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.
The trouble is research would take years to fully test you wont know for sure until 20 years from now.
Scientist / research said feeding cattle recycled meat was ok even though some people weren't convinced years later we gave the world mad cow disease and a different group of scientist told us it couldn't transfer to humans, research had proved it, obviously that was also proved incorrect
0
5G....safe/not safe.... on 10:18 - Jun 12 with 1698 views
5G....safe/not safe.... on 10:15 - Jun 12 by BloomBlue
The trouble is research would take years to fully test you wont know for sure until 20 years from now.
Scientist / research said feeding cattle recycled meat was ok even though some people weren't convinced years later we gave the world mad cow disease and a different group of scientist told us it couldn't transfer to humans, research had proved it, obviously that was also proved incorrect
And this is why you never rely on one sole piece of evidence. You test, test again and then test some more. Poke holes in hypothesis, methodology and findings. Test again. Review all the evidence rather than cherry picking one or two that suit you. And respond to your findings.
[Post edited 12 Jun 2019 10:27]
I'm one of the people who was blamed for getting Paul Cook sacked. PM for the full post.
5G....safe/not safe.... on 10:15 - Jun 12 by BloomBlue
The trouble is research would take years to fully test you wont know for sure until 20 years from now.
Scientist / research said feeding cattle recycled meat was ok even though some people weren't convinced years later we gave the world mad cow disease and a different group of scientist told us it couldn't transfer to humans, research had proved it, obviously that was also proved incorrect
1). It has been tested for at least 10 years already on rats. It's also been tested since the 90's in mobile phones. It's not new technology, it's just a different frequency.
2). That isn't what happened at all with BSE. Feeding meat to animals (in this case cows) is OK (although whether you should is a whole different debate) but feeding the brain isn't. This is because BSE/CJD is a prion disease and can be passed on in that way. Prion diseases also can't be cooked out. I don't think scientists said prion diseases couldn't be transferred to humans, it's well know they could be. The issue was the illegal using of brains in the feed. It shouldn't have happened and was awful but lets not rewrite history and have a pop at scientists. Certainly there would have been some who took your stance though, there is always two sides to a debate.
SB
[Post edited 12 Jun 2019 10:21]
Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula
1
5G....safe/not safe.... on 10:45 - Jun 12 with 1678 views
As is with most things this will be controversial until someone suffers serious issues or dies. One of the main considerations seems to be that, due to the type of radio wave there will need to be very many more transmitters
I heard some Prof on the radio this morning saying that MRI scanners would not be allowed to emit the same level of radoiwaves as the G5 phones will emit- ?
There are big question marks but the a lot revolves around who handles the firmware and if there are any clever back doors on the equipment. If the Chinese were installing these as a spy aid then they almost certainly wouldn't be stupid enough to have a system performing surveillance straight out of the box.
As is with most things this will be controversial until someone suffers serious issues or dies. One of the main considerations seems to be that, due to the type of radio wave there will need to be very many more transmitters
I heard some Prof on the radio this morning saying that MRI scanners would not be allowed to emit the same level of radoiwaves as the G5 phones will emit- ?
"I heard some Prof on the radio this morning saying that MRI scanners would not be allowed to emit the same level of radoiwaves as the G5 phones will emit- ? "
Are you sure you heard that right? MRI doesn't emit radiation, it uses magnets to stimulate the tissue to oscillate at a frequency which then produces radio waves. You might be getting confused with X-Rays or Cat Scans which use ionising radiation which is much worse than anything coming from 5G which is non-ionising.
You sure about that website:
"Hi! I’m David. About 4 years ago I read an article about the harmful effects caused by RF Radiation. This led me to an in-depth study of the subject. As I read the findings of many scientific studies I was flabbergasted that more people did not know about this. I bought some meters and began testing my own house and then researching ways to correct the issues I found. This website grew out of that research. Now it is one of the most trusted sources to learn about RF Radiation."
He's started the entire website from a false premise and a conclusion already formed. I'm not sure it's a golden source.
SB
[Post edited 12 Jun 2019 10:53]
Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula
1
5G....safe/not safe.... on 11:01 - Jun 12 with 1662 views
5G....safe/not safe.... on 10:51 - Jun 12 by StokieBlue
"I heard some Prof on the radio this morning saying that MRI scanners would not be allowed to emit the same level of radoiwaves as the G5 phones will emit- ? "
Are you sure you heard that right? MRI doesn't emit radiation, it uses magnets to stimulate the tissue to oscillate at a frequency which then produces radio waves. You might be getting confused with X-Rays or Cat Scans which use ionising radiation which is much worse than anything coming from 5G which is non-ionising.
You sure about that website:
"Hi! I’m David. About 4 years ago I read an article about the harmful effects caused by RF Radiation. This led me to an in-depth study of the subject. As I read the findings of many scientific studies I was flabbergasted that more people did not know about this. I bought some meters and began testing my own house and then researching ways to correct the issues I found. This website grew out of that research. Now it is one of the most trusted sources to learn about RF Radiation."
He's started the entire website from a false premise and a conclusion already formed. I'm not sure it's a golden source.
SB
[Post edited 12 Jun 2019 10:53]
No he said MRI scanners, he then went on to say the real problem is that the waves create heat, the 5G waves are of such a frequency they do actually create overheating in mobile phone waves.
I'm not sure abut the website, I posted as a point of ref. As I said originally the controversey will rage until someone is injuerd or dies.
I think if the information that there will need to be many more transmitted to provide a comprehensive G5 service is something that should be investigated.
0
5G....safe/not safe.... on 11:05 - Jun 12 with 1658 views
No he said MRI scanners, he then went on to say the real problem is that the waves create heat, the 5G waves are of such a frequency they do actually create overheating in mobile phone waves.
I'm not sure abut the website, I posted as a point of ref. As I said originally the controversey will rage until someone is injuerd or dies.
I think if the information that there will need to be many more transmitted to provide a comprehensive G5 service is something that should be investigated.
Even as a fledgling student in this field I am detecting a LOT of bullshet in this fella's musings if he did indeed say these things. Making science fit an agenda at best.
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]
Don't forget that before the 60's animal dung was not considered to be harmless in anyway- now it threatens the planet= things are in continual change
0
5G....safe/not safe.... on 11:17 - Jun 12 with 1646 views
No he said MRI scanners, he then went on to say the real problem is that the waves create heat, the 5G waves are of such a frequency they do actually create overheating in mobile phone waves.
I'm not sure abut the website, I posted as a point of ref. As I said originally the controversey will rage until someone is injuerd or dies.
I think if the information that there will need to be many more transmitted to provide a comprehensive G5 service is something that should be investigated.
Right, so I don't think he's right:
"The FCC’s FR safety regulations apply all the way up to 100GHz, so mmWave 5G devices are bound by the same safety standards and energy limits as existing 4G LTE, Bluetooth, and Wi-Fi products. According to research, a 60GHz mmWave outputting a whopping 50W/m2 of power (which wouldn’t be close to passing FCC regulations) only raises skin temperature by 0.8 degrees Celsius, which is below the IEEE standards temperature threshold of 1 degree Celsius for mmWave radiation guidelines."
So that's at about 10 times the power of actual 5G towers I believe?
SB
Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula
1
5G....safe/not safe.... on 11:19 - Jun 12 with 1639 views
5G....safe/not safe.... on 11:19 - Jun 12 by StokieBlue
That's a false premise at best, a borderline argument from ignorance fallacy at worst.
The two things aren't comparable.
SB
The point I am trying to make is that, as time progresses and differnt scientists look at different things change. Asbestos was in common everday use up until the dangers were identified in the 60's In the 60/70 diesel was no carcogenic - we were assured Etc. etc. etc.
I found this on the net- I am not doing anymore than providing it as info:-
In 2011, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer classified RFR as a potential 2B carcinogen and specified that the use of mobile phones could lead to specific forms of brain tumors.
Many studies have associated low-level RFR exposure with a litany of health effects, including:
DNA single and double-strand breaks (which leads to cancer) oxidative damage (which leads to tissue deterioration and premature ageing) disruption of cell metabolism increased blood-brain barrier permeability melatonin reduction (leading to insomnia and increasing cancer risks) disruption of brain glucose metabolism generation of stress proteins (leading to myriad diseases) As mentioned, the new 5G technology utilizes higher-frequency MMW bands, which give off the same dose of radiation as airport scanners. The effects of this radiation on public health have yet to undergo the rigours of long-term testing. Adoption of 5G will mean more signals carrying more energy through the high-frequency spectrum, with more transmitters located closer to people’s homes and workplaces—basically a lot more (and more potent) RFR flying around us. It’s no wonder that apprehension exists over potential risks, to both human and environmental health.
Perhaps the strongest concern involves adverse effects of MMWs on human skin. This letter to the Federal Communications Commission, from Dr Yael Stein of Jerusalem’s Hebrew University, outlines the main points. Over ninety percent of microwave radiation is absorbed by the epidermis and dermis layers, so human skin basically acts as an absorbing sponge for microwave radiation. Disquieting as this may sound, it’s generally considered acceptable so long as the violating wavelengths are greater than the skin layer’s dimensions. But MMW’s violate this condition.
Furthermore, the sweat ducts in the skin’s upper layer act like helical antennas, which are specialized antennas constructed specifically to respond to electromagnetic fields. With millions of sweat ducts, and 5G’s increased RFR needs, it stands to reason that our bodies will become far more conductive to this radiation. The full ramifications of this fact are presently unclear, especially for more vulnerable members of the public (e.g., babies, pregnant women, the elderly), but this technology
Furthermore, MMWs may cause our pain receptors to flare up in recognition of the waves as damaging stimuli. Consider that the US Department of Defense already uses a crowd-dispersal method called the Active Denial System, in which MMWs are directed at crowds to make their skin feel like it’s burning, and also has the ability to basically microwave populations to death from afar with this technology if they choose to do so. And the telecommunications industry wants to fill our atmosphere with MMWs?
0
5G....safe/not safe.... on 11:53 - Jun 12 with 1617 views
The point I am trying to make is that, as time progresses and differnt scientists look at different things change. Asbestos was in common everday use up until the dangers were identified in the 60's In the 60/70 diesel was no carcogenic - we were assured Etc. etc. etc.
I found this on the net- I am not doing anymore than providing it as info:-
In 2011, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer classified RFR as a potential 2B carcinogen and specified that the use of mobile phones could lead to specific forms of brain tumors.
Many studies have associated low-level RFR exposure with a litany of health effects, including:
DNA single and double-strand breaks (which leads to cancer) oxidative damage (which leads to tissue deterioration and premature ageing) disruption of cell metabolism increased blood-brain barrier permeability melatonin reduction (leading to insomnia and increasing cancer risks) disruption of brain glucose metabolism generation of stress proteins (leading to myriad diseases) As mentioned, the new 5G technology utilizes higher-frequency MMW bands, which give off the same dose of radiation as airport scanners. The effects of this radiation on public health have yet to undergo the rigours of long-term testing. Adoption of 5G will mean more signals carrying more energy through the high-frequency spectrum, with more transmitters located closer to people’s homes and workplaces—basically a lot more (and more potent) RFR flying around us. It’s no wonder that apprehension exists over potential risks, to both human and environmental health.
Perhaps the strongest concern involves adverse effects of MMWs on human skin. This letter to the Federal Communications Commission, from Dr Yael Stein of Jerusalem’s Hebrew University, outlines the main points. Over ninety percent of microwave radiation is absorbed by the epidermis and dermis layers, so human skin basically acts as an absorbing sponge for microwave radiation. Disquieting as this may sound, it’s generally considered acceptable so long as the violating wavelengths are greater than the skin layer’s dimensions. But MMW’s violate this condition.
Furthermore, the sweat ducts in the skin’s upper layer act like helical antennas, which are specialized antennas constructed specifically to respond to electromagnetic fields. With millions of sweat ducts, and 5G’s increased RFR needs, it stands to reason that our bodies will become far more conductive to this radiation. The full ramifications of this fact are presently unclear, especially for more vulnerable members of the public (e.g., babies, pregnant women, the elderly), but this technology
Furthermore, MMWs may cause our pain receptors to flare up in recognition of the waves as damaging stimuli. Consider that the US Department of Defense already uses a crowd-dispersal method called the Active Denial System, in which MMWs are directed at crowds to make their skin feel like it’s burning, and also has the ability to basically microwave populations to death from afar with this technology if they choose to do so. And the telecommunications industry wants to fill our atmosphere with MMWs?
There are literally hundreds of studies on mobile phone usage which show no correlation between signals and cancer and other diseases. There is always a chance which is why the initial paragraph you have says "could" and the other ones say "may". Certainly no firm results there to counter firm theoretical science. If it was that clear they would have firm results.
I agree that scientific opinions can change over time but what do you suggest is done about that? The opinion can't change if nothing is every implemented in case there is a side-effect so you either implement it with the best knowledge you have at the time using rigorous science to ensure safety or you never implement anything at all and humanity stagnates at it's current level forever.
SB
Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula
1
5G....safe/not safe.... on 12:54 - Jun 12 with 1590 views
5G....safe/not safe.... on 11:53 - Jun 12 by StokieBlue
There are literally hundreds of studies on mobile phone usage which show no correlation between signals and cancer and other diseases. There is always a chance which is why the initial paragraph you have says "could" and the other ones say "may". Certainly no firm results there to counter firm theoretical science. If it was that clear they would have firm results.
I agree that scientific opinions can change over time but what do you suggest is done about that? The opinion can't change if nothing is every implemented in case there is a side-effect so you either implement it with the best knowledge you have at the time using rigorous science to ensure safety or you never implement anything at all and humanity stagnates at it's current level forever.
SB
I posted the bit about 5G because it is based on WTO studies.
As for the progress of science, as I said initially, constant change.
It depends on the attitudes to the people at the top e.g. governments. You may have noted that while there are still people from the Grenfell disaster living in hotels an action group have taken the case to the American courts because there has been no progress in the UK.
The science that showed the type of insulation used is not safe - but it was used.
What if the WTO is correct on 5G?
0
5G....safe/not safe.... on 12:57 - Jun 12 with 1590 views
5G....safe/not safe.... on 10:19 - Jun 12 by StokieBlue
1). It has been tested for at least 10 years already on rats. It's also been tested since the 90's in mobile phones. It's not new technology, it's just a different frequency.
2). That isn't what happened at all with BSE. Feeding meat to animals (in this case cows) is OK (although whether you should is a whole different debate) but feeding the brain isn't. This is because BSE/CJD is a prion disease and can be passed on in that way. Prion diseases also can't be cooked out. I don't think scientists said prion diseases couldn't be transferred to humans, it's well know they could be. The issue was the illegal using of brains in the feed. It shouldn't have happened and was awful but lets not rewrite history and have a pop at scientists. Certainly there would have been some who took your stance though, there is always two sides to a debate.
SB
[Post edited 12 Jun 2019 10:21]
Scientists said mad cow disease couldnt transfer to humans and then the first case occurred I remember the panic/concern and all the news stories. Maybe it is well known about prion and maybe at that point the connection between mad cow and prion was unknown, but what I do know is scientists said it was ok to feed meat to cows and they initially said mad cow couldnt transfer to humans. That was one of the reasons a lot of countries quickly banned British beef because the information from British scientist on the subject kept changing
You could argue the same with chloride washed chicken and genetically modified wheat scientists have said both are ok but how many people would refuse to eat them?
0
5G....safe/not safe.... on 13:38 - Jun 12 with 1571 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]
I remember when a few wise bods thought human bodies couldn't take moving at speeds of 50mph. The first pocket rocket riders were made to wear special duck down suits and encased in sheep hide lest their bodies burst when they hit the critical speed point.
Pronouns: He/Him/His.
"Imagine being a heterosexual white male in Britain at this moment. How bad is that. Everything you say is racist, everything you say is homophobic. The Woke community have really f****d this country."
Ok just trawled through BBC Breakfast on media player (the joy!) and the item is at about 2hrs 24 (get through the Glastonbury hippy bit Stokie....you can do it!). The cautionary voices are Dr Frank DeVocht, Bristol Uni. Govt advisor saying more research is needed and scientist bod from IT'IS Foundation saying the phones can overheat the brain. https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006v5tb/episodes/player
"They break our legs and tell us to be grateful when they offer us crutches."
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
