5g rollout and CFS

Davsey27

Davsey27

Senior Member
Messages
523
Rufous McKinney said:
There is a great book, a fictional story called Ishmael, by Daniel Quinn. It speaks to this issue quite remarkably.

And then, to feel better, I love Hank Wesselman's experience described in- SpiritWalker.

That 5G won't mean a hill of beans, later on.
Click to expand...

Ishmael was a good read indeed
Wishful said:
I assume that there have been many studies on that. The government had to base their 'safe levels' on some sort of scientific studies. My guess is that many of the studies showing no health effects simply didn't get published because they aren't considered interesting enough. Any study, no matter how badly done, that shows health risks will probably get published in the health scare magazines and other popular media.

If there were serious health hazards from EMFs, it should be easy to prove. The fact that there aren't any conclusive studies proving harm convinces me that it's safe at the present levels.

Where are these government studies on 4gLTE and 5g?

I have spoken to Martin Pall a leading researcher and he is not popular in any media nor magazine.He took the time to speak with me on his cell phone and gave me free advice.This has also been my experience with another guy who is a consultant and normally charges 100 an hour after he heard my case he still gives
me free advice.These people that I have spoke with have no desire to scare others nor become famous as there advice was free and I can tell that they genuinely care about this condition
I think it was mostly 2G in Vancouver in 2001. Just checked: 3G was first introduced in eastern Canada in 2006, well after I developed ME. I've lived in a low-EMF location since 2002, which didn't affect my ME. So no, cell towers weren't a factor in my ME either.

Yes, but my symptoms get worse after a trip into town, where several cell towers are located! Is that proof of EMF sensitivity? Nope. I have the same increase in symptoms when I drive the same sort of distance in low EMF areas, so it's the driving that's a problem. My truck shields me significantly from EMFs anyway.
Click to expand...
 
Davsey27

Davsey27

Senior Member
Messages
523
Wishful said:
I assume that there have been many studies on that. The government had to base their 'safe levels' on some sort of scientific studies. My guess is that many of the studies showing no health effects simply didn't get published because they aren't considered interesting enough. Any study, no matter how badly done, that shows health risks will probably get published in the health scare magazines and other popular media.

If there were serious health hazards from EMFs, it should be easy to prove. The fact that there aren't any conclusive studies proving harm convinces me that it's safe at the present levels.



I think it was mostly 2G in Vancouver in 2001. Just checked: 3G was first introduced in eastern Canada in 2006, well after I developed ME. I've lived in a low-EMF location since 2002, which didn't affect my ME. So no, cell towers weren't a factor in my ME either.

Yes, but my symptoms get worse after a trip into town, where several cell towers are located! Is that proof of EMF sensitivity? Nope. I have the same increase in symptoms when I drive the same sort of distance in low EMF areas, so it's the driving that's a problem. My truck shields me significantly from EMFs anyway.
Click to expand...


Where are these government studies on 4gLTE and 5g?

It would be nice to see them. I am skeptical that such studies exist.The Russian studies came out well before magazines and popular media

Also why do they need to go to the level of disguising cell towers as trees and hiding them if it’s not bad?

I have spoken to Martin Pall a leading researcher and he is not popular in any media nor magazine.He took the time to speak with me over the phone and open up about the emf issue and gave me free advice.He was on his way to board a flight yet took a call from a random person

This was after i called the university he use to work at and they told me he
no longer works there and were kind enough to give me his personal number.
Washington state university if i am
not mistaken


The vibe of openness that i got from this experience led meto believe that this is not a superficial guy and he really cares about what he does.

This has also been my experience with another guy who is a consultant and normally charges 100 an hour after he heard my case he still gives me free advice.These people that I have spoke with have no desire to scare others nor become famous as there advice was free and I can tell that they genuinely care about

I don’t even think CNN,Fox news or any popular media would allow these researchers to speak since they support telecomm and likeIt when you buy the newest iPhone as they want you plugged in.

Imagine if most people stopped watching cnn and did their own research instead of constant social media,Netflix.etc

The corporations will have less control
however seeing the reality of the programming(i sometimes get sucked in when distracted)

However looking at the course of human history I don’t see this happening anytime soon though I hope that I am wrong.

Thank You Mrs WIshful
 
Last edited:
Wayne

Wayne

Senior Member
Messages
4,792
Location
Ashland, Oregon
My wife started a local activism group a couple years ago, first trying to stop smart meters in our area, and now trying to stop 5G. I really don't have the energy to write extensively about what she's discovered, or post links that may be appropriate.

Suffice it to say however, I strongly believe the dangers of 5G are very real, especially for those of us with ME/CFS. I also vociferously disagree with those who downplay those dangers. -- My understanding is that Poland is on course to prohibit--or has already prohibited--5G in their country. There are other examples of efforts being made worldwide, at many different levels. to stop the whole 5G rollout.
 
JES

JES

Senior Member
Messages
1,392
Davsey27 said:
You raise some good points mrs wishful
but before something is rolled out is the burden of proof on us to prove that it is safe or on those that are introducing it to ecological systems?
Click to expand...

In principle, I would say yes. However, it's important to remember we are still talking about the same radio waves used in 4G, 3G and other networks, the main difference is that the frequency is higher with 5G. None of the previous mobile network technologies were ever conclusively proven safe. So it's the same story here, more studies are a good thing, but finding out the true effects of 5G in a practical setting can be very complex if not impossible.

To re-iterate the point I made in my previous post, the simplest solution to avoid radiation is to stop using your smartphone, at least according to a molecular biology expert interviewed in this article.
5G antenna will be on every car and lamp post in smart cities and sensors will also need to be fitted in houses, as millimetre waves can't pass through walls and windows, Leszczynski explained, but this is not where most radiation is likely to come from.
"Like now, with 3G and 4G networks, most radiation will come from cell phones," he said, "Cell towers will provide minuscule radiation compared to this".
Click to expand...
 
Davsey27

Davsey27

Senior Member
Messages
523
JES said:
In principle, I would say yes. However, it's important to remember we are still talking about the same radio waves used in 4G, 3G and other networks, the main difference is that the frequency is higher with 5G. None of the previous mobile network technologies were ever conclusively proven safe. So it's the same story here, more studies are a good thing, but finding out the true effects of 5G in a practical setting can be very complex if not impossible.

To re-iterate the point I made in my previous post, the simplest solution to avoid radiation is to stop using your smartphone, at least according to a molecular biology expert interviewed in this article.
Click to expand...

Yes but what about those around you who use cell phones?I measured with my acousticomm meter and found that if a person has a cell phone near you tnat the levels go up within 20-30 ft

I have walked into bars where there are a lot of cell phones and WiFi and numbers
go up quite a bit

Not sure this is avoidable

They say that 40 ft is good distance from modern cell phones.5g will be at a
higher power density so imagine walking into a store where it’s unavoidable to come into close proximity to others and a bunch of people are carrying cell phones.

Telecom are attempting to do something that is very unethical to humanity as well as other organisms
 
W

Wishful

Senior Member
Messages
6,438
Location
Alberta
Davsey27 said:
Where are these government studies on 4gLTE and 5g?
Click to expand...

YOur best source for that request is your government. If you ask for the material that the regulations were based on, they should provide it to you, or at least point you in the right direction.

Davsey27 said:
Also why do they need to go to the level of disguising cell towers as trees and hiding them if it’s not bad?
Click to expand...

That's an easy question to answer: because humans are irrational. Humans fear things they don't understand, without any evidence for their fears, so it makes sense to disguise the towers.

Hmmm, I wonder how many of the people complaining about disguised cell towers would also scream and rant if their internet service was unavailable (due to no towers nearby). As I said, humans are irrational.

Davsey27 said:
5g will be at a
higher power density
Click to expand...

Will it? I haven't read anything to suggest that. They still have to abide by the government's regulations about power level. Power levels should be about the same as for 4G networks, maybe less, since the sensitivity of receivers keeps increasing.

Davsey27 said:
I measured with my acousticomm meter and found that if a person has a cell phone near you tnat the levels go up within 20-30 ft
Click to expand...

What are the actual readings, in dBm? dBm is the ratio of power compared to 1 mW. If the level measured 1' away from the phone is -40 dBm, and 20' away is -60 dBm, then the power is 20 dB (100x) higher at the 1' range. You then might think that the 100x power increase is scary. However, if the actual reading are -150 dBm and -170 dBm, then the actual power level at 1' is 10^-12 W (if I haven't screwed up simple arithmetic). One picowatt is not something to be scared of. The natural background level might be higher than that. So, don't be misled by big numbers. Always consider what the numbers actually represent.

BTW, what does your microwave meter read when shielded?


JES said:
None of the previous mobile network technologies were ever conclusively proven safe.
Click to expand...

...or conclusively proven unsafe. As you say, it's a complex issue and extremely hard to prove 0.00000% harm. The lack of strong evidence of harm from 2G and 3G and 4G service, despite all the attempts to find such evidence, speaks pretty loudly to me.
 
JES

JES

Senior Member
Messages
1,392
I stopped watching when the first thing he mentioned was that current cell towers operate at 1.5-2.8 MHz. What we need is more studies, not a guy telling us "facts" who doesn't recognize the difference between MHz and GHz. He also doesn't seem to grasp the difference between frequency and power.
 
Hip

Hip

Senior Member
Messages
18,302
JES said:
What we need is more studies, not a guy telling us "facts" who doesn't recognize the difference between MHz and GHz.
Click to expand...

Indeed! Why is that people online worried about 5G appear to have little knowledge of electricity and magnetism? You'd think that if you are going to go online and give your opinions about 5G, you'd at least have a background in the subject you are presenting. I guess everyone wants their 15 minutes of fame.


The 60 GHz electromagnetic waves used by 5G do not penetrate the body any deeper than the skin. 60 GHz wave penetration depth into body tissue is only about 1 mm (see this graph).

Thus 5G cannot affect your brain, internal tissues or internal organs. For those who believe in tin hats to protect them from electromagnetic radiation, in the case of 5G, your own body skin acts like a built-in tin covering.

There is some concern that 60 GHz waves might have adverse effects on the cornea of the eye, but the studies I have seen examining this do not indicate any ill effects.


Thus if you are using 5G on your smartphone, you are not going to get any of those electromagnetic waves entering your deep body tissues — unlike 3G or 4G, which are able to penetrate deep into the body.
 
Hip

Hip

Senior Member
Messages
18,302
As far as the skin is concerned, could 60 GHz electromagnetic waves have ill effects on that?

One line of research I always found intriguing is the work of Hallberg and Johansson, who published studies indicating a link between FM radio waves and melanoma skin cancer. They believe that the rollout of FM radio broadcasting from the 1950s onwards may explain the large rise in melanoma rates that appeared in the 1950s.

Hallberg and Johansson suggest that the particular frequency of FM radio waves (which in the West is 87 to 108 MHz) do not cause skin cancer, but impede the cellular repair mechanisms in the skin which normally work to eliminate incipient cancers caused by sunlight.

Hallberg and Johansson also think that metal spring mattresses we sleep on may be amplifying these FM radio waves. In this 2016 paper, Hallberg found that horizontally polarized FM radio waves (which Hallberg says will resonate in metal spring mattress) are associated with increased cancer risk, whereas vertically polarized FM radio waves (which do not resonate in mattresses) seem to cause no ill health effects. But this article says that's all a lot of nonsense.

There is a Scientific American blog article on their theories here.

Unfortunately there are confounding factors in this story, like the fact that from the 1960s onwards, as air travel became more affordable, people started having more holidays in the sun.
 
Last edited:
Davsey27

Davsey27

Senior Member
Messages
523
Hip said:
Indeed! Why is that people online worried about 5G appear to have little knowledge of electricity and magnetism? You'd think that if you are going to go online and give your opinions about 5G, you'd at least have a background in the subject you are presenting. I guess everyone wants their 15 minutes of fame.


The 60 GHz electromagnetic waves used by 5G do not penetrate the body any deeper than the skin. 60 GHz wave penetration depth into body tissue is only about 1 mm (see this graph).

Thus 5G cannot affect your brain, internal tissues or internal organs. For those who believe in tin hats to protect them from electromagnetic radiation, in the case of 5G, your own body skin acts like a built-in tin covering.

There is some concern that 60 GHz waves might have adverse effects on the cornea of the eye, but the studies I have seen examining this do not indicate any ill effects.


Thus if you are using 5G on your smartphone, you are not going to get any of those electromagnetic waves entering your deep body tissues — unlike 3G or 4G, which are able to penetrate deep into the body.
Click to expand...

I appreciate your input Mr Hip

That graph doesn’t surprise me
With all due respect this is a billion dollar
industry.When you have money and power you will find ways to come up with reports like this but what does this really mean...why not look deeper into day to day exposures and the impact of the human body through labs?

You need a controlled environment like a restaraunt with several people using their 5g cell phones and WiFi routers
Then you measure the impact on the nervous system perhaps through eeg,endocrine system,immune system,cardiovascular system,digestive system then you put up the before and after results as this mimics real life exposures.If you are making billions of dollars like telecomm is why not take a
moment to do a comprehensive study
on the human body?

Perhaps have some volunteers do it 4hrs a day for a week and take before and after labs

To me this data will be a good indicator and if one truly cares for the health and well being of others time can be made to get this done

I think some people are not knowledgeable about the technicality of the numbers but can feel what’s going on.There have been plenty of studies done on the effects of emf on living organisms.When mankind believes it is the center of the universe cut down trees
Which give oxygen to living systems,destroy ecosystems it tends to backfire as this is not sustainable long-term.Overpopulation,the idea that mankind must go on to space I think comes at a cost to the ecosystem like
Ellon Musk wants.

.The current speeds are already fast enough.If there was only dsl cable on earth and no WiFi this would not effect human happiness.

Everywhere I go nowadays when people
Are waiting they are plugged into their cell phones.Addicted to technology and not living in harmony with nature.As a consequence of this demanding addiction
some of us our paying the price.

Axley and Orwell predicted this would happen

Thank you mr Hip i appreciate your opinion
 
sb4

sb4

Senior Member
Messages
1,908
Location
United Kingdom
Hip said:
The 60 GHz electromagnetic waves used by 5G do not penetrate the body any deeper than the skin. 60 GHz wave penetration depth into body tissue is only about 1 mm (see this graph).
Click to expand...
I agree with most of what you say however some anti 5G people acknowledge this. I am specifically talking about Jack Kruse. Not read much of his stuff in a while but he was saying that it effecting the skin is where the bad effects come from. I should imagine it is to do with altering the light that our skin sees as the skin is sensetive to these changes. I think I read a study one time of shining a blue light LED on the back of someones knee (no eye exposure) and this caused increased cortisol. Since Kruse is all about lights effects on the body I think there could be merit to this. Though I do not know any where near enough to state mechanisms etc.
 
M

Markus83

Senior Member
Messages
277
Hip said:
The 60 GHz electromagnetic waves used by 5G do not penetrate the body any deeper than the skin.
Click to expand...
In Germany 5G frequencies were currently auctioned by the goverment and they ranged at 2 and 3,6 GHz. With 60 GHz you can do a sight-to-sight communication, but I think not even using a cell phone in your house would be possible at this frequency. So the question is more: What are the health risks @ 2 and 3,6 GHz.
 
Hip

Hip

Senior Member
Messages
18,302
Davsey27 said:
When you have money and power you will find ways to come up with reports like this
Click to expand...

The attenuation of electromagnetic waves by various materials (water, brick, glass, biological tissues, etc) is a well-studied area, and data about the penetration of EM waves into materials is known by all electrical engineers. It's not something you can fake or lie about.

It's well known that the 5G 60 GHz signals are very easily blocked, even by the leaves on a tree, and it struggles to get through the low-emissivity glass windows used on modern buildings. That's the problem with 5G, it's blocked by pretty much everything. Thus the issue with 5G is not one of being bathed everywhere you go in 60 GHz electromagnetic radiation, but rather whether you will be able to get a signal at all!



sb4 said:
effecting the skin is where the bad effects come from
Click to expand...

It may have some ill effects on the skin. As I mentioned above, the ~100 MHz radiation from FM radio stations (which completely surrounds us) may be causing increased skin cancer, according to Hallberg and Johansson, though I've not seen any other scientists apart from these two show any interest in a cancer-related biological effect of FM radio waves.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back