We Have No Reason to Believe 5G Is Safe

I wonder if no one (extremly small percentage) goes and purchases 5G enabled devices, then telecom cos won't be able to afford to maintain satellites, thus abandoning the tech is this format.

They are only doing this to boost sales. I used to work at Verizon Comm and their ethos is , "we are not a phone company, we are a data company". The cellphone market has plateaued a while ago, and they are looking to force upgrades, increase cost, and are dangling higher speeds to do so.

But if no one's buying, can they sell? I don't know. But if the answer is "no," then the move is not to risk jail by damaging a companies equipment. I would be to band together for a global boycott of 5G tech and tell them to launch those satellites up their own ***.
 
htg designs said:
I wonder if no one (extremly small percentage) goes and purchases 5G enabled devices, then telecom cos won't be able to afford to maintain satellites, thus abandoning the tech is this format.

They are only doing this to boost sales. I used to work at Verizon Comm and their ethos is , "we are not a phone company, we are a data company". The cellphone market has plateaued a while ago, and they are looking to force upgrades, increase cost, and are dangling higher speeds to do so.

But if no one's buying, can they sell? I don't know. But if the answer is "no," then the move is not to risk jail by damaging a companies equipment. I would be to band together for a global boycott of 5G tech and tell them to launch those satellites up their own ***.
Click to expand...


You’re talking about 4G

With 5G, you can’t opt out. Cameras everywhere.
 
On that rat study ...

The dosages tested ranged between 1W per Kg of bodyweight and 6W/Kg. So the very lowest dosage that they tested was the equivalent of an average-weight person being surrounded by approximately 200 cellphones transmitting at full power, 9 hours a day, 7 days a week.

In all groups, survival rate was higher in the exposed rats than in the controls.

Schwannomas (tumors) were found in 4 rats in the control group, or 4.4%. The numbers found in most of the various exposed groups were 1.1%, 2.2%, or 4.4%. There was one particular exposed group that did have 5.5%; 5 rats with schwannomas rather than 4 in the control group.

The one group in which one more rat developed a schwannoma than the control was not the group exposed to highest dosages. There is no clear dose-dependant relationship between RF exposure and schwannoma development.



I feel like all the studies backing the 5g conspiracy is saying "well YOU don't know that it doesn't". It's like flat earthers saying "well YOU haven't gone to space".
 
I’m about to start stocking up and buying all the wigs to resell them. 2030 everybody is going to be bald. Also why does everything have to be propaganda, I do think a lot of conspiracy theorist are nuts but why not have an open mind with possible dangers.
 
riparo-emf-underwear.jpg


www.forbes.com

Lambs Is Protecting Men With Space Grade Technology

Lambs is a tech clothing company with a mission to raise awareness around EMF radiation and to protect customers from environmental dangers.
www.forbes.com www.forbes.com
 

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

However, instead of prudent public health measures to ensure the public’s safety, governments such as the United States are quickly rolling out 5G networks in neighborhoods and are enacting various state and federal regulations to “streamline” and fasttrack the rollout. These regulations will...
ehtrust.org ehtrust.org

5G And The IOT: Scientific Overview Of Human Health Risks

5G is the term used to describe the next-generation of mobile networks beyond the 4G LTE mobile networks commonly used today. 5G is intended to be the technology that allows the Internet of Things (IOT) to exist and tie all internet connected devices together.

Click here for Facts About 5G What You Need To Know
Click here for Top Resources to Take Action on 5G

5G networks will include a combination of a range and variety of frequencies and modulations. Industry is developing exactly what 5G will be as the engineering specifics are still in development. For example, 4G “small cell” networks will be the backbone of 5G as new 5G antennas will soon be mounted on poles with current 4G antennas. The new cell phones and devices will have multiple antennas that can toggle and forth between these technologies. It is assumed that 5G networks will not become commercially available until 2020 but several cities are rolling out 5G as test areas now. Verizon and Sprint have announced “test cities” for 5G which include Sacramento, Washington DC, Atlanta, Dallas, Miami and New York.

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. Read Insurance White Papers here.
Published peer reviewed science already indicates that the current wireless technologies of 2G, 3G and 4G – in use today with our cell phones, computers and wearable tech – creates radiofrequency exposures which poses a serious health risk to humans, animals and the environment. Scientists are cautioning that before rolling out 5G, research on human health effects urgently needs to be done first to ensure the public and environment are protected.

However, instead of prudent public health measures to ensure the public’s safety, governments such as the United States are quickly rolling out 5G networks in neighborhoods and are enacting various state and federal regulations to “streamline” and fasttrack the rollout. These regulations will end the ability of communities to halt and be a part of the decision making process in this massive 5G infrastructure buildout.

Wireless company documents clearly state that 5G will increase the levels of RF radiation in the vicinity of the antennas. Many countries such as China, India, Poland, Russia, Italy and Switzerland have far more protective and stricter radiation limits which will not allow the deployment of 5G as the increased 5G radiation would exceed their limits. These countries are creating roadblocks to the 5G rollout and industry has launched large scale efforts to loosen limits.

Industry is Deeply Involved in the Science
Investigate Europe Reports: 5G The Mass Experiment (Part 1) and How Much is Safe? Finances Effect Research (Part 2) This two part investigative report in 2019 covers the 5G rollout and the history of industry influenced research on EMFS.

“At least three studies over the years have documented that there is often a link between conclusions of studies and the source of the money that paid for the research. Science funded by industry is less likely to find health risks than studies paid for by institutions or authorities….Studies which are solely financed by industry are likely to be biased” – Investigate Europe, 2019

Investigative Europe identified a group of fourteen scientists who either helped create, or defend, the EMF exposure guidelines disseminated by ICNIRP, a non- governmental organization (NGO) based in Germany. ICNIRP’s self-selected members argue that the thousands of peer-reviewed studies that have found harmful biologic or health effects from chronic exposure to non-thermal levels of EMF are insufficient to warrant stronger safety guidelines. “The ICNIRP Cartel: Who’s Who in the EMF Research World,” an interactive graphic developed by Investigate Europe (German ICNIRP Cartel). Dr. Moskowitz PDF of ICNIRP Cartel
Watch the short video by Investigative Europe on 5G below.

Published Research Establishes Harmful Effects of Wireless Radiation

5G Wireless Expansion: Public Health and Environmental Implications is a published research review on 5G that documents the range of reported adverse effects of RF and millimeter waves—effects which range from cancer to bacteria growth changes to DNA damage. The study concludes that “a moratorium on the deployment of 5G is warranted” and “the addition of this added high frequency 5G radiation to an already complex mix of lower frequencies, will contribute to a negative public health outcome … from both physical and mental health perspectives” (Russell 2018).

Cancer epidemiology update, following the 2011 IARC evaluation of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields is a comprehensive research review of RF effects in human and animal research. The review concludes that scientific evidence is now adequate to conclude radiofrequency radiation is carcinogenic to humans (Miller 2018). Several previously published studies also concluded that RF can “cause” cancer, for example, Hardell 2017, Atzman 2016 and Peleg 2018.

The US National Toxicology Program (NTP) Study on Cell Phone Radiation found “clear evidence” of cancer, heart damage and DNA damage in a $30-million study designed to test the basis for federal safety limits (NIEHS). The heart and brain cancers found in the NTP rats are the same cell type as tumors that researchers have found to be increased in humans who have used use cell phones for over 10 years. Thus, researchers say this animal evidence confirms the human evidence (Hardell 2019.)

The Ramazzini Institute (RI) Study on Base Station RF was another large scale rat study that also found increases in the same heart cancers as the NTP study found—yet the Ramazzini rats were exposed to much lower levels of RF than the NTP rats. In fact, all the RI Ramazzini radiation exposures were below FCC limits, as the study was specifically designed to test the safety of RF limits for cell tower/base stations (Falconi 2018.)

Tumor promotion by exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields below exposure limits for humans” is a replication study that used very, very low RF exposures (lower than the Ramazzini and NTP study) and combined the RF with a known carcinogen. Researchers found elevated lymphoma and significantly higher numbers of tumors in the lungs and livers in the animals exposed to both RF and the carcinogen, leading researchers to state that previous research (Tillman 2010) was confirmed and that “our results show that electromagnetic fields obviously enhance the growth of tumors” (Lerchl 2015).
 
So 4G is safer because it gives off LESS radiation? So people are ok with micro doses killing them softly the the difference between 4G and 5G is too much??
 
why google going to censor 5G doe? makes you think....think of ALL the other "stuff" google DOES NOT censor......something is definitely going on
 
Is Forbes.com a reputable source? No connection to elites no agenda there.
wired.com? Owned by Condé Nast
Snopes.com? :lol:


Mr Dink said:
As long as I can finally stream Karlee Grey in 4K 60FPS, it's all worth it to me
Click to expand...

Lol this is a pretty funny joke but the sheer horror in all this is that there are idiot morons who really think like this.
 
Trying to understand why my post from the Environmental Health Trust website was deleted. Is that not a reputable source? Someone is overstepping their boundaries

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

However, instead of prudent public health measures to ensure the public’s safety, governments such as the United States are quickly rolling out 5G networks in neighborhoods and are enacting various state and federal regulations to “streamline” and fasttrack the rollout. These regulations will...
ehtrust.org ehtrust.org

The Ramazzini Institute (RI) Study on Base Station RF was another large scale rat study that also found increases in the same heart cancers as the NTP study found—yet the Ramazzini rats were exposed to much lower levels of RF than the NTP rats. In fact, all the RI Ramazzini radiation exposures were below FCC limits, as the study was specifically designed to test the safety of RF limits for cell tower/base stations (Falconi 2018.)



Tumor promotion by exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields below exposure limits for humans” is a replication study that used very, very low RF exposures (lower than the Ramazzini and NTP study) and combined the RF with a known carcinogen. Researchers found elevated lymphoma and significantly higher numbers of tumors in the lungs and livers in the animals exposed to both RF and the carcinogen, leading researchers to state that previous research (Tillman 2010) was confirmed and that “our results show that electromagnetic fields obviously enhance the growth of tumors” (Lerchl 2015).



“The Human Skin as a Sub-THz Receiver – Does 5G Pose a Danger to It or Not?” and “The Modeling of the Absorbance of Sub-THz Radiation by Human Skin” are two papers by physicists presenting research that found higher 5G frequencies are intensely absorbed into human sweat ducts (in skin), at much higher absorption levels than other parts of our skin’s tissues (Betzalel 2017, Betzalel 2018). The researchers conclude, “we are raising a warning flag against the unrestricted use of sub-THz technologies for communication, before the possible consequences for public health are explored.”





“Exposure of Insects to Radio-Frequency Electromagnetic Fields from 2 to 120 GHz” published in Scientific Reports is the first study to investigate how insects (including the Western honeybee) absorb the higher frequencies (2 GHz to 120 GHz) to be used in the 4G/5G rollout. The scientific simulations showed increases in absorbed power between 3% to 370% when the insects were exposed to the frequencies. Researchers concluded, “This could lead to changes in insect behaviour, physiology, and morphology over time….”



Two recent papers that have investigated frequencies to be used in 5G have called out the need to reevaluate current guidelines due to the unique way higher frequencies interact with human tissue. These studies are clear documentation of the reality that 5G technology is being rolled out before adequate research on human exposures. “Systematic Derivation of Safety Limits for Time-Varying 5G Radiofrequency Exposure Based on Analytical Models and Thermal Dose concludes that the “results also show that the peak-to-average ratio of 1,000 tolerated by the International Council on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection guidelines may lead to permanent tissue damage after even short exposures, highlighting the importance of revisiting existing exposure guidelines.” “Human Exposure to RF Fields in 5G Downlink concludes “our results show that 5G downlink RF fields generate significantly higher power density (PD) and specific absorption rate (SAR) than a current cellular system. This paper also shows that SAR should also be taken into account for determining human RF exposure in the mmW downlink.”



“A review of the ecological effects of RF-EMF” reviewed 113 studies finding RF-EMF had a significant effect on birds, insects, other vertebrates, other organisms and plants in 70% of the studies (Cucurachi 2013). Development and reproduction in birds and insects were the most strongly affected. As an example of the several studies on wildlife impacts, a study focusing on RF from antennas found increased sperm abnormalities in mice exposed to RF from GSM antennas (Otitoloju 2010). Studies on bees have found behavioral effects (Kumar 2011, Favre 2011), disrupted navigation Goldsworthy 2009, Sainudeen 2011, Kimmel et al. 2007) decreasing egg laying rate (Sharma and Kumar, 2010) and reduced colony strength (Sharma and Kumar, 2010, Harst et al. 2006). Research has also found a high level of damage to trees from antenna radiation. For example, a field monitoring study spanning 9 years involving over 100 trees (Waldmann-Selsam 2016) found trees sustained more damage on the side of the tree facing the antenna.
 
5G Dangers Debunked? How the New York Times Joined the Economy of Doubt
If you want a fantastic illustration of how the economy of doubt plays out, look no further than the July 16, 2019 article published in the New York Times entitled “The 5G Health Hazard That Isn’t”.

And I’m going to dig a bit into the details here, because this is a really instructive lesson in how media distorts and manipulates science in the interest of wireless technology.

The Health Hazard That Is(n’t)
As the title suggests, the article sets out to demonstrate that impending 5G technology poses no threat to human health. Its argument hinges on one thing: a flaw in a graph drawn up by physicist Bill P. Curry in the year 2000.

To summarize: While investigating the effects of radio waves on human cells, Curry produced a report with a graph titled “Microwave Absorption in Brain Tissue (Grey Matter).” The graph, says The Times, “purported to show that tissue damage increases with the rising frequency of radio waves”.

According to The Times, there was just one problem. Curry’s tests were conducted in a lab, with isolated samples of tissue. In other words, they didn’t take real world conditions into account. And in real world conditions, cells deep inside the body are shielded by an important protective layer—our skin.

The NYT is calling out an important point here. One can’t assume that a causal relationship in one situation can automatically be applied to another.

And to ignore the shielding effects of skin is a pretty big oversight.

It’s after this that things get tricky, though. The piece claims that Curry’s discredited graph was the seed that, almost single-handedly, led to all future concerns about radiofrequency radiation.

“To no small degree,” says The Times, “the blossoming anxiety over the professed health risks of 5G technology can be traced to a single scientist and a single chart.”

This is not true.

An Incomplete Picture
Times writer William J. Broad dismisses Curry’s research outright based on the protective qualities of human skin.

“At higher radio frequencies, the skin acts as a barrier… Human skin blocks the even higher frequencies of sunlight,” he says.

But as we know, the skin is not a perfect barrier. It has limits: for example, too much sunlight (which is a higher energy form of EMF) causes melanoma.

What’s more, as Dr. Devra Davis points out in her excellent response to the piece, the graph refers to absorption, not tissue damage.



Potential Risks to Human Health from Future Sub-MM Communication Systems: Paul Ben-Ishai, PhD
In fact, as discussed above, human skin may actually amplify the health risks of EMF.

Research by Dr Paul Ben-Ishai et al at Ariel University in Israel has shown that the sweat glands in our skin act as antennae which amplify the absorption of radio frequency waves. “The presence of the sweat duct led to a high specific absorption rate (SAR) of the skin in extremely high frequency band,” they concluded.

The research, which Ben-Ishai, colleague Yuri Feldman and team have been working on for over a decade, proves that the amount of radiation your skin blocks or absorbs depends on a lot of factors, including how active your sweat glands are at the time of exposure.

You can already see how The Times’ assertion—that skin shields us from electromagnetic radiation and therefore 5G is safe—is simplistic to the point of misleading.

www.shieldyourbody.com

What are the Health Risks of 5G? All Your Questions Answered.

What are the health risks of 5G? And should you be worried? An in-depth look at the scientific research and what effects 5G could have for you.
www.shieldyourbody.com www.shieldyourbody.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

feeninlikejodeci
Have You Ever Seen A Dermatologist?
Replies
13
Views
1K
Donky
D
nako xl
Is Nike no longer as cool as it used to be?
11 12 13
Replies
324
Views
21K
wayniac211
wayniac211
barrebaby
So will we ever see JB drop the retro 4+ blue speckle that was supposed to be after 25 years of waiting?
Replies
11
Views
3K
airdhazzal
airdhazzal

Thread Gallery

View Full Gallery

The ultimate sneaker enthusiast community.

NikeTalk was created as a way of giving back to both the sneaker enthusiast community and to the greater global community of which we are all a part.

NikeTalk is NOT affiliated with Nike Inc. in any way, shape, or form. All opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of Nike, Inc.

© 1999-2024 NikeTalk.com

Share this page

Back
Top Bottom