“We have no reason to believe 5G is safe”

Post by magduf » Mon, Oct 21, 2019, 2:52 PM UTC

arpa wrote: post #197

xwdv wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People don’t click the link because they already know better. We are bathed in radiation everyday. So guess what, the people who say 5G is unsafe, are also the same people that will say flying is unsafe, or using a microwave is unsafe, or eating a banana is unsafe, or being in your car is unsafe, or using your phone is unsafe. Because all these things emit radiation. Do people care about that though? No. The effects…

You conflated ionising and non-ionising radiation (flying/banana/chest x-ray vs. radio waves, wifi, light from lightbulbs). Just so you know. Your point still stands though, although i would say we're bathed in more intense radiation than 5G and have been bathing in it for millenias - sunlight is radiation as well! Better live underground, i guess. Oh, oh, but what about skin cancer you say? That's caused by sunlight…

Post by swader999 » Mon, Oct 21, 2019, 2:55 PM UTC

ajsnigrutin wrote: post #254

paulryanrogers wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds horrible. May I ask, what symptoms do you suffer from? Is the condition recognized anywhere? Has anyone explored treatments? Sadly the only other mention I've ever seen is the fictional series "Better Call Saul". And the character's suffering was depicted as entirely mental.

> And the character's suffering was depicted as entirely mental. That's because it is entirely mental. Blind tests were done on people, and their ability to recognise a radiation source was the same as random picking. Anybody claiming to be able to sense radiation can be tested simply by taking two mobile phones, turning one off (leaving one connected to the internet and doing something online), putting both in a bag…

Post by pas » Mon, Oct 21, 2019, 2:57 PM UTC

Fordec wrote: post #215

pas wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hm. Sure, some people just point to how the same thing happened with GSM, 2G, 3G, 4G, WiFi... but that's just a fallacy, because we also know that gamma rays, X-rays and UV are harmful, so deductively there must be some grey zone between 3G and hard gamma rays. Since we can't simply infer the health effects with certainty from first principles (let's say from physics/chemistry) we should demand relevant data. But we…

Between Gamma rays and 3G is UV. Between UV and 3G is visible light. Between visible light and 3G is IR, one of which is the heat human bodies give off. Do warm blooded animals cause cancer? Because they're still a far higher frequency than 3G and the wattage of a human at rest is 100W which is roughly equivalent. Do hugs cause cancer? If yes, then we can start narrowing it down to 3G/5G more after that. But by that…

Post by stinos » Mon, Oct 21, 2019, 2:57 PM UTC

dnautics wrote: post #342

manifestsilence wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This comment explains precisely why the dismissal from so many here. Correlational studies without a plausible causal mechanism are highly suspect. As an illustration, people have used obviously bogus examples like, in the past 100 years, piracy has risen. So has global warming. Therefore, pirates cause global warming. Unless a 5G study specifically addresses the mechanism, and how non-ionizing radiation can cause da…

There's plenty of ways that non-ionizing radiation can result in increased cancer rates. For example, they can induce currents in the DNA (DNA is s molecular wire) which might jam the base excision repair system and prevent it from detecting DNA damage (which is a redox-driven process). What's even scarier is that this sort of an effect will not be found in a standard Ames test and also is unlikely to be found in hig…

Post by GregoryPerry » Mon, Oct 21, 2019, 2:59 PM UTC