I recommend Frank Tufano and the Non-Tinfoil Guide to EMFs.
Science isn’t always right. They’ve had to back pedal quite a bit. And scientists have been known to be bought out. Even the cell companies themselves put warning labels on their products, so it’s not totally harmless.
Big thing about 5g that’s concerning (outside of the issues with aviation and weather instrumentation (I think I posted about that here)) is that it increases the obsolescence of consumer computational equipment. 5g was dramatic in terms of speed, which makes many people feel like their equipment is antiquate so they upgrade.
1 Like
@marc67 I’m generally not a person who panics about technology. However, I’m interested to know WHY exactly is the airline industry so concerned about 5G that they are threatening to cancel flights. And as a result, the network companies are succumbing to the pressure by postponing the roll-outs.
1 Like
@anon59201358 THIS I can agree with. I know people get attached to their devices & if it’s not broken & still functioning fine, why spend money to get something new. So I get that part of the push-back.
1 Like
Short answer: Yes.
Long answer:
2 Likes
Good: way faster net then 4G
Bad: If not used for Torrenting, it will be used for “Internet of things” or better to say smart homes and appliances connected to you, which makes us even dumber and laiser.
It also needs DENSER Network of antennas that do radiate more (device too) so coverage of 5G is limited to small areas in capitals, unlike well spread 4G
4K fast view and download? I currently see no major usages, as 4G is quite fast and usable.
Overall: future, but now too early, expensive phones, low coverage, low usability
1 Like
If METHODOLOGY and SAMPLE is proper, and yes, its not same private company funding the research, science cant be wrong 
1 Like
When referring to “5G and health”, beyond concerns about radiation sensitivity and other impacts:
Unregulated implementation of highly efficient technology systematically leads to rebound effects and, thus, despite the obtained efficiency gains, net increases in energy (and other) consumption. In 2022, it has now been well documented that this extractive expansion has become incompatible with planetary boundaries (for safe human existence) and technology (and more specifically IT) is on an unsustainable trajectory.
Only as one example: anthropogenic climate change has become the most important threat to human health of our era (Lancet Countdown) and information technology including mobile devices is a growing green house gas emitter (in catastrophic but imperceptible proportions).
And, currently through the attention economy and its impact, partly mediated by smartphones, on human creativity and imagination, we remain trapped by a (“Thatcherist”) illusion that there is “no alternative”… which is not only a crude reduction of human capacities, but, simply, false.
Mudita can potentially be one helpful element to find our way out of the perceived (economic and technological) “growth” imperative, by freeing up space for the creation of new (and positively disruptive) perspectives, personal engagement and other potentially worthwhile manifestations of human agency…
Sorry if this comment appears a bit abstract at first, but I thought it might be worthwhile and of some relevance here…
3 Likes
@flix-b_4140 Thanks for your input. Our main aim is to create human-friendly, mindful technology. Technology which provides benefits and minimizes risks.
Personally, I think, more technology is not always better.
1 Like
More connection is not always better either. It just seems we can’t get away from it.
2 Likes
1 Like
I worked for an Engineering Company that did all the Calculations for Swisscom, Sunrise and Salt (Three biggest Providers in Switzerland) and also the Measuring of Radiation and other stuff for all Types of Antennas. I am well informed on how Electromagnetic Radiation (Non-Ionizing) works.
It all depends on your daily dosage that you get and as a normal citizen it is highly unlikely that you get “overdosed” with 5G. 5G uses a Higher Frequency and thus has Shorter Range than 4G or 3G. It also means it has more Problems penetrating the Skin. The Big Health Risk you get is from the Warmth of your Devices! Having Calls for hours with a Hot Brick at your ear is not very healthy, trust me.
When 5G Launched in Switzerland, Swisscom decided to start 5G at the same time in 40 different towns. Little did the people know that not all towns got activated. They did this to research the Nocebo Effect wich was very Strong! We got the same amount of complaints about headaches, stomach issues and other stuff from a town where 5G was activated and one where people believed it was activated. This clearly shows that 5G is not the issue, it’s the Nocebo Effect, where people believe in something and actually develop symptoms for it. That doesn’t mean the Symptoms are fake, they are in fact very real! But the Cause of them is different from what they believe.
As for all People saying the Higher Frequency is bad for humans, I would love to let you know that Light that we can see, is the same Electromagnetic Radiation as Radio, 5G, Microwaves… just much Higher Frequency. We get Bombarded with Light Radiation All the Time and we don’t get sick by that either.
Switzerland is a safe haven though, compared to many other countries. Our Radiation Limit is 14 times lower than the EU and over 100 Times Lower than the US. This equals in more Antennas though. But since Antennas have Beamforming and other Features, it doesn’t matter how many Antennas you have near you, the Radiation Limit won’t be exceeded because they need to be done this way. And we got tons of Measuring Data to back this up.
As for psychological effects regarding Always being connected and other stuff… That is for another topic. But just looking at 5G Technology from an Objective View reveals, that it’s not harmful.
2 Likes
2 Likes
https://www.fda.gov/radiation-emitting-products/cell-phones/scientific-evidence-cell-phone-safety
More studies are needed. The question is if we have the right methods? And if there is enough interest. I’m not sure on either of those questions.
1 Like
To date, the scientific evidence indicates symptoms experienced by people who self-identify as having electromagnetic hypersensitivity occur when the individual believes they are being exposed to radio frequency energy. Based on the available scientific evidence, their very real symptoms are not the result of radio frequency exposures.
- This is from the Link you Provided.
This is what I was talking about and it’s called the Nocebo Effect. Electromagnetic Radiation is not the Real Cause of their Symptoms. It’s their belief that Electromagnetic Radiation Causes these Symptoms. And these Symptoms are very real, they are not to be underestimated.
As I said, the Higher the Frequency, the less Penetration happens. Radio Waves are more likely to penetrate your Skin than 5G.
I don’t know how the US is regulating their Antennas, I can only speak for Switzerland though. And everywhere where I measured for work purposes it was way within the Laws.
2 Likes
So to better understand my point of view I would like to note, that I have Aspergers.
If you find this outrageous, like this Lady said at the end of the presentation, then I have to ask why is this outrageous? It is no secret or hidden in thousands of documents. SAR gets measured with 25mm distance from the body. And of course phones would exceed this Limit if they get closer. That is common sense to me. Again please refer to my statement at the top.
If we want to change the testing Method, we need to raise awarness and I am completly on her side with this one. The testing Method should be with the phone directly to your body because we have them in our pockets most of the time!
On the other Hand, the Radiation is Non-Ionizing. So what is the Risk of a High SAR? Non-Ionizing Radiation can’t give you risk of cancer, because it doesn’t have the ability to dislodge electrons.
The Reason people Wear Hazmat Suits and have strict time limits to work in Front of Antennas is not because of the Radiation but because of the Heat Generated from the Radiation. As I said it is non-ionizing, but it still produces Heat. This Heat is very dangerous for our Body when you’re directly in front of an Antenna.
And Studies have found that it’s not the Radiation but the Heat from our Phones wich causes Problems. If you put your Glass-Slab directly to your ear you let Heat Radiate directly to your head where you have an opening to your brain from your skull. That is the real danger here.
I really hope people learn the difference between non-ionizing Radiation and ionizing Radiation. Because as I said, Light that we see is the same Electromagnetic Radiation as 5G, just Extremely more High Frequency. So is Infrared.
3 Likes
“Wireless radiation offers the promise of improved remote sensing, improved communications and data transfer, and improved connectivity. Unfortunately, there is a large body of data from laboratory and epidemiological studies showing that previous and present generations of wireless networking technology have significant adverse health impacts. Much of this data was obtained under conditions not reflective of real-life. When real-life considerations are added, such as 1) including the information content of signals along with 2) the carrier frequencies, and 3) including other toxic stimuli in combination with the wireless radiation, the adverse effects associated with wireless radiation are increased substantially. Superimposing 5G radiation on an already imbedded toxic wireless radiation environment will exacerbate the adverse health effects already shown to exist. Far more research and testing of potential 5G health effects under real-life conditions is required before further rollout can be justified.”
2 Likes
I would love to take some time to dive deeper into this article. But I have some Questions.
As I said, please keep in mind I have Aspergers. I say this not as an excuse but to give you a Platform to better understand my point and that by no means, what I am saying, is meant as an insult or something like that. I often see “Black and White” and it’s hard for me to read the in between.
This article mentiones toxic Non-ionizing Radiation but fails to declare what this is. As I said I worked in this field and I have never heard of such a thing. It also mentiones in the beginning that we first only got “natural light” and today our main light source is “artificial”. I don’t see the difference because Light is Light. It doesn’t matter how it got produced because Light is the Electromagnetic Radiation Part that we can see.
What many Studies fail to mention is on how we use things. For Example Artificial light by itself, like a Light Bulb, is not Dangerous to us. What could be dangerous is our usage. For example lots of Blue Light before we go to bed has proven to have significant impact on our sleep. This Blue Light could also come from the Sun, as Blue Lights are Blue Lights (For Example if you work Night Shifts, you sleep during the day. So it doesn’t matter if you get the Blue Light from the Sun or Smartphone).
These two things are what immediately caught my Eye. I will going to read more in the evening and do some Research on this so called “toxic Non-Ionizing Radiation”.
5 Likes
Actually, if we can get sick from overexposure to light, I recently read a study that said that there was an increase in young people with retinal problems in the United States, it is thought that it is due to exposure to light, specifically the blue frequency. There is a Spanish scientist Celia Sánchez-Ramos who investigated this years ago, many told them that light was not harmful, it was just light, but in the laboratory she verified that overexposure to blue light drove the retinal cells crazy and they were destroyed . I have learned that everything in excess causes damage, and I believe that being overexposed to high frequencies all the time will also cause damage. It would be ideal if we could isolate ourselves for a couple of hours a day from these frequencies, but it is impossible. I’m still a fan of technology, but the 5g thing is excessive for me, it’s just another product to earn money and it’s not needed, since there are other healthier and more stable options such as fiber optics. for iot devices now there are lora frequencies. They are long-range low frequency and can even communicate with satellites, their bandwidth is low but their consumption is also low, an 800mah battery can last you for years, which makes it perfect for IOT
3 Likes