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

a reply to: cooperton

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

3 hours of continuous exposure to frequencies which are higher than those used by 5G cellular networks. But, my goodness that abstract has a lot of words that don't really say much.

Tell me, how close do you have to stand next to a cell transmitter to be exposed to 0.15 mW/cm2? For 3 hours?

Do you need me to point out the title of the study you posted earlier?

Study on dose-dependent, frequency-dependent, and accumulative effects of 1.5 GHz and 2.856 GHz microwave on cognitive functions in Wistar rats

Or are you just going to keep throwing stuff up on the wall to see if no one notices?

originally posted by: Phage

Tell me, how close do you have to stand next to a cell transmitter to be exposed to 0.15 mW/cm2? For 3 hours?

apparently not far at all, according to this study



According to the graph, the highest intensity near the 5G modules will be 30W/m2, and the lowest intensity that will be exhibited is 5 W/m2 = 0.5 mW/cm2. 0.5mW/cm2 is a higher intensity than all of these studies:

this study
Kolomytseva et al
this review of multiple experiments

5G presents a biological danger.

a reply to: cooperton

According to the graph, the highest intensity near the 5G modules will be 30W/m2,

Apparently you are not aware of the difference between square meters and and square centimeters.

It's substantial.

5G is another human advancement and should be used, it will make us more advanced and super fast information receivers, here's the catch though, if we take that good,......... The richest societies should get it first, do we think that will happen.

originally posted by: Phage

Apparently you are not aware of the difference between square meters and and square centimeters.

It's substantial.

You're making the same mistake I made earlier. Here is the conversion:

10W/m2 = 1mW/cm2

These studies all found biological impairments that are in the power density range permissible by the FCC:

this study
Kolomytseva et al
this review of multiple experiments

a reply to: cooperton

You're making the same mistake I made earlier.

I made no mistake.

These studies all found biological impairments that are in the power density range permissible by the FCC:

You know that electromagnetic radiation follows the inverse square law, right?

originally posted by: Phage
I made no mistake.

You're quite the trip. Check for your self:

W/m2 to mW/cm2 converter

a reply to: cooperton

I know how to convert.

Now apply the inverse square law.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: cooperton

I know how to convert.

Now apply the inverse square law.

Sure, now apply how many of these things there will be:



The x-axis shows distance from each 5G module in the array. Notice the lowest it gets is 5 W/m2. But I think you realize that, you're just trying to divert and distract because you know you are wrong. It's ok man. Admitting you're wrong is liberating, and destroys the erroneous castle walls you built around yourself

a reply to: cooperton

What I notice is that it shows no difference in power density with distance.

So, 5G defies the laws of electromagnetic transmission? Or perhaps the graph is bull#.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: cooperton

What I notice is that it shows no difference in power density with distance.

So, 5G defies the laws of electromagnetic transmission? Or perhaps the graph is bull#.

The graph shows the difference in power density (y-axis) vs. the distance from the 5G module (x-axis)

a reply to: cooperton

The graph shows the difference in power density (y-axis) vs. the distance from the 5G module (x-axis)

I can see that.
Do you know what the inverse square rule is?

originally posted by: Phage

I can see that.
Do you know what the inverse square rule is?

Exponential decrease over distance from a source is only if there is one source. There are multiple sources here, which would account for it not being exactly an exponential decrease. I'm sure the scientists took that into consideration in their equation. Unless you really think you're just smarter than everything in the universe?

You're on an anonymous forum, it is the perfect time to admit you're wrong. For once. Just admit you're wrong. Say "I am wrong, there is a biological danger to 5G".

a reply to: cooperton

but - is there any ACTUAL " biological danger " - from 5g - as used in the real world ???

radio station transmitters - [ of all types ] are biologically dangerous - and have to be turned off to allow maintainence and repair personell to work on them

water = biologically dangerous -

actual risk ??????????????


ETA - radio has been used for over 115 years - any significant impact on the gen pop ?

a reply to: cooperton

There are multiple sources here, which would account for it not being exactly an exponential decrease.

I concede that point. However I would like to see evidence that the power densities reach those levels. Not to mention the fact that some of the studies you cite show no effects at those levels.

originally posted by: Phage

I concede that point. However I would like to see evidence that the power densities reach those levels.

Yeah that was the only study I could find that actually claimed to show what 5G power densities would be. I couldn't find anything from a government website, the cellular data companies, or independent research besides that study from a Georgia university. The lack of information was kind of eerie.

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: cooperton

but - is there any ACTUAL " biological danger " - from 5g - as used in the real world ???

That's what needs more studies to be determined. Preliminary reports lean both ways. It seems that the harmful frequencies in the 5G band are very precise. In all honesty though, people would probably sacrifice some cognitive capabilities if it meant faster internet haha. I think the studies showing biological harm are too subtle to hold back the dam breaking on the 5G release.

radio station transmitters - [ of all types ] are biologically dangerous - and have to be turned off to allow maintainence and repair personell to work on them

ETA - radio has been used for over 115 years - any significant impact on the gen pop ?

100Ghz (the top end of the 5G spectrum) is about x1000 higher energy than the highest energy FM radio wave.

a reply to: cooperton

The lack of information was kind of eerie.

You find the lack of replication to be eerie? It's as if you are expecting certain results. That's not very scientific.

100Ghz (the top end of the 5G spectrum) is about x1000 higher energy than the highest energy FM radio wave.

You still haven't shown evidence that 5G will use frequencies that high and you still don't seem to understand what power density is.

originally posted by: Phage
You find the lack of replication to be eerie? It's as if you are expecting certain results. That's not very scientific.

You still haven't shown evidence that 5G will use frequencies that high and you still don't seem to understand what power density is.

this study is the only thing I found that even mentioned the power density to be expected with 5G networks. Please post if you can find anything else. Couldn't find anything in government docs. Like I said, kind of sketchy that there is no information considering this is about to be released in the public.

a reply to: Phage
No, around here they turn the lights out at midnight.

a reply to: galadofwarthethird

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.

Buddha said everything that comes into this world carries the seeds of its own destruction

The technologists who love technology for the sake of profit and military use likely are the worldwide force to carry out destruction on a macrocosmic level.

Unless…?