5G - health hazard?

Charles Ingles

banie01 wrote: »

The quip was far from hilarious I'll grant.

But let's take your example of 7 under 30 dying of cancer.
In any statistical review that would be quite a significant cluster.
Has there been any review of proximate or casual factors?

Honestly I'm convinced it was to do with one of two things.
Small cluster on East coast
Either cernobal or ESB masts in close proximity to homes.

Timberrrrrrrr

paw patrol wrote: »

you won't be laughing when the Chinese use Huawei to control all the machines that use 5G and kill us.

The Chinese are literally Skynet.

Spice bags will kill you faster than 5G

banie01

paw patrol wrote: »

you won't be laughing when the Chinese use Huawei to control all the machines that use 5G and kill us.

This is a much more likely doomsday scenario than EMF "infected/affected" water.

banie01

Charles Ingles wrote: »

Honestly I'm convinced it was to do with one of two things.
Small cluster on East coast
Either cernobal or ESB masts in close proximity to homes.

East Coast, could be related to Chernobyl or Sellafield particularly if outdoorsy or fishing or similar.

mcmoustache

paleoperson wrote: »

You apparently didn't even know that 5G is in the EHF spectrum. You haven't got a monkies what you're on about.

What's so bad about being on the EHF spectrum? Is it scary because it's Extremely High Frequency?

Well, I have some news for you which will blow your mind.

EHF is in the range 30 GHz - 300 GHz. As you can see, these are clearly big numbers because they have Giga in them.

Now, let's go higher and even more extreme. Let's go whole hog and go to the Tera Hertz frequencies. If you've ever owned a hard drive, you'll know that tera is bigger than giga. In fact it's about a thousand times bigger than giga.

Would you be more comfortable with frequencies of around 430 THz to 770 THz or would you find these too Extreme? You may be alarmed to learn that these frequencies are everywhere all around you. In fact, you're staring right into these frequencies as you read this.

Would you also agree that we should ban these THz frequencies until we know what's going on?

paleoperson

banie01 wrote: »

Yea it does extend into EHF, the low end all the same but again.
The Irish spectrum in particular extends to 3.6ghz
Now let's ask ourselves what else uses those ranges?
Or did...
TV.

So can you just provide the data I asked for?
Or explain what is particularly dangerous about 3.6ghz?
That isn't dangerous about 900mhz? 1800mhz? 2.4ghz or 5ghz ?

What research is available to confirm that the spectrum designated for 5g in Ireland, is opening a Pandora's box of weird ailments?

5ghz is worse than 3.6ghz because it penetrates more. It's more like an x-ray then, you're familiar with x-rays and how they give cancer, right?

There's plenty of research and theory indicating that these 5G frequencies may be harmful.

Try this:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12243-018-0696-6

Pherekydes wrote: »

We don't have a monkey's, but you and Gemma know all about it, eh?

What is it about a RF wave that does damage? Is it the frequency or the energy? Which will heat food quicker, a 600w oven or a 900w oven?

The energy.

mcmoustache wrote: »

What's so bad about being on the EHF spectrum? Is it scary because it's Extremely High Frequency?

That's part of why it's scary. Lower frequency wouldn't be as scary.

mcmoustache wrote: »

Well, I have some news for you which will blow your mind.

I don't think so little man. I had training in electrical engineering and am intimately familiar with all of this stuff and you have no idea what you're talking about. Nothing you said (or was said in this thread) had any new information for me and a lot of what was said was factually wrong.

L1011

paleoperson wrote: »

I had training in electrical engineering and am intimately familiar with all of this stuff and you have no idea what you're talking about..

I call absolute BS on this. Everything you've written so far is pseudoscience gibberish that doesn't even vaguely string together, which you've clearly ripped off somewhere random - unless the "training" was a few modules of a Level 5 FETAC course you didn't pay any attention to.

I have a BSc (Hons), and am a member of the IET

kneemos

People make up this shoite to sell crap to the gullible.

Ineedaname

paleoperson wrote: »

5ghz is worse than 3.6ghz because it penetrates more. It's more like an x-ray then, you're familiar with x-rays and how they give cancer, right? .

Not even close.

paleoperson wrote: »

I don't think so little man. I had training in electrical engineering and am intimately familiar with all of this stuff and you have no idea what you're talking about. Nothing you said (or was said in this thread) had any new information for me and a lot of what was said was factually wrong.

May want to get your money back.

Pherekydes

paleoperson wrote: »

The energy.

So why are you worried about the frequency?

It's the power of the wave that penetrates, not the frequency.

Just don't go hugging any radio transmitter masts and you'll be ok.

banie01

paleoperson wrote: »

5ghz is worse than 3.6ghz because it penetrates more. It's more like an x-ray then, you're familiar with x-rays and how they give cancer, right?

There's plenty of research and theory indicating that these 5G frequencies may be harmful.

Try this:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12243-018-0696-6

Regarding X-Rays and their radioactive isotope source.
Can you tell me if they are an op using or a non-ionising radiation source?

And which radio waves are?
And the difference?

You have the penetration reversed there.
The higher the frequency the less the radio wave penetrates.
It's why GSM 900 coverage is fairly ubiquitous whilst 3G and 4G at 1800mhz and 2100mhz have issues with walls and windows.

Similar situation with WiFi, where the 2.4ghz has more penetration and coverage around a building than the 5ghz band.

That's before the implication of metallised insulation and building materials is considered and their semi faraday effect particular in new build construction.

Can I ask you to explain if High and Ultra high frequencies have such great penetration capabilities, that it isn't used for sub surface communication?
Take submarines as an example and their use of the highly penetrating ELF spectrum?


PS: Just realized you are talking about soft tissue penetration rather than actual reception/propogation.
Other points stand tho.

paleoperson

L1011 wrote: »

I call absolute BS on this. Everything you've written so far is pseudoscience gibberish that doesn't even vaguely string together, which you've clearly ripped off somewhere random - unless the "training" was a few modules of a Level 5 FETAC course you didn't pay any attention to.

I have a BSc (Hons), and am a member of the IET

Get outta here you little tinker.

What are you talking about? I didn't rip anything off anywhere. I'm talking from what I know, you are dead wrong.

Show me anything I've said you have a problem with? Anything at all.

I have respect for the IET, I am mystified by your post.

Pherekydes wrote: »

So why are you worried about the frequency?

It's the power of the wave that penetrates, not the frequency.

Just don't go hugging any radio transmitter masts and you'll be ok.

The shorter the wave the greater the penetrating force as everyone knows.


Guys, I think you need a little bit of cop on here, and to stop tripping over yourselves.

There is a legitimate and valid question over 5G waves, and that is why the EU and WHO are investing in research in an attempt to determine it one way or another.


What a stupid waste of time this discussion is for me.

BeerWolf

5G is considerably shorter ranged, requiring amplifiers to boost the signal. That's where their concerns are coming from.

paleoperson

BeerWolf wrote: »

5G is considerably shorter ranged, requiring amplifiers to boost the signal. That's where their concerns are coming from.

And the fact that it's shorter wavelength, and the fact that unlike passive receivers like tvs you are not just tuning into a frequency, every device is generating one.

L1011

paleoperson wrote: »

What a stupid waste of time this discussion is for me.

Because you've had your digital pants pulled down by people who know what they're talking about?

Everything you have said is nonsense, basically. Nonsense fed to you by someone else most likely, because you sure as hell don't understand what you're writing.

5Ghz "more like an X-ray" is the top of the pile so far.

Sephiroth_dude

Mod


paleoperson don't post in this thread again.

Pherekydes

Sephiroth_dude wrote: »

Mod


paleoperson don't post in this thread again.

But it was fun. :pac:

dudara

paleoperson wrote: »

What a stupid waste of time this discussion is for me.

The interaction of electromagnetic waves and matter is quite complex and varies quite a lot depending where you are on the frequency spectrum. Reflectivity, amplitude and leakage also comes into play. A lot of variables to be taken into account before we can conclude.

mcmoustache

paleoperson wrote: »

5ghz is worse than 3.6ghz because it penetrates more. It's more like an x-ray then, you're familiar with x-rays and how they give cancer, right?

This is comedy gold. Here, I'll help. Here's the electromagnetic spectrum. You might notice that EHF frequencies are just below visible light and are non-ionizing.


X-rays are above visible light and are ionizing.


So these frequencies that you are worried about are not like X rays at all. In fact they are more like my red jumper than Xrays.

paleoperson wrote: »

I don't think so little man. I had training in electrical engineering and am intimately familiar with all of this stuff and you have no idea what you're talking about. Nothing you said (or was said in this thread) had any new information for me and a lot of what was said was factually wrong.

If you have been trained in this, then you should demand your money back. I spent two minutes on wikipedia and have already demonstrated a better understanding of electromagnetism than whatever it is that you think you understand.

Capt'n Midnight

Let's just ban Sunlight. It's known to cause cancer.

For Forks Sake

The only people propagating this nonsense are the hard of thinking who get their talking points from Gemma O'Doherty and other such bullsh1t artists.

antodeco

Someone I knew was wearing a red jumper on their phone, standing beside a microwave, watching a program on Sellafield, whilst waiting for an x-ray and BAM. He exploded.

Patty Hearst

Can people post links to the testing (and results of testing) of 5g for health and safety in Humans?

I'm not arguing for or against but it might put peoples minds at ease.

The chemicals in the Internet gave me cat aids

antodeco

bluewolf wrote: »

The chemicals in the Internet gave me cat aids

Funnily enough, cats don't get aids from other cats. They just "naturally" get cat aids. Well that's what the last cat I slept with told me

I wrote the below post and only then realised the user was thread banned so I will remove the direct quotes to him and refer to the general concerns he raised instead:

5ghz is worse than 3.6ghz because penetration.

The word "penetrate" means nothing at all in this context. Mere "penetration" is not a bad thing. You are being penetrate by an absolute ocean of things every minutes of every day. Like neutrinos from the sun. And that is just one example of many. You are constantly being penetrated (oooo matron) all the time, every moment of your existence. So shouting that a Mobile Phone Frequency is going to "penetrate" you is mere scare mongering with words - in a way that does not actually mean anything at all.

It's more like an x-ray than previous tech and x-rays cause cancer.

Well how wonderfully vague a phrase "more like" is there. Just because something is "more like" something else - does not mean it is all that like it at all.

Saying one colour is "more like" Ultra Violet Radiation which causes Sun Burn than another colour - does not mean either of them actually are "Ultra Violet Radiation" or that either of them actually will cause you any damage.

Saying that a fisher man on a boat is "more like" a pirate than a shop assistant does not mean the former is any more likely - let alone at all likely - to board your boat and steal your stuff and have at your wimminz.

So the "more like" comparison here is as much a fail as it is powerfully vague and vacuous. Do not let it concern you.

Link to Paper: "Mitigation of human EMF exposure in downlink of 5G"

The paper is behind a pay-wall so there is no one here who is likely to know the content of the actual paper or be able to evaluate whether or not it supports any specific claims.

However nothing written in the abstract _at all_ seems to support those claims however. A chunk of the abstract just moans about how few studies have been done on a particular subject - another chunk refers only to a "simulation" and no actual data of any sort - and the final chunk just refers to recommendations that could be made _if we assume_ the premise there actually is a problem in the first place.

But But But EU and WHO are investing in research about the concerns!!

Well yes. That is their remit and they should be doing that whether Gemma or anyone else has concerns or not. It is a new technology being rolled out. They would be lax in their duties if they were not investing in research. I would hope they would be investing in such research on any new technology being released en masse even if no one could think of any causes for concerns.

To use the fact they are investing in research to support tin foil hat theories that there must be something to be concerned about however is a nonsense and is jumping the gun far too early. Only the results of research - not the mere existence of it being done - is at all relevant to - well - anything at all.

Plopsu

Pherekydes wrote: »

Just don't go hugging any radio transmitter masts and you'll be ok.

But they're so cuddly!

Plopsu

EmmetSpiceland wrote: »

This is just more ludicrous misinformation being propagated by the Chemtrails O’Ploterty types.

OT but can you change your username without re-reging. :pac:

super_furry

That lunatic Gemma O'Doherty has been screaming into the void about this, along with chemtrails, anti-vaccine nutiness and her 9/11 conspiracies

ohnonotgmail

Patty Hearst wrote: »

Can people post links to the testing (and results of testing) of 5g for health and safety in Humans?

I'm not arguing for or against but it might put peoples minds at ease.

I bet it wouldn't. some people are immune to facts.