5 ms·

Good studies on 5G-human health long term exposure?

by ofou 4y ago

0xbadc0de5 4y ago
The Signal Path has done a really good job breaking this down - skip to 3:00 if you want to avoid the preamble. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0xwyVlqsRo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0xwyVlqsRo
- FollowingTheDao 4y ago
  No, that was not good at all. He’s not talking about any studies, only his theories, which only talk about non-ionizing radiation. There’s already plenty of studies that show there’s reactive oxygen species created in the skin from millimeter wave technology. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1438463917308143 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S14384...
  - 0xbadc0de5 4y ago
    The "studies" of the type you link to typically require exposures of many orders of magnitude higher power than what is produced by a phone in order to observe any effect. This is the crux of Shahriar's analogy of not worrying about getting a sunburn in a dark room. > He’s not talking about any studies, only his theories, which only talk about non-ionizing radiation. mmWave, by definition, is non-ionizing radiation. To talk about ionizing effects of mmWave is to fundamentally misunderstand the topic being discussed. And as a scientist specializing in 5G and mmWave technology at Bell Labs, I think he's more than qualified to have an informed opinion on this topic.
    - FollowingTheDao 4y ago
      There are other ways for EMFs to affect a biological system besides the ionizing radiation. One of them is by disrupting voltage gated ion channels.
      - 0xbadc0de5 4y ago
        At the mmWave power levels used in mobile handsets, the RF power is insufficient to penetrate the human body to any significant degree. Even airport mmWave security scanners can barely scan through clothing - and they operate at much higher power.
        FollowingTheDao 4y ago
        You are making several assumption which have not been scientifically studies, which is the only point I am making. mmWaves do penetrate the skin and the eyes, that much we know. What effect it has on the body system as a whole we do not. You can make all the assumptions you want but until they are studied they are just assumptions. And I do not mind walking through a mmWave security scanners for less than 10 seconds. But would you want to stand in that for eight hours a day while you were at work or home sleeping? And again and again I have to point out that saying it is nonionzing radiation is pointless if there is another method by which it make disrupt biological systems, as in triggering voltage gated ion channels.
gus_massa 4y ago
As far as we know, non ionizing radiation is safe for humans, if the intensity is not too high. * if the intensity is not too high Don't put your head inside a microwave. Don't hug the transmisor of a antena that broadcast tv or radio. ... * non ionizing radiation Gamma rays, X rays and some UV rays are dangerous. Try to avoid them and keep a low dose for important medical treatments. Use solar protection to block UV rays.
- FollowingTheDao 4y ago
  Are you kidding? Didn’t you even see the video? You people think that there’s all the studies out there saying it’s safe and if there aren’t any good quality studies saying it’s safe. You have no grounds to see what you did.
  - gus_massa 4y ago
    From the transcription: > Now, as I said, there’s no reason to think that five G is harmful. Indeed, there’s good reason to think it’s not [harmful], because millimeter waves have been used in medicine for a long time and for all we know they only enter the upper skin layers. Are you afraid of red leds? Each photons of a red les has like 1000x the energy of a photon of 5G. Most of the damage is caused by the energy of each photon, so red photons are more dangerous. Also, a red led against your skin has more power than a 5G antena far away. You can get hurt when there are really a lot of photons, but both have very low power to be dangerous. And a normal light lamp has even more power and higher energy photons, and they are safe. And sunlight has even more power and higher energy photons, and it's safe if you filter UV-B rays that are the ones with more energy.
    - FollowingTheDao 4y ago
      Since a red LED has a lower wave length then even 4G, by definition it has less power. I don’t know what you’re talking about here at all. And neither of us can say it safe because as she pointed out there are enough studently to conclude that it’s safe.
Sin2x 4y ago
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2021/690012/EPRS_STU(2021)690012_EN.pdf https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2021/6900... The review shows: 1) 5G lower frequencies (700 and 3 600 MHz): a) limited evidence of carcinogenicity in epidemiological studies; b) sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental bioassays; c) sufficient evidence ofreproductive/developmental adverse effects in humans; d) sufficient evidence of reproductive/ developmental adverse effects in experimental animals; 2) 5G higher frequencies (24.25-27.5 GHz): the systematic review found no adequate studies either in humans or in experimental animals. Conclusions: 1) cancer: FR1 (450 to 6 000 MHz): EMF are probably carcinogenic for humans, in particular related to gliomas and acoustic neuromas; FR2 (24 to 100 GHz): no adequate studies were performed on the higher frequencies; 2) reproductive developmental effects: FR1 (450 to 6 000 MHz): these frequencies clearly affect male fertility and possibly female fertility too. They may have possible adverse effects on the development of embryos, foetuses and newborns; FR2 (24 to 100 GHz): no adequate studies were performed on non-thermal effects of the higher frequencies.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- ac29 4y ago
  > cancer: FR1 (450 to 6 000 MHz): EMF are probably carcinogenic for humans, in particular related to gliomas and acoustic neuromas I looked into their data for glioma (see page 51, table 4). They used 8 total studies. 3 studies showed glioma to be more likely in mobile phone users, 2 showed no difference, and 3 showed glioma less likely in mobile phone users. From this they concluded "probably carcinogenic for humans, in particular related to gliomas"? This is a long paper and I didnt read it all, but I'm not sure I see how that conclusion is supported.
  - Sin2x 4y ago
    I think you misinterpret the words. Equivocal means that it's unclear from the study if there's a causal association while negative means no association was found, not that EMF reduced incidence of gliomas. Also, an important quote in the description following that table: "The association of glioma and acoustic neuroma is stronger among long-term heavy users of mobile phones, which is also the most extensively investigated exposure source, and in some cases the onset of tumours was related to the side on which the device was handled."
jay_kyburz 4y ago
Don't we also need to confirm that long term exposure is also safe for everything else in our ecology? Soil Bacteria, Insect populations, and all the other plants and animals we depend on?
whyoh 4y ago
Long term is difficult, because it's a relatively new thing. Even 4G and 3G haven't been around very long. So we don't really know, but there are legit concerns about its safety: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/we-have-no-reason-to-believe-5g-is-safe/ https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/we-have-no... https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31991167/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31991167/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7727890/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7727890/

Good studies on 5G-human health long term exposure?

by ofou 4y ago

Good studies on 5G-human health long term exposure?

The Signal Path has done a really good job breaking this down - skip to 3:00 if you want to avoid the preamble. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0xwyVlqsRo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0xwyVlqsRo

FollowingTheDao 4y ago
No, that was not good at all. He’s not talking about any studies, only his theories, which only talk about non-ionizing radiation. There’s already plenty of studies that show there’s reactive oxygen species created in the skin from millimeter wave technology. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1438463917308143 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S14384...
- 0xbadc0de5 4y ago
  The "studies" of the type you link to typically require exposures of many orders of magnitude higher power than what is produced by a phone in order to observe any effect. This is the crux of Shahriar's analogy of not worrying about getting a sunburn in a dark room. > He’s not talking about any studies, only his theories, which only talk about non-ionizing radiation. mmWave, by definition, is non-ionizing radiation. To talk about ionizing effects of mmWave is to fundamentally misunderstand the topic being discussed. And as a scientist specializing in 5G and mmWave technology at Bell Labs, I think he's more than qualified to have an informed opinion on this topic.
  - FollowingTheDao 4y ago
    There are other ways for EMFs to affect a biological system besides the ionizing radiation. One of them is by disrupting voltage gated ion channels.
    - 0xbadc0de5 4y ago
      At the mmWave power levels used in mobile handsets, the RF power is insufficient to penetrate the human body to any significant degree. Even airport mmWave security scanners can barely scan through clothing - and they operate at much higher power.
      - FollowingTheDao 4y ago
        You are making several assumption which have not been scientifically studies, which is the only point I am making. mmWaves do penetrate the skin and the eyes, that much we know. What effect it has on the body system as a whole we do not. You can make all the assumptions you want but until they are studied they are just assumptions. And I do not mind walking through a mmWave security scanners for less than 10 seconds. But would you want to stand in that for eight hours a day while you were at work or home sleeping? And again and again I have to point out that saying it is nonionzing radiation is pointless if there is another method by which it make disrupt biological systems, as in triggering voltage gated ion channels.

gus_massa 4y ago

As far as we know, non ionizing radiation is safe for humans, if the intensity is not too high. * if the intensity is not too high Don't put your head inside a microwave. Don't hug the transmisor of a antena that broadcast tv or radio. ... * non ionizing radiation Gamma rays, X rays and some UV rays are dangerous. Try to avoid them and keep a low dose for important medical treatments. Use solar protection to block UV rays.

FollowingTheDao 4y ago
Are you kidding? Didn’t you even see the video? You people think that there’s all the studies out there saying it’s safe and if there aren’t any good quality studies saying it’s safe. You have no grounds to see what you did.
- gus_massa 4y ago
  From the transcription: > Now, as I said, there’s no reason to think that five G is harmful. Indeed, there’s good reason to think it’s not [harmful], because millimeter waves have been used in medicine for a long time and for all we know they only enter the upper skin layers. Are you afraid of red leds? Each photons of a red les has like 1000x the energy of a photon of 5G. Most of the damage is caused by the energy of each photon, so red photons are more dangerous. Also, a red led against your skin has more power than a 5G antena far away. You can get hurt when there are really a lot of photons, but both have very low power to be dangerous. And a normal light lamp has even more power and higher energy photons, and they are safe. And sunlight has even more power and higher energy photons, and it's safe if you filter UV-B rays that are the ones with more energy.
  - FollowingTheDao 4y ago
    Since a red LED has a lower wave length then even 4G, by definition it has less power. I don’t know what you’re talking about here at all. And neither of us can say it safe because as she pointed out there are enough studently to conclude that it’s safe.

Sin2x 4y ago

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2021/690012/EPRS_STU(2021)690012_EN.pdf https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2021/6900... The review shows: 1) 5G lower frequencies (700 and 3 600 MHz): a) limited evidence of carcinogenicity in epidemiological studies; b) sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental bioassays; c) sufficient evidence ofreproductive/developmental adverse effects in humans; d) sufficient evidence of reproductive/ developmental adverse effects in experimental animals; 2) 5G higher frequencies (24.25-27.5 GHz): the systematic review found no adequate studies either in humans or in experimental animals. Conclusions: 1) cancer: FR1 (450 to 6 000 MHz): EMF are probably carcinogenic for humans, in particular related to gliomas and acoustic neuromas; FR2 (24 to 100 GHz): no adequate studies were performed on the higher frequencies; 2) reproductive developmental effects: FR1 (450 to 6 000 MHz): these frequencies clearly affect male fertility and possibly female fertility too. They may have possible adverse effects on the development of embryos, foetuses and newborns; FR2 (24 to 100 GHz): no adequate studies were performed on non-thermal effects of the higher frequencies.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
ac29 4y ago
> cancer: FR1 (450 to 6 000 MHz): EMF are probably carcinogenic for humans, in particular related to gliomas and acoustic neuromas I looked into their data for glioma (see page 51, table 4). They used 8 total studies. 3 studies showed glioma to be more likely in mobile phone users, 2 showed no difference, and 3 showed glioma less likely in mobile phone users. From this they concluded "probably carcinogenic for humans, in particular related to gliomas"? This is a long paper and I didnt read it all, but I'm not sure I see how that conclusion is supported.
- Sin2x 4y ago
  I think you misinterpret the words. Equivocal means that it's unclear from the study if there's a causal association while negative means no association was found, not that EMF reduced incidence of gliomas. Also, an important quote in the description following that table: "The association of glioma and acoustic neuroma is stronger among long-term heavy users of mobile phones, which is also the most extensively investigated exposure source, and in some cases the onset of tumours was related to the side on which the device was handled."

jay_kyburz 4y ago

Don't we also need to confirm that long term exposure is also safe for everything else in our ecology? Soil Bacteria, Insect populations, and all the other plants and animals we depend on?

whyoh 4y ago

Long term is difficult, because it's a relatively new thing. Even 4G and 3G haven't been around very long. So we don't really know, but there are legit concerns about its safety: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/we-have-no-reason-to-believe-5g-is-safe/ https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/we-have-no... https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31991167/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31991167/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7727890/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7727890/