Yeah, that school in California where 3 kids and 3 teachers got cancer from the cell tower on the top of the school were just making things up. Also the NYC firemen who reported concentration and memory problems until the towers at their station were removed were just imagining things. Also the reports of these cell phone tower workers experiencing infertility for weeks until they ceased working at the towers was just made up. Also this study in particular should be ignored
You are awash in electromagnetic radiation all the time. There has never been a time in your life that you have not been. But there are no radio or cell frequencies that are narrow enough to cause biological activity. Microwaves don't even penetrate past the surface and those only heat by quickly oscillating the polarity of the field - causing water molecules to flip back and forth.
But NONE of that is relevant to cell towers. The whole idea is preposterous and speaks to a real ignorance about what this technology is.
I am sure you can find anecdotes for everything and RT articles or nature news articles. But none of them have a plausible testable hypothesis for what these low frequency bands could do and the claims being made fly in the face of physics.
The energy coming out of those towers is no stronger than a street light. But it does not matter how close it is - the wavelength the highest energy band is 3mm. That is WAY too big to interact with chemical bonds or interfere with any biological processes. Compare that to UVB which has a wavelength of 320 to 400 nm - which is small enough to interfere with any place along the strand that has two thymine bases in a row. Those light frequencies are sufficient to generate oxygen free radicals - but this is all millions of times smaller than the wavelength of 5G.
So it does not matter how much energy you dump into a transmitter at anywhere from 3 to 90 ghz - its not going cause any biological responses. I think you should look at the evidence offered in support of that hypothesis with more skepticism. You might want to attempt to look for verification or at least understand what mechanism they are offering as the possible response. What was shown that i have seen does not lend me confidence about their claims.
The only study that was done in the US that I was aware of was decades ago: it used mice - those mice got cancer at triple the rate of the control group. This was hand-waved away because "mice often get cancer". Here's a more recent one: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/11/181101133924.htm
Are you going to actually show anything backing up what you're spouting, or keep parroting your preconceived notion in the face of what should be common sense at this point?
view the rest of the comments →
Neo-maxi-zoom-dweeby ago
There is no radio frequency that has enough energy to have biological impact. This fear of 5G is moronic.
badruns ago
Yeah, that school in California where 3 kids and 3 teachers got cancer from the cell tower on the top of the school were just making things up. Also the NYC firemen who reported concentration and memory problems until the towers at their station were removed were just imagining things. Also the reports of these cell phone tower workers experiencing infertility for weeks until they ceased working at the towers was just made up. Also this study in particular should be ignored
https://youtu.be/y4JDEspdx58
It's almost as if they do cause issues depending on the strength of the signal...
Neo-maxi-zoom-dweeby ago
You are awash in electromagnetic radiation all the time. There has never been a time in your life that you have not been. But there are no radio or cell frequencies that are narrow enough to cause biological activity. Microwaves don't even penetrate past the surface and those only heat by quickly oscillating the polarity of the field - causing water molecules to flip back and forth.
But NONE of that is relevant to cell towers. The whole idea is preposterous and speaks to a real ignorance about what this technology is.
I am sure you can find anecdotes for everything and RT articles or nature news articles. But none of them have a plausible testable hypothesis for what these low frequency bands could do and the claims being made fly in the face of physics.
badruns ago
You're retarded - signal strength is an inverse square relationship.
No shit, but there's a big difference between the sun which is millions of miles away and working directly underneath a transmission tower.
Neo-maxi-zoom-dweeby ago
The energy coming out of those towers is no stronger than a street light. But it does not matter how close it is - the wavelength the highest energy band is 3mm. That is WAY too big to interact with chemical bonds or interfere with any biological processes. Compare that to UVB which has a wavelength of 320 to 400 nm - which is small enough to interfere with any place along the strand that has two thymine bases in a row. Those light frequencies are sufficient to generate oxygen free radicals - but this is all millions of times smaller than the wavelength of 5G.
So it does not matter how much energy you dump into a transmitter at anywhere from 3 to 90 ghz - its not going cause any biological responses. I think you should look at the evidence offered in support of that hypothesis with more skepticism. You might want to attempt to look for verification or at least understand what mechanism they are offering as the possible response. What was shown that i have seen does not lend me confidence about their claims.
badruns ago
If what you say is true, why do European contries issue guidelines about exposure limits? Are you suggesting they are being foolish?
https://www.iarc.fr/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/pr208_E.pdf
The only study that was done in the US that I was aware of was decades ago: it used mice - those mice got cancer at triple the rate of the control group. This was hand-waved away because "mice often get cancer". Here's a more recent one: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/11/181101133924.htm
Are you going to actually show anything backing up what you're spouting, or keep parroting your preconceived notion in the face of what should be common sense at this point?
Cigarettes don't cause lung cancer, right?