationality!

Junkyard Tom

alchemist33

Force Carrier wrote: »

But this is five times more :eek:

F*CKING HELL, IT IS!! :eek:

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

April Fools Day.

paleoperson

banie01 wrote: »

Jesus H Christ!

There is zero credible evidence to support their claims.
As for the water absorbing EMF, what does it do with it?
Ask a radio network engineer about the issues lakes can cause with cellular coverage.
This are the same wagons who will bang on about Vaccines, Big Pharma and homeopathy!

I'm always happy to review actual evidence and where needed adjust my views or support change to protect health.
That said, I've yet to come across any evidence supporting this nutters stance!

It was the same issue with 4G and with WiFi.
If 5g is so harmful one would wonder why the entire isn't a cancer ridden wasteland given the years of MMDS and Deflector transmission systems were used.
Let alone UHF Television.....

The internet is a wonderful thing, unfortunately those idiots that used to be so easily ignored!
Are now using it to band together and drown out rationality!

You know what's even more more insufferable than anti-vaxxers are the "professional skeptics" like you, stinking up every discussion with posts like that which show nothing and are just about shouting from your soapbox how great you are and how awful it is that you have to put up with those types.... with the barest clue of the relevant science or research of course and yet all the while so confident in your pronouncements.

5G has genuine health concerns. It is not proven that it causes a clear amount of cancer yet but should be outlawed.

paleoperson

paleoperson wrote: »

It is not proven that it causes a clear amount of cancer yet but should be outlawed.

There isn't any substance to this argument.

banie01

paleoperson wrote: »

You know what's even more more insufferable than anti-vaxxers are the "professional skeptics" like you, stinking up every discussion with posts like that which show nothing and are just about shouting from your soapbox how great you are and how awful it is that you have to put up with those types.... with the barest clue of the relevant science or research of course.

5G has genuine health concerns. It is not proven that it causes a clear amount of cancer yet but should be outlawed.

Tell you what, present peer reviewed research that supports the fact that exposure to frequencies in the UHF range increase the incidence of cancer?

Fairly simple request.

The radio band 5G uses has been used for decades for TV and radio transmission, walkie talkies, CB and numerous other uses without raising the spectre of bandwagogonning NIMBY idiots....

What's changed in the new use of this particular spectrum that makes it dangerous?

Please?
Explain what makes it dangerous now?

EmmetSpiceland

banie01 wrote: »

Explain what makes it dangerous now?

Nothing whatsoever.

There’s a lot of nonsense going around that it’s killed hundreds of birds or that millions of trees have to be cut down.

This is just more ludicrous misinformation being propagated by the Chemtrails O’Ploterty types.

paleoperson

banie01 wrote: »

Tell you what, present peer reviewed research that supports the fact that exposure to frequencies in the UHF range increase the incidence of cancer?

I think I can see where our disagreement is coming from now - it stems from how you don't have the slightest ****ing clue.

5G extends into the EHF (Extremely High Frequency) wavelengths, that's the point.

banie01 wrote: »

The radio band 5G uses has been used for decades for TV and radio transmission, walkie talkies, CB and numerous other uses without raising the spectre of bandwagogonning NIMBY idiots....

What's changed in the new use of this particular spectrum that makes it dangerous?

Please?
Explain what makes it dangerous now?

This is what I'm talking about. Look at you on your soap box, repeatedly asking the same question, acting like you're some sort of enlightened individual surrounded by idiots.

You apparently didn't even know that 5G is in the EHF spectrum. You haven't got a monkies what you're on about.

kneemos

5G Baby!

banie01

paleoperson wrote: »

I think I can see where our disagreement is coming from now - it stems from how you don't have the slightest ****ing clue.

5G extends into the EHF (Extremely High Frequency) wavelengths, that's the point.



This is what I'm talking about. Look at you on your soap box, repeatedly asking the same question, acting like you're some sort of enlightened individual surrounded by idiots.

You apparently didn't even know that 5G is in the EHF spectrum. You haven't got a monkies what you're on about.

So you are one of the Band Wagoners who resorts to name calling?

I'm not calling you an idiot btw, merely asking what supports your position?

Yea it does extend into EHF, the low end all the same but again.
The Irish spectrum in particular extends to 3.6ghz
Now let's ask ourselves what else uses those ranges?
Or did...
TV.

So can you just provide the data I asked for?
Or explain what is particularly dangerous about 3.6ghz?
That isn't dangerous about 900mhz? 1800mhz? 2.4ghz or 5ghz ?

What research is available to confirm that the spectrum designated for 5g in Ireland, is opening a Pandora's box of weird ailments?

Charles Ingles

alchemist33 wrote: »

Remember when 1G was supposed to give us all cancer?

Cancer rates never been so high.
Maybe use Mobile phones is part of this.

McMurphy

alchemist33 wrote: »

Remember when 1G was supposed to give us all cancer?

I'm serious as 5G when I say rhythm is a dancer.

banie01

Charles Ingles wrote: »

Cancer rates never been so high.
Maybe use Mobile phones is part of this.

Cancer is often a function of ageing.
Cellular mutation introduced as cells divide.
Life expectancy has also never been so high, ergo if people could just conveniently live less long...
Cancer rates would plummet

kneemos

I remember when the protests against mobile masts turned into protests for more mobile masts.

dan1895

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

I'm serious as 5G when I say rhythm is a dancer.

Laughed too much at this even though it's not funny

JohnnyFlash

Free Ben Gilroy.

Charles Ingles

banie01 wrote: »

Cancer is often a function of ageing.
Cellular mutation introduced as cells divide.
Life expectancy has also never been so high, ergo if people could just conveniently live less long...
Cancer rates would plummet

I know a lot of young people who died from cancer

Ineedaname

People really need to learn the difference between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation.

Radio waves, microwaves and infra-red waves are all non-ionizing. They will never give you cancer. They just don't have enough energy

banie01

Charles Ingles wrote: »

I know a lot of young people who died from cancer

A lot?
Are you radioactive?

Charles Ingles

banie01 wrote: »

A lot?
Are you radioactive?

I know seven people of died of cancer before they were thirty.
Hilarious quip though.

banie01

Charles Ingles wrote: »

I know seven people of died of cancer before they were thirty.
Hilarious quip though.

The quip was far from hilarious I'll grant.

But let's take your example of 7 under 30 dying of cancer.
In any statistical review that would be quite a significant cluster.
Has there been any review of proximate or casual factors?
What common factors apart from you, were there?

Pherekydes

paleoperson wrote: »

You apparently didn't even know that 5G is in the EHF spectrum. You haven't got a monkies what you're on about.

We don't have a monkey's, but you and Gemma know all about it, eh?

What is it about a RF wave that does damage? Is it the frequency or the energy? Which will heat food quicker, a 600w oven or a 900w oven?

paw patrol

you won't be laughing when the Chinese use Huawei to control all the machines that use 5G and kill us.

The Chinese are literally Skynet.

Charles Ingles

banie01 wrote: »

The quip was far from hilarious I'll grant.

But let's take your example of 7 under 30 dying of cancer.
In any statistical review that would be quite a significant cluster.
Has there been any review of proximate or casual factors?

Honestly I'm convinced it was to do with one of two things.
Small cluster on East coast
Either cernobal or ESB masts in close proximity to homes.

Timberrrrrrrr

paw patrol wrote: »

you won't be laughing when the Chinese use Huawei to control all the machines that use 5G and kill us.

The Chinese are literally Skynet.

Spice bags will kill you faster than 5G

banie01

paw patrol wrote: »

you won't be laughing when the Chinese use Huawei to control all the machines that use 5G and kill us.

This is a much more likely doomsday scenario than EMF "infected/affected" water.

banie01

Charles Ingles wrote: »

Honestly I'm convinced it was to do with one of two things.
Small cluster on East coast
Either cernobal or ESB masts in close proximity to homes.

East Coast, could be related to Chernobyl or Sellafield particularly if outdoorsy or fishing or similar.

mcmoustache

paleoperson wrote: »

You apparently didn't even know that 5G is in the EHF spectrum. You haven't got a monkies what you're on about.

What's so bad about being on the EHF spectrum? Is it scary because it's Extremely High Frequency?

Well, I have some news for you which will blow your mind.

EHF is in the range 30 GHz - 300 GHz. As you can see, these are clearly big numbers because they have Giga in them.

Now, let's go higher and even more extreme. Let's go whole hog and go to the Tera Hertz frequencies. If you've ever owned a hard drive, you'll know that tera is bigger than giga. In fact it's about a thousand times bigger than giga.

Would you be more comfortable with frequencies of around 430 THz to 770 THz or would you find these too Extreme? You may be alarmed to learn that these frequencies are everywhere all around you. In fact, you're staring right into these frequencies as you read this.

Would you also agree that we should ban these THz frequencies until we know what's going on?

paleoperson

banie01 wrote: »

Yea it does extend into EHF, the low end all the same but again.
The Irish spectrum in particular extends to 3.6ghz
Now let's ask ourselves what else uses those ranges?
Or did...
TV.

So can you just provide the data I asked for?
Or explain what is particularly dangerous about 3.6ghz?
That isn't dangerous about 900mhz? 1800mhz? 2.4ghz or 5ghz ?

What research is available to confirm that the spectrum designated for 5g in Ireland, is opening a Pandora's box of weird ailments?

5ghz is worse than 3.6ghz because it penetrates more. It's more like an x-ray then, you're familiar with x-rays and how they give cancer, right?

There's plenty of research and theory indicating that these 5G frequencies may be harmful.

Try this:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12243-018-0696-6

Pherekydes wrote: »

We don't have a monkey's, but you and Gemma know all about it, eh?

What is it about a RF wave that does damage? Is it the frequency or the energy? Which will heat food quicker, a 600w oven or a 900w oven?

The energy.

mcmoustache wrote: »

What's so bad about being on the EHF spectrum? Is it scary because it's Extremely High Frequency?

That's part of why it's scary. Lower frequency wouldn't be as scary.

mcmoustache wrote: »

Well, I have some news for you which will blow your mind.

I don't think so little man. I had training in electrical engineering and am intimately familiar with all of this stuff and you have no idea what you're talking about. Nothing you said (or was said in this thread) had any new information for me and a lot of what was said was factually wrong.

L1011

paleoperson wrote: »

I had training in electrical engineering and am intimately familiar with all of this stuff and you have no idea what you're talking about..

I call absolute BS on this. Everything you've written so far is pseudoscience gibberish that doesn't even vaguely string together, which you've clearly ripped off somewhere random - unless the "training" was a few modules of a Level 5 FETAC course you didn't pay any attention to.

I have a BSc (Hons), and am a member of the IET

kneemos

People make up this shoite to sell crap to the gullible.

Ineedaname

paleoperson wrote: »

5ghz is worse than 3.6ghz because it penetrates more. It's more like an x-ray then, you're familiar with x-rays and how they give cancer, right? .

Not even close.

paleoperson wrote: »

I don't think so little man. I had training in electrical engineering and am intimately familiar with all of this stuff and you have no idea what you're talking about. Nothing you said (or was said in this thread) had any new information for me and a lot of what was said was factually wrong.

May want to get your money back.

Pherekydes

paleoperson wrote: »

The energy.

So why are you worried about the frequency?

It's the power of the wave that penetrates, not the frequency.

Just don't go hugging any radio transmitter masts and you'll be ok.

banie01

paleoperson wrote: »

5ghz is worse than 3.6ghz because it penetrates more. It's more like an x-ray then, you're familiar with x-rays and how they give cancer, right?

There's plenty of research and theory indicating that these 5G frequencies may be harmful.

Try this:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12243-018-0696-6

Regarding X-Rays and their radioactive isotope source.
Can you tell me if they are an op using or a non-ionising radiation source?

And which radio waves are?
And the difference?

You have the penetration reversed there.
The higher the frequency the less the radio wave penetrates.
It's why GSM 900 coverage is fairly ubiquitous whilst 3G and 4G at 1800mhz and 2100mhz have issues with walls and windows.

Similar situation with WiFi, where the 2.4ghz has more penetration and coverage around a building than the 5ghz band.

That's before the implication of metallised insulation and building materials is considered and their semi faraday effect particular in new build construction.

Can I ask you to explain if High and Ultra high frequencies have such great penetration capabilities, that it isn't used for sub surface communication?
Take submarines as an example and their use of the highly penetrating ELF spectrum?


PS: Just realized you are talking about soft tissue penetration rather than actual reception/propogation.
Other points stand tho.

paleoperson

L1011 wrote: »

I call absolute BS on this. Everything you've written so far is pseudoscience gibberish that doesn't even vaguely string together, which you've clearly ripped off somewhere random - unless the "training" was a few modules of a Level 5 FETAC course you didn't pay any attention to.

I have a BSc (Hons), and am a member of the IET

Get outta here you little tinker.

What are you talking about? I didn't rip anything off anywhere. I'm talking from what I know, you are dead wrong.

Show me anything I've said you have a problem with? Anything at all.

I have respect for the IET, I am mystified by your post.

Pherekydes wrote: »

So why are you worried about the frequency?

It's the power of the wave that penetrates, not the frequency.

Just don't go hugging any radio transmitter masts and you'll be ok.

The shorter the wave the greater the penetrating force as everyone knows.


Guys, I think you need a little bit of cop on here, and to stop tripping over yourselves.

There is a legitimate and valid question over 5G waves, and that is why the EU and WHO are investing in research in an attempt to determine it one way or another.


What a stupid waste of time this discussion is for me.

BeerWolf

5G is considerably shorter ranged, requiring amplifiers to boost the signal. That's where their concerns are coming from.

paleoperson

BeerWolf wrote: »

5G is considerably shorter ranged, requiring amplifiers to boost the signal. That's where their concerns are coming from.

And the fact that it's shorter wavelength, and the fact that unlike passive receivers like tvs you are not just tuning into a frequency, every device is generating one.

L1011

paleoperson wrote: »

What a stupid waste of time this discussion is for me.

Because you've had your digital pants pulled down by people who know what they're talking about?

Everything you have said is nonsense, basically. Nonsense fed to you by someone else most likely, because you sure as hell don't understand what you're writing.

5Ghz "more like an X-ray" is the top of the pile so far.

Sephiroth_dude

Mod


paleoperson don't post in this thread again.

Pherekydes

Sephiroth_dude wrote: »

Mod


paleoperson don't post in this thread again.

But it was fun. :pac:

dudara

paleoperson wrote: »

What a stupid waste of time this discussion is for me.

The interaction of electromagnetic waves and matter is quite complex and varies quite a lot depending where you are on the frequency spectrum. Reflectivity, amplitude and leakage also comes into play. A lot of variables to be taken into account before we can conclude.

mcmoustache

paleoperson wrote: »

5ghz is worse than 3.6ghz because it penetrates more. It's more like an x-ray then, you're familiar with x-rays and how they give cancer, right?

This is comedy gold. Here, I'll help. Here's the electromagnetic spectrum. You might notice that EHF frequencies are just below visible light and are non-ionizing.


X-rays are above visible light and are ionizing.


So these frequencies that you are worried about are not like X rays at all. In fact they are more like my red jumper than Xrays.

paleoperson wrote: »

I don't think so little man. I had training in electrical engineering and am intimately familiar with all of this stuff and you have no idea what you're talking about. Nothing you said (or was said in this thread) had any new information for me and a lot of what was said was factually wrong.

If you have been trained in this, then you should demand your money back. I spent two minutes on wikipedia and have already demonstrated a better understanding of electromagnetism than whatever it is that you think you understand.

Capt'n Midnight

Let's just ban Sunlight. It's known to cause cancer.