It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

How one mistaken graph created the 5G health hazard myth

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 6 2020 @ 10:13 PM
link   
9to5mac.com...




Claims that 5G causes brain cancer keep being circulated despite repeated commentary from experts on their erroneous nature. The New York Times has now run a detailed piece explaining just how the myth arose in the first place, and why there is no substance to it.

Dr. Curry’s voice was authoritative. He became a private consultant in the 1990s after federal budget cuts brought his research career to an end. He had degrees in physics (1959 and 1965) and electrical engineering (1990). His credentials and decades of experience at federal and industrial laboratories, including the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, seemed to make him a very strong candidate to conduct the Broward study.
“He was a very bright guy,” recalled Gary Brown, an expert in the district’s technology unit who worked with Dr. Curry to prepare the reports.
So, according to mainstream expert information all the anti 5G fear is based on a distorted graph by a Dr Curry, which according to many expert scientists was invalid


Here is the graph…




A 2000 graph by physicist Bill P. Curry purported to show that tissue damage increases with the rising frequency of radio waves. But it failed to account for the shielding effect of human skin.


Which details the amount of electromagnetic radiation that comes from 2G 3, 4 and 5 G. The graph claims the amount of EMR is deadly to the human cell and causes cancer and other diseases by ruining cells.

According to many expert scientists, Curry got it all wrong.



...According to experts on the biological effects of electromagnetic radiation, radio waves become safer at higher frequencies, not more dangerous. (Extremely high-frequency energies, such as X-rays, behave differently and do pose a health risk.)
In his research, Dr. Curry looked at studies on how radio waves affect tissues isolated in the lab, and misinterpreted the results as applying to cells deep inside the human body. His analysis failed to recognize the protective effect of human skin. At higher radio frequencies, the skin acts as a barrier, shielding the internal organs, including the brain, from exposure. Human skin blocks the even higher frequencies of sunlight.
“It doesn’t penetrate,” said Christopher M. Collins, a professor of radiology at New York University who studies the effect of high-frequency electromagnetic waves on humans. Dr. Curry’s graph, he added, failed to take into account “the shielding effect” […]
“If phones are linked to cancer, we’d expect to see a marked uptick,” David Robert Grimes, a cancer researcher at the University of Oxford, wrote recently in the Guardian. “Yet we do not


I guess we have to do our own research and conclude for ourselves.

Original NYT Article




posted on Mar, 6 2020 @ 10:19 PM
link   
not reading that....just from the title...naw

micro wave radiation....ya see...I was trained in the Air Force.....just really naw mister!!

I was a GUNFIGHTER....attack radar on the FB 111- F 366th TAC outta MOUNTAIN HOME

editby]edit on 6-3-2020 by GBP/JPY because: TEXAS TRADITION

edit on 6-3-2020 by GBP/JPY because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2020 @ 01:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Willtell

Ok 5Gs safe.... Hahahaha!! Yeh it's right safe not that it's used by the military and police forces to disperse crowds and makes you violently ill or anything... Just wait for the reports from the Swiss government who have put a dead stop to it. Then tell me it's safe. Come drink the cool aid.. it's really tasty. There's other research as well that shows its highly toxic and guess what Wuhan was one of the first to turn it on.... Peace🕊️



posted on Mar, 7 2020 @ 01:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Willtell

I guess we have to do our own research and conclude for ourselves.

Doing research is certainly better than spreading FUD.



posted on Mar, 7 2020 @ 01:42 AM
link   
a reply to: GBP/JPY


micro wave radiation....ya see...I was trained in the Air Force.....just really naw mister!!


Sunlight....ya see...I've been told to never look directly into the sun.....just really naw mister!! That is why I will stay in the dark for the rest of my life.



posted on Mar, 7 2020 @ 01:44 AM
link   
Jeez I'd post some good reference documents, but ATS still won't let me post. Let me try it this way.

-Highest frequency:
Gamma
X-Ray
Ultraviolet
Visible
Infrared
Microwave
Radiowaves
Very Low Frequencies
Extremely Low Frequencies
-Lowest frequency

There some other ones at the extremes, and each can be broken up into smaller categorizations, but I'm not going to get into that.

Each category of frequency can and does have an affect on the human body.

The truth of the matter is that even visible light with enough intensity can be damaging to our tissues.

Most of us living in modern civilization are exposed to the whole wide range of frequencies on a daily basis with the exception of X-rays, and gamma radiation.

Power lines are a common source of extremely low frequencies, and research suggests that ELF can actually affect a persons thinking, behavior, and personality. If you weld, ride subways or trams you're exposed to ELF.

Up to the higher end, the sun is a well known source of ultra violet. UV sits between visible light and X-rays. We all know about the dangers of UV on our skin.

X-rays. Everybody gets them at one point or another. Many medical personnel work with it on a daily basis. CT scans use Xrays, as well as.. Xray machines.

Gamma EMF is generated naturally by the decay of high energy atoms, stars going supernova, and lightning, and artificially by things such as atomic bombs, and certain components of radars.

All this is to say that every frequency on the EMF spectrum can cause damage to the human body.

The 5G frequency sits in a zone that has been in use for decades. It's Ultra High Frequency and sits in the radiowave frequency. You more than likely use UHF on a daily basis right in your pocket. Walkie talkies use it, GPS uses it, Bluetooth uses it, wifi uses it.


The point is that you're blasted by EMF all across the spectrum on a daily basis. 5G is no more or no less a worry than watching your microwave burrito cook.

I was a Fire Controlman in the US Navy, and I was exposed to more radiation than I'd ever care for. The system I was responsible for generated gamma EMF and I was exposed to that a handful of times. Unfortunately instead of granting me Hulk like properties, it gave me killer headaches, and made me ache all over.

But there's more to it than just the frequency. It's the intensity. The length of time exposed.

Even though watching your aforementioned burrito explode, no would suggest you punch in 99:99 and stand next to the microwave all day.

Even though a medical tech needs to administer an xray or CAT scan you're obviously not going to be exposed more than necessary.

Just like I would never move into a house that was situated right next to a substation or cell tower.

Too much of any of it can have detrimental affects.



posted on Mar, 7 2020 @ 01:45 AM
link   


Ok 5Gs safe.... Hahahaha!! Yeh it's right safe not that it's used by the military and police forces to disperse crowds and makes you violently ill or anything...
a reply to: DiddyC
LOL. Neither the military nor the police are using 5G to disperse crowds or make them violently ill.



posted on Mar, 7 2020 @ 02:02 AM
link   
Radiation is only dangerous based on the power level it is broadcast at.

I have actually undergone 5G hazard training as a function of my job and it can be extremely dangerous in close proximity to the transmission dish.

The hazard presented by low power 5G transmission is up for debate in my opinion. That being said, many of the uninformed are conflating the hazards presented by high power microwave with the low level 5G architecture that has been proposed.

Microwaves are used to disperse crowds and are transmitted at a very HIGH power, heating up the water just beneath the skin, causing sensations of burning.



posted on Mar, 7 2020 @ 02:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: DiddyC
a reply to: Willtell

Ok 5Gs safe.... Hahahaha!! Yeh it's right safe not that it's used by the military and police forces to disperse crowds and makes you violently ill or anything... Just wait for the reports from the Swiss government who have put a dead stop to it. Then tell me it's safe. Come drink the cool aid.. it's really tasty. There's other research as well that shows its highly toxic and guess what Wuhan was one of the first to turn it on.... Peace🕊️


Link, please.



posted on Mar, 7 2020 @ 03:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: moebius



Ok 5Gs safe.... Hahahaha!! Yeh it's right safe not that it's used by the military and police forces to disperse crowds and makes you violently ill or anything...
a reply to: DiddyC
LOL. Neither the military nor the police are using 5G to disperse crowds or make them violently ill.
That's true, though the crowd control devices use the same frequency as will be allowed within the 5G specification, about 94-95 GHz. But as clay2 baraka says and I'm sure you know, the power levels make a difference. 5G does not emit the same power as a crowd control device.


originally posted by: clay2 baraka
Radiation is only dangerous based on the power level it is broadcast at.

I have actually undergone 5G hazard training as a function of my job and it can be extremely dangerous in close proximity to the transmission dish.

The hazard presented by low power 5G transmission is up for debate in my opinion. That being said, many of the uninformed are conflating the hazards presented by high power microwave with the low level 5G architecture that has been proposed.

Microwaves are used to disperse crowds and are transmitted at a very HIGH power, heating up the water just beneath the skin, causing sensations of burning.
Agreed, you're right about the power levels. We should certainly keep an eye on the data and I echoed your concerns about getting too close to active transmitters when I was asked about the risks. But I also found lots of references on studies already done on the higher frequencies like those used by crowd control devices and didn't see any unexpected concerns.


originally posted by: Willtell
“It doesn’t penetrate,” said Christopher M. Collins, a professor of radiology at New York University who studies the effect of high-frequency electromagnetic waves on humans. Dr. Curry’s graph, he added, failed to take into account “the shielding effect” […]
“If phones are linked to cancer, we’d expect to see a marked uptick,” David Robert Grimes, a cancer researcher at the University of Oxford, wrote recently in the Guardian. “Yet we do not"



I guess we have to do our own research and conclude for ourselves.
Someone asked about 5G 9 months ago in the "Ask any question about physics thread" and I tried to explain the same thing as Christopher M. Collins, referring specifically to the 5G concerns flying around the internet.

Since the 94-95 GHz doesn't penetrate far into human tissue, I also said it seems safer to me. Sure 94-95 GHz is used in crowd control, but compare the power levels. To see more extensive comments and a list of references, see my full reply to the question at this link:

What, if any concerns do you have for rollout of 5G?



posted on Mar, 7 2020 @ 04:45 AM
link   
If skin is a barrier than how do the radiowaves go through concrete or wooden walls?

The radio waves probably won't hurt anyone - because they go right through most substances.

Not because the skin blocks it, it's ridiculous!

Skin can't hardly block a small percentage of a wave that goes right through the body.



posted on Mar, 7 2020 @ 04:55 AM
link   
Simple experiment to test such a claim:

Get 10 people to pile on you and see if your phone still gets a signal.

It will. It won't even disrupt the signal.

Therefore skin doesn't block barely any of the radio wave.

By the way, theoretically radio poses near to no danger so both sides of this 5G debate are wrong.

It's safe because it isn't ionizing radiation and with radio the odds of it hitting your atomic structure are astronomically low.
edit on 3/7/2020 by muzzleflash because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2020 @ 06:39 AM
link   
a reply to: muzzleflash
You're entirely missing the point. The way electromagnetic waves interact with matter varies by frequency.

Yes radio waves go through concrete, but does visible light go through concrete? No.

The 94-95 GHz frequency used in crowd control devices that has some people worried is not a radio wave. It's in the microwave band and is approaching the sub-millimeter band as seen here, with a wavelength a tad over 3mm:

planck.cf.ac.uk...

"The transparency or opaqueness of an object can depend on the wavelength used"

Skin doesn't block radio waves, the frequency is too low.

I wouldn't call skin a "barrier" exactly to higher frequencies, but at higher frequencies like 94-95 GHz the EM radiation doesn't go too deep, that's why the crowd control devices at that frequency work and make your skin feel like it's on fire. 5G adds higher frequencies to the 4G range, including the 94-95 GHz crowd control device frequency. It's a huge increase over the 2.5 GHz max allowed by 4G, and this increase is at the center of the 5G concerns:

www.rfsafe.com...


I don't think anybody is using 94-95 GHz phones yet (are they?) but 5G allows such frequencies. If you ever get a phone operating at 95 GHz frequency, try your experiments with that. Applying your experiments to phones that operate at lower frequencies doesn't tell you what will happen with phones at higher frequencies. The ability of electromagnetic radiation to penetrate the body is frequency dependent.

edit on 202037 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Mar, 7 2020 @ 08:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: muzzleflash
Simple experiment to test such a claim:

Get 10 people to pile on you and see if your phone still gets a signal.

It will. It won't even disrupt the signal.

Therefore skin doesn't block barely any of the radio wave.

By the way, theoretically radio poses near to no danger so both sides of this 5G debate are wrong.

It's safe because it isn't ionizing radiation and with radio the odds of it hitting your atomic structure are astronomically low.


It will absolutely block a real 5G signal. 5G requires LOS [Line of Sight] and it cannot penetrate through solid objects, this is why 5G requires battery operated repeater boxes, this is also why 5G will never take off globally; it'll only ever be in major cities.

5G is not the revolution they want you to think it is; and it's probably very dangerous, they are millimeter waves in the 60-115 ghz band. The lower the frequency of the band, the more object penetration you get. The higher the frequency range, the faster 5G is, but the harder it is to keep that signal constantly because the worse the signal penetration is.
edit on 7-3-2020 by SRPrime because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 7 2020 @ 09:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: muzzleflash
Not because the skin blocks it, it's ridiculous!

It doesn't block it, it absorbs it.



posted on Mar, 7 2020 @ 11:29 AM
link   
5G is not good for people, it can interfere with lots of biological processes. All of those signals do the same thing, even the sound coming out of the speaker of your landline phone does this to some extent.

The reason 5G is worse is because of how far the towers are from people's houses, they are too close, they should be a minimum of five hundred feet from any bedroom or place where people spend a lot of time. I see temporary disruption or confusion of our immune response as one of the most important problems it has, much of that from it's disruption of brain signal information.

All of these signals and electromagnetic fields we are creating is not good for us to be doused with all day long. Do not just focus on one single element, look at the big picture, those 5Gs alone wouldn't be so much a problem if nothing else was wrong, it is like putting alcohol in your coke and drinking it all day long, the coke is bad enough without the alcohol.



posted on Mar, 7 2020 @ 11:37 AM
link   
a reply to: SRPrime

We have nerves all over our bodies, it will backfeed into those nerves and disrupt proper signalling easily, the skull also has openings in it.

They were talking about putting 5g around here too. It is going into smaller towns too once it becomes affordible to lessen traffic on the towers.



posted on Mar, 7 2020 @ 02:23 PM
link   
The point is we have scientists on one side of the fence saying one thing and scientists on the other saying something else.


It’s like a trial where they have experts for the prosecution and the defense and the jurors have to determine who is correct though they are but laymen.



posted on Mar, 7 2020 @ 03:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Willtell
The point is we have scientists on one side of the fence saying one thing and scientists on the other saying something else.


It’s like a trial where they have experts for the prosecution and the defense and the jurors have to determine who is correct though they are but laymen.
There is a lot of confusion on the topic.

I don't really see opposite sides of the fence like you do, if you're talking about Dr. Curry's graph you posted in your opening post. Please note his graph was sent in 2000 in a letter he wrote about Wi-Fi in schools, when 3G was still being used. He was aware there would be a push for higher frequencies, which happened in 2008 when 4G came out. 3G and 4G frequencies can reach the brain, and I don't see any problems with his expressing his concerns about that.

For there to be "opposite sides of the fence" between Curry and the other scientists who say there is a "skin effect" at 95 GHz which prevents much radiation from reaching the brain, I would have to hear Curry deny this "skin effect" and I never heard him do that. Nothing in the article you posted suggests that Curry denies the "skin effect".

So I'm not aware of any fence between scientists who say there's a "skin effect" and Dr. Curry who in 2000 was concerned about the higher frequencies of 4G over 3G, since the "skin effect" didn't apply to those frequencies.

What I suspect is almost every scientist you ask who knows about the "skin effect" will confirm it at 95 GHZ, and even if you don't want to take their word for it, look at the way crowd control devices at that frequency operate on the principle of skin deep penetration.

Your article only mentions one "outlier", Dr Carpenter, who has been promoting Curry's old graph, but even in his case, it is really hard to see this fence that you see. Here is what Dr. Carpenter says:

The 5G Health Hazard That Isn’t

In a recent interview, Dr. Carpenter defended his high-frequency view. “You have all this evidence that cellphone radiation penetrates the brain,” he said. But he conceded after some discussion that the increasingly high frequencies could in fact have a difficult time entering the human body: “There’s some legitimacy to that point of view.”


So, when even Dr. Carpenter, the alarmist, admits “There’s some legitimacy to that point of view.”, the fence is gone, isn't it? He's the only person you might think of as disputing the "skin effect" and he says there's some legitimacy to that view. He still has concerns about 5G, but he's painted as somewhat of an outlier in that article. I think the concerns with 4G at lower frequencies had a better foundation, and that Curry had reasons for concern, and to some extent we've been human guinea pigs testing the effects of 4G. Here's an article about the results of our exposure to 4G:

A comprehensive guide to the messy, frustrating science of cellphones and health



posted on Mar, 7 2020 @ 03:53 PM
link   
Experts agree, cigarettes are healthy...it's nonsense, these people know the dangers and adverse affects of these things better than anyone and until they are held responsible, they will keep lying for a paycheck.



new topics

top topics


active topics

 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join