schmidtbag:

Source? Let's say for a moment what you said is 100% fact: that's the same kind of logic that was applied to say aspartame is carcinogenic. Of course it's going to be carcinogenic when almost your entire diet is composed of aspartame and water (as what was done in lab tests with mice). Most things in life that are typically safe are dangerous when you're facing extreme amounts of exposure. Even drinking too much water can kill you. A lot of broadcast towers emit tens of kilowatts. In the US, radio towers are limited to 1MW. Granted, a lot of that energy is lost in heat, but it's still a tremendous amount of power put into radio waves. So if it takes 1KW to cook your meal, is it really any surprise that those towers could cause damage to you when you're practically close enough to touch the emitter? For the record - the reason people don't get cooked alive while up on those towers is because the frequency doesn't resonate with water molecules. Anyway, since the discussion here is specifically phone signals: https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/radiation-exposure/cellular-phone-towers.html EDIT: I see you added a source but uh... did you not read the whole thing? Look at the last sentence: "Although the preparation of this Monograph had been scheduled so as to include the results of the large international case-control study INTERPHONE on mobile-phone use (conducted in 2000-2004; published in 2010), it should be emphasized that the evaluations in this volume address the general question of whether RF radiation causes cancer in humans or in experimental animals: it does not specifically or exclusively consider mobile phones, but rather the type of radiation emitted by mobile phones and various other sources. Furthermore, this Monograph is focused on the potential for an increased risk of cancer among those exposed to RF radiation, but does not provide a quantitative assessment of any cancer risk, nor does it discuss or evaluate any other potential health effects of RF radiation." In other words "this doesn't specify whether your phone will give you cancer".

I did indeed read it - wether it specifically tests cellphones, or simply the RF radiation that cellphones also emit, is largely irrelevant... as cellphones also emit it. Regardless of what people on the interwebz say, i am absolutely certain that this is tech isn't without consequences for humans and animals health - just like alot of other stuff throughout history, which wasn't tested before being cashed in for profit.

Dragam1337:

Regardless of what people on the interwebz say, i am absolutely certain that this is tech isn't without consequences for humans and animals health - just like alot of other stuff throughout history, which wasn't tested before being cashed in for profit.

In the general matter, I 100% agree with the bold part.

schmidtbag:

Resonating with them still won't cause cancer. It's non-ionizing radiation. Anyone who sincerely fears the radiation from their electronics might as well never step outside again, because even at night you are being pummeled with much more cosmic and solar radiation. The sun will do more damage to you in one day than a lifetime of carrying a phone.

I agree, that's why I have said that I don't see the issue with cancer. Resonating though can cause heating or pains. It's quite irrelevant to the powers that we use for phones, but I wouldn't e.g. sit on a microwave while it's working.

Khronikos:

In reality, we don't really even have long term studies that say anything of worth. Nobody has paid for them. The carriers certainly won't be paying for them. Until there is long term evidence you guys are basically just shilling your opinion on us.

EM waves in these frequencies are literally everywhere all the time, but for some reason we don't see major issues with cancer epidemic. Oh and btw, you can also use radio frequencies to cure cancer, by heating a cancerous spot. Would be kinda silly if doctors used thing that develops cancer to treat it, don't you think ?

HeavyHemi:

What do you mean 'stand alone'. These are in addition to the existing network not a replacement.

There is 5G NSA (which is 5G SW on 4G HW), and 5G SA (which is "true" 5G). There's also "5G Evolution" which is actually 4G+. AT&T's "5G E" was actually slower than T-Mobile's 4G. I'm betting that this launch is 5G NSA, which is not true 5G. So maybe you'll get somewhat higher bandwidth, and slightly better latency, but not anywhere near true 5G numbers, especially on the lower latency part. Edit: just wanted to add that both "Samsung Note 10+ 5G" and "OnePlus 7T Pro 5G McLaren" have NSA 5G in it. Qualcomm's first SA 5G chips are X55 (on SD865) and X52 (SD765/765G); not X50 (SD855). "Exynos 980" and "Kirin 990 5G" support SA 5G. So you won't see true 5G until you have true 5G network on true 5G phones.

phone-radiation cause cancer : yes and no, simply because not everyone have equal/same genetics ... then people might say its just their genetic that prone to cancer, yet it also have possibility that the radiation have some effect to those people, similar to sun-uv-ray that can cause cancer. for some, like those people work in plantation got sun-bathing everyday and got no cancer. While there are people that got cancer from minor sunbathing "5G make things worse" imho it is simply by simple logic, that 5G need much higher freq. (30Ghz~300Ghz compared below 6Ghz 4G).... and with that the range is limited thus for 5G network it need more broadcast-towers. By imagination its obviously worse than 4G. But the effect to human is yet to be proven, well there some reports that some people got headache with 5G, so things back like i said on top. now say if things only happen to minority of people, is it okay to ditch them (let them get pain from headache or even dead to cancer) .. simply because majority of people is just fine ? i personally feel no point trying to prove which is correct, but having some people that more cautions to it (5G radiation related) better that none i mean just imagine, people just carefree... and IF all sudden cancer growth increased without any warning then it will be to late for us , no ?

slyphnier:

phone-radiation cause cancer : yes and no, simply because not everyone have equal/same genetics ... then people might say its just their genetic that prone to cancer, yet it also have possibility that the radiation have some effect to those people, similar to sun-uv-ray that can cause cancer. for some, like those people work in plantation got sun-bathing everyday and got no cancer. While there are people that got cancer from minor sunbathing

It's really tiring to see this cancer nonsense on every 5G news article. Any ordinary light-bulb (LED, fluorescent, traditional, a candle...) emits a HUGE amount of energy compared to 5G emissions. I don't see anyone complaining about light-bulbs or candles giving cancer through their energy emissions. Lets please stick to the news.

Dragam1337:

I did indeed read it - wether it specifically tests cellphones, or simply the RF radiation that cellphones also emit, is largely irrelevant... as cellphones also emit it.

This is a new level of arrogance that I have a hard time beleiving. So, just because it emits a signal (not even the same one), regardless of wattage, that's enough to be a problem to you? By that logic, how are you not dead right now from avoiding literally everything? Pick something we take into our bodies, anything you can imagine, and you'll find there is such thing as a harmful dose/quantity. So should you just suffocate because oxygen in high quantities can kill you? Should you never step outside again because the sun exists? Should you avoid salt in everything you eat?

Regardless of what people on the interwebz say, i am absolutely certain that this is tech isn't without consequences for humans and animals health - just like alot of other stuff throughout history, which wasn't tested before being cashed in for profit.

And yet you're on a tech forum.... weird priorities...

schmidtbag:

And yet you're on a tech forum.... weird priorities...

Can we agree to stop feeding the trolls and to keep on topic? A few posts back I asked about it being 5G SA (real 5G) or NSA (pre-5G), and nobody seems to know the answer.

I'm sure they've caged a monkey, gave it a 5g phone and placed it near a 5g tower for years just to test for cancer. https://media.istockphoto.com/photos/male-chimpanzee-in-business-clothes-picture-id186849685?k=6&m=186849685&s=612x612&w=0&h=w2qEGXbIuQi9z-Ct0mL_0_YqD1JxsJD5HaqeX-otKcw= Result: monkey is now hooked on Facebook....:p

airbud7:

I'm sure they've caged a monkey, gave it a 5g phone and placed it near a 5g tower for years just to test for cancer.

Yeah we are the monkeys

pfft people with tinfoil hats ...they did not even consider to make a Faraday cage and wrap it in tinfoil to wear like a hat ....pffft amateurs ! This will also protect your brain from becoming a gel after it was microwaved by those deadly plaques ..called phones !

*Angry Huawei Noises*

Stop with the crap about radiation. Is 5G dangerous? Although 5G may improve our day to day lives, some consumers have voiced concern about potential health hazards. Many of these concerns are over 5G's use of the higher energy millimeter-wave radiation. "There's often confusion between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation because the term radiation is used for both," said Kenneth Foster, a professor of bioengineering at Pennsylvania State University. "All light is radiation because it is simply energy moving through space. It's ionizing radiation that is dangerous because it can break chemical bonds." Ionizing radiation is the reason we wear sunscreen outside because short-wavelength ultraviolet light from the sky has enough energy to knock electrons from their atoms, damaging skin cells and DNA. Millimeter waves, on the other hand, are non-ionizing because they have longer wavelengths and not enough energy to damage cells directly. Source> https://www.livescience.com/65959-5g-network.html

Reddoguk:

Stop with the crap about radiation. Is 5G dangerous? Although 5G may improve our day to day lives, some consumers have voiced concern about potential health hazards. Many of these concerns are over 5G's use of the higher energy millimeter-wave radiation. "There's often confusion between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation because the term radiation is used for both," said Kenneth Foster, a professor of bioengineering at Pennsylvania State University. "All light is radiation because it is simply energy moving through space. It's ionizing radiation that is dangerous because it can break chemical bonds." Ionizing radiation is the reason we wear sunscreen outside because short-wavelength ultraviolet light from the sky has enough energy to knock electrons from their atoms, damaging skin cells and DNA. Millimeter waves, on the other hand, are non-ionizing because they have longer wavelengths and not enough energy to damage cells directly. Source> https://www.livescience.com/65959-5g-network.html

Ha! Found government worker! You not gonna fool me! wraps self in aluminium blanket and sprays holy water on the monitor

HeavyHemi:

Covering more than '200 million' the number that can actually access it is the tens of thousands currently at anything over standard 4G speeds. I can't even get a reliable CDMA never mind LTE signal. Just to be clear, I'm not addressing Hilbert but T-Mobiles claims.

T-Mobile didn't even have 5G phones available until today.....at the earliest. Given the price of those phones, I doubt they'll see users in the tens of thousands for at least a few months.

Backstabak:

Would be kinda silly if doctors used thing that develops cancer to treat it, don't you think ?

Actually.....that's exactly what doctors do.... Go through cancer treatment.... It's all explained at length. For radiation therapy, you're exposed to....radiation.....typically from an x-ray machine. The radiation damages not only cancerous cells, but also healthy cells. In rare cases, patients who receive radiation therapy, end up with cancer elsewhere in the body. In my case, I had NH lymphoma. After radiation, I was monitored for signs of throat and lung cancer. Though rare, it does in fact happen.

Aaaand we're still out of topic.

sykozis:

Actually.....that's exactly what doctors do.... Go through cancer treatment.... It's all explained at length. For radiation therapy, you're exposed to....radiation.....typically from an x-ray machine. The radiation damages not only cancerous cells, but also healthy cells. In rare cases, patients who receive radiation therapy, end up with cancer elsewhere in the body. In my case, I had NH lymphoma. After radiation, I was monitored for signs of throat and lung cancer. Though rare, it does in fact happen.

Except that xray has enough energy to actually damage your cells which can cause cancer, while even the 86GHz band simply doesn't. It's like 6 orders of magnitude difference. That's why half the people here say that it's nonsense because there is simply no mechanism how this can cause cancer. There are also no studies that show this or actually even can show this, as cancer takes years to develop and you can't control for all the other factors in the subjects life.

Khronikos:

Nothing you said proves anything. I hope you realize that. We simply haven't done enough studies. You aren't using science. You are literally using bad logic. Hey this worked before, so this has to work now. Please stop with this BS. Plenty of people have issues with 5G. Entire countries have issues with it. Military even has issues with it.

What are those people, militaries and even countries that have issues with 5G ? Maybe I don't follow news so closely, but I haven't noticed that any country deploying 5G and having cancer epidemic on their hands.

Backstabak:

What are those people, militaries and even countries that have issues with 5G ? Maybe I don't follow news so closely, but I haven't noticed that any country deploying 5G and having cancer epidemic on their hands.

You know that they are just trolling. For the nth time, PLEASE, stop feeding the trolls and stay on topic.

heffeque:

Aaaand we're still out of topic.

Would you like me to start another thread: "5G and the risk of cancer" ?

airbud7:

Would you like me to start another thread: "5G and the risk of cancer" ?

Better keep trolls out of serious threads, so yeah, why not. If someone can move all the non-topic posts in this one to the other one, that would be the cherry on top.