Dangerous 5G networks continue to roll out

Verizon and AT&T will have 5G available in 2 dozen or more cities within a couple of months, and claim it will be nationwide within 18 months.
It's coming. For sure. China is racing ahead with development of their 5G network.

Most people aren't even aware of it. They're too busy worrying about Trump's tweets.

Rather than post a dozen links about the controversies surrounding 5G, I'm offering this one video. Dr. Sharon Goldberg, an internal medicine physician, recently testified at Michigan's 5G Small Cell Tower Legislation Hearing.
Goldberg states quite convincingly, imo, that wireless radiation has proven to be dangerous to pretty much any living organism.

Decide for yourself.

a reply to: ColeYounger

Radiation of any form has been proven to be a danger to life forms. Do we now ban medical xrays ? Are microwaves in our kitchens now to be deemed unsafe and removed by local officials ? Whom do we contact in regards to the multitudes of various radiating Ray's that bombard planet earth on a daily basis from our own sun and beyond from outer space ? Granted, there is an inherent risk of any new technology but nothing thus far to confirm a risk greater than one posed just stepping out into the morning sunshine we take each day. I suppose if one is so inclined to utilize a phone for 24 hours a day 7 days a week, then one might thru shear over exposure time that you could develope more than mental issues. However, I believe the risk is minimal to the average everyday person.

The radiation is a definite problem, but it is not the biggest problem imho. This will enable the internet of everything to become much more efficient and thus very much more dangerous to freedom. Between smart meters, smart appliances, tvs and other appliances listening and watching us in our homes, wireless security systems bot inside and outside the home and everything else; privacy will be dead.

a reply to: ColeYounger

She is right that researchers with a conflict of interest, such as financial interest does muddy the water and lead to bad science I'm sure. However activism is a powerful motivator and I suspect there is a high level of exaggeration here by her. In other words she's also blind to her own activism warping her own perspective.

American Cancer Society

What do expert agencies say?

Several national and international agencies study exposures and substances in the environment to determine if they can cause cancer. (An exposure or substance that causes cancer or helps cancer grow is called a carcinogen.) The American Cancer Society looks to these organizations to evaluate the risks based on evidence from laboratory, animal, and human research studies.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) is part of the World Health Organization. One of its goals is to identify causes of cancer. IARC has stated that there is limited evidence that RF radiation causes cancer in animals and humans, and classifies RF radiation as “possibly carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2B). This was based on the finding of a possible link in at least one study between cell phone use and a specific type of brain tumor. IARC considers the evidence overall to be “limited” because of the conflicting findings and methodologic limitations in some of the studies.

(For more information on the classification system IARC uses, see Known and Probable Human Carcinogens.)

The other main agencies that classify cancer-causing exposures (carcinogens), including the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the US National Toxicology Program (NTP), have not formally classified RF radiation as to its cancer-causing potential.
Does RF radiation cause any other health problems?
Studies in the lab

In animals, the main effects of exposure to RF are related to heating (sometimes called thermal effects). High doses of RF radiation can raise body temperature, even to the point of being fatal. Focusing RF radiation on one area of the body can lead to burns and the breakdown of tissue. When RF waves are focused on the eye, it can cause cataracts to form.

It isn’t clear what effects, if any, RF radiation has at levels of exposure too low to produce heating.

I suspect both sides of the debate are overlooking things due to bias and exaggerating things due to bias.

Ok?

Remember asbestos?

We need some herd thinning, I'm not really opposed to it.

Shielding from 5G is afaik, not hard. Just get that hat made of...

Aluminum Foyal, FOYAL.

originally posted by: ColeYounger
Verizon and AT&T will have 5G available in 2 dozen or more cities within a couple of months, and claim it will be nationwide within 18 months.
It's coming. For sure. China is racing ahead with development of their 5G network.

Most people aren't even aware of it. They're too busy worrying about Trump's tweets.

Rather than post a dozen links about the controversies surrounding 5G, I'm offering this one video. Dr. Sharon Goldberg, an internal medicine physician, recently testified at Michigan's 5G Small Cell Tower Legislation Hearing.
Goldberg states quite convincingly, imo, that wireless radiation has proven to be dangerous to pretty much any living organism.

Decide for yourself.

The only thing im worried about is if their 5g over-powers the 5g coming out of my home router.

a reply to: Blaine91555

I'm just trying to find some credible evidence.
One scientist says it's totally harmless, the next says it's anything but harmless.

A couple more links to research:
Peer Reviewed Studies on WiFI

WiFi is a threat to human health

a reply to: Archivalist

Remember asbestos?

Yes. Tens of thousands of people have died, and are continuing to die from it. Some of the deaths are pretty horrible.
You think that's somehow funny?

Asbestos

a reply to: ColeYounger

It is confusing not knowing who or what to believe. If we were to believe the hype going back into the 1990's we would all have to be dead of brain cancer by now.

I guess we look to consensus and barring that the most credible sources.

Peer reviewed has lost it's meaning these days.

a reply to: DJMSN

I appreciate you bringing this topic to our attention. I had no idea there was link between 2.4 GHz and diabetes.

a reply to: ColeYounger

If we accept that everything she said is true, I still have one question. How is this new 5G network different than the threat we face now from what we have already?

a reply to: Blaine91555

IARC considers the evidence overall to be “limited” because of the conflicting findings and methodologic limitations in some of the studies.

Conflicting studies is usually an indicator of someone with an agenda trying to muddy the waters. Whether or not the 5G network will be dangerous, it's simply a dumb solution to achieving a high speed cell network. It's makes no sense to use a frequency which is unable to penetrate any solid objects, including rain and plants. Since the signal wont get through much they will have to place what are mini-cell towers absolutely everywhere, meaning people will be constantly engulfed in high power, high frequency radiation which is absorbed by solid objects, and it's not only humans we need to worry about.

There are certainly valid reasons to be concerned about the health risks that could pose though, things like phones and routers use frequencies which go through most solid objects, a microwave works by using a frequency absorbed by matter, the photons transfer energy to the atoms when they collide. It's a ridiculous brute force solution that could be solved in much more elegant ways such as making use of the existing open wireless networks that pervade cities, but the cell companies want exclusive ownership of the network so they can charge exorbitant fees and slowly bake us all in what is the equivalent of a low power microwave.

a reply to: glend

Where did I even mention diabetes in my post ? I think you perhaps misread my wall. Perhaps I should have used a paragraph so those reading comprehension skills were not so challenged.

a reply to: ColeYounger

Ok... I know this is a conspiracy site but why on earth are people stating that 5th Generation mobile technology is "dangerous"...? I'll confess now, I'm a trained RF and telecoms engineer so you may think my viewpoint is skewed but rather than peddling myths and heresay - I can tell you some facts about 5G mobile technology.

Firstly, 5G is an LTE based technology - it uses the SAME technology as 4G (including the same modulation modes). 5G does NOT refer to any particular "frequency" as it can be deployed anywhere in the radio spectrum - just like standard 4G LTE or GSM. In Europe, the plan is to deploy 5G services in the spectrum where 2G GSM occupied - namely 900MHz and 1800MHz with some higher-density sites in city centres using older 3G frequencies at 2400MHz.

All these frequencies are PROVED - the modulation technique used to transmit the signal is exactly the same as the type of signal used to transmit digital television, satelite television and existing mobile technologies - Namely QAM modulation.

Ironically, the POWER levels that are required for 5G services are less than that needed for 3G or 2G services meaning that the user is exposed a lower level of RF than someone using older technology.

Now - there is also a lot of confusion about the power levels required. To put this into perspective, 5G mobile services generally have a maximum base station power of less than 10 watts broadcasting a QAM256 signal - and that is planned around 800MHz. To put that into perspective, digital television broadcasts centred on 700MHz use upwards of 100,000 watts.

Which do you think is going to do the most "harm" ?

Now... A lot of people say they have 5G routers already - no you don't. You have a router that offers WiFi on 5.8GHz - generally at a power of under a watt. This is totally different to 5G mobile services and, ironically, has a higher power density around your home than any LTE 5th generation mobile signal will have.

FInally - A look at the evidence.
1) LTE technology has been deployed worldwide now for several years with no issues. It uses less power than WCDMA / CDMA and GSM technology and can work on the same frequencies. Overall, this REDUCES exposure to RF rather than increasing it.

2) The only reference to "scare stories", such as the "famous" test in the Netherlands where "hundreds of birds fell from the sky" are from sites which have active campaigns saying 5G is bad etc etc. Not a single mainstream news source, nor any "other" news sources back up the story. There is also the fact that 5G technology has not been tested in the Netherlands - as the testing ground is actually in the UK, Norway and Singapore.

3) "It uses really high frequencies that are bad". No it doesn't - 5G technologies are planned to be deployed to replace existing services on existing frequency bands - admittedly with a higher density in urban areas - but at a considerably lower power level.

4) Everything that is being said about how 5G is "dangerous" was said about 4G technology, about 3G technology, about WiFi and about 2G GSM. It is pure hysteria because people do not understand the difference "RF radiation" which is **NON IONISING** - ie. RADIO WAVES and "IONISING RADIATION" which is, of course, pretty nasty.

So please - don't feed the technology trolls - look up yourself what 5G LTE services are to offer, consider the fact that they operate on EXISTING spectrum - not some new kind of "mind ray" spectrum, and that if you can watch digital television with a standard antenna, you're already bathing in the same type of signal that LTE uses - only at a power level literally tens of thousands times higher than mobile service uses!

The irony is that those scared of new technology which is lower powered and more spectrally efficient will continue to use older technology that actually exposes the user to MORE RF energy than the new systems that are to replace them!

Knowledge is power... Read up and always check your sources!

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Whether or not the 5G network will be dangerous, it's simply a dumb solution to achieving a high speed cell network. It's makes no sense to use a frequency which is unable to penetrate any solid objects, including rain and plants.

This is one of the myths... LTE technology can be deployed on ANY frequency. In the US, because of the user base of CDMA services, 5G initially will be deployed at the top of the mobile spectrum, but the long term plan is to replace CDMA technology with LTE - meaning that 5G will end up down at 800MHz which has considerably better penetration of buildings and requires fewer, lower powered cells.

This is where there is a lot of confusion. 5G LTE transmits considerably less RF energy than CDMA (and WCDMA - in Europe) systems - as such, in some high-density urban areas more cells are needed, however the overall power density is LESS than having fewer cell sites.

The overall plan for 5G is to REDUCE the amount of RF power needed, Increase the data throughput via modulation efficiencies and increase capacity without having to use more spectrum.

Ironically, this means that users using the older CDMA (WCDMA) systems expose themselves to MORE RF energy at a higher frequency than a 4G or 5G LTE user would be exposed to - and by having more cell sites, the transmitter power both on the handset AND the base station can be significantly lower.

In simple terms, as someone who knows the technology and installs it - I am happy to work on LTE kit while it's transmitting and I don't mind using an LTE handset as the powers used are so low - however we only go near CDMA (3G) kit when it's powered off, and if I have to use a mobile that is on a (W)CDMA network I generally use a handsfree kit...

a reply to: Mikeapollo


You know what, folks? Star TF out of this guy.

It's damn nice to hear from someone who actually knows WTF he's talking about and explains it in indisputable terms for the idiots out there to comprehend. As opposed to people who think the technology name equals more power/higher frequencies/cancer.

Star Mike here like it's going out of style as a BIG thank you for his effort.

a reply to: Mikeapollo

Thank you for that explanation. That's the most helpful thing I've read and easy to understand.

originally posted by: Nyiah
a reply to: Mikeapollo

Star Mike here like it's going out of style as a BIG thank you for his effort.

Thanks guys! I'm usually just a lurker but hysteria over radio frequencies drives me nuts - especially as every new generation of mobile system developed and deployed is deliberately designed to pump out less power than the previous generation.

I'd like to say it's to clear up the air waves, but the truth is that pumping out radio signals costs money, so cramming more 'data' into less 'radio' means less costs, a better user experience, less power and a nice side effect of bathing the population in less RF

As a rule of thumb, every new generation of radio technology generally requires less power than its predecessors. Less power means less RF which may need more base stations in some dense areas - however overall five 1w Base stations is less than one 10 watt station, plus the bit you hold to your head then similarly transmits a considerably less powerful signal back to the Base because there are more of them closer to the user.

a reply to: Mikeapollo

This is one of the myths... LTE technology can be deployed on ANY frequency. In the US, because of the user base of CDMA services, 5G initially will be deployed at the top of the mobile spectrum, but the long term plan is to replace CDMA technology with LTE - meaning that 5G will end up down at 800MHz which has considerably better penetration of buildings and requires fewer, lower powered cells.

This is where there is a lot of confusion. 5G LTE transmits considerably less RF energy than CDMA (and WCDMA - in Europe) systems - as such, in some high-density urban areas more cells are needed, however the overall power density is LESS than having fewer cell sites.

Every explanation I've seen of the technology states that they will have to use a frequency which cannot travel through solid objects because all the other usable frequencies are already saturated, that is the reason they will need to build so many mini-towers. They can say they will "eventually" transition into more suitable frequencies, but what happens in the mean time and how long will that take? Some people are still using the 3G networks where I live, it will take a long time before they can totally phase out the old cell network. During that time we will have the old cell towers combined with these mini-towers all over the place, and they do emit much more radiation than something like a wifi router because they need to send the signal much further than a typical router would. It may be less intense than living next to a cell tower, but unlike cell towers they will be packed through cities and towns, so I don't see how it's going to be any better for people, especially if the old network still exists along side it. They can make promises about what will happen in the future, but right now the plan they are proposing is stupid and the side-effects are not well enough understood, especially how it might effect animals sensitive to magnetic fields.

a reply to: ColeYounger

My apologies for not making my intentions clear with my post.

"These frequency bands do not harm you as badly as localized environmental factors."

We should probably focus on the contaminants first.
Lead. Asbestos. Fukushima tap water.

We have issues that need far more urgent attention than a roll-out of a radio band you are being hit with right now, and have been hit with, since the invention of cordless telephones.
Trust me when I say this. The radiowave content passing through you on a daily basis is so much more vast than what will happen with any type of connectivity roll-out, that it's pissing in a hurricane, in neck deep water.