Dangers of 5G a real risk?

[Lee L.]

Corruption is a fact. I love my country and I believe in government. But I don't forget that man is flawed and ultimately ruled by prestige. For these reasons I know cover ups and suppression of information is a common practice for political figures nevermind your average Joe. 

 

I'm no sheep I stay far from the heard ya heard! For real though gn

 

One last thing. Thanks for the good discussion. Glad I joined the forum. 

[Mira Yurizaki]

29 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

And yet companies are in a hurry to push 5G, it seems more like money and marketing new tech first to make some sweet sweet cash on the increasing prices of flagship phones, and how safe 5G really is second.

For 5G antennas to be in closer proximity to homes there should be conclusive testing.

I'm almost certain we've studied radio frequency waves and its effects on the human body in a wide variety of frequency ranges since we've been able to harness its power. It doesn't matter what the final application of the technology is. 22 GHz RF is 22 GHz RF.

 

And again the problem with negative testing is there's an impractical number of conditions to test in. Even if someone researched 1,000 scenarios and brought the likelihood of something happening to nigh probabilities, someone is going to go "but you didn't test it when..."

[8uhbbhu8]

3 hours ago, Lee L. said:

 

You have a higher chance of getting cancer from being outside then microwave signals from towers. It's not just "Radiation" It's the type and quantity of exposure over time that matters. The sun puts out far far more of all of that then anything we've made for consumer use other then microwave ovens.

[kirashi]

3 hours ago, Lee L. said:

I keep hearing about the dangers of 5G and legitimate cancer risks. I was wondering if you could please look into it and give us your opinion. I've seen your past video regarding the networks prior to 5G rollout but I've seen this new network runs at a much higher frequency and doesn't travel far introducing mini cell towers on 1 in 8 houses. I'm honestly concerned being a father and living in a major city. Linus HELP!!!

I'll just leave this where I usually leave it... http://xkcd.com/radiation

2 hours ago, Lee L. said:

If I die from bananas is irrelevant.

Death from bananas is absolutely relevant in answering your question, as the average banana contains about half a gram of potassium. The K-40 in such a banana will hold about 15 becquerels of radioactivity, therefor technically can cause cancer if you eat enough of them.

So... unless you use a BananaPhone™, regular cell phones don't cause cancer.

[Salv8 (sam)]

nah, the rads will give me superpowers...

it will also turn me green, make me stupid and violent!

now thats some radiation!

[Lee L.]

World health organization has rf listed as a carcinogen. Classified a 2b carcinogen. So yeah it's low risk with 4G but 5G isn't 1 tower every other Town. It's thousands of towers in your community. And no you don't have a choice where the towers go. It's how the network has to be set up to work properly. 

[kirashi]

2 hours ago, Lee L. said:

Look up testing on 5G in India. You will be shocked at what the villages think about this glorious 5G....well those of them that aren't riddled with brain cancer

What someone thinks and what is factually proven scientific evidence are completely different things. Don't really care what people think in this context.

2 hours ago, Lee L. said:

4G networks use frequencies below 6 GHz, but 5G uses extremely high frequencies in the 30 GHz to 300 GHz range.

Wrong. Please see the (still in draft) standard as proposed by 3GPP. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5G_NR_frequency_bands

2 hours ago, Lee L. said:

What I do know is the rates of cancer for people who work on cell towers is astonishing.

Please provide unbiased, peer reviewed studies backing this point up.

1 hour ago, Lee L. said:

They also have admitted they can't say it doesn't cause cancer or it does by many researchers. ...there are multiple hypothesis about this. Some are convinced this is the worst and others say it's fine. ... u can find multiple studies proving or disproving it. Depends where u look. 

Wow, amazing, did you know that we also cannot say that water doesn't cause cancer, and yet if you stop drinking it for 3 days, you die?!? Science is amazing! /s

 

Since a hypothesis is defined as "a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation" all these ideas are unproven conjecture. Yes, they're indeed a starting point, I'll give them that, but I have yet to see any factual evidence stating that RF causes cancer any more than drinking water does.

1 hour ago, Lee L. said:

http://scientists4wiredtech.com/2018/07/firefighters-living-next-to-cell-towers-suffer-neurological-damage/

Exhibit A, emphasized with bolded sections for your convenience. http://scientists4wiredtech.com/disclaimer/

All content on this website is based on the opinions of the respective authors, and is not intended to be used as a substitute for medical advice or expert advice of any kind. Its purpose is to share information related to research and experience on Radio-Frequency Microwave Radiation (RF/MW radiation), for educational purposes only. No content provided by Scientists For Wired Technology should be construed as medical consultation or advice. You are encouraged to seek advice from competent professional(s) and make your own health care decisions based on your own research.

1 hour ago, Lee L. said:

If there is doubt check it out. Don't rush new tech. Hence why Linus never recommends preorders. I'm not convinced its truly safe and I'm not convinced its dangerous. I'm just concerned because it's new and has caused a stir. 

Um... preorders don't really have anything to do with the launch of 5G LTE... the main reason preordering something is not recommended is because there's a risk that your preorder may not actually be the same as advertised, or might even straight up never make it to your door.

 

I would like to note that I respect your opinion that you're not convinced 5G LTE is truly safe, nor are you convinced it's dangerous. The fact that you're asking questions is a step above most of the internet (and ... certain people in real life) so that's great to see - in fact, more consumers need to ask manufacturers questions about their poorly designed products, or pretty soon we won't have cars with hoods that open anymore. At the same time, I really can't justify wasting time worrying about something with no factual evidence to back it up, as time on this earth is limited.

[Lee L.]

When it comes to my kids time on Earth I worry about it. My time is fine I've lived 36 years my kids 7 so I want to know the dangers for her sake not mine. 

[Pixel5]

1 hour ago, Lee L. said:

World health organization has rf listed as a carcinogen. Classified a 2b carcinogen. So yeah it's low risk with 4G but 5G isn't 1 tower every other Town. It's thousands of towers in your community. And no you don't have a choice where the towers go. It's how the network has to be set up to work properly. 

you are assuming here that the number of towers being higher means more radiation and also you earlier assumed they use higher frequencies that could be dangerous.

 

all of this is completely false, as the frequencies they use are still lower than other already publicly used frequencies like 5.8Ghz which is commonly used for wireless video transmission.

 

same with the towers, the reason they need more towers is because the range of these higher frequencies is lower so they would need much more transmission power if they dont increase the number of towers.

so more towers actually means less powerful radiation.

 

also the statement that the WHO listed rf as carcinogenic is HIGHLY misleading because it completely ignores absolutely every single detail in their report.

they reviewed studies with regards to rf radiation causing brain tumors and found evidence they listed as limited for increasing the risk for brain tumors and inadequate to assume it causes other kinds of cancer.

 

'Limited evidence of carcinogenicity': A positive association has been observed between exposure to the agent and cancer for which a causal interpretation is considered by the Working Group to be credible, but chance, bias or confounding could not be ruled out with reasonable confidence

 

Inadequate evidence of carcinogenicity': The available studies are of insufficient quality, consistency or statistical power to permit a conclusion regarding the presence or absence of a causal association between exposure and cancer, or no data on cancer in humans are available

 

all they did is put rf on the list of possibly carcinogenic which is a huge list of things where we assume they have some effect but the effect is so small or delayed that we have no evidence strong enough to confirm its really the cause. 

 

https://www.iarc.fr/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/pr208_E.pdf

 

this is why it is important that people stop shouting out misleading stuff like you did, it literally took me 5 minutes to google who rf carcinogenic and read the whole paper and thats all it takes to stop spreading false statements.

[tikker]

2 hours ago, Lee L. said:

World health organization has rf listed as a carcinogen. Classified a 2b carcinogen. So yeah it's low risk with 4G but 5G isn't 1 tower every other Town. It's thousands of towers in your community. And no you don't have a choice where the towers go. It's how the network has to be set up to work properly. 

Aloe vera extract and ehaust fumes are also in that category. They clarify after that

Quote

Based largely on these data, IARC has classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B), a category used when a causal association is considered credible, but when chance, bias or confounding cannot be ruled out with reasonable confidence.

which, as mentioned before, is because one can never prove something is safe, but in this case it also cannot be significantly proven that it is not.

[WhiteWolf_]

Objectively it can, but so does ultraviolet, the light you don't see from the sun. All frequencies, mechanical or EM can be carcinogenic, just the shorter the wavelength the more powerful of a carcinogen they are, as they pass through/into matter and make it vibrate.

 

UV is 10-400nm

5GHz is 6cm 

 

Essentially that data above when looking completely empirically means that 5GHz is 600 000 times less powerful than the suns average UV. Which means the equivalent of one full day of exposure to normal UV light would be equivalent to 600 000 days of 5GHz exposure. 

 

Make your mind up from there. People don't make it past 40 000 days. If you're scared of 5GHz you should be scared of 2 hours of the being in sun, or just existing, the earth emits radiation naturally, especially in some places in Europe, generally a large amount of beta emission.

 

If you're going to worry about cancer, worry about alcohol or hormones added to food. The only reason you hear people cry about 5GHz frequency cancer risk is because the alcohol companies don't want you seeing the stories of all those pancreatic cancers. 

[Mira Yurizaki]

1 hour ago, WhiteWolf_ said:

If you're going to worry about cancer, worry about alcohol or hormones added to food. The only reason you hear people cry about 5GHz frequency cancer risk is because the alcohol companies don't want you seeing the stories of all those pancreatic cancers. 

Everything is a poison and everything will give you cancer. The burning question is how much and how long?

[mr moose]

If you genuinely want to know, go and talk to a biologist or specialist in this field,  Maybe send Brady Haran an Email and ask him to do a video on it.  He has access to the some of the best experts in these fields.

http://www.bradyharan.com/

 

 

If not, the short answer is no it does not cause cancer.  Modern science has a very food understanding of when EM becomes ionizing and it's basically after UV, everything before that at best will just burn you if you get too close. 

 

https://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/about/what_is_ir/en/

[kilgore_T]

i hear you man, my son is 7, and i personally feel that trying to combat the toxicity of the modern environment is best accomplished by feeding them the freshest most nutritious and least processed food, make them internally strong is about the only thing we can do

 

 

[tikker]

8 hours ago, WhiteWolf_ said:

5GHz is 6cm and it is also mechanical, which means it does not have the 90 degree counter part.

Radio waves are electromagnetic radiation, not mechanical radiation. Could you elaborate a bit on this statement?

[Mira Yurizaki]

2 hours ago, tikker said:

Radio waves are electromagnetic radiation, not mechanical radiation. Could you elaborate a bit on this statement?

Exposure to high power RF causes thermal injuries and there was at least one study to suggest that thermal injuries could cause DNA damage (which is basically what can lead to cancer): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19587691

 

However, the amount of RF exposure you need for such injuries to even manifest are excessively more than what you'd get from being near a cell tower.

Edited March 11, 2019 by Mira Yurizaki

[BuckGup]

On 3/9/2019 at 10:18 PM, Teddy07 said:

Are you serious?

How is a guy like Linus supposed to know the answer when experts in the field disagree.

This is basically anything outside of basic computer and low level server stuff lol

[bob345]

12 hours ago, WhiteWolf_ said:

it is also mechanical, which means it does not have the 90 degree counter part.

Not sure where you leaned this but it is not true. Radio waves are not mechanical, they are electromagnetic the same as light. Light, as well as radio waves can be polarized as well. In fact there are many forms of modulation that control both phase and polarization to embed data in a signal.

 

 

[tikker]

4 hours ago, Mira Yurizaki said:

Exposure to high power RF causes thermal injuries and there was at least one study to suggest that thermal injuries could cause DNA damage (which is basically what can lead to cancer): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19587691

 

However, the amount of RF exposure you need for such injuries to even manifest are excessively more than what you'd get from being near a cell tower.

But mechanical waves are waves like sound, so I guess I get the point, but saying radio waves are mechanical and aren't polarized (what I assume was meant with the "90 degree counterpart") is still wrong (or they have a different meaning for mechanical).

[Mira Yurizaki]

7 minutes ago, tikker said:

But mechanical waves are waves like sound, so I guess I get the point, but saying radio waves are mechanical and aren't polarized (what I assume was meant with the "90 degree counterpart") is still wrong (or they have a different meaning for mechanical).

I dunno what that guy really meant, but hey, thermal energy seems to be in everything mechanical so ...

 

Yeah I got nothing.

[tikker]

6 minutes ago, Mira Yurizaki said:

I dunno what that guy really meant, but hey, thermal energy seems to be in everything mechanical so ...

 

Yeah I got nothing.

Haha true. I knew the damage would come from heating, but I doubt they'd think mass-microwaving everyone with supercharged cell towers would be a good idea, so surely they'd emit at a safe power level (except close up maaaybe) 

[WhiteWolf_]

13 hours ago, bob345 said:

Not sure where you leaned this but it is not true. Radio waves are not mechanical, they are electromagnetic the same as light. Light, as well as radio waves can be polarized as well. In fact there are many forms of modulation that control both phase and polarization to embed data in a signal.

 

 

I think my brain was off, that was what i was thinking. Like i still remember learning about half wave dipole antennas, feel like smacking my forehead on my keyboard right now.

 

And yes they're not mechanical radiation, which cannot pass through matter (hence what makes EM carcinogenic). 

 

I must have just been thinking about mechanical radiation then wrote it down without cross checking what i wrote, or re-reading at all. Now i am embarrassed, tried to make a good point and just made some diarrhoea. 

 

I'll edit that out of my post and pretend it never happened, no misinformation intended, just an idiotic mistake 

 

And realistically the correction just solidifies the mathematics to my little theory as well. Maybe it is best i didn't take up Physics in uni like i originally intended, i am a psych grad after all