4 ms·

Even if current levels of radiation are harmless, it does not mean that the same applies to 5G. Studies funded by the 5G industry are 10 times more likely to s

• verall 7y ago
  > Even if current levels of radiation are harmless, it does not mean that the same applies to 5G. Good thing I'm talking about overhead powerlines and not 5G then. Unless your reply was meant for someone else. Although I believe the chance that 5G is harmful is basically nil, mostly due to my EE degree and a basic understanding of "non-ionizing radiation" and "ionizing radiation", it is probably about 100X more rational than complaining about overhead powerlines. Seriously I just don't get it what problem do people have with overhead powerlines. Saying overhead powerlines cause cancer is like, on par with calling aircraft contrails "chemtrails" and saying they are part of a nefarious government plot. There are plenty of real nefarious government plots, but you hear people talking again and again about chemtrails because they don't understand aircraft engines or heat or water. Just like there are real issues in the health system, but again and again people cut off the legs of their own argument by going off about overhead powerlines. Lastly, WTF are those sources? Is nutritionfacts.org a leading independent organization on cancer causes? That is a 5-minute long video of someone doing zoom-highlights on excerpts from studies from 2011. The first comment is someone saying the WHO is bought-out by corporate interests, although, the WHO is like the main ethos argument from the video. Do you use a cell phone? How do you hide from the other people using their cell phones, or the Wi-Fi rays coming from your computer? If you have a new router, 802.11ad already communicates in the 60Ghz band, that's a pretty big number if big frequency numbers are scary.
• klmr 7y ago
  > The leading independent organization on cancer causes says that current cell phones are "possible carcinogens" It is crucial to understand what this actually means. the IARC classifications are valid but — particularly to lay people — incredibly misleading and pretty much useless. All that “possible carcinogen” means is that we haven’t yet collected sufficient evidence to discount harm. It’s not evidence of carcinogenicity at all. If anything it’s the opposite, because it means that, despite the existence of relevant studies, there hasn’t been any consistent demonstration of carcinogenic effect. Furthermore, IARC only classifies risk itself, not hazard [1], nor dosage effects. For context, IARC classifies sunlight exposure and processed meat consumption as “definitely carcinogenic” [2]. Despite this, regular exposure to sunlight is crucial for your health, and regular meat consumption is known to have little absolute effect on cancer risk (in other words, although red meat does have an effect, the effect size is tiny). [1] https://worksmart.org.uk/health-advice/health-and-safety/hazards-and-risks/what-difference-between-hazard-and-risk https://worksmart.org.uk/health-advice/health-and-safety/haz... [2] https://monographs.iarc.fr/list-of-classifications/ https://monographs.iarc.fr/list-of-classifications/