By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
This has been done on here and it's safe as far as anyone knows. The conspiracy is based on a totally incorrect understanding of non-ionising radiation.
We do have a few advocates on here though unfortunately who have already spread fake news about this using one very dubious study which has been discredited.
Anyway, you've done it now, soon the nonsense will start.
SB
[Post edited 12 Jun 2019 8:57]
Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula
1
5G....safe/not safe.... on 09:05 - Jun 12 with 2920 views
5G....safe/not safe.... on 08:53 - Jun 12 by StokieBlue
This has been done on here and it's safe as far as anyone knows. The conspiracy is based on a totally incorrect understanding of non-ionising radiation.
We do have a few advocates on here though unfortunately who have already spread fake news about this using one very dubious study which has been discredited.
Anyway, you've done it now, soon the nonsense will start.
SB
[Post edited 12 Jun 2019 8:57]
200 scientists though....!
"Analysis by BBC Reality Check
Some people have questioned whether there are health risks from 5G, but experts and regulators say there is no evidence of danger.
Similar fears were expressed around earlier mobile internet and wi-fi.
More than 200 scientists appealed to the EU to halt the rollout of 5G, saying that electromagnetic fields may be harmful to humans and the environment, and could increase cancer risks.
But the EU says exposure from 5G will be far below limits set by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP).
"There has been no evidence to suggest that electromagnetic waves from mobile phones and networks are bad for your health," says Prof Malcolm Sperrin, Director of the Department of Medical Physics and Clinical Engineering at Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust.
He says a causal link between mobile phone use and cancer in humans is unproven.
5G technology is new but experts believe it poses no greater risk than earlier mobile systems."
Is the discredited survey the one referenced on BBC this morning do you know...can't remember the institute name claiming danger of tissue damage if phone kept close to the head?
Edit.... the regulator said they were "fairly sure".....hardly a ringing endorsement.
[Post edited 12 Jun 2019 9:06]
"They break our legs and tell us to be grateful when they offer us crutches."
Some people have questioned whether there are health risks from 5G, but experts and regulators say there is no evidence of danger.
Similar fears were expressed around earlier mobile internet and wi-fi.
More than 200 scientists appealed to the EU to halt the rollout of 5G, saying that electromagnetic fields may be harmful to humans and the environment, and could increase cancer risks.
But the EU says exposure from 5G will be far below limits set by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP).
"There has been no evidence to suggest that electromagnetic waves from mobile phones and networks are bad for your health," says Prof Malcolm Sperrin, Director of the Department of Medical Physics and Clinical Engineering at Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust.
He says a causal link between mobile phone use and cancer in humans is unproven.
5G technology is new but experts believe it poses no greater risk than earlier mobile systems."
Is the discredited survey the one referenced on BBC this morning do you know...can't remember the institute name claiming danger of tissue damage if phone kept close to the head?
Edit.... the regulator said they were "fairly sure".....hardly a ringing endorsement.
[Post edited 12 Jun 2019 9:06]
What about the rest of the scientific community that does think it's safe? Do you have the actual link rather than posting some text so people can see all the information for themselves?
The conclusion of the text you have posted is that it's safe.
There are loads of studies which reach the conclusion it's safe yet the one that doesn't gets all the headlines of course.
SB
Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula
0
5G....safe/not safe.... on 09:17 - Jun 12 with 2891 views
5G....safe/not safe.... on 09:11 - Jun 12 by StokieBlue
What about the rest of the scientific community that does think it's safe? Do you have the actual link rather than posting some text so people can see all the information for themselves?
The conclusion of the text you have posted is that it's safe.
There are loads of studies which reach the conclusion it's safe yet the one that doesn't gets all the headlines of course.
I suppose a broader question would be....do you think there is a danger that the introduction of technologies and associated profitability may top trump the precautionary principle?
"They break our legs and tell us to be grateful when they offer us crutches."
I suppose a broader question would be....do you think there is a danger that the introduction of technologies and associated profitability may top trump the precautionary principle?
The same arguments have been made for virtually every scientific breakthrough throughout history. The exact same arguments were made about mobiles and WiFi and were proven to be unfounded.
It's almost certain someone pointed at the first use of fire and said they weren't keen on it. It's some human trait.
It's right to ask the question, it's right to scrutinise the answer, it's wrong not to accept it after that point.
SB
[Post edited 12 Jun 2019 9:32]
Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula
0
5G....safe/not safe.... on 09:27 - Jun 12 with 2869 views
That wasn't the study I don't think, not the one that was posted on here anyway. Out of interest why to you focus on the "bad bit" of the reality check and not the expert conclusion at the end which says there is no evidence it's unsafe?
SB
Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula
0
5G....safe/not safe.... on 09:34 - Jun 12 with 2849 views
5G....safe/not safe.... on 09:26 - Jun 12 by StokieBlue
The same arguments have been made for virtually every scientific breakthrough throughout history. The exact same arguments were made about mobiles and WiFi and were proven to be unfounded.
It's almost certain someone pointed at the first use of fire and said they weren't keen on it. It's some human trait.
It's right to ask the question, it's right to scrutinise the answer, it's wrong not to accept it after that point.
5G....safe/not safe.... on 09:26 - Jun 12 by StokieBlue
The same arguments have been made for virtually every scientific breakthrough throughout history. The exact same arguments were made about mobiles and WiFi and were proven to be unfounded.
It's almost certain someone pointed at the first use of fire and said they weren't keen on it. It's some human trait.
It's right to ask the question, it's right to scrutinise the answer, it's wrong not to accept it after that point.
SB
[Post edited 12 Jun 2019 9:32]
I always remember a fairly normal science teacher of mine having vocal opinions on the dangers of microwaves within the household....and this was in the early 90's.
1
5G....safe/not safe.... on 09:46 - Jun 12 with 2828 views
5G....safe/not safe.... on 09:26 - Jun 12 by StokieBlue
The same arguments have been made for virtually every scientific breakthrough throughout history. The exact same arguments were made about mobiles and WiFi and were proven to be unfounded.
It's almost certain someone pointed at the first use of fire and said they weren't keen on it. It's some human trait.
It's right to ask the question, it's right to scrutinise the answer, it's wrong not to accept it after that point.
SB
[Post edited 12 Jun 2019 9:32]
....and various drugs, pesticides, fertilisers, asbestos......
"They break our legs and tell us to be grateful when they offer us crutches."
5G....safe/not safe.... on 09:27 - Jun 12 by StokieBlue
That wasn't the study I don't think, not the one that was posted on here anyway. Out of interest why to you focus on the "bad bit" of the reality check and not the expert conclusion at the end which says there is no evidence it's unsafe?
SB
I didn't I posted all of it....you seem to have jumped to the conclusion I have formed a firm opinion on 5G. Just questioning doesn't automatically make somebody a contrarian.
"They break our legs and tell us to be grateful when they offer us crutches."
I didn't I posted all of it....you seem to have jumped to the conclusion I have formed a firm opinion on 5G. Just questioning doesn't automatically make somebody a contrarian.
So tell us your thoughts my friend.
SB
Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula
0
5G....safe/not safe.... on 09:53 - Jun 12 with 2791 views
....and various drugs, pesticides, fertilisers, asbestos......
...and with all of those, legislation, processes and regulation was introduced to control, restrict or outright ban their use once the risks were apparent. The same legislation, etc also helps safeguard against future dangerus products hitting the general public.
I'm one of the people who was blamed for getting Paul Cook sacked. PM for the full post.
So those 200 just must be the wrong sort of scientists! There's a theme developing across subjects here.
The main trouble with that story is there some vague guff in the article abour 'could be hazardous' but the point isn't expansed upon. I'm not dismisisng this outright, but I'd be interested to see what studies and evidence they were basing it on, it's a problem across the board with science reporting outside of dedicated media.
Then, yes, there's some risk associated with this kind of radiation, but it's at a level above and beyond that which 5g is expected to put out, conducted under prolonged exposure. In rats. There's a theoretical cancer risk, but there's also one with coffee and talcum powder, for example.
[Post edited 12 Jun 2019 10:04]
I'm one of the people who was blamed for getting Paul Cook sacked. PM for the full post.
No just pointing out that experts change their minds and maybe some will with 5G once the experiment on humans has run a few years.
It's not really an experiment though. It's literally just using a higher frequency band than current technologies which allows for more bandwidth. That is all it is.
They have also conducted experiments on rats for more than a decade with much higher exposure to RF radiation with no effects shown. In fact many of the rats lived longer than the control sample.
I certainly understand people have worries but we have to stop constantly questioning people who know far more about subjects that we do. Questioning is fine but not accepting the answers isn't in my opinion.
SB
Edit: This is a few years old but it's quite a nice way of showing how radiation is all around us and the difference between ionising and non-ionising radiation. You'll notice that phone signals don't even appear in the list due to their non-ionising nature but are covered at the bottom:
5G....safe/not safe.... on 10:02 - Jun 12 by StokieBlue
It's not really an experiment though. It's literally just using a higher frequency band than current technologies which allows for more bandwidth. That is all it is.
They have also conducted experiments on rats for more than a decade with much higher exposure to RF radiation with no effects shown. In fact many of the rats lived longer than the control sample.
I certainly understand people have worries but we have to stop constantly questioning people who know far more about subjects that we do. Questioning is fine but not accepting the answers isn't in my opinion.
SB
Edit: This is a few years old but it's quite a nice way of showing how radiation is all around us and the difference between ionising and non-ionising radiation. You'll notice that phone signals don't even appear in the list due to their non-ionising nature but are covered at the bottom:
Essentially this. Questioning hypothesis, findings and methodology used to arrive at said findings is the basis of the peer review system at the end of the day. If you can poke holes in it and it still holds water then it's probably sound.
It's why centuries of research regarding vaccination tells us that it's both beneficial and safe and Andrew Wakefield was discredited and ultimately struck off, for example.
[Post edited 12 Jun 2019 10:12]
I'm one of the people who was blamed for getting Paul Cook sacked. PM for the full post.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
