5G

[CritchSmile]

Unsafe imo.

[Charlie Kelly]

Reasoning? 

I've not read into it at all mainly due to the Coronavirus conspiracies but would be interested to hear why it's deemed unsafe.

[Christian Benorchgrevink]

[Shteve]

Would prefer more grass pitches, especially in the top flight.

[Fraggle]

Fuck off with this moonhowling shite.

[Felix]

Ridiculous OP.

There is literally ZERO evidence of it being unsafe.

Incidentally, 5G is being installed in places like Orkney, FOC by local businesses in partnership with the ISP's - which is giving whole communities access to the internet not to mention giving emergency services better connectivity in reaching previously listed "black spots"

[CritchSmile]

http://www.5gappeal.eu/

https://www.jrseco.com/wp-content/upload...torium.pdf

https://www.researchgate.net/publication..._radiation

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/e...172_EN.pdf

https://www.ft.com/content/848c5b44-4d7a...d18ec715f5

Had a few conversations with my colleague who's a physicist professor and he's against it on two grounds. His work was on signal processing also artificial intelligence. He reckons it is a health risk and also provides opportunities for the "internet of things" to expand which may be nice for a consumer, but gives governments more opportunities to control populations. There's a bigger risk than ever that we are entering a type of authoritarian capitalism, so it's something to be considered. A) Is it safe? (unproven) B) Is it necessary?

[Felix]

http://www.5gappeal.eu/

https://www.jrseco.com/wp-content/upload...torium.pdf

https://www.researchgate.net/publication..._radiation

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/e...172_EN.pdf

https://www.ft.com/content/848c5b44-4d7a...d18ec715f5

Had a few conversations with my colleague who's a physicist professor and he's against it on two grounds. His work was on signal processing also artificial intelligence. He reckons it is a health risk and also provides opportunities for the "internet of things" to expand which may be nice for a consumer, but gives governments more opportunities to control populations. There's a bigger risk than ever that we are entering a type of authoritarian capitalism, so it's something to be considered. A) Is it safe? (unproven) B) Is it necessary?

Can't tell if serious.



So it's more a "big brother" type of issue here, as opposed to an actual, literal, health one?

[CritchSmile]

So it's more a "big brother" type of issue here, as opposed to an actual, literal, health one?

Why didn't you click the links?

[CritchSmile]

Our experience with the EU and the Governments of the Nordic countries suggests that the majority of decision makers are scientifcally uninformed on health risks from RF radia-tion (62). In addition, they seem to be uninterested to being informed by scientists representing the majority of the scientific community, i.e., those scientists who are concerned about the increasing evidence or even proof of harmful health effects below the ICNIRP guidelines (www.emfscientist.org). Instead, they rely on evaluations with inborn errors of conflicts, such as ICNIRP. In fact, the ICNIRP, with the support of WHO and major telecommunications companies, has been rather successful in implementing their views in the EU and world-wide. Their guidelines seem to be based on the omission of scientific facts. Thus, their possible ignorance of the health risks is of concern, as well as their reluctance to adhere to warnings from large numbers of scientists around the world.

It is striking that 5G is deployed without previous scientifc evaluation of health risks. Not only cancer risks, but also other health effects such as fertility, cognitive and neurobehavioral effects, oxidative stress and electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) have been associated with RF exposure [for a more detailed discussion on this tope, please see previous publica-tions (1,7,8,28,35)]. It is thus noteworthy that the ICNIRP thermal paradigm is still used for the evaluation of the health risks associated with RF radiation. One issue of major concern is that there seems to be conicts of interest among persons in the evaluating groups. Furthermore the same persons may often be found in different bodies, thereby in fact citing themselves representing a cartel (https://www.saferemr.com/2018/07/icnirps...radio.html). This has been outlined in peer‑reviewed publications (9,10)

https://www.researchgate.net/publication..._radiation

[Felix]

Why didn't you click the links?

Don't need to.

You're aware that a 5g mast pumps out a whopping 40w of microwave energy?

Your own microwave oven chucks out more - mine is 800W.

Like I said, absolutely ridiculous tinfoil beliefs from the hard of thinking.

[CritchSmile]

Don't need to.

You're aware that a 5g mast pumps out a whopping 40w of microwave energy?

Your own microwave oven chucks out more - mine is 800W.

Like I said, absolutely ridiculous tinfoil beliefs from the hard of thinking.

From the people I've spoken to, a little more research needs to go into this before it is set up around the globe.

It's clear you're within the industry so get hostile about this. I'll continue to keep an open mind for now.

[Nive la France]

A 2016 review of scientific articles, covering experimental data on the oxidative effects of low-intensity radiofrequency radiation in living cells, finds that, among 100 currently available peer-reviewed studies (18 in vitro studies, 73 studies in animals, 3 studies in plants and 6 studies in humans), '... dealing with oxidative effects of low-intensity radiofrequency radiation, in general, 93 confirmed that radiofrequency radiation induces oxidative effects in biological systems'. More
precisely, in 58 studies of laboratory rats, 54 show positive results, and 4 of 6 studies in humans were positive. In addition, 17 of the 18 of the in vitro studies were positive, including two on human spermatozoa and two on human blood cells. According to the authors, 'The analysis of modern data
on biological effects of low-intensity radiofrequency radiation (RFR) leads to a firm conclusion that this physical agent is a powerful oxidative stressor for living cells'.

From one of the links Grumble posted

[CritchSmile]

A 2016 review of scientific articles, covering experimental data on the oxidative effects of low-intensity radiofrequency radiation in living cells, finds that, among 100 currently available peer-reviewed studies (18 in vitro studies, 73 studies in animals, 3 studies in plants and 6 studies in humans), '... dealing with oxidative effects of low-intensity radiofrequency radiation, in general, 93 confirmed that radiofrequency radiation induces oxidative effects in biological systems'. More
precisely, in 58 studies of laboratory rats, 54 show positive results, and 4 of 6 studies in humans were positive. In addition, 17 of the 18 of the in vitro studies were positive, including two on human spermatozoa and two on human blood cells. According to the authors, 'The analysis of modern data
on biological effects of low-intensity radiofrequency radiation (RFR) leads to a firm conclusion that this physical agent is a powerful oxidative stressor for living cells'.


From one of the links Grumble posted

but Orkney tho

[Nive la France]

Reading those, it seems to do something to most living cells. On that basis alone it needs more research before mass rollout imo.

[Drederick Shanktum]

Sunlight does a lot to all living cells, pretty sure we should stick something in front of the sun until we know for sure what impact it has on everyone.

[Big Physical Acey]

Relieved to see that the finest scientific minds on TalkHearts are on the case.

[Papin]

From the people I've spoken to, a little more research needs to go into this before it is set up around the globe.

It's clear you're within the industry so get hostile about this. I'll continue to keep an open mind for now.

You said it was unsafe.

[CritchSmile]

Sunlight does a lot to all living cells, pretty sure we should stick something in front of the sun until we know for sure what impact it has on everyone.

Ever heard of skin cancer?

We do, it's called sunscreen.

[CritchSmile]

You said it was unsafe.

That's my opinion at the moment, yep. Safety risk is probably my more accurate stance.

So if there is research that proves it's safe to roll out en masse, then I will be glad to change my opinion.