This forum uses cookies
This forum makes use of cookies to store your login information if you are registered, and your last visit if you are not. Cookies are small text documents stored on your computer; the cookies set by this forum can only be used on this website and pose no security risk. Cookies on this forum also track the specific topics you have read and when you last read them. Please confirm whether you accept or reject these cookies being set.

A cookie will be stored in your browser regardless of choice to prevent you being asked this question again. You will be able to change your cookie settings at any time using the link in the footer.

5G
Started by S.J.




29 posts in this topic
S.J.
Posting Freak

Posts: 26,492
Threads: 865
Joined: Oct 2014
Reputation: 962
Status: Offline

04-23-2020, 08:19 AM -
#1
Unsafe imo.
Charlie Kelly
Haring Around

Posts: 16,630
Threads: 10
Joined: Oct 2014
Reputation: 361
Status: Offline

04-23-2020, 09:39 AM -
#2
Reasoning? 

I’ve not read into it at all mainly due to the Coronavirus conspiracies but would be interested to hear why it’s deemed unsafe.
Chris Benoit
Benoit for HOF 2021

Posts: 6,385
Threads: 4
Joined: Oct 2014
Reputation: 606
Status: Offline

04-23-2020, 09:44 AM -
#3
Monty Oh You
Shteve
.

Posts: 28,314
Threads: 13
Joined: Oct 2015
Reputation: 895
Status: Offline

04-23-2020, 09:49 AM -
#4
Would prefer more grass pitches, especially in the top flight.
Fraggle
herz von midlothian fick hibernian ab

Posts: 2,636
Threads: 23
Joined: Oct 2017
Reputation: 96
Status: Offline

04-23-2020, 09:50 AM -
#5
Fuck off with this moonhowling shite.
Hekens
Felix
Councillor of Despair

Posts: 4,753
Threads: 9
Joined: Nov 2017
Reputation: 158
Status: Offline

04-23-2020, 09:53 AM -
#6
Ridiculous OP.

There is literally ZERO evidence of it being unsafe.

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

Posts: 26,492
Threads: 865
Joined: Oct 2014
Reputation: 962
Status: Offline

04-23-2020, 10:11 AM -
#7
http://www.5gappeal.eu/

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

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

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

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

Had a few conversations with my colleague who's a physicist professor and he's against it on two grounds. His work was on signal processing also artificial intelligence. He reckons it is a health risk and also provides opportunities for the "internet of things" to expand which may be nice for a consumer, but gives governments more opportunities to control populations. There's a bigger risk than ever that we are entering a type of authoritarian capitalism, so it's something to be considered. A) Is it safe? (unproven) B) Is it necessary?
This post was last modified: 04-23-2020, 10:18 AM by S.J..
Felix
Councillor of Despair

Posts: 4,753
Threads: 9
Joined: Nov 2017
Reputation: 158
Status: Offline

04-23-2020, 10:28 AM -
#8
(04-23-2020, 10:11 AM)Grumblebum Wrote: http://www.5gappeal.eu/

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

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

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

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

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

Can't tell if serious.

Monty Ha

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

Warnock
S.J.
Posting Freak

Posts: 26,492
Threads: 865
Joined: Oct 2014
Reputation: 962
Status: Offline

04-23-2020, 10:32 AM -
#9
(04-23-2020, 10:28 AM)Felix Wrote: So it's more a "big brother" type of issue here, as opposed to an actual, literal, health one?

Why didn't you click the links?
This post was last modified: 04-23-2020, 10:33 AM by S.J..
S.J.
Posting Freak

Posts: 26,492
Threads: 865
Joined: Oct 2014
Reputation: 962
Status: Offline

04-23-2020, 10:39 AM -
#10
Quote:Our experience with the EU and the Governments of the Nordic countries suggests that the majority of decision makers are scientifcally uninformed on health risks from RF radia-tion (62). In addition, they seem to be uninterested to being informed by scientists representing the majority of the scientific community, i.e., those scientists who are concerned about the increasing evidence or even proof of harmful health effects below the ICNIRP guidelines (http://www.emfscientist.org). Instead, they rely on evaluations with inborn errors of conflicts, such as ICNIRP. In fact, the ICNIRP, with the support of WHO and major telecommunications companies, has been rather successful in implementing their views in the EU and world-wide. Their guidelines seem to be based on the omission of scientific facts. Thus, their possible ignorance of the health risks is of concern, as well as their reluctance to adhere to warnings from large numbers of scientists around the world.

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

https://www.researchgate.net/publication..._radiation
Felix
Councillor of Despair

Posts: 4,753
Threads: 9
Joined: Nov 2017
Reputation: 158
Status: Offline

04-23-2020, 10:43 AM -
#11
(04-23-2020, 10:32 AM)Grumblebum Wrote: Why didn't you click the links?

Don't need to.

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

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

Like I said, absolutely ridiculous tinfoil beliefs from the hard of thinking.
S.J.
Posting Freak

Posts: 26,492
Threads: 865
Joined: Oct 2014
Reputation: 962
Status: Offline

04-23-2020, 10:47 AM -
#12
(04-23-2020, 10:43 AM)Felix Wrote: Don't need to.

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

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

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


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

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

Posts: 3,144
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2016
Reputation: 383
Status: Offline

04-23-2020, 10:48 AM -
#13
Quote:A 2016 review of scientific articles, covering experimental data on the oxidative effects of low-intensity radiofrequency radiation in living cells, finds that, among 100 currently available peer-reviewed studies (18 in vitro studies, 73 studies in animals, 3 studies in plants and 6 studies in humans), '... dealing with oxidative effects of low-intensity radiofrequency radiation, in general, 93 confirmed that radiofrequency radiation induces oxidative effects in biological systems'. More
precisely, in 58 studies of laboratory rats, 54 show positive results, and 4 of 6 studies in humans were positive. In addition, 17 of the 18 of the in vitro studies were positive, including two on human spermatozoa and two on human blood cells. According to the authors, 'The analysis of modern data
on biological effects of low-intensity radiofrequency radiation (RFR) leads to a firm conclusion that this physical agent is a powerful oxidative stressor for living cells'.

From one of the links Grumble posted Queenie
S.J.
Posting Freak

Posts: 26,492
Threads: 865
Joined: Oct 2014
Reputation: 962
Status: Offline

04-23-2020, 10:49 AM -
#14
(04-23-2020, 10:48 AM)Neaven Staismith Wrote:
A 2016 review of scientific articles, covering experimental data on the oxidative effects of low-intensity radiofrequency radiation in living cells, finds that, among 100 currently available peer-reviewed studies (18 in vitro studies, 73 studies in animals, 3 studies in plants and 6 studies in humans), '... dealing with oxidative effects of low-intensity radiofrequency radiation, in general, 93 confirmed that radiofrequency radiation induces oxidative effects in biological systems'. More
precisely, in 58 studies of laboratory rats, 54 show positive results, and 4 of 6 studies in humans were positive. In addition, 17 of the 18 of the in vitro studies were positive, including two on human spermatozoa and two on human blood cells. According to the authors, 'The analysis of modern data
on biological effects of low-intensity radiofrequency radiation (RFR) leads to a firm conclusion that this physical agent is a powerful oxidative stressor for living cells'.



From one of the links Grumble posted Queenie

but Orkney tho
This post was last modified: 04-23-2020, 10:50 AM by S.J..
Neaven Staismith
All-Rush Mixtape

Posts: 3,144
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2016
Reputation: 383
Status: Offline

04-23-2020, 10:52 AM -
#15
Reading those, it seems to do something to most living cells. On that basis alone it needs more research before mass rollout imo.
Our Daniel Tatum
Desperate Tatum

Posts: 18,658
Threads: 46
Joined: Oct 2014
Reputation: 426
Status: Offline

04-23-2020, 11:05 AM -
#16
Sunlight does a lot to all living cells, pretty sure we should stick something in front of the sun until we know for sure what impact it has on everyone.
This post was last modified: 04-23-2020, 11:06 AM by Our Daniel Tatum.
Monty Oh You
Acey Exotic
Fist of Gorgie

Posts: 30,249
Threads: 171
Joined: Oct 2014
Reputation: 2,203
Status: Online

04-23-2020, 11:08 AM -
#17
Relieved to see that the finest scientific minds on TalkHearts are on the case.
(08-02-2018, 09:04 AM)Mags Wrote: The answer is Yes.
[Image: 2nUdIl1.png]

Papin
Ego Amigo

Posts: 7,101
Threads: 24
Joined: Oct 2014
Reputation: 704
Status: Offline

04-23-2020, 11:09 AM -
#18
(04-23-2020, 10:47 AM)Grumblebum Wrote: From the people I've spoken to, a little more research needs to go into this before it is set up around the globe.

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

You said it was unsafe.
S.J.
Posting Freak

Posts: 26,492
Threads: 865
Joined: Oct 2014
Reputation: 962
Status: Offline

04-23-2020, 11:11 AM -
#19
(04-23-2020, 11:05 AM)Our Daniel Tatum Wrote: Sunlight does a lot to all living cells, pretty sure we should stick something in front of the sun until we know for sure what impact it has on everyone.

Ever heard of skin cancer? Monty Chuckle

We do, it's called sunscreen.
S.J.
Posting Freak

Posts: 26,492
Threads: 865
Joined: Oct 2014
Reputation: 962
Status: Offline

04-23-2020, 11:14 AM -
#20
(04-23-2020, 11:09 AM)Papin Wrote: You said it was unsafe.

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

So if there is research that proves it's safe to roll out en masse, then I will be glad to change my opinion.
This post was last modified: 04-23-2020, 11:19 AM by S.J..



Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)