Petition to stop 5G trials in the Southwest UK

[corrado33]

18 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

I never once said that I believe they are harmful. I was just saying that not wanting to be the first test subject is a perfectly rational thing. Also the fact that people always bring up it being nonionizing I always found strange. Just because it can't directly mess with your cells DNA doesn't make it not harmful. I just think the technology is highly impractical and not worth it. I haven't had any issue with speed of mobile data so far so I don't see the need for 5g. 

Yes.... yes it does. You are more likely to be hurt by the visible light coming from your monitor (because its much higher energy) than 5g radiation.... let alone the sun from walking outside. The only damage that non-ionizing radiation can induce is heat related, and that's only at extremely high levels and you'd have to be an idiot to stand 1 foot away from a high power transmitter. Your wifi router poses more of a threat than the 5g network would. It's clear that you don't understand how radiation affects the body, and how such low energy/low power radiation would do quite literally nothing to you.

[Fasauceome]

7 hours ago, yian88 said:

we are overexposed, outside of the natural sources.

Ya know, those natural sources that overexpose us by orders of magnitude greater than any cell service

[imreloadin]

10 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

Just because it can't directly mess with your cells DNA doesn't make it not harmful.

Well considering that's how radiation harms you...that's kinda what it means...

 

Unless you're just going around sticking your head inside of microwaves that have the door broken off but if that's the case then that's just a symptom of a deeper problem

[Brooksie359]

2 hours ago, corrado33 said:

Yes.... yes it does. You are more likely to be hurt by the visible light coming from your monitor (because its much higher energy) than 5g radiation.... let alone the sun from walking outside. The only damage that non-ionizing radiation can induce is heat related, and that's only at extremely high levels and you'd have to be an idiot to stand 1 foot away from a high power transmitter. Your wifi router poses more of a threat than the 5g network would. It's clear that you don't understand how radiation affects the body, and how such low energy/low power radiation would do quite literally nothing to you.

I have taken multiple courses in nuclear engineering. I am pretty sure I have a fairly good understanding on how radiation works. The thing that you fail to realize is that biological life is very complex and our understanding of it is still quite limited. Science has over the years changed many many times based on new discoveries and information previously unknown. To simply dismiss the possibility that something can be harmful because you think that what we know now is all encompassing is pure arrogance. The greatest scientist always keep an open mind and don't dismiss possibilities like you have. I never once said that 5ghz networks are harmful but I did say to simply dismiss the possibility is dumb. There have been many studies done that show adverse effects of 5ghz routers and the like on plant growth so I won't rule out the possibility that having 5ghz networks will have adverse effects on people. 

[Master Disaster]

8 hours ago, Teddy07 said:

Yes, I would!

There is a big difference because a flight is at most 12h long and you do not fly often. 5G, on the other hand, exposes you daily many hours.

 

I am subscribed to thunderf00t and watched his video when it was released.

Pro tip: you're being exposed to radiation stronger than 5G every second of every day of your life already. It's called CMBR.

[Trixanity]

50 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

I have taken multiple courses in nuclear engineering. I am pretty sure I have a fairly good understanding on how radiation works. The thing that you fail to realize is that biological life is very complex and our understanding of it is still quite limited. Science has over the years changed many many times based on new discoveries and information previously unknown. To simply dismiss the possibility that something can be harmful because you think that what we know now is all encompassing is pure arrogance. The greatest scientist always keep an open mind and don't dismiss possibilities like you have. I never once said that 5ghz networks are harmful but I did say to simply dismiss the possibility is dumb. There have been many studies done that show adverse effects of 5ghz routers and the like on plant growth so I won't rule out the possibility that having 5ghz networks will have adverse effects on people. 

I actually agree on this. It'll probably be several decades before we discover anything on any long term effects.

 

One example is noise pollution. We've known for a long time that noise can damage your hearing but if you keep it below a certain level over a certain period of time your ears will be fine. However at that level it can still cause undue stress increasing risks for things like heart problems. 

 

I think that's the bigger debate rather than the "does it cause cancer or not?" or "non-ionizing radiation can't cause cancer". The point being who knows what other health issues it might long term, even if slightly, increase the risk of occuring? Not to mention the effects on our brain of using devices etc. - there's a lot of research going on regarding the latter and probably the former as well, so time will tell.

[Ithanul]

 

11 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

Also of note that even if your microwave shielding was 100% non-functional (say, the door was busted off), you only need to stand a few feet away from it before the heating effects become null.

 

Even with a micro-station on top of a utility pole, you'd be dozens of feet away at worst. The average height of a utility pole in the US is around 40 feet (~12 meters).

 

Apparently existing Macro Stations (Meaning, huge full size Cellular Tower for a major city in a developed country), you're looking at 3000-6000W. These sites are anywhere from 100-200 feet tall.

 

Considering a Micro-station would require significantly less power to operate, I think we're all totally fine here.

 

If 5G was going to fuck us all, 4G, 3G, 2G, FM Radio, WIFI, Satellite Radio, Satellite TV, and Terrestrial TV would have all done us in already.

To add to that, students have tested the 73GHz band.  They manage it with less than 1W to transmitt and receive over 10km (on a clear day, they didn't test with mist or rain occuring).  Note though, because of the nature of millimeter band, they had to be within LOS (Line of Sight).  So, routers and a cell phone not requiring to transmit and receive that far can probably get away with far less power.

 

https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/telecom/wireless/millimeter-waves-travel-more-than-10-kilometers-in-rural-virginia

Interestingly, seems the bands are decent enough to reflect off buildings and surroundings to overcome the interference.

 

 

Ooooo, this is interesting:

However, there is one particular feature that will make 5G networks less energy demanding: the base stations in 5G can be put into a “sleep mode” (referred to as "ultra-lean design”) whenever there are no active users.

 

From this article: https://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/telecom/wireless/will-increased-energy-consumption-be-the-achilles-heel-of-5g-networks

Manage to find an article about the hardware too:  https://spectrum.ieee.org/telecom/wireless/introduction-to-the-ni-mmwave-transceiver-system-hardware

[imreloadin]

6 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

I have taken multiple courses in nuclear engineering.

I knew it was only a matter of time before someone claimed to be some kind of nuclear physicist as the base of their argument...I bet your dad owns Nintendo and you'll get me banned from Fortnite for not believing you also, right?

[Brooksie359]

1 minute ago, imreloadin said:

I knew it was only a matter of time before someone claimed to be some kind of nuclear physicist as the base of their argument...I bet your dad owns Nintendo and you'll get me banned from Fortnite for not believing you also, right?

I never claimed I was right because I have taken courses in nuclear engineering. I was simply responding to the claim that "I don't understand how radiation works". It's just annoying when people try and dismiss an argument saying the other party just doesn't understand. I am not a nuclear physicists but rather a mechanical engineer that took some nuclear engineering courses as my engineering electives. I am not such an expert that I would claim that I must be correct I am rather claiming that I don't lack knowledge regarding how electromagnetic waves work. 

[exetras]

5G is going to recycle a lot of the 2G spectrum and other early cell phone frequencies. its why they have been turning off those generations of hardware in the past years.

Those frequencies have been used for years and are safe.

 

 

Also the biggest source of radiation which does cause cancer is that big yellow ball in the sky. wear sun screen people.

[dalekphalm]

20 minutes ago, exetras said:

5G is going to recycle a lot of the 2G spectrum and other early cell phone frequencies. its why they have been turning off those generations of hardware in the past years.

Those frequencies have been used for years and are safe.

 

 

Also the biggest source of radiation which does cause cancer is that big yellow ball in the sky. wear sun screen people.

"BuT sUn ScReEn CaUsEs CaNcEr!"

 

Love it when I hear that one. No, Sun screen prevents cancer. There's like 60+ years of research that proves it

 

Anyway, more research is definitely welcomed - but pretty much all current research is either inconclusive, or straight up implies there's little to no health impacts.

[Qwerty2323]

There are many reasons to dislike 5G.

1) it requires much much more hardware like antenas.

2) it enables so high data flows that baiscly all your life and every move can be tracked. 

3 ) some people might like idea about smart home and smart up everything and online everything, but future where you do not even remember what is in your fridge and have to use some app to check seems so dull for zombie society

4) health issues is reasonalbe discussion. Especially if you live, work very close to powerfull antenas. Most of these have lots of redundancy built in with a lot of back ups. This also means we are kinda living under weapon and new type of terrorism if someone where to enable max power on those would it cook your brain or not.

But for real what are real risks it is hard to guess and needs more testing but it means we will live in new very saturated EM enviroment. What is clear it will add extra stress to your body, like other people have said before we already live in very poluted enviroment. Result is simple lower life qualty and lower lifespan and more medicine used.

[Brooksie359]

2 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

"BuT sUn ScReEn CaUsEs CaNcEr!"

 

Love it when I hear that one. No, Sun screen prevents cancer. There's like 60+ years of research that proves it

 

Anyway, more research is definitely welcomed - but pretty much all current research is either inconclusive, or straight up implies there's little to no health impacts.

Cancer forms when the DNA gets a couple of its bonds broken and the cell tries to repair it's DNA but does so inccorectly. Cells can only repair a certain amount of bonds in the DNA and if more than that many are broken then the cell dies. That means in order for someone to get cancer they need to get enough exposure to mess with your skins DNA but not enough to kill the skin. So maybe the answer is just make sure the sun kills all your skin

[corrado33]

10 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

I have taken multiple courses in nuclear engineering. I am pretty sure I have a fairly good understanding on how radiation works. The thing that you fail to realize is that biological life is very complex and our understanding of it is still quite limited. Science has over the years changed many many times based on new discoveries and information previously unknown. To simply dismiss the possibility that something can be harmful because you think that what we know now is all encompassing is pure arrogance. The greatest scientist always keep an open mind and don't dismiss possibilities like you have. I never once said that 5ghz networks are harmful but I did say to simply dismiss the possibility is dumb. There have been many studies done that show adverse effects of 5ghz routers and the like on plant growth so I won't rule out the possibility that having 5ghz networks will have adverse effects on people. 

That's great, and I'm a PhD scientist in physical chemistry. As sheldon would say, "You're just an engineer."  I'm WELL aware of how radiation interacts with materials as various types of spectroscopy made up a large part of my dissertation. I'm also studied, and taught quantum mechanics and chemical dynamics. I'm also well aware of the fact that if the photon doesn't have enough energy to incite a reaction, it simply will not happen unless the electron tunnels, a very... very rare occurrence unless under very specific conditions. A molecule may get vibrationally warmer (exactly what is stated in the papers that studied these things), but nothing harmful will occur.

 

You saying that "just because we don't know doesn't mean it doesn't happen." I'm saying "We already do know, have studied this, and 99% of science says that "nothing harmful will happen unless under extraordinarily specific circumstances."" Are you an anti-vaxer too, because those are the odds you are against. The fact that you are even willing to walk outside shows how hypocritical your argument is. Not only is sunlight much higher energy, but there's a shit ton more of it. Not only that, but you're forgetting that YOU ARE ALREADY BEING BOMBARDED WITH THIS RADIATION DAILY. They are re-purposing part of the spectrum, not using a previously unused part. 

[rcmaehl]

Gonna post a similar reply that I posted last time "radiation" was brought up

 

Fake News!

 

But yeah, a lot of things emit radiation. Big differences are the amount and Ionizing vs Non-Ionizing. So far there has been nothing to worry about and I doubt there will be anytime soon. Things such as CRTs and Bananas emit more radiation than you'd ever get with a smartphone.

 

If it was an actual issue we'd all be dead from SETI, Pay Per View, or Amateur radio by now

[Brooksie359]

42 minutes ago, corrado33 said:

That's great, and I'm a PhD scientist in physical chemistry. As sheldon would say, "You're just an engineer."  I'm WELL aware of how radiation interacts with materials as various types of spectroscopy made up a large part of my dissertation. I'm also studied, and taught quantum mechanics and chemical dynamics. I'm also well aware of the fact that if the photon doesn't have enough energy to incite a reaction, it simply will not happen unless the electron tunnels, a very... very rare occurrence unless under very specific conditions. A molecule may get vibrationally warmer (exactly what is stated in the papers that studied these things), but nothing harmful will occur.

 

You saying that "just because we don't know doesn't mean it doesn't happen." I'm saying "We already do know, have studied this, and 99% of science says that "nothing harmful will happen unless under extraordinarily specific circumstances."" Are you an anti-vaxer too, because those are the odds you are against. The fact that you are even willing to walk outside shows how hypocritical your argument is. Not only is sunlight much higher energy, but there's a shit ton more of it. Not only that, but you're forgetting that YOU ARE ALREADY BEING BOMBARDED WITH THIS RADIATION DAILY. They are re-purposing part of the spectrum, not using a previously unused part. 

No I am not an anti vaccination person because vaccination is important and it's been done for a very long time without the side effects they say there are. 5ghz roll out is not important and the implications with all the equipment and additional electromagnetic waves is not worth it. You are really going to call me a hypocrite for walking outside in the sun because it's more dangerous? How are you going to compare the sun to 5ghz roll out. One is the reason there is life on earth while the other is a technology that isn't nessisary. Yes I do know there are lots of electromagnetic waves that we are exposed to everyday but I would rather limit the unnessisary ones. You can talk about how you know everything about radiation and how 5g is harmless but again there are many studies that have shown adverse effects on plants when exposed to similar electromagnetic waves. Let's 

[jaggysnake57]

so a bunch of NIMBYS fear-mongering with no actually evidence to back it up......about right

[dalekphalm]

Just now, jaggysnake57 said:

so a bunch of NIMBYS fear-mongering with no actually evidence to back it up......about right

That's pretty much always the way NIMBY's act - if there was evidence, then usually it wouldn't be happening.

[Coaxialgamer]

The point being raised by the petition is that the higher frequency could be harmful... The problem being that unless "big-5G" puts a megawatt transmitter right next to your house, the frequencies involved here mean nothing and are far too low to cause actual damage to living cells.

[corrado33]

7 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

No I am not an anti vaccination person because vaccination is important and it's been done for a very long time without the side effects they say there are. 5ghz roll out is not important and the implications with all the equipment and additional electromagnetic waves is not worth it. You are really going to call me a hypocrite for walking outside in the sun because it's more dangerous? How are you going to compare the sun to 5ghz roll out. One is the reason there is life on earth while the other is a technology that isn't nessisary. Yes I do know there are lots of electromagnetic waves that we are exposed to everyday but I would rather limit the unnessisary ones. You can talk about how you know everything about radiation and how 5g is harmless but again there are many studies that have shown adverse effects on plants when exposed to similar electromagnetic waves. Let's 

Prove it.

 

What you have written here is a prime example of cognitive dissonance. 

[Brooksie359]

9 minutes ago, corrado33 said:

Prove it.

 

What you have written here is a prime example of cognitive dissonance. 

Half or your arguments are personal attacks and deflection. The funny part is you have yet to address the studies about these types of electromagnetic waves having adverse effects on plants. You can talk about theorticals all you want but I will trust real life experiments because that is the practical way to do things. 

[Curufinwe_wins]

12 hours ago, Brooksie359 said:

I have taken multiple courses in nuclear engineering. I am pretty sure I have a fairly good understanding on how radiation works. The thing that you fail to realize is that biological life is very complex and our understanding of it is still quite limited. Science has over the years changed many many times based on new discoveries and information previously unknown. To simply dismiss the possibility that something can be harmful because you think that what we know now is all encompassing is pure arrogance. The greatest scientist always keep an open mind and don't dismiss possibilities like you have. I never once said that 5ghz networks are harmful but I did say to simply dismiss the possibility is dumb. There have been many studies done that show adverse effects of 5ghz routers and the like on plant growth so I won't rule out the possibility that having 5ghz networks will have adverse effects on people. 

And I have graduate degrees in the field.

 

It is possible that there is harm, yes obviously. But if the specific discharge energy of 5GHz networks (capped as they are at the low power limits) is sufficient to be a significant illness risk, then people shouldn't ever go outside, or use microwaves, or a million other things that have far higher infrared and radio spectrum power discharges. At least among the general populous. Occupational exposure rates are many orders of magnitude different and there, SAR and prolonged exposure is more of a potential issue, and indeed known one at that. 

 

I would never say don't test and verify (I defer to the Royal Society in 'nullius in verba'), but the current epidemiological research is actually quite consistent in finding that there is no significant risk (relative to other actual issues people should actually worry themselves about).

 

When one talks about p-hacking/reproduciblity problems in medical physics (or rather any science involving people), it's amusing to note that (in humans) Preece 2009, Koivisto 2000, Edelstyn 2002, Smythe 2003, Mortazavi 2014 all found positive effects of mobile phone spectrum non-occupational radiation (improvements in cognition or reductions in reaction time). ISQ, Larjabaara 2011, Hardell 2011, and Calberg 2013 saw no statistically significant risk association (also in humans).

 

Oh and (as you hopefully have learned) LNT is fundamentally nonphysical and directly in contrast with currently understood formation theories of oncology, except in the specific cases like cataracts where there are sufficient high quantities of individual events per effected tissue where threshold models (on the singular scale) converge into LNT-like effects on the large scale. So the common place assumptions that if anything shows risk, it's quite likely that the lower levels used here also have significant risk is quite misplaced.

 

Most of the negative effects have been using ludicrously high exposure patterns on rats. Aka subjects with dramatically smaller brains (thus potentially much higher specific radiation effects, and significantly fewer neutral pathways that can compensate for any localized or temporary damage.)

 

If you are interested, this is a great (and recent) meta analysis paper about the many studies that have been done.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5607572/

 

Here is their conclusion:

Quote

With the popularity of microwave technology, microwave effects on the human body have become a common topic of concern, and the central nervous system is recognized as a target organ system that is sensitive to microwave radiation. However, to date, with the exception of high-power microwave radiation, which has widely established hazardous effects, the biological effects of microwaves remain controversial. In epidemiology, there is no conclusive evidence showing that microwaves have carcinogenic effects. Concurrently, the discovery that microwaves have positive biological effects has presented new challenges for research and applications in this field. The results of EEG and analyses of the structure of the brain after radiation have also confirmed the influence of microwaves. Studies have extensively explored the underlying mechanisms by which microwaves influence learning and memory functions, especially synaptic structures and functions, oxidative stress and apoptosis, protein synthesis, genes and individual susceptibility and energy metabolism. Previous studies have produced a large amount of information, and some progress has been made in theory, but the mechanisms have not yet been fully determined, and many points are still disputed. The largest problem in these studies is that they used different parameters, such as the frequency, modulation, power density and irradiation time, to apply microwave radiation, in addition to using a variety of research methods. Therefore, their reproducibility and comparability are poor. To determine the precise dose-effect relationship between microwave radiation and its biological effects, further detailed studies must be performed.

 

[Brooksie359]

6 minutes ago, Curufinwe_wins said:

And I have graduate degrees in the field.

 

It is possible that there is harm, yes obviously. But if the specific discharge energy of 5GHz networks (capped as they are at the low power limits) is sufficient to be a significant illness risk, then people shouldn't ever go outside, or use microwaves, or a million other things that have far higher infrared and radio spectrum power discharges. At least among the general populous. Occupational exposure rates are many orders of magnitude different and there, SAR heating exposure and prolonged exposure is more of a potential issue. I would never say don't test and verify, but the current research is quite conclusive that there is no significant risk (relative to other actual issues people should actually worry themselves about).

 

When you talk about p-hacking problems in medical physics (or rather any science involving people), it's amusing to note that Preece 2009, Koivisto 2000, a second by Koivisto in 2000, Edelstyn 2002, Smythe 2003, Mortazavi 2014 all found positive effects of mobile phone spectrum non-occupational radiation (improvements in cognition or reductions in reaction time). ISQ, Larjabaara 2011, Hardell 2011, and Calberg 2013 saw no statistically signficant risk association.

 

Oh and LNT is fundamentally nonphysical and directly in contrast with currently understood formation theories of oncology, except in the specific cases like cataracts where there are sufficient high quantities of individual events per effected tissue where threshold models (on the singular scale) converge into LNT on the large scale.

I get what you are trying to say but I still think 5g is unnessisary. I don't see what good can come with all the equipment that will be installed all around for a technology that is entirely unnessisary. I will say I appreciate that you can argue in a civil manner. 

[Curufinwe_wins]

8 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

I get what you are trying to say but I still think 5g is unnessisary. I don't see what good can come with all the equipment that will be installed all around for a technology that is entirely unnessisary. I will say I appreciate that you can argue in a civil manner. 

(I did make some edits above to try to be more accurate)

 

I think for now it may seem unnecessary (outside of cities), but within population centers 4G and 2.4GHz bands are extremely congested technologies. To the point that it is sometimes better (Linus talked about an experience in Taiwan or Seoul at one point to this effect iirc) to swap back to 3G for faster and more stable connections.

 

Moving to higher frequencies has a lot of benefits, the two biggest being:

 

1. Dramatic increase to overall bandwidth, and thus more concurrent users serviceable at once. 

2. Lower range (believe it or not), meaning fewer clients or servers polluting the frequency stream with their overlap.

 

Like apartments are a nightmare to use 2.4GHz streams in reliably, and that is arguably the biggest area where the high frequency comes to save the day, with no only more overall bands, but with less range meaning fewer routers are throwing pointless and wasteful congestion onto other people's networks.

 

Of course, that is why (well one reason) 5G is rolling out to populaton centers first, and rural areas will have to wait a great deal longer for their own newfangled stuff.

[dalekphalm]

1 hour ago, Brooksie359 said:

Half or your arguments are personal attacks and deflection. The funny part is you have yet to address the studies about these types of electromagnetic waves having adverse effects on plants. You can talk about theorticals all you want but I will trust real life experiments because that is the practical way to do things. 

What numerous studies? You have yet to show any. Show us the studies.

 

That's how a debate works. Someone makes an unsubstantiated claim (eg: no need to prove that an Apple is red, or that the sky is blue, or that gravity makes things fall downwards). That person then backs up the claim, or the claim is dismissed.

 

I won't address the personal attacks - if you feel that he has personally attacked you? Don't tell him or us. Report him and move on with the conversation.

 

EDIT: General note for the thread. A lot of people are confusing 5G (the cellular data standard that is the successor to LTE) and 5 GHz band frequency.

 

5G operates in one of two segments (and both segments could exist on the same site):

1. The existing LTE Frequency Range (600 MHz to 6 GHz) - many carriers are reusing older frequencies that are no longer needed, so it might operate on the same frequency that say 2G used to use.

2. "Millimeter wave" bands (24 GHz to 86 GHz)

 

Option #1 is going to be the vast majority of installations, most likely, since it should allow them to re-use existing frequency bands that they already own, and will likely get longer range too.

 

Option #2 is what allows for the insanely high upper bandwidth speeds that 5G can theoretically technically offer - even if these bands are used, I doubt we'll see anything close to the theoretical limit in terms of speed.

 

So while 5G might indeed operate on a 5 GHz frequency, the majority of installs probably won't.