1. Guest, the 'News in Brief' for the week beginning 18th January 2021 is here.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Welcome! To read the Core Purpose and Values of our forum, click here.
    Dismiss Notice

Scientific American: We Have No Reason to Believe 5G Is Safe, 2019, Moskowitz

Discussion in 'Health News and Research unrelated to ME/CFS' started by Trish, Oct 21, 2019.

  1. Trish

    Trish Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    29,661
    Likes Received:
    141,341
    Location:
    UK
    A member asked me to start a thread on this:

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

     
    erin, ScottTriGuy, Annamaria and 2 others like this.
  2. Sarah94

    Sarah94 Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,857
    Likes Received:
    9,714
    Location:
    UK
    Would appreciate to hear people's thoughts on this.
     
    Annamaria, sb4 and Trish like this.
  3. Jonathan Edwards

    Jonathan Edwards Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    8,166
    Likes Received:
    84,903
    That looks like a partisan view. If it was a genuinely independent view it would be written differently. We would be given a few pieces of convincing hard data rather than lists of frightening possibilities. It says:

    The scientists who signed this appeal arguably constitute the majority of experts on the effects of nonionizing radiation. They have published more than 2,000 papers and letters on EMF in professional journals.

    But the majority of 'experts' on this are bound to have an axe to grind. The great majority of scientists will just not be interested. The only people doing research will be partisan.

    It is still quite possible that there is a hazard but if there was a real risk of cancer I think some hard facts would have filtered through to me through one channel or another. What worries me much more is the destruction of the countryside by phone masts every 100 yards. We can certainly do without that and I would ban 5G on that basis alone.
     
    erin, Forbin, TrixieStix and 6 others like this.
  4. Adrian

    Adrian Administrator Staff Member

    Messages:
    4,985
    Likes Received:
    25,006
    Location:
    UK
    5G has an interesting use model in that it doesn't travel very far and is easily absorbed by walls etc. So it will require many more mini base stations and people are talking about 5g base stations within buildings (or even multiple).

    Its also very high bandwidth so there are plans to push massive amounts of data via 5g (things like video). I think its being seen as a replacement for WiFi as well as 4G.

    I'm not sure what that means in terms of the energy transmitted overall.
     
    erin, ScottTriGuy and Sarah94 like this.
  5. Sisyphus

    Sisyphus Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    358
    Likes Received:
    1,288
    Data throughput isn't 1:1 tied to energy use. The 1st gen cellphones had much higher power levels, their data rate was enough to send a fax, sloowly.

    5G does differ somewhat in that it will eventually introduce new bands at higher frequencies, 3-6 GHz, and eventually higher. Each step up makes the signal have a shorter effective range, as higher frequencies are absorbed by minor obstructions. The short range also means 5G cells operate at lower power. Thus telcos will have to build out a large number of low power stations at great cost to make it work.

    Now let's imagine the extreme case; call it 5000G. Multiply 5G frequencies by 1000 and install it everywhere, so that all of Earth is exposed. What strange radiation would that create? What would be our fate? With 1000x the frequency, it is potentially 1000x more damaging. Would it kill off all life on Earth???!!!
    Well, that experiment has already been done by an implacable, unblinking, furious foreign furnace and you've been radiated by it. Around 1000x the frequency of 5G you get ... ordinary light, such as produced by that yellow thing in the sky. A cell phone's worth would be about as bright as an AAA flashlight. I'm going to save my allocation of panic for other things.

    Sci Amer ain't what it usta be.
     
  6. Sisyphus

    Sisyphus Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    358
    Likes Received:
    1,288
    "What worries me much more is the destruction of the countryside by phone masts every 100 yards."

    Agreed, I can't see any essential purpose served by immense mobile data speeds. Right now, a standard cell signal is enough to watch a movie via real-time streaming, and in HD at that. Personally, I see very little added value in HD movies on the go via streaming. Pre-load the thing on a flash drive, into the phone/tablet/whatever and then there's no need for the immense data rate.

    I also don't need a high speed virtual reality headset on my cranium while walking, and if my car needs gigabit bandwidth to make it down the new, improved techno-road something is very wrong, both technically (automated cars could run with a fraction of that data rate) and conceptually. In my opinion, automated cars able to run on every mile of road everywhere are a technocrat's dream, not the population's need. Consider also that the tech hardware will be made in China, and that China has a government sponsored hacking school.

    I think the push to 5G is caused by the business imperative of upgrade the product or become a commodity with near-zero profits. But that's a self-healing problem; when profits drop too far, some providers will go bankrupt, then there's less competition/supply, then prices recover until they are above costs. Not fun if you're an exec at whichever biz loses the round of musical chairs, but some businesses going 'poof' in the ordinary course of things and others being started with speed and ease was part of Adam Smith's revolutionary genius.
     
  7. Forbin

    Forbin Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,260
    Likes Received:
    9,201
    My cell phone company has told me that my 3G phone will be phased out by the end of 2020. I hope I'm not next. :eek:

    I do wonder how they're routing power to 800,000 new cell phone antennas. It would seem a daunting task unless they were mostly solar powered.




    [Changed G3 to 3G :whistle:]
     
    Last edited: Oct 22, 2019
    Andy likes this.
  8. Adrian

    Adrian Administrator Staff Member

    Messages:
    4,985
    Likes Received:
    25,006
    Location:
    UK
    3G and even GPRS have advantages in the distance traveled. I thought there was something around emergency services requiring them particularly around the coast.
     
  9. Skycloud

    Skycloud Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,943
    Likes Received:
    14,588
    Location:
    UK
    In the 21st century, in the middle of the 7th(?) largest economy in the world, where there has been a comprehensive electricity and water supply for longer than most people have lived, I still lose both utilities a few times a year.
    They can stuff 5G because I’d just like reliable basics, thanks.
     
    TiredSam, Amw66, Sisyphus and 4 others like this.
  10. Sisyphus

    Sisyphus Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    358
    Likes Received:
    1,288
    I lost my power the other day.
    Because they were changing out the old meter for the smart variety.
    The outage was a bit under five minutes, with advance notice.
    I can’t remember the last power outage before that, must’ve been 15 years ago.

    On the other hand, I’m being charged twice as much for delivery of the power as for the actual electricity, that’s before the $20 a month to be connected at all. These are separate items in most of the US).
     
    Skycloud likes this.
  11. Wonko

    Wonko Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    4,420
    Likes Received:
    33,016
    Location:
    UK
    When they put 4G around here I lost freeview.

    To be more precise the signal glitched every few seconds rendering it unwatchable, for me.

    So far, apparently for administrative reasons, it has not been fixed.

    Many more transmitters are needed for 5G.

    I can do without the universe de-res'ing every few minutes.

    It's hard enough to make a cup of tea without that.
     
    Skycloud, Amw66 and Sarah94 like this.
  12. erin

    erin Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    550
    Likes Received:
    3,533
    I use old vintage phone (20 years old) and not smart enough for smart phones. My husband do not own a mobile phone; he's seriously weird. He won't allow the household to use wireless internet. He's an electronic engineer; he worked and specialized in satellite and wireless connections for years.

    We use the most basic technology, I can't even take a photo with my mobile, can only send sms text and calls. Use internet with cable, occasional wireless connection as my old lap top is having problem connecting with cable recently.

    Last month I was in Istanbul and we had a 6.0M earthquake. This is a city with 20 millions population, you can guess the panic. I was out in a food hall of a shopping mall. We all left the mall from a nearest exit to a safer park area. No cell phones worked except mine! I called land line of my mum's and I could talk to her. I also received calls from cell phones from other cities. But no one with cell phones could do this for hours after the quake!

    After this, people notice that old basic phones could work, people told to add this kind of old phones to their earthquake bags (yes, sad we do have emergency bags for the possible earthquake).

    Not exactly related to 5G but just the thought of any smart phones let alone 5G not working after an earthquake is interesting.
     

Share This Page