Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 25

Thread: Should We Be Worried About the Dangers of 5G?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Not here
    Posts
    8,703
    Feedback Score
    0

    Should We Be Worried About the Dangers of 5G?

    http://endoftheamericandream.com/arc...-up-nationwide


    5G networks will use technology that is completely different from 4G networks.

    5G waves are “ultra high frequency” and “ultra high intensity”, but they are also easily absorbed by objects such as buildings and trees. So although cell towers will be much, much smaller, but they will also have to be much, much closer together than before. According to CBS News, it is estimated that the big cell phone companies will be putting up at least 300,000 of these small towers, and it has been projected that it will cost hundreds of billions of dollars to fully set up the 5G network nationwide.

    Needless to say, there is a tremendous amount of money at stake, and the big cell phone companies are trying very hard to assure everyone that 5G technology is completely safe.

    But is it?

    Today, there is a growing body of scientific evidence that indicates that the electromagnetic radiation that we are constantly being bombarded with is not good for us. Hundreds of scientists that are engaged in research in this area have signed the “International EMF Scientist Appeal”, and this is how that document begins…

    We are scientists engaged in the study of biological and health effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic fields (EMF). Based upon peer-reviewed, published research, we have serious concerns regarding the ubiquitous and increasing exposure to EMF generated by electric and wireless devices. These include–but are not limited to–radiofrequency radiation (RFR) emitting devices, such as cellular and cordless phones and their base stations, Wi-Fi, broadcast antennas, smart meters, and baby monitors as well as electric devices and infra-structures used in the delivery of electricity that generate extremely-low frequency electromagnetic field (ELF EMF).

    In the next paragraph, we are told that “cancer risk”, “genetic damages”, “functional changes of the reproductive system”, and “neurological disorders” are some of the health risks that have been discovered by the scientific research that has been conducted so far…

    Numerous recent scientific publications have shown that EMF affects living organisms at levels well below most international and national guidelines. Effects include increased cancer risk, cellular stress, increase in harmful free radicals, genetic damages, structural and functional changes of the reproductive system, learning and memory deficits, neurological disorders, and negative impacts on general well-being in humans. Damage goes well beyond the human race, as there is growing evidence of harmful effects to both plant and animal life.
    My take: I really don't know enough about this technology to think we should be concerned, or if the danger is all tinfoil hat stuff.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Northern Colorado
    Posts
    5,167
    Feedback Score
    60 (100%)
    You start a new thread, among the many you have started recently, to post an excerpt from a blog, and in bold letters you let us know that your take is....you don't know if you believe your blog source?

    This forum member had a great suggestion
    Quote Originally Posted by grizzlyblake View Post
    Doc, maybe you should start a thread in GD like "Doc's Daily News" where you can post this stuff without a new thread for each story that gets your blood pressure up.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    928
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    Yeah, I stand by that post I made.


    I'll address this latest Chicken Little one though.

    I build cellular networks for all the carriers. The trend in technology is actually going from a much higher power RF transmission to much lower power as time goes on.

    Cell towers, and most legacy indoor/stadium/arena networks were implemented using a low number of very high power radios pushing through few antennas to reach the coverage objective, while the trend over the past 3-4 years and onward is for a much higher number of small antenna/radio combos using very low RF power to reach the same coverage objective, while also vastly higher capacity.

    Think of it like watering your yard with a fire hose from a fixed location, versus using one hundred tiny sprinklers with low volume output to get the same coverage.

    Ultimately it's a capacity game because each radio unit can only support so many users, so more radios with lower power and higher density gets the higher capacity.

    This is a pretty layman explanation but should get the point across. Sitting in a house or office a hundred yards from a tower running multiple 100w radios through large antennas means you're exposed to much higher RF power than sitting in an office with a 1 or 2w radio on the light pole outside. Unless there's some magic in the higher frequency of 5g the logic says as time goes on the RF exposure levels are decreasing.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Not here
    Posts
    8,703
    Feedback Score
    0
    I posted this to get some opinions.

    I was wondering which trolls would reply first.

    If you don't want to read my threads you certainly don't have to click on them.

    I admitted in my first post I didn't know enough about this to form an opinion, that I was looking for information, so you can't really say this is a "sky is falling" thread.

    I think it's a legitimate subject. LowSpeed_HighDrag I think the problem is you. You're just obsessed with me for some reason.

    You think just because you make a suggestion that I'm going to take it? You don't tell me what to do? Who do you think you are?


    Until a moderator warns me to stop posting these types of threads I intend to keep posting and I always try to make them interesting if nothing else. If you don't like that, then that's your problem.

    I've added a couple of people to my ignore list, and you can certainly be added too.
    Last edited by Doc Safari; 05-20-19 at 13:20.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    13,549
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Not here
    Posts
    8,703
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Firefly View Post
    All you trolls keep saying that, yet you keep reading my threads. Who's really the crazy ones?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Northern Colorado
    Posts
    5,167
    Feedback Score
    60 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Doc Safari View Post
    I've added a couple of people to my ignore list, and you can certainly be added too.
    Well, bye.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    3,151
    Feedback Score
    7 (100%)
    Either keep this on topic or it goes into the dumpster. Be civil or be gone.
    Love you Pop. F*ck Cancer.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    4,651
    Feedback Score
    11 (92%)
    Quote Originally Posted by grizzlyblake View Post
    Yeah, I stand by that post I made.


    I'll address this latest Chicken Little one though.

    I build cellular networks for all the carriers. The trend in technology is actually going from a much higher power RF transmission to much lower power as time goes on.

    Cell towers, and most legacy indoor/stadium/arena networks were implemented using a low number of very high power radios pushing through few antennas to reach the coverage objective, while the trend over the past 3-4 years and onward is for a much higher number of small antenna/radio combos using very low RF power to reach the same coverage objective, while also vastly higher capacity.

    Think of it like watering your yard with a fire hose from a fixed location, versus using one hundred tiny sprinklers with low volume output to get the same coverage.

    Ultimately it's a capacity game because each radio unit can only support so many users, so more radios with lower power and higher density gets the higher capacity.

    This is a pretty layman explanation but should get the point across. Sitting in a house or office a hundred yards from a tower running multiple 100w radios through large antennas means you're exposed to much higher RF power than sitting in an office with a 1 or 2w radio on the light pole outside. Unless there's some magic in the higher frequency of 5g the logic says as time goes on the RF exposure levels are decreasing.
    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.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    DFW, TEXAS
    Posts
    4,391
    Feedback Score
    274 (99%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Doc Safari View Post
    http://endoftheamericandream.com/arc...-up-nationwide




    My take: I really don't know enough about this technology to think we should be concerned, or if the danger is all tinfoil hat stuff.
    Yes.... Destroy your cell phone now and hid in a cave.
    In no way do I make any money from anyone related to the firearms industry.


    "I have never heard anyone say after a firefight that I wish that I had not taken so much ammo.", ME

    "Texas can make it without the United States, but the United States can't make it without Texas !", General Sam Houston

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •