This thread would be much shorter if someone had read this:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26151230
“We have no reason to believe 5G is safe”
491–500 of 613 posts
Re: “We have no reason to believe 5G is safe”
#492Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Plentiful nutrition which has led to 90% of the population of the USA being overweight, obese, or overfat is another potential culprit. Yeah I’m gonna need some data to believe that one. 90% obese / overweight? I’m calling bullshit.
Yes, it's more like 35-40%.
In 2014, 73% of men, 67% of women.
https://www.niddk.nih.gov/health-information/health-statisti...
Re: “We have no reason to believe 5G is safe”
#493Radiation dosimetry is a combination of: * Frequency of radiation * Power of exposure * Duration of exposure * Where in the human body absorption is occurring While the effects of the latter three are pretty well understood for certain kinds of radiation (ionizing and non-ionizing) ranging from "acute radiation sickness due to gamma burst" to "listening to the radio your whole life doesn't have a link to cancer", the…
> It comes down to a persons personal risk. [..] Wear a hat and sunscreen. What's the "hat and sunscreen" protection against millimeter wave cellphone towers, that someone else installed on their private property near you? I'm not yet convinced the risks exist. But conceptually if there was a danger, there's no "personal risk" argument. We're blanketing the whole area around a tower with millimeter wave/5G, a person…
I have a wallet with RFID protection. Could we make cell phone cases and/or glass with shielding that blocks 5G signals, limiting exposure in part of the phone that wouldn't be need to be sending and receiving signals? Basically have a naked antenna and shielded everything else. I am not a mobile phone hardware wizard :)
Re: “We have no reason to believe 5G is safe”
#494Earlier quoted context omitted.
The thing that concerns me about millimeter wave tech and 5G is that it seems like a solution looking for a problem. My city just had a wave of poles dropped in a few neighborhoods, and they seem to me to be an expensive boondoggle. IMO, we would be better served by the heavy hand of the FCC allowing fiber providers to run telephone poles and trenches without any accountability (as the wireless carriers can with 5G).…
It's not a solution looking for a problem. The problem is that the existing infrastructure does not support network slicing. Without network slicing the telcos are severely limited in their pricing models. "5G" is just them trying to convince consumers that this is for their benefit.
True! Right now telcos loathe being locked in as fixed-price dumb bit-pipes for the content providers, the netflix'es, facebooks & amazon's, who are making all the money.
Thus: 5G.
Re: “We have no reason to believe 5G is safe”
#495the usual luddite garbage.
Re: “We have no reason to believe 5G is safe”
#496Earlier quoted context omitted.
Laws of Physics are in general not always applicable. Ohm's Law, for instance, is only applicable in a narrow range of conditions. "Laws" tend to be less rigorous and more narrowly applicable than "theories," though the colloquial meaning of the terms is switched.
Yes, except in this case there isn't an exception.
Incorrect analysis can give the correct answer.
There are excpetions to many inverse square laws, they just aren't relevant to the problem at hand.
Re: “We have no reason to believe 5G is safe”
#497Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's anecdotal, but a friend of mine with cancer switched to a keto diet and he had one tumor shrink, to the point where his doctor said they could (and should) now operate on it. The large increase in sugar and starch in our diet does contribute to fast growing cancer cells and there are studies that link being overweight/obesity with cancer. We weren't this fat decades ago. Some may blame more office work, but the…
I know a few people who have lost a lot of weight on Atkins/keto. I think they are successful diets because they provide bright-line rules for people to follow, but they are also extreme and potentially dangerous. None of them could maintain those diets long-term because they developed things like kidney pain. Caloric restriction, eating a good balance of fat/carbs/protein, laying off saturated fats, sugar, and booze…
I don't think you can say that they are dangerous more than you can say that for example vegan diets are extreme and dangerous. They CAN be dangerous but there are many who are successfully are eating that way and it is even a treatment against epilepsy seizures for some.
https://www.epilepsy.com/learn/treating-seizures-and-epileps....
Re: “We have no reason to believe 5G is safe”
#498This thread would be much shorter if someone had read this: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26151230
and also this: https://www.nature.com/articles/srep14914
Re: “We have no reason to believe 5G is safe”
#499Earlier quoted context omitted.
This comment is utterly false. Just after a brief glance at the paper, I found a study on showing a 2x increase in cancer on a sample size of over 1,000,000 humans.
Please give a link, I want to read it without going through these that aren't that interesting.
Re: “We have no reason to believe 5G is safe”
#500Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don't think making an antenna that can detect an LED shining in a flat miles away is crazy because pockets are transparent?
In darkness our eyes can easily detect a 1W LED from kilometers away.
But can they distinguish a specific 300 mW LED in a stadium with tens of thousands of other LEDs next to it?