5G Radiation Dangers (2016)
beta.latimes.com
5G Radiation Dangers (2016)
1–10 of 129 posts
Re: 5G Radiation Dangers (2016)
#2Seriously? This again?
There is no physical basis for the hypothesis that non-ionizing radiation at athermal levels has any effect on humans. So, either come up with some repeatable results, or find something else to spend your research funding on.
Re: 5G Radiation Dangers (2016)
#3No discussion of sample sizes or P values? I convinced, I will refuse to stand within inches of a 5G base station for 10 minutes on, 10 minutes off, for 10 hours a day.
Re: 5G Radiation Dangers (2016)
#4I would be more worried about issues similar to the diesel gate scandal where manufacturers start forging radiation tests results.
How much testing does the government do and how much is the industry self testing?
Re: 5G Radiation Dangers (2016)
#5Seriously? This again? There is no physical basis for the hypothesis that non-ionizing radiation at athermal levels has any effect on humans. So, either come up with some repeatable results, or find something else to spend your research funding on.
[deleted]
Re: 5G Radiation Dangers (2016)
#6If non-ionizing low temperature radiation can be harmful to humans, does that mean we can get health issues just from standing near another human body which emits EM radiation at a far higher frequency and energy density?
Re: 5G Radiation Dangers (2016)
#7If non-ionizing low temperature radiation can be harmful to humans, does that mean we can get health issues just from standing near another human body which emits EM radiation at a far higher frequency and energy density?
A human body emits more radiation in the gigahertz range than a cellphone?
Re: 5G Radiation Dangers (2016)
#8If non-ionizing low temperature radiation can be harmful to humans, does that mean we can get health issues just from standing near another human body which emits EM radiation at a far higher frequency and energy density?
A human body emits more radiation in the gigahertz range than a cellphone?
I am talking about the infrared range, which is above 300GHz.
Re: 5G Radiation Dangers (2016)
#9Seriously? This again? There is no physical basis for the hypothesis that non-ionizing radiation at athermal levels has any effect on humans. So, either come up with some repeatable results, or find something else to spend your research funding on.
Seeing color is "non-ionizing radiation", so if seeing a color has an effect on you, then you're speaking nonsense.
Re: 5G Radiation Dangers (2016)
#10No discussion of sample sizes or P values? I convinced, I will refuse to stand within inches of a 5G base station for 10 minutes on, 10 minutes off, for 10 hours a day.
[deleted]