"5G" is just* repurposed TV channel frequencies. If you've got TV reception then you've been living with a lifetime of exposure to "5G".
Would you be happy to have one next to your bedroom window?
My "office" used to be about 16ft from one (I know this because you couldn't swing a portacabin container round in the gap). They're only a danger if you stand directly in front of a transmitter at very close range (i.e. to the people working on them), which being 15-20m up a pole is bloody difficult to achieve for the rest of the population. Downside was you actually got a better signal at the other end of the site as we were too close so were in it's shadow!
*it's not, it's the collective term for the entire new infrastructure, the frequency they've used is just the last piece of the puzzle, but for the most part NIMBY's aren't objecting to the rack equipment in a nondescript industrial building somewhere far away.
Independent from who or what?
In this case it means the researchers are not (apparently) being paid by the people who benefit financially from there not being health risks.
Re industrial revolution health - back in the day people were exposed to a lot of air pollution locally from wood burning fires, particularly before chimneys were invented. And yes, the early industrial revolution was terrible for health for a lot of people but since then the society and technology it created has gradually improved public health which is why life expectancy (generally) goes up.
5G towers are pretty low power, so by the time it gets to you it's really small. Not enough to have an effect on anything really except your phone signal.
I’ve done 22yrs on telecoms in the field all networks, not kaput yet.
Communications equipment is inherently bad for human health and has been since they were first invented. Look at the stats: 100% of WW2 radar operators are dead. All the telegraph operators: dead. Switchboard girls: almost all dead. Smoke signal technicians: dead (apart from the ones at the Vatican, and they're often in poor health).
It makes you think...
In this case it means the researchers are not (apparently) being paid by the people who benefit financially from there not being health risks.
Which researchers are you talking about? Which technical journals do you read? Which conferences do you attend?
We have a lot of relatively well off retirees with time on their hands in the village and they love a good campaign
Fundamentally they don’t like the way they look and don’t want them near their house (because house value) so they will use any “evidence”, nonsense or otherwise, to get people to sign their petition.
Ironically having good reception is a key factor in house buying for a large portion of the population. Not for people who buy a morning paper with cash, and watch coronation street on live TV when it airs; but for the rest of the country living in the modern world....
People said the same about indoor plumbing.
Gods help them when they discover microwave ovens or radios.
Or the WiFi router in the corner of your living room.
This site has a lot of information, granted it represents the mobile operators.
Ref the country that has halted roll out, Switzerland did so in 2020 due to health concerns. This may be more about the legislation to make operators liable for any potential health issues.
It doesn't seem to be anything to worry about, but I also wouldn't be surprised if it was found to be an issue in many years to come. As a side note and I'm absolutely not saying this is anything to do with mobiles etc but not that long a go I remember SU2C advertising 1 in 4 people will get cancer and now it's 1 in 2. Obviously there are many reasons for this, detection, research, lifestyle and the environment.
SU2C advertising 1 in 4 people will get cancer and now it’s 1 in 2. Obviously there are many reasons for this, detection, research, lifestyle and the environment.
Everyone will get cancer if something else doesn't kill them first. If life expectancies increase, a greater proportion of people will live long enough to get cancer.
Also, not really surprising that an organization trying to raise money uses dubious numbers to scare people into donating. If you don't trust researchers into electromagnetic radiation, why do you trust cancer researchers when they are asking for money?
Would you be happy to have one next to your bedroom window?
Yet it wasn't that long ago that we had telegraph poles lining street after street after street up and down the country.
It doesn’t seem to be anything to worry about, but I also wouldn’t be surprised if it was found to be an issue in many years to come.
This makes no sense. Is there something to worry about or isn't there?
As a side note and I’m absolutely not saying this is anything to do with mobiles etc but not that long a go I remember SU2C advertising 1 in 4 people will get cancer and now it’s 1 in 2. Obviously there are many reasons for this, detection, research, lifestyle and the environment.
If it's nothing to do with mobiles why are you bringing it in to a discussion on mobiles?
One of the main reasons that more people are diagnosed with cancer now is that we are living longer as other stuff isn't killing us and cancer is predominently a disease of old age. You could view the rise in rates as a success story of modern medicine.
If you don’t trust researchers into electromagnetic radiation, why do you trust cancer researchers when they are asking for money?
True, but I suppose because sadly cancer is more tangible. In my team of 4, 3 of us have lost our Mums to cancer, 1 of us has a wife currently in the middle of chemo and another's Father is having it cut out of him today.
But anyway, I shouldn't have made that comparison.
If you don’t trust researchers into electromagnetic radiation, why do you trust cancer researchers when they are asking for money?
I'm always really wary of big, vague statistics like this, the detail often reveals a much more nuanced and less frightening story. What are these cancers? What is causing them? When are people getting them? Are they treatable? etc etc...
It doesn’t seem to be anything to worry about, but I also wouldn’t be surprised if it was found to be an issue in many years to come. As a side note and I’m absolutely not saying this is anything to do with mobiles etc but not that long a go I remember SU2C advertising 1 in 4 people will get cancer and now it’s 1 in 2. Obviously there are many reasons for this, detection, research, lifestyle and the environment.
Even taking it at face value, there's plenty of things that we do know cause cancers to worry about without spreading rumor's and misinformation about things we can't link to cancer but can't prove a negative. As politecameraaction put it, 100% of phone users will die, doesn't mean the phones did it.
As with all of these they should be shoved up in cities or on top of electricity pylons where they are virtually invisible. Or made much shorter. If they can't do that than they shouldn't be made.
I work on these sites occasionally. If you check the planning documents you'll probably find the RF diagrams I see when visiting, showing the direction of the signal beams and how it's been mapped to miss anywhere that a human could reasonably expect the access, and clearances over rooftops. I use an RF monitor and it's never gone off, even when waved on a stick towards the edges of the beam path (not in the middle as I don't have a stick long enough!)
I did once work on a hospital rooftop and whilst admiring the view I noticed a microwave dish pointing straight at me from a distant hospital building a few hundred metres away. I turned around and behind me was the other dish, pointing straight at the back of my head. Microwave is bad and I moved out of the way sharpish, quite likely I caused an outage 🙂
As with all of these they should be shoved up in cities or on top of electricity pylons where they are virtually invisible.
For effective coverage, they need to be quite closely spaced (around every 200m) so that won't work.
there’s plenty of things that we do know cause cancers to worry about without spreading rumor’s and misinformation about things we can’t link to cancer but can’t prove a negative.
Exactly. Saying "they should ban 5G masts because no-one's proved they don't cause cancer" is like saying "they should ban leopards because no-one's proved they don't cause diabetes"
Which researchers are you talking about? Which technical journals do you read? Which conferences do you attend?
I'm sorry, I don't have citations to hand. Do you have citations which support negative health effects of 5G masts? Very keen to read if so.
Even taking it at face value, there’s plenty of things that we do know cause cancers to worry about without spreading rumor’s and misinformation about things we can’t link to cancer but can’t prove a negative.
I don't believe I was if that's what you're inferring?
If you don’t trust researchers into electromagnetic radiation, why do you trust cancer researchers when they are asking for money?
I’m always really wary of big, vague statistics like this, the detail often reveals a much more nuanced and less frightening story. What are these cancers? What is causing them? When are people getting them? Are they treatable? etc etc…
This is a point about trusting experts, I think.
they should be shoved up in cities or on top of electricity pylons
How do you propose we work on them, huge electricity outage and hang from a helicopter? They've also need to be powered from 400,000v!
I’m sorry, I don’t have citations to hand.
So you distrust research, but have never actually looked at any of it? If you could point to some peer-reviewed research that has the problems you claim exist, it would be more convincing.
FFS, not this shite again. I spent a lot of time a couple of years ago with another forum contributor going over all this.
My doctorate was in this area (RF propagation on/around the body) none of which was paid for by the telecoms industry. I have then worked in this field in the defence industry for the last 15 years.
EDIT: - If you have any questions after reading the above linked thread please just ask and I'll provide any answers I can.
This is a point about trusting experts, I think.
My point was more about public understanding of science and how the media present scientific findings.
My doctorate was in this area (RF propagation on/around the body) none of which was paid for by the telecoms industry. I have then worked in this field in the defence industry for the last 15 years.
But you can't name a single research paper that you think has the problems you describe?
“they should ban leopards because no-one’s proved they don’t cause diabetes”
Well, that's stupid. Everyone knows it's Lions that cause diabetes.
There are two things here. One is that there is no known mechanism by which electromagnetic waves at those frequencies cause the health issues that the tin foil hat brigade claim. A lot is known about how E.M. waves interact with matter. Ionizing radiation is dangerous, but not all radiation is ionizing. Communications signals do not operate at frequencies high enough to cause that sort of danger.
Is that definitely true?
https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/whatwestudy/topics/cellphones/index.html
https://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/materials/cell_phone_radiofrequency_radiation_studies_508.pdf
"Clear evidence of an association with tumors in the hearts of male rats."
"The findings in animals cannot be directly applied to humans ... However, the studies question the long-held assumption that RFR is of no concern as long as the energy level is low and does not significantly heat the tissues."
“Clear evidence of an association with tumors in the hearts of male rats.”
Anyone who is worried about this should probably read the full article. The full story is far less alarming than this headline.
Particular points to note are:
"The exposure levels and durations were greater than what people may receive from cellphones.
• The rats and mice received RFR across their whole bodies, which is different from the more localized exposures humans may receive, like from a cellphone in their pocket or next to their head."
And
"The lowest exposure level used in the studies was equal to the maximum exposure to the local tissue (cells) currently allowed for cellphone users. This power level rarely occurs with typical cellphone use. The highest exposure level in the studies was four times higher than the maximum power level permitted for local tissues"
And
"NTP studies of RFR used in 2G and 3G cellphones do not apply to 4G or 5G technologies. These newer technologies use different methods of signal modulation than NTP used in the studies. The NTP
studies also did not investigate frequencies and modulations used for Wi-Fi."
Some mice in a chamber exposed to levels of RFR between 3 and 10 times the mandated limit put out by a phone? I suppose if you spent 24hrs a day on 10 mobile phone calls simultaneously you might have an issue. It also didn't look at 4G/5G frequencies.
*Edit* Like he said up there! 🤣
Is that definitely true?
The key word is "known."
However, as I also pointed out, telecom technicians don't seem to all die of cancer at a young age. If there is an effect, it seems to be so small that it's very difficult to detect.
we know the impact, becasue; physics. James Maxwell – who wrote the original maths that describe the effects of electromagnetism were developed in the 19th C, I don’t think there’s been any further research that has disproved the effects, or revised our understanding on the effects of it.
If you're going to play that game then you need to consider another more modern text here: description of paper. Quite a famous/credible author, most would agree. [Edit - link was going to wrong paper, search "Einstein 1905 light" should get it]
This radically changes how we think of the ionising effects of light - and adds to the body of evidence that radio / microwave frequency light doesn't ionise anything.
Thols2: there might be some crossed wires (ironically) but I think you, molgrips and jonm81 are all agreeing with each other.
There are loads of debunking articles by actual scientists, with actual science backing it up. The articles claiming there’s a health risk seem to be insinuation and hyperbole, from what I can tell.
Hmm I used to work with someone who couldnt have a computer near him (due to electrical interference). He couldnt go near electricity pylons as they made him ill, and he had a patch of black tape on the wall in the office to prevent a reflection of sun coming through the window that gave him migraines. How dare you suggest he was making it all up.
Damn it, my link didn't work.
Here it is: https://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/5g-towers-being-destroyed-for-transmitting-coronavirus/page/2/
How dare you suggest he was making it all up.
I'm not - it's perfectly possible for things to be considered not harmful in general, but harmful to some. Peanuts for example.
But you can’t name a single research paper that you think has the problems you describe?
Eh? I haven't described any problems. The whole cell phones cause cancer BS is just that and I spent a lot of time discussing it on the thread linked above.
I think you have the wrong impression that I disagree with you.
TBH for all the codswallop spouted by the anti-radiation group there's almost an equal amount spouted by the non-worriers.
Couple of examples
The Earth is bombarded with electromagnetic radiation, the sun started doing it a long time after the rest of the universe already had been doing. Gods help them when they discover microwave ovens or radios.
Just because X amount of something is fine doesn't mean XXX amount of the same thing is also fine.
Quite a convenient timescale that isn’t it? It means you can maintain this position without any risk of being shown to be wrong. A fundamentally unscientific stance.
The scientific stance being not to be concerned about anything that might happen long term, as we personally won't be around anyway. Yay.
FWIW I am am a) not personally worried about this issue and b) no sort of expert on this at all 🙂
Just annoyed about silly arguments, from either side of any discussion.
EM radiation from the sun does definitely cause cancer, but this is a fair bit more powerful than a 5G tower 🙂
I wonder if there's a variant of Dunning-Kruger at play here?
"But we don't really understand the science!" is often claimed of things like 5G masts and coronavirus vaccines when what people really mean is "I don't understand the science (and therefore conclude that it must be wrong)."
The Dunning-Cougar Effect? 😁
TBH for all the codswallop spouted by the anti-radiation group there’s almost an equal amount spouted by the non-worriers.
Couple of examples
The Earth is bombarded with electromagnetic radiation, the sun started doing it a long time after the rest of the universe already had been doing. Gods help them when they discover microwave ovens or radios.
Just because X amount of something is fine doesn’t mean XXX amount of the same thing is also fine.
This is true. But it's also wildly different from what I wrote in that quote you're calling codswallop.
There's a reason why having a one-off X-ray is considered perfectly fine but radiologers leave the room. If the radiation from the sun suddenly tripled, we'd be having a bad day. Hell, drinking too much water can kill you, why don't we hear people squawking about Big H2O? That's the shit they put in chemtrails!
Not for people who buy a morning paper with cash, and watch coronation street on live TV when it airs
Ah, I see you've met my village-mates.
I know it was first page but...
I’d forgotten it was there until I read this post.
Makes you think.
Oh, @jonm81 - thanks for posting that link, I'd completely forgotten about it. It's been an entertaining re-read.
Hell, drinking too much water can kill you, why don’t we hear people squawking about Big H2O?
Hey man, do your own research
