5G versus health

What pisses me off about this 5g shit is that instead of upgrading our network infrastructure (fiber optics, etc) we're investing in faster cellular networks. WHY? American internet inftrastructure is complete dogshit...

Yeah, but so does breathing air, dingus. It's about energy absorption and exposure time & 5G won't emit enough power at any wavelengths approaching high energy at normal operating distances. i.e. phone is in your pocket or antenna meters up on top of a mast.

Yeah, you could stick the antenna up your arse and get an increase in cancer risk after a few months, but it'd be out done by the fact you'd literally be cooked first at the range you'd need to be.

Holy shit, another fucking thread. Get the fuck out, paranoid conspiracyfucks. Go hang out with the moon landing denial morons, the antivax idiots, and the brainless MAGA fucks.

Most places long term are planning to transition to internet over cellular over fibre iirc, jsut because it's cheaper to install per user for similar speeds for the normies that just want to browse facebook memes and don't care about latency.

careful there, Jow Forums doesn't like that kind of talk

>scientists say invisible air pollution kills millions every year
>scientists say invisible greenhouse gases are actively destroying the planet
i sleep

>scientists say invisible cell phone waves are harmless
real shit?

>caring about Jow Forums
Waste of human life.

I don't care about Jow Forums
they're unironically ruining this site

this place used to be mostly harmless fun but now it's all serious because Jow Forums influenced a bunch of kids to be ignorant

it also messes with weather systems too.
all this just for a slightly faster service, it's not like people care at the end of the day if it does give you brain cancer, they only care for the convenience

>it also messes with weather systems too.
how in the christ does it do that

Sometimes is better not to eat dirt even if its not as harmful as you may think.
Its still dirt.

the frequency clashes with modern systems
arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/05/5g-networks-will-likely-interfere-with-us-weather-satellites-navy-warns/

you said weather systems, not satellites

that's a legitimate concern anyways

Makes me laugh how people want to discuss whether or not 5G is harmless or not when there is a much more sinister aspect of the technology, and that is the real time surveillance tech that is being built/researched right now that operates on top of it. Where they can literally pick a time in space, travel to it, view a 3d scene, move around in it and even pause and rewind it.

It only causes cancer if it's installed in the US by Huawei. Totally fine with "american made" infrastructure.

This logic makes zero sense. There is no "may think". We know it isn't harmful, the only way it would be is if it was what's called "ionizing radiation" which is highly energetic and can knock atoms off your DNA. This is why high radiation causes cancer. The problem with assuming this with 5G is that it is no where near ionizing, and it has less energy then visible light.

This analogy also does not make sense. Without dirt we would have no food and would not be able to survive. You use dirt for food to grow, you don't eat the dirt. I hope you dont plan on eating your cell phone.

2/3G cause cancer in heavy usage. 5G cancer is unknown. But there's a chance.

If you shine laser to your eye, is that fine? Who knows.

>If you shine laser to your eye, is that fine? Who knows.
I actually do this to people every day at my job. I'm an ophthalmic technician. It depends on the laser; wavelength and power. There's nothing inherently dangerous about lasers compared to normal light.

It hasn't been proven to cause cancer

look up Moscow signal. we've known since the Russians irradiated our embassy and gave our employees DNA damage and cancer that non-ionizing microwave radiation is severely harmful even at levels well below thermal effect.

it's covered up because the West uses it to suppress/genocide populations it does not like.

ok sped
pastebin.com/VuLYa82S

>gets btfo by a sped
>so btfo it has to compile this cringe pastebin which it ironically spams more than "the 5G spammer"
dilate

How old are you? Thos reads like a 12 year old's reply.

Not all bad things are cancer, nor are they dramatic instant harm . We know that regular 3 and 4g mobile frequencies can be harmful, and that the millimeter waves of 5g have been studied - many of the results of harm from their use in airport scanners were silenced by the company that provides said scanners, chaired by the Homeland Security first secretary Chirtoff , for instance.

It's just like smoking, artificial sweeteners. DDT and other pesticides, and most recently glyphosate among other herbicides...there is big money behind it's use. So for years they put money into debunking it's harm despite warnings, claiming instead that it's just Luddite nonsense...hell for decades there has been evidence that glyphosate was a carcinogenic and otherwise harmful, but it wasn't until a few years back in Europe and this very year in the USA that the mainstream recognized this fact...and have switched to damage contract.

5g is cancer for cable.
Cable companies can't fuck you anymore, because 5g circumvents their local monopoly restrictiins, and cable ISPs would actually have to compete in pricing, or service features.

>2/3G cause cancer in heavy usage.

This is patently false. No reputable study has ever suggested 2G or 3G are dangerous at all.

the NTP study showed that archaic 2G/3G signals (which are weaker than modern 2G/3G signals in terms of modulation) caused cancer at exposure intensities similar to real world cases.

Link this alleged study.

ntp.niehs.nih.gov/results/areas/cellphones/index.html

and two useful links for you to understand the study properly:

ehtrust.org/science/myth-vs-fact-national-toxicology-program-cell-phone-cancer-study/

ehtrust.org/expert-reaction-australian-centre-electromagnetic-bioeffects-research-criticism-national-toxicology-program-study-cell-phone-radio-frequency-radiation/

Why do all you "woke" people screech about things that harm you somewhere between zero and an unmeasurable amount, while ignoring all the things in your everyday life that actually cause real and measurable harm? Nanoparticles you breathe from car pollution, carcinogens found in processed meats, increased cosmic ray exposure when you fly or even just from the weakened ozone layer, climate change, cardiovascular disease from poor diet, etc.?

>noooooo stop talking about things i don't like nooooooo stop being conservative nooooooo

radio/microwave radiation literally retards and damages sperm cells, especially Y chromosome carriers

now why have those autism rates been going up, especially in boys

Why do people need 5G anyway? Is it gonna make it faster for thots to whore on tinder?

SHIZO SCHITSO SKITSCHO SCIZO

Attached: 346.png (275x280, 40K)

Mostly because kids who previously would have been called "slow" or "a bit weird" are now being diagnosed autistic. As we get better at recognizing and diagnosing it, the rate at which it's diagnosed is expected to rise.

You can pretty much write that into a search engine and get an answer

This is horseshit used to shut down the conversation. Kill yourself

just like the glioblastoma rates

Attached: GBM.Denmark.1995-2017.jpg (1019x584, 144K)

Unlike vague claims about muh 5G and autism

This is more likely caused by something actually capable of causing DNA damage, like some pesticide that's been growing in usage or some pollutant in the air.

>muh pol
>muh things changed
go look at any fucking 7+ year old thread it's the same style of talking. you're new we get it. kys and lurk more

>oxidative stress doesn't cause DNA damage
ok retard

Attached: pall cell mechanism slide.png (939x692, 358K)

Autism rates have also risen steeply as global rates of piracy have dropped. Can we conclude that pirates prevent autism?

Unknown. Requires further testing, but seems likely as 3G was proven to do so as well. What you will see is a bunch of chinese/communist shills saying it does not and a few other individuals who claim it's as bad as bathing in organic mercury compounds.

"climate change" propaganda has increased as the public realize how fake the MSM is. coincidence?

>If you shine laser to your eye, is that fine? Who knows.
do you even know what a laser is without using the internet?

Funny how you shill stuff that causes minimal to no harm while scoffing at what's actually fucking over many farmers worldwide and threatening island nations right now.

you still havent replied to
I wonder why

also microwave radiation kills crops, trees, wildlife and destroys any ecosystem it comes into contact with

read this study on a world heritage site that was sterilized by RF transmitters: ehtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/Mt-Nardi-Wildlife-Report-to-UNESCO-FINAL.pdf

I just joined but why shpuld I give a fuck about island nations? Also, the Chinese and Indians are responsible for pretty much all climate and overpopulation problems single handedly. Go suck your chode.

Honestly the link to the study by itself would've been more convincing without the immediate defensive link below it.

From ehtrust.org:
>Myth: This study needs to be replicated first- until then, it will not have an impact.
>Fact: This $25 Million dollar study one of the most elaborate and expensive studies of any potentially hazardous exposure ever conducted.

What a laughable deflection. Replication is kind of important when trying to establish any kind of scientific consensus, yet they completely brush it off because "that's really expensive and this study is already great by itself"

replication efforts are underway as we speak, though that will take another decade.

uninformed people need to be guided through the slew of fake news propaganda as you can see in that myths link.

I understand that the general populace isn't familiar enough with the scientific method to understand these studies, but the "reporting" that ehtrust.org does on this study reads like boomer chain letters.

From ehtrust.org:
>Please take the time to inform yourself of the FACTS about the study

Any time an article feels the need to emphasize FACTS in all caps this way, it's not a good sign.

Also from ehtrust.org:
>The NTP findings were reviewed by expert peer reviewers selected by NTP and the National Institutes of Health.

"This study was peer reviewed. By people we picked to review it." doesn't exactly inspire confidence in the validity of the peer review. Peer review should come from outside, unaffiliated parties, not people hand-picked by the researchers running the show. Also, six reviewers isn't exactly" extensive" review as the article implies.

Even if the ntp's findings are legit, ehtrust's defense in these myth-v-fact articles is pretty bad.

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5G#Concerns
>In 2018, RT America, a propaganda outlet for the Russian government, began airing programming linking 5G to harmful health effects without scientific support. ... Several RT stories have warned of health impacts such as "brain cancer, infertility, autism, heart tumors and Alzheimer’s disease" and have spread to hundreds of blogs and websites. Meanwhile, Russian president Vladimir Putin ordered the launch of Russian 5G network in February 2019.
5G cancer is a Russian conspiracy theory

your post is really sad propaganda lol, has buzzfeed/NYT hired you to write this damage control tripe?

It's funny how you accuse him of damage control while simultaneously ignoring any of his points and accusing him of being a paid shill. Pot calling the kettle black.

your points are purely ad hominem. you do not address the substance of the study or the supplementary articles

>your points
Not my post.
>purely ad hominem
No they're not. The validity of the peer-review for the study was rightfully brought into question and you completely sidestepped this accusation instead calling him a paid shill. Again, accusing others of ad-hom while practicing it yourself. Is your whole shtick being a massive hypocrite or are you just incredibly stupid?

>I just joined but why shpuld I give a fuck about island nations?
Typical yank. We all share this planet, and when there's not enough arable land left you're going to starve with the rest of us.

>The validity of the peer-review for the study was rightfully brought into question
Do you even know what the NTP is?

>Do you even know what the NTP is?
Not an argument. Why don't you address user's point here?
>"This study was peer reviewed. By people we picked to review it." doesn't exactly inspire confidence in the validity of the peer review. Peer review should come from outside, unaffiliated parties, not people hand-picked by the researchers running the show. Also, six reviewers isn't exactly" extensive" review as the article implies.

>validity of the peer-review for the study was rightfully brought into question
>rightfully
No such thing. You're a science denialist. That's all there is. All your criticism amounts to is "It doesn't conform to my beliefs therefore I don't like it and its wrong."

Look up what the NTP is, moron. You are not making any cogent point here. For any non-informed onlooker, this poster is a complete and utter clown.

Maybe, do you think Wi-Fi and Bluetooth also causes cancer?

>No such thing.
Why?
>You're a science denialist.
Why are you trying to downplay the validity of the user's concerns over the peer-review of the study?
>All your criticism amounts to is "It doesn't conform to my beliefs therefore I don't like it and its wrong."
Again, it's not my criticism, but the fact that you still haven't properly addressed it and are desperately trying to deflect from it speaks volumes.
>Look up what the NTP is, moron.
Not an argument. Stop deflecting and address the user's valid concerns.
>For any non-informed onlooker, this poster is a complete and utter clown.
Ad-hom

>for any non-informed onlooker, this poster is a complete and utter clown.
no, it looks like you're the clown actually
t. onlooker

You understand that, by feigning ignorance of the National Toxicology Program and its function as the premier inter-agency system for research and analysis of toxicology threats in the US you are humiliating yourself massively and only bolstering the case of the people you're paid to pathetically shill against?

Wow this has reversed consensus on 5G it's safe now microwave my baby now

>feigning ignorance of the National Toxicology Program
Not an argument.
>the premier inter-agency system for research and analysis of toxicology threats in the US
Argument from authority
>you are humiliating yourself massively and only bolstering the case of the people you're paid to pathetically shill against
Ad-hom/not an argument
Address his criticisms of the peer-review. Why won't you do this? What are you afraid of?

>Why are you trying to downplay the validity of the user's concerns over the peer-review of the study?
Its not valid. Certainly "I don't like it because it doesn't conform to my belief" is never a valid concern.

Any legitimate concerns NTP had were addressed during the 3 day conference between the peer reviewers. The study universally concluded that cancer was linked to 2g/3g.

I'm not trying to reverse any consensus. I'm just telling you you come across as an uninformed twat

How can you offer critique when you're ignorant of the very thing you're criticizing?

Trump is inpeached now she is president now

>Its not valid
Why?
>I don't like it because it doesn't conform to my belief" is
Who are you quoting? That's not the concern he raised.
>Any legitimate concerns NTP had were addressed during the 3 day conference between the peer reviewers
How could the concern over peer-review the user had be addressed by the very peer-reviewers the user has a problem with? You're not making any sense. Why are you trying to downplay his criticism?

lot of schizos in this thread

>How can you offer critique when you're ignorant of the very thing you're criticizing?
Ad-hom, not an argument. Why do you insist on not addressing user's criticism?

What the fuck are you on about? nutjob

Because you're a retard. NTP isn't going to address any random shmuck's "criticism." No one has time for denialists.

You don't know what the NTP is. You haven't read the study. You've been systematically taken to the cleaners over and over and over in these threads and you're throwing your toys out of the pram in one final tantrum before giving up.

>Because you're a retard.
Ad-hom. Not an argument.
>NTP isn't going to address any random shmuck's "criticism."
He wasn't asking the NTP, he was asking you.
>random shmuck's "criticism."
Ad-hominem. His criticism is perfectly valid, stop damage-controlling.
>No one has time for denialists.
Voicing valid criticism of potentially flawed peer-review is not "denialism", it's the very rigour that makes scientific study what it should be.
>You don't know what the NTP is
I do
>You haven't read the study
I have, not that it matters. I'm not the one voicing the criticism, I'm trying to get you to address it and stop slinking away from it like a rat.
>You've been systematically taken to the cleaners over and over and over in these threads and you're throwing your toys out of the pram in one final tantrum before giving up
This is my first time posting in these threads. Not an argument.

why won't you answer ?

>denialists
What is he denying?

You're right, for a fair and impartial peer-review process we should go to the geniuses at ICNIRP or the pedophiles at WHO

>geniuses at ICNIRP or the pedophiles at WHO
Ad-hominem, not an argument. Real science should fear peer-review from no one.

Right

Attached: industry vs non industry studies.jpg (1324x752, 139K)

So are you going to address the concerns raised in now that you've conceded that science should not fear peer-review?

>semanticscholar.org/paper/Acute-low-intensity-microwave-exposure-increases-in-Lai-Singh/657ffe0516ffd5f003a2193df8b3dcc4c847c9b4

We didn't need the NTP study, but its a welcome. The previous study was done independently by the researchers and found links to cancer. But cell phone industry covered it up and spread disinfo.

Why should I address ignorance? You are further humiliating yourself. Post some more wikipedia links so we can all laugh at you even harder.

>pbs.org/newshour/science/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-new-study-on-cellphones-and-cancer

Cell phone cause cancer. Only retards don't know about it. Cell phone radiation skeptics/denialists BTFO.

Non ionizing radiation isn't harmful otherwise we'd all be dead already by walking outside. Its basic science. 5G is not harmful, 2.5GHz to 300GHz is literally nothing. You'd need on the order of 3,000,000GHz to become ionizing. If you're actually worried about 5G you might as well never leave your house again, but I'm sure you already have that covered.