It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
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.
IARC considers the evidence overall to be “limited” because of the conflicting findings and methodologic limitations in some of the studies.
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.
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.
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.