Discussing 5G EMF Concerns, Theories, and Conspiracy Theories

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
In my book Escaping the Rabbit Hole, I discuss how conspiracy theories exist on a spectrum of extremeness. I gave it an arbitrary 1-10 scale, with 1 being reasonable or understandable concerns, and 10 being utterly ridiculous fantasies. Any labeled theory (like, say, "Chemtrails") does not exist at one point on that spectrum, but rather can span a quite wide range. I then go on to describe how individual people draw a line on that spectrum at the point they start to consider things to be silly.

4 Demarcation line LARGE.png

People are concerned about the possible health effects of 5G wireless communication. Those concerns exist on a similar spectrum to the one described, ranging for quite reasonable questions like "is it safe to have a 5G tower outside my bedroom window?", through to more extreme conspiracy theories like "5G is activating mark-of-the-beast microchips embedded in vaccines to cause Coronavirus." There's a whole range of things in between.

People who draw the line on the lower end of the spectrum get angry when the more extreme theories are discussed. They feel it's belittling by association, and some will suggest this is being done deliberately. So it's important to be clear about what particular 5G theory you are talking about when you start a discussion.

So let's do a quick overview, where I'll try to give descriptions of various levels of 5G theories.

Level 1 - It's fine, there is no problem, it all disinformation.

Level 2 - More research is needed into health effects, just in case

Level 3 - A deployment delay is needed until more research is done

Level 4 - It's dangerous, but they don't know, due to incompetence.

Level 5 - It's dangerous, and they are covering it up for profit

Level 6 - It's dangerous, but they need it to control the population via surveillance

Level 7 - It's dangerous, but that's the intent: population weakening and reduction

Level 8 - Coronavirus is fake, it's really all people getting sick from 5G

Level 9+ 5G is mind control, reprogramming DNA, mass genocide, etc.

I've started this 5G sub-forum so people can address specific individual claims of evidence regarding 5G.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
Not sure if this is best here or on the Covid forum?
https://www.theverge.com/2020/4/4/21207927/5g-towers-burning-uk-coronavirus-conspiracy-theory-link

5G phone masts are being set alight in the UK, after online conspiracy theories have misleadingly linked the cell towers to the coronavirus pandemic. The BBC reports that at least three 5G towers were set alight within the last week, and police and fire services were called to extinguish the flames.
...
One theory claims that the novel coronavirus originated in Wuhan because the Chinese city had recently been rolling out 5G. It’s now supposedly spread to other cities that are also using 5G. These false conspiracy theories neglect to mention that a highly contagious virus would naturally spread more in densely populated cities with access to 5G, and that the coronavirus pandemic has hit counties like Iran and Japan where 5G isn’t in use yet.
...
UK regulator Ofcom also warned Uckfield FM, a community radio station, this week for featuring someone with “potentially harmful statements about the coronavirus.” A guest, identified as a “registered nurse,” appeared in a 20-minute segment in February, claiming that 5G is sucking the oxygen out of people’s lungs. The segment also spread the falsehood that 5G and coronavirus are linked. Clips of the radio show have been widely shared on Facebook ever since.
Content from External Source
There are, of course, no known mechanisms by which electromagnetic radiation could promote viral infections or change the oxygen content of air or the transfer of oxygen in the lungs.
 

Rory

Senior Member.
A friend just told me she's concerned because "it says the microwave is about 40x greater than 4g. It goes from like 2.5 to 95."

I asked her what she was referring to, and she sent me this image:

1586095880886.png

Not really sure how to respond to that. Mick?
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
A friend just told me she's concerned because "it says the microwave is about 40x greater than 4g. It goes from like 2.5 to 95."

I asked her what she was referring to, and she sent me this image:

1586095880886.png

Not really sure how to respond to that. Mick?
Explain to her that this works like music. A Bass may sing at 110 Hz and a Soprano at 880 Hz, but that makes little difference; what hurts your ears is when the technician turns the power to the speakers up too high.
The frequency only has a minor importance in this.

Mick had that EM spectrum diagram on the other thread; it might help for them to realize that you still have a way to go up until you arrive at the frequency of coloured light.
 

Rory

Senior Member.
I guess it's a confusion over "type" and "strength", "frequency" against "amount of radiation".

What are we saying in simple terms? That Hz and GHz (etc) refers to the frequency of electromagnetic waves (radio, micro, etc) and that these aren't damaging in and of themselves - that increasing the frequency doesn't necessarily equate to an increase in harm - but that an increase in power/energy/radiation may do, and that this is measured in volts/watts, and that's the number we need to be looking at?

A good example might be sunlight: that has a much higher frequency than 5G, and we all know it can do us harm - but we also all know that it's the amount and strength of the UV rays that come from the sun that makes the difference.
 
Last edited:

Mechanik

Active Member
You’ve got that right, @Rory. Frequency (HZ) is important only in that 5G falls at the lower end of the non-ionizing radiation band, generally in the same frequency range as your home WiFi router. Once you know that the frequency is not harmful, then you look at the power, in Watts. The 5G edge routers are supposed to operate at a similar wattage to your home routers as well, which is why the 5G rollout requires so many of them.

The wattage drops very fast with distance (inverse square law?), so you don’t want to hug a cellular system base antenna, but it’s safe to stand on the ground nearby.

I like this site, EMF Explained for it’s simplicity and referenCes.
 

Rory

Senior Member.
Maybe another good analogy could be made using liquids. If we propel a liquid against someone, it's not the type that causes harm - temperature aside - but the strength that it's propelled against them. E.g., gazpacho from a cup vs Tizer from a water cannon; sea water from a tsunami vs Mountain Dew from a tsunami; etc etc.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
There are two types of danger:
* one is like a tiger, it doesn't matter how close you are, as long as you are outside the cage, you're fine, but getting into the cage makes the situation substantially worse. That's frequency: if the radiation's frequency is not ionizing, you are outside the cage, and it doesn't matter how far outside you are, your safety is the same.
* the other is like drinking alcohol, do it only a little and you'll be fine, do it too much, your liver will suffer, overdo it and go into a coma or die. That's radiated power. Goverment recommendation is equivalent to three small glasses of wine a week.

(Please don't throw acid at people!)
 

Dingo

Member
There are two types of danger:
* one is like a tiger, it doesn't matter how close you are, as long as you are outside the cage, you're fine, but getting into the cage makes the situation substantially worse. That's frequency: if the radiation's frequency is not ionizing, you are outside the cage, and it doesn't matter how far outside you are, your safety is the same.
* the other is like drinking alcohol, do it only a little and you'll be fine, do it too much, your liver will suffer, overdo it and go into a coma or die. That's radiated power. Goverment recommendation is equivalent to three small glasses of wine a week.

(Please don't throw acid at people!)

Like I said in the other 5G thread (maybe worth combining the two?), there's a small chance that radio-frequency radiation could possibly increase the chance of cancer, but the national toxicology program studies that are used to support '3G/4G/5G bad' are very very weak. They had results that were not statistically significant, and basically categorised RFR as carcinogenic due to an abundance of caution.

As I said in that thread though it comes down to scale, even a 0.05% chance of cancer comes out to ~2 million people if half the world ends up exposed to 5G. So it is worth more study, if nothing else than to put it to bed once and for all.

Great analogy with the tiger cage, I love it. Gonna have to use that one myself.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
As I said in that thread though it comes down to scale, even a 0.05% chance of cancer comes out to ~2 million people if half the world ends up exposed to 5G. So it is worth more study, if nothing else than to put it to bed once and for all.
I disagree.
a) The chance is lower than that, or epidemiological studies would see it, e.g. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27156022
The observed stability of brain cancer incidence in Australia between 1982 and 2012 in all age groups except in those over 70 years compared to increasing modelled expected estimates, suggests that the observed increases in brain cancer incidence in the older age group are unlikely to be related to mobile phone use. Rather, we hypothesize that the observed increases in brain cancer incidence in Australia are related to the advent of improved diagnostic procedures when computed tomography and related imaging technologies were introduced in the early 1980s.
Content from External Source
b)
Most people underestimate their personal risk of dying from cancer. Although the exact number is debatable, it’s fair to say that about 25 percent of men ultimately contract a potentially fatal cancer. Stuker’s 0.5 percent cancer risk from radiation should be added to his baseline risk – so it would go from 25 percent to 25.5 percent. A cancer risk increase of that size is too small to actually measure in any scientific way, so it must remain a theoretical increase in risk.
Content from External Source
https://www.scientificamerican.com/...radiation-how-much-health-risk-comes-with-it/
c)
Radon is the number one cause of lung cancer among non-smokers, according to EPA estimates. Overall, radon is the second leading cause of lung cancer. Radon is responsible for about 21,000 lung cancer deaths every year. About 2,900 of these deaths occur among people who have never smoked. On January 13, 2005, Dr. Richard H. Carmona, the U.S. Surgeon General, issued a national health advisory on radon.
Content from External Source
https://www.epa.gov/radon/health-risk-radon
If you don't smoke, your risk of dying to lung cancer just because you live in a house is 0.2% (higher if your house has above-average radon levels).
d) Your calculation disregards that risk depends on exposure. If you could actually find a 0.05% risk for the current exposure limit (good luck pinning a 1 in 2000 risk down with statistical signifance that is "hiding" behind a 500 times higher baseline risk) , the "measuring 5G" thread illustrates that 99.99% of the population are exposed to much lower levels of radiation, putting the average risk magnitudes lower than that, resulting in a much lower number of global deaths.
e) Your calculation disregards that radiation can prolong life:
A study by the US National Toxicology Program (NTP) exposed large groups of lab rats and mice to types of RF energy used in cell phones. The animals were exposed over their entire bodies for about 9 hours a day, starting before birth and continuing for up to 2 years. The study found an increased risk of rare heart tumors called malignant schwannomas in the male rats exposed to RF radiation, as well as possible increased risks of certain types of tumors in the brain and adrenal glands. However, there was no clear increased risk among female rats or among male or female mice in the study. The male rats also lived longer than rats who were not exposed to RF radiation, for unclear reasons.
Content from External Source
https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/radiation-exposure/radiofrequency-radiation.html
If some rats die early and others live longer, the average life expectancy might even go up!

What you want is to obtain a big research grant, chase down all incidences of cancer in a geographic area over a period of time, and relate people's abodes and workplaces over their lifetime to the proximity of cell towers, cell phones, and WiFi routers, and then see if there is a significant increase in cancer rates associated with it that is not explained by pollution also being proximate to cell towers and workplaces (cell towers being mostly located in or near cities), since Diesel exhaust is likely causing cancer.
 

Dingo

Member
I disagree.
a) The chance is lower than that, or epidemiological studies would see it, e.g. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27156022
The observed stability of brain cancer incidence in Australia between 1982 and 2012 in all age groups except in those over 70 years compared to increasing modelled expected estimates, suggests that the observed increases in brain cancer incidence in the older age group are unlikely to be related to mobile phone use. Rather, we hypothesize that the observed increases in brain cancer incidence in Australia are related to the advent of improved diagnostic procedures when computed tomography and related imaging technologies were introduced in the early 1980s.
Content from External Source
b)
Most people underestimate their personal risk of dying from cancer. Although the exact number is debatable, it’s fair to say that about 25 percent of men ultimately contract a potentially fatal cancer. Stuker’s 0.5 percent cancer risk from radiation should be added to his baseline risk – so it would go from 25 percent to 25.5 percent. A cancer risk increase of that size is too small to actually measure in any scientific way, so it must remain a theoretical increase in risk.
Content from External Source
https://www.scientificamerican.com/...radiation-how-much-health-risk-comes-with-it/
c)
Radon is the number one cause of lung cancer among non-smokers, according to EPA estimates. Overall, radon is the second leading cause of lung cancer. Radon is responsible for about 21,000 lung cancer deaths every year. About 2,900 of these deaths occur among people who have never smoked. On January 13, 2005, Dr. Richard H. Carmona, the U.S. Surgeon General, issued a national health advisory on radon.
Content from External Source
https://www.epa.gov/radon/health-risk-radon
If you don't smoke, your risk of dying to lung cancer just because you live in a house is 0.2% (higher if your house has above-average radon levels).
d) Your calculation disregards that risk depends on exposure. If you could actually find a 0.05% risk for the current exposure limit (good luck pinning a 1 in 2000 risk down with statistical signifance that is "hiding" behind a 500 times higher baseline risk) , the "measuring 5G" thread illustrates that 99.99% of the population are exposed to much lower levels of radiation, putting the average risk magnitudes lower than that, resulting in a much lower number of global deaths.
e) Your calculation disregards that radiation can prolong life:
A study by the US National Toxicology Program (NTP) exposed large groups of lab rats and mice to types of RF energy used in cell phones. The animals were exposed over their entire bodies for about 9 hours a day, starting before birth and continuing for up to 2 years. The study found an increased risk of rare heart tumors called malignant schwannomas in the male rats exposed to RF radiation, as well as possible increased risks of certain types of tumors in the brain and adrenal glands. However, there was no clear increased risk among female rats or among male or female mice in the study. The male rats also lived longer than rats who were not exposed to RF radiation, for unclear reasons.
Content from External Source
https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/radiation-exposure/radiofrequency-radiation.html
If some rats die early and others live longer, the average life expectancy might even go up!

What you want is to obtain a big research grant, chase down all incidences of cancer in a geographic area over a period of time, and relate people's abodes and workplaces over their lifetime to the proximity of cell towers, cell phones, and WiFi routers, and then see if there is a significant increase in cancer rates associated with it that is not explained by pollution also being proximate to cell towers and workplaces (cell towers being mostly located in or near cities), since Diesel exhaust is likely causing cancer.

Hi Mendel,

Apologies if I wasn't clear - the number I gave was <i>entirely hypothetical</i>. Just pointing out why even a low risk might be worth investigating.

To be clear - I don't think that either the Italian or the NTP studies are compelling evidence linking cancer and radio frequency radiation.
 

Mendel

Senior Member.
Apologies if I wasn't clear - the number I gave was <i>entirely hypothetical</i>. Just pointing out why even a low risk might be worth investigating.
I understood that. I'm just pointing out why investigating such a low risk is most likely useless -- hypothetically or otherwise --, and why your death computation was flawed. ;-)

P.S.: Feel free to edit long quotes down, or put them in a spoiler!
 
Top