5G Health Claims and Theories

derrick06

Active Member
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

( 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.

DLater.png


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 )

gggt5.png


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.

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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Dingo

Member
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.

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.

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

Active Member
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

Senior Member
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

Senior Member
@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

Member
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

Senior Member
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
 
Last edited:

Rory

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

Mendel

Active Member
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

Member
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

Senior Member
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

Active Member
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.FA7680DD-B9BA-4EDB-A2BD-EFE5800AE0D8.jpeg
 

Agent K

Active Member
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.
 

Mendel

Active Member
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/

ICNIRPpetable.pngICNIRPpe.png
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?
 

Mendel

Active Member
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?
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Mendel Debunked: The WHO did not take the Taiwan CDC seriously Coronavirus COVID-19 0
Dan Wilson Debunked: What the Health: Meat and Cancer Health and Quackery 15
R My story (and struggle with mental illness) Escaping The Rabbit Hole 4
Marin B Claim: Hillary’s Brain Injury Caused By ‘Near Fatal Plane Crash’ Conspiracy Theories 9
Mick West Debunked: Hillary Clinton's "Seizure Doctor" with diazepam auto-pen Conspiracy Theories 21
MikeG Florida Zika Response a "Martial Law Exercise" Conspiracy Theories 0
Tapir-mâché Lymphatic yoga? Health and Quackery 6
McGurnicle Brock Chisholm(first Director-General of the World Health Organization) Quote Quotes Debunked 30
CeruleanBlu Airliner Emissions EPA Hearing General Discussion 13
3 Rhode Island Bill H5480 - Relating to the Health and Safety of Geoengineering General Discussion 51
M Health Effects - Jet Fuel Exposure (JP8+100) Health and Quackery 4
SeanDWalker Mental health and conspiracy. General Discussion 21
U Debunked: Mitt Romney: Americans don't die from lack of health insurance: Conspiracy Theories 0
HappyMonday Debunked: Chemtrail Health Alert Network notice for Arizona Contrails and Chemtrails 11
Dan Wilson Claim:HIV Protein Sequences in Covid-19 (report withdrawn by authors) & other "man made" claims Coronavirus COVID-19 31
Oystein Debunked: AE911T: CNBC Anchor Ron Insana claims Building 7 a Controlled Implosion 9/11 13
W Debunked: Qanon claims there have been 51k sealed indictments filed this year. Current Events 11
Mick West Russian Claims of a "False Flag" Chemical Weapons Attack in Douma, Syria Current Events 10
FlightMuj Claims of Predictions of Chemtrails in Old Texts Contrails and Chemtrails 3
deirdre Debunked: Alex Jones claims kids '[walking around firehouse] with hands up' in Megan Kelly interview Sandy Hook 1
Bill Statler "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence": practical problems using this argument Practical Debunking 3
MikeG Debunked: Mike Adam's Claims Regarding HPV "Shock Study" Health and Quackery 5
Inti Claims that compass “symbols” are evidence of Masonic involvement Conspiracy Theories 8
Chew Debunked: flat earth claims about lighthouse ranges Flat Earth 8
E Debunked: Virginia Shooting Hoax Claims - Lack of visible shell casings mean fake gun Conspiracy Theories 22
trevor Virginia Shooting Hoax Claims - Can People Run After Being Shot [Yes] Conspiracy Theories 41
Mick West Debunked: MH370: Daily Mail claims new sonar images indicate aircraft debris Flight MH370 3
TEEJ Bellingcat Analysis of Satellite Imagery Used In Russian Claims Against Ukraine Flight MH17 104
Trailblazer Debunked: Look-up.org.uk's claims of aerial spraying over London on April 12 2015 Contrails and Chemtrails 21
Graham2001 'NASA worker' claims to have seen humans walking on Mars in 1979 UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 7
CapnPegleg Debunked: Boyd Bushman, Area 51 scientist, claims existence of aliens in deathbed video [Hoax] Conspiracy Theories 16
Redwood James Fetzer Claims Lenny Pozner Forged Death Certificate Sandy Hook 13
Mick West Debunked: The Science Claims of Global March Against Chemtrails and Geoengineering Contrails and Chemtrails 4
Tobes Article in The Telegraph claims James Foley beheading video staged Conspiracy Theories 108
Dan Wilson Resources for Debunking GMO Toxicity Claims Health and Quackery 1
Mike Fl Debunked: Wolfgang W. Hablig's "Script" Claims Sandy Hook 5
Libertarian Claims Ukranian military using civilian planes as cover Flight MH17 72
Tobes Debunked: James Fetzer claims Shannon Hick's photo is "smoking gun" proof of a drill Sandy Hook 24
Josh Heuer MH17: Russia Claims Ukranian military plane flying nearby before incident Flight MH17 121
CapnPegleg Vegas Police Officers Shot - False Flag claims coming? Conspiracy Theories 32
nanotchi UniversalFreePress claims that " Democrats Plan to Repeal 1st Amendment Conspiracy Theories 8
MikeC Claims of Russia rigging the Crimean referendum General Discussion 11
Tobes Debunked: Movie producer Nathan Folks claims bombing false flag, Voice of Russia says blood too red Boston Marathon Bombings 134
Redwood James Fetzer Claims Robbie Parker Is Actor Sandy Hook 40
zebra100 Businessman Claims he Saw ‘White Plane Image’ Under Water while Flying from Melbourn Flight MH370 0
vooke Debunked: Tim Ackers MH370 Debris Claims Flight MH370 15
Tobes Debunked: Dr. Stanley Monteith's claims about Jeff Bauman's injuries Boston Marathon Bombings 12
S RT claims BBC stages Syria chemical attack to propagate war. [BBC Responds] Conspiracy Theories 49
derwoodii Flight MH370: Oil Rig Worker Mike McKay claims to spot plane crashing near Vietnam Flight MH370 50
nanotchi Debunked: Iran claims Snowden Documents Proving “US-Alien-Hitler” Link Stun Russia [Sorcha Faal] UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 2
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top