5G

[Anonymous No.11076810]

Well /sci/? Is it safe?

[Anonymous No.11076817]

>>11076810
They won't tell you if it isn't. The benefits that can be derived from it are too great. If 5g is dangerous they'll sweep it under the rug and implement it anyway.

[Anonymous No.11076841]

>>11076810
yeah. You think something that's has such shit penetration it's absorbed by fucking air isn't safe?

[Anonymous No.11076844]

Is a microwave with shield removed safe?

[Anonymous No.11076862]

>>11076844
I'm still educating myself on the subject, but isn't the frequency nowhere near that of a microwave's?

[Anonymous No.11076887]

>>11076862
5G require high frequency range of sub 6 GHz and millimeter waves.
The natural resonance of water is 2.4 GHz.

[Anonymous No.11076892]

>>11076810
People on 4chan say it's not safe, so it must be safe.

[Anonymous No.11076904]

>>11076887
Memes aside, 5G uses microwave frequencies but at very low powers. Microwave ovens consume 1500W.

[Anonymous No.11076905]

>>11076904
meant for
>>11076862

[Anonymous No.11076919]

>>11076904
I’ve had lower powered microwaves and they just cook the food slower, they don’t ‘not cook it’ though.

[Anonymous No.11076924]

>>11076904
If you read 5g white papers this is actual false, the power range for 5G can be amped up significantly, and they claim it will operate in a ‘range’ of power consumptions and intensity, not a set low one.
If your town starts a riot they can turn a dial to make it more intense.

[Anonymous No.11076926]

>>11076924
In fact literal Riot Control technology literally uses frequencies in the same range as “5g” and fucking China is the first implementer of this “safe” technology.

[Anonymous No.11076927]

>>11076904
>https://www.lightreading.com/mobile/5g/power-consumption-5g-basestations-are-hungry-hungry-hippos/d/d-id/749979
>https://spectrum.ieee.org/telecom/wireless/5gs-waveform-is-a-battery-vampire
WRONG. 5G towers use 10-15 kilowatt power. 5G base stations use 3x power of 4G LTE base stations.

>https://www.extremetech.com/mobile/295228-5g-modems-and-phones-literally-cant-handle-the-heat-of-summer-weather
The phones using 5G modem overheat fast even in warm temperature due to high amount of power consumption. They also coincidentally drain battery fast.

Also

>https://mdsafetech.org/ntp-study-2016/
$25 million + 10 years study show CLEAR evidence that 2g/3g causes cancer. With 5G, that rates should be higher.

[Anonymous No.11076928]

>>11076919
Anon if its low powered enough the food won't get cooked

[Anonymous No.11076933]

First 2.4 Ghz, now 5 Ghz and 60 Ghz.
Just imagine when they make 500 Thz internet, how dangerous that's gonna be.

[Anonymous No.11076939]

>>11076904
Memes aside, dissolved lead in the drinking water is dangerous at concentrations of 100mg/L. So we're putting 75mg/L into yours. Stop it with the conspiracy theories, this will save multinational corporations hundreds of millions of dollars and generate literally dozens of jobs

[Anonymous No.11076959]

>>11076810
We will know soon enough anon.

[Anonymous No.11076966]

>>11076927
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law

/thread

[Anonymous No.11076970]

>>11076927
>stations use 3x power
is that radiation, or just CPUs running hot

[Anonymous No.11076997]

>>11076966
5G riot suppression technology is a public patent and so is its proof of concept, the inverse square law is accounted for in its use.

[Anonymous No.11077122]

>>11076970
Heat is radiation is energy

[Anonymous No.11077125]

>>11077122
hurr durr

[Anonymous No.11077133]

>>11077125
More specifically power required to transmit 5g data requires that much.

[Anonymous No.11077165]

>>11076810
No, literally everyone will get cooked alive on earth as soon as one single antenna anywhere goes online. Better hurry though, Anon. You're the only one smart enough to have figured this out and now you need to hurry to tell every single engineer working in telecommunications who could've never figured that out.
Just remember what happened last time they rolled out telecommunications world wide in the 2000s. That kind of huge calamity will happen again! Please, genius Anon, do something! You're our only hope.

[Anonymous No.11077410]

>>11076844
Non-ionizing, safe at any level.

[Anonymous No.11077499]

>>11077410
>heats you up so much that your skin becomes cancerous
Heh nothing personel

[Anonymous No.11077500]

>>11076810
no

[Anonymous No.11077534]

>>11077410
This. The people who believe in microwaves causing harm to people, wildlife and the environment are the same people who believe in global warming: gullible idiots

[Anonymous No.11077547]

>>11077165
yes anon, it's only two options
either everyone dies or everyone is 100% safe, nothing in between
you are VERY smart to realize 5G won't literally cook people alive, you showed those tinfoilers with facts and logic

[Anonymous No.11077634]

>>11077410
Earth is flat. Time is cube.

[Anonymous No.11077644]

>>11076810
why wouldn't it be?

[Anonymous No.11077646]

>>11077634
this. the earth is just a planar intersection of the timecube

[Anonymous No.11077664]

>>11077646
forgot proof

[Anonymous No.11077667]

>>11077646
cross section*
sorry I had trouble hearing my own thoughts over the voice of god

[Anonymous No.11077721]

Apparently 5G gives some kind of fever to insects.

[Anonymous No.11077728]

>>11076810
It is safe but anti competitive telecoms are fear mongering so that they won’t be asked to update their shit infrastructure. That’s why they pay “new media entrepreneurs” like Alex Jones to peddle this crap.

[Anonymous No.11077874]

>>11077165
What about when they rolled out super safe asbestos?
Also 4g has several associated health risks over time.

[Anonymous No.11077882]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lCIAcZov5Hs

This video is interesting

[Anonymous No.11077899]

>>11077547
>>11077874
Yeah, wouldn't put it past them to understate the risks. But they aren't gonna say a bullet in the head is safe.

Common sense says they can sacrifice a few people but not too many, so if you are not in the 5% most exposed you're probably fine.

[Anonymous No.11077922]

Ok you can disregard the conspiracies above.

===IS 5G DANGEROUS?!!?!?!?!?===
Short answer: Sorta but not really
Long answer: While 5G poses no threat to people for the most part, it can still damage your testicles and kill sperm. People have their phones in their pockets right next to their balls so that is a concern. On top of that the waves can over time damage eyes but there is a low chance of there being enough of it to damage your eyes, you'd have to be on the phone for hours and your phone probably doesn't emit/recieve enough to damage eyes anyway.
What about cancer? Well although there needs to be more research most evidence points to 5G not being able to cause cancer. So you don't have to worry about cancer, it is mainly people who don't understand it who scream "carcinogen"

Speculation: 5G could possibly be dangerous to smaller organisms such as insects but yet again, more research is needed and this is just speculation.
This is my personal speculation, what does /sci/ think about 5G on brain tissue since it can harm testicles?

Conclusion: 5G is all around pretty safe except for testicle tissue and the waves MAY be harmful to eyes but the doseage is unlikely to have any affect at all. It also will not give you cancer.

[Anonymous No.11077947]

>>11077922
>it can still damage your testicles and kill sperm.
By what mechanism?

[Anonymous No.11077950]

>>11077947
The waves btfo them babies

[Anonymous No.11077982]

>>11077922
>it might harm your balls
>it might cause ecosystem collapse and the extinction of multicellular animal life from insects on up
>more research is needed
>but it's safe to roll out worldwide
>except for your balls and maybe your eyes

[Anonymous No.11077986]

>Well /sci/? Is it safe?
>and you BETTER say it isn't because I'm hopped up on adderall and I can post all day ad infinitum

[Anonymous No.11077997]

>>11077986
Get a load of this denier

[Anonymous No.11078053]

>>11077997
I'm still waiting to hear what the proposed mechanism is for cellular damage by non-ionizing.

[Anonymous No.11078078]

>>11076817
>The benefits that can be derived from it are too great
lol we can replace lan lines with cell phones XD dont mind the cancer and psychosis

[Anonymous No.11078086]

>>11076997
>5G riot suppression technology is a public patent
So then you would be able to post a link to it in this thread.

[Anonymous No.11078090]

>>11076927
>2g/3g causes cancer. With 5G, that rates should be higher.
based on what? it's differrent frequencies

[Anonymous No.11078095]

>>11077122
V=IR

[Anonymous No.11078099]

>>11077165
you added nothing to the conversation. wait for cancer rates and mental illness stats in 20 years

[Anonymous No.11078104]

>>11077634
>Time is cube.
thanks for the reminder

[Anonymous No.11078119]

>>11077899
> some shit from my colon
> not even a thought of evidence
stop posting

[Anonymous No.11078121]

>>11077922
>except for testicle tissue and the waves MAY be harmful to eyes
literally the 2 most important organs

[Anonymous No.11078123]

>>11078053
>cellular damage
You need to think bigger, denieranon.

[Anonymous No.11078128]

>>11078123
This is exactly why people don't take 5G criticism and environmentalists seriously. They're just throwing out "radiation" and "EMFs" with no specifics or any sign of understanding

[Anonymous No.11078135]

>>11078123
It's okay, 5G makes robot bees possible, so there's no problem.

[Anonymous No.11078159]

>>11078119
It's not based on the details of 5g itself, but it is based on how coverups have worked historically.

[Anonymous No.11078163]

>>11078159
Imagine the coverups for the wheel. It's the oldest invention in history, what have they been hiding from us?

[Anonymous No.11078183]

>>11078123
Neat infographic.
Still waiting to hear what the mechanism is for these disastrous effects.

[Anonymous No.11078220]

>>11078183
Here's your mechanism: we, the generation of today's youth, will judge you as a greedy capitalist for killing all the bees. We will dance on your graves and spit on your memory. And that, too, we will quickly exorcise from our minds. You are dead to us. And all you had to do was listen.

[Anonymous No.11078236]

>>11076810
Allow me to put this in simple terms that you can understand.

AH DOOOOOHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOY

[Anonymous No.11078275]

>>11077982
>>11078121
Well there's your info, you decide for yourself. It has upsides too.

[Anonymous No.11078563]

>>11077922
>>11078275
Clever anti-5G shill
Knows how to spread sourceless FUD without going overboard and sounding like a conspiracy nut
Gains the reader's trust by presenting it as a balanced issue with pros and (unfounded) cons, making it more likely that the reader will accept the FUD without question
9/10 very nuanced

The actual con of 5G is that it will encroach on the frequency bands already used by Earth-observation satellites like those that monitor atmospheric water content, causing their readings to become less accurate or even impossible, at a time when understanding how the atmosphere and climate is changing is more important than ever. Look for news about telecom companies bidding against NASA and other scientific agencies to win FCC approval to broadcast in new frequency bands.

[Anonymous No.11078942]

>>11078563
So what you're saying is, it's fine to dunk on 5g as long as you manage to also shit on rightoids in the process?

[Anonymous No.11078951]

>>11076928
Anon you sound like the toad that doesn’t want to hop out of the nice warming pot of water.

[Anonymous No.11078962]

>>11078135
It would be impossible to recognize skynets’ attack against humanity but, “let’s kill all the bees to replace them with robot bees!” would be a great and ironic way for humanity to fuck itself.

[Anonymous No.11079724]

>>11076927
No shit they require higher power amplifiers as the wavelength is smaller. From the Friis transmission equation the amount of received power is directly related to the wavelength. If the company could get away with a 1W broadcast system they would but microwave systems get very power hungry when you want to broadcast.

[Anonymous No.11079740]

>>11077410
This is false. Radio burns are a thing. Just don't hug a broadcast antenna and you'll be fine

[Anonymous No.11079752]

>>11077947
This is my problem with the anti 5g croud. I can explain why the system will be safe with well understood physics. But they just spout bullshit and don't justify

[Anonymous No.11079772]

I use a wifi router in my room


safe? I just moved it to the far corner. It use to be next to my bed. I'm plugged into my PC, i dont even use wifi. maybe i should just turn it off?

[Anonymous No.11079775]

>>11079752
The actual science shows that 5g’s band range overlaps the one that damages the human eye.

[Anonymous No.11079946]

There is literally nothing wrong with getting cancer.

[Anonymous No.11081048]

>>11079775
Cool - which band range is that and what's the mechanism?

[Anonymous No.11081322]

>>11079775
>infrared causes eye damage
or
>radio causes eye damage

[Anonymous No.11081464]

>>11079775
>band range overlaps the one that damages the human eye
Buddy I have bad news about the LCD/OLED screen in your phone.

[Anonymous No.11082725]

>>11077410
>Non-ionizing, safe at any level.
Cool story, kid

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_Denial_System

[Anonymous No.11082738]

>>11082725
Wow:
>On August 20, 2010, the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department announced its intent to use this technology on prisoners in the Pitchess Detention Center in Los Angeles, stating its intent to use it in "operational evaluation" in situations such as breaking up prisoner fights.[7]

[Anonymous No.11082959]

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/we-have-no-reason-to-believe-5g-is-safe/
>Millimeter waves are mostly absorbed within a few millimeters of human skin and in the surface layers of the cornea.
>The research suggests that long-term exposure may pose health risks to the skin (e.g., melanoma), the eyes (e.g., ocular melanoma) and the testes (e.g., sterility).
>Since 5G is a new technology, there is no research on health effects

Children of Men scenario:
>Roll-out 5G with little to no research on the effect on human biology.
>More people getting married and having kids later in life right now as it is.
>Begin to see health effects, attribute to other factors (age, diet, climate change, whatever).
>Years progress, parents continue to give their five year olds cell phones, unknowingly exposing radiation to their prepubescent testicles.
>Kids hit puberty and a generation begins to see rise in sterility rates.
>World catches on too late, 5G is everywhere, built into every part of society and infrastructure and "smart cities". World is divided on the issue, half don't believe it's real. >Nothing really changes, too dependent on the tech at this point and governments don't want to give up the greater surveillance and espionage capabilities offered in 5G.
>Entire generation is now sterile. World descends into chaos, factions emerge, world governments become more authoritarian. Some fall into civil war. Environmental terrorists and anarchists make attacks on public infrastructure.
>World must decide to dismantle the 5G infrastructure, wait for entire new generation to grow up.
>Large age gap in world population causes widespread economic depression.
>???

[Anonymous No.11083005]

>>11076924
Can you post a source on that?

[Anonymous No.11083036]

>>11079724
So, they are using high frequency radiation at high wattage. Isn't this a significant health risk? Inverse square law is all well and good, but if these systems are all the way down the street, the inverse square law is not going to help you much.

[Anonymous No.11083058]

>>11083036
Depends on the type of health risk. Very low frequency means the wave just passes your body without "any harm" as it doesn't have enough energy. High frequency means it stops at the body and doesn't go through(i.e light), but because of the power, it can cause heat and other issues. Cell phones radiation is somewhere in the middle. So you have stuff that mostly passes through your body, but has enough power to heat up the cells and potentially cause cancer with enough exposure.

[Anonymous No.11083118]

>>11076919
600 watts in a cubic foot of space is still a lot. A few dozen watts over a whole city block is nothing. Like with microwave radar, don't stand in front of the transmitter. It probably won't burn you badly like radar will, but it could still burn you a little, or burn internal tissues at hot points.

[Anonymous No.11083205]

>>11083058
As I understand it low frequency can cause problems if the power is high enough. High frequency can cause problems because they have more power simply by virtue of being higher frequency. Gamma rays are higher than light and they will pass through the body. Same with X-rays.

[Anonymous No.11083224]

>>11076844
Try to make microwave out of 5g router, goodluck

[Anonymous No.11083335]

>>11083224
Cellular 5g is not operating at 5ghz like that router, the name is a misnomer. 5g cell tower emits variable frequencies up to 32ghz instead. It’s named 5g so that younger people will associate it with their nostalgia routers and assume it’s the same even though 5g cellular is much more powerful (the square exponent).

[Anonymous No.11083347]

>>11083335
Up to 100ghz, not just 32ghz.
The Army Active Denial System that burns skin and causes disabling pain and is used in some prisons in the US already as a riot control device operates at 95ghz.
5g cellular towers operate from 6ghz to 100ghz, meaning they can be used to suppress a riot like the active denial system already does in practice.

[Anonymous No.11083363]

>>11083005
Yes.
US Army Active Denial: 95ghz
Citation: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_Denial_System
(Sorry for wiki but this is a listed figure there)
5g vs 4g pic related I dare you to prove me wrong.

ONE HUNDRED GHZ.
They named it 5g to make it sound like your old router even though it’s MINIMUM frequency is 6ghz.
You need frequencies of 50ghz or higher for effective signal and “antenna inside device” applications as well which means at a 6ghz tower you’d need to attach an external antennae to your phone to even use it.

[Anonymous No.11083369]

>>11083363
Forgot:

[Anonymous No.11083405]

>>11083224
A 5g router operates on the same frequency range as your 5ghz router, that’s what 4g does.
5g operates from 600 hertz to 100ghz, and needs to be above 50 for it to be cell-phone useful. If they turn the dial to 100ghz then there is a really nice method for an AI or an operator to suppress civil unrest, since the US Army Active Denial system, often referred to a a non lethal buy super effective (and it can maim you with third degree burns, theoretically) microwave weapon, only needs 95ghz and doesn’t need near as much power as a radio tower has to suppress a crowd since it was meant to be vehicle mounted.

[Anonymous No.11083408]

I've heard that the normal frequency of 5G puts it into the audible range for humans. Is this true?

[Anonymous No.11083412]

>>11083405
>5g cellular doesn’t operate on the same frequency as your old blue router, that’s what 4g does.
Is what I meant to say. 5g cellular operates on the same frequency range as army and prison crowd control systems.

[Anonymous No.11083426]

>>11083408
False; the average human can hear from 20 hertz to 2ghz, which is why you couldn’t hear a 2.4ghz router or a 5ghz router.
100ghz is way above the human hearing threshold but it could potentially heat your inner ear, creating an auditory sensation from the damage occuring.

[Anonymous No.11083458]

>>11083426
>average human can hear from 20 hertz to 2ghz
Holy shit, you are way off dude. Humans cannot hear up to 2 GHz, try like 0.00002 GHz (or 20 kHz)

[Anonymous No.11083535]

>>11076810
>https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/we-have-no-reason-to-believe-5g-is-safe/

>Citing this large body of research, more than 240 scientists who have published peer-reviewed research on the biologic and health effects of nonionizing electromagnetic fields (EMF) signed the International EMF Scientist Appeal, which calls for stronger exposure limits. The appeal makes the following assertions:

“Numerous recent scientific publications have shown that EMF affects living organisms at levels well below most international and national guidelines. Effects include increased cancer risk, cellular stress, increase in harmful free radicals, genetic damages, structural and functional changes of the reproductive system, learning and memory deficits, neurological disorders, and negative impacts on general well-being in humans. Damage goes well beyond the human race, as there is growing evidence of harmful effects to both plant and animal life.”

sounds like a tough choice. HD VR porn or cancer?

[Anonymous No.11083574]

>>11083118
Good points and true anon. Perhaps part of the hysteria against big tech installing this technology everywhere is that consent is assumed first or it’s determined unnecessary, at best this involuntary implementation should make a person feel like the pepperty of these corporations, since no consent is needed. A billion dollar media campaign tells us that we agree without us actually doing so, in the statistical certainty that x of y will be manipulated to agree immediately before even really knowing about it. They they bank on a large percentage of those fooled to dismiss 5g criticism and even answer with programmed sound bites and statistics do refute the strawman disagreements with it when the real one is fundamental, these corporations are choosing for us like we are cattle in a pasture. A technocracy.

[Anonymous No.11083693]

>>11076810
Let's assume the worst
Now tell me how any of the elite would subject themselves and their offspring to it if the above were to be true

[Anonymous No.11083721]

>>11083693
Prove that they will and do. This is like believing the elites wouldn’t institute a draft.

[Anonymous No.11083743]

>>11083535
Reminder, 240 scientists who have published peer reviewed studies on cell phone damage to biological matter are dumb, conspiracy theorists. Ignore them. Listen to what your gut tells you and ignore the scientists. Decades of cell phone industry have told us radiowaves are not harmful. Would you trust scientists over cell phone industry? I wouldn't. These scientists should find new jobs.

[Anonymous No.11083781]

>>11076810
i'm against it not because of alleged health risks but because of massive shilling by nokia and cisco/whoever the fuck.
and need basically incorporate botnet into normal functioning of the network.
i assume that 5g is shilled so extensively because "west" wants to have their special-snowflake which chinks won't be "invited" to build, because of alleged "national security".

and don't forget that more iot garbage -> more thing as a service crap -> more control of the goyim

[Anonymous No.11083859]

>>11076924
>>11076926
>>11083347
>>11076997
Active denial systems use MEGAWATTS of power. According to this post >>11076927 5g cell towers use merely 10s of kilowatts of power. ADS uses TWO ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE more power than cell towers. I bet a 5g cell tower would fucking melt if you tried to ramp it up to megawatts of power. Now here's the other thing, you know why ADS uses 95 GHz and up? They use these frequencies because they get absorbed entirely by the top 0.4 mm of skin. Only heating up a thin layer of skin takes much less energy than if we heat up the whole body which happens if we use a longer wavelength that penetrates more. Of course since said frequencies can't penetrate the skin, they're less likely to cause internal damage.

[Anonymous No.11083863]

>>11083859
and here's a link that says that active denial systems use megawatts of power:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_Denial_System#Contracts

[Anonymous No.11083895]

>>11076810
How can I protect myself?
I'll start wearing a hat with aluminum underneath.
I'll start wearing aluminum over my underwears and wear some glasses with a plastic filter over them. What else?

[Anonymous No.11083898]

>>11076810
No one cares

[Anonymous No.11083940]

>>11078121
>2 sets of balls are the most important organs
are balls the secret to life?

[Anonymous No.11084077]

>>11076939
Literally a dozen

[Anonymous No.11084124]

>>11078163
Imagine the coverups for asbestos 40 years and fluoridation only now being recognized as a danger 70 years later.

[Anonymous No.11084359]

>>11083940
>2 sets of balls
Wouldn't that make 4 total balls, or 2 ballsacks?

[Anonymous No.11086011]

>>11083721
>Implying a political law made draft with loopholes for elites and corruption at the hands of men is equivalent to a mass spectrum frequency opt-out

Mate you're on /sci/ . Try harder. How will elites and their loved ones avoid 5G?

[Anonymous No.11086037]

Hello just before the thread goes further, know the difference between POWER and INTENSITY.

Thank you.

[Anonymous No.11086082]

>>11086037
Good fucking luck getting the same intensities as the active denial system with 5G base stations. ADS uses like 300 mW/cm^2-1 W/cm^2. According to the FCC intensities that high are illegal.

[Anonymous No.11086153]

>>11086011
5g has limited range, so there will be lots of stations, there won’t be one close to Bill Gates home though.
>try harder
I proved outright that the claim that short wave non ionizing radiation can’t harm human flesh false, and pointed out that 5g is non consensual for masses, but opt in for the rich.

[Anonymous No.11086167]

>>11086082
From wiki:
>Cancer: A mouse cancer study was performed at two energy levels and exposures with a 94 GHz transmitter: a single 10 second, 1 W/cm2 exposure; and repeated 10 second exposures over 2 week period at 333 mW/cm2. At both energy levels, no increase in skin cancers were observed.[21] No studies of higher energy levels, or longer exposure times have been performed on millimeter-wave systems.
>Cornea damage: Tests on non-human primate eyes have observed no short-term or long-term damage as the blink reflex protects the eye from damage within 0.25 seconds.[22]
>Birth defects: Millimeter waves only penetrate 0.4 mm (164 inch) into the skin, making direct damage to the testes or ovaries impossible.
>Blisters and scarring: Pea-sized blistering due to second degree burns occurred in a very small minority (less than 0.1%) of tested exposures, which have a remote potential for scarring.
>1watt per centimeter cubed.
Didn’t some 5g shill claim it’s “only” q5 Watts per centimeter cubed?
So 15x the amount research suggests causes long-term harm?

[Anonymous No.11086168]

>>11086153
But their bougie kids still live and work in cities with 5G in full effect.
Explain again how the elite's loved onescan avoid 5G?

[Anonymous No.11086186]

>>11086168
Being permanently under it without a break is somewhat different from brief exposure.
Rich people got fucked by asbestos too. “Rich people” aren’t a single entity.

[Anonymous No.11086203]

>>11076892
you shouldn't give me all of your money

[Anonymous No.11086206]

>>11086186
>Being permanently under it without a break is somewhat different from brief exposure.

Who lives in prime central and surrounding urban areas of New York and London?
Go outside and meet people and see the offspring of the wealthy spend their 20s and 30s either slumming it and gentrifying urban neighborhoods or move to the expensive centre.

Either way, you still haven't shown how the elite avoid 5G.

>Rich people got fucked by asbestos too
Not the same comparison; Asbestos isn't a pan-area frequency.

Again, what level of exposure would you deem safe?

>Rich people
This is the point; the board of directors of 5G companies all have their kids living all sorts of lives and will be surrounded by 5G

[Anonymous No.11086222]

>>11076817
(((They)))

[Anonymous No.11086236]

>>11086206
Prove your claim that the children of these executives will be exposed to as much radiation as a ghetto dweller.
I’ve shown how 5g is harmful, speculation about how rich people might avoid that harm is unnecessary.

[Anonymous No.11086242]

>>11086206
I know very wealthy people and my experience contradicts your descriptions; in general, they autistically protect their children from stuff like this. They don’t give their kid a cell phone and they make him sit far away from a computer screen and limit the screen’s exposure to Theor eyes. They drink NON fluoridated water, etc.

[Anonymous No.11086246]

>>11086206
Asbestos is a thing “science said” was safe to deploy everywhere but decades of harm later was recognized as very harmful.

[Anonymous No.11086256]

>>11086206
We can’t say what levels are safe over a long time yet. A person couldn’t answer your same question when Asbestos was used en mass either.

[Anonymous No.11086275]

>>11086242
The fuck are you talking about? Perhaps a few but
Go to New York
Go to London
Go to the places where 5G is being trialled
It's full of rich kids and offsprings and rich yummy mummys

Try and go to Kensington or Sloane Square or the square mile or even Canary Wharf and show me the rich
>Not using mobiles or surrounded by %G

You're chatting shite lad.

[Anonymous No.11086278]

>>11086246
Yes and science proved it later was not
Hence science was right

How much more dangerous is 5G than any other frequencies that have been in use?

[Anonymous No.11086289]

>>11086236
https://5g.co.uk/coverage/

Now prove that affluent rich people do not reside, live and spend incredible amounts of time in these cities

I can prove the claim based on any number of disposable income maps showing wealth
Or check the land registry or census for income based population spreads.

Again, a classic example is Prime Central London where 5G is currently being trialled.

[Anonymous No.11086290]

>>11086275
Different scales of rich and the prep schools won’t have 5g relays.
>>11086278
>research suggests it’s harmful
>but i say it’s not because rich kids could get hurt too

[Anonymous No.11086295]

>>11086256
This is fine
It's the
>It's elite conspiracy
That doesn't hold up.
Asbestos wasn't an elite conspiracy either.

[Anonymous No.11086299]

>>11086290
>research suggests it’s harmful
Research and science also says it is not harmful.

We shall see. In the end science will triumph.
My point about rich kids was to argue against some sort of grand conspiracy

[Anonymous No.11086307]

>>11086289
A list of cities it’s in is meaningless, it’s got limited range so if you own some property you’d need it installed voluntarily. You have yet to support your claim that rich people will be exposed anywhere near as much as people living next to the relays. You also have yet to explain why it being harmful to rich people too magically makes it non harmful.

[Anonymous No.11086310]

>>11086299
>also says
Research ONLY said asbestos was non harmful when it was being deployed.
So we are going ahead with involuntary mass deployment?

[Anonymous No.11086312]

>>11086307
>You also have yet to explain why it being harmful to rich people too magically makes it non harmful.

Everything is harmful in some way.
5G being
>More harmful
is debateable

> it’s got limited range so if you own some property you’d need it installed voluntarily.

Not when it's outside your house in street infrastructure

[Anonymous No.11086318]

>>11086312
>microwaves the outer layers of a vital organ called your skin.
>involuntary deployment even though research suggests direct harm.

[Anonymous No.11086323]

>>11086312
>street infrastructure
Rich people own their own ‘street infrastructure,’ though, and even if rich people will be harmed to, that doesn’t make 5g non harmful.

[Anonymous No.11086329]

>>11086310
No, we are going with peer-reviewed science
Many scientists say it is potentially harmful as we don't know the long term effects
Many say it isn't
Let's analyse already existent data on previous controversial frequency adoption and the papers at hand

[Anonymous No.11086335]

>>11086318
>microwaves the outer layers of a vital organ called your skin.

Let's wait for the data from South Korea then

[Anonymous No.11086339]

>>11086329
There’s literally a coalition of scientist in the EMF field who are appealing to slow the involuntary deployment of this technology.
Imagine if it was a chemical being put in your water and coalitions if credible scientists were emphasizing it may not be safe.
>we will find out eventually by trying it
Isn’t acceptable.

[Anonymous No.11086344]

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/05/06/29_years_of_data_shows_no_mobile_phone_brain_cancer_link/

[Anonymous No.11086345]

>>11086335
I agree, my solution is to wait until it’s clear one way or another, rather than to promote my own community being the guinea pig.

[Anonymous No.11086349]

>>11086167
>>per centimeter cubed
ummmm.... what? A volume intensity, the fuck? Typically you use power over area. 5 watts per cm^2 is a fucking lot. FCC also says anything above 1 mW/cm^2 is illegal and anything above 5 mW/cm^2 is extra illegal (only permitted for people fucking about with the equipment).

[Anonymous No.11086352]

>>11086344
>implying “brain cancer” should be our threshold for unacceptable harm.
https://www.labroots.com/trending/health-and-medicine/12208/cell-phone-cause-memory-loss

[Anonymous No.11086355]

>>11086345
Microwaves are terrible for cancer
Have you banned Microwaves?

It's all on the power, frequency and focus of the type of radiation.
What next, lets not go in the sun because the sun causes cancer?

[Anonymous No.11086359]

>>11086349
It only takes less than 1 mW/cm^2 to cause harm. Ultra fast mass variable data transfer isn’t possible without enough power either. You can’t power a 5g tower with an emergency flashlight’s solar cell.

[Anonymous No.11086360]

>>11086355
>have you banned
Microwaves are a voluntary appliance. Being microwaves by 5g towers is involuntary. It’s like asking why food doesn’t ban being microwaved.

[Anonymous No.11086362]

>>11086339
Yes, so let us post their evidence vs a critique of their papers

>>11086352
Post the paper source at least

[Anonymous No.11086367]

>>11086360
No, microwaves and 5G are not the same power, focus or purpose.

Implying we're all being microwaved would mean you'd ban anyone stepping out into the sun.
Is wi-fi causing us cancer too now?

[Anonymous No.11086368]

>>11086362
You posted the register as your source.

[Anonymous No.11086373]

>>11086362
>lobbyists with degrees attack research that offends their bottom line.
Nah, let’s wait and see what happens to others putting chems in the water at the behest of megacorps before we do the same.

[Anonymous No.11086375]

>>11086367
The sun is unavoidable. Adding additional radiation pollution beyond what it already exposes us shouldn’t be a thing blindly accepted at the request of the corporate megalith.

[Anonymous No.11086391]

>>11086368
Secondary source.
https://theconversation.com/new-study-no-increase-in-brain-cancer-across-29-years-of-mobile-use-in-australia-58927

Within it is the link behind a paywall to the primary source that I can access when back at Uni.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/cancer-epidemiology

[Anonymous No.11086395]

>>11086373
Depends; sometimes shite in water like lead is simple corruption of civil infrastructure and economic political policy
>See Flint, Michigan

[Anonymous No.11086410]

>>11086375
Perhaps
Let us see

[Anonymous No.11086412]

>>11076887
Actually, no. 2.4 GHz is a compromise for heating (I guess "resonating") and penetration ability. The actual resonant points are further.

[Anonymous No.11086419]

Post p values and we can talk

[Anonymous No.11086525]

>>11077410
Not true. The WHO recognizes NI radiation can cause gliomas.

[Anonymous No.11086545]

>>11086359
Prove it fag. Also you need much more than 1 mW/cm^2 if you want your 5g cell to act like an active denial system. I also challenge you to find a 5g system that uses >90 GHz.

[Anonymous No.11086650]

>>11086525
What's the minimum exposure tho?

[Anonymous No.11087103]

>get behind a thin-ass cardboard wall
>signal is blocked because it's high frequency line of sight trash
5G first and foremost is a shitty hype plan to jew moar shekels by selling new infrastructure. This time you need a transmitter in every street corner because the signal can't reach shit.
>b-but blazing fast speeds and latency!
>t-that's going to enable new use cases!
Except the operators are going to keep nickel and diming with ridiculously small data caps so the performance is basically useless to the end user.
4G also promised to be an alternative to regular internet infrastructure yet it didn't happen. Not because of performance, but because of extremely judaic data cap bullshit.
At least that's how it is in most of the world. If you have limitless mobile internet with prices comparable to regular internet please do tell.

[Anonymous No.11087476]

>>11087103
But think of all the riot suppression and surveillance potential! A fucking phased array radar at every street corner, active denial for dissidents. You can literally fry some dude's brain for fun over a few months, and nobody will fucking know, the docs will say he's crazy to actually think his brain edema is from 5G exposure since 5G is proven safe for sheeps.

Don't forget to buy your radar-enable Pixel 4 for verifying it's actually you we're frying and not a good goy.

[Anonymous No.11087479]

>>11076927
>5G towers use 10-15 kilowatt power.
fucking shit. That's more than enough to even kill if you're near the station, say a few meters.

>>11076966
You clearly don't understand how directional antennas work. Finish highschool first.

[Anonymous No.11087494]

>>11077410
go stand in front of radar

[Anonymous No.11087582]

>>11083426
>the average human can hear from 20 hertz to 2ghz

[Anonymous No.11087785]

>>11086650
Can't remember, can't be too bad or else we'd all be big brained but it's clear NI radiation isn't totally inert.

[Anonymous No.11087795]

>>11087785
>Can't remember
So what you're saying is you are bullshitting.

[Anonymous No.11088130]

>>11076817
>They wont tell you if it isn’t
If it is perfectly safe there will still be people saying that it gives you cancer. Im not saying its safe, I have no Idea, im just pointing out that people will say anything is bad, so if something is actually bad then “they” will agree.

[Anonymous No.11088370]

>>11086222

[Anonymous No.11088382]

>>11082959
Or they start to practice industrial scale designer test tube baby eugenics

[Anonymous No.11089240]

>>11083363
5g means 5th generation lol

[Anonymous No.11090967]

Bumping for public good

[Justin Ramsey No.11090971]

[Anonymous No.11091020]

>>11089240
Sure, and it’s also (in this thread) confused as being equivalent to a 5ghz WiFi router, even though it’s actually equivalent to a 100ghz router, except with more power.

[Anonymous No.11091028]

>>11088130
Right, so it should be deployed on you without your consent, because “anyone” can say something is bad, so why should you have a say, slave?

[Anonymous No.11091030]

>>11087582
kHz

[Anonymous No.11091034]

>>11087582
Right, so the answer is you can’t hear 5g signal, but you might get tinnitus if it’s damaging to your inner ear.

[Anonymous No.11091130]

>>11091034
>if it’s damaging to your inner ear.
It isn't.

[Anonymous No.11091157]

>>11087103
20€/month and the service provider promises around 200Mbps mobile connection, it's usually ~180-220 in Helsinki. Currently visiting parents who live in a fucking forest near arctic circle and im sharing connection from mobile to laptop. Quite alright, ping is quite high, but its under 15 if i do the test with my phone. All this is of course limitless.
Seems that the US companies are just fucking you all good. Not happy that they're planning that shit here too.

[Anonymous No.11091351]

>>11076927
>>11087479
That's the power consumed by the base station not transmit power. It's going to be about a watt at most for frequencies on the order of 10s of GHz and this goes down with increasing frequency.
>>11087476
>>active denial
good fucking luck with that. 94 GHz 5g is a fucking gimmick. The range is short, it doesn't work through walls, foliage fucking kills it. With current RFIC's you're gonna have a pretty hard time getting similar intensities to active denial systems just METERS away. Also costs go up as you increase the frequency because now your antenna has to be a custom microchip. If you're worried hackers could ramp up the transmit power why don't you try to turn a router or wireless card into a microwave oven and see what happens?
>>fry some dude's brain
good fucking luck with that. Even 28 GHz won't be able to penetrate very deep into the head.

[Anonymous No.11091431]

>IIT: envious burgers seething about china winning the race to 5G

[Anonymous No.11092315]

>>11083224
>5g router
Retard also theres gonna be MULTIPLE GIANT ANTENNAS

[Anonymous No.11092393]

>>11091431
This
>g-guys HUAWEI IS DANGEROUS :DDDDD

[Anonymous No.11092626]

>>11076810
about as safe as living next to Chernobyl exclusion zone
only about 10% higher chance of getting cancer

[Anonymous No.11092797]

I AM TIRED OF ALL THE ELECTROMAGNETIC NOISE SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSTTTTTTTOOOOOOOOOOOOOPPPPPPPPPPPPPP IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIITTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT

[Anonymous No.11092813]

>>11092797
this

[Anonymous No.11092815]

>>11092797
Cue slimy telecom CEO: "It is non-ionizing, says our top chief big scientist boy, he knows much stuff, you are ok, please go ahead and buy our 5G products and call Steven. " *ahhhhh fuk my mind is going nuts, and i feel weird, fuck, omg my life, ruined ahahhhh"

CEO: "We have a cheaper contract on offer if that's what you mean?"

ashahahhhhhhh ughghhrrr..f............

[Anonymous No.11092823]

Non-ionising
You hear that? Your electrons are safe. The only danger has been dealt with. Nothing else matters.
You're look tired, come take a nap, friend

[Anonymous No.11092975]

Do I have to remind you guys that visible light already has a frequency of Thz and has caused cancer to anyone?

[Anonymous No.11093332]

>>11092797
No. Get nocebo'd faggot.