We Have No Reason to Believe 5G Is Safe

[fapmasterjr]

maan, i love me some fast internet...if ya'll keep eating that nasty food, smoking cigs, and going raw dog in the booty hole
.....let me have my 5G vice.

 

[getback]

The fact that the 5G waves can penetrate the skin makes me want to stay away from it.

You should stay away from 3G and 4G then too

You can think of an electromagnetic frequency like ocean waves reaching the shore at a set interval. The more frequent the waves, the smaller the distance between them, i.e., the shorter the “wavelength.” So, for example, a frequency of three gigahertz has a wavelength of 99 centimeters; at 300 GHz, the wavelength is less than a millimeter.

The extremely high frequencies—what scientists call millimeter waves, which range from 30 to 300 GHz—carry information at faster speeds. While 2G, 3G, and 4G function at frequencies as low as 700 megahertz and as high as 2.5 GHz, 5G will operate using millimeter waves. These penetrate objects less easily

 

[mr z]

You should stay away from 3G and 4G then too

You can think of an electromagnetic frequency like ocean waves reaching the shore at a set interval. The more frequent the waves, the smaller the distance between them, i.e., the shorter the “wavelength.” So, for example, a frequency of three gigahertz has a wavelength of 99 centimeters; at 300 GHz, the wavelength is less than a millimeter.

The extremely high frequencies—what scientists call millimeter waves, which range from 30 to 300 GHz—carry information at faster speeds. While 2G, 3G, and 4G function at frequencies as low as 700 megahertz and as high as 2.5 GHz, 5G will operate using millimeter waves. These penetrate objects less easily

OP posted an article from Joel Moskowitz, PhD, a director at Cal Berkely. You posted an excerpt from an article and didnt even post the source. Don't let it be from an ATT or Verizon owned media outlet

Edit: You also left out some very important parts in the excerpt

 

[getback]

OP posted an article from Joel Moskowitz, PhD, a director at Cal Berkely. You posted an excerpt from an article and didnt even post the source. Don't let it be from an ATT or Verizon owned media outlet

Edit: You also left out some very important parts in the excerpt

The source is New Republic and the article literally echos OP

Dr. Martin Pall, Washington State one of the main contributors. The article also invokes Joel Moskowitz arguments.

The irony was entirely lost on you though.

Also, I don't put people on pedestal because they have a PhD. Especially when they do this:

"Pall takes the risk so seriously that he now wears a metal mesh undergarment designed, he says, to deflect the electropollutants emanating from cell sites, mobile phones, and Wi-Fi antennas. He does not carry a cell phone or use Wi-Fi, and his work computer is hard-wired."

 

[RustyShackleford]

The 5G conspiracy to be one of the dumbest things popping on the internet. Only QAnon got it beat

 

[BIG LEEMELONE]

The 5G conspiracy to be one of the dumbest things popping on the internet. Only QAnon got it beat

What is the 5G conspiracy in your own words?

 

[RustyShackleford]

What is the 5G conspiracy in your own words?

Dumb

 

[calibeebee]

Dumb

 

[BIG LEEMELONE]

Dumb

This thread isn't about any conspiracy theories

 

[deleted]

This thread isn't about any conspiracy theories

 

[RustyShackleford]

This thread isn't about any conspiracy theories

I know you don't think it is

 

[BIG LEEMELONE]

Damn you know how to use gifs?

 

[BIG LEEMELONE]

I know you don't think it is

What makes anything in this thread a conspiracy theory?

 

[blastercombo]

What makes anything in this thread a conspiracy theory?

Dumb

 

[gregory house]

Don't Fall Prey to Scaremongering about 5G

Activists cite low-quality studies in arguing radio-frequency radiation is dangerous, but the weight of evidence shows no risk

blogs.scientificamerican.com

Damn can't believe Joel teaches at Berkeley, making us other Cal Bears look like kooks

 

[swendro]

There's probably 10 other things in my life that are giving me cancer, heart disease, what have you.

But I'll keep my phone away so If I haven't worked myself to death, I avoid famine/drought/disease caused by climate change, then I can die at ~80 (likely under stressful conditions), 10+ years removed from the last time there were bees, elephants, or chocolate in the world.

Maybe then I'll be glad I read this thread.

 

[Beruseruku Desu]

 

[blastercombo]

I'm just tryna help yall preserve your already deficient sperm count and low testerone. Do with this information what you will

Aren’t you fat, white, and bald?

 

[tr1ll]

Im still trying figure out what makes that single extra G so bad?

 

[cragmatic]

Sheesh, this popped back up again.

some girl I used to work with is going crazy about 5G on Facebook. Insanity.

 

[tr1ll]

Sheesh, this popped back up again.

some girl I used to work with is going crazy about 5G on Facebook. Insanity.

…on her 5g phone.

 

[youngwolf]

Inside the Strange and Scammy World of Anti-5G Accessories | Digital Trends

Fears about cell phones emitting harmful radiation have been around for decades. Now that 5G is rolling out, sketchy retailers are using that fear to cash in

www.digitaltrends.com

 

[BIG LEEMELONE]

In this paper, we show how the past 25 years of extensive research on RFR demonstrates that the assumptions underlying the FCC’s and ICNIRP’s exposure limits are invalid and continue to present a public health harm. Adverse effects observed at exposures below the assumed threshold SAR include non-thermal induction of reactive oxygen species, DNA damage, cardiomyopathy, carcinogenicity, sperm damage, and neurological effects, including electromagnetic hypersensitivity. Also, multiple human studies have found statistically significant associations between RFR exposure and increased brain and thyroid cancer risk. Yet, in 2020, and in light of the body of evidence reviewed in this article, the FCC and ICNIRP reaffirmed the same limits that were established in the 1990s. Consequently, these exposure limits, which are based on false suppositions, do not adequately protect workers, children, hypersensitive individuals, and the general population from short-term or long-term RFR exposures. Thus, urgently needed are health protective exposure limits for humans and the environment. These limits must be based on scientific evidence rather than on erroneous assumptions, especially given the increasing worldwide exposures of people and the environment to RFR, including novel forms of radiation from 5G telecommunications for which there are no adequate health effects studies.

Exposure limits for RF radiation are based on numerous assumptions; however, research studies published over the past 25 years show that most of those assumptions are not supported by scientific evidence. In the NCRP report [6], the authors noted that when further understanding of biological effects of RF radiation becomes available, exposure guidelines will need to be evaluated and possibly revised. The ANSI/IEEE document [7] also notes that effects of chronic exposure or evidence of non-thermal interactions could result in revising exposure standards. Unfortunately, these recommendations were never implemented. Assumptions of safety from exposures that could adversely affect human or environmental health should be tested and validated before widespread exposures occur, not afterwards, by agencies responsible for protecting public health.

Scientific evidence invalidates health assumptions underlying the FCC and ICNIRP exposure limit determinations for radiofrequency radiation: implications for 5G - Environmental Health

In the late-1990s, the FCC and ICNIRP adopted radiofrequency radiation (RFR) exposure limits to protect the public and workers from adverse effects of RFR. These limits were based on results from behavioral studies conducted in the 1980s involving 40–60-minute exposures in 5 monkeys and 8 rats...

ehjournal.biomedcentral.com

 

[BIG LEEMELONE]

Case-control studies, using sound scientific methods, have consistently found increased risks with long-term, heavy mobile phone use for brain tumors of the glioma type and acoustic neuroma. This association was evaluated at IARC in 2011 by 30 expert participants who concluded that radiofrequency (RF) radiation is a “possible” human carcinogen [44]. In contrast, the much-cited Danish cohort study on ‘mobile phone users’ [113] was disregarded by IARC due to serious methodological shortcomings in the study design, including exposure misclassifications [44, 114].

Results of meta-analyses of glioma risk and acoustic neuroma from Swedish case-control studies conducted by Hardell and coworkers [115, 116], the 13-nation Interphone study [117], and the French study by Coureau et al. [118] are shown in Table 1 as odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals. For glioma on any location in the head, a statistically significant increase of nearly two-fold was found, while for ipsilateral mobile phone use (tumor and phone use on the same side of the head) the risk was increased by 2.5-fold. These ORs are based on the groups in each study with the highest category of cumulative call time, which were ≥ 1640 hr. in the Interphone study [117, 119] and the Swedish studies [115, 116], and ≥ 896 hr. in the study by Coureau et al. [118]. Decreased survival among glioma cases, especially astrocytoma grade IV, was associated with long-term and high cumulative use of wireless phones [120]. Increased risk for the mutant type of p53 gene expression in the peripheral zone of astrocytoma grade IV was associated with use of mobile phones for ≥3 hours a day. Increase in this mutation was significantly correlated with shorter overall survival time [121].

 

[BIG LEEMELONE]

Always thought it was interesting how you're not supposed to hold a cell phone up to your ear or even have it in your pocket without some extra barrier between the phone and your clothing.

On Tuesday, the city council of Berkeley, California, will vote on a cellphone "right to know" law that would be the first safety ordinance of its kind in the country. It would require cellphone retailers to include a city-prepared notice along with the purchase of a cellphone, informing consumers of the minimum separation distance a cellphone should be held from the body.

The Federal Communication Commission recommends keeping your phone 5 to 25 millimeters away, depending on the model, to limit radio frequency (RF) exposure to safe levels.

"If you carry or use your phone in a pants or shirt pocket or tucked into a bra when the phone is ON and connected to a wireless network, you may exceed the federal guidelines for exposure to RF [radio frequency] radiation," is part of the proposed language. Retailers would be prohibited from selling phones that do not bear the warning:

"This potential risk is greater for children. Refer to the instructions in your phone or user manual for information about how to use your phone safely."


Berkeley might become the first city to adopt such an ordinance, but it's not the first place to try. Health groups and consumers have been campaigning for cellular safety regulations for years now.

A cellphone warning label bill was introduced in Maine in 2010 by state senator Andrea Boland, who says the public deserves to know about the potential risks associated with cellphone radiation. "Obscure warnings in tiny print or embedded deep in phones can only protect manufacturers from users," Boland points out, "not users from potential harm like cancers, Alzheimer's, learning disabilities, reproductive issues, etc."