6 ms·

Slightly OT or meta. I keep bumping up against these nutty conspiracy theories about 5G being dangerous in various forums. Has anyone done a study of the effect

Slightly OT or meta. I keep bumping up against these nutty conspiracy theories about 5G being dangerous in various forums. Has anyone done a study of the effects of certain frequencies and energy levels on the human body that I can use to refute these fools? Also, what is the canonical source on 5g spectrum and power levels?

pas 8y ago
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1503/1503.05944.pdf https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1503/1503.05944.pdf this basically found that 90% of the energy is absorbed on/at/around the skin. if neurons were directly exposed they would heat up and their firing rate would be altered significantly [look at fig2 / D ] ( https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4233276/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4233276/ ) this study did a direct exposure testing on a human's arm (and on rats and monkeys) at 94GHz for 3s at 1W/cm^2: https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a628296.pdf https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a628296.pdf this did 24h low power 1mW/cm^2 exposure of human eye like cells and detected no significant difference in micronucleus expression, DNA strand breaks, and heat stress protein expression: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4997488/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4997488/ this used 42GHz on rats for 30min/day for 3 days, and tried to look for tumors/cancer and found no significant difference: https://www.rrjournal.org/doi/abs/10.1667/RR3121 https://www.rrjournal.org/doi/abs/10.1667/RR3121 so. it seems there's no immediate and known adverse effect (other than the heating and maybe some interference with the electro-biochemistry of cells, particularly with neurons). and luckily people usually don't use phones near their heads anymore (when doing large data transfers), so we don't really have to worry about concentrated absorption on the head due to being at best a centimeter from the emitter. > Also, what is the canonical source on 5g spectrum and power levels? maximum permissible exposure is defined as 10W/m^2 power density (for 6GHz between 100GHz) by the FCC.

pas 8y ago

https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1503/1503.05944.pdf https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1503/1503.05944.pdf this basically found that 90% of the energy is absorbed on/at/around the skin. if neurons were directly exposed they would heat up and their firing rate would be altered significantly [look at fig2 / D ] ( https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4233276/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4233276/ ) this study did a direct exposure testing on a human's arm (and on rats and monkeys) at 94GHz for 3s at 1W/cm^2: https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a628296.pdf https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a628296.pdf this did 24h low power 1mW/cm^2 exposure of human eye like cells and detected no significant difference in micronucleus expression, DNA strand breaks, and heat stress protein expression: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4997488/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4997488/ this used 42GHz on rats for 30min/day for 3 days, and tried to look for tumors/cancer and found no significant difference: https://www.rrjournal.org/doi/abs/10.1667/RR3121 https://www.rrjournal.org/doi/abs/10.1667/RR3121 so. it seems there's no immediate and known adverse effect (other than the heating and maybe some interference with the electro-biochemistry of cells, particularly with neurons). and luckily people usually don't use phones near their heads anymore (when doing large data transfers), so we don't really have to worry about concentrated absorption on the head due to being at best a centimeter from the emitter. > Also, what is the canonical source on 5g spectrum and power levels? maximum permissible exposure is defined as 10W/m^2 power density (for 6GHz between 100GHz) by the FCC.