Red pill me on 5G fellas
Why are people protesting it?
5G
Hudson Hall
Austin Powell
Potential for cancer. For decades the industry has told consumers that phones don't cause cancer. Their rational was "non-ionizing radiation does not cause cancer." Now we have a 10 study and a very strong conclusion that says non-ionizing radiation causes cancer and they found clear evidence. The study was done by National Toxicology Program, a non-profit Government US Department of Human Health/Services division. And the results have been confirmed independently by the french/italian scientists as well. Its not a study on humans but on rats. Some people say because its a study on rats, its irrelevant. Well afaik, rats and humans are both organic that share 99% DNA. So if the rat are getting various different cancer and their sperm rate being lowered, there's a chance it could happen to humans. We don't know. I would rather not be a guinea pig. The counter claim is, we've used cell phones for years so it should be fine. Maybe, but with decades of suppressed data, we can't say with certainty. For decades people who claimed cellphones are causing headaches/cancer were laughed at and derided. Now this myth is over.
Cell phone radiations does cause cancer. NTP is now doing more research on how it affects humans directly on short term.
Luis Edwards
>Why are people protesting it?
simple: people are afraid of what they don't understand.
Austin Hughes
Hilarious how you'll get compared to a flat earther for questioning this.
Seems like the first poster understands more than you.
Xavier Campbell
>Cell phone radiations does cause cancer.
would a 2g dumbphone cause less cancer than a 4g smartphone?
>people are afraid of what they don't understand.
there's literally nothing wrong with that. fear is the baseline of survival
Jordan Morales
>Seems like the first poster understands more than you.
the first poster has a tin foil hat on at all times.
Jace Williams
Not an argument.
Leo Wright
The study was done on 2g/3g frequency, but the same should be true for 5G, since they're non-ionizing radiation.
Also
>cancer.org
>The study found that when people had an active cell phone held up to their ear for 50 minutes, brain tissues on the same side of the head as the phone used more glucose than did tissues on the other side of the brain. Glucose is a sugar that normally serves as the brain’s fuel. Glucose use goes up in certain parts of the brain when it is in use, such as when we are thinking, speaking, or moving. The possible health effect, if any, from the increase in glucose use from cell phone energy is unknown.
We're all in unknown territory with regards to cellphone usage. Especially now a days since kids today are using phones >4 hours a day.
Jaxson Martinez
Smart thing to do is, accept 5G, but don't use your phone right next to your ear/brain for long periods of time. Just few minutes for quick short calls.
Jaxon Collins
so whats the difference between 4g and 5g in threat of cancer?
Aiden Reyes
What if I never talk on the phone save for a few hours a month?
Dominic Reyes
>Smart thing to do is, accept 5G
no shilling going on here no sir.
Dominic Ramirez
Then its not a big issue. The current issue is cell phone radiation right next to our brain for >30 minutes. Heck, you can use phone for hours at a time with the WIRED earphone/mic combo.
Lincoln Ortiz
cool. some interesting points on the study tho:
-the rats were exposed through their entire bodies for longer durations and far higher levels of RFR (even at the lowest level they used in the study) that occur during normal cell phone use
-the study found that exposed male rats actually had longer life spans, as the RFR decreased chronic kidney problems that commonly lead to the death of older rats.
-the study used 2G and 3G RFR and explicitly states that its results do not apply to 4G or 5G as they use different methods of signal modulation.
>niehs.nih.gov
Jonathan Torres
cancer is directly related to how much power your phone has to emit to transmit signals.
3 main factors relate to power
Distance, frequency and bandwidth
All three are closely related at the expense for power.
2G had long distance, low bandwidth, low frequency
AFAIK the actual power emitted hasn't changed much, it probably was higher in 2G than 4G today.
5G is a significant increase in power, at it uses a higher frequency and more bandwidth.The higher freqency also translates to shorter range.
If you wanted the same range from 5G as you get with 4G you would have to ramp up the power to crazy levels.
Lucas Long
in conclusion we are kill
Nicholas Evans
5G is fine.
Adrian Brooks
>far higher level of RFR
Yeah, rats are small but then again so are our brains. Our brains are maybe 2x larger than a standard rat? The time duration is probably done to examine a if non-ionizing radiation would even do anything. Conventional "wisdom" before the study was "non-ionizing radiation doesn't cause harm." If we were to take that to heart, then the 10/12 hours daily exposure shouldn't matter. In the light of the study's conclusion, the amount of hours really matter.
>2G/3G do not apply to 4G/5G
Right, but still can't rule out 4G/5G are safe. They will need different set of 10 year study or few year study. The study on the rats happened before 4G/5G ever was a thing.
Hunter Scott
Fuck I used to talk on it for hours. Gods DAMMIT.
Ayden Cooper
we're also not constantly blaring high levels of RFR directly into our brains with normal cell phone use. especially not the younger generations who do nothing but text and rarely if ever actually put the phone right up to their head. The sun is more dangerous and more likely to cause cancer than your cell phone.
Joshua Edwards
We're using the same RFR amount the rats are getting. The rats are just getting it throughout their entire body. We're shooting the same RFR to our ear/brain and not across our entire body. That's the difference in calculation. Not a difference in power.
Also just FYI, the sun is dangerous, and we protect our skins by wearing clothes and sunscreen and living under shaded structures. Skin cancer is real, its not a hoax.
Adam Morgan
because, no matter what the corporate shills and paid (and unpaid) idiots claim, 5G can have harmful effects on humans in the short or long term, that nobody can predict at this point, even if they wanted, which they don't even want
Asher Flores
Hey, OP, don't listen to those anti-5g shills, they must be either russian/iranian paid trolls or lunatics. 5G is totally OK to use, it is almost the same thing as 2G/3G/4G/Gbps LTE or Wi-Fi, or radio. It will not boil your body and lower your sperm count and testosterone levels, like some of these shills claim.
Camden James
Well 5G Isn't what you think it is.
It's an umbrella term for multiple different technologies.
If you need one take on what "5G" brings, it's throughput. Shorter range, more towers and very fast speeds.
The core of 5G is like wifi on steroids, it's not going to bring range or anything like that. What it's going to do, is allow thousands of clients communicate with close proximity towers efficiently and with gigabit speeds.
They are protesting it because they don't know better and are well stupid. The advancements are on the antenna and software side, transmit power isn't going to the increase in any meaningful way.
Juan Ross
Jesus Christ this entire thread is full of tinfoil fucks who believe everything they read.
5G doesn't cause cancer, dipshits. You're believing obvious fearmongering that news articles and whatnot feed you.
I swear the future of the human race is declining because we're afraid of everything new nowadays.
Owen Jackson
This is who you're arguing with when you participate in these threads
archive.4plebs.org
Benjamin Perez
user, being right or wrong isnt a thing anymore, it's about how you convince people, if youre more convincing you win, that's all there's to it.