5 ms·

Someone debunk this for me please: http://www.5gappeal.eu/about/ http://www.5gappeal.eu/about/ Edit: I'm legitimately looking for good sources on this. Not tro

Someone debunk this for me please: http://www.5gappeal.eu/about/ http://www.5gappeal.eu/about/ Edit: I'm legitimately looking for good sources on this. Not trolling.

erulabs 6y ago
What is supposed to be debunked? The main claim seems to be: > RF-EMF has been proven to be harmful for humans and the environment. Which... is true-ish? That's a bit like saying water is harmful to the environment and humans. For sure it is, if it's rushing at you with incredible velocity and mass (power). Electromagnetic radiation could certainly harm a human - with enough power. Drinking a glass of water or sending a ~100mW 2.5ghz or ~50mW 5.0ghz signal at your body is harmless. Maybe a better example is solar radiation or sound, which is much more similar to a 5ghz signal (re: invisible radiation). A bit of sunlight is probably good for you - intense, unfiltered, high-powered UV light could roast the whole earth. A good study to dive into some of the effects of 5GHz/100mW radiation would be https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6765906/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6765906/ A good snippet: > The three in vivo investigations addressed a variety of issues including acute effects on muscle contraction, skin-reflection properties (which are more of a dose-related than health-related issue), and skin cancer [19,54,57]. The rat skin cancer study (one to two weekly, short-term exposures at 94 GHz, 1 W/kg; DMBA-initiated animals) did not show any positive outcome [54]. Another study examined the muscle contraction of mice and described some responses [19]. Again, 94 GHz was used, but power density or SAR values were not reported. So at incredibly high power (94GHz / 1W/kg - thousands of times more powerful than what we're talking about with 5g) there were no positive outcomes for a skin cancer test. It was possible to stimulate muscle contraction, which makes total sense: pump enough electricity through the air to contract a muscle. But mammal bodies are great at insulation (our skulls are amazing at protecting us from rouge radiation). The same study is also mentioned in this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_Denial_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_Denial_System and (https://www.wired.com/2009/08/pain-ray-first-commercial-sale-looms/ https://www.wired.com/2009/08/pain-ray-first-commercial-sale...) which is about "pain guns" - systems that use radiation to inflict pain from a distance. It mentions a beam power of 30 kilowatts! That's 300,000x more powerful, and the weapon doesn't work if the person is wearing a thick sweater. It takes a _ton_ of power to interfere with organic objects. Edit: I do want to say that I think more investigation should be done re: radiation pollution and it's impact on micro-biology, insects, birds, etc. Humans are really resilient, but it's not super clear that for example, some algae might not respond to low levels of radiation in interesting ways. My intuition says it's unlikely, as there is tons of low level radiation flying around in nature - 5g isn't some new, different kind of energy, but further study should be done, absolutely. I'd suspect light radiation is far more dangerous to bugs and bacteria than 5g though.
- jiggawatts 6y ago
  Oddly, the same anti-5G people seem to have no interest in protesting against government inaction related to the unshielded nuclear reactor that causes millions of cases of cancer every year through ionising radiation. Also the same people that are the type to complain vocally about the harmful effects of 5G seem to be the type to complain just as vocally about the fine they get when they're caught texting while driving. I'm not outright saying they're all a bunch of loud-mouth hypocrites, I'm just saying I've made some observations that warrant more research. I think we should ban them all, just to be safe, until we have more information. Don't you agree?
  - partyboat1586 6y ago
    The common thread there is libertarianism. They don't want people imposing on them or telling them what to do. To them 5G towers are invading their space and are a symbol of an interconnectedness they would like to deny and limit.
  - krick 6y ago
    Not every area, not even every country has an unshielded nuclear reactor. I wouldn't expect somebody, who has no exposure to such things to worry about that. I think the closest to me might be on some nuclear submarine, but still likely very far away. I don't know how close to use it would be. And then there are a lot of people (hell, it may well turn out I am one of them!) who might have reasons to be concerned, but they simply have no idea they should, because they never heard of any unshielded nuclear reactors in any remote proximity to them, and never heard it is a problem. But the goal of 5G is to be literally everywhere, as close to you as it will be to me. So naturally there are more people who could theoretically be concerned about that. And you hear about 5G often enough. So if there is even slightest possible reason to be concerned about that, I would automatically know it concerns me as well. So I see nothing surprising about that.
    - jiggawatts 6y ago
      > Not every area, not even every country has an unshielded nuclear reactor. I should have added a /s to make the satire more obvious. I'm fairly certain that every country bathes in the cancer-causing, ionising radiation of the Sun. The nearest star is literally an unshielded nuclear reactor, putting out kilowatts of deadly radiation per square meter. You can feel it on your skin. It warms you up so much that that you can outright die from the excess heat in minutes. The radiation burns it causes are so bad that it leaves painful blistering after less than an hour of unprotected exposure. Yet, the same people blathering on about the milliwatts of 5G radiation -- which you can't feel and has never burnt anyone -- will cheerfully go to the beach and get a sunburn until they're bright red like a lobster. They'll take their kids too and neglect to put sunscreen on them. Cancer, apparently, is just fine as long as it's natural.
jiggawatts 6y ago
An easy way to debunk it is to point out that the RF power spectrum of a typical 5G device is basically the same as a 4G or 3G device. The battery sizes are the same! It's not like suddenly every mobile phone is hooked up to a Tesla battery and got water cooling so that it can put out kilowatts. The difference between 3G, 4G, and 5G is largely the protocol, not the radio power! The reason we can have 5G now, and not twenty years ago, is largely due to Moore's law. It is now possible for embedded and mobile devices to have sufficient computer power to "talk" using much more complex protocols than was practical before. They can use better encodings, more complex symbols, smarter echo and multi-path detection, clever error-correction, complex scheduling, etc, etc... All of this efficiency actually serves to reduce the amount of time the radio is "on", because more data can be sent in the same amount of time. That's what "higher spectral efficiency" means! Arguing against 5G is to say that their preference is the older, less efficient, and more RF polluting standards like 3G and 4G. (Mind you, first-generation 5G devices eat more battery, but that's largely because they're right on the edge of what's possible for the logic component. Using the latest and greatest 5nm technology saves little or no power, and it'll be the next-gen 3nm process that will truly unlock the power savings. There was a similar transition with 4G from 3G.) However, such arguments with such people are futile. They didn't arrive at their position through evidence or logic. They got there entirely as an emotional, tribal reaction to what they see as an external group entering their boundaries without their permission.
- partyboat1586 6y ago
  Thank you, that was a very interesting technical overview. I agree people are mostly having an emotional reaction because they feel their boundaries are being crossed but I think a few could be convinced by this argument. The ones that won't be convinced are those that believe 4g and 3g are also bad, the ones who were against cell phones when they first came out. You've probably seen them draw the correlation between cell phone use and brain tumors. They believe there is some as yet unknown mechanism by which non ionising radiation can cause cancer. I believe the most common explanation they use is that they don't believe in a cell membrane and instead in a potential field through which molecules pass based on their charge. Supposedly because EF radiation changes the magnetic field around the cells it causes increased permeability resulting in some unwanted molecules disrupting the cell.

Someone debunk this for me please: http://www.5gappeal.eu/about/ http://www.5gappeal.eu/about/ Edit: I'm legitimately looking for good sources on this. Not trolling.

erulabs 6y ago

What is supposed to be debunked? The main claim seems to be: > RF-EMF has been proven to be harmful for humans and the environment. Which... is true-ish? That's a bit like saying water is harmful to the environment and humans. For sure it is, if it's rushing at you with incredible velocity and mass (power). Electromagnetic radiation could certainly harm a human - with enough power. Drinking a glass of water or sending a ~100mW 2.5ghz or ~50mW 5.0ghz signal at your body is harmless. Maybe a better example is solar radiation or sound, which is much more similar to a 5ghz signal (re: invisible radiation). A bit of sunlight is probably good for you - intense, unfiltered, high-powered UV light could roast the whole earth. A good study to dive into some of the effects of 5GHz/100mW radiation would be https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6765906/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6765906/ A good snippet: > The three in vivo investigations addressed a variety of issues including acute effects on muscle contraction, skin-reflection properties (which are more of a dose-related than health-related issue), and skin cancer [19,54,57]. The rat skin cancer study (one to two weekly, short-term exposures at 94 GHz, 1 W/kg; DMBA-initiated animals) did not show any positive outcome [54]. Another study examined the muscle contraction of mice and described some responses [19]. Again, 94 GHz was used, but power density or SAR values were not reported. So at incredibly high power (94GHz / 1W/kg - thousands of times more powerful than what we're talking about with 5g) there were no positive outcomes for a skin cancer test. It was possible to stimulate muscle contraction, which makes total sense: pump enough electricity through the air to contract a muscle. But mammal bodies are great at insulation (our skulls are amazing at protecting us from rouge radiation). The same study is also mentioned in this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_Denial_System https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_Denial_System and (https://www.wired.com/2009/08/pain-ray-first-commercial-sale-looms/ https://www.wired.com/2009/08/pain-ray-first-commercial-sale...) which is about "pain guns" - systems that use radiation to inflict pain from a distance. It mentions a beam power of 30 kilowatts! That's 300,000x more powerful, and the weapon doesn't work if the person is wearing a thick sweater. It takes a _ton_ of power to interfere with organic objects. Edit: I do want to say that I think more investigation should be done re: radiation pollution and it's impact on micro-biology, insects, birds, etc. Humans are really resilient, but it's not super clear that for example, some algae might not respond to low levels of radiation in interesting ways. My intuition says it's unlikely, as there is tons of low level radiation flying around in nature - 5g isn't some new, different kind of energy, but further study should be done, absolutely. I'd suspect light radiation is far more dangerous to bugs and bacteria than 5g though.

jiggawatts 6y ago
Oddly, the same anti-5G people seem to have no interest in protesting against government inaction related to the unshielded nuclear reactor that causes millions of cases of cancer every year through ionising radiation. Also the same people that are the type to complain vocally about the harmful effects of 5G seem to be the type to complain just as vocally about the fine they get when they're caught texting while driving. I'm not outright saying they're all a bunch of loud-mouth hypocrites, I'm just saying I've made some observations that warrant more research. I think we should ban them all, just to be safe, until we have more information. Don't you agree?
- partyboat1586 6y ago
  The common thread there is libertarianism. They don't want people imposing on them or telling them what to do. To them 5G towers are invading their space and are a symbol of an interconnectedness they would like to deny and limit.
- krick 6y ago
  Not every area, not even every country has an unshielded nuclear reactor. I wouldn't expect somebody, who has no exposure to such things to worry about that. I think the closest to me might be on some nuclear submarine, but still likely very far away. I don't know how close to use it would be. And then there are a lot of people (hell, it may well turn out I am one of them!) who might have reasons to be concerned, but they simply have no idea they should, because they never heard of any unshielded nuclear reactors in any remote proximity to them, and never heard it is a problem. But the goal of 5G is to be literally everywhere, as close to you as it will be to me. So naturally there are more people who could theoretically be concerned about that. And you hear about 5G often enough. So if there is even slightest possible reason to be concerned about that, I would automatically know it concerns me as well. So I see nothing surprising about that.
  - jiggawatts 6y ago
    > Not every area, not even every country has an unshielded nuclear reactor. I should have added a /s to make the satire more obvious. I'm fairly certain that every country bathes in the cancer-causing, ionising radiation of the Sun. The nearest star is literally an unshielded nuclear reactor, putting out kilowatts of deadly radiation per square meter. You can feel it on your skin. It warms you up so much that that you can outright die from the excess heat in minutes. The radiation burns it causes are so bad that it leaves painful blistering after less than an hour of unprotected exposure. Yet, the same people blathering on about the milliwatts of 5G radiation -- which you can't feel and has never burnt anyone -- will cheerfully go to the beach and get a sunburn until they're bright red like a lobster. They'll take their kids too and neglect to put sunscreen on them. Cancer, apparently, is just fine as long as it's natural.

jiggawatts 6y ago

An easy way to debunk it is to point out that the RF power spectrum of a typical 5G device is basically the same as a 4G or 3G device. The battery sizes are the same! It's not like suddenly every mobile phone is hooked up to a Tesla battery and got water cooling so that it can put out kilowatts. The difference between 3G, 4G, and 5G is largely the protocol, not the radio power! The reason we can have 5G now, and not twenty years ago, is largely due to Moore's law. It is now possible for embedded and mobile devices to have sufficient computer power to "talk" using much more complex protocols than was practical before. They can use better encodings, more complex symbols, smarter echo and multi-path detection, clever error-correction, complex scheduling, etc, etc... All of this efficiency actually serves to reduce the amount of time the radio is "on", because more data can be sent in the same amount of time. That's what "higher spectral efficiency" means! Arguing against 5G is to say that their preference is the older, less efficient, and more RF polluting standards like 3G and 4G. (Mind you, first-generation 5G devices eat more battery, but that's largely because they're right on the edge of what's possible for the logic component. Using the latest and greatest 5nm technology saves little or no power, and it'll be the next-gen 3nm process that will truly unlock the power savings. There was a similar transition with 4G from 3G.) However, such arguments with such people are futile. They didn't arrive at their position through evidence or logic. They got there entirely as an emotional, tribal reaction to what they see as an external group entering their boundaries without their permission.

partyboat1586 6y ago
Thank you, that was a very interesting technical overview. I agree people are mostly having an emotional reaction because they feel their boundaries are being crossed but I think a few could be convinced by this argument. The ones that won't be convinced are those that believe 4g and 3g are also bad, the ones who were against cell phones when they first came out. You've probably seen them draw the correlation between cell phone use and brain tumors. They believe there is some as yet unknown mechanism by which non ionising radiation can cause cancer. I believe the most common explanation they use is that they don't believe in a cell membrane and instead in a potential field through which molecules pass based on their charge. Supposedly because EF radiation changes the magnetic field around the cells it causes increased permeability resulting in some unwanted molecules disrupting the cell.