5 ms·

It's a significantly higher frequency. RF can raise body temperature slightly at high enough powers (any one who has been in an MRI for a while knows this, tho

by bin0 7y ago

It's a significantly higher frequency. RF can raise body temperature slightly at high enough powers (any one who has been in an MRI for a while knows this, though that is much higher than 5G). This is a high-frequency signal with access points packed densely, which means more RF per person by an order of magnitude. Maybe it's like so many other things: fine in small to moderate doses, but harmful in large ones? Not trying to fear-monger here, but the bottom line is we don't know. As the above comment said, I've seen experts on both sides, and really have no idea where to lean on this one.

Nicksil 7y ago
>It's a significantly higher frequency. Than what? >RF can raise body temperature slightly at high enough powers Undetectable tissue heating; the difference you experience from going outdoors from indoors is many, many times greater than what you mentioned. >(any one who has been in an MRI for a while knows this, though that is much higher than 5G) Then why even bring it up? You mention at the end of your reply that you're not trying to fear monger. >This is a high-frequency signal But lower than the visible spectrum and ionizing radiation. >Maybe it's like so many other things: fine in small to moderate doses, but harmful in large ones? Mate, you're being bombarded by electromagnetic radiation every second of your life, in quantities which eclipse anything you mentioned. >but the bottom line is we don't know Yeah, "we" do; folks much brighter than I have spent a really long time studying this stuff and their findings are available for consumption by anyone interested to learn more.
- danielst 7y ago
  Regarding your comment "Yeah, "we" do; folks much brighter than I have spent a really long time studying this stuff and their findings are available for consumption by anyone interested to learn more." Firstly, 5G has never been tested with regard to its possible health effects. Secondly, the previous, related technologies have, and the majority of independent studies show harmful health effects from these technologies. Cf. this article: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jul/14/mobile-phones-cancer-inconvenient-truths https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jul/14/mobile-ph... To quote from the article: "When Henry Lai, a professor of bioengineering at the University of Washington, analysed 326 safety-related studies completed between 1990 and 2006, he discovered that 44% of them found no biological effect from mobile phone radiation and 56% did; scientists apparently were split. But when Lai recategorised the studies according to their funding sources, a different picture emerged: 67% of the independently funded studies found a biological effect, while a mere 28% of the industry-funded studies did. Lai’s findings were replicated by a 2007 analysis in Environmental Health Perspectives, which concluded that industry-funded studies were two and a half times less likely than independent studies to find health effects."
  - gruez 7y ago
    >Firstly, 5G has never been tested with regard to its possible health effects. Well, duh. It's not even deployed except in a few handful of countries. Should we have waited half a decade or so before using 5ghz wifi? >Lai’s findings were replicated by a 2007 analysis in Environmental Health Perspectives, which concluded that industry-funded studies were two and a half times less likely than independent studies to find health effects." non charitable explanation: the industry is paying off scientists[1] so they can say their technology is safe! charitable explanation: industry funded studies have more $$$, thus can perform better controls than poorly funded studies. also, studies on both sides can be subject to publication bias. [1] not well enough it seems, because I'd expect a rate lower than 28% if I was paying a bribe
    - danielst 7y ago
      Thank you gruez for your answer. >Firstly, 5G has never been tested with regard to its possible health effects. Well, duh. It's not even deployed except in a few handful of countries. Should we have waited half a decade or so before using 5ghz wifi? Wouldn't it be sensible to do controlled studies of 5G in some form or other prior to deploying the technology on a large scale and immersing the population in 5G 24/7? Otherwise, as many have pointed out, we become the "guinea pigs." >Lai’s findings were replicated by a 2007 analysis in Environmental Health Perspectives, which concluded that industry-funded studies were two and a half times less likely than independent studies to find health effects." non charitable explanation: the industry is paying off scientists[1] so they can say their technology is safe! I don't expect they would be directly paying off scientists. This article is worth reading: https://www.thenation.com/article/how-big-wireless-made-us-t.. https://www.thenation.com/article/how-big-wireless-made-us-t.... From the article: “Everyone knows that if your research results show that radiation has effects, the funding flow dries up.” —Dariusz Leszczynski, adjunct professor of biochemistry at the University of Helsinki charitable explanation: industry funded studies have more $$$, thus can perform better controls than poorly funded studies. also, studies on both sides can be subject to publication bias. This is an interesting point I had not thought of, thank you for bringing it up. It would be interesting to know if the independently-funded studies were less well-funded than the industry-funded studies. [1] not well enough it seems, because I'd expect a rate lower than 28% if I was paying a bribe I don't expect there has been paying of bribes. The 28% in spite of the industry pressure may reflect a degree of resilience of science itself, and/or some level of integrity of the scientists despite the pressure.
- userbinator 7y ago
  Undetectable tissue heating; the difference you experience from going outdoors from indoors is many, many times greater than what you mentioned. It'll be funny to see if it turns out that the physiological effects of 5G are beneficial in the same way that sunlight is...
snowwrestler 7y ago
If you’re worried about higher frequency radiation raising body temperature, wait until you hear about The Sun.
all_blue_chucks 7y ago
> RF can raise body temperature Yes. Radiation can raise body temperature. Like the radiation from a hot sidewalk. Or the radiation from, literally, anything. Heat is nothing new. Are you calling for studies of sidewalks?

by bin0 7y ago

Nicksil 7y ago

>It's a significantly higher frequency. Than what? >RF can raise body temperature slightly at high enough powers Undetectable tissue heating; the difference you experience from going outdoors from indoors is many, many times greater than what you mentioned. >(any one who has been in an MRI for a while knows this, though that is much higher than 5G) Then why even bring it up? You mention at the end of your reply that you're not trying to fear monger. >This is a high-frequency signal But lower than the visible spectrum and ionizing radiation. >Maybe it's like so many other things: fine in small to moderate doses, but harmful in large ones? Mate, you're being bombarded by electromagnetic radiation every second of your life, in quantities which eclipse anything you mentioned. >but the bottom line is we don't know Yeah, "we" do; folks much brighter than I have spent a really long time studying this stuff and their findings are available for consumption by anyone interested to learn more.

danielst 7y ago
Regarding your comment "Yeah, "we" do; folks much brighter than I have spent a really long time studying this stuff and their findings are available for consumption by anyone interested to learn more." Firstly, 5G has never been tested with regard to its possible health effects. Secondly, the previous, related technologies have, and the majority of independent studies show harmful health effects from these technologies. Cf. this article: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jul/14/mobile-phones-cancer-inconvenient-truths https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jul/14/mobile-ph... To quote from the article: "When Henry Lai, a professor of bioengineering at the University of Washington, analysed 326 safety-related studies completed between 1990 and 2006, he discovered that 44% of them found no biological effect from mobile phone radiation and 56% did; scientists apparently were split. But when Lai recategorised the studies according to their funding sources, a different picture emerged: 67% of the independently funded studies found a biological effect, while a mere 28% of the industry-funded studies did. Lai’s findings were replicated by a 2007 analysis in Environmental Health Perspectives, which concluded that industry-funded studies were two and a half times less likely than independent studies to find health effects."
- gruez 7y ago
  >Firstly, 5G has never been tested with regard to its possible health effects. Well, duh. It's not even deployed except in a few handful of countries. Should we have waited half a decade or so before using 5ghz wifi? >Lai’s findings were replicated by a 2007 analysis in Environmental Health Perspectives, which concluded that industry-funded studies were two and a half times less likely than independent studies to find health effects." non charitable explanation: the industry is paying off scientists[1] so they can say their technology is safe! charitable explanation: industry funded studies have more $$$, thus can perform better controls than poorly funded studies. also, studies on both sides can be subject to publication bias. [1] not well enough it seems, because I'd expect a rate lower than 28% if I was paying a bribe
  - danielst 7y ago
    Thank you gruez for your answer. >Firstly, 5G has never been tested with regard to its possible health effects. Well, duh. It's not even deployed except in a few handful of countries. Should we have waited half a decade or so before using 5ghz wifi? Wouldn't it be sensible to do controlled studies of 5G in some form or other prior to deploying the technology on a large scale and immersing the population in 5G 24/7? Otherwise, as many have pointed out, we become the "guinea pigs." >Lai’s findings were replicated by a 2007 analysis in Environmental Health Perspectives, which concluded that industry-funded studies were two and a half times less likely than independent studies to find health effects." non charitable explanation: the industry is paying off scientists[1] so they can say their technology is safe! I don't expect they would be directly paying off scientists. This article is worth reading: https://www.thenation.com/article/how-big-wireless-made-us-t.. https://www.thenation.com/article/how-big-wireless-made-us-t.... From the article: “Everyone knows that if your research results show that radiation has effects, the funding flow dries up.” —Dariusz Leszczynski, adjunct professor of biochemistry at the University of Helsinki charitable explanation: industry funded studies have more $$$, thus can perform better controls than poorly funded studies. also, studies on both sides can be subject to publication bias. This is an interesting point I had not thought of, thank you for bringing it up. It would be interesting to know if the independently-funded studies were less well-funded than the industry-funded studies. [1] not well enough it seems, because I'd expect a rate lower than 28% if I was paying a bribe I don't expect there has been paying of bribes. The 28% in spite of the industry pressure may reflect a degree of resilience of science itself, and/or some level of integrity of the scientists despite the pressure.
userbinator 7y ago
Undetectable tissue heating; the difference you experience from going outdoors from indoors is many, many times greater than what you mentioned. It'll be funny to see if it turns out that the physiological effects of 5G are beneficial in the same way that sunlight is...

snowwrestler 7y ago

If you’re worried about higher frequency radiation raising body temperature, wait until you hear about The Sun.

all_blue_chucks 7y ago

> RF can raise body temperature Yes. Radiation can raise body temperature. Like the radiation from a hot sidewalk. Or the radiation from, literally, anything. Heat is nothing new. Are you calling for studies of sidewalks?