Doctors warn of potential health risks due 5G

Worth a watch and worth keeping in mind.

Ok I'll keep it in mind, that was hardly inspiring though, the delivery was particularly uninspiring, I doubt that many people will have watched to the end or could recount much of the content. Its a shame I think its an important issue.

Victorismyhero wrote:

Okay but did you watch it? These are professionals so why the eye roll?

when a radiological protection expert tells me its dangerous, I'll take note......untill then I dont intend to listen to over blown GP's

Victorismyhero wrote:when a radiological protection expert tells me its dangerous, I'll take note......untill then I dont intend to listen to over blown GP's

Okay if you ever watch it, let me know.

90% of that was about high field strength ..5g is NOT high field strength.

we have been subject to microwave radiation from all sorts foR 15 years plus now ...2.4 gHz for example
I have worked with microwaves radio for many years...and at field strengths well above what cell phone towers will produce.

it is NOT ionising radiation (like gamma radiation)
AND just to demonstrate how "expert" these "experts" are one of them refers to 5g as being "millimeter wavelengths" daft moo....no they are not they are Centimeter wavelengths. 5.3 cm to be precise.....

doesnt give me much faith in the knowlege of this panel of experts...sounds to me like they have a "conspiracy theorist agenda"........they probably think praying will get rid of covid too.

Nope. There is far too much research on this. Same as vaccines.

Victorismyhero wrote:90% of that was about high field strength ..5g is NOT high field strength.

we have been subject to microwave radiation from all sorts foR 15 years plus now ...2.4 gHz for example
I have worked with microwaves radio for many years...and at field strengths well above what cell phone towers will produce.

it is NOT ionising radiation (like gamma radiation)
AND just to demonstrate how "expert" these "experts" are one of them refers to 5g as being "millimeter wavelengths" daft moo....no they are not they are Centimeter wavelengths.  5.3 cm to be precise.....

doesnt give me much faith in the knowlege of this panel of experts...sounds to me like they have a "conspiracy theorist agenda"........they probably think praying will get rid of covid too.

Yep is basically conspiracy crap, generally from the same people who are from the anti-vacination brigade

 https://www.wired.co.uk/article/5g-health-risks-concerns

@Eddie, if you want to want to watch a real cover up, then watch the film "Dark Waters", which based on a true story

This is a brilliant film

Thanks didge. Watching a lot of tv lately. I’ll check it out.

Maddog wrote:Nope. There is far too much research on this. Same as vaccines.

What do you mean, exactly?

eddie wrote:Thanks didge. Watching a lot of tv lately. I’ll check it out.

I watched this online today on 123 movies where you can watch many latest films

Is a real eye opener and as much as I think lawyers are blood suckers.

I hold my hat off to Robert Bilott

https://time.com/5737451/dark-waters-true-story-rob-bilott/

Thorin wrote:

eddie wrote:Thanks didge. Watching a lot of tv lately. I’ll check it out.

I watched this online today on 123 movies where you can watch many latest films

Is a real eye opener and as much as I think lawyers are blood suckers.

I hold my hat off to Robert Bilott

https://time.com/5737451/dark-waters-true-story-rob-bilott/

Thanks. We are just finishing off Prison Break. Then I’ll check it out.

eddie wrote:

Maddog wrote:Nope. There is far too much research on this. Same as vaccines.

What do you mean, exactly?

It's safe.

Maddog wrote:

eddie wrote:

Maddog wrote:Nope. There is far too much research on this. Same as vaccines.

What do you mean, exactly?

It's safe.  

Funny you'd say that, because I read an article from a mainstream outlet today that quoted a Canadian cancer expert.

He said that while researchers have few conclusions about a link between 5G and cancer, they have seen enough to warrant further research.

That doesn't say "it's safe" to me at all. It tells me that there's still a lot to explore.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:

It's safe.  

Funny you'd say that, because I read an article from a mainstream outlet today that quoted a Canadian cancer expert.

He said that while researchers have few conclusions about a link between 5G and cancer, they have seen enough to warrant further research.

That doesn't say "it's safe" to me at all. It tells me that there's still a lot to explore.

Remember when cell phones caused cancer?

remember when going faster than 10 mph would make the human body explode ???

no I cant either, but the same Luddite mentality was at work when Stephenson built his train........

Maddog wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:

It's safe.  

Funny you'd say that, because I read an article from a mainstream outlet today that quoted a Canadian cancer expert.

He said that while researchers have few conclusions about a link between 5G and cancer, they have seen enough to warrant further research.

That doesn't say "it's safe" to me at all. It tells me that there's still a lot to explore.

Remember when cell phones caused cancer?

Nope. I remember when there were concerns about it, though. Thankfully, it was thoroughly researched.

Serious scientists are now saying that there is enough evidence of a link between 5G and cancer to justify further study.

Maybe they'll find it's perfectly safe. But they haven't yet.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Remember when cell phones caused cancer?

Nope. I remember when there were concerns about it, though. Thankfully, it was thoroughly researched.

Serious scientists are now saying that there is enough evidence of a link between 5G and cancer to justify further study.

Maybe they'll find it's perfectly safe. But they haven't yet.

Are you saying 5G hasn't been studied by any serious scientists?

5G is safe, according to the international body in charge of setting limits on exposure to radiation, which has updated its advisory guidelines for the first time in more than 20 years.

The International Commission on Non‐Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), the Germany-based scientific body that assesses the health risks of radio broadcasts, called for new guidelines for millimetre-wave 5G, the most high-frequency version of the telecommunications standard.

But in practice, that form of 5G, which is in use in the US and will be coming to Europe, still has output levels significantly below the new maximum.

Dr Eric van Rongen, the ICNIRP chair, said: “We know parts of the community are concerned about the safety of 5G and we hope the updated guidelines will help put people at ease.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/mar/12/5g-safe-radiation-watchdog-health

Well you know, it all depends on what source you choose to believe. I posted a video of four doctors speaking, with research.
But you chose not to believe them.

You’re much like everyone else Maddog, when it comes to being closed-minded.

eddie wrote:Well you know, it all depends on what source you choose to believe. I posted a video of four doctors speaking, with research.
But you chose not to believe them.

You’re much like everyone else Maddog, when it comes to being closed-minded.

I posted a link to the people that actually study these things.

It's been studied to death.

To fully debunk the health fears around 5G is impossible: there is no consistent set of claims being made, few explicit studies being cited, and a surfeit of scientific terminology being used in ways that obscure rather than illuminate. Not a single expert the Guardian spoke to believed there was any reliable evidence of harm from 5G or any other part of the publicly licensed broadcast spectrum. And the carriers are emphatic that, in the words of Three UK, “from a health and safety perspective, 5G deployment is no different to any other mobile technology … no harmful levels of radiation are emitted.”

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jul/26/how-baseless-fears-over-5g-rollout-created-a-health-scare

It's very unusual for a proper scientist to assert anything as 100 percent settled, especially something as new as 5G. Hell, they're still saying we need to see the long-term effects of vaping, over a decade after people started doing it.

I guess people tend to use scientific studies to support their own opinions, without paying attention to how rigorous the science is.

Maddog wrote:

eddie wrote:Well you know, it all depends on what source you choose to believe. I posted a video of four doctors speaking, with research.
But you chose not to believe them.

You’re much like everyone else Maddog, when it comes to being closed-minded.

I posted a link to the people that actually study these things.

It's been studied to death.

And the people, the doctors and researchers, in the video I posted, haven’t studied these things?
I’m not even stating that I am standing with them...I’m merely pointing out that you are exactly like everyone else:

“I will believe my links and people but I won’t believe yours”

We are done here.

its not having a closed mind...its knowing agenda-ised (is that even a word?) bull shit when you see it....

giving it validity by providing the oxygen of debate is not necessary....

eddie wrote:

Maddog wrote:

I posted a link to the people that actually study these things.

It's been studied to death.

And the people, the doctors and researchers, in the video I posted, haven’t studied these things?
I’m not even stating that I am standing with them...I’m merely pointing out that you are exactly like everyone else:

“I will believe my links and people but I won’t believe yours”

We are done here.

There are reliable sources, and not reliable sources.

You have to learn to weed through them.

Your husband used to ban sources here because they were known to be unreliable.

Victorismyhero wrote:its not having a closed mind...its knowing agenda-ised (is that even a word?) bull shit when you see it....

giving it validity by providing the oxygen of debate is not necessary....

And how do you know that your sources don’t have an agenda??
Is it because you have absolutely checked out, thoroughly, every person that wrote everything you ever believed? Like really checked them out?? Have you?

At least I can sit here and say “I don’t know”.  

And let’s face it, you’re ridiculing something you didn’t even watch.

Move along.

Maddog wrote:

eddie wrote:

Maddog wrote:

I posted a link to the people that actually study these things.

It's been studied to death.

And the people, the doctors and researchers, in the video I posted, haven’t studied these things?
I’m not even stating that I am standing with them...I’m merely pointing out that you are exactly like everyone else:

“I will believe my links and people but I won’t believe yours”

We are done here.

There are reliable sources, and not reliable sources.

You have to learn to weed through them.

Your husband used to ban sources here because they were known to be unreliable.

Oh I see. Thank you for the very thorough research into each and every one of your resources. Boy, you must have a lot of time.

Plus, you didn’t even watch the video so.....?

I did watch it...otherwise i wouldnt have been able to pick up on that womans comments...

and the NRPB dont have an agenda (apart from safety)

(and they have not been wrong yet)

Paul Demers is the director of Ontario Health’s Occupational Cancer Research Centre and a professor at the University of Toronto’s Dalla Lana School of Public Health. He was also part of the IARC panel that determined high-priority areas for re-evaluation over the next five years, which include radiofrequency.

Demers said that while there have been some studies suggesting some adverse health effects are possible, they still were not conclusive, and so the issue is one that remains a topic of interest for many researchers.

“They decided there was at least limited evidence in some of the studies of cancer in humans and some of the animal studies. There was enough to say there was possibly something there, and that kind of keeps it on the map for those of us who do research on different causes of cancer,” he said.

https://globalnews.ca/news/6478112/5g-cancer-risk-health-concerns/

There you all go. For fuck sake.

eddie wrote:

Maddog wrote:

There are reliable sources, and not reliable sources.

You have to learn to weed through them.

Your husband used to ban sources here because they were known to be unreliable.

Oh I see. Thank you for the very thorough research into each and every one of your resources. Boy, you must have a lot of time.

Plus, you didn’t even watch the video so.....?

Give me a link to a news organization that covered it.

Victorismyhero wrote:I did watch it...otherwise i wouldnt have been able to pick up on that womans comments...

and the NRPB dont have an agenda (apart from safety)

(and they have not been wrong yet)

Like I said...

And how do you know that your sources don’t have an agenda??

You don’t. You just don’t. You only have your own opinion, and that is based solely upon what you choose to believe.

I simply don’t know and I’ll remain open.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Paul Demers is the director of Ontario Health’s Occupational Cancer Research Centre and a professor at the University of Toronto’s Dalla Lana School of Public Health. He was also part of the IARC panel that determined high-priority areas for re-evaluation over the next five years, which include radiofrequency.

Demers said that while there have been some studies suggesting some adverse health effects are possible, they still were not conclusive, and so the issue is one that remains a topic of interest for many researchers.

“They decided there was at least limited evidence in some of the studies of cancer in humans and some of the animal studies. There was enough to say there was possibly something there, and that kind of keeps it on the map for those of us who do research on different causes of cancer,” he said.

https://globalnews.ca/news/6478112/5g-cancer-risk-health-concerns/

There you all go. For fuck sake.

OK, 5G is no bigger threat than 3G, 4G, you're cell phone or your TV, or your computer monitor, because all of them have some yet unproven potential to case cancer.

I'll buy that.

Maddog wrote:

eddie wrote:

Maddog wrote:

There are reliable sources, and not reliable sources.

You have to learn to weed through them.

Your husband used to ban sources here because they were known to be unreliable.

Oh I see. Thank you for the very thorough research into each and every one of your resources. Boy, you must have a lot of time.

Plus, you didn’t even watch the video so.....?

Give me a link to a news organization that covered it.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. You sound so....normal. Just a man, after all.
That did tickle me.

Maddog wrote:

eddie wrote:

Maddog wrote:

There are reliable sources, and not reliable sources.

You have to learn to weed through them.

Your husband used to ban sources here because they were known to be unreliable.

Oh I see. Thank you for the very thorough research into each and every one of your resources. Boy, you must have a lot of time.

Plus, you didn’t even watch the video so.....?

Give me a link to a news organization that covered it.

Didn't think you were the guy to trust media reports! That's a bit of an eye-opener, have to say.

Maddog wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Paul Demers is the director of Ontario Health’s Occupational Cancer Research Centre and a professor at the University of Toronto’s Dalla Lana School of Public Health. He was also part of the IARC panel that determined high-priority areas for re-evaluation over the next five years, which include radiofrequency.

Demers said that while there have been some studies suggesting some adverse health effects are possible, they still were not conclusive, and so the issue is one that remains a topic of interest for many researchers.

“They decided there was at least limited evidence in some of the studies of cancer in humans and some of the animal studies. There was enough to say there was possibly something there, and that kind of keeps it on the map for those of us who do research on different causes of cancer,” he said.

https://globalnews.ca/news/6478112/5g-cancer-risk-health-concerns/

There you all go. For fuck sake.

OK, 5G is no bigger threat than 3G, 4G, you're cell phone or your TV, or your computer monitor, because all of them have some yet unproven potential to case cancer.

I'll buy that.  

You read funny, I guess. But you got what you wanted out of that, so it's all good

eddie wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Give me a link to a news organization that covered it.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. You sound so....normal. Just a man, after all.
That did tickle me.

None of us can verify everything.

So we should select sources that have a history of being fair in their coverage.

The Guardian leans a little left, but I trust them enough to not cover things that will get them ridicule and cost them readership.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:

OK, 5G is no bigger threat than 3G, 4G, you're cell phone or your TV, or your computer monitor, because all of them have some yet unproven potential to case cancer.

I'll buy that.  

You read funny, I guess. But you got what you wanted out of that, so it's all good

"There is no conclusive set of evidence that points one way or the other towards 5G or any other kind of radio frequency causing cancer.

According to Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, which maintains a list of frequently asked questions about radiofrequency health impacts, while some studies have suggested biological effects, those are not necessarily the same as health effects."

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:

eddie wrote:

Maddog wrote:

There are reliable sources, and not reliable sources.

You have to learn to weed through them.

Your husband used to ban sources here because they were known to be unreliable.

Oh I see. Thank you for the very thorough research into each and every one of your resources. Boy, you must have a lot of time.

Plus, you didn’t even watch the video so.....?

Give me a link to a news organization that covered it.

Didn't think you were the guy to trust media reports! That's a bit of an eye-opener, have to say.

Yeah that’s why I found it so funny. He may have to eat those words when he’s being the “I’m so independent” man around town.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Give me a link to a news organization that covered it.

Didn't think you were the guy to trust media reports! That's a bit of an eye-opener, have to say.

I trust them when there is some consensus and it passes my sniff test.

Take the COVID 19 issue.

I haven't seen anyone with it, but I'm pretty sure it exists based on media reports.

I don't believe it's a hoax, even though I have seen "reports" claiming it is.

Let's just say I applied a truth razor I read about on here.

Maddog wrote:Let's just say I applied a truth razor I read about on here.  

Your results may vary

Everyone keeps saying “Oh, well we’ve had 3G, 4G...and that hasn’t harmed us!”
How the fuck do we know what’s harming us? Because a bunch of people say it didn’t?

Well how about the bunch of people that say it does?

And more importantly, how can something that isn’t natural NOT affect us?

Just saying...it’s common sense.

eddie wrote:Everyone keeps saying “Oh, well we’ve had 3G, 4G...and that hasn’t harmed us!”
How the fuck do we know what’s harming us? Because a bunch of people say it didn’t?

Well how about the bunch of people that say it does?

And more importantly, how can something that isn’t natural NOT affect us?

Just saying...it’s common sense.

Well, we can rely on people who are experts, and also some first hand experience.

And even natural things affect us adversely.

A rattlesnake is natural.

If somebody wanted to climb a cell' tower, and then hold the transponder dish in their teeth for a few years, then maybe the radiation could fry their brains...

However, there's probably also a greater chance that the impact with the ground if they accidentally fell, could kill them well before any cancers did ?

eddie wrote:Everyone keeps saying “Oh, well we’ve had 3G, 4G...and that hasn’t harmed us!”
How the fuck do we know what’s harming us? Because a bunch of people say it didn’t?

Well how about the bunch of people that say it does?

And more importantly, how can something that isn’t natural NOT affect us?

Just saying...it’s common sense.

"Common sense" has nothing to do with it..

Radiation isn't "unnatural" --  it's simply a point along the Electromagnetic spectrum..

Arsenic, Cyanide, mercury, lead, Aspergillus, Botulism, nicotine, cannabis, heroin, cocaine, white sugar, saturated fats, white flour, caffeine, strychnine  to name just a few --  all of those are "natural" substances.  Yet all are quite unhealthy for the human body when consumed in 'excessive' quantities.

'Wolfie wrote:

eddie wrote:Everyone keeps saying “Oh, well we’ve had 3G, 4G...and that hasn’t harmed us!”
How the fuck do we know what’s harming us? Because a bunch of people say it didn’t?

Well how about the bunch of people that say it does?

And more importantly, how can something that isn’t natural NOT affect us?

Just saying...it’s common sense.

"Common sense" has nothing to do with it..

Radiation isn't "unnatural" --  it's simply a point along the Electromagnetic spectrum..

Arsenic, Cyanide, mercury, lead, Aspergillus, Botulism, nicotine, cannabis, heroin, cocaine, white sugar, saturated fats, white flour, caffeine, strychnine  to name just a few --  all of those are "natural" substances.  Yet all are quite unhealthy for the human body when consumed in 'excessive' quantities.

Yes they’re all unhealthy for the human body when consumed in excessive amounts.
So is 5G (probably) and the shit it’s spewing.

And your point is?

While the majority of the general public might be immune to the absurdity of conspiracy theories linking 5G to COVID-19, there are enough believers to burn down infrastructure.

Here, we are having a look at the conspiracy theories, past and present, which have plagued the 5G era and attempted to provide some information to disprove the nonsense.

This is not a conclusive list of all the 5G conspiracy theories, so feel free to point out any we have missed in the comments section.

5G is a hazard to your health

This is a claim which has been bouncing around the industry for years prior to the 5G technology even being validated in lab trials. It dates back to the 90s, when mobile phone usage was incredibly limited, with critics claiming the 2G airwaves could in fact cause cancer.

Although the vast majority of the world now dismisses these rumours, the emergence of 5G seems to have encouraged the rebirth of these health claims. Finding an original source is very difficult, but there are plenty of posts which appear on social media which seem to fan the flames of these fanatics.

A picture of an engineer climbing a telecoms mast in a hazmat suit was used as justification for these claims, though it was clear the individual was using hazardous chemicals to clean the equipment. These illusions of proof help paint the picture, as the blind following the blind tend to ignore the thousands of images of healthy engineers installing or repairing telecoms equipment without such protective equipment on.

The idea that the airwaves used in mobile communications can be a detriment to your health is focused on the idea of ionising and non-ionising radiation. Telecoms equipment does emit radiation, but so does most electrical equipment. The point which seems to get lost is this Electromagnetic Radiation (EMR) is not powerful enough to cause damage to humans.

The following statement is taken from the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) website:

There are two general kinds of electromagnetic radiation: ionizing radiation and non-ionizing radiation. Ionizing radiation is powerful enough to knock electrons out of their orbit around an atom. This process is called ionization and can be damaging to a body’s cells. Non-ionizing radiation has enough energy to move atoms in a molecule around and cause them to vibrate, which makes the atom heat up, but not enough to remove the electrons from the atoms.

The damage which can be done to the human body generally depends on how far up the spectrum the airwaves being used are, or whether it is high- or low-energy. A high-tension power line can create a much higher energy electromagnetic field that is still low in frequency, therefore there are safeguards around these sites, while medical equipment using x-rays make use of much higher frequencies so should also be regarded as dangerous.

However, numerous public health authorities such as the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), the Germany-based scientific body in charge of setting limits on exposure to radiation, have both stated on numerous occasions the airwaves used by mobile communications is not harmful to health.


https://telecoms.com/503845/5g-conspiracy-theories-what-they-are-why-they-are-wrong-and-what-can-be-done/

More to read on the link

eddie wrote:

'Wolfie wrote:


"Common sense" has nothing to do with it..

Radiation isn't "unnatural" --  it's simply a point along the Electromagnetic spectrum..

Arsenic, Cyanide, mercury, lead, Aspergillus, Botulism, nicotine, cannabis, heroin, cocaine, white sugar, saturated fats, white flour, caffeine, strychnine  to name just a few --  all of those are "natural" substances.  Yet all are quite unhealthy for the human body when consumed in 'excessive' quantities.

Yes they’re all unhealthy for the human body when consumed in excessive amounts.
So is 5G (probably) and the shit it’s spewing.

And your point is?

First point -- how about the minor fact that you most likely would have to get up "close and personal" with the transponder dish up on those cell towers, to actually measure any of that "shit" that you claim that 5G is "spewing" out there..

You won't be measuring it on your mobile phone.