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

[captain_to_fire]

1 hour ago, schwellmo92 said:

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.

To have broader LTE coverage, you need low band spectrum (sub 1GHz) which can travel longer and can penetrate buildings better. The problem however with low band spectrum is that it easily gets congested. 

[duncannah]

4 hours ago, Commodus said:

...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.

Current speeds are capable of transferring that and more. Even then, speeds won't matter with these current prices.

[Commodus]

3 hours ago, duncannah said:

Current speeds are capable of transferring that and more. Even then, speeds won't matter with these current prices.

Not really.

 

Yeah, you technically only need about 16Mbps to stream Netflix in 4K, but how many US networks consistently deliver 16Mbps, say, in downtown New York or San Francisco?  Even Verizon says its typical speeds don't go past 12Mbps.  And while LTE latency isn't terrible, there's a big difference between that and 5G, which can dip to as low as 1ms when you're a few miles away.  Would you rather have "good enough," or "so good it's as if they were in the room?"

 

I won't deny that 5G's potential might be squandered at first.  But you don't introduce new wireless tech because of what it can do for you right now, you do it knowing it'll be useful in the future.  It's akin to that "640K of memory should be enough for everybody" quote attributed to Bill Gates (he didn't say it, but still) -- you want to look beyond the immediate future.

 

[duncannah]

39 minutes ago, Commodus said:

Yeah, you technically only need about 16Mbps to stream Netflix in 4K, but how many US networks consistently deliver 16Mbps, say, in downtown New York or San Francisco?  Even Verizon says its typical speeds don't go past 12Mbps.  

I've witnessed 75mbps on mobile 4G myself in a relatively poor country (Turkey), so it is quite possible to do so in the US too.

[Sauron]

On 12/3/2018 at 9:10 PM, 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.

Yes, if you sit on the poles... 5g will be a lot closer, but also far lower powered. It's like being afraid your wifi router will give you cancer.

[Phentos]

Breathing oxygen can raise your risk of cancer. Eating food can raise your risk of cancer. You can spontaneously get cancer from out of the blue.

 

The fearmongering never stops I guess. 

 

[S0nny58]

Aren't 5G modems already implemented in the US midwest? I wonder if any people are experiencing these "side effects" there?

[Scheer]

Its already been posted throughout this thread, but I still want to get my words in edgewise.

 

RF is non-ionizing, aka it is just heat.

 

The "study" was done at 900mhz on both GSM and CDMA... not sure what that has to do with 5G. If people are believing this and want 5G to stop because of the study, you better shut off all phone service...

 

The "study" was blasting the ever loving crapful of RF at a small animal, literally cooking it as the rats cannot shed the amount of heat as fast as the RF is pumping into it. Put a rat into a box and keep it at 120 degrees for a few weeks and I bet you get similar results.

 

By an expert I've been told I can stand directly in front of a 90W 700mhz LTE antenna for a few seconds without exceeding my "competent" safety limit, it would exceed the public safety limit though... the only difference between public and competent is going to a training course. Even still, that competent safety limit has a ton of safety padded into it, you could stand there for several minutes before a high end thermometer would register any increase in temperature, and it would take hours standing directly in front of it to make you sick (and you'd quickly recover from that if you moved before it cooked your brain in a few days/weeks time).

 

Of the few times I've actually gotten sick from RF, I was in ancient run down mountain top sites that had thousands of watts of equipment in them leaking out due to poor maintenance, and both times I was there for several hours before getting a headache from it basically heating my brain up. Walk outside for 10 minutes and you are good to go for another few hours. Of the hundreds of employees over the years my uncle has had working around RF every day all day, none of them have gotten cancer, other than one who smoked like a chimney and had lung cancer.

 

 

I still think 5G is dumb tho... I'd much rather they invest money into building out and fixing 4G. 4GLTE was created so they could advertise without lying since they still haven't come close to reaching 4G's 1gbps transfer speed, as 4GLTE is rated for 100mbps. Of which I still have never seen anywhere close to other than day one of turning it on at Memorial Stadium in '09 or so when basically no one had a 4G phone. I mean, EVDO Rev B was good for 14mbps, and you almost always got 14mbps... I still barely get that on LTE 10 years later. Now I'll have to get a 5G phone that is bigger, uses more power, has less range, and likely have the same speed for the next 5 years until they build on it. (Which they won't do, as they will start building 6G... with its theoretical 30gbps, and average real world 20mbps...) Allllll the meanwhile I STILL DON'T HAVE CELL SERVICE IN MY HOUSE... before Wi-Fi calling worked as well as it does now I had to walk around in the yard to make phone calls, and I live 10 miles outside of a city of 50k population.

 

(I like ellipses...)

 

[Guest]

On 12/4/2018 at 11:16 AM, pinksnowbirdie said:

The sun needs a warning label

California needs a warning label

[RejZoR]

On 12/3/2018 at 8:52 PM, D13H4RD said:

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? 

Not all radiation is equal. IR light is a form of radiation, but is not the same as gamma radiation. Induction cookers have electromagnetic radiation, but it's not the same as radiation from Chernobyl. But people just throw it all into same bin. If it's "radioation", it's bad, even if it's actually just heat. Yeah, heat is a form of radiation (IR - infrared).

 

I've always defended induction, microwave and even cellular as harmless, but when people are getting headaches and memory loss when near certain wireless equipment, and goes away instantly when away from it, you don't need bloody scientific studies, it's so obvious even Ray Charles could see it. And he was blind and not even alive anymore... This thing needs to be scraped and only thing science now needs to figure out is why this is happening exactly so we can avoid it in the future and find different ways to move data quickly and wirelessly.

[LAwLz]

2 hours ago, RejZoR said:

but when people are getting headaches and memory loss when near certain wireless equipment, and goes away instantly when away from it

A lot of times (all the times?) those are just nocebo effects.

Bring one of those people to an antenna testing facility and then, without telling them, ask them when they get headaches and when they are fine, while randomly turning the antenna on and off.

I can bet 2 internet points that they will not fare any better than chance in correctly guessing when the antenna is on or off.

 

Out of 31 tests made using 725 people claiming to be "electromagnetically hypersensitive", 24 concluded that there was no evidence to suggest that it was a real thing.

7 suggested some minor evidence of it existing, although 2 of those studies also showed no evidence once they were re-tested.

3 of the remaining 5 positive tests were caused by statistical artefacts.

The remaining 2 gave mutually incompatible results so at least one of them has to be wrong.

 

So at best, when giving this the benefit of the doubt, 1 out of 31 studies have shown a minor possibility that it is a real thing. The other 30 studies do not agree with the findings of that single positive one.

 

 

You're free to believe whatever you want, but just be aware that science is not on your side and it is far more likely to be a nocebo effect. That is to say, people believe it is real so strongly that they trick themselves into getting symptoms they otherwise wouldn't experience.

[leadeater]

11 hours ago, Sauron said:

It's like being afraid your wifi router will give you cancer.

That is a thing people believe sadly.

[Sauron]

48 minutes ago, leadeater said:

That is a thing people believe sadly.

That's the thing, we shouldn't fuel the paranoia like this - if there is substantial evidence that a real 5g deployment could hurt humans then sure, it should go back to the drawing board, but it doesn't seem to be the case here. There's the firefighters thing, but... the reported symptoms don't really sound like radiation poisoning... cancer won't warn you.

[Tenelia]

On 12/4/2018 at 3:51 AM, captain_to_fire said:

“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.

1

 

[Drak3]

13 hours ago, duncannah said:

I've witnessed 75mbps on mobile 4G myself in a relatively poor country (Turkey), so it is quite possible to do so in the US too.

It also depends on how many users you're servicing. For example, if your uplink can transport 1TB of data and you partition it out evenly amongst customers, it's going to be faster per customer if you have 10 customers than if you had 100.

 

[dalekphalm]

As Doctor Aaron Carroll says, Rats are not Humans.

 

LOTS of things cause cancer in rats that are 100% perfectly harmless (healthy even) for humans.

 

To test Rats, and then come to the conclusion "This is probably bad for humans" is... flawed at best. Rats are actually really terrible human analogues, and should be used less in research that will eventually be applied to humans (Pigs are where it's at, FYI - excellent human analogues).

 

Cellular radio (That includes everything from mobile cellular, to WIFI) is non-ionizing, and very low energy. Despite the studies shown here (and even including them) there has never been a confirmed link between cellular radio and cancer. And we've been living with the basic technology saturating entire countries for 30+ years now.

[mynameisjuan]

5 hours ago, Sauron said:

cancer won't warn you.

My first thought. You dont begin to feel the effects of cancer until you already have it and its well past stage 1. The firefighters didnt have cancer.

 

EMF is known to cause paranoia, headaches, sickness in some people when its at high power. This is seen in a lot of cases of people reporting paranormal. If this 5G tower next to the firefighters is high enough power it I would believe some could feel "off" but not cancer causing. 

[dalekphalm]

1 minute ago, mynameisjuan said:

My first thought. You dont begin to feel the effects of cancer until you already have it and its well past stage 1. The firefighters didnt have cancer.

 

EMF is known to cause paranoia, headaches, sickness in some people when its at high power. This is seen in a lot of cases of people reporting paranormal. If this 5G tower next to the firefighters is high enough power it I would believe some could feel "off" but not cancer causing. 

Plus it would have to be the tower itself causing the issues, not the devices. A cellphone simply cannot emit enough power to be dangerous, whereas if you stand beside a cellular tower's actual antenna, this could eventually kill you.

 

But it's not killing you with cancer. It's killing you with energy transformed into heat and you're being essentially cooked. It would be like going inside a microwave. Will it give you cancer? No. But you'll still die.

 

So the whole firefighter thing is an entirely unrelated issue, most likely. It could be nocebo (they feel the issues because they were told about the radio waves), or it could be an improperly installed or shielded tower. Or it could be something entirely unrelated.

 

Because as we all know: Correlation does not equal causation.

[AngryBeaver]

On 12/3/2018 at 1:43 PM, AluminiumTech said:

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

 

 

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.

 

 

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.

If it gives Rats cancer then we should increase the rate this is released. One less rodent in the world is good for all. Now if they find it is giving people cancer that is different, but I will go out on a limb and say that only people in California will get cancer from it.

[Commodus]

18 hours ago, duncannah said:

I've witnessed 75mbps on mobile 4G myself in a relatively poor country (Turkey), so it is quite possible to do so in the US too.

It's possible, but if companies are going to pour lots of money into upgrading their networks to sustain their capacity, why not just move to 5G in the process?

 

Also, remember that network congestion levels in the US aren't the same as in other countries.  It's easy to hit 75Mbps if the population density is lower or there are fewer people who can afford large data plans.

[dalekphalm]

9 minutes ago, Commodus said:

It's possible, but if companies are going to pour lots of money into upgrading their networks to sustain their capacity, why not just move to 5G in the process?

 

Also, remember that network congestion levels in the US aren't the same as in other countries.  It's easy to hit 75Mbps if the population density is lower or there are fewer people who can afford large data plans.

I was gonna say, a peak spike of 75 Mbps? Sure. But sustained?

 

Those are two totally different scenarios.