dslreports logo
Search similar:


uniqs
22

DavePR
join:2008-06-04
Canyon Country, CA

DavePR

Member

Is 5G making you slightly sick?

Check out this language. Scientists never say never.

"Based on our study, we don't think 5G radiation is that harmful," said Subham Dasgupta, a postdoctoral fellow at Oregon State University, which published findings in early July from a study into the effects of 5G radiation on zebrafish. "It's predominately benign."
mmmdonuts
anti-media
join:2011-02-28
Raleigh, NC

mmmdonuts

Member

said by DavePR:

Check out this language. Scientists never say never.

"Based on our study, we don't think 5G radiation is that harmful," said Subham Dasgupta, a postdoctoral fellow at Oregon State University, which published findings in early July from a study into the effects of 5G radiation on zebrafish. "It's predominately benign."

Well, I know I'm getting sick of it and all the hyperbolic emissions.

DavePR
join:2008-06-04
Canyon Country, CA

DavePR

Member

"The RFR Rules. In 1996, the [Federal Communications] Commission amended its rules to adopt new guidelines and procedures for evaluating the environmental effects of RFR from FCC regulated transmitters. The Commission adopted maximum permissible exposure (“MPE”) limits for electric and magnetic field strength and power density for transmitters operating at frequencies from 300 kHz to 100 GHz. These MPE limits, which are set forth in Section 1.1310 of the Rules, include limits for “occupational/controlled” exposure and limits for “general population/uncontrolled” exposure. The occupational exposure limits apply in situations in which persons are exposed as a consequence of their employment, provided those persons are fully aware of the potential for exposure and can exercise control over their exposure. The limits of occupational exposure also apply in situations where an individual is transient through a location where the occupational limits apply, provided that he or she is made aware of the potential for exposure. The more stringent general population or public exposure limits apply in situations in which the general public may be exposed, or in which persons exposed as a consequence of their employment may not be fully aware of the potential for exposure or cannot exercise control over their exposure. Licensees can demonstrate compliance by restricting public access to areas where RFR exceeds the public MPE limits."

If non-ionizing radiation is harmless why does the FCC regulate it so strictly?

Anonee241
@47.13.109.x

Anonee241 to DavePR

Anon

to DavePR
The answer is no. The whole 5G( more accurately mmwave as 5G goes all teh way down to 600 MHz ) is dangerous is based on the short wavelengths. yes ordinary light has a much much smaller wavelength. So how come light bulbs don't make people sick?

pende_tim
Premium Member
join:2004-01-04
Selbyville, DE

pende_tim to DavePR

Premium Member

to DavePR
That explains why my zebrafish are acting strange. Must be the 5G bleeding into rural NW NJ from New York. /s
pende_tim

pende_tim to DavePR

Premium Member

to DavePR
We are talking a comparison of a person working with "some up close and personal facetime" on a magnetron as compared to a person 100' away from a cell tower with much less ERP.
AppFarmer
join:2016-05-24
Salinas, CA
·AT&T Wireless Br..

AppFarmer to Anonee241

Member

to Anonee241
said by Anonee241 :

The answer is no. The whole 5G( more accurately mmwave as 5G goes all teh way down to 600 MHz ) is dangerous is based on the short wavelengths. yes ordinary light has a much much smaller wavelength. So how come light bulbs don't make people sick?

disclaimer: I have no particular opinion either way about mmWave. The following is only a rational response regarding the safety of light.

Infrared is just next to visible light in the EM spectrum and is known to affect biological organisms that cannot "see" it. Continued exposure at levels higher than those naturally occurring on Earth's surface can make the organism feel quite uncomfortable or even kill (cook) it.

Likewise, ultraviolet radiation is just slightly off from visible light and is known to damage exposed skin and DNA, increasing the chance of cancer and, eventually, death.

Neither of them is considered harmful for short term, distributed exposure. The negative effects only come from sustained and/or high power exposure.

The effects of sustained, high power (higher than naturally occurring) exposure to mmWave are simply unknown.

I know that it is relatively simple to shield from mmWave and that it is a fairly directional signal. As such, it is prudent to employ such safeguards to minimize exposure.

DavePR
join:2008-06-04
Canyon Country, CA

DavePR to pende_tim

Member

to pende_tim
I have a Vietnam era magnetron hanging on a nail under my genuine Coca Cola bottle opener. It catches the caps. If there is no hazard from EM why does the FCC insist licensees be responsible for warning the public?

The cell site isn't the issue. The transmitter you put next to your head is possibly hazardous.

Selenia
Gentoo Convert
Premium Member
join:2006-09-22
Fort Smith, AR

Selenia to AppFarmer

Premium Member

to AppFarmer
Well you figure, ultraviolet light is on the shorter side from visible light. The waves get even more damaging as you get shorter than that into gamma rays and cosmic rays. To the longer side, you have infrared light. Some devices produce that in high volume to produce heat. It's never been determined to be harmful unless of course you burn yourself on the hot device. Radio waves, even millimeter wave, are much longer than infrared. So we're not dealing with any shorter waves than what we have already considered to be safe and benign.

Anon7cdff
@47.13.109.x

Anon7cdff to AppFarmer

Anon

to AppFarmer
The point is that mmwave is not anywhere close to light or even infrared where talking degrees of magnitude. A light bulb puts out more power than fricken 5G

Anonee241
@47.13.109.x

Anonee241 to Selenia

Anon

to Selenia
said by Selenia:

Well you figure, ultraviolet light is on the shorter side from visible light. The waves get even more damaging as you get shorter than that into gamma rays and cosmic rays. To the longer side, you have infrared light. Some devices produce that in high volume to produce heat. It's never been determined to be harmful unless of course you burn yourself on the hot device. Radio waves, even millimeter wave, are much longer than infrared. So we're not dealing with any shorter waves than what we have already considered to be safe and benign.

Exactly. 70 GHz which is far above anything 5G uses is 4.3 MILLION nanometers infrared is about 800-1000 nanomters, visible light is 380 - 740 nanometers. UV is about 10-400 nanometers Xrays top out at 10 nanometers. Also the fact that 5G radiation is non-ionizing
cramer
Premium Member
join:2007-04-10
Raleigh, NC

cramer to DavePR

Premium Member

to DavePR
Because people are irrational (and bad at math.) And the FCC (government) will attempt to regulate everything.
AppFarmer
join:2016-05-24
Salinas, CA
·AT&T Wireless Br..

AppFarmer to Anon7cdff

Member

to Anon7cdff
said by Anon7cdff :

The point is that mmwave is not anywhere close to light or even infrared where talking degrees of magnitude. A light bulb puts out more power than fricken 5G

Quite true. However, the response was to whether light makes people sick. It can. (if you prefer, you can interview migraineurs)

mmWave falls between infrared and the frequency used to operate microwave ovens. While the spectrum is non-ionizing, its long term effects are not absolutely known. Thus, careful design and proper shielding are not out of line to request even if the risk is low.

Anon7cdff
@47.13.109.x

Anon7cdff

Anon

said by AppFarmer:

Quite true. However, the response was to whether light makes people sick. It can. (if you prefer, you can interview migraineurs)

Their situation has nothing to do with 5G, 4G or any G. A lot of thats in their head anyway

mmWave falls between infrared and the frequency used to operate microwave ovens. While the spectrum is non-ionizing, its long term effects are not absolutely known. Thus, careful design and proper shielding are not out of line to request even if the risk is low.

Please stop. There is low chance a light bulb will give you cancer. I don't see people calling for banning lightbulbs. Idiots have been saying this since the invention of electricity then radio then TV then cell phones etc etc. If we listened to them we'd still be using candles and riding around using horses.

DavePR
join:2008-06-04
Canyon Country, CA

DavePR

Member

Retinal phototoxicity and the evaluation of the blue light hazard of a new solid-state lighting technology

»www.nature.com/articles/ ··· -63442-5