/sci/ - Science & Math

>Is 5g actually dangerous?
Why don't you try it and find out?

>>10692973
Maybe. If you stood around a 5g transmitter for long periods of time, it would certainly be bad for you. The question is really is 5g harmful at the intensity experienced on the ground beneath the cell towers?

>>10692973
its needed to make IOT work.

>>10692987
And why is it so important to have your car and toaster connected to the internet?

>>10692973
>safe
Doubt it.
>needed
No.

But there is a concerted demoralization campaign going on to make you believe it is inevitable. Just remember that they're dumber than you, not even remotely deserving of your respect, and you'll come out more-or-less informed.

>>10692997
to collect your data, what else?

>>10692997
There are many inferences about whether or not you're a dangerous white supremacist based on precisely you operate your toaster.

>>10692973
There are studies suggesting that non-ionizing radiation is safe.
There are studies suggesting it isn't (even causes cancer).
The majority of the studies suggesting it's safe are industry funded.

So.. probably, but we don't know for sure.

The radiation is not ionizing and should thereby not be dangerous.
But I can shake the feeling that being constantly swept in man made radiation must have some effect on us.

We have evolved to tolerate solar radiation during the day and background radiation at all time but how does our bodies react long term to all this extra radio and microwave radiation?

>>10692973
There's no evidence it's dangerous.
>>10693002
>dude what's an op-ed

>>10693029
>muh feeling
That's not sufficient. The radio and microwave radiation is orders of magnitude less intense than what enters your body in daylight.

>>10693029
>only ionizing radiation is harmful
>There's no evidence it's dangerous.

>Clear evidence of tumors in the hearts of male rats. The tumors were malignant schwannomas.
>Some evidence of tumors in the brains of male rats. The tumors were malignant gliomas.
>Some evidence of tumors in the adrenal glands of male rats. The tumors were benign, malignant, or complex combined pheochromocytoma.

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

>>10693034
absence of evidence != evidence of absence

>>10693047
Stop using that phrase to justify believing in garbage with no evidence.

>>10693047
Unless you have a case where you'd expect evidence to be present if x = true (which happens quite often).

>>10693056
im not the one installing radiation emitting devices everywhere without any information on its impact in our ecosystem

but yeah, humans are doomed as a species, so i dont really care either way
you can be as retarded as you want

>>10693058
have you ever actually done any lab work man?
most of the time patterns in nature are not easy to see, which is why research relies so much on statistics
so you cant just go to a 5g tower, make a measurment and say "there's nothing"
you have to make several measurements, and several experiments to actually start to see something

>>10693042
Based 5G taking down the patriarchy

>>10692997
So your toaster can have toast ready by the time you walk through the door

>>10692973
>OF COURSE IT'S SAFE, GOYIM
>now, keep installing those towers
>*rubs hands with low latency*

>>10692973
>Is 5g actually dangerous?

No.

>Is it safe?

Yes

>Is it really needed?

Depends on whether you consider better cell service to be a 'need' in your worldview

>>10693047
Cool meme phrase. Now produce evidence that 5g is dangerous.

>>10693047
The absence of evidence for something increases the probability that that thing is absent if the probability of evidence is nonzero.

>>10693063
Many experiments and epidemiological studies have been done, none have found any evidence, unless you think radiation makes male rats live longer.

>>10693059
You don't even actually know what radiation is. The parts of the electromagnetic spectrum that cause damaging ionization and cancer have been extremely well-characterized. There is literally no reason to believe that the frequency of 5G signals at normal levels of exposure would cause any significant increase in cancer risk.

"Radiation emitting devices" includes everything from lightbulbs to computers to fidget spinners. The dose and type of radiation makes the danger, not the presence of 'radiation' which is omnipresent on Earth.

>>10693088
citation needed, the post

>>10693098
nice shift of the burden of proof

>>10693095
>You don't even actually know what radiation is. The parts of the electromagnetic spectrum that cause damaging ionization and cancer have been extremely well-characterized.
really?
ok, its not like humans have ever gone face first into "technological advancement" only for it to blow up in their face, right?

there was no evidence that eating radioactive material was a bad thing
so they put that shit everywhere
there was no evidence that lead was poisonous
so the romans made makeup out of it
yeah
lets just keep doing this

>>10693098
There is no citation needed - low exposure to non-ionizing EM radiation does not cause cancer. The fear-mongering over 5G is basically a complete departure from actual science and it's up to the people who buy into that shit to provide the evidence for why anyone should think it's true.

For further reading:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit#Bullshit_asymmetry_principle

>>10693102
man youre answering questions in a very terse way, so asking for sources is not asking too much

>is 5g dangerous?
>no, there's no reason to think so and no evidence that suggests it
>OKAY BUT I THINK ITS DANGEROUS

>>10693109
I'm not the same person. The OP asked if 5G is dangerous. There is no evidence that suggests it is dangerous. If someone wishes to argue it is dangerous, the burden of proof is on them to point to some sort of evidence that it is dangerous. Fuckin retard.

>>10693104
>there was no evidence that eating radioactive material was a bad thing
Yeah, and that was only up until like 10 years after substances that emmited ionizing radiation were discovered. The use of radio and microwaves to transmit data has been around for a fucking century. Lead has been known to be poisonous since ancient times, btw.

>>10693104
>ok, its not like humans have ever gone face first into "technological advancement" only for it to blow up in their face, right?

99.99% of the time, nothing happens and society just gets better. Nobody is obligated to placate the unsubstantiated fears of uneducated people by holding off potentially life-saving and life-improving technology for decades.

>there was no evidence that eating radioactive material was a bad thing

Because the physics and biology needed to explain the dangers of radium clocks and water purifiers did not exist circa 1917. They weren't claiming positively that it was safe because they didn't know what it was. There was no model for what was 'safe' and 'unsafe' because they were just fucking around.

The current model for electromagnetism is extremely close to perfect, and there is no reason why any person should fear the type of radiation emitted by 5G towers. What you're essentially doing is comparing a very careful and well-thought-out communications project to a bunch of dirty Romans rubbing dirt on their faces before the advent of modern chemistry or medicine. I shouldn't have to explain why that's a false equivalence.

>>10693104
>ok, its not like humans have ever gone face first into "technological advancement" only for it to blow up in their face, right
perhaps when it is a completely novel technology. 5G is hardly a novel technology, it's only an improvement of technologies we already have and are used everywhere.

>>10693104
>muh radioactivity
>muh heavy metal poisoning
Are you saying that there is some undiscovered physics that makes 5G dangerous? Because the mechanisms of both your worries are now well understood.

>>10693108
here i thought you would actually post some information but you just post bullshit

>>10693086
what's the theory here - that Jews are more resistant to cancer and wouldn't also be exposed to the signals?

>>10693112
I'm putting this chemical in your drinking water, there is no evidence that it will harm you. The burden of proof is on you.

>>10693122
>The current model for electromagnetism is extremely close to perfect
sure, the model for human biology is not though
your system is composed of E-M radiation and humans

>>10693151
There is nothing to cite because there doesn't usually exist a peer-reviewed refutation for every bullshit claim that someone cooks up on the internet.

Here's basically the citation: 5G signals use electromagnetic waves that are outside of the frequency/intensity regions that are known to cause cancer. In fact, millimeter wave machines are already used in all airport security screens, which have already been well-studied for potential health effects. No added risk of cancer.

>>10693126
>Are you saying that there is some undiscovered physics that makes 5G dangerous?
yes, that or an interaction between radiation density in cities and human biology
but honestly we dont care if we kill a couple of humans, we never have

>>10693164
Do you have any evidence to support your claim?

>>10693159
>sure, the model for human biology is not though

Gaps in our knowledge of human biology are not sufficient to argue that 5G is unsafe. We know what causes cancer when someone is poisoned by radiation - ionization occurs in the DNA strand (in the case of cancer, usually in the p53 gene) and causes strand breaks that fail to be repaired.

Radiation needs to ionize your DNA to cause cancer - if it lacks the frequency and intensity for ionization, it doesn't cause cancer.

>>10693164
>that or an interaction between radiation density in cities and human biology

I am a trained cell biologist and this reads like overly-ambiguous nonsense to me.

>>10693176
>Some concerns have been raised that these signals might increase the risk of cancer, and research in this area continues.
source American Cancer Society

simply put, the matter isnt as clear cut as you try to make it appear

>>10693177
because we know what of all the carcinogenic factors that we all interact with daily triggers the cancer that kills you

because DNA can only be damaged by ionization

>>10693179
What part of it is ambiguous?
Humans live immersed in an amount of artificial E-M radiation that hasn't existed for generations.
I propose the idea that there could be an interaction between this new environmental factor and negative effects on our biology.

It's not like modernity hasn't given us enough of those kind of things, right?

>>10693193
>Humans live immersed in an amount of artificial E-M radiation that hasn't existed for generations.

The language you're using here is kind of a giveaway that you don't really understand radiation. It isn't possible to be 'immersed' in radiation because it isn't a medium, doesn't stick around, and, in the case of electromagnetism, isn't even comprised of matter. Likewise, calling some electromagnetic radiation 'artificial' is nonsense.

>this new environmental factor

millimeter wave emitters are not new technology and they've been well-studied already.

>>10693185
the quote you've linked does not suggest that there is any danger, just that people (read: you) have raised concerns (read: not supported by science) and that research continues (read: as it would have anyway)

>>10693154
What chemical? Are you that retard who talked about putting uranium in the water in last thread?

>>10693193
>articifial
Good thing there's technically no difference between natural and "artificial" EM. Good thing the EM we generate absolutely pales in comparison to what comes off the sun through our atmosphere.

>>10693188
>because DNA can only be damaged by ionization

In the context of towers that use electromagnetic signals, yes, that is a correct statement.

>>10693188
>because we know what of all the carcinogenic factors that we all interact with daily triggers the cancer that kills you
i dont have a brainlet wojak suitable for this word salad

>>10692973

The only respectable organization in terms of non ionizing radiation safety is the ICNIRP. Read everything they said about 5G and stop creating these fucking threads every fucking day.

https://www.icnirp.org/en/activities/news/news-article/tokyo-workshop-2016.html

don't use it. no one cares the rest of the world will go on.

>>10693223
>https://www.icnirp.org/en/activities/news/news-article/tokyo-workshop-2016.html
look this is what supporting evidence looks like
calling others retarded on the internet for disagreeing with you only proves your own retardation
at least i know im retarded

>>10693231
given that there's only a 4 minute gap between that anon's extremely-content-heavy link and your reply, I kind of doubt that you actually learned anything

>>10693223
That feel when you have to sacrifice an innocent bun to test the effects of radiation on eyeballs but it's necessary to ensure safety of modern technologies.

>>10693152
Google "eruv wire".

>>10693152
The theory is that it negatively impacts fertility.

>>10693209
>there's technically no difference between natural and "artificial" EM

>>10693320
so explain how you think an extremely thin wire protects you from EM waves?

>>10693353
In b4 noise cancelling headphones but for EM and also phones still work within the wire because reasons.

>>10693036
Well no, he's right, the extra radiation does cause cellular damage, albeit only at levels far higher than we're exposed to daily. What we really need is long-term exposure testing for the low doses, but that within itself has problems in setting the experiment up.

>>10693063
It was a more of a general philosophical statement than a practical one. There are cases where you'd definitely expect a result, and where the absence of said result is evidence (not definitive proof) against the notion.

>>10693077
That's what you fools don't get. This is the final feminist conspiracy to take down not just the patriarchy, but ALL MALES OF ALL SPECIES. WE MUST STOP THIS NOW!

>>10693402
>Well no, he's right...
No he isn't which you explain literally in the second half of your sentence.
>albeit only at levels far higher than we're exposed to daily

>>10693002
>post about 5g
>pic is about trump
/pol/ is down the hall and to the left

>>10693223
>https://www.icnirp.org/en/activities/news/news-article/tokyo-workshop-2016.html
Kek another opaque industry advocate group

>Despite or because of the wide use of ICNIRP guidance, it also encounters criticism. The rapporteur's memorandum attached to a resolution adopted by the Standing Committee of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in May 2011 reads: "it is most curious, to say the least, that the applicable official threshold values for limiting the health impact of extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields and high frequency waves were drawn up and proposed to international political institutions (WHO, European Commission, governments) by the ICNIRP, an NGO whose origin and structure are none too clear and which is furthermore suspected of having rather close links with the industries whose expansion is shaped by recommendations for maximum threshold values for the different frequencies of electromagnetic fields"

>>10693425
You just quoted some random politician's opinion. Unless they have some facts to back it up might as well be saying that ICNIRP is funded by ayy lmaos

>>10693415
I'm sorry, the second half didn't contradict the first, I was merely stating that there is insufficient evidence in cases where the radiation is low. You never specified an amount of radiation originally, just merely rejected the idea that the extra radiation could cause harm, which is wrong.

>>10693437
>You never specified an amount of radiation
>>10693036
>orders of magnitude less intense than what enters your body in daylight
Ok...

Why is 5g being doubted so much where 4g (and 3g? i were too young then to follow news) just passed like a breeze?

>>10693461

It's a big deal and a harder implementation so it gets more media coverage. More media coverage means higher chances of the news intersecting with schizophrenics.

>>10693461
alarmist tards aren't very consistent

>>10693443
Yes, and I'm saying that we do not know, a small amount of 5g exposure across 30 years could have the same effect as one high frequency dose, or it could not. Sunlight within itself is damaging, and our body has only guarded against the visible, infrared, and ultraviolet spectrum, and that's from the outside.

>>10693461
There definitely was a stink about 4g and there has in general been the same for previous standards. Use to be an EHS schitzo who would post regularly on here but haven't seen them in a while.

>>10693480
>a small amount of 5g exposure across 30 years could have the same effect as one high frequency dose
That's not how non ionizing radiation works, if 5G background radiation is harmful then your own body heat is giving you cancer.

>>10693461
It has a significantly higher frequency than 4g. The concern is that exposure can cause heat to build up in human cells and destroy them. This was never a problem with 4g, as we know pretty conclusively that it's harmless.

>>10692973
If it's not safe do the people that want it to spread have some kind of shield to protect themselves?
Or is it not a conspiracy and it's just curiousity because they might also not know

>>10692973
>Frequency of a Microwave Oven 1-300GHz
https://hypertextbook.com/facts/1998/HowardCheung.shtml

>5G signals will use wavelengths (between 30 and 300 gigahertz)
https://electronics.howstuffworks.com/5g3.htm

That's a yikes from me.

>>10693461
bascially anti vaxers, climate change denialists and flat earthers clinging on to something else

>>10693512
>... is commonly defined as being between 300 MHz and 300 GHz which is within the RF range
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directed-energy_weapon

So, given enough power to a 5g tower, shouldn't this be able to be turned into a weapon? Now I don't know how the infrastructure security is in your countries, but in mine it's absolute dogshit.

Can a superboosted 5g system be turned into a grid of microwaving weapons?

>>10693531
>given enough power to a 5g tower
Given enough power a lightbulb can be a weapon. Doesn't change the fact that a 60W bulb will explode before giving you a sunburn.

>>10693565
>lightbulb can be a weapon
Well no, it would burn through and break. Would a 5g tower do the same? The probably outcome is that it sinks "all the power" causing a power outage before any harm is done, but I'm thinking worst case here.

>>10693461
Because it needs a completely different (new) infrastructure and is associated with the IoT.

>>10693424
wish they would move to a different department. the fissure wan't enough.

>>10693619
The "fissure" was not intended to give you a safe and trigger-free browsing experience.

>>10692973
>Is 5g actually dangerous?

A lot of the propaganda around it's dangers originate with reports coming from RT, which we know is often used as a mouthpiece for the Kremlin. Meanwhile Putin is pushing for 5G in russia, only they can't afford to build such infrastructure at the same rate as the west. So go figure what's going on there.

>Is it really needed?

Historically speaking has humanity gained from faster internet?

>>10693086
This is just your stereotypical jacques

>>10693629
Paranoid schizo

>>10693629
>muh russians
Kek. Take your boomer conspiracyshit back to facebook please.

>>10693643
>>10693629

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/12/science/5g-phone-safety-health-russia.html

>>10693660
Don't care about the opinions of uneducated journalists pushing their narrative.
https://www.5gspaceappeal.org/the-appeal

>>10693625
there is enough to deal with, with all the retard undergrads like me attempting to be smart while just recently finishing their calc track.

>>10693660
>our source was the new york times

>>10693660
>that article
Holy shit, the Grey Lady has turned bright yellow. So much for the "paper of record" lol

>>10693664
>Don't care about the opinions of uneducated journalists pushing their narrative.

Good, so then don't fall for these alarmist stories being pushed by state funded news from a nation that prides itself on it's masterful 'maskirovka'.

>>10693660
>another unhinged Putin screed in the NYT
For anyone doubting the relevance of pic in >>10693002. It's literally the same one-trick ponies who tried to tell you Russia "hacked the election" who are now telling you Russia "something something 5G". Absolutely unreadable, tinfoil-tier shit but what did you expect from the retards running our major news outlets in the Year of our Lord 2019?

>>10693676
I'm not, you are the one reading those or convincing yourself you are better than the people who read them (you're not).

>>10693643
>>10693649
>>10693669
>>10693690

>>10693577
>Would a 5g tower do the same?
Yes.

>>10693512
your microwave also directs nearly a kilowatt to a piece of food roughly 10 inches from the emitter

remember that radiative flux decreases quadratically over distance

>>10693690
Putin is a living, breathing screed of himself. No need to even write anything about him. But you're an obvious troll, so you know what you're doing and why you're doing it.