Samsung and Verizon are working on a 5G Smartphone even though a peer review of a study shows it could give rats cancer

[AlTech]

TheVerge reports that Samsung and Verizon are working on a 5G Smartphone despite the fact that 5G can give rats and potentially humans cancer.

 

Quote

Verizon and Samsung have announced plans to release a 5G smartphone in the first half of 2019, representing what will be one of the most high-profile US debuts for the new mobile networking standard. There aren’t any details yet on the device itself, but Bloomberg previously reported that the two companies were in talks to bring a 5G version of the upcoming Galaxy S10 to the US.

Samsung and Verizon will be attending Qualcomm’s Snapdragon Technology Summit in Hawaii this week, and will have a proof-of-concept phone using Qualcomm’s X50 5G modem on hand. Separately, Samsung is developing its own 5G modem, the Exynos 5100, which will presumably be used for international 5G variants of the Galaxy S10 based around Exynos processors. Samsung recently announced the Exynos 9820 system-on-chip that will almost certainly power those devices.

 

Some of you might be upset with me over the 2nd part of the title but it should be known that there is a possibility that using the upcoming phone could give you cancer.

 

Earlier this year a peer review of a study found that 5G could cause cancer and/or cause health effects to rats and/or humans.

Quote

an independent peer review of the US National Toxicology Program’s cell phone study announced their findings of clear evidence that cell phone radiation causes cancer

 

Quote

Firefighters from San Francisco say that they began experiencing an array of unusual side effects — after 5G equipment was installed in and around their firehouses. Symptoms reportedly included memory problems and confusion. The firefighters say the symptoms only stopped after they relocated to different fire stations without 5G devices nearby.

It’s not just the firefighters, either. In Gateshead, England, scientist Mark Steele says that there’s been an uptick in reproductive issues and other health problems since the city’s new wireless streetlights were installed. Miscarriages, still births, nosebleeds and insomnia are among the consequences he’s reportedly observed in the community

 

What we really need is government agencies like the FDA and others to do thorough testing and determine in an unbiased fashion whether 5G and cell phones in general cause cancer.

 

If it is found that 5G causes cancer, 5G should be stopped and a new standard should be created which improves upon LTE without giving people cancer.

[Ashley MLP Fangirl]

welp there goes humanity. 

 

imagine history teachings on an alien planet like the human species was so obsessed with mobile data speed they were willing to sacrifice their planet for it. 

[AlTech]

Just now, Finwillwin said:

Their (The Verge's) PC building video gave me cancer!

No but this is real cancer we're talking about .

 

100% serious post.

[PlayStation 2]

Warning labels required for California doesn't mean it gives cancer. /s

[captain_to_fire]

12 minutes ago, AluminiumTech said:

What we really need is government agencies like the FDA and others to do thorough testing and determine in an unbiased fashion whether 5G and cell phones in general cause cancer.

In animals? Yes especially mice. I think the title is misleading. 

 

“The levels and duration of exposure to RFR were much greater than what people experience with even the highest level of cell phone use, and exposed the rodents’ whole bodies. So, these findings should not be directly extrapolated to human cell phone usage,” said John Bucher, Ph.D., NTP senior scientist. “We note, however, that the tumors we saw in these studies are similar to tumors previously reported in some studies of frequent cell phone users.” (Emphasis is mine) https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/high-exposure-radiofrequency-radiation-linked-tumor-activity-male-rats 

 

I encourage everyone to actually read the primary source before jumping into conclusions https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/about_ntp/trpanel/2018/march/peerreview20180328_508.pdf

 

 

Edit: I still stand to what I’ve said months ago. https://linustechtips.com/main/profile/277318-captain_to_fire/?status=191072&type=status

Edited December 3, 2018 by captain_to_fire

[D13H4RD]

And watch again after a few months when they claim the non-ionizing radiation from a phone doesn't cause cancer 

 

Seriously though, everyone is up in arms over cell phone radiation, but neglect to realize that we've been practically living in an environment that has some form of radiation for all this time? 

[givingtnt]

idk.. that peer review site seems.. not trustworthy..

[AlTech]

Just now, givingtnt said:

snip

That's not the peer review study link.

 

I believe @captain_to_fire posted it although I could be wrong.

[captain_to_fire]

7 minutes ago, givingtnt said:

idk.. that peer review site seems.. not trustworthy..

That’s not peer review. That’s a crack pot alternative medicine website that misconstrues journals to promote their disinformation campaign.  

[givingtnt]

4 minutes ago, AluminiumTech said:

That's not the peer review study link.

 

I believe @captain_to_fire posted it although I could be wrong.

No, don't try to misslead people reading your comments

It is Very much a link  You provided  In the first line of your post.

also.
here's a wayback link so you can't go back and change it..
https://web.archive.org/web/20181203195956/https://linustechtips.com/main/topic/1003535-samsung-and-verizon-are-working-on-a-5g-smartphone-even-though-it-could-give-you-cancer/

Go ahead and click on "5g"..

[RollinLower]

so basically, they found out that putting a high dose of the radiation from cellphones for extended amounts of time can sometimes be harmfull.

just like the tests they did with 4G and 3G before that. results stay the same tough.

[kting15]

3 minutes ago, givingtnt said:

idk.. that peer review site seems.. not trustworthy..
 

-snip-

Natural news is definitely not a reliable source. That being said, if there is even remotely a case to be said that 5G can cause cancer, it should probably be checked anyways for the benefit of public health.

[Razor Blade]

19 minutes ago, AluminiumTech said:

TheVerge reports

 

*snip*

Immediately skeptical.

 

Maybe Samsung is working on one but I don't tend to immediately believe The Verge on anything

[AverageGamer2017]

Non-ionizing radiation cant cause cancer

[givingtnt]

7 minutes ago, captain_to_fire said:

That’s not peer review. That’s a crack pot alternative medicine website that misconstrues journals to promote their disinformation campaign.  

yeah, but seeing as @AluminiumTech put it in his first line of text, I thought it was.

I mean he already tried removing the link on the word "Cancer"
witch was this  :
https://web.archive.org/web/20181127101323/https://www.electricsense.com/12399/5g-radiation-dangers/

[bcredeur97]

hard to figure out if this is the same poop as "wifi causes cancer" or in fact real, what kind of RF are we talking here for 5G?

[AlTech]

Just now, bcredeur97 said:

hard to figure out if this is the same poop as "wifi causes cancer" or in fact real, what kind of RF are we talking here for 5G?

The same kind of RF although 5G requires a lot more small cell towers to be concentrated in areas which is where the possibility of cancer comes from. The sheer exposure to the additional sources of RF for 5G to work.

[AlTech]

6 minutes ago, AverageGamer2017 said:

Non-ionizing radiation cant cause cancer

It can although there's not a particularly high chance of it. Regular cellphone radiation is classified as a carcinogen by the WHO.

[Razor Blade]

2 minutes ago, AluminiumTech said:

The same kind of RF although 5G requires a lot more small cell towers to be concentrated in areas which is where the possibility of cancer comes from. The sheer exposure to the additional sources of RF for 5G to work.

Smaller towers with less power would be better than fewer towers with higher power.

 

For example: Radar right out of a cop's antenna isn't going to affect you at all. Radar straight out of a military dish will cook you in no time at all.

[AlTech]

Updated title to reduce the amount of people triggered by 500% or something, I don't know how many other people will find the title less clickbait.

[Dabombinable]

2 minutes ago, AluminiumTech said:

Updated title to reduce the amount of people triggered by 500% or something, I don't know how many other people will find the title less clickbait.

Just straight up avoid using Natural News as a source.

[AlTech]

1 minute ago, Dabombinable said:

Just straight up avoid using Natural News as a source.

It wasn't a source I was relying on so much as it came to a similar conclusion to the peer review study.

[Dabombinable]

1 minute ago, AluminiumTech said:

It wasn't a source I was relying on so much as it came to a similar conclusion to the peer review study.

Look at the bottom of the article at the sources it claims to use, and go to them. The only credible source they have is CBSlocal. And Natural News skewed it.

[givingtnt]

1 minute ago, AluminiumTech said:

It wasn't a source I was relying on so much as it came to a similar conclusion to the peer review study.

The more you know I guess...

[LAwLz]

1 hour ago, givingtnt said:

idk.. that peer review site seems.. not trustworthy..
-snip-

You should check out the other sources. They are hilariously bad.

The Wired article is basically just a copy/paste from the website "The Nation", which is a very interesting website because the first thing you see when visiting it is this image:

 

Then if you scroll down a little bit it's an article discussing how people working in nail salons have it bad and deserve better.

 

It seems like more of a blog made by very stereotypical "libtards" (and I don't mean just left leaning people, I mean the super radical ones) and I would not take advice on radiation and biology from someone whose previous work is stuff like, writing blog articles about how the world is about to end (the guy literally uses Greenpeace for an argument from authority in an anti nuclear power article).

 

 

 

Anyway, contrary to what some journalists and bloggers might want you to believe, there is no clear evidence that 5G can cause cancer.

They found a "non statistically significant" correlation when exposing mice to far higher amounts of GSM and CDMA (read, not 5G) radiation than humans will encounter.

So far I have only read the conclusion and panel discussion but I'll be sure to look up more precisely how much power they fed those poor mice, and what deviation of cancer cases they had.

 

By the way, it seems like the journalists who are jumping on the "5G causes cancer" bandwagon doesn't even seem to realize that the study they are citing did not test 5G signals. They tested GSM and CDMA. Something we have been surrounded by for the last ~25 years.

 

Protips: Don't let someone who doesn't understand the basics of a subject interpret a scientific paper for you. That's generally a very bad idea because they will have no idea what the paper is actually saying.

 

 

Edit: It also seems like the journalists don't understand wireless standardization and regulation processes. It's not companies like Verizon or Samsung that determine things like output power and what is considered safe. It is done by regulatory bodies like ETSI and the FCC.