But they can kill:
Remember that at the end of the day even higher power routers generally emit less energy than a conventional light globe.
Unlikely to be any different to what we see now with 3G or 4G data modems. The transmit power is limited by licensing/approvals. 5G is only transmitting over very short distances, hence there is no need to have increased power levels in the home with a 5G data modem. An external directional antenna would not only ensure the best connection, it would also minimise any RF in the home if that were a concern for some.
As others have said, there are no health concerns with 5G, just like any other form of non-ionising radiation like 3G, 4G, or visible light.
This is what ARPANSA says about 5GâŠ
<âŠAs others have said, there are no health concerns with 5G, just like any other form of non-ionising radiation like 3G, 4G, or visible lightâŠ>
It is always useful to listen to different opinions, warning about dangerous side of 5G. Here is one of them, with references to various scientific papers, that can not be easily dismissed:
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2019/06/05/technology-versus-humanity.aspx?utm_source=dnl&utm_medium=email&utm_content=art1&utm_campaign=20190605Z3&et_cid=DM292477&et_rid=631970285#commentfocus
I am curious about which safety study (s) ARPANSA has taken into account, as as far as I know they have not carried out any tests on this new technology themselves. A call for a moratorium on 5G specifically was issued in September 2017 by more than 180 scientists and doctors from 35 countries, âuntil potential hazards for human health and the environment have been fully investigated by scientists independent from industryâ. 5G testing was recently halted in Brussels, Belgium, and Switzerland is delaying its 5G rollout in order to create a system to monitor radiation.
Not when they come from Mercola. He is a known quack, and his website is well known for running science-free and unsupported claims ranging from vaccination to homoeopathy to conspiracy theories about bird flu.
(I think Wikipedia has been a bit gentle on him - try the Skepticâs Dictionary entry.)
I second what Postulative says. Mercola specifically make their money from selling the very products their âresearchâ recommends. Even something with citations can twist the facts.
Who were these doctors and scientists? Were they experts in physics or just random people? âScientistâ could refer to anyone from a geologist to a botanist. âDoctorâ could refer to anyone from a GP to an anesthetist. Not only are they potentially unqualified, but there are millions of doctors and scientists worldwide. And only 200 odd signed it?
As for all the sources, they arenât scientifically presented with information such as publisher and date accessed. A number of them rely on single authors and donât seem to have been published in peer reviewed journals. Therefore no people working in the same field have looked over it to make sure the conclusions drawn are reasonable. Some of them donât draw the same conclusion Mercola does either. Finally most of them donât seem to be the source of the study. Merely someone else reporting it. So itâs been selectively reported, then selectively reported again.
Having said all this Iâm not a medical doctor or scientist. But no university, medical body or scientific body in Australia endorses this view. So why would 3rd hand selectively reported information by a company who makes money from selling âalternativeâ remedies be a more reliable source?
Science rant over
Not scientific papersâŠbut opinions of others with similar views to the author. A flag for me about Dr Mercola website is the disclaimerâŠâThe entire contents of this website are based upon the opinions of Dr. Mercola, unless otherwise noted. Individual articles are based upon the opinions of the respective authorâ. (Un)fortunately opinions are not proven scientific facts.
Such statements immediately rattle the the skeptical cells floating around in my mind.
The latest episode of Dr Karlâs Great Moments in Science podcast has a useful explanation of ionising vs. non-ionising radiation.
Long story short: ionising radiation has a higher frequency wave than visible light, while 5G uses frequencies a long way below visible light. Visible light is 430-770THz (terahertz, or 10^12 Hz), while 5G uses up to 300GHz (gigahertz, or 10^9 Hz). If you need more than 770THz to cause cancer through ionising radiation, then 5G is three orders of magnitude and an entire visible light spectrum away!
This apparently works best for those who understand the science.
Science asks of others to believe what scientists have observed.
In this science is little different from the many other demands made on us all for trust and belief.
The competition for our trust and beliefs is a daily event. It is easy to understand why there are many who are uncertain and are pulled in unexpected directions.
Science in offering inconvenient truths provides fertile opportunity for those proposing more accomodating beliefs.
Unfortunately the notion of a belief system based on science has been hijacked, and it is left to great communicators such as Dr Karl to be a disciple for science.
The occasional misappropriation of science by enterprise to develop and promote products without due diligence and rigour does not help the cause.
P.S.
A simple trial might be to ask if a mobile phone works due to magic or science.
For those who say science, a second test is to ask if a person believes science is dangerous.
Ownership and use of a mobile suggests acceptance, science is not dangerous, and probably not magic.
Those who believe in magic are easily fooled and ripe for the picking.
Those who believe science is dangerous probably own media and entertainment empires as they rely on capturing minds with imaginary products.
I wonder what does Dr Karl have to say on that?
Almost everything in a modern home comes from science. Plastics, paint, light but strong metal alloys, and everything electrical or electronic. Even the structural integrity is based upon science, and where builders take shortcuts buildings fall down - as can happen in countries like India and China. Of course, we also have science to thank for our floors being level and our walls being flat.
We have to be somewhat careful about science, because there will always be scientists seeking shortcuts and self-aggrandisement ahead of real evidence. Ex-Doctor Wakefield comes to mind, as do the people who showed off cold fusion in the early 1980s. The fact that we know these were frauds, though, is also due to science - whose entire modus operandum can be summarised as testing a theory to breaking point.
In the Wakefield case, even though his results could not be replicated and were later shown to have been falsified he is still peddling his anti-vaccine mania - presumably because nobody respectable would ever employ the guy. His efforts have resulted in hundreds of thousand suffering as diseases that should be almost wiped out by now are returning and showing people how bad they actually were!
At some point we need to trust science and scientists, because without them we would still be bleeding sick people to cure their humours. We should not blindly trust them any more than we would blindly trust a total stranger in our homes, and we should definitely not trust new scientific research as reported by mainstream media. We have cured cancer 100 times over according to media reports, which take the specific and make headlines to be read of generalities. Trust science not on the bleeding edge, but as it matures and as more researchers support the evidence of the original research.
My off-the-cuff comment seems to have sparked a bit of a brush fire. Sorry about that.
I was referring to well-known effects of extreme exposure:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1511900/
Links to more research at the bottom of that article, if anyoneâs interested.
There are also concerns about impacts of more moderate doses on male fertility:
5G adjusts power to compensate for conditions. Experience with NBN fixed wireless in the same frequency band shows that itâs very sensitive to obstruction, so the power would probably be maxed-out much of the time. An external antenna would take the transmissions outside, away from the occupants of the room. It would also get around obstacles such as the roomâs walls, reducing the needed transmitting power. Itâs unlikely that the power of the Telstra HTC hub in question would rise high enough for immediate pathology.
As for cancer; I vaguely remember concerns that digital submodulation frequencies might resonate with DNA. As far as I know, no related effects have been reported.
When their hub doesnât work, Telstra will most likely blame the customer. Theyâll then offer to sell a 5G version of their âsmart antennaâ (>$1,000, with installation) or similar.
https://www.telstra.com.au/coverage-networks/network-coverage-extension-devices
Mercola article does mention a few scientific papers pointing to the dangerous effects of 5G, also mentioning that a further research is needed, before this technology would be imposed on everyone. It is called a precautionary principle. It is what smart and responsible people do, they know, it is better to be safe than sorry. A reference from Mercola article:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24927498 Exposure to mobile phones was associated with reduced sperm motility
These two links from the same article are good examples of what is going on in the scientific world:
http://www.cellphonetaskforce.org/governments-and-organizations-that-ban-or-warn-against-wireless-technology/
governments and organizations that ban or warn against wireless technology
https://emfscientist.org/index.php/emf-scientist-appeal has a long list of scientists from countries all over the world, among them eight scientists from Australia, forty scientists from the USA, and so on. They canât be all quacks!
So, why you are listening to so called Dr Karl, but ignoring the real scientists? It seems like you pick up the people who agree with your own opinions, and call quacks those who dare to disagree.
If you are interested to expand your knowledge on this topic, do not just listen to Dr Karl or rely on Wikipedia, do your own research.
The last word about APRANSA, it forms its opinion on an outdated information, on the standards developed by telecommunication industries for radiofrequency emissions, not designed for cell phones. In other words, the topic has never been investigated by them.
This article provides information on the âmeritsâ or such articlesâŠ
This paper is from a sample population which shows no effectsâŠ
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1110569017300602
phb has already addressed the sperm issue, so allow me to address the scientist issue.
As I stated in my initial reply, numbers. 8 scientists in Australia. Only 8. Less scientists than contained within a single science department at a single university. We ARE listening to the real scientists. The thousands that DONâT agree.
This is how science denial works. A few people create a study that is either flawed or misinterpreted, then a bunch of people selling stuff or looking to reinforce their fears jump on it as scientific proof.
As for caution, if we banned every technology until every single person was satisfied we would still be eating raw food while debating lighting a fire. If every research department of every research body has assessed the technology and deemed it safe what more can we ask?
The article you refer to is somebodyâs opinion, not a scientific research. Thereâs no point to continue, as you look only to one direction, as I said before, the direction that agrees with your opinion.
<âŠthese infertility claims are not the consensus of the mainstream scientific community â a community that demands more rigorous evidenceâŠ>
Then carry out those rigorous studies. You remember, the precaution principle?
All the best, blokes, I have better things to do.
Itâs not unreasonable at all to want caution. But when Mercola (anti-vaxx, anti-fluoride, believe doctors are shills) is the main organisation generating noise I tend to tune out.
No, but it is worth looking at their backgrounds (none of which are linked, incidentally) to get some idea of the basis for their signing the petition. It appears that few of the signatories actually have any qualifications relating to physics, for instance - an important field when one starts looking at radiation.
Similarly, the âCellular Phone Task Forceâ expects the reader to take its quotations of governments at face value, providing very few links. One of the links, claiming the UK Department of Education recommended that children under 16 should only use cell phones in an emergency, is to a (dead) Zambian site! It is also not clear whether that recommendation is medically or socially based. Another link is to the CPTFâs own website, and is signed by several dentists and ânatural healersâ. The third (Iâm going in order) is again dead. We continue with a link to a US/Canadian fire fighters union website (i.e. science-free), and several more websites that are clearly not science-based.
I think you mean ARPANSA. It employs scientists who actually study these things.
To summarise the evidence to which you are linking, it is of the same quality as claims I have seen about vaccines causing autism (i.e. very little science and a lot of pseudoscience). If there are facts in there, they are deeply buried under the detritus.
As for the link to PubMed/NCBI, I look forward to the study being replicated. Thatâs how science advances, and so a meta-analysis of the studies is a good place to start. The fact that in vitro results are different to live results suggests that the study to which Mercola links is not particularly useful on its own and further work is required.
By your understanding of the precautionary principle cars and trains would have remained limited to a top speed of 10-15mph, as it was thought travelling any faster would cause serious damage to the human body. We would not have planes (as a side note, the airline industry has managed to retain a limited liability for any crashes that was first introduced so the industry could take off). Microwave ovens are obviously dangerous, as is electricity itself.
The precautionary principle is a risk management tool - no more. And anything published by Mercola remains highly unlikely at best.
Edit: I have now done a search for that recommendation in the UK that children under 16 should not use mobile phones.
The concern has nothing to do with radiation, it is about disruptions to education and comes from a man who says that you should give a child a smartphone âwhenever youâre comfortable with them viewing pornographyâ. Not quite what is represented by the CPTF and its broken link to a Zambian article about the story, and this makes the rest of that websiteâs claims suspect - putting it into the Mercola category.
