5G - health hazard?

Signore Fancy Pants · 09-04-2019 10:06PM

If I have a 4G phone in each hand, do I have 8G?

Am I going to die from too many G's?

fryup · 09-04-2019 10:28PM

^^^^^^^^^^^^

only if it hits your G spot

Anteayer · 09-04-2019 10:34PM

AllForIt wrote: »

I'm much more concerned about car exhaust fumes than radio waves. I think when (not in most of our lifetime) that fossil fuel is replaced as an energy source for automotive vehicles the true extent of the damage it has done to everyone's health will be revealed.

When you think that we had Tetraethyllead in petrol until the 1990s!

In the US lead in blood dropped from 16 μg/dL in 1976 to only 3 μg/dL in 1991 due to the removal of leaded fuels.

It's almost unthinkable that we ever had a situation where lead was being put into fuels and spewed into the air, but it was accepted as normal from the 1920s until the 1990s!

I'd say we'll be looking back at particulates from diesel and so on in a similar way in 20+ years time.

Impetus · 09-04-2019 10:50PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

EVERYTHING is a combination of elements. EVERYTHING.

One did not claim that everything is not a combination of elements.

As far as humans and animals are concerned, their bodies can probably deal with most things that have existed for a thousand or more years. Not so however for some recent arrivals. Be they chemical compounds (composed of elements) or stuff like EMF, especially at high power and short proximity.

Impetus · 09-04-2019 10:57PM

When I was about 5 y/o, when one went to a 'shoe shop' in IE, one put on a new pair of shoes, and one's feet were X-rayed to check fit. This abuse of X-Rays would be incredible negligence today.

Idiotic.

Put on a pair of shoes, and one can tell if the fit is right. No need for 'technology'.

How dumb/naive English speaking people were/are! This dumb naive attitude continues today in dozens of issues. I don't wish to go 'off-topic' here.

gctest50 · 09-04-2019 11:03PM

Anteayer wrote: »

When you think that we had Tetraethyllead in petrol until the 1990s!

In the US lead in blood dropped from 16 μg/dL in 1976 to only 3 μg/dL in 1991 due to the removal of leaded fuels.

...............

You can't just take Tetraethyllead out of petrol and not replace it with something, yer engine will knock itself to bits.

Replaced with Benzene, mtbe and friends

Some people who were exposed to MTBE while pumping gasoline, driving their cars, or working as attendants or mechanics at gas stations complained of headaches, nausea, dizziness, irritation of the nose or throat, and feelings of spaciness or confusion. These symptoms were reported when high levels of MTBE were added to gasoline in order to lower the amount of carbon monoxide, a known poison, released from cars. MTBE has a very unpleasant odor that most people can smell before any harmful effects would occur, but some people might feel irritation of the nose or throat before noticing the smell. MTBE caused side effects in some patients who were given MTBE to dissolve gallstones. The MTBE is given to these patients through special tubes that are placed into their gallbladders. If MTBE leaks from the gallbladder into other areas of the body, the patient can have minor liver damage, a lowering of the amount of white blood cells, nausea, vomiting, sleepiness, dizziness, and confusion. These effects are not long-lasting.
We know more about how MTBE affects the health of animals than the health of humans. Some rats and mice died after they breathed high amounts of MTBE, but these levels were much higher than people are likely to be exposed to. MTBE also caused irritation to the noses and throats of animals that breathed MTBE. The most common effect of MTBE in animals is on their nervous systems. Breathing MTBE at high levels can cause animals to act as if they are drunk. For example, some became less active, staggered, fell down, were unable to get up, and had partially closed eyelids. These effects lasted only for about an hour, and then the animals seemed normal again. Some animals that breathed high levels of MTBE for several hours a day for several weeks gained less weight than normal, probably because they ate less food while they were inactive. When rats breathed high levels of MTBE for several hours every day for two years, some got more serious kidney disease than these rats usually get as they grow old. Some of the male rats developed cancer in the kidney, but whether this has meaning for people is not known. When mice breathed high levels of MTBE for several hours every day for a year and a half, some had larger livers than normal, and some mice developed tumors in the liver. When rats were given high levels of MTBE by mouth for 2 years, some male rats developed cancer in the testes and some female rats developed cancer of the blood (leukemia) and cancer (lymphoma) of some of the tissues that produce blood cells. The Department of Health and Human Services (DHSS), the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), and the EPA have not classified MTBE for its ability to cause cancer. When pregnant rats, rabbits, or mice breathed MTBE, birth defects occurred only in the baby mice. We do not know if this has any relevance for people. MTBE did not affect the animals' ability to reproduce.

Impetus · 09-04-2019 11:23PM

gctest50 wrote: »

What are you measuring it with ?

I have several mobile phone apps. They are not perfect - but there is no smoke without fire etc in terms of EMF radiation. They are consistent based on where one has the phone and the app in use. Android phones have lots of sensors, especially for magnetism and RF. eg I was on an aircraft on Sunday (Boeing 737 - 3 months old) and the app indicated acceptable radiation (EMF) and very low RF (probably from the idiots who left their mobiles not in flight mode en route). Anyway, most of the EMF was noticed when the phone was placed near the 'fresh air' vents - where there was a fan, and reading lights and other electric gadgetery.

Suggest you visit your app store and search under EMF and RF.

Doing research, one finds that there is a lot of EMF radiation in the few countries that use 3 pin flat sockets connected to a ring main - which is standard practice in poorly engineered, want to do things the wrong way, countries such as GB, IRL, MT and CY.

On the continent, every socket and lamp is connected to a trip switch, usually with a low amp setting. Both blue and brown wires run in close proximity to cancel radiation. Trip switches operate far faster than fuses. Ireland was originally wired by Siemens using normal 2 pin + side earth sockets. The dumb civil service mafia in the 1960s decided to copy Britain's 3 pin flat sockets which incorporated old fashioned 'fuses' in the plug head. Just as fuses became obsolete.

As a result, every appliance has to be separately made for the Irish/GB market with its non-standard plug head. Irish mobile phone chargers have big clumpy plugs - whereas all other mobile phone standards in Europe use 2 pin tiny plugs. 99% of the time if there is a problem in a wiring system, the dumb fuse the the plug does not blow. Instead the trip switch goes. So there is no point in having fuses in the plug.

More importantly the ring main wiring system used in IRL and GB involves high amp cables running around a property, which can lead to EMF radiation at far higher levels than one would find on the continent.

Also plugs heat up when the appliance uses close to 3 kW/h of power - creating a fire risk. When the 3 pin plug was invented in GB, there was no plastic insulation on the plug prongs - allowing 15 amps to flow without an issue. People then started being electrocuted plugging in and out 3 pin flat plugs, so they decided to partially cover part of the prong with plastic. This reduced the mm2 of contact between the metal of the plug and the socket. This caused heating of the plug. Which can in the extreme cause a fire.

Dumb Oirish civil servants ignore the issue....

Not dissimilar to the phone plugs used in GB - which are non-standard. BT introduced the non-standard plug presumably to make it difficult for non-British phone manufacturers to compete with BT. They found out that kids liked to shove their fingers into the phone sockets... causing electrocution if the phone line was receiving a ringing signal. Instead of using the tried and tested RJ11 which was safe.

Many people scream about HV power lines running overhead. Not knowing that proximity is a big issue - if not the biggest issue. An overhead power line is typically 30 or so metres above ground. An underground power line is seldom 30 m deep or better. As a result underground power lines deliver a far more intense EMF at ground level. Wiring, especially badly designed wiring, in a building is much closer to the human than 30m, in terms of EMF impact on the body.

Impetus · 09-04-2019 11:25PM

gctest50 wrote: »

You can't just take Tetraethyllead out of petrol and not replace it with something, yer engine will knock itself to bits.

Replaced with Benzene, mtbe and friends

The Germanic language word for gasoline is benzine.

dxhound2005 · 09-04-2019 11:29PM

People are living so long now, that reaching 100 is not very unusual. There must have been a lot more hazards back in the old days when life expectancy was so much lower.

Hotblack Desiato · 09-04-2019 11:34PM

Impetus wrote: »

I get between 50 and 200 W on the terrace outside.

As if!

Capt'n Midnight · 09-04-2019 11:34PM

Igotadose wrote: »

Impetus wrote: »

I came across this interesting paper on EMF today.

http://www.iosrjournals.org/iosr-jmce/papers/ICRTEM/ME/Volume-4/IOSRME07.pdf

...

They'll apparently publish anything, just send the fee. And that paper you quote qualifies as 'they'll publish anything.' It's a series of statements with no backup other than handwaving about EMF, no references, no experiments, nada. Just proof by blatant assertion.

Holy sweet mother of **** that's advanced gibberish.

mobile phones etc, generates radiations of different frequencies which exists in our environment as electronic smog.
The defining characteristic of smog is that it doesn't move, EMF on the other hand travels at the fastest speed possible.

If we are a computer user, computer radiation may be our largest single source of electromagnetic radiation My laptop uses 30 Watts , most of which ends up heating the air. And most of the actual radiation from it is visible light from the screen.

Because of the duration of this exposure say, many hours a day, computer radiation is a real hazard
Bright sunlight is 1,000 Watts of radiation per square meter. A few minutes of sunlight is far worse than a day in front of a computer, even if you removed all the shielding from the computer

Computer contains power supplies, fans, drivers and other electrical units which generate ELF radiation strong enough to cause concern at distance up to about 60 cm. LOL , ELF is between 3 to 30 Hz. It's below mains electricity frequency.

Arms length is enough ? ELF wavelengths vary from 10,000Km to 100,000Km so the effects don't drop off much, until you move to another frickin' continent :mad:

[/RANT]

gctest50 · 09-04-2019 11:35PM

Impetus wrote: »

When I was about 5 y/o, when one went to a 'shoe shop' in IE, one put on a new pair of shoes, and one's feet were X-rayed to check fit. This abuse of X-Rays would be incredible negligence today.

.........

:eek: those yokes....... in 1 minute they gave 4 times the recommended yearly dose ( if you were working in a nuclear plant )

Hotblack Desiato · 09-04-2019 11:36PM

It was only a problem if you spoke English, apparaently.

gctest50 · 09-04-2019 11:41PM

Impetus wrote: »

The Germanic language word for gasoline is benzine.

It was Benzene ( C6H6 ) though was put in petrol to replace lead

http://www.epa.ie/air/quality/data/rm/bz/

Capt'n Midnight · 09-04-2019 11:43PM

gctest50 wrote: »

It was Benzene ( C6H6 ) though was put in petrol to replace lead

http://www.epa.ie/air/quality/data/rm/bz/

Nasty stuff. Nowadays toluene is used instead.

Toluene is the smell of impact adhesive.

Anteayer · 09-04-2019 11:56PM

Toluene would be not great to handle, but it would burn with the petrol - you can actually use it as a fuel. Lead is going to come out the exhaust, so it's a fairly massive improvement on a heavy metal just being spewed into the air.

It's one reason why working as a petrol pump attendant isn't a good idea. If you're just fuelling your own car, you're unlikely to be exposed to very much of it. If you're working all day pumping petrol, then you'd be getting a much higher dose.

If we're using fossil fuels compress natural gas and LPG would have been better alternatives and I'm not really seeing how they're drastically less explosive.

i57dwun4yb1pt8 · 10-04-2019 12:02AM

regarding electricity ,

at one stage i started waking up every morning with burning back pain / kidneypain , kinda like sun burn but inside !

could not figure out why, was it a food or drink or what , or an infection

by chance after a few weeks
i re organised my bed room and moved the side lamp ( small high power halogen with a big transformer ) away
and the pain stopped from then on

the transformer used to sit under the bed about 2- 2.5 feet under me .

i put it back a few nights later to be sure , and boom, back came the pain ....

next day the lamp went away for ever.

Anteayer · 10-04-2019 12:03AM

That could be completely coincidental e.g. you adjusted how you lay in bed or you even dislodged a small kidney stone. I'd investigate it more than just assuming it was the lamp.

But NEVER sleep with a transformer under your bed for fire hazard reasons! They produce heat and can be really shoddy piece of cheap electronics.

gctest50 · 10-04-2019 12:21AM

Anteayer wrote: »

That could be completely coincidental e.g. you adjusted how you lay in bed or you even dislodged a small kidney stone. I'd investigate it more than just assuming it was the lamp.
........

Or we're all getting sensitive to lectrickery because car exhausts :

We identify the abundant presence in the human brain of magnetite nanoparticles that match precisely the high-temperature magnetite nanospheres, formed by combustion and/or friction-derived heating, which are prolific in urban, airborne particulate matter (PM).
Because many of the airborne magnetite pollution particles are <200 nm in diameter, they can enter the brain directly through the olfactory nerve and by crossing the damaged olfactory unit.
This discovery is important because nanoscale magnetite can respond to external magnetic fields, and is toxic to the brain, being implicated in production of damaging reactive oxygen species (ROS).

https://www.pnas.org/content/113/39/10797

( the new alzheimers home near you will be sponsored by toyota, honda and friends )

Hotblack Desiato · 10-04-2019 12:38AM

It was the "Green" party which promoted diseasel.

Impetus · 10-04-2019 06:42PM

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

mobile phones etc, generates radiations of different frequencies which exists in our environment as electronic smog.
The defining characteristic of smog is that it doesn't move, EMF on the other hand travels at the fastest speed possible.

I don't believe speed had anything to do with it. Big Chinese cities can be very smoggy (smog = smoke + fog). It is a killer, and it is slow. An X-Ray can be a killer if one is over-exposed to same, and it is very fast.

No connection with damage done and speed of the cause of the damage.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

If we are a computer user, computer radiation may be our largest single source of electromagnetic radiation My laptop uses 30 Watts , most of which ends up heating the air. And most of the actual radiation from it is visible light from the screen.

Everybody in this forum is a computer user. I don't know what my notebook consumes, but it has a power supply of over 200w, which is not very comfortable while travelling. Before the computer came into widespread use, I think I slept better. It could be radiation or mind focus tiredness or a combination or something else?

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Because of the duration of this exposure say, many hours a day, computer radiation is a real hazard
Bright sunlight is 1,000 Watts of radiation per square meter. A few minutes of sunlight is far worse than a day in front of a computer, even if you removed all the shielding from the computer

I live in a very hot country - it can go up to 40C or more in Summer. Most people with roof space have either PV solar, or solar water heating or both. And the payback is quick. I remain in air conditioned buildings and drive an air conditioned car for most of the day. So my main radiation exposure is from inside.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Computer contains power supplies, fans, drivers and other electrical units which generate ELF radiation strong enough to cause concern at distance up to about 60 cm. LOL , ELF is between 3 to 30 Hz. It's below mains electricity frequency.

Arms length is enough ? ELF wavelengths vary from 10,000Km to 100,000Km so the effects don't drop off much, until you move to another frickin' continent :mad:

While radio waves, as an example, can travel long distances, particularly low frequency waves, the impact on the 'victim' reduces geometrically with their distance from the source. eg One can listen to a 'long wave' transmission from France in Ireland on the radio, with little risk of receiving damage to one's DNA or whatever from the transmitter.

[/RANT][/QUOTE]

I know it probably goes against your name, but 'early to bed and early to rise makes a person healthy'.... etc

Impetus · 10-04-2019 06:44PM

gctest50 wrote: »

It was Benzene ( C6H6 ) though was put in petrol to replace lead

http://www.epa.ie/air/quality/data/rm/bz/

Benzine is the name of the stuff in a gasoline pump.... eg in Germany.

Impetus · 10-04-2019 07:09PM

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

As if!

It is that wattage, and as a result the sound quality is excellent. So long as it remains under 1W inside, it does not bother me, based on current evidence.

It is in the most densely populated country in the EU. For internet I have 1 GB/sec fiber which costs me about 25 EUR a month for the first two years, probably 45 EUR thereafter.

I travel quite a bit and have unlimited phone calls from any European country to any European country (including non-EU) for about 55 EUR pm - including data and unlimited free textos. I try and not to use my mobile indoors, and use VoIP instead inside. There is no EMF radiation that I know of from fiber optic cables. Andorra has ripped out all copper cabling and everybody has fiber. Which is intelligent. Even for subscribers who don't want fiber TV or internet - they get a VoIP phone on fiber for EUR 4 per month. Last time I looked, Eir charge about EUR 30 for an PSTN line and even more for an ISDN line and do not publish a price for a SIP channel. As a result they (Andorra) have no duplication of infrastructure to maintain and renew. And low radiation. All done 10 years ago. Ireland has wasteful triplication of infrastructure. Thanks to dumb politicians and civil servant regulators. Eir fiber, Simo fiber and Eir copper. Despite all the replication, few people have fiber access (ie FTTP).

In Ireland, Siro.ie wired a road where I have a house I inherited about six months ago for fibre. I enquire once a month about service from the new infrastructure. Zilch.

A wasteful, pig inefficient sick country! Leaving all this new infrastructure 'rot' delivering service to nobody.

Hotblack Desiato · 10-04-2019 11:44PM

Feel free to GTFO of this 'pig inefficient sick country' any time you like

Igotadose · 25-05-2019 02:45PM

Some anti-5g crank gave a talk here yesterday (or maybe it's today, I didn't attend.) His acolytes were handing out flyers at the local farm market, and didn't like it when I accused their speaker of being a wanker with nothing to go on but scaremongering and cherry picked data (and this was before I actually knew anything about him.) I then taunted them with "I thought it was cosmic rays, or aluminium soaking us from airplane contrails.)
A friend with me pointed out that article in the NY times where they investigated Russia spreading disinformation about 5g in the US, but accelerating their own 5g deployment in Russia.

Anyway, I did feel bad about berating the guy, though not to his face. So I went and looked up his speaker, Professor Tom Butler of UCC.

Said professor is a professor of business computing or studies or some such. Not a physician or, apparently, a hard scientist (physics, mathematics). His research specialty is apparently 'agile computing,' which is a way to get people to work together better on software projects and has been the buzzword in IT organizations for some time. Anyway, none of that qualifies him to talk about 5g.

But, Prof. Butler did once write an editorial for their RTEran: https://www.rte.ie/brainstorm/2019/0417/1043133-why-everyday-wireless-technology-poses-a-health-risk-to-children/ . It's the usual hyperbolic CT kind of writing, but it does have a smattering of original sources. One of which, is the NTP study of cancer in rats due to exposure to high frequency radio: https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/high-exposure-radio-frequency-radiation-associated-cancer-male-rats

The cancers were in the hearts of male rats, not in female rats and that the evidence of cancer in female rats (or mice), was 'equivocal.'
And, said study hasn't been replicated yet. Plus it was bathing rats in 1-4x the maximum wifi exposure for something like 9 hours a day.

But, this guy's making the rounds in Ireland stirring up the natives against WiFi towers. Anyone know more about him, and what might be motivating ($$) him?

paleoperson · 25-05-2019 05:22PM

batgoat wrote: »

I have no business entering a discussion on a discussion forum? :pac: Simple thing, provide scientific evidence of some specific danger from 5g. A research paper or a WHO report for example? Go for it! Don't want to seem like a crank.

You don't want to seem like a crank - well good.

The electromagnetic fields produced by mobile phones are classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer as possibly carcinogenic to humans.

There you go. Straight from the horse's mouth, "possibly carcinogenic" (link is below).

Now please, for the love of all that is holy I hope you're not dumb enough to come back and say that because they didn't say beyond doubt that it causes cancer that I didn't satisfy your request.

Furthermore from the same page:

Long-term effects
Epidemiological research examining potential long-term risks from radiofrequency exposure has mostly looked for an association between brain tumours and mobile phone use. However, because many cancers are not detectable until many years after the interactions that led to the tumour, and since mobile phones were not widely used until the early 1990s, epidemiological studies at present can only assess those cancers that become evident within shorter time periods. However, results of animal studies consistently show no increased cancer risk for long-term exposure to radiofrequency fields.

Several large multinational epidemiological studies have been completed or are ongoing, including case-control studies and prospective cohort studies examining a number of health endpoints in adults. The largest retrospective case-control study to date on adults, Interphone, coordinated by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), was designed to determine whether there are links between use of mobile phones and head and neck cancers in adults.

The international pooled analysis of data gathered from 13 participating countries found no increased risk of glioma or meningioma with mobile phone use of more than 10 years. There are some indications of an increased risk of glioma for those who reported the highest 10% of cumulative hours of cell phone use, although there was no consistent trend of increasing risk with greater duration of use. The researchers concluded that biases and errors limit the strength of these conclusions and prevent a causal interpretation.

Based largely on these data, IARC has classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B), a category used when a causal association is considered credible, but when chance, bias or confounding cannot be ruled out with reasonable confidence.

While an increased risk of brain tumors is not established, the increasing use of mobile phones and the lack of data for mobile phone use over time periods longer than 15 years warrant further research of mobile phone use and brain cancer risk. In particular, with the recent popularity of mobile phone use among younger people, and therefore a potentially longer lifetime of exposure, WHO has promoted further research on this group. Several studies investigating potential health effects in children and adolescents are underway.

Exposure limit guidelines
Radiofrequency exposure limits for mobile phone users are given in terms of Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) – the rate of radiofrequency energy absorption per unit mass of the body. Currently, two international bodies 1, 2 have developed exposure guidelines for workers and for the general public, except patients undergoing medical diagnosis or treatment. These guidelines are based on a detailed assessment of the available scientific evidence.
.

https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/electromagnetic-fields-and-public-health-mobile-phones

I hope you're happy with this to show that yes there are possible risks and just because you don't see it doesn't mean it's not there.

Note that 5G wireless is objectively more likely to cause harm than earlier wireless technology which they are talking about there.

More evidence and arguments are described here:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935118300161

Here:

https://www.emfsa.co.za/news/can-non-ionizing-radiation-cause-cancer/

I note:

The empirical evidence clearly shows that NIR is carcinogenic despite the fact it doesn’t have enough energy to break chemical bonds. The International Agency for Research on Cancer needs to alter their designation of both ELF and RFR from a class 2b “possible carcinogen” to at least a class 2a “probable carcinogen.”

and finally here:

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/7032050

So like... no. You don't get to come in on your soap box and it's not where we all stand around laughing at the "fear mongerers". It's not like that, it's a different sort of issue entirely. It's one where there may in fact be an increase in cancer. Planks going around calling people cranks are incredibly damaging and like I said posers without a whit of sense or knowledge on the issue.

Even in the worst case scenario you're highly unlikely to get cancer from it. However evidence is pointing to it incrementally increasing the risk of it. Maybe you don't agree with that, but it's so absurd to just handwave it all away as cranks when the World Health Organization scientists and others are saying it's a potential carcinogen.

Imagine that guy interrupting Dr. Tom Butler, a professor at UCC and calling him a crank. That guy sitting at home typing on his computer about how this respected researcher in UCC is a crank. It just blows the mind how anyone could be that delusional.
.
.

ToddyDoody · 25-05-2019 05:51PM

5g of what?, I thought at first.

(5G)

Outlaw Pete · 25-05-2019 05:53PM

8G will be the death of us.

Cee-Jay-Cee · 25-05-2019 05:55PM

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

That may be true but you have to admit the number of young adults and children getting cancer appears to have rocketed in the last decade or so. It seems like every week I’m hearing of another young person that I know being diagnosed with cancer of some sort of other. It is most definitely not limited to old people any more.

KildareP · 25-05-2019 06:40PM

Cee-Jay-Cee wrote: »

That may be true but you have to admit the number of young adults and children getting cancer appears to have rocketed in the last decade or so. It seems like every week I’m hearing of another young person that I know being diagnosed with cancer of some sort of other. It is most definitely not limited to old people any more.

We're also seeing huge increases in aspergers, ADHD, autism, coeliac disease, flu, etc.
Some of it is that we are better able to detect and diagnose than before, coeliac is a good example, before you'd just be the fussy lad with a dicky tummy whereas now it can be officially diagnosed. It doesn't necessarily mean a direct increase in cases, only an increase in observed cases. You can have cancer growth in the prostate or from asbestosis and yet live happily for decades but it's easily diagnosed today.

We are also as a society becoming increasingly sedentary, having children later, eating more meat, drinking alcohol more, smoking (cigarettes and e-cigs), and seeing record high outputs of diesel exhaust. Many of which are known to increase the risk of developing cancer or to be carcinogenic themselves.

To therefore point at wireless technologies as being the "newest" change and therefore lay the entirety of blame for increasing cancer rates solely on its doorstep is a little silly.

As someone mentioned previously we've used the 700MHz (UHF) and 2GHz (MMDS) bands for TV as well as the 3GHz band for point-to-point transmission for decades now. In the case of TV, 100kW or more of raw RF power. Putting 5G on-air in those bands doesn't suddenly create a new risk - at the end of the day you're just modulating an RF carrier with data.

Besides the fact that the further away from a mast you are the harder your phone has to work to transmit back to it - the closest a joe soap can physically get to the most intense point of the RF source on a mast is probably 10-15 metres, whereas for most people the phone is practically attached to the body for almost all their waking hours.

5G - health hazard?

Comments