How one mistaken graph created the 5G health hazard myth

a reply to: Willtell
If I could say SOMETHING that would stop 5G besides bring it up to the EPA as I have already, I would stop it. Many of us in the Environmental Sciences see the problem. Science Journals are making papers that question the rapid deployment due to these things.

I need no Dr graphs or mistaken ones either, to tell me that this operates at the wavelengths that our human Brain waves operate. Humanity and more important to the SJW's would be the animals harmed is going to be very possible in my professional opinion.

I would not take this report at it's word based on the wavelength ranges being in the human range that have historically been determined to be suspected in making changes to the body or mental state of impacted patients.

ETA

blogs.scientificamerican.com...

If the environment around that transmitter is dangerous,that is a clue. That is the kind of thing that emphasizes the need to be very careful what we establish here.

Thanks for your report.

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.

originally posted by: rickymouse
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.

Agree with this line of thinking by all of you on it. Arbitregeur especially kudo's!

Thanks for sharing your logic that explains it well.

5G is an interesting thing. Because I dont understand why there is so much confusion. It seems like one of the easiest things to test for, to do experiments with to see the results. If only the layperson like me were able to, I would. One could even do public experiments like thomas edison used to do, why is this not happening? And if it has, well then what is the result? Is it dangerous or not.

a reply to: FellowHuman

The problem is that most of the possible effects appear only after some years, so nothing we can do now will solve the doubts now.

originally posted by: FellowHuman
5G is an interesting thing. Because I dont understand why there is so much confusion. It seems like one of the easiest things to test for, to do experiments with to see the results. If only the layperson like me were able to, I would. One could even do public experiments like thomas edison used to do, why is this not happening? And if it has, well then what is the result? Is it dangerous or not.

originally posted by: ArMaP
a reply to: FellowHuman

The problem is that most of the possible effects appear only after some years, so nothing we can do now will solve the doubts now.

Even the alarmists don't seem to doubt that the higher frequencies of 5G like 94-95 GHz only have shallow penetration.

So, the biggest concerns of penetrating radiation are for what we have already used for two decades, 3G and 4G, and we already have lots of results on us human guinea pigs:

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

For 5G, at 94-95 GHz, the experiments show exactly what any physicist would expect. Since the radiation goes skin deep, it can make your skin feel like it's on fire so it's used for crowd control devices, usually with no ill effects past the intended pain. But if you get too much of that, like get too close to the device, it can actually burn your skin (which has happened in a few cases). But 5G at 94-95 GHz doesn't get anywhere near the power levels of the crowd control devices, so the chances of it burning your skin are about zero. So if you read these studies about the effects of the higher frequencies used in 5G (sometimes referred to below as millimeter waves), and see the burnt skin results, yes it can happen in high power, but not with low power so there's lots of research on millimeter wave effects, but you have to interpret it based on power levels of the application:

Chalfin, S., D’Andrea, J.A., Comeau, P.D., Belt, M.E., and Hatcher, D.J. Millimeter wave absorption in the nonhuman primate eye at 35 GHz and 94 GHz. Health Physics, 83(1): 83-90, 2002.

Foster, K.R., D’Andrea, J.A., Chalfin, S., and Hatcher, D.J. Thermal modeling of millimeter wave damage to the primate cornea at 35 GHz and 94 GHz. Health Physics, 84(6): 764-769, 2003.

Jauchem, J.R. A Literature Review of Medical Side Effects from Radiofrequency Energy in the Human Environment. Journal of Microwave Power and Electromagnetic Energy, 32 (2): 103-124, 2003.

Jauchem, J.R. Ryan, K.L., and Frei, M.R. Cardiovascular and thermal responses in rats during 94GHz irradiation. Bioelectromagnetics 20:264-267, 1999.

Mason, P.A., Walters, T.J., DiGiovanni, J., Beason, C.W. Jauchem, J.R., Dick, J.E., Mahajan, K., Dusch, S.J., Shields, B., Merritt, J.H., Murphy, M.R., and Ryan, K.L. Lack of effect of 94-GHz radio frequency radiation exposure in an animal model of skin carcinogenesis. Carcinogenesis 22: 1701-1708, 2001.

Nelson, D.A., Walters, T.J., Ryan, K.L., Emerton, K.B., Hurt, W.D., Ziriax, J.M., Johnson, L.R., and Mason, P.A., Inter-species extrapolation of skin heating resulting from millimeter wave irradiation: modeling and experimental results. Health Physics, 84(5): 608-615, 2003.

Nelson, D.A., Nelson, M.T., Walters, T.J., and Mason, P.A. Skin heating effects of millimeter wave irradiation: Thermal modeling results. IEEE Transactions on Microwave Theory and Techniques 48:2111-2120, 2000.

Pakhhomov, A.G., Akyel, Y., Pakhomova, O.N., Stuck, B.E., and Murphy, M.R. Current state and implications of research on biological effects of millimeter waves. Bioelectromagnetics 19:393- 413, 1998.

Ryan, K.L., D’Andrea, J.A. Jauchem, J.R., and Mason, P.A. Radio frequency radiation of millimeter wavelength: Potential occupational safety issues relating to surface heating. Bioelectromagnetics 78: 170-181, 2000.

Walters, T.J., Ryan, K.L., Nelson, D.A., Blick, D.W., and Mason, P.A., Effects of blood flow on skin heating induced by millimeter wave irradiation in humans. Health Phys. 86(2): 115- 120, 2004.

Walters, T.J., Blick, D.W., Johnson, L.R. Adair, E.R., and Foster, K.R. Heating and pain sensations by millimeter waves: Comparison to a simple thermal model. Health Physics 78:259- 267, 2000.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

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".

What I find quite astonishing is the fact that we seem to agree these frequencies cause damage to cells and potentially even cause cancer, but we're told not to worry because our skin blocks it... what about the effects of long term exposure on the skin or parts of the body where skin doesn't protect us? My main problem with 5G is just how flat out dumb it is in terms of the infrastructure. The frequencies used are absorbed by almost everything including rain and plants, meaning we require a large number of high powered short range stations which bounce the signals off buildings and other fancy stuff.

The use-case scenarios for 5G are also mostly redundant, they say you can download and watch HD videos on your phone using 5G but phones can also connect to wifi routers which offer just as fast or faster speeds for a fraction of the data cost. It may be different in the US but the price difference here in AU is ridiculous. Furthermore, I'd much rather use a real computer with a large monitor to watch a movie. So because some people need to watch HD video on their phone and cannot rely on wifi, everyone else must be bathed in this radiation... but it's all good I'm sure our skin will protect us.

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
a reply to: Arbitrageur

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".

What I find quite astonishing is the fact that we seem to agree these frequencies cause damage to cells and potentially even cause cancer, but we're told not to worry because our skin blocks it... what about the effects of long term exposure on the skin or parts of the body where skin doesn't protect us? My main problem with 5G is just how flat out dumb it is in terms of the infrastructure. The frequencies used are absorbed by almost everything including rain and plants, meaning we require a large number of high powered short range stations which bounce the signals off buildings and other fancy stuff.

The use-case scenarios for 5G are also mostly redundant, they say you can download and watch HD videos on your phone using 5G but phones can also connect to wifi routers which offer just as fast or faster speeds for a fraction of the data cost. It may be different in the US but the price difference here in AU is ridiculous. Furthermore, I'd much rather use a real computer with a large monitor to watch a movie. So because some people need to watch HD video on their phone and cannot rely on wifi, everyone else must be bathed in this radiation... but it's all good I'm sure our skin will protect us.

The issue isn't necessarily with the frequency, but the power output levels required to transmit the 5G over distance to overcome attenuation.

RF becomes dangerous once you reach higher power outputs.