5G - health hazard?

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.

sbsquarepants

kneemos wrote: »

I remember when the protests against mobile masts turned into protests for more mobile masts.

Yea, good times. Funny old world innit:D

sbsquarepants

Charles Ingles wrote: »

I know seven people of died of cancer before they were thirty.
Hilarious quip though.

How many people do you know who didn't die from cancer before they were 30?

It would be a safe enough assumption that the 7 are a very small subset of the overall.

mcmoustache

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

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

Well, sunlight is around a thousand times more extreme than Extremely High Frequency 5G so that means that it must be hyper-mega dangerous.

sbsquarepants

mcmoustache wrote: »

Well, sunlight is around a thousand times more extreme than Extremely High Frequency 5G so that means that it must be hyper-mega dangerous.

Which it is. Burned the bejaysus out of me one time, didn't even do anything on it, in fact I was asleep on a beach at the time.
Sneaky bastard:mad:

Red_Wake

Our local curate says the extra G is for the Gamma radiation they added.

wakka12

Charles Ingles wrote: »

I know seven people of died of cancer before they were thirty.
Hilarious quip though.

And I know 0. Cancer is still rare in young people

fryup

the eco-heads also claim that the local councils around the country are cutting down trees on purpose to make way for 5g ..........is this so?

Anteayer

If anything 5G which will be occupying lower frequencies than 3G is arguably 'safer' in the sense that it's using broadcasting frequencies that have been used for UHF television for decades.

The only thing that worries me about 5G is that it might bring a plethora of badly configured, insecure, internet of things (IoT) devices in a much more ubiquitous way than we have today if companies start selling online toasters and so on all hanging off 5G.

5G has the potential to massively reduce lack of connectivity issues in rural area though. It would be a shame to see people getting paranoid about a technology that has no health risks whatsoever and could have major economic benefits in a very widespread way.

Also why the hell would you be chopping down trees to put in a small radio transmitter? That argument doesn't even make sense. Most of the 5G infrastructure will go on existing towers and high sides and smaller transmission sites can be hidden away very easily.

It's not very obtrusive technology.

It's ironic that the internet, which entirely depends on these kinds of technologies and is born of tech has been the single biggest platform for spreading anti science conspiracy theory nonsense.

FishOnABike

Pherekydes wrote: »

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

What about the ones that are camouflaged as trees? Are they OK to hug? How will we know if they are trees or sneaky transmitter masts? :-))

EmmetSpiceland

fryup wrote: »

the eco-heads also claim that the local councils around the country are cutting down trees on purpose to make way for 5g ..........is this so?

No, it’s more nonsense.

JohnnyFlash

They’ll stick the 5G cells on the electricity infrastructure where possible.

John Hutton

There does appear to be a lot of tree cutting in trial 5G urban areas which is what I would be concerned about, we need more trees not less.

If you're concerned that it will give you cancer then the obvious solution is to plant a load of trees around your gaff.

EmmetSpiceland

John Hutton wrote: »

There does appear to be a lot of tree cutting in trial 5G urban areas which is what I would be concerned about, we need more trees not less.

There are no trees being cut down for this, same as there are no mass bird deaths.

skallywag

This old chestnut always seems to come around any time a new wireless technology launches.

In summary health concerns tend to be associated with the Output Power of the Transmitter, and not the frequency used itself. The frequency of the waves is related to the maximum distance that can be reached.

By way of example a 2G GSM Transmitter operating at 900Mhz will have roughly double the range of a 3G Transmitter working at 2.1Ghz, which in effect means that you need many more base stations for 3G rather than 2G at 900 Mhz. This assumes that both transmitters are using the same Output Power.

The good news about Output Power though is that it's effect obeys the square law, i.e. if you move from a distance of 1m to a distance of 2m from the Transmitter, then the power drops by a factor of 4.

In summary, unless you are spending large amounts of time at very close distances to the transmitter (i.e. base station, not handset), then there is no concern. This goes for any radio transmitter, and is not specific to 3G, 4G, 5G, etc.

roosterman71

Radio Waves and Health

Feisar

fryup

skallywag wrote: »

In summary, unless you are spending large amounts of time at very close distances to the transmitter (i.e. base station, not handset), then there is no concern. This goes for any radio transmitter, and is not specific to 3G, 4G, 5G, etc.

well maybe this is it.....the ones that are starting these scare stories are the ones that live near these transmitters??

Grayson

skallywag wrote: »

This old chestnut always seems to come around any time a new wireless technology launches.

In summary health concerns tend to be associated with the Output Power of the Transmitter, and not the frequency used itself. The frequency of the waves is related to the maximum distance that can be reached.

By way of example a 2G GSM Transmitter operating at 900Mhz will have roughly double the range of a 3G Transmitter working at 2.1Ghz, which in effect means that you need many more base stations for 3G rather than 2G at 900 Mhz. This assumes that both transmitters are using the same Output Power.

The good news about Output Power though is that it's effect obeys the square law, i.e. if you move from a distance of 1m to a distance of 2m from the Transmitter, then the power drops by a factor of 4.

In summary, unless you are spending large amounts of time at very close distances to the transmitter (i.e. base station, not handset), then there is no concern. This goes for any radio transmitter, and is not specific to 3G, 4G, 5G, etc.

I don't believe you. Facts and knowledge can prove anything.

Hotblack Desiato

skallywag wrote: »

In summary health concerns tend to be associated with the Output Power of the Transmitter, and not the frequency used itself.

So why are they complaining about 5G then, UHF TV power outputs are in the region of 100-200kW at main transmitters.

Vita nova

5g of Colombian marching powder and you're brown bread. 5G radiowaves won't harm you; RF field strengths and absorption levels are well known and controlled so as not to be harmful.

banie01

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

So why are they complaining about 5G then, UHF TV power outputs are in the region of 100-200kW at main transmitters.

Because it's "new" and sure what with the combined effect of the extra "EMF" on the Flouride in the water, the chemtrails and super electro magnetisation of the heavy metals in all the Big Pharma vaccines...

That clearly a plot is underway to ensure the population has a new form of super-autism to ensure its easy control and docile obedience to the NWO!!!

*The opinion above may be considered valid.
If
And only if...
The reader subscribes to the CT theories forum and has a care assistant!

banie01

banie01 wrote: »

That clearly a plot is underway to ensure the population has a new form of super-autism to ensure its easy control and docile obedience to the NWO!!!

You forgot the part that this plot is instigated by an illuminati of people serving the will of Lucifer.

Best include that before a certain user shows up to do it. Maybe it will save us the experience.

Anteayer

skallywag wrote: »

This old chestnut always seems to come around any time a new wireless technology launches.

In summary health concerns tend to be associated with the Output Power of the Transmitter, and not the frequency used itself. The frequency of the waves is related to the maximum distance that can be reached.

By way of example a 2G GSM Transmitter operating at 900Mhz will have roughly double the range of a 3G Transmitter working at 2.1Ghz, which in effect means that you need many more base stations for 3G rather than 2G at 900 Mhz. This assumes that both transmitters are using the same Output Power.

The good news about Output Power though is that it's effect obeys the square law, i.e. if you move from a distance of 1m to a distance of 2m from the Transmitter, then the power drops by a factor of 4.

In summary, unless you are spending large amounts of time at very close distances to the transmitter (i.e. base station, not handset), then there is no concern. This goes for any radio transmitter, and is not specific to 3G, 4G, 5G, etc.

One point to note is that the networks have a strong preference for lower frequencies, based on their poor experience with 2100MHz for 3G, which generally resulted in bad urban indoor coverage and issues in rural areas. 3G was ultimately extended into 900MHz (the original 2G GSM space) which is the main reason most of us have noticed a big improvement in 3G coverage in recent years.

With 4G there were two allocations 1800MHz (the secondary 2G band) and 800MHz which was originally allocated to the upper end of UHF television and has been cleared by the introduction of Digital TV.

800MHz 4G works extremely well in terms of propagation and allows for fewer, lower power transmitters and actually should give your handset better battery life too as it's able to reach the towers more easily.

With 5G, the dominant frequency will be 700MHz which is going yet lower again into the old UHF TV spectrum.

They're also allocating 3.6GHz but that's likely to be used for rural broadband type fixed wireless. There are already services using similarly high frequencies for that kind of use and also MMDS used those bands for decades without issue.

People really need to start questioning this kind of 'OMG it will microwave us in our beds" nonsense. These are totally benign, harmless technologies and they're of huge benefit to getting broadband services into places that are unreachable by anything else.

Blocking 5G and 4G in rural Ireland will basically kill off the possibility of people living and working in remote areas.

Incidentally, this is nothing new, back in the rural electrification days you'd people freaking out about the dangers of electricity and wouldn't have it in the house in case it would somehow 'get them'.

In terms of cancer risks, you also need to get your priorities right:

In Irish context the biggest ones that you can control are:

1. Self inflicted: Lifestyle choices you're making around smoking, alcohol, food and exercise.

2. Environmental: smoke (including form those quaint and lovely rural solid fuel fires we think are so harmless), air pollution which in Ireland is largely from transportation - particularly things like invisible micro-particles from diesel and then the vast array of household chemicals and cosmetics we slather ourselves in and so on.

3. Radon gas: It's very important to ensure you're aware of it if it's an issue and also insure that your home's properly ventilated and that the risks are managed and mitigated. This is a really serious real risk, yet most people don't give a damn about it and spend all their time worrying about nonsense like 5G and ESB wires that have no proven risk of cancer whatsoever, yet radon gas in your home is very significantly proven to be a cause of lung cancer.

4. Get yourself vaccinated against HPV! That's a very serious one and you can massively reduce your risk of various cancers.

jim o doom

I think the only danger to our health is the life shortening stress of having to listen to this sort of stupidty.

Between this, anti vaxx and other anti science movements, I'm sure my life has shortened by years due to extreme annoyance.

Nothing to fear it's not even real 5G is it? From listening to the speeds Imagine are advertising sounds like the same stunt At&T are pulling in the US.

daheff

alchemist33 wrote: »

Remember when 1G was supposed to give us all cancer?

no...the mobile radiation wiped my memory

Anteayer

Deleted User wrote: »

Nothing to fear it's not even real 5G is it? From listening to the speeds Imagine are advertising sounds like the same stunt At&T are pulling in the US.

Yes, this is real 5G. You can't market LTE Advanced as 5G in Europe.
LTE Advanced is already on the air in Ireland as 4G+ usually

Wanderer78

Had an anti-5ger trying to convince me that masts are required every couple of hundred meters, in order for the network to work, I suspect this isn't true, can't imagine that setup to be to viable for most providers?

Anteayer

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Had an anti-5ger trying to convince me that masts are required every couple of hundred meters, in order for the network to work, I suspect this isn't true, can't imagine that setup to be to viable for most providers?

Not quite no.

The main change is you've masts that use different technology and can also do things like directionally transmit towards devices that are actually in use rather than just radiating signals all over the place. For the very localised, small sites, you're looking at transmitters that aren't a whole lot more powerful than a couple of mobile phones themselves in the case of some of those picocells. It's more like just adding little sites that are akin to Wi-Fi nodes.

They will hang 5G (and 4G) off more direct fibre connectivity to masts and use more small, very low powered sites. This is already done for existing technologies and it actually reduces, not increases radio signal strengths used.

You already have a situation where if you want to get decent speeds and coverage in densely populated areas, you add very small cells, often in Ireland they're on buildings, that provide that kind of dense cover.

A lot of 5G tech is about the backhaul - more fibre connectivity to the sites etc. So you'll see more of a convergence between existing fibre rollout for stuff like FTTH and FTTC and providing connectivity for small 5G sites.

In rural areas, it certainly would not be viable to have masts every few hundred meters - you're really just looking at a further evolution of existing technologies with a lot of branding.

L1011

The fibre to the base stations will reduce the amount of higher frequency microwave backhaul in time too; if they are truly concerned about that.

Anteayer

L1011 wrote: »

The fibre to the base stations will reduce the amount of higher frequency microwave backhaul in time too; if they are truly concerned about that.

Which is also harmless and is generally point-to-point line of sight between the masts. The backhaul microwave links are not designed to broadcast or radiate signals, they're just tightly focused on the dish they're trying to connect to.

Also microwave backhaul has been used in Ireland since the 1960s. Most of our rural telephone network was originally backhauled on microwave links. There would have been huge numbers of point-to-point microwave links in place in the 1980s connecting up remote exchanges. Fibre only really became more dominant in the 1990s as it became cheaper and more people wanted data access with DSL.

A lot of remote areas are still microwave linked and it's certainly still in place as a secondary backup in the event of fibre breakage, you can keep the landline network going. That's what those big towers you'll spot on big ugly buildings in towns and cities are. Unfortunately, the P&T/OPW built some hideous structures. At least the new stuff is generally much less visible.
They're not used as much these days as fibre has replaced them, but microwave backhaul is nothing new.

Boom_Bap

When you see the price of 5G capable devices, you'll soon realise it was all a waste of time.

Wanderer78

Boom_Bap wrote:

When you see the price of 5G capable devices, you'll soon realise it was all a waste of time.

Ah it ll be grand, it ll become the norm in time, we ll pay it

Anteayer

Boom_Bap wrote: »

When you see the price of 5G capable devices, you'll soon realise it was all a waste of time.

They're already cheap.

If you're buying an top of the line iPhone or a Samsung phone you'll pay big bucks though as you always have, so there's nothing new there.

There's a ton of very well made 4G devices already on the market that are not particularly expensive. Also, the devices you need for accessing the internet over 4G and 5G are very affordable. I mean simple stick-modems have been around for quite a long time now and were extremely affordable.

5G is about speed increases but also about making the internet absolutely ubiquitous and something that's just going to be there in the background and that any device can make use of.

kneemos

Will our free data disappear if multiple devices and appliances are going to be using 5G?

Boom_Bap

Anteayer wrote: »

They're already cheap.

If you're buying an top of the line iPhone or a Samsung phone you'll pay big bucks though as you always have, so there's nothing new there.

There's a ton of very well made 4G devices already on the market that are not particularly expensive. Also, the devices you need for accessing the internet over 4G and 5G are very affordable. I mean simple stick-modems have been around for quite a long time now and were extremely affordable.

5G is about speed increases but also about making the internet absolutely ubiquitous and something that's just going to be there in the background and that any device can make use of.

Bog standard 4G capable phone - €40
Bog standard 5G capable phone - over €1000


Cheap as chips.

Anteayer

Boom_Bap wrote: »

Bog standard 4G capable phone - €40
Bog standard 5G capable phone - over €1000


Cheap as chips.

The technology isn't even on air yet in most countries. Give it a while.

I mean 3G phones were super expensive when they launched first. So were "Digital Phones" when GSM launched first.
All of these things start out with a few products at the high end and early adopters and then go mass market and cheap very quickly.

Boom_Bap

Anteayer wrote: »

The technology isn't even on air yet in most countries. Give it a while.

I mean 3G phones were super expensive when they launched first. So were "Digital Phones" when GSM launched first.
All of these things start out with a few products at the high end and early adopters and then go mass market and cheap very quickly.

If we give it a while we're all going to be dead from the 5G frequencies

skallywag

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

So why are they complaining about 5G then, UHF TV power outputs are in the region of 100-200kW at main transmitters.

It's exactly the same principle.

If you spent a large amount of time within very close proximity to a bog standard UHF TV transmitter (say 1 metre away just for the sake of discussion, in reality it may be larger of smaller) then the health risk could also be in question.

But in reality this is not the case in day to day life. If you moved 10m away, then the Power of the Radio Waves is 100 times less. If you move 100m away it would be 10,000 times less.

It's nothing to do with the frequency used which is what most folk don't understand, it's the power in the electromagnetic radiation (i.e. the radio wave).

By the way I can recall the exact same hysterical nonsense when MMDS masts first went up in parts of the country to broadcast TV.

roosterman71

http://waterfordwhispersnews.com/2019/04/02/everything-you-need-to-know-about-5g/