5G Health Claims and Theories

[derrick06]

I'm noticing more and more concerns as well as conspiracies regarding 5G. From the claim that it can possibly be used as a weapon based on the US Department of Defense Active Denial non lethal weapon seen here (Which isn't the same thing by the way) ( https://jnlwp.defense.gov/About/Frequently-Asked-Questions/Active-Denial-System-FAQs/ )

To more simple concerns where people feel that big business is covering up possible health risks. Some articles I have found from reasonable sources state concerns that don't seem unreasonable to consider like this quote from a conference at Israel Institute for Advanced Studies at Hebrew University states

"There is an urgent need to evaluate 5G health effects now before millions are exposed…. We need to know if 5G increases the risk of skin diseases such as melanoma or other skin cancers," stated Ron Melnick, the National Institutes of Health scientist, now retired, who led the design of the National Toxicology Program study on cell phone radiofrequency radiation."

( https://ehtrust.org/internet-things...ested-5g-technology-international-conference/ )

Now that article is a few years old and I did find more recent ones discussing matters such as this one ( https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-51613580 ) from the UK discussing measurements for safety limits by a regulator within the country.

" But Ofcom, the UK regulator, found no identifiable risks in its first tests since 5G technology was deployed. The highest result they found for the 5G band was 0.039% of the recommended exposure limit. Those limits are set by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) - non-ionizing meaning the type that does not damage DNA and cells."

The article even evaluates a bit further stating " The World Health Organization, meanwhile, classified radio frequency radiation as a "possible carcinogenic". That puts it in the same category as pickled vegetables or talcum powder but not as dangerous as alcohol or processed meat. "


OK interesting stuff indeed, an article by Wired looking into the matter elaborates further. ( https://www.wired.co.uk/article/5g-health-risks-concerns )

" RT America and many online discussions refer to the emitted signals as "radiation", seemingly associating them with ionising rays at the far end of the electromagnetic spectrum, such as X-rays and ultraviolet rays, which can break apart DNA and trigger genetic mutations that lead to cancer. But not all radiation is bad. The low-energy radio waves used in telecommunications lie at the opposite end of the spectrum with frequencies between 300 MHz and 300 GHz. And they bear an unfitting name. "Microwave radiation as a concept is very misunderstood. Where people get mixed up is when they think of microwaves, they think of a microwave heater," says Grimes, and adds that, because people rely but do not fully understand how the technology works, there is a gap of misunderstanding and misinformation. "

A couple of paragraphs in this article by Forbes ( https://www.forbes.com/sites/starts...lmost-certainly-safe-for-humans/#10083c1170e3 )
explains the ionizing/non-ionizing factors quite well.

"The ionizing radiation is what causes the most direct, severe damage to not only human but most living things, and that's why there are such tight regulations, all over the world, on how much of these hazardous types of radiation any entity can emit.

But non-ionizing radiation that gets absorbed can still cause damage, provided that there's enough total energy to be damaging. Instead of ionizing individual electrons, this radiation can get absorbed and converted into thermal (heat) energy, and too much heat — just as it can cook plants, animals or fungi — can permanently damage living tissue.

So it seems like a legitimate question: could 5G wireless technology, and the ambient radiation that it will create surrounding each and every one of us, possibly be damaging?


the only way this radiation can harm you is through the total energy your body (or a part of your body) absorbs. Whenever a device sends or receives a wireless signal, it emits or searches for radiation of the appropriate frequency. The devices all use power, and the energy they emit spreads out in a sphere: falling off as the inverse of the distance squared as you leave the source.

If you ever held a portable radio or boombox close to you, you received far more radiation of similar frequencies than you do from a 5G device that sits in your pocket. At the end-user, consumer level, even dozens of devices surrounding you — similar to the situation you'd experience in an office, classroom, or airport — impart a level of radiation that, based on energy concerns, ought to pose no threat at all."

The same article mentioned personnel who work on the equipment and elaborates some more. My point is, I do understand people's concerns on this one. However, where do you think the unknowns still are that have people concerned? I have read that 5G is built on similar technology to 4G overall. Are the wavelengths posing that much more of a difference compared to already existing technology? What other recent information or studies can help provide clarity on this? I genuinely want other people to be able to find this information as well when asking questions since there is so much misinformation or just misleading information around. Thanks for reading/contributing.

 

[Dingo]

Quick side note - I started typing up a post on my phone, only to have it glitch out and refuse to allow me to type anything. But I logged in on the computer and Metabunk saved my draft progress, so that's cool!

Good summary of non-ionizing vs. ionizing radiation, derrick! I've actually already done some research into this because I was thinking about starting a thread, but you've beat me to the punch haha.


Most of the concern about radio frequency radiation comes from a pair of studies - one rat one mouse - that were performed for the National Toxicology Program. These reports are freely available here (download links at very top of page):

https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/whatwestudy/topics/cellphones/index.html

They are very in depth, the report on the rat study alone is 384 pages long.

This report did find some links between RFR and cancer, but there are numerous problems in extrapolating out to humans, as well as some possible issues with the experiment itself.

The rats were placed into chambers that bombarded them with extremely high amounts of radio waves over their entire body. They were in fact exposed to such high amounts that they measured an increase in body temperature for the highest dose group (effectively, the radio waves were intense enough for a mild microwave effect). This is way more than a person would be exposed to in a real usage scenario. They were also exposed constantly for nine hours a day for two years straight.

I feel that the most relevant section of the report is the ending transcript of the debate over classification of results. This gives some interesting insights into the mindset of the researchers and their goals in the program, as well as some of the deficits. Their control group is highlighted as being inadequate, being one-sixth the size of the research group. There was also a lack of historical control group data that could be used.

The deliberations began with male Hsd:Sprague Dawley SD rats exposed to GSM-modulated cell phone RFR at 900 MHz. The first finding was "some evidence of carcinogenic activity based on incidences of malignant schwannoma in the heart." Dr. Wyde explained the rationale behind the conclusion: increased incidences and a positive trend across the exposure groups with an incidence of zero in the controls. Dr. Harkema asked why the conclusion was not raised to clear evidence. Dr. Wyde said, although the level of the response exceeded the historical control range, it was not statistically significant and, therefore, was not raised to a higher level. Dr. Felter noted a commonality of response across the other three test groups (females, both modulations), with malignant schwannomas in some of the treated animals and none in the controls. Dr. Adler asked about the line between some evidence and clear evidence and whether NTP would have called it clear evidence if the high-dose incidence had been statistically significant. Dr. Wyde said no, the level of response was not at the clear evidence level. Dr. Blystone clarified that NTP does try to look across reports to be consistent in level-of-evidence calls. NTP staff thought that the malignant schwannomas looked treatment-related but believed survival of the controls played a role in the observed effect. Dr. Eaton called for a motion on the conclusion. Dr. Felter moved to upgrade the conclusion from some evidence to clear evidence. Dr. Adler seconded the motion. The panel voted 8 yes, 3 no, so the motion carried. The "no" votes were Drs. Harkema, Malys, and Cline. Dr. Malys said the numbers presented were not striking enough to justify the upgrade, along with the issues with the control group. Dr. Harkema and Dr. Cline said their reasons for voting no were similar to Dr. Malys'.

Emphasis added is mine. In a scientific context, being 'statistically significant' refers to having results that are prominent enough to not likely be as the result of just random chance. In any scientific study (especially complex biological cancer studies) you're going to have some element of randomness in your results. In this case, some rats developed tumours, but they could not show that it was more likely than not due to the exposure to RFR. Yes, the test rats developed tumours while the control did not, but without it being statistically significant you cannot rule out that it was just blind chance.
Having a large sample size and more data to analyse would give a stronger conclusion one way or the other. In this case they had more test rats than control rats - if they had equal numbers they may have found tumours developing in the controls which would not have supported the conclusion. Conversely if they had six times the control rats and still no cancers, then the results would be much stronger.

It's important to recognize the goals and mindset of these researchers. Reading through the debate notes, it's very much clear that they are erring on the side of caution in making their definitions.

Dr. Wyde responded to Dr. Adler's comments. He appreciated the distinction Dr. Adler made that these were hazard identification studies and confirmed that FDA would be responsible for any risk assessment.

They wanted to determine if a possible hazard existed, but further research would be necessary to determine what level of risk was present. The doctors on this board showed a very conservative attitude and pushed consistently for upgrading classifications, which I would say in this case was the right move - more research does need to be done. But broadly speaking, the results that they got were marginal at best, often not statistically significant, inside the top end of the control range, or only marginally outside of it. They did not find an absolutely strong 'this will give you cancer' result.

As for the 5G specifically, the frequency is shifted to be much higher. I haven't been able to confirm if there is a significant difference in how much energy is put into these radio waves, however I believe that it's similar to the amount of energy put out by 3G and 4G. The significant difference is in penetration of objects. As you touched on above, 5G can't penetrate nearly as well as the lower frequencies. That means that all of the energy is going to be dumped into the skin, rather than penetrating through into the organs. If the amount of energy remains roughly the same than the relative exposure of the skin is higher. (Rather than 50% say dissipating through the skin and the remaining 50% dissipating in the internal organs)

That being said with how weak the results from the rodent studies are, I think that the risk is practically nil for skin cancers. The NTP study was weighed towards caution, and I do agree with that approach - study it further and confirm. The difficulty of all types of cancer research - and managing cancer risk - is that it's all related to the probability of developing tumours, and how exposure to a carcinogen can alter that probability. Everybody knows that smoking is strongly linked to lung, throat and mouth cancer. It's also perfectly possible to smoke two packs a day for your entire life without developing cancer, because lady luck happened to be on your side. With how widespread wireless technology is, the concern is that even with a very low risk, the sheer number of people exposed will lead to a large amount of cases. For a hypothetical: if we assume that half of the world population is regularly exposed to 5G (~3.9 billion people), and exposure to 5G increases your chance of developing skin cancer by just 0.05%, that corresponds to approximately 2 million additional cancer cases worldwide.

This is absolutely a gross oversimplification though, because it assumes uniform dosage, uniform response to dosage (for instance, does having a higher amount of melanin in the skin influence the amount of radiation absorbed in the 5G wavelength? What if you live in a cold climate and consistently wear thick clothing?) and a whole host of other factors.

So in short: Unlikely to have any risks, but further research is merited.

 

[derrick06]

Thanks Dingo! I did read this study too while researching and found it interesting. A lot of conspiracies and misinformation have been flying around the net lately so I wanted to really get some facts together regarding this subject. Thanks for contributing!

 

[Rory]

For a hypothetical: if we assume that half of the world population is regularly exposed to 5G (~3.9 billion people), and exposure to 5G increases your chance of developing skin cancer by just 0.05%, that corresponds to approximately 2 million additional cancer cases worldwide.

Hi Dingo, where do the "0.05%" and "2 million additional cases" figures comes from?

 

[Rory]

@Dingo - Just wondering if you can show your working out on that one, because something about the math doesn't seem quite right to me.

 

[Dingo]

Hi Dingo, where do the "0.05%" and "2 million additional cases" figures comes from?

Hi Rory,

As I said, it is a hypothetical. So if there was a 0.05% risk associated with it - and the research does not support any risk associated with RFR in my opinion - then That would be the figure.

The '0.05' is arbitrary.
The '50% of the world' is arbitrary.

The point that I was trying to make was that due to the scale involved, if there was even a very minor cancer risk, it could affect a large number of people.

The point that I was trying to make was 'the evidence doesn't support any risk, but the doctors on the NTP report were being cautious and I agree, and I think a follow up is merited'.

That being said, at the time that I wrote that post I was not aware of the Ramazzini RFR experiment which followed the NTP, which was run at much lower exposures and had similarly weak results. So I personally am now convinced that there's no cancer risk with RFR at all.

@Dingo - Just wondering if you can show your working out on that one, because something about the math doesn't seem quite right to me.

Of course!

Again, this is an -arbitrary hypothetical-.

World population - from Google 7,577,130,400

Assume that 50% of the world is exposed to 5G in some manner- 3,788,565,200

Assume that being exposed to 5G is any manner somehow gives a 0.05% chance of cancer. This is again absolutely arbitrary, I'm well aware that even if it -were- dangerous there would be different dosages etc. For the purpose of this we're assuming that the simple act of walking past a 5G modem magically gives you cancer.

3,788,565,200 - 99.95%
= 1,894,242

I hope that clears things up.

 

[Rory]

Gotcha. Thanks for explaining. I guess the way I was seeing it was:

Estimated cases of skin cancer in a year (say 2015): ~7.5 million, or about 0.1% of the world's population (for simplicity)
1 in 1000 chance increases by 0.05%: 0.1005%
Total yearly skin cancer cases after 5G (hypothetical): ~7.54 million
Increase in skin cancer cases per year: 37,500
But half that, for 50% exposed = an increase of 18,750 skin cancer cases per year

 

[Agent K]

Is 5G claimed to be worse than 4G and 3G?

 

[Rory]

Oh yeah. Off the top of my head, mainly because it requires way more transmitters and, you know, the hertz is bigger.

 

[Mendel]

But is 5G claimed to worse than 4G was claimed to be when it was introduced? or the other generations?
Because the rhetoric and the quality doesn't feel any different than what it was when they first started putting up cell phone towers. Have the claims changed in any way?

 

[Dingo]

But is 5G claimed to worse than 4G was claimed to be when it was introduced? or the other generations?
Because the rhetoric and the quality doesn't feel any different than what it was when they first started putting up cell phone towers. Have the claims changed in any way?

Doesn't really seem to have changed much!

 

[Rory]

I don't remember news reports about people burning towers or linking 4G to an outbreak. But then, I have literally zero recall of anything to do with any of the other Gs when they came in (probably didn't read the news or go online much back then).

 

[vooke]

A quick question
is it possible for lower frequency radiation to pose greater health risk than higher ones?

the 3.4Ghz 5G frequency seems to be even lower than infrared and of course natural light.

 

[Agent K]

A quick question
is it possible for lower frequency radiation to pose greater health risk than higher ones?
the 3.4Ghz 5G frequency seems to be even lower than infrared and of course natural light.

In some cases yes, like the Active Denial System nonlethal "pain ray" uses higher frequency waves than a microwave oven in order to heat up just the outer layer of skin without penetrating any deeper.

https://jnlwp.defense.gov/About/Frequently-Asked-Questions/Active-Denial-System-FAQs/
Does this system work like a microwave oven?
No. The ADS, a non-lethal directed-energy weapon, projects a very short duration (on the order of a few seconds) focused beam of millimeter waves at a frequency of 95 gigahertz (GHz). A microwave oven operates at 2.45 GHz. At the much higher frequency of 95 GHz, the associated directed energy wavelength is very short and only physically capable of reaching a skin depth of about 1/64 of an inch. A microwave oven operating at 2.45 GHz has a much longer associated wave length, on the order of several inches, which allows for greater penetration of material and efficiency in heating food. The ADS provides a quick and reversible skin surface heating sensation that does not penetrate into the target.

 

[Mendel]

A quick question
is it possible for lower frequency radiation to pose greater health risk than higher ones?

Obviously, that's true if you vary the power levels. If you use more power on any frequency, it can always become more dangerous. If you compare equal power levels, for radio waves ranging from shortwave to digital transmissions, lower frequencies do pose a higher health risk as the higher ones, but not by a lot.
Once you increase the frequency past the visible light to UV and beyond, into the ionizing radiation, there is the additional risk of mutations, so that's not really comparable to the non-ionizing radiation.

I'm using the "ICNIRP GUIDELINES FOR LIMITING EXPOSURE TO TIME-VARYING ELECTRIC, MAGNETIC AND ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS (UP TO 300 GHZ)" published in 1998
https://www.icnirp.org/cms/upload/publications/ICNIRPemfgdl.pdf
Mick is using the same on the other thread: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/measuring-5g-emf-and-using-icnirp-guidelines.11178/

The bottom image is a graph I made of the first two columns, since the 3rd columns works just like the second.
As you go from left to right, the frequency increases, and for the most part, the safe power level decreases. This means that the lower frequencies are less dangerous than the higher ones. For example, if I choose a field strength of 1 A/m and look at the horizontal grid line in the diagram, I can see that below ~1Mhz, that's considered safe, and above 1Ghz, it's not (under the green line is safe, above is unsafe).

The exception is the area between 400 MHz and 2000 MHz (2 GHz), where the safe E-field strength climbs from 28 V/m to 61 V/m, and the safe H-field strength climbs from 0.073 A/m to 0.16 A/m, which makes the frequencies between ~3 MHz and 2GHz more dangerous as the frequencies above 2GHz, provided you are comparing equal power levels.

In some cases yes, like the Active Denial System nonlethal "pain ray" uses higher frequency waves than a microwave oven in order to heat up just the outer layer of skin without penetrating any deeper.

What would happen if you applied the "pain ray" at the same power level, but lower frequency?

 

[Agent K]

What would happen if you applied the "pain ray" at the same power level, but lower frequency?

You'd microwave people, depending how far away they are. It's like 30 times more powerful than a microwave oven.

 

[Mendel]

You'd microwave people, depending how far away they are. It's like 30 times more powerful than a microwave oven.

From your source: "a very short duration (on the order of a few seconds)", so (assuming a 1000W oven) it'd deliver 30 000W over an area 0.5m in diameter. It'd heat like a 1200W hair dryer aimed at the palm of my hand (10 cm diameter) for a few seconds and could penetrate clothes as it did so.
But if it were micorwaves, it wouldn't heat the skin like the hair dryer, it'd heat the flesh, like a small pork chop put in the microwave for a few seconds. How much does that heat? How quickly could the body dissipate that heat? Would it cause deep tissue damage or not?

 

[ConcernedBriton]

I wonder if anyone can help quite urgently.

If somebody had bought a measuring device of some sort (in concern over harmful radiation within the home) and then found the readings to be extremely high on the device, would they be right to be concerned?

I'm afraid I don't know what the device is or what the readings are or even what they are being measured in at the moment.

What would be considered a safe level of a cordless phone system and, say, a wifi router?

Does this ionising and non-ionising aspect come into it, where it can be high readings but not harmful?

When I try searching on the net, I only seem to get websites that I cannot trust to be impartial.

This person is very concerned over their findings and I don't yet know or understand enough about it to (hopefully) allay their fears.

I hope somebody can advise on this quite quickly,

Thanks.

 

[Mick West]

If somebody had bought a measuring device of some sort (in concern over harmful radiation within the home) and then found the readings to be extremely high on the device, would they be right to be concerned?

Almost certainly not. The devices sold to measure EMF that are marketed towards the consumer are generally calibrated at incredibly low levels, around 1/1000th or even 1/1,000,000th of the official safe levels. This is because the people selling them are either convinced somehow that really low levels are harmful, or they are just exploiting people's fears.

What would be considered a safe level of a cordless phone system and, say, a wifi router?

Depends on how you measure it. It's somewhat pointless to say without some context here. Ideally a photo of the measuring device next to the suspect device. Both cordless phones and WiFi routers can show up as being "off the charts" when the meter is held close to them. Here's a video of my TriField meter being moved closer to my WiFi router. It goes between 4 and 10 (the maximum) when right next to it.

That's 10 mW/m2. The official safe level is under 9,000 mW/m2. So while this meter is useful for tracking down sources of very low level EMF, it's useless in detecting if they are dangerous levels or not. Other meters are even worse than this.

All devices have to pass tests showing they don't emit harmful levels of radiation. So the best way to see in context what the reading of your particular meter means, is to compare it to other similar devices. That way you will know if your device (say a WiFi router) is broken, or if it's just emitting normal safe levels.

 

[ConcernedBriton]

Hi Mick, many thanks for such a quick response, it's really appreciated.

I have managed to sneak a photograph of the device and also give it a go near the router and near a cordless phone.

It's an EMFields Accousticom2:

The person I am concerned about is extremely deep into the rabbit hole on a vast array of topics, perhaps more numerous and more tied together than I think even you could think possible - and it is getting more than a bit disturbing, but that's another matter and one which I could really use your help on if you're at all able to discuss it by private messages and can find the time.

As part of this, they are utterly convinced that devices in the home are making them ill, hence the arrival of this gadget recently. They believe wholeheartedly that they are sensitive to wireless radiation and it's making them ill.

(It doesn't help when, in all fairness, the person does have all the listed conditions on the pamphlet - lots of headaches, sleeplessness, memory problems, problems with waterworks, etc, amongst several others like depression, confusion, irritability, muscle aches, etc that fit quite specifically to their situation).

Anyway, I am hoping that if I can find the exact evidence I need that says it isn't measuring anything harmful, I will be able to not only reassure this person (although I doubt it as they are in the rabbit hole very, very deeply) but to try and put a lid on it as a subject matter, despite a desire for the said person to want to buy one that measures 5g next.

On my quick test of the device, holding it near a router or holding near a cordless phone (only when the dial is activated) ramps this thing up to 6.00 on the scale shown and I suspect it'd go further if it could. Move the device around 6 foot away and its reading about 1.00. The same is probably true of the microwave oven, although I didn't get chance to do that one.

I don't have much of a clue about any of this. I have been trying to read some basics on it, but given all the rest of the subjects going on with this person, I think I'm right to be doubtful about how valid this whole concept is.

I do not know what this person has been reading, or where, but they are mixed up in a lot of online groups of this nature. It may be the manufacturer's site themselves, youtube videos, flawed charts and data, all of the above, I really couldn't say. Looking on a search engine for information that may not be linked to quackery is looking quite difficult

In conjunction to this, they are also buying "EMF protection blocker stickers": Which are small discs to stick on the back of handsets and such to reflect or otherwise block or cancel out the 'harmful' radio waves. Again, I admit I have not looked into these at all yet.

What would I need to present to this person to try and convince them that what they've read is wrong, that the figures don't mean what they think? Some of the above graphs and such are a bit beyond my capacity at the moment, but if I could maybe find a way to use it and explain it, it may be a start. Or maybe there will just be no talking to them, I just don't know.

 

[Mick West]

On my quick test of the device, holding it near a router or holding near a cordless phone (only when the dial is activated) ramps this thing up to 6.00 on the scale shown and I suspect it'd go further if it could. Move the device around 6 foot away and its reading about 1.00. The same is probably true of the microwave oven, although I didn't get chance to do that one.

Pretty much everything is going to max out that meter. My overly sensitive meter goes up to 800 V/m. You friend's meter probably is not measuring at all accurately. It's really just showing the presence of an electrical field. It's a device sold to people worried about EMF to encourage them to buy other things.

I think again a good point to raise is that the levels in their house are exactly the same as (and at this point probably lower than) every other house in the country.

Unfortunately, there's a huge market for this type of things, and an associated level of disinformation around it. It's a very difficult thing to address. It's possible that you might have to just accommodate it.

(It doesn't help when, in all fairness, the person does have all the listed conditions on the pamphlet - lots of headaches, sleeplessness, memory problems, problems with waterworks, etc, amongst several others like depression, confusion, irritability, muscle aches, etc that fit quite specifically to their situation).

These are the symptoms of getting older.

Might they agree to an experiment? Like turn off the WiFi for a week, and see if it makes any difference?

 

[Mendel]

It's an EMFields Accousticom2:

These are the ICNRP guideline values, from my post above:

The "E-field strength" column provides values in V/m (V m-1 is just another way to write that), and as you can see, 28 V/m is the lowest value. The Acousticom 2 scale is measuring V/m, but actually harmful amounts of radiation would be off the scale in every case. As an analogy, this thing is really measuring rain when you're afraid of a flood: you're going to get wet, but it's not going to be harmful. Of course, a flood-meter wouldn't sell, because it would just sit at "no flood" for 99.9999% of the time.

In conjunction to this, they are also buying "EMF protection blocker stickers"

Placebos. If they work, let your friend keep them? They're not harmful except for the money they cost.

 

[Mick West]

I can't really explain on here what's going on with this person, but over the course of 15 years it's just got so bad it's now distressing. It's a nightmare situation, quite frankly.

And a surprisingly common one. I hear about it a lot. There's a huge array of "resources" for the EMF-phobic on the internet (and in books) that reinforces their belief. I personally know two people who suffer from it to some degree.

I'd try a two-pronged approach. 1) attempt to make life better now. 2) Encourage long term change.

These beliefs don't flip on a dime. The fear of invisible radiation is very understandable. I myself don't like getting too close to the microwave when it's on. I know this is irrational. But then science tells us (correctly) that toilet seats have fewer germs on them than phones and keyboards and yet the toilet still seems far more likely as a source of illness.

Keep clearly telling them that you don't think the "electrosmog" is causing their illness, and that science says it is not, and that you think it's likely that their ailments are a natural part of aging that can be partly mitigated with more traditional healthy approaches (minor diet changes, light exercise, for a start.)

But also acknowledge their concerns. If someone is afraid of flying, then you don't tell them to suck it up and get on a plane. Sometimes they can take a train. If something makes them feel better, then you don't have to fight it. You can politely tell them you don't think it's necessary, but if it makes them feel better and it's not too expensive or harmful, then go for it. Stick a holographic sticker on your phone. If you feel better with it there, it's not the world's worst thing that this is due to the placebo effect.

It interested me that when I moved 6ft away from the router, it was bouncing between 0.3 and 1.0, in which case there'd be even less chance of somebody even sensitive to such equipment (if that's even a thing) from being harmed if they are through doors and walls and over 15ft away most of the time as the router is always 'on'.

Mick, in regards to the experiment, in all honesty I wish I could rip that damned router out of the house and smash up the computer for the nightmare it has brought to our lives. That sadly isn't going to be possible though. I don't think they'd do the experiment although we have previously looked into not using wifi and routing the signal through the electricity sockets and using RJ45 patch cables.

Hey, you'd probably get better internet speed if you did that.

The observation about the reduction with distance might be useful. Talking about "inverse square" might not take, but the simple observable fact is that high readings only occur within a foot or two might be useful in calming their fears. Moving the device to a different location might make them feel better.

Casting doubt on the meter might be a lost cause. They spent $200 on it. The Amazon reviews a glowing. The fact that it's a misleading piece of junk is going to be difficult to convey and might simply lead to wanting to get a "better" "more sensitive" meter.

I'd also really try to focus on other things. These obsessions can expand to fill their entire life. Fighting it can make it worse.

Another thing to consider is the OCD community, although you have to be careful that your friend does not react with anger and alienation to such suggestions. Indeed it might not be that bad, just a mistake belief rather than a compulsion. But there might be some useful perspective, more for you than for them - as there, unfortunately, seems to be a movement that EMF causes OCD.

 

[Mendel]

The observation about the reduction with distance might be useful. Talking about "inverse square" might not take, but the simple observable fact is that high readings only occur within a foot or two might be useful in calming their fears.

Maybe a candle is a good analogy. You don't want to stick your finger in it, but with a little distance, it's not dangerous, and with more distance, it's not even bright any more. Light is the same type of radiation as high-frequency WiFi/5G, so that's actually a fairly good analogy, except that the WiFi penetrates walls somewhat better than light does; but it does get less "bright" with distance in the same way.

 

[ConcernedBriton]

Thanks.

Like with many other aspects going on with this person, I am going to have to be quite careful how it is approached.

They are into and believe strongly in at least 15, if not more CT's, which are solidifying rapidly into being linked together with various strands.

It has crept up over a very long period of time, with some of the earlier actions being taken at least being more rational and explainable at first - but the process of trying to understand, rationalise it, excuse it, see the point, think of it as being 'quite harmless really', placebos etc has in fact helped lead things to this disturbing point (in general, not the EMF).

On that score, I am torn over presenting them with the chart and saying the meter reader is not what they think it is, the sites its from and the pages he goes to are wrong and peddling fear and paranoia - or again, letting them put stickers on things and metal cages around things because it may make them feel better.

If I thought it was just CT's alone in the mixture of this mess, I'd be tempted to start being harder now I know how dangerous the rabbit hole is - but sadly there is a real worry I have that it is not just typical CT behaviour, general stubbornness and paranoia - but one of it being infused with some kind dementia or alzhiemers because a lot of the traits are there for that, if not a good majority of them. We first started seeing some signs about 15 years ago, but again, wishful thinking and excuses have occurred all along the way.

What on Earth do you do if somebody, a relative, is in the rabbit hole, but they are in it with dementia at the same time? Ie, they are going to get worse with it, more ill, more depressed, more isolated, more incapable of making right judgements and choices - and cannot actually help believing in it all, because things are gradually going very wrong with their mind? It's going to be a living nightmare and proves the world and life can be a cruel place.

I tell you what, I wish more people in this world were made aware how serious this CT problem is. 'Fake news' from both left and right is bad enough, but full blown CT's are something else!

Like many things out there, people don't think about it, give much of a damn, take it up or brush it off....but it should come with a serious health hazard warning - this stuff can ruin lives, destroy families, make people mentally and physically ill (with quackery) and even drive people to suicide.

I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemies. It's horrid for those who reach the stage of my relative and frightening, devastating for those who can only watch as things go downhill with people you care about so much.

I think I may have to broach the chart and see what happens if the situation with this particular theme escalates..

I have pleaded for them to try and make changes to their life, but that does not seem to have worked as yet. If they are not going to take heed - or cannot via illness - then the choice seems to be to stand back and watch it all unfold and deal with the horror show; or try harder to counter each an every subject matter.