Someone give this guy a BS Buster badge!
It then comes down to a question of credibility. I’d place the US government paper above one paid for by who knows what interests.
I’m really getting weary of the tactics here.
Citing an academic research project funded by The author gratefully acknowledges infertility clinics in the North, Middle and South Governorates of Jordan for their support and help in data collection. under the auspices of the Middle Eastern Fertility Society seems pretty up front and reasonable to me.
The paper you seem to be prioritising seems a Chinese authored library item by PLA Institute for Technology of Family Planning and Healthy Birth and Care, 202nd Hospital of PLA, Shenyang, Liaoning 110003, China. that is hosted on the NCBI library. Or is it the one from the Western Journal of Medicine, neither of which are US government papers.
Tactics? Seems there is a difference of opinion as there sometimes is.
He’s got one already
Shhh! (I think it’s two, actually - but why not start a collection?)
The only reason I’m aware of the issue is a link to that paper from the US government’s National Institutes of Health. To me, that link alone is enough to lend credibility to the paper.
A search on Google or Google Scholar, with the words:
microwave impacts on male fertility
yields page after page of hits suggesting concern. Those indicating otherwise are a vanishingly small minority.
The tactic in question is a form of cherry-picking. Pretending, as it does, that the exception is the norm, cherry-picking is calculated to deceive.
Thanks to all those who have shared an opinion on the issues, and especially for taking the time to post links and references. While it might not solve every issue, it is useful to understand the source of information and hopefully we can all keep an open mind to each other’s views (and if possible be open to change if you find new information).
We also had a similar conversation a while back regarding RF radiation and cancer that may be of interest to the topic.
Like many libraries, they contain a wide range of information with contrary views. Most libraries also acknowledge that information stored are not necessarily the views of the library or underlying organisation.
There is a significant amount of contrary information available on the internet and within research papers about the potential risks of mobile phones (which includes frequencies around the 5G spectrum). There however appears to be consensus amongst the experts (like ARPANSA, the US Government Cancer Institute and similar expert organisations around the world) based on best information available today, that the health risks associated with mobile (cell) phone use are low or insignificant
If there was new information which identified and confirmed significant health risks, these organisations would be the first to communicate this information through their media channels, websites and factsheets.
There also also various opinions, hypotheses and such like about potential health risks of 5G, just like previous mobile phone generations. The hypothetical health risks associated with previous generations has also not come into fruition, and there is no reason why the same would not apply to 5G.
Any new technology should he rightfully questioned, but it should also be discussed rationally and based on facts. Where subject matter is technical, one needs to rely on the experts to provide information which addresses such matters. This is the case with 5G.
Just to be clear about the purpose of PubMed - the site upon which that paper is published and which is indeed operated by the US government:
PubMed comprises more than 29 million citations for biomedical literature from MEDLINE, life science journals, and online books. Citations may include links to full-text content from PubMed Central and publisher web sites.
It’s a library, not a publisher or a research facility. It is true that any research that receives funding from the US government is now required to be published (other than the super-secret stuff), but most papers on PubMed do not even fall into that category.
Some of the research based on real life 5G use shows that the electromagnetic energy (EME) of 5G is not dissimilar to that of previous mobile phone generations (3G and 4G).
What has also been found is that in many cases the exposure level of 5G users is less that that currently experienced using network technologies (3G and 4G). It seems that this is the case because the duration of data flow and as a result EME is at a peak is less (due to the increase in speed of 5G) and that the level of energy needed to transmit data over the network is less (as the transmitter are located closer to the end 5G user). When the network transmitters are closer, less energy (and lower resulting EME) is needed to push the signal between the receiver and the user.
From information released on current 5G EME research, the risks associated with using 5G won’t be greater than if one uses an existing 4G/3G phone.
I just heard something interesting on one of my podcasts (about computer hardware). Apparently back in 2000 a US school district was considering using a wireless network for its students to have computers in the classroom. This would have been cutting edge tech at the time, and they wanted to make sure that it was safe.
The school district hired a physicist, Dr Bill Curry, to investigate whether WiFi radio waves may be damaging to human health, and he in turn stated that radiation would damage brain tissue.
One minor problem with those findings - he forgot to take skin into account, and of course skin has evolved for just this particular shielding purpose!
The take-home lesson? Stay out of the sun.
The jury might like to consider the effects of broadcast TV service radiation on the brain?
250kW of goodness in this example. But is it the EMR that might affect the brain or something more visual?
Regional transmitters may be lower powered, EG 15kW on the Sunshine Coast or even less for more localised and smaller coverage areas.
Despite the lower power output of the transmitters in regional areas some would jest the effects on the brain are even more pronounced outside of the big cities? Perhaps it is tother way around?
A person I worked with 50 years ago was a warrant officer in RAAME and did a couple of tours of duty in Vietnam where he was in the communications workshop.
The yanks had a high powered radar some distance away which was rated at 1 MW output and it generated a 1 MW pulse for a microsecond.
The RAAME personnel hung a 36 W fluro tube with a couple of pieces of string from the workshop ceiling, so that it flashed each time it was in the path of the rotating antenna.
He said that that the non-techinical yanks who visited the workshop were absolutely amazed by it.
It is obviously why service personnel and marine crew are warned regarding getting close to radars in operation on vessels.
I thought that warning was to help prevent their Hershey bars melting
Deep Fried Mars Bars anyone?
Not sure if it started in Texas, but everything in Texas gets deep fried.
I was recently forwarded an email which included this link:
There’s also a bunch of documents which I’m not inclined to read. I reckon they’d cause brain damage.
In relation to brain tumours or brain damage, this theory would only have a possibility if the brain is within 8mm of the surface of the body’s surface. It has been shown that non-ionising radiowaves like that used for 5G network can’t penetrate the skin more than about 8mm.
It is worth noting that the scalp skin is the thickest on the human body (which is on average 8mm) and the skull having an average thickness of 6.5mm (males) to 7.1mm (women). The skin/scalp and skull has an average total thickness greater than 8mm.
Dr Ken Karipidis who has raised concerns in the past about the rollout of 5G before adequate health effect testing has also stated ‘At the frequencies where 5G will be operating, the RF electromagnetic energy does not penetrate much further than the surface of the skin’.
ARPANSA recent media release:
states “We urge you to be cautious of claims from anti-5G campaigns. These campaigns are generating unfounded fear and concern within the community. We have seen increasing misinformation about health effects, our role, and 5G or radio waves generally.”
The US National Cancer Institute (NCI) also has information in relation to the potential cancer risks of mobile phone use, including 5G. It states:
’ Exposure to ionizing radiation, such as from x-rays, is known to increase the risk of cancer. However, although many studies have examined the potential health effects of non-ionizing radiation from radar, microwave ovens, cell phones, and other sources, there is currently no consistent evidence that non-ionizing radiation increases cancer risk in humans (2).
The only consistently recognized biological effect of radiofrequency radiation in humans is heating. The ability of microwave ovens to heat food is one example of this effect of radiofrequency radiation. Radiofrequency exposure from cell phone use does cause heating to the area of the body where a cell phone or other device is held (e.g., the ear and head). However, it is not sufficient to measurably increase body temperature. There are no other clearly established effects on the human body from radiofrequency radiation."
It seems that many of the websites which seem to raise health concerns about the use of mobile phones appear to report the known effects of ionising radiation.
The NCI website also discusses findings of the epidemiological research undertaken to assess the association between cell phone use and cancer risk. It is worth reading this information from one of the world’s leading organisations
While there is possibly more research required to provide more conclusive evidence of the outcomes of research, the research generally shows mobile phone use is 'not associated with an increased risk of glioma, meningioma, or non-central nervous system tumors’.
I remember clearly over 10 years ago many of my work colleagues complaining about the heating of their skin and ears from the new generation 3G mobile phones used. The cause of the heating was investigated and it was found out to be a problem with the model of the Nokia mobile phone used (the battery and screen). In relation to heating, it also appears that there are no know health consequences of long term continuous heating the skin. While the sun ages skin and causes skin cancers and other abnormalities, the effects are due to UV radiation and not heating.
With any new technologies, there are those which are overly cautious of its implementation. Such caution is wise as often those researching and developing the technologies take greater time to determine impacts of the technologies and adjust the delivery of the technology to minimise any potential impacts.
While historically there have been some products which have slipped through adequate without adequate testing (and have impacted on human health), the use of mobile phones which use non-ionising radio-waves to transmit voice/data have been used since the birth of the 1G ‘brick’ in 1987. Non-ionising radiowaves have also been used in other older technologies (CBs, TV, radios) for many generations prior to the rollout of the 1G network.
There will always be inconclusive information about many things, however, in relation to mobile phones, there is established consensus amongst both radio-wave and radiation medical experts. ARPANSA has summaries the consensus as there is ‘no link between the use of mobile phones in Australia and the incidence of brain cancers. It showed that although mobile phone use has risen rapidly since 2003, there has been no increase in any brain tumour types since then.’
ARPANSA also states that it ‘will continue to review the research into potential health effects of RF EME emissions from mobile phone base stations and other sources in order to provide accurate and up-to-date advice.’
(Disclaimer: I am one of few which don’t have or use a mobile phone).
The Lancet weighs in:
One of the community pages I follow is ran by someone who often runs for my local council. That page recently shared this article
I commented pointing out multiple flaws in this argument (notably the extremely low energy levels involved that literally don’t contain enough energy to “fry” something). I also pointed out their source was a serial pusher of conspiracy theories, including that climate change is a hoax.
Their response was to message me asking if I was a fake account. Safe to say I wont be voting for them at the next council election…