Should We Be Worried About the Dangers of 5G?

[Doc Safari]

This may be related or not.

Apples and oranges? The point is that equipment emitting energy fields may have an effect on tissue (I bolded the first part below):


https://www.who.int/peh-emf/publicat...acts/fs226/en/

RF fields cause molecules in tissue to vibrate and generate heat. Heating effects could be expected if time is spent directly in front of some radar antennas, but are not possible at the environmental levels of RF fields emanating from radar systems.
To produce any adverse health effect, RF exposure above a threshold level must occur. The known threshold level is the exposure needed to increase tissue temperature by at least 1oC. The very low RF environmental field levels from radar systems cannot cause any significant temperature rise.
To date, researchers have not found evidence that multiple exposures to RF fields below threshold levels cause any adverse health effects. No accumulation of damage occurs to tissues from repeated low level RF exposure.
At present, there is no substantive evidence that adverse health effects, including cancer, can occur in people exposed to RF levels at or below the limits set by international standards. However, more research is needed to fill certain gaps in knowledge.

[Doc Safari]

Yes.... Destroy your cell phone now and hid in a cave.

We've actually become so dependent on the technology that it would nearly impossible to do without it. I can't tell you how many people I deal with now want appointments confirmed by clicking a link--no phone calls accepted. Without a smart phone you have to run back to your PC to reply.

Pretty soon your phone will be your entire ability to conduct business.

[grizzlyblake]

So damage exposure is real. We had a kid who did cellphone installs back when they were installed permanently in your vehicle. His work bay was decorated with Navy memorabilia. During the hour the install took all he did was talk about how much he loved the navy. I ask him why he quit. He said the electronic systems he maintained radiated high RF and there was a mandated limit on the time you spent exposed to it. When he ran out of time the job he loved was over. I wasn't so sure I believed him or not.

I don't know if exposure to cellular RF means damage. I do know that MPE (Maximum Permissible Exposure) specs are regulated so all cellular antennas have to be certain heights and distances away from humans depending on the power level out of the antenna.

I would guess any damage would have to be very much lower than lots of other things we are exposed to every day - vehicle exhaust, solar UV radiation, chemicals in foods, etc.

Plenty of studies out there show that spending so much time on computers reading forums like this are rewiring brains for dopamine receptor response, circadian rhythms, etc. so I would put 5G cell coverage pretty far down my list of things to worry about.

[grizzlyblake]

This may be related or not.

Apples and oranges? The point is that equipment emitting energy fields may have an effect on tissue (I bolded the first part below):


https://www.who.int/peh-emf/publicat...acts/fs226/en/

Again with the measuring with a micrometer, cutting with a chainsaw type mentality.

People get skin burns and cancer every single day from just working outside in the sun. Eating McDonalds daily causes heart disease and hormonal imbalances in the human body. Nobody cares about these obvious cause and effect relationships. If RF exposure did anything remotely close people would be losing their minds.

[Doc Safari]

People get skin burns and cancer every single day from just working outside in the sun. Eating McDonalds daily causes heart disease and hormonal imbalances in the human body. Nobody cares about these obvious cause and effect relationships. If RF exposure did anything remotely close people would be losing their minds.

True. And it may turn out exposure to 5G isn't any worse than exposure to a Big Mac. That would be a best-case scenario.

[grizzlyblake]

Big Macs and sitting on your butt playing on the internet are a million times worse than some residual low power RF. That you can be sure of.

[Doc Safari]

Big Macs and sitting on your butt playing on the internet are a million times worse than some residual low power RF. That you can be sure of.

Bad in their own right to be sure. I've even personally gotten in the habit of not "driving" so much around the ranch to check out the fence line, etc. I found that I feel better and have fewer health issues if I walk the perimeter more. I've got a walk tracker on my phone and I can usually squeeze at least a mile and half out of my legs every day. This morning was great: right around sunrise, around 61 degrees--that's when it's pleasant. I hate having to do ranch work in the 80's and 90's.

[26 Inf]

I've got a walk tracker on my phone and I can usually squeeze at least a mile and half out of my legs every day.

Doc, just how big is the ranch you talk of? The reason I ask is that 1.5 miles walking in a day seems almost sedentary.

[Doc Safari]

... 1.5 miles walking in a day seems almost sedentary.

I said "at least" a mile and a half and that's in rather hilly terrain. My knees ain't 18-year-old knees anymore. Just because I'm not driving "as much" doesn't mean there aren't still places I'd rather drive than walk. And I am doing other things. There's always stuff to fix on a ranch. It's not like a recreation area where I can just go on hikes all day long. It's usually hot and windy, or cold and windy, or just freakin' windy. I'll go do some stuff, come back in the house for a glass o' iced tea, then back out again.

This morning between visits here to the forum I was watching a strange truck off in the distance to see what they were up to. I seem to be seeing more of those.

[Doc Safari]

This write-up seems to be fairly objective:


https://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/is-5g-dangerous/

The radiation that cellphones give off is at the low-energy end of the electromagnetic spectrum, making them much safer than high-energy radiation like x-rays and gamma rays. While the latter give off ionizing radiation, meaning they have enough energy to ionize an atom or molecule and thus damage cell DNA resulting in cancer, RF radiation does not. RF radiation only has enough energy to move or vibrate atoms in a molecule, not enough to ionize it. While that means RF radiation does not cause cancer by damaging DNA cells, there still are ongoing studies regarding the effects of non-ionizing radiation.

The FDA noted in 2018 statements that it believes “the current safety limits for cellphone radiofrequency energy exposure remain acceptable for protecting the public health.”

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) also have not formally classified RF radiation as cancer-causing. Meanwhile, the World Heath Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classifies RF radiation as “possibly carcinogenic to humans” due to the finding of a possible link in at least one study between cellphone use and a specific type of brain tumor. However, the IARC considers overall evidence “limited.”

It’s also important to note the IARC puts coffee and talc-based body powder in the same “possibly carcinogenic” category.

In one of the most recent studies, performed by the National Toxicology Program (NTP), high exposure to 2G and 3G RF radiation led to cancerous heart tumor development in male rats. NTP senior scientist John Butcher noted, however, that the levels and duration of exposure to RF radiation were much greater than what people experience with even the highest level of cell phone use, so the findings should not be directly extrapolated to human cell phone usage. Additionally, Butcher warned that 5G likely differs dramatically from 2G and 3G, so further studies are necessary.

The FDA told Digital Trends that, at this time, it “continues to believe that the current safety limits for cellphone radiofrequency energy exposure remain acceptable for protecting the public health.”

“The limits are based on the frequency of the device, meaning that 5G has a different limit than other technologies,” an agency spokesperson wrote in an email. “As part of our commitment to protecting the public health, the FDA has reviewed, and will continue to review, many sources of scientific and medical evidence related to the possibility of adverse health effects from radiofrequency energy exposure in both humans and animals and will continue to do so as new scientific data are published.”

According to expert agencies and the studies we have so far, there’s nothing to suggest 5G mmWave is a significant health risk, but it’s clear there is more research to be done on the subject. If you’re the type to be cautious, it’s always possible to reduce RF radiation exposure. Try sleeping with your phone away from your bed at night, for example. Not only will it give you peace of mind, but it will also promote a healthier bedtime routine — a win-win for your health.