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

[kting15]

1 hour ago, AluminiumTech said:

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

I think its also worth mentioning that UV Radiation is a form of non-ionizing radiation and that shit can cause cancer, though the non-ionizing radiation in cellphones is a lot weaker than UV Radiation obviously.

[handymanshandle]

2 hours ago, handymanshandle said:

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

The sun needs a warning label

[Lurick]

41 minutes ago, pinksnowbirdie said:

The sun needs a warning label

I've got a ship ready to go slap one on there tomorrow

[DrMacintosh]

Tech can cause cancer. The higher the frequency (and therefore the energy of the radiation) used for signals, the higher the chance you could get a cancer. To deny that is to deny physics and biology. But to be fair, a doubling of an insignificant risk is still rather insignificant, something that the medical industry sadly tends to forget. Absolute figures are required to make any real judgments.

 

I am assuming that 5G is of a higher frequency, I don't know what "improvements" was made to the standard to make it supposedly better than LTE btw.

 

Major players in the smartphone market such as Apple are rumored to not even release a 5G phone until 2020 at the very least, its an unproven tech and if the concerns from this study get enough traction it could be facing a rough future. 

 

 

[Commodus]

Can we actually talk about, y'know, the phone?

 

This sounds like the 6.7-inch "Beyond X" variant of the Galaxy S10 that the WSJ talked about earlier.  It sounds like a technical marvel... it also sounds like the HTC Thunderbolt redux.  You know, a device that makes all kinds of sacrifices just to have the latest cellular tech inside.  Early adopters will shout "first!" -- and then gripe that their phone lasts four hours on a charge when it's on 5G.  It'll be cool, but it'll probably also be a reminder why it's sometimes good to wait until next year.

[captain_to_fire]

59 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

 

Tech can cause cancer. The higher the frequency (and therefore the energy of the radiation) used for signals, the higher the chance you could get a cancer. To deny that is to deny physics and biology. But to be fair, a doubling of an insignificant risk is still rather insignificant, something that the medical industry sadly tends to forget. Absolute figures are required to make any real judgments.

 

I am assuming that 5G is of a higher frequency, I don't know what "improvements" was made to the standard to make it supposedly better than LTE btw.

 

In actuality, radio waves used by telecommunications are low frequency at around 3KHz to 30 GHz. The frequencies in telecommunications have a wavelength of 100 km to 1 cm which doesn’t have that much energy. 

 

What people should be concerned about are ionizing radiation as those have more energy like UV, X-Rays, and γ-rays with wavelengths ranging from 100 nm to 1 pm. Ionizing radiation can damage DNA to cause mutations. 

 

As per IEEE’s specs, 5G must utilize untapped millimeter waves (aka frequencies from 30 to 300 GHz) to provide more bandwidth than existing 4G networks relying on sub-1GHz spectrum. Hence, if a wireless carriee wishes to use 30 GHz, that one has lesser energy and frequency than a 4G LTE on 700 MHz. 

[DrMacintosh]

4 minutes ago, captain_to_fire said:

In actuality, radio waves used by telecommunications are low frequency at around 3KHz to 30 GHz. The frequencies in telecommunications have a wavelength of 100 km to 1 cm which doesn’t have that much energy. 

 

What people should be concerned about are ionizing radiation as those have more energy like UV, X-Rays, and γ-rays with wavelengths ranging from 100 nm to 1 pm. Ionizing radiation can damage DNA to cause mutations. 

Nobody was not not (English is retarded) concerned about Ionizing radiation. The “study” was to show that those telecom frequencies might be doing thangs they ain’t supposed to. Lol

[captain_to_fire]

2 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

Nobody was not not (English is retarded) concerned about Ionizing radiation. The “study” was to show that those telecom frequencies might be doing shit they ain’t supposed to. Lol

See the edit above. Also, I was correcting you when you said that 5G is at higher frequency. 

[MandoPanda]

5 minutes ago, DrMacintosh said:

Nobody was not not (English is retarded) concerned

*Not unconcerned.

[DrMacintosh]

26 minutes ago, MandoPanda said:

*Not unconcerned.

I reject your reality and substitute my own

[miagisan]

Natural News is nothing but click bait. I don't think there is much on that site that is legit. 

[yian88]

Its true guys  at least i think so,  cellphone radiation is a known problem but its getting worse 5g signals arre ridiculous, im thinking in near future to move out of town if they continue don the 5g path.

 

Look  its not  a joke or rumour anymore we have to sttand up to it.

 

[captain_to_fire]

25 minutes ago, yian88 said:

Its true guys  at least i think so,  cellphone radiation is a known problem but its getting worse 5g signals arre ridiculous, im thinking in near future to move out of town if they continue don the 5g path.

 

Look  its not  a joke or rumour anymore we have to sttand up to it.

Looks like the deep state, satanic globalists are at their secrets rooms rubbing their hands for world domination. Btw, survival shield supplements are now 20% off at infowars.com. 

 

 

/s 

[mr moose]

6 hours ago, captain_to_fire said:

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

 

5 hours ago, LAwLz said:

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.

 

Just to add to this, as many might have missed it, but in the actual peer review article linked above they are examining the 900Mhz band, which is already being used for 3g and 4g across all of Australia. The 900Mhz band has been in place since 1992 and to date there is no increase in the number of cancers reported that doesn't have a stronger link to age or other genetic predispositions.  It has nothing to do with 5G.

[williamcll]

Wished they made wiMax better instead

[KuJoe]

A study in 1992 by the US Air Force shows that 2.4GHz also causes cancer in rats and we've been living with that for a long time. Do cell phones cause cancer? Yes* Does almost everything cause cancer? Yes*

 

*Depending on the amount and length of exposure almost anything will eventually cause cancer.

[Okjoek]

I read this story recently on RT as well

https://www.rt.com/usa/445447-redacted-tonight-cellphones-cancer/

 

I hope the precautions I take are effective in that I don't sleep with it having LOS to my body, I prefer texting and Discord to calling and when I do call I try to use speaker mode especially if it's a longer call.

 

 

“Big tobacco, big oil, big ag, big telecom; they will perpetrate any level of harm, of death and destruction...if it just means more profit.”

[mynameisjuan]

49 minutes ago, KuJoe said:

*Depending on the amount and length of exposure almost anything will eventually cause cancer.

Or cancer will just come on its own. 

 

Cancer is an unbeatable bitch in human nature. If you took a group of people and isolated them from literally everything their whole life, by age 60 a few will have developed cancer. It will happen to certain people no matter what. But people keep blaming what they think gave them the cancer.

 

These studies have no way of telling if the cancer was natural or caused by 5G radiation. Radio frequencies are just too low of energy to be considered ionizing radiation which means it has an exponentially low chance to cause cancer. 

 

We receive more ionizing radiation from cosmic rays than we do 2g,3g,4g and 5g combined

[KuJoe]

4 minutes ago, mynameisjuan said:

Or cancer will just come on its own. 

Exactly.

[Lurick]

6 hours ago, KuJoe said:

Exactly.

Cancer will only come if you're exposed to a combination of air elements or Dihydrogen-Monoxide, 100% of people who develop cancer were exposed during their lifetime!

[duncannah]

4G is fast enough.

[Commodus]

1 hour ago, duncannah said:

4G is fast enough.

...for now.  You know 5G opens the door to all kinds of possibilities, right?  Think streaming 4K on the go (even on today's phones, that'd be helpful), mobile multiplayer VR, lower-latency online games and video chats, that sort of thing.  It's about enabling things that aren't even on the table... well, that and carrier bragging rights, but the possibilities are there.

[D13H4RD]

3 hours ago, duncannah said:

4G is fast enough.

For now. 

 

There's a whole lot of reasons why 5G is being pushed relatively quickly. And it's got very little to do with client-side speed. 

[D13H4RD]

13 hours ago, yian88 said:

Its true guys  at least i think so,  cellphone radiation is a known problem but its getting worse 5g signals arre ridiculous, im thinking in near future to move out of town if they continue don the 5g path.

Just so you know. 

 

Every time you stand out in the sun, you're exposing yourself to UV radiation 

[schwellmo92]

We don’t need damn 5G, we need broader LTE coverage and bigger data caps! LTE has theoretical peak of 1Gbps in its top-tier implementation, that’s plenty enough given how small data caps are and how lacking fast coverage is.