Is 5G safe? Verizon Announces 20 More U.S. Cities to Get 5G

Well they are going to test it in my town soon so I'll let you all know when my brain melts.

I used to think tin foil hats were a stupid idea but at the rate that technology seems to be advancing, I become more insecure and finding myself wanting them too.

It seems as though tests haven't been thoroughly done, and that it has rolled out because companies want more money as fast as they possibly can. 6G is going to happen sometime in the future because I don't know, China is going to launch it suddenly just to compete with America. I don't want 5G. I don't care about 5G or how quick it is, at all... I just want a guaranteed signal whenever I'm out.

Phone companies are going to charge us more for this whether we want 5G or not.

a reply to: Phage
In the UK the bumps on top of street lights are radio receivers. There will be one with an aerial and a cluster around that with bumps. They are used to remotely turn the street light off or on as most councils recon it costs too much to have the street lights on all night, as they used to work on timers inside the poles.

Now here is the side of this issue who claim it isn’t harmful. Now understand this is on CNBC a corporate media lapdog, so I personally don’t trust them all the time. But they should be heard: www.cnbc.com...

Also, here is another link with a different perspective. www.radiationhealthrisks.com...

The point is we need to study the matter objectively so its good to hear both sides.

But we have to keep in mind the corporate masters all evidence indicates DO NOT GIVE A DAMN about us and often risk public safety for profits.

a reply to: crayzeed
I didn't know that, but a transmitter certainly makes no sense.

In the US the bumps are photocells. Turn the lights on when it gets dark, off when it gets light.
Real high tech.

a reply to: Willtell

"Is 5G safe?"

Not if you are snorting it.

Is anything really safe or without some form of attached adverse condition these days?

a reply to: StrangeQuark96

Going to take a bit of foil for that head of yours!!

On another serious note I read they can locate your phone within 3 feet with it.

Guided ammo !!

a reply to: andy06shake

Oh…could it get us high too?

Imagine people going around sniffing the air!

Wireless high

a reply to: Willtell

High-fi.

originally posted by: Phage

As far as I know, 5G cell service doesn't go to 200GHz, or 80GHz.

5G uses the bands of 5GHz-100GHz

Hardell's study, referred to in your link, seems to be questionable.

Ironically while typing out my response I was getting frustrated with the slow loading speeds, which 5G would amend. But these studies found that frequencies less energetic than the 5G-band induced cognitive impairment in rats. It is likely the same in humans:

cognitive impairment in rats from 2.8GHz band
Long-term potentiation (memory) impairment in rats exposed to 2.8GHz band

a reply to: cooperton

5G uses the bands of 5GHz-100GHz

Not according to this:
www.cablefree.net...


First study:

After microwave radiation, declines in spatial learning and memory and fluctuations of brain electric activities were found in the 10 mW/cm2 single frequency exposure groups and accumulative exposure group

That is twice the allowable power density.

Second study:

Our results showed that the rats exposed in 10 mW/cm(2) and 50 mW/cm(2) microwave displayed significant deficits in spatial learning and memory at 6 h, 1 d and 3 d after exposure.

That is twice and ten times the allowable power density.

Compared with the sham group, the rats exposed in 5 mW/cm2 microwave showed no difference in the above experiments.

That is the allowable power density.

originally posted by: Phage

First study:
"After microwave radiation, declines in spatial learning and memory and fluctuations of brain electric activities were found in the 10 mW/cm2 single frequency exposure groups and accumulative exposure group" That is twice the maximum allowable power density.

Yes but 2.8GHz is about 1/35th of the max frequency that will be exhibited in 5G (100GHz) . Increasing the frequency x35 is equivalent to increasing the power x35 according to the equation: e = hf

So although they were using twice the maximum allowable power density, they were using 1/35th of the max frequency that is going to be exhibited in 5G, meaning the experiment was absolutely relevant to the radiation that humans will be exposed to with 5G. Humans will be exposed to more intense frequencies than exhibited in the experiment that showed cognitive impairment

a reply to: cooperton

Increasing the frequency x35 is equivalent to increasing the power x35 according to the equation: e = hf

You don't know what power density is or how it is determined. It means the same thing for any given frequency. 5 mW/cm2 is 5 mW/cm2 no matter what the frequency is.

The experiments used high power densities. Read the papers.

a reply to: Willtell

Yes 5G does effect you. All you have to do is but observe those who are on there cellphones all day. Don't they seem a bit slower in the head to you?

But then again everything effect you, the moment you are born, you have begun the slow process of dying. From sunlight to food and everything in between, the moons pull and sway to Jupiter outer rings. To the sway of 5g and beyond. I would not worry about it, or at least not unless it effect you in a dramatic way, and for some it will.

For the rest? It would likely be an improvement.

a reply to: 727Sky
Oh I think driver-less cars are more then a ways off. I think some years ago when they tested out or brought one out for the public it ran over the guy testing it, in front of the public and news operations.

As for phones. There not that accurate in pin point precision of locations, its more or less a general area, and they go by were you have been before more or less then were your exactly at. Its running it seems more on the general habits of people then anything else.

Today in fact I generally go to this take out food place, but today I went to another just a bit ways off, litteraly across the street. Then when I left I got that message from the phone asking me to rate or how was that take out place, which I did not go to. So ya, if they try driver-less cars with the things way are now.

It would be like watching bumper cars, people getting ran over everywhere, and likely it would be the phone zombies getting ran over, since you know there preoccupied and some even have that frontal lobe heatstroke going on, cue the drums, dum da dum da dum.

But if they start installing towers and things every few hundred feet it would be more accurate, cellphones on everybody just wont do it, and it would take to much processing power to watch were everybody is at any given second. And who wants to spend that much money on making more money, not it a capitalistic/socialistic consumer driven world.

The onset of a brave new world. But like the guy in the vid said, some people are much more effected by such things then others. Besides what you dont know cant kill you, it only turns you into a statistic, so thats OK. Or at least in this day and age.

originally posted by: Phage
You don't know what power density is or how it is determined. It means the same thing for any given frequency. 5 mW/cm2 is 5 mW/cm2 no matter what the frequency is.

The experiments used high power densities. Read the papers.

frequency is a measure of iterations per second (Hz). If you double the frequency you are effectively doubling the amount of energy being released by the power source.

frequency effects power: discussion

From what I can tell, it would be like delivering a force of 1Newton every second. If you instead increase the frequency to 1Newton every 0.25 seconds, you are increasing the frequency and therefore increasing the total force upon the object over time. Notice how in the paper the power is measured in Watts, which is Joules per second.

doubling the frequency doubles the electromagnetic radiation.

a reply to: cooperton

frequency effects power: discussion

That is about power consumption in computers. Not power density of RF radiation. Sort of like comparing apples and zebras. Your google skills suck.

Here is how RF power density is calculated.
www.allaboutcircuits.com...

originally posted by: Phage
That is about power consumption in computers. Not power density of RF radiation. Sort of like comparing apples and zebras. Your google skills suck.

Here is how RF power density is calculated.
www.allaboutcircuits.com...

Look man, there's no need to be condescending. Just be humble, we're all in this together.

at 0.3mW/cm2, within the acceptable range of the FCC, this study found significant ocular damage at 60GHz.

The difficulty in finding many experiments on this is even more worrisome. Especially since this is soon to be released, eventually on a global scale.

a reply to: cooperton

Look man, there's no need to be condescending. Just be humble, we're all in this together.

Sorry, I can't accept ignorance (or lies). No matter how "noble" the cause.

at 0.3mW/cm2, within the acceptable range of the FCC, this study found significant ocular damage at 60GHz.

I don't see that power density specified nor do I see what you describe. I do see this:

Fig. 1 indicates the conditions after 3 W/cm2 exposures for 6 minutes. Miosis (black arrow, 8 out of 8 rabbits) and vasodilation (red arrow-head, 7 out of 8 rabbits) but no corneal opacity was observed immediately after exposure.

source

You would be better advised to worry about security implications of the new systems more so than health.

originally posted by: Phage
Sorry, I can't accept ignorance. No matter how "noble."

This is the exact hubris I am talking about. You are not always right, no matter how much you want to think you are. It's ok. Just don't let appearing to be right supersede actual truth.

at 0.3mW/cm2, within the acceptable range of the FCC, this study found significant ocular damage at 60GHz. I don't see that power density specified nor do I see what you describe. I do see this:
Fig. 1 indicates the conditions after 3 W/cm2 exposures for 6 minutes. Miosis (black arrow, 8 out of 8 rabbits) and vasodilation (red arrow-head, 7 out of 8 rabbits) but no corneal opacity was observed immediately after exposure.
source

Yes 3 W/cm2

Good catch, misread that as 3 W/m2.

Regardless, take for example "Differential sensitivity of developmental stages to low-level electromagnetic radiation of extremely ultrahigh frequency", referenced in this review, which found that at 0.1mW/cm2 and 46.35 GHz, but not at 46.42 or 46.50 GHz, had a significant effect on cellular development.

This shows how meticulous the frequency-dependent damage can be. Making it easy to miss effects that will certainly be present when these 5G modules are everywhere.

or consider Kolomytseva et al who "looked at the dynamics of leukocyte number and functional activity of peripheral blood neutrophils under whole-body exposure of healthy mice to low-intensity extremely-high-frequency electromagnetic radiation (EHF EMR, 42.0 GHz, 0.15 mW/cm2, 20 min daily). The study showed that the phagocytic activity of peripheral blood neutrophils was suppressed by about 50% in 2-3 h after a single exposure to EHF EMR.

this study found a statistically significant effect on chromatin at 42.0 GHz and 0.15 mW/cm2.