Are you a 5G fan? Is W.H.O. a defender of humanity?

[danielson]

You might reconsider after hearing out this lady:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKDrui7ZMnw#action

[EldonW]

Here's an interesting article.
https://www.howtogeek.com/423720/how...h-risks-of-5g/

[MidnightCowboy]

IMO many humans already expose themselves to voluntary health risks through drugs, alcohol, smoking, obesity and lack of exercise to worry about what their phones might be doing as an extra.

[danielson]

That's it - if i understand your article correctly EldonW, until we can scientifically prove there are real health dangers, then, let's just go ahead and to the 5G thing.

It's like the asbestos scenario.
It stinks!
They proved asbestos has nasty health consequences, finally removed it after years of delay and now, with business pressure i suppose, they are pushing to re-introduce it.

Isn't this just like the tobacco business?
At first it's good for your health (i.e. publicity stunts with doctors promoting it),
then it's proven to provoke cancer
then they put labels to simply warn you of the dangers...

Business as usual.

[Remah]

Originally Posted by danielson

That's it - if i understand your article correctly EldonW, until we can scientifically prove there are real health dangers, then, let's just go ahead and to the 5G thing.

The current situation is that there is not enough evidence to conclusively disprove a causal relationship. But there is sufficient information for me to conclude that a significant causal relationship is unlikely at the low energy levels we experience. However, many people will assume the worst in which case it makes sense to limit exposure as much as possible.

AFAIK, the situation for non-ionizing radiation is somewhat different to that for smoking or asbestos. Here's some reasons why:

• Causal associations for smoking and asbestos were identified much earlier and were a lot more obvious. Wikipedia mentions "The coughing, throat irritation, and shortness of breath caused by smoking have always been obvious." The physical impact for non-ionizing radiation has not been identified except for the thermal effects which require unusual exposure.
• Explanatory models for smoking and asbestos diseases were developed quite quickly once there was a model for causes of cancer. There is as yet no similar theoretical model for illness due to non-ionizing radiation.
• There have already been large scale studies for non-ionizing radiation whereas such did not exist before the mid 20th century.
• People conflate non-ionizing (up to an including the visible spectrum, e.g. radio, mobile phones) and ionizing radiation (the visible spectrum and above e.g. X-rays, nuclear fission). See the chart in the following article which is worth a read anyway because it is another example of the difficulties with causation:
  A concerning new study links miscarriages to cellphone radiation. How worried should we be?

So is the causative relationship not yet revealed? There are at least three reasons I can think of:

• There are good reasons to fear government/state./industry measures to "hide the truth." As recently as the 1980/1990s we were still being told that blue asbestos was bad but white asbestos was OK. But since the advent of the world-wide web, vested interests are much less able to support such positions without exposure.
• We could take 30-70 years as representing how long it takes to reverse an entrenched position such as smoking (c70 years), asbestos (c50 years) and helicobacter causing stomach ulcers (accepted in 1987 to overturn the position established in 1954).
• We simply don't understand what is happening and therefore cannot yet produce a theoretical model for explaining causation.

First observed:
Cancer: 2500 BC
Asbestos: 2500 BC
Smoking: 3000 BC
Non-ionizing radiation: 1890 Guglielmo Marconi
Ionizing radiation: 1895 Wilhelm Röntgen

Industrial production started:
Asbestos: 1870 at Quebec and Clydebank
Smoking: 1880 James Bonsack's cigarette rolling machine
Non-ionizing radiation: 1912 Guglielmo Marconi radio sets
Ionizing radiation: 1900s in many radium products

First "scientific" diagnosis of illness:
Cancer: 1775 Perceval Pott
Asbestos: 1899-1906 Hubert Montague Murray
Smoking: 1761 John Hill
Non-ionizing radiation: ? (I can't find it, if it exists, so help needed)
Ionizing radiation: 1895 Wilhelm Röntgen (misattributed burns to ozone)

First compensation claims producing cause:
Asbestos: 1927/1929
Smoking: 1950s (but I thought there was something earlier)
Non-ionizing radiation: ? (I can't find it, if it exists, so help needed)
Ionizing radiation: mid-1920s

Causality successfully established:
Asbestos: by 1930
Smoking: 1951

[eyeb]

not health related, but 5G operates on the same spectrum as the weather forecasting instruments, NASA/NOAA has put this out, not sure how much this affects people outside the US though

but why do we need 5G? We have gigabit internet at home, but why does a cellphone need that much data? what is everyone doing on a phone/tablet? the screen is too small to watch movies comfortably when a tv/computer/laptop is so easily in reach these days. Games don't need that fast of a speed either, they need fast pings but not speed (i forget ping terminology)

outside of youtubers uploading video all day outside of the house, who benefits from 5G vs 4G?

[deya]

I wondered the same as eyeb, why do we need 5G? The UK government is investing heavily in this new technology and I keep hearing stuff on the news about Huawei/5G and spying;

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-48618010

More UK cities are testing 5G. Here's how it could be useful;

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/5g-u...-wolverhampton

.... maybe explains some of its uses.

The Gateshead Council street light conspiracy theory;

https://www.newstatesman.com/politic...ght-conspiracy

..... maybe its other uses, and the risks - or not.

5G will enable the Chinese government to spy on our government while our government spy on us?

As with all such things as these, the more you read the less you learn, and 5G will become a part of our lives one way or another, whether we like it or not.

The one thing I do know for sure is that all new technology eventually costs me more money

[MidnightCowboy]

In terms of personal technology the ability for humans to communicate one on one has declined despite the hardware developments. Folks are always connected to something but mostly nothing ‘real’. For young people especially the line between the real world and the fantasy world of Faceblok and Instagrub is so blurred many are unable to tell the difference. This is why so many governments target social media users with fake news because the believe it rate is so high.

The reason for 5G is the same as between Vista, Windows 7 and 10. Without 5G there would be no need to ‘upgrade’ and incur yet more credit card debt.

[deya]

Ah, 'upgrade' .... a word I've started to dread. So many things offer upgrades now. Tech stuff - various devices. Reservations, hotels, flights etc. and vehicles to name but a few. When you ask why some of the vehicles we use have increased so much in price since the last one we bought they say, 'oh, but the upgraded this and upgraded that have to incur extra cost, but it makes them more efficient'. Not really, maybe fuel costs, but we used to be able to fix most things ourselves or our plant mechanic could but now we have to call NASA or, it seems, people with the same technological know how which is awfully expensive. I dread the invoices. And the upgraded ones with new technology get stuck in two inch of mud on site, where the older ones would happily plough through ten inch of the stuff. More time and money spent dragging them clear - with one of the older ones.

So I've no doubt that 5G will cost me more money but I probably won't even notice the difference in performance, speed and what have you. I don't need 5G to fry my brain, keeping up with all the latest upgraded technology and its resulting costs already do that nicely thanks

I've come to the conclusion that Smart Technology is just a way of extracting more money from us, one way or another. If it affects our health along the way it won't bother them one jot.

[EldonW]

Originally Posted by danielson

That's it - if i understand your article correctly EldonW, until we can scientifically prove there are real health dangers, then, let's just go ahead and to the 5G thing.

Until medical science can prove otherwise, yes.

Do you know who Olga Sheean (the lady from the YouTube video) is?

Olga offers a unique holistic approach to identifying and resolving relationship issues, personal problems, health challenges, nutritional deficiencies and whatever else may be preventing you from living the life you want.

https://olgasheean.com/rates-services/

Be sure to glance over her rates.