• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Will 5G help or hurt the planet?

Thoreau72 said:
It seems the telecoms and assorted industries are implying that 5G will be as harmless to us, rather as the tobacco companies told us cigarettes are harmless.

Many scientists say otherwise, and that all biological species will suffer from RF radiation, and that seems logical.

Radio Frequency Radiation (EMF) Threatens Plant and Animal Species with Extinction - Global ResearchGlobal Research - Centre for Research on Globalization

Any thoughts on this issue?
Click to expand...

Don't turn to Global Research as a source.
No..."many" scientists do not say that animals will suffer from RF radiation.
The rule of thumb to remember is that RF, just like light or sound, dissipates according to the inverse square law.

"a specified physical quantity or intensity is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source of that physical quantity."

As with any other RF source, you have to be very very close to the radiating antenna and be exposed for a long period of time in order to accumulate any undesirable health effects. With cell phones, it is already known that having it next to your head for hours on end can possibly be harmful but if you only talk on it a few times a day for short periods of time, it's harmless. For those who spend all day on the cell, use a bluetooth headset instead.

5G is just RADIO and it behaves like radio. If Global Research's claim was true, truckers with illegally high powered CB radios would have killed all of us years ago.

Watch a Texas Star 667v RF linear amp light up a fluorescent bulb with pure RF from 250 watts right off the antenna and watch as the light dims as the person walks away from the antenna.
The Fluorescent Light Bulb Trick

 
longview said:
5G runs in the 3 to 5 Ghz band, roughly the same area already covered by Wifi,
so if using those frequencies all over the place, would have done something, it already would have happened.
We all live with those frequencies around us every day, and have for almost 20 years.
Click to expand...

By the way, a typical WiFi hotspot only puts out 63 milliwatts according to FCC regulations.
Sixty three milliwatts is a miniscule amount of power, very miniscule.
 
Thoreau72 said:
It seems the telecoms and assorted industries are implying that 5G will be as harmless to us, rather as the tobacco companies told us cigarettes are harmless.

Many scientists say otherwise, and that all biological species will suffer from RF radiation, and that seems logical.
Click to expand...

"Biological species"

That says all we need to know. Puffed up BS. It requires a dismal education to read that and not instantly know it's BS.

It's trying to impress ignorant and stupid people. It's cave-mosque material.
 
OrphanSlug said:
That is where it gets fun...

Turns out regulation of "electromagnetic radiation emitting devices" falls under the Food and Drug Association (FDA) and has for sometime now, so I went to that website which references studies without really naming them or who performed them. Similar story from the American Cancer Society.

General internet searching ends up with a plethora of articles on these studies without much link to these studies. Sorry.

If I recall correctly, this was the same story with 4G... 3G... on back. Many talked about it of course, unsure of their sources.
Click to expand...

No, FDA is allowed to collaborate but RF mainly falls under the purview of the Federal Communications Commission.
 
I love how a guy who doesn't have a smartphone and doesn't intend to buy one, is here to warn us all about the coming smartphone technology.
Ohhhhh the irony.
 
Northern Light said:
The answer is that we don't know because no government will do long-term studies on the effects of these technologies on living systems. We only have partial data, which is what has caused some European countries to act. The telecoms have a lot of power and they profit directly from massive roll outs of new tech.

Basically 5G is a mass experiment and we are the guinea pigs.
Click to expand...

There was actually extensive research the the 60's to 70's, and still some in the 80's. Most of such material is in hard copy form only.

These frequencies are known to cause cataracts at low levels. It takes higher levels for more damaging results.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
Don't turn to Global Research as a source.
No..."many" scientists do not say that animals will suffer from RF radiation.
The rule of thumb to remember is that RF, just like light or sound, dissipates according to the inverse square law.

"a specified physical quantity or intensity is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source of that physical quantity."

As with any other RF source, you have to be very very close to the radiating antenna and be exposed for a long period of time in order to accumulate any undesirable health effects. With cell phones, it is already known that having it next to your head for hours on end can possibly be harmful but if you only talk on it a few times a day for short periods of time, it's harmless. For those who spend all day on the cell, use a bluetooth headset instead.

5G is just RADIO and it behaves like radio. If Global Research's claim was true, truckers with illegally high powered CB radios would have killed all of us years ago.

Watch a Texas Star 667v RF linear amp light up a fluorescent bulb with pure RF from 250 watts right off the antenna and watch as the light dims as the person walks away from the antenna.
The Fluorescent Light Bulb Trick

Click to expand...

Yes, the inverse square law applies. As for being very close to the antenna... that is frequency defendant as to the amount absorbed.

CB frequency spreads are centered at 26.965 mhz for channel 1 to 27.405 mhz for channel 40. This places their wavelengths at close to 11.1 to 10.9 meters. You can use trigonometry to figure out how effective of a tuning stub the length of the human body becomes, for power absorption, or a florescent tube. Then there is the k-ohms of resistance in our bodies too. I wouldn't want to be close to a high power CB transmission, but it is relatively harmless compared to higher frequencies.

Microwave ovens use RF technology. The wavelength of the microwave signal is short enough that the signal is nearly fully absorbed by the moisture in the food, and converted to heat.

Older cell phone technology was harmful with long term usage because the length of transmit times. With better technology, the transmitter of a phone is only on for milliseconds per second, making the dosage real small, and battery life longer. Still, current phones operate no more than in the 700 mhz band. This is a wavelength of around 0.43 meters. Still not a problem for humans at nominal levels. Even the 5G operating at 6 ghz+ isn't a power problem for the body, but the eyes are a different thing yet.

6 ghz and higher for 5G has a wavelength of 5 cm and lower. The eyes are a little over 1" around (2.54 cm) and just right to absorb similar to a 1/2 wave antenna, and microwave frequencies are known to cause cataracts at similar frequencies.

I don't know what levels this becomes a concern at, and if it would apply to the low levels of a cell phone. But it definitely would apply to being at close proximity to a cell towers at these frequencies. I'm sure someone has brought this concern up, and the technological advances still amaze me when it comes to noise rejection. It is possible that the transmit power of a phone is so low, that such signals are zero to a very low risk. I wouldn't count on it though. I'm a wait and see type person regarding such things I am uncertain of.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Cataracts induced by microwave and ionizing radiation. - PubMed - NCBI

Effects of microwave radiation on the eye: the occupational health perspective. - PubMed - NCBI

Cataracts induced by microwave and ionizing radiation - ScienceDirect

Maybe even the cell phone users...
Click to expand...

I remember when police using radar guns first started and became popular. Only because of ignorance regarding the harmful effects of various radiation, the police were rather guinea pigs themselves.

Sitting in squad cars waiting for a target, with the radar gun resting in their crotch, many police officers began developing testicular cancer.

By not studying the possible effects of this 5G on biological species, we invite another such event as that.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
Don't turn to Global Research as a source.
No..."many" scientists do not say that animals will suffer from RF radiation.
The rule of thumb to remember is that RF, just like light or sound, dissipates according to the inverse square law.

"a specified physical quantity or intensity is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source of that physical quantity."

As with any other RF source, you have to be very very close to the radiating antenna and be exposed for a long period of time in order to accumulate any undesirable health effects. With cell phones, it is already known that having it next to your head for hours on end can possibly be harmful but if you only talk on it a few times a day for short periods of time, it's harmless. For those who spend all day on the cell, use a bluetooth headset instead.

5G is just RADIO and it behaves like radio. If Global Research's claim was true, truckers with illegally high powered CB radios would have killed all of us years ago.

Watch a Texas Star 667v RF linear amp light up a fluorescent bulb with pure RF from 250 watts right off the antenna and watch as the light dims as the person walks away from the antenna.
The Fluorescent Light Bulb Trick

Click to expand...


I will take Global Research any day over your mainstream media.

MSM will remain silent about this issue. Of course they will counsel us on eating too much for our health, or exercising for our health, or avoiding supplements "for our health", or any other of the constant propaganda they deliver about "our health", but now when we have a chance to prevent a dangerous proposal "for our health", they remain silent so that their partner corporations in the communications industry will not face any scrutiny.

You are strangling common sense with your bull**** propaganda against Global Research. Noted, thank you.
 
Thoreau72 said:
I will take Global Research any day over your mainstream media.

MSM will remain silent about this issue. Of course they will counsel us on eating too much for our health, or exercising for our health, or avoiding supplements "for our health", or any other of the constant propaganda they deliver about "our health", but now when we have a chance to prevent a dangerous proposal "for our health", they remain silent so that their partner corporations in the communications industry will not face any scrutiny.

You are strangling common sense with your bull**** propaganda against Global Research. Noted, thank you.
Click to expand...

Enjoy your science denialism and conspiracy theory ****, then, and remember to post your topics in the proper subforum (Conspiracy Theories), rather than in the science sections.
 
Thoreau72 said:
It seems the telecoms and assorted industries are implying that 5G will be as harmless to us, rather as the tobacco companies told us cigarettes are harmless.

Many scientists say otherwise, and that all biological species will suffer from RF radiation, and that seems logical.

Radio Frequency Radiation (EMF) Threatens Plant and Animal Species with Extinction - Global ResearchGlobal Research - Centre for Research on Globalization

Any thoughts on this issue?
Click to expand...

So that's what's causing trump's mental illness! The radio waves go up his butt during his early-morning toilet tweeting! It all makes sense now!!!!!!
 
nekrodev said:
Enjoy your science denialism and conspiracy theory ****, then, and remember to post your topics in the proper subforum (Conspiracy Theories), rather than in the science sections.
Click to expand...

Boy you are just making friends all over the place today! But in this case I must agree with you. Centre for Research on Globalization, is a bit of a CT website.

Global Research - Media Bias/Fact Check
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
By the way, a typical WiFi hotspot only puts out 63 milliwatts according to FCC regulations.
Sixty three milliwatts is a miniscule amount of power, very miniscule.
Click to expand...
I understand that, but was pointing out the the frequencies are already in use.
 
nekrodev said:
Enjoy your science denialism and conspiracy theory ****, then, and remember to post your topics in the proper subforum (Conspiracy Theories), rather than in the science sections.
Click to expand...

It is still amusing, in a sort of disgusting way, to watch grown men cry. :mrgreen:

The harm caused by man made radiation DOES affect the environment we live in, but I understand that intellectual insecurity can make a person act like a moderator wannabe.
 
lurchadams said:
Boy you are just making friends all over the place today! But in this case I must agree with you. Centre for Research on Globalization, is a bit of a CT website.

Global Research - Media Bias/Fact Check
Click to expand...

Any site that contradicts the mainstream media is seen as radical. In the Orwellian sense, speaking the truth in a time of universal deception IS radical.

You seem to be well conditioned.
 
Thoreau72 said:
Any site that contradicts the mainstream media is seen as radical. In the Orwellian sense, speaking the truth in a time of universal deception IS radical.

You seem to be well conditioned.
Click to expand...

Well, to claim what this site or what anyone says is true without any other independent conformation is done at one's own folly.
 
Thoreau72 said:
It is still amusing, in a sort of disgusting way, to watch grown men cry. :mrgreen:

The harm caused by man made radiation DOES affect the environment we live in, but I understand that intellectual insecurity can make a person act like a moderator wannabe.
Click to expand...

I'm sure chemtrails and HAARP are also damaging our environment. Lemme just go get my proof from InfoWars, cuz science is part of the mainstream media, and therefore completely untrustworthy lmfao
 
lurchadams said:
Well, to claim what this site or what anyone says is true without any other independent conformation is done at one's own folly.
Click to expand...

When the mainstream media does not cover stories about the effects of 5G in Holland, why should I pollute my mind and waste my time watching their absence of coverage?

I've been long aware that radiation effects biological creatures. I've known that since before computers and the internet. Therefore it only makes sense that placing sources of radiation amongst the people and other biological entities would have some sort of effect, probably deleterious.

If the mainstream media refuses to discuss it, why shouldn't I go to other sources? Sources more concerned with truth and knowledge than with corporate agenda?
 
nekrodev said:
I'm sure chemtrails and HAARP are also damaging our environment. Lemme just go get my proof from InfoWars, cuz science is part of the mainstream media, and therefore completely untrustworthy lmfao
Click to expand...

You're quite the comedian sir.

Come back when you learn to think, and maybe we'll talk.
 
Thoreau72 said:
When the mainstream media does not cover stories about the effects of 5G in Holland, why should I pollute my mind and waste my time watching their absence of coverage?

I've been long aware that radiation effects biological creatures. I've known that since before computers and the internet. Therefore it only makes sense that placing sources of radiation amongst the people and other biological entities would have some sort of effect, probably deleterious.

If the mainstream media refuses to discuss it, why shouldn't I go to other sources? Sources more concerned with truth and knowledge than with corporate agenda?
Click to expand...

Here, since you don't seem to want to, I found another source for you. It seems there is a scientific consensus regarding the claim that radiation generated by mobile devices might pose a risk to humans.

Environmental Health Trust 5G and the IOT: Scientific Overview of Human Health Risks - Environmental Health Trust

A first glance at US government websites such as the CDC and EPA could lead you to believe that this radiation is safe. Yet over 240 scientists and doctors from 41 nations who have published research in the field have appealed to the United Nations calling for urgent action to reduce these ever growing wireless exposures and they wrote the FCC for a moratorium on the roll-out of 5G citing the serious risks that to human health and the environment.

Insurance White Papers classify the rollout of 5G and Smartcities as “High Risk.”

The 2019 Swiss Re Report 5G is rated as a “high impact” emerging risk affecting property and casualty claims in more than 3 years. “Off the leash – 5G mobile networks” (p. 29)….As the biological effects of EMF in general and 5G in particular are still being debated, potential claims for health impairments may come with a long latency
Click to expand...

See how easy that was?
 
Lord of Planar said:
This article is almost useless. It doesn't speak of the levels of exposure. Dosage matters.
Click to expand...

Indeed it does. That's why if the government and media were actually interested in the public health, they would both be calling for detailed testing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom