5G's potential Dangers and cell phone radiation exposure. Check description for Scientific Sources.

[inonotus]

 

 check description for Scientific sources. If you consider this as a hoax or something to be Giggled about your wrong mate.

 

At the WAN show linus tech tips giggled laughed maked joke about this but it's for real. Yes maybe millimeter wave is not something to worry about but in general we have to make a choice whether is it harmful or not. 

[BinaryShadow]

scientific sources, 55 links that appear to be news articles, other youtube videos and wiki.. ok so where's the science?

[Guest]

I think this supports your cause as well: https://www.cbc.ca/radio/q/blog/5-of-the-strangest-teletubbies-conspiracy-theories-1.4048398

[Eigenvektor]

 

[LAwLz]

3 hours ago, BinaryShadow said:

scientific sources, 55 links that appear to be news articles, other youtube videos and wiki.. ok so where's the science?

There are actually some legitimate sources in the list. I haven't watched the video but I am fairly sure the person who made the video either misinterprets or cherry picks some data from the legitimate sources though.

For example there are some legitimate statistics about birth rates in one of the news article from Vox. But the explanation for lower birth rates are explained in the data by things such as "better access to birth control", but I wouldn't be surprised if the Youtuber just goes "see, we have lower birthrates! It's because phones are cooking our babies!" even though that's not what the data says.

 

There is also another link to the NCBI which seems to be a legitimate study which shows that there might be a link between cellphone usage and certain types of head tumors. However, even if the findings are accurate (remember, science usually require consensus between multiple different studies to be seen as legitimate, aka peer reviewed) this study is 9 years old at this point, and it goes over data which is another 10 years old. In other words, the study is not about 5G since the data is from the the late 90's or early 2000's. No idea why 20 year old data is being brought up in a video about 5G which has only been on the market for like 2 years at most.

[Meganter]

Let's be honest,

 

If they wanted to spread Covid-19 with some kind of radio wave/wireless, they would use well radio wave and 4G. Not a technology that is not yet implemented in most countries.

 

 

Use your brain, they're obviously covering the fact that it's spreading though those networks and not 5G.

 

/s

[Sauron]

23 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

There is also another link to the NCBI which seems to be a legitimate study which shows that there might be a link between cellphone usage and certain types of head tumors. However, even if the findings are accurate (remember, science usually require consensus between multiple different studies to be seen as legitimate, aka peer reviewed) this study is 9 years old at this point, and it goes over data which is another 10 years old. In other words, the study is not about 5G since the data is from the the late 90's or early 2000's. No idea why 20 year old data is being brought up in a video about 5G which has only been on the market for like 2 years at most.

To add to this, as far as I know there are only a couple of studies that found a meaningful correlation between cell phone radiation and cancer but there's reason to believe there were flaws in the methodology - and further results from the same teams seem to contradict those findings. For instance the lab rat study all of these nuts keep bringing up only found a correlation in male rats while in females they found a negative correlation, meaning the radiation seemed to cure or inhibit cancer instead. They also used power levels that were orders of magnitude higher than real world values.

 

Not to mention that the vast, vast majority of peer reviewed studies find no correlation whatsoever.

[Sauron]

34 minutes ago, Meganter said:

Use your brain, they're obviously covering the fact that it's spreading though those networks and not 5G.

No bruh, the truth is obvious

[LogicalDrm]

Ok, crushing time. In spoiler are the "scientific resources" used. I've checked them all, and skimmed some of the more valid articles through. As background, I have Masters degree, not on physics, biology or anything like that. But I have read fair share of scientific texts and know how to extract actual valuable info.

Spoiler

1. https://cellphones.procon.org/view.re...
2. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2...
3. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed...
4. https://venturebeat.com/2017/06/13/5-...
5. https://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...
6. http://www.physics.org/article-questi...
7. http://www.radiationdangers.com/cell-...
8. https://www.hindawi.com/journals/jeph...
9. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devra_D...
10. https://www.researchgate.net/publicat...
11.  https://www.emfacts.com/2017/08/cance...
12. https://faculty.washington.edu/chudle...
13. http://theconversation.com/explainer-...
14. ttps://www.cellphonetaskforce.org/th...
15. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/art...
16. https://www.saferemr.com/2015/05/brai...
17. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2...
18. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science...
19. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NCTA_(a...)
20. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2...
21. https://www.ctia.org/about-ctia/the-c...
22. https://www.rcrwireless.com/20140811/...
23. https://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blo...
24. https://www.prlog.org/12359483-cdc-is...
25. https://ehtrust.org/take-action/educa...
26. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...
27. https://www.webmd.com/children/news/2...
28. http://capitolweekly.net/berkeley-wir...
29. https://www.ejmanager.com/mnstemps/65...
30. https://www.healthline.com/health/oxi...
31. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sh...
32. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science...
33. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2...
34. https://ehtrust.org/take-action/educa...
35. https://www.rfsafe.com/specific-absor...
36. https://www.rfsafe.com/specific-absor...
37. http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/u...
38. https://www.saferemr.com/2017/08/5g-w...
39. https://www.france24.com/en/20190205-...
40. https://www.livescience.com/32860-why...
41. https://www.defendershield.com/global...
42. http://www.emfresearch.com
43. https://science.howstuffworks.com/rad...
44. https://www.wirelesseducation.org/107...
45. https://microwavenews.com/news-center...
46. https://www.vox.com/science-and-healt...
47. https://ehtrust.org/key-issues/electr...
48. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2...
49. https://ehtrust.org/science/cell-towe...
50. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wm69i...
51. https://microwavenews.com/news-center...
52. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/p...
53. http://www.kallansklan.org/uploads/Fa...
54. https://www.researchgate.net/publicat...
55. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jc9yF...

1. Is web article about history of research. Not counted as scientific, thought it refers to actual studies. There are many parts, ending with "the available scientific evidence continues to not support adverse health effects in humans caused by exposures".
2. Article on news site, not scientific while may have sources on actual research studies. ALWAYS read the original article for actual information.
3. Scientific research from 2011, stating that there's no notable risk (this study is referred in (1)).
4. Online tech news site, also article isn't about any research, just general info
5. This is same study referred in (1) which verifies tumors in rats, but doesn't proof any human relations. Also still about RF signals, not directly linked to just 5G, but to all radio transmissions.
6. General info, nothing to either side here.
7. Site name itself is, well, you get it. But the source is valid. As science news, not actually hosting the article which they talk about. The article gives some spark on the issue, but if you actually read it, they mix pretty well actual statistics and actual research. Of which don't directly correlate.
8. Actual scientific research, but just a statistical analysis.
9. Wikipedia, we can skip the value.
10. Actual article, but talking about towers, not phones.
11. Pretty much news article about one researchers OPINION.
12. Oh god, the early 00s wibes here. If you want elementary level explanation, read this.
13. Same as (12), but in more scientific terms
14. Another mans OPINION. Skip.
15. Statistical analysis, without any actual conclusion on either side.
16. Opinion piece
17. This is first good research, while i only read abstract.
18. Testing in rats. As I can't (probably can, but don't have time) check results/conclusions, this can't be used further.
19. Wikipedia, skip.
20. WHY THE HECK THIS IS HERE???
21. I repeat. WHY THE HECK THIS IS HERE???
22. More politics
23. Even more politics
24. This is pretty much in lines of "too much sun causes cancer"
25. General info
26. Literature study, not actual testing done.
27. Web article, nothing actual value here.
28. Politics I think.
29. Editorial aka OPINION or literature study.
30. Oh boy, I wonder why this has been picked as source. Skip.
31. At this point, if you bother reading, this is general info.
32. About Wifi, but could be interesting to read.
33. Rats again, but study seems like interesting to read.
34. History...
35. This is the most bias site I've seen on this list. General info with biased tint.
36. Same as above.
37. OPINION piece.
38. OPINION piece.
39. Ok, this is more about politics and other stuff. Not actually related to health risks. Also biased.
40. Why rats are used? Read here.
41. This feels like partial scam-site. With strong bias as it helps to sell their stuff. SKIP!
42. Blog collecting research. Idk why this would be even used as source.
43. General physics in simpler terms.
44. This is more general style. About WiFi and transmission source.
45. Web article about actual study. Which is statistical analysis proving nothing.
46. General statistical web article. I don't know why this is related.
47. Something something insurance in US something.
48. Probably 2nd good article actually suggesting some issues with prolonged use of phones. However, published 16 years ago. When phones were really new thing and calling was to mostly used method.
49. General about towers.
50. News sites YT video. Skip...
51. Web article reviewing a study. I see very little value other than sensationalism.
52. Literature review.
53. General.
54. Ok. This is among the funniest. I'm guessing creator googled words, this came up and they just added it to list as it was scientific study about some antennas. Just read the title and abstract at least before linking to scientific articles in future. Please.
55. The funny ending.

 

So in conclusions. Yes, the radiation causes cancer. Thats a fact. But its still unclear if it does cause more than direct sun light, coffee, tobacco or other such things. The current classification is 2B, there were couple articles about proposing increasing risk assessment to 2A or 1. Most damming evidence is found testing with rats. All evidence from statistical analysis and such have not found significant evidence to backup any claims.

 

There is stronger evidence that cell towers, and WiFi stations, cause issues. And as personal opinion I'm behind that part of things. I don't think holding phone on your hand causes issues. Holding on your ear for prolonged periods maybe. Living next to cell tower? Now thats where the issue really is. Which is why there needs to be regulations about building certain things near towers.

 

Always read things yourself. I mean, if you read even the sources, abstracts and such through you get better glance on actual things. And please, learn difference between actual scientific articles and web news, opinion pieces, blogs and other nonsense that was called scientific sources here.

[WkdPaul]

* thread locked *

 

Thanks @LogicalDrm for the breakdown.