Jump to content
Axial

5G - Are We Safe Or Insane?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

18 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

Charlie is an interesting and nice guy. He has come under some scrutiny for his opinions and practices from other neurosurgeons and neurologists.

 

 

 

😀

 

Ha ha! 

 

Ughhh certain types of photons do cause cancer and most types don’t. My clock radio? Really? That article was really trite.

 

consider this simplistic explanation: ionizing photons can lead to single strand DNA breaks or double strand breaks if strong enough. When single strands are broken that can lead to mutations and cancer. When double strands are broken the cells more often die. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jabbr said:

Dude that’s really disorganized. You should go get a brain MRI and have all your protons realigned!

I've already did; now I'm ready to communicate on a higher learning level. 

Are you. What is your take from the effects of 5G on future human's health and his surrounding atmosphere. Did you read the several links that I provided. What do you believe in on 5G's tremendous benefits and potential real disasters. Are we better off talking about something else in your intelligent opinion? 

 

@ CES 2019 5G was present but did not make big waves, not yet. And nothing from Huawei because the US (and few more countries) is banning that Chinese company. 

But from AT&T yes, of course...by 2025 50% of US networks will be 5G. 

 

What do you think of world's scientists and their studies on 5G so far? 

 _____

 

• https://www.radiationhealthrisks.com/5g-cell-towers-dangerous/

 

Our cell phones, forget it, let's talk towers first. 

And forget that image below, I don't know how it ended up there and I cannot delete it.

 

 

 

 

 

irony_nutrition_facts.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Axial said:

I'm ready to communicate on a higher learning level. 

 

 

you may be higher than you were before, but not high enough

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

14 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

 

you may be higher than you were before, but not high enough

That was humor; how would you reply to someone who suggest to you that you should get your protons reorganised/realigned from a brain MRI scan?

 

If I was to take that comment seriously, I would be in trouble. 

 

Alright, let's stay on topic shall we, and nobody needs a brain scan. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jabbr said:
21 hours ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

is an interesting and nice guy. He has come under some scrutiny for his opinions and practices from other neurosurgeons and neurologists.

 

 

 

😀

 

Ha ha! 

 

Ughhh certain types of photons do cause cancer and most types don’t. My clock radio? Really? That article was really trite.

 

 

Hi Jonathan,

not sure but maybe a slightly crossed wire here. I am not disagreeing. I have been in that neurosurgeons home and vice versa so yes IMO he is an "interesting and nice guy". His views do not always coincide with mine or would I endorse the articles you refer to.

2 hours ago, jabbr said:

consider this simplistic explanation: ionizing photons can lead to single strand DNA breaks or double strand breaks if strong enough. When single strands are broken that can lead to mutations and cancer. When double strands are broken the cells more often die. 

 

I am not a nuclear physician but don't doubt what you say. 90% of Pancreatic cancer,  among the deadliest of all cancers, is due to random or acquired mutations (10% being inheritable) and I venture to say probably very few of these relate to ionizing radiation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Axial said:

What do you think of world's scientists and their studies on 5G so far? 

 _____

 

• https://www.radiationhealthrisks.com/5g-cell-towers-dangerous/

 

Our cell phones, forget it, let's talk towers first. 

 

Well first I will grant that we as a society need to take ionizing radiation very seriously. The debate (and where science has not settled stegading non ionizing radiation) ...

So ... reduction in our atmospheric CO2 protection — huge problem 

 

But when an article starts off 



5G cell towers are more dangerous than other cell towers for two main reasons. First, 5G is ultra high frequency and ultra high intensity. 3G and 4G use between a 1 to 4 gigahertz frequency. 5G uses between a 24 to 90 gigahertz frequency. To put this in perspective, 90 gigahertz is 90 billion electromagnetic waves hitting the cells in your body per second. This is a whole lot more radiation than we are exposed to naturally.

 

 

then it’s hard to that the rest seriously. I would be concerned about living next to a cell tower ... or power line substation for that matter...

 

Its not a simple issue, bears more study, but the relationship between cell phone usage and brain tumors has remained speculative for decades.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

 

 

Hi Jonathan,

not sure but maybe a slightly crossed wire here. I am not disagreeing. I have been in that neurosurgeons home and vice versa so yes IMO he is an "interesting and nice guy". His views do not always coincide with mine or would I endorse the articles you refer to.

 

Not saying you endorsed him!

40 minutes ago, Audiophile Neuroscience said:

I am not a nuclear physician but don't doubt what you say. 90% of Pancreatic cancer,  among the deadliest of all cancers, is due to random or acquired mutations (10% being inheritable) and I venture to say probably very few of these relate to ionizing radiation.

 

The relationship between ionizing radiation and cancer is all too well established. The mechanisms are outlined here (for example) http://teachnuclear.ca/all-things-nuclear/radiation/biological-effects-of-radiation/effects-of-ionizing-radiation-on-dna/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, jabbr said:

it’s hard to that the rest seriously

That's what I thought when I saw the domain name.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, mansr said:

5G uses high frequencies. Very small waves.

Waves as in news. 5G didn't have a big presence (not making big news) @ CES 2019, that's all. I know that 5G uses super high radio frequencies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, bluesman said:

 

Now that's funny!  I started to post it about 2 hours ago under a brief note quoting the margarine line in this thread and explaining that there's now scientific, validated evidence for what we should consume.  The first entry is "total irony", stratified into saturated, polyunsaturated, and monounsaturated ironies. The top of the second column is "total bad humours", with equally critical stratification. The image wouldn't scale up enough to be easily readable, so I deleted it and canceled the post. If you can read it, it's worth the effort :)

 

That and another equally amusing and informative chart from the Journal of Irreproducible Results (my favorite reading matter for decades) may help put threads like this in perspective.  It might just be that we sometimes take ourselves a wee bit too seriously.

Lol, that's funny I agree. I was wondering for a brief moment what it had to do with 5G.

I tried few times to delete it but I just couldn't.

Thanks for clarifying its origin; I must have clicked on the wrong button from my small keyboard. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jabbr said:

 

Well first I will grant that we as a society need to take ionizing radiation very seriously. The debate (and where science has not settled stegading non ionizing radiation) ...

So ... reduction in our atmospheric CO2 protection — huge problem 

 

But when an article starts off 

 

 

 

then it’s hard to that the rest seriously. I would be concerned about living next to a cell tower ... or power line substation for that matter...

 

Its not a simple issue, bears more study, but the relationship between cell phone usage and brain tumors has remained speculative for decades.

Much better, I like. 

 

Like you I am not an expert on super fast telecommunications. I'm only starting recently to learn about 5G and what is required to make it works in city blocks. ...And of course the heath issues. 

 

The cell phone's radiations I don't know more than what has been said in the last x number of years, but I am certain that more studies are being made today as we speak.

And the advice of keeping your phone @ a distance from your body...head, heart, is good solid advice I think.

 

But it is 5G that I'm truly interested in; the pros and cons and the fair balance...faster information and telecommunication and medical benefits and diagnosis and temperature control and much much more (super fast dowmloads) @ the service of a better world for all things living and breathing. Are the human and nature and atmosphere health issues mentioned by several people from articles in scientific journals worth it or should we simply ignore them all?

 

That, is the interest of why I started this thread in the pursuit of discussing all valid directions. 

 

I'm all in to go faster in the telecommunication highways, I'm also all in to live healthier physically, mentally, socially, ...well grounded.  5G is also very big financially; so the economic aspect is also a top consideration. If 5G can help get food faster and to the right places, without being stolen first, and to the right people (children) who are starving and dying (Yemen), that too I'm all in. 

If the super high frequencies start affecting people living nearby those transmitter towers like toxic wastes do to humans and plastics do to fishes and CO2 does to our air and plants and temperature spikes, that too I want some facts from serious analysis and no Mickey mouse trap.

 _____

 

☯️⚖☮ I love Jazz, Blues, Classical, Opera Tango, Coltrane and Billie. I love dance, I love life. We shall not grow old. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jabbr said:

then it’s hard to that the rest seriously

 

If they think 90 billion is bad, wait'll they learn about all the virtual particles tunneling through them infinitely more often than that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It don't matter, high frequencies will dig tunnels under them and above them. They'll come by boats, by planes, by trains, by truck loads, ...all with the help of corrupted servers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Arpiben said:

Electromagnetic waves are generating non - ionizing radiations until ultra violet spectrum.

 

I just don’t get much of a charge outta that........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Arpiben said:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-ionizing_radiation

In other words Radio Frequencies used in Telecom networks ( Non-ionizing) are less harmful compared to ionizing ones.

 

Ummmm - that (like several other posts in this thread) was a joke. Ions carry a net charge. Protons are positively charged, and electrons are negative. So non-ionizing radiation does not affect the net charge of a molecule. Thus, neither you nor I nor anything else can get a literal charge from non-ionizing radiation. As “getting a charge” from an issue is also a euphemism for being excited about it, this was a pun based on a scientific fact and a social observation.

 

Mark Twain said that “Humor is the great thing, the saving thing after all. The minute it crops up, all our hardnesses yield, all our irritations, and resentments flit away, and a sunny spirit takes their place.” Sadly, it cannot effect its benefits if it goes unrecognized.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, bluesman said:

As “getting a charge” from an issue is also a euphemism for being excited about it

I see what you did there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×