Petition to stop 5G trials in the Southwest UK

[MattPrime]

Came across this article whilst browsing information on 5G where I live in the UK .... Interesting points being raised!

 

https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/stop-the-trial-of-5g-on-the-isles-of-scilly-and-cornwall

 

Cheers

Matt

 

[Sakkura]

Moronic NIMBYism strikes again.

 

"We need conclusive proof that this newfangled thing isn't harmful, so stop testing it!"

[Brooksie359]

I honestly don't want 5g deployed around me. I don't see the need for it and it's just one more wavelength to interfere with things.  

[Noctus]

27 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

Moronic NIMBYism strikes again.

 

"We need conclusive proof that this newfangled thing isn't harmful, so stop testing it!"

You are the second person i've ever seen use that term, and the 1st was Billy "The Big Yin" Connolly back in a stand up like 25 years ago 

 

Not really relative, just brought back some nostalgia lol.

[MattPrime]

Do you think this is a talking point for the WAN Show?

[Fasauceome]

Quote

There are over 10,000 peer reviewed studies, which are mostly undertaken on 3G and 4G technology only, which show that there is a risk of harm to humans, flora and fauna on levels significantly lower than the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) Guidelines

This is a super subversive way of saying "there's no risk" but this is how you word it if you feel like cell phones cause cancer

 

Also @mhammonde you post doesn't meet the guidelines

[Brooksie359]

46 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

Moronic NIMBYism strikes again.

 

"We need conclusive proof that this newfangled thing isn't harmful, so stop testing it!"

I think most people wouldn't want to be the an unwilling test subject. If it turns out to be harmful then the people who had it tested on them would be harmed in the process. Why would anyone want that role?

[Ralphred]

5 minutes ago, fasauceome said:

This is a super subversive way of saying "there's no risk" but this is how you word it if you feel like cell phones cause cancer

I don't read it that way. The ICNIRP only quantifies exposure in the guidance (how depends of the frequency range) so to refer to a level assumes a level of exposure, not a level of harm. With that in mind it reads as "There are even risks with exposure levels below ICNIRP exposure guidelines".

Further proof on this would be reading the guidance's "Quantities and Units" section, which at no point quantifies risk or harm.

 

IMHO if they want to test this shit then do it on top of the executive HQ building, and make sure to have lots of forms of interference to make the most of the harmonics.

[Ithanul]

 

2 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

I honestly don't want 5g deployed around me. I don't see the need for it and it's just one more wavelength to interfere with things.  

More like everything else interferes with it.

 

Also, article is misleading on the freq bands.  The 5G standard is to use the 28 and 39 GHz band which is within the millimeter wave band of freqs.  Plus, a a second lower frequency range in the microwave band, below 6 GHz, will be used by providers (seems most are planning to use the 3.5GHz band).  So this up to 100GHz band stated in the article is silly (about the highest I found was some may use the 71GHz band in the US).  Currently the 28, 37, and 39 GHz are licensed for use in the US.  Oh, and Verizon been using the 28GHz band already.

 

Plus, these folks better not buy any 802.11ax routers or future 802.11ad routers then if they throwing a fit over 5G.  Oh, and don't use the wireless Vive headset either, that uses the 60GHz band.

 

And here is the hum dinger of using this range of bands: millimeter waves are absorbed by gases in the atmosphere and have shorter range than microwaves. The waves also have trouble passing through building walls.

[Teddy07]

I also do not want 5G around me

[SpaceGhostC2C]

1 hour ago, Sakkura said:

Moronic NIMBYism strikes again.

 

"We need conclusive proof that this newfangled thing isn't harmful, so stop testing it!"

Well, testing does not need to imply testing out in the wild. I'm not saying this is like back in the day, and the folks seem more worried about wildlife than people being affected, but the point remains that because you need a test it doesn't mean that you need/want this test (I'm not arguing for or against this test, but the complaint isn't as stupid as you suggest).

 

 

55 minutes ago, fasauceome said:

This is a super subversive way of saying "there's no risk" but this is how you word it if you feel like cell phones cause cancer

I agree with:

22 minutes ago, Ralphred said:

I don't read it that way. The ICNIRP only quantifies exposure in the guidance (how depends of the frequency range) so to refer to a level assumes a level of exposure, not a level of harm. With that in mind it reads as "There are even risks with exposure levels below ICNIRP exposure guidelines".

In other words, they are saying that current thresholds aren't effective to prevent harm to humans, as the literature they cite has documented actual harm being done by waves significantly below those thresholds (or so they claim). 

To make an analogy, it's as if you established  a 10mg cap of substance A per liter of water, and someone showed that 1mg per liter is already enough to poison you.

[TechyBen]

1 hour ago, fasauceome said:

This is a super subversive way of saying "there's no risk" but this is how you word it if you feel like cell phones cause cancer

 

Also @mhammonde you post doesn't meet the guidelines

They do. As much as anything else does. Bananas, the Sun, Air and water... metal and plastics, wood and dirt.

 

[Guest]

Their tin foil hats should stop the harmful 5G

[HarryNyquist]

1 hour ago, RorzNZ said:

Their tin foil hats should stop the harmful 5G

Yes. In fact, let's make them perfect parabolas so any errant microwaves get shoved directly into their heads.

[Syntaxvgm]

The fact that these people think 5G will give them any more cancer than existence itself right now means they must have brain damage from all the 4G. 

[thinwalrus]

7 minutes ago, Syntaxvgm said:

The fact that these people think 5G will give them any more cancer than existence itself right now means they must have brain damage from all the 4G. 

Do you think we could make people vaccinate their kids and fasten the move to 5G networks by just simply making fake news on how 3G gave children autism?

[imreloadin]

Fun Fact of the Day: being alive is the greatest contributing factor to getting cancer...

[Fasauceome]

1 minute ago, thinwalrus said:

Do you think we could make people vaccinate their kids and fasten the move to 5G networks by just simply making fake news on how 3G gave children autism?

We could make fake studies that 5G cures the autism that vaccines give you, so then conspiracy theory parents will vaccinate their kids and then get a 5G phone

[Syntaxvgm]

1 minute ago, thinwalrus said:

Do you think we could make people vaccinate their kids and fasten the move to 5G networks by just simply making fake news on how 3G gave children autism?

dont even open the floodgates. 

[LAwLz]

4 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

I honestly don't want 5g deployed around me. I don't see the need for it and it's just one more wavelength to interfere with things.  

People in 2000 didn't see the need for a 1GHz processor either.

Luckily for us, the ignorant people at that time were ignored and we created those processors anyway, and now it would be considered essentially unusable because they are so slow by our modern standards.

 

As for interference, 5G will run on really high frequencies such as 14GHz and 26GHz. Very low interference is actually one of the good things about 5G. Since the range isn't that long, you can build multiple microcells which won't interfere with one another, and thus pump up the modulation and channel width greatly (400MHz channels are supported, which theoretically has a data rate of 40Gbps).

It fixes one of the major issues with 4G, which is that once you add a big enough mass of people (like a concert) then the speeds goes to shit because you can't just add more towers (adds interference), but all those people are too much for a single tower to handle.

[yian88]

4 hours ago, Sakkura said:

Moronic NIMBYism strikes again.

 

"We need conclusive proof that this newfangled thing isn't harmful, so stop testing it!"

You are wrong, EM and strong radio waves are harfmul to health, tinfoil aside why would we implement 5G if we dont actually know its health risks.

Im currently entering a course to learn welding certified and one of the things i learned about just recently is the new EU law about EMF emitted from welding and its health hazzards its no joke this is serious health risk, im looking into shielding clothes for this one, i will be an actual walking tinfoil on the job. 

 

How do we know that the smaller EMF from 5G isnt harfmul if other forms of EMF are? its proven your phone EMF/radio is harfmul when you hold it next to your head so discarding 5G risks makes you the ignorant moron here.

The cities have become extreme pollution clusterfucks, car emission , concrete and other substances from the buildings, hundrets of EMF/wifi/radio waves from all directions and now add more to the mix cause who cares if we are already full of cancer whats adding 1 more.

[LAwLz]

14 minutes ago, yian88 said:

its proven your phone EMF/radio is harfmul when you hold it next to your head so discarding 5G risks makes you the ignorant moron here.

Source?

[mr moose]

21 minutes ago, yian88 said:

You are wrong, EM and strong radio waves are harfmul to health, tinfoil aside why would we implement 5G if we dont actually know its health risks.

Im currently entering a course to learn welding certified and one of the things i learned about just recently is the new EU law about EMF emitted from welding and its health hazzards its no joke this is serious health risk, im looking into shielding clothes for this one, i will be an actual walking tinfoil on the job. 

 

How do we know that the smaller EMF from 5G isnt harfmul if other forms of EMF are? its proven your phone EMF/radio is harfmul when you hold it next to your head so discarding 5G risks makes you the ignorant moron here.

The cities have become extreme pollution clusterfucks, car emission , concrete and other substances from the buildings, hundrets of EMF/wifi/radio waves from all directions and now add more to the mix cause who cares if we are already full of cancer whats adding 1 more.

Funny thing is we have had an increase in the use of cell phones next to the head and welders in industry in an order of magnitude multiplied,  and yet no increase in any observable cancers or health risks.  Not sure what evidence you purport to have seen but it likely doesn't stand up to 60 years of observational data.

[yian88]

Just now, LAwLz said:

Source?

If you need a source for that you havent been paying enough attention

 

Even some phone's manual says you should keep your phone a few inches from your body/head/ reproductive organs and i know this since old 2007 when i first found out about 3G.

 

This website is the best i know of and its well explained with links to reasearch, read the QA on this page and there is plenty of links to studies:

https://ehtrust.org/key-issues/cell-phoneswireless/cell-phones/

 

 

[Sakkura]

32 minutes ago, yian88 said:

You are wrong, EM and strong radio waves are harfmul to health, tinfoil aside why would we implement 5G if we dont actually know its health risks.

Im currently entering a course to learn welding certified and one of the things i learned about just recently is the new EU law about EMF emitted from welding and its health hazzards its no joke this is serious health risk, im looking into shielding clothes for this one, i will be an actual walking tinfoil on the job. 

 

How do we know that the smaller EMF from 5G isnt harfmul if other forms of EMF are? its proven your phone EMF/radio is harfmul when you hold it next to your head so discarding 5G risks makes you the ignorant moron here.

The cities have become extreme pollution clusterfucks, car emission , concrete and other substances from the buildings, hundrets of EMF/wifi/radio waves from all directions and now add more to the mix cause who cares if we are already full of cancer whats adding 1 more.

Welding emits electromagnetic radiation, which can be harmful because it's in the ultraviolet part of the spectrum. That's very, very far from the electromagnetic radiation used in 5G communications. And no, that from 5G is not "smaller" - the wavelength is thousands of times larger.

 

Welding also creates magnetic fields, which there is also an exposure limit on. But 5G does not create magnetic fields (or at least they're so exceedingly feeble there's no point even talking about it).