A lot of people are asking about the safety of 5G. What is your position on it?

References:

  1. Yakymenko I, Tsybulin O, Sidorik E, Henshel D, Kyrylenko O, Kyrylenko S. Oxidative mechanisms of biological activity of low-intensity radiofrequency radiation. Electromagn Biol Med. 2016;35:186-202. doi: 10.3109/15368378.2015.1043557.
    PubMed PMID: 26151230.

  2. Halliwell B. Oxidative stress and cancer: have we moved forward? Biochem J. 2007;401:1-11. doi: 10.1042/BJ20061131.
    PubMed PMID: 17150040.

  3. Mortazavi SAR, Mortazavi G, Mortazavi SMJ. Comments on “Radiofrequency electromagnetic fields and some cancers of unknown etiology: An ecological study”. Sci Total Environ. 2017;609:1. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.07.131. PubMed PMID: 28732291.

  4. Mortazavi SAR, Mortazavi G, Mortazavi SMJ. Use of cell phones and brain tumors: a true association? Neurol Sci.
    2017;38:2059-60. doi: 10.1007/s10072-017-3055-x. PubMed PMID: 28689225.

  5. Mortazavi SMJ, Mortazavi SAR, Paknahad M. Cancers of the Brain and CNS: Global Patterns and Trends in Incidence. J Biomed Phys Eng. 2018;8:151-2. PubMed PMID: 29732351; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC5928307.

  6. Mortazavi SMJ. Comments on analysis of mobile phone use among young patients with brain tumors in Japan. Bioelectromagnetics. 2017;38:653-4. doi: 10.1002/bem.22082. PubMed PMID: 28980326.

  7. Mortazavi S, Mishra KP. Mobile phone use and cancer: Does dose really matter? Journal of Radiation and Cancer Research. 2017;8:165. doi: 10.4103/jrcr.jrcr_39_17.

  8. Mortazavi S, Mortazavi S, Haghani M. Evaluation of the validity of a Nonlinear J-shaped dose-response relationship in cancers induced by exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. Journal of Biomedical Physics and Engineering. 2019;9. doi: 10.31661/jbpe.v0i0.771.

  9. Sun C, Wei X, Fei Y, Su L, Zhao X, Chen G, et al. Mobile phone signal exposure triggers a hormesis-like effect in Atm(+/+) and Atm(-/-) mouse embryonic fibroblasts. Sci Rep. 2016;6:37423. doi: 10.1038/srep37423. PubMed PMID:
    27857169; PubMed Central PMCID: PMCPMC5114646.

3 Likes

I think it will be really bad for people in cities. They’re allowing more frequencies to be used to partially solve congestion. It also gives people what they want, more data. The issue is that all this data is going to potentially be cooking people’s brains. Right now I have multiple TV stations, many radio stations, and maybe a few 2.4ghz video streams constantly going through me. Now multiply all that data by a thousand times because everybody is face-timing in HD and watching their HD Youtube videos all around you in cities. There is a reason why if you are out in the middle of nowhere you seem to relax better and think straighter. Your body is constantly being stimulated to repair the damages from EMF radiation.
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20714683/](Important hormones) are also harmed by EMFs. If you look at the frequencies included in 5G(which include microwave oven frequencies), it looks more like a weapon than an utility. That’s not to say a phone using the 5G protocol can’t be safe. Increase the latency, carefully select the bands, and lower the transmitter power and it could be just a safe as 3G or 4G. The issue is that most companies are going to make devices(like phthalates) that can probably make you infertile, and certainly make you less of a man or a woman by messing up your hormones and general health. Just like the Bureau of Psychological Warfare of the British Army and the CIA helped create and perpetuate drug culture in the USA, the governments are likely looking for ways to keep sheep-shearing and manipulating their people through microwave technologies.

2 Likes

@anon32618512 Thank you very much for your comment! Besides the papers you cited, we have previously addressed the unique potential dangers of 5G “The non-ionizing 5G RF-EMF can behave like high LET ionizing radiations which have the maximum energy deposition per unit distance. Considering the low penetration and very high energy deposition per unit distance of 5G, this can lead to generation of high levels of free radicals in a short distance which in turn increases the risk of skin cancer”.
Source:
5G Technology: Why Should We Expect a shift from RF-Induced Brain Cancers to Skin Cancers?
DOI: doi: 10.31661/jbpe.v0i0.1225
https://lnkd.in/drVX95S

3 Likes

“The non-ionizing 5G RF-EMF can behave like high LET ionizing radiations which have the maximum energy deposition per unit distance”. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6820018/

5 Likes

Thanks for your response @SMJ_Mortazavi. We are happy to have you on our forum. :slight_smile:

3 Likes

I think we all should have access to 5G EMF Meters to test our home environment. With 22,000 satellites beaming down radiation on use i cant help but be concerned with effects on humans, animals and the planet.

1 Like

Thank you for sharing your opinion with us.

If 2G, 3G and 4G were unsafe (and well beyond fast enough) and 5G is 200x faster, I can only assume it is 200x deadlier than 4G also. I do not believe this is technology that is meant to serve humanity but rather technology meant to harm humanity. This is my passionate view, only because its creation is so insanely out of touch with scientific evidence of its negative effects. With protests loud and global now, the burning of towers, and mainstream minimization, censorship, and selective framing/storytelling of all of it… further validation of this for me. Nobody could ever say 5G is essential technology that is helpful to humanity. Who is trying to make this case and why? And why are we allowing it? That’s my deep frustration lately.

I recently saw a video on one of my social platforms of birds attacking one of the towers, throwing themselves at it. These are strange times that we live in. I trust mother nature and God to help us through. I believe this is a moment in time that we have to pass through… not a destination, and am also trying to remind myself that in the darkness of this situation there is divine order and purpose in this too.

1 Like

There is another question: do we need 5G to innovate?
It merely seems that we are copying a technology rather than trying to optimize what already exists.
5G might oversimplify and favor centralization of certain technological designs, which shouldn’t necessarily be oversimplified or centralized, such as automatic vehicles.

2 Likes

5G is the technological outcome of the “next-logical-move” for the market. It is not innovative, nor is it particularly useful for anyone outside of the stakeholder groups who have stock in it. Think of this in a similar way as companies releasing Playstation # or iPhone #. They have to release something new in a familiar package in order to stay relevant and not cause too big of a shock.
5G brings strong improvements to characteristics which I find are becoming less and less interesting to improve over time. However, it is paving the road for a connected future. Is this going to be as sustainable as people want it? I think that nobody knows the answer to that; but that won’t stop the big tech businesses to invest in it – they have to show that they are advancing something.

Is 5G safe? It may be if you’re sufficiently far away from it. Current medical proof shows how sensitive our bodies are to its frequency. Maybe some of our bodies are already adapted to fixing (metabolising) the damage 5G can produce, while others are not. These are, however, long term effects, and by the time they appear, there will be other exposures which will occupy our focus.
There is always something that can be proven as harmful to us. I believe that 5G requires more study for concrete proof.

I feel that technology, currently, is moving towards an unsustainable future when it comes to consumer products, and 5G is one of the more important steps towards it. Technology as a whole is extremely important in many other aspects of life (think fintech, medical, science, materials…); however, I have my set of doubts and fears when it comes to consumer products which are nowadays created to function in the growing Internet of Things.
The amount of waste to handle is already astronomical, the materials required to produce batteries are becoming more and more scarce, the labour conditions are not improving at an acceptable rate, digital threats are growing every day as crackers (the bad type of hackers) are adapting to what is out there, learning how to abuse the digital networks being developed for the consumer… Is this all worth it just so we can all have a more comfortable life? From whose point of view?

Technology is evolving faster than we can evolve to adapt to it, and if this isn’t compelling enough to consider slowing down and rethinking tech development, then I don’t know what is. We created technology. We should not be coerced into accepting its rapid change as a natural element of our lives. From this point of view, 5G is not safe.

2 Likes

It’s clear how hard it is for people to disconnect from their smartphones, once IoT devices become common place, the masses will be unable to get disconnected from it. 5G is an evolutionary push towards IoT development.

As for how poisonous it really is, there’s varying accounts, but also some quite disconcerting studies. I’ve experienced radiation poisoning induced by FM spectrum radiation, thus 5G concerns me even without any evidence. Maybe a good business would be retrofitting bedrooms with a Faraday cage, that way concerned folks can get at least get 8 h of radiation free time.

2 Likes

I think 5G is a terrible idea. Like every product about to emerge, 5G is presented as harmless for humans by those who are trying to sell it. But a few years from now that might not be so true. I’ve made an experience to sleep with my phone at my side and without it and it’s a fact that I sleep much better without it at all. So, are the phone’s radiation really that harmless? And it’s only a 3G phone! I’m concerned about 5G not only for humans but also for other live beings that have the right to life as humans do. If it is true that the tree leaves block the 5G signal and if trees are being cut down for that purpose, is it worth it?

1 Like

“Everything gives you cancer, but not everything gives you fast internet” - 5g

I know people who used to work on 5GHz radars. That’s in the same spectrum as 5G but if I remember correctly the current 5g spectrum tops out at around 3ghz.

In electromagnetic radiation terms, higher frequency equals higher energy with all other things being equal (flux density, signal strength). So the move from 3/4g to 5g is getting closer to microwave rather than radio waves.

Anyhow, those radar technicians used to stick their hands into transmitter enclosures in order to check whether the transmitter was working. It is non ionising radiation so it made their skin warm but they didn’t develop cancer unlike say, if they did the same to a nuclear reactor. But the warming effect is like a mild case of being cooked. Not deadly but probably not good either.

So, given these people were sticking hands in transmitter boxes with higher power ratings than any 5g tower is capable of I have no personal worries whatsoever with 5g from a safety perspective. That said, it hurts no one to be cautious about it.

My real concern about 5g is the interconnected nature of devices and the risks around security, privacy, compromised personal safety and security from hackers, scam companies like facebook and Google who like to enable or facilitate genocide right now in places like Myanmar and China with Uighur people.

To me the real danger of communication technologies is the content, not the method of transmission.

So after all that there aren’t many options for phones that either don’t spy on people, steal personal data, compromise home privacy, use conflict materials for the PCB, let alone suck all your attention away from other things.

Consequently 5g (or not) isn’t specifically a factor for me, in considering mudita as a viable choice. It’s all the stuff that it doesn’t do that is what piqued my interest. I understand that some people are genuinely sceptical about 5g. I’m not, but as we have seen with fibreglass and glyphosate there is nothing harmful about caution.

2 Likes

TBH, I think that every technology from 1G to 5G is harm. But I also think that 5G harm is too exageratted because USA banned Huawei’s 5G implementation. I mean, IR Blaster has higher frequency of waves than 5G, and did something happened to us? USA government doesn’t want to allow China to win in technology war. What’s the difference between USA’s 5G & China’s 5G? But also there are conspiracy theories about how 5G is used as a weapon & not primarily as a network. That could be also true, but I believe in 1st theory more. What do you think?

In addition to the safety question, there is also the question of usefulness and quality.

2 Likes

IR blasters (in reference to devices like cable box remote controls) operate at very low power output with short, targeted burst. An infrared laser on the other hand can be deadly. Infrared can have therapeutic rejuvenating effects, as well as being detrimental if overexposed. I suspect the same is true of other energy waves.

My comments regarding radiation exposure are largely based on my own life experience. While non-ionising radiation is perhaps not harmful in general, through my various experiments on myself, I have found that radiation exposure affects me adversely. Perhaps I’m more sensitive in some way than the general public. Whether or not 5G will have some consequence remains to be seen, but I try to minimise my own exposure due to past experiences.

China’s 5G equipment is built by China. That is, companies such as Huawei, who are controlled by the CCP (Chinese Communist Party). That is a fact, not a conspiracy. Any company larger than 50 employees must have Communist party members as part of the operation, however even companies smaller than 50 employees will comply, because they want to get a leg up in competition. If they are loyal commie pandas, they will have better success with government support. And in China, the government is synonymous with the military. Thus, companies like Huawei are in actuality run by the CCP in a command and control style. The country is operating in a permanent wartime mode. The corporation can pretend to have independence, but in the end, they are subservient to their masters. So it’s not anything to do with conspiracies, but rather security. If the Chinese government deploys their wireless equipment all around the world for new 5G networks, they will likely be able to spy on everyone using those networks. Even though thanks to Snowden we know that three letter agencies around the world are already doing this, I’d much rather have the NSA spying on me than the CCP. The CCP has proven they have complete disregard for rule of law by persecuting minorities, ethnic cleansing, unlawfully arresting innocent people, stealing patents, COVID-19, mass counterfeiting, etc. At the very least, there’s no reason to make it easier for the CCP to spy on us. That is why 5G equipment from friendly countries (not China) needs to be supported. It’s also easy for the CCP to subsidise production of this equipment and sell it at a loss to undercut their competition, thus killing innovation and industry in other countries who produce similar wireless equipment, leaving them as the only option. They do not care about fair competition and even steal other’s patents, oftentimes without consequence.

The conspiracies surrounding 5G are a bit funny sometimes. There’s a certain group of people who believe we are all going to get chipped so Big Brother can track us. Guess what, nobody needs to chip you, because you’re probably carrying a tracking device in your pocket at all times already (aka cell phone). It’s even better than a tracking chip, because They can see and hear everything going on around you with the click of a button. So I’d consider those kinds of opinions with a grain of salt and a grin.

2 Likes

You can read one of our blog posts: “5G Mobile Technology Statement”