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

I don’t think 5G is a good idea.

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.

2 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

@tiffany 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