The BfS also writes that the technology is too young for a final assessment, since cancer, for example, would develop over a period of 20 to 30 years.

So... that study's worthless. Like most tech studies anyway 🙄

fantaskarsef:

So... that study's worthless. Like most tech studies anyway 🙄

Not really, no. But whatever 🙄

AlmondMan:

Not really, no. But whatever 🙄

Well I'm sure you're particularly happy that it says 5G isn't dangerous, but in reality tech never is tested for real. Not that I believe the dangers are there, but nothing's tested over a human's lifetime to have any real intel on long term influence on the body. Or would you disagree?

Well, 5GHz is not any better than 2,4 GHz. It is question of energy radiated and absorbed. And question of type of molecules which do the absorption. For H2O, 1st "resonating" frequency is around 23 GHz, but it is tiny absorption. Big absorption is around 180 GHz and then around 320 GHz. But then there are all those other molecules and mainly our DNA which atomic structure may be damaged due to excessive energy absorption. And that brings us to study itself. Rats did develop cancers => DNA/protein/... damage. Idea that cancers they did develop are not common to humans does not change fact that source of those cancers is damage to complex molecules which enable living organisms to function properly. And that's exactly same kind of damage people can expect in high enough exposure areas.

Spot the conspiracy nut...

The only proven study is time. We will see if we will flourish, or develop tumors.

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/07/4d/d9/074dd92d0a759a1bc111d68f9a0e85f4.jpg Oh crap, wrong scientific study!......:p

Do people really believe a multi-billion dollar industry study that if proven deadly would cost so much? Of course, any study they sanction will say it is safe. They want to see a return on investment. They won't let a few cancer victims or mass animal die-offs stop them. Meanwhile, 1 in 2 people gets cancer lol. Funny how cancer rates have gone through the roof with the advent of cell phone tech.

emperorsfist:

Spot the conspiracy nut...

Spot the coincidence nut. I got more time for conspiracy theories regarding a multi-billion dollar industry than "Oh, it's just a coincidence, move along tin foil hate brigade".

anticupidon:

The only proven study is time. We will see if we will flourish, or develop tumors.

Radium drops anyone? https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/03/how-we-realized-putting-radium-in-everything-was-not-the-answer/273780/

The young women, many fresh out of high school, would playfully paint their nails and teeth with the luminous paint, known as UnDark. About ten years later, these "Radium Girls" would start to die.

Hypernaut:

Do people really believe a multi-billion dollar industry study that if proven deadly would cost so much? Of course, any study they sanction will say it is safe. They want to see a return on investment. They won't let a few cancer victims or mass animal die-offs stop them. Meanwhile, 1 in 2 people gets cancer lol. Funny how cancer rates have gone through the roof with the advent of cell phone tech.

They haven't gone through the roof. And while I don't necessarily have faith in single studies and remain skeptical of industry led ones, multiple studies have been done by various government bodies, academic researchers, etc and have all concluded that there is no evidence cell phones cause cancer. Further the cancer death-rate has declined in the last 30 or so years. Stop posting tinfoil nonsense.

Hypernaut:

Spot the coincidence nut. I got more time for conspiracy theories regarding a multi-billion dollar industry than "Oh, it's just a coincidence, move along tin foil hate brigade".

Buddy, screaming "criminal", "big money" and other buzzwords into the void is worthless, if you have nothing to back them up. The study, however flawed, is still more than just saying: "Oh yeah, well they're lying!"

Denial:

Further the cancer death-rate has declined in the last 30 or so years.

thats because on the autopsy report the cause is from a secondary illness post chemo or radiotherapy - not because cancers have reduced in occurrence.

excuse me for abit OOT, first put aside 5G natural selection is a thing for life-being (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest, https://www.thoughtco.com/survival-of-the-fittest-1224578) lookback human history and we seeing evolution in human itself on other side, if there anything that bring destruction to human-race, it have good possibility its human themselves doing it, rather than other-factor such current extreme-climate that happening what earth (universe in extended/wider view) is make balance then what currently hot-topics, corona-virus people died because of it (reported over 100+people for now), but there also quite sum of people said recovering from it now the origin of corona-virus also interesting, while it reported transfered from wild-animal, but it also rumored its bio-weapon (sort of leak from wuhan P4 virology lab?) eitherway, its human doing, if u get what i mean back to 5G... if it proved to have some effect to animal (rat), then its obviously 5G have some sort of effect to environmental, even if, say it have no effect to human whatsoever but in tech advancement, everyone want better tech for sure, right ? even sometimes it might pose some risk, people tends to take the risk as long its not proven japan (NTT) for one, trying ahead with 6G [youtube=kvtROabLDbM] [youtube=o3Iv30EH8h4] so now do u prefer stuck with 4G and get no health concern or join 5G but with possible health concern ? eitherway (both) have positive and negative, just like everything else in life

Astyanax:

thats because on the autopsy report the cause is from a secondary illness post chemo or radiotherapy - not because cancers have reduced in occurrence.

I never said cancer rates reduced in occurrence. I said the deathrate from them has declined - those are two separate things. Regardless, the rate hasn't gone through the roof, our ability to detect cancer and properly diagnose it has, which leads to higher numbers of cancers being reported. Also I'd like to see a source that the decline in deathrate is due to secondary illnesses being reported as cause of death - because I don't believe that either and I can't find any concrete study for that.

At a recent security event we discussed the peak power profile and directed energy wave capability of 5G. The below quote is quite important: "than the expected exposure to 5G for humans" At normal range and exposure short term effects are low with long term unknown. - Incorrect configuration could lead to higher than defined power output which could cause DNA damage. - 5G can be configured at peak power as a directed energy weapon. Imagine Epstein being targeted via 5G exposure over a period of time? Interesting!

Denial:

They haven't gone through the roof. And while I don't necessarily have faith in single studies and remain skeptical of industry led ones, multiple studies have been done by various government bodies, academic researchers, etc and have all concluded that there is no evidence cell phones cause cancer. Further the cancer death-rate has declined in the last 30 or so years. Stop posting tinfoil nonsense.

cancer-Death-rate != cancer-Developing-rate For example death rate to rate of getting cancer is smaller in USA than in Czech Republic. Yet in USA, there is higher chance per capita to get cancer. Death rate may go down because of better available drugs (certification). Then there is actual per capita rate of getting cancer. And that speaks much clearer about environments people live in. (Or quality of data.) Yes, you can say that developing countries have lower cancer rates not because of absence of heavy industry pollution or harmful radiation, but because of lack of good health care itself. => Natural selection. Or actually too low general life expectancy itself. (People not having enough time to die from cancer due to other causes of death.) https://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/cause-of-death/all-cancers/by-country/ But in general, developing countries without other types of pollution have much lower cancer rates. And study itself confirms that it does cause damage that leads to cancer. Question is energy level and exposure time required to get cancer causing damage at certain normalized rate. If one can compare that for other technologies people get exposed to. And actual energy levels once fully deployed for general population, we could easily understand if it is more harmful than 2,4 GHz or older lower frequencies cellphones were using in past.

Fox2232:

cancer-Death-rate != cancer-Developing-rate For example death rate to rate of getting cancer is smaller in USA than in Czech Republic. Yet in USA, there is higher chance per capita to get cancer. Death rate may go down because of better available drugs (certification). Then there is actual per capita rate of getting cancer. And that speaks much clearer about environments people live in. (Or quality of data.) Yes, you can say that developing countries have lower cancer rates not because of absence of heavy industry pollution or harmful radiation, but because of lack of good health care itself. => Natural selection. Or actually too low general life expectancy itself. (People not having enough time to die from cancer due to other causes of death.) https://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/cause-of-death/all-cancers/by-country/ But in general, developing countries without other types of pollution have much lower cancer rates. And study itself confirms that it does cause damage that leads to cancer. Question is energy level and exposure time required to get cancer causing damage at certain normalized rate. If one can compare that for other technologies people get exposed to. And actual energy levels once fully deployed for general population, we could easily understand if it is more harmful than 2,4 GHz or older lower frequencies cellphones were using in past.

Denial:

I never said cancer rates reduced in occurrence. I said the deathrate from them has declined - those are two separate things.

Like you said, developing countries have lower life expectancy, worse reporting, worse diagnosing - which all lead to lower rates. Any study worth it's weight is considering these things. Most studies show a decline in death-rate. Which again, as I stated, is not linked to cancer rate. The point is, if cellular radiation was causing some massive increase in cancer rates, we'd see it and yet we don't so his opinion that "cancer rates are increasing through the roof" is irrelevant.

slyphnier:

excuse me for abit OOT, first put aside 5G natural selection is a thing for life-being (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest, https://www.thoughtco.com/survival-of-the-fittest-1224578) lookback human history and we seeing evolution in human itself on other side, if there anything that bring destruction to human-race, it have good possibility its human themselves doing it, rather than other-factor such current extreme-climate that happening what earth (universe in extended/wider view) is make balance then what currently hot-topics, corona-virus people died because of it (reported over 100+people for now), but there also quite sum of people said recovering from it now the origin of corona-virus also interesting, while it reported transfered from wild-animal, but it also rumored its bio-weapon (sort of leak from wuhan P4 virology lab?) eitherway, its human doing, if u get what i mean back to 5G... if it proved to have some effect to animal (rat), then its obviously 5G have some sort of effect to environmental, even if, say it have no effect to human whatsoever but in tech advancement, everyone want better tech for sure, right ? even sometimes it might pose some risk, people tends to take the risk as long its not proven japan (NTT) for one, trying ahead with 6G [youtube=kvtROabLDbM] [youtube=o3Iv30EH8h4] so now do u prefer stuck with 4G and get no health concern or join 5G but with possible health concern ? eitherway (both) have positive and negative, just like everything else in life

Natural selection is greatly reduced in developed countries for several centuries (basically since onset of disinfection and antibiotics which were big milestones). It is even reduced in many developing countries due to all efforts from developed countries. Earth/Universe is not making balance. See entropy. No balance, but chaos is behavior. Even while chaos in hot to cold water may bring one to conclusion that final temperature is balanced, process itself is not balancing. And chaos is exactly what you get from shooting high energy particles/waves into other particles. (For some, it is beneficial to realize why sky is blue.) It does damage to rats, dogs, monkeys, humans. Same type of damage. Maybe bit different results under same conditions. (Volume of tissues that protect vital organs from damage for different types of radiation/frequencies.) 4G without concerns? Wrong conclusion. Microwave that heats your food would work even on 2/4/5/7/9/... GHz. It uses 2,4 GHz because license to use air. Your wifi at 2,4 GHz has same effects as your microwave, it is just difference in energy level and exposure time.

Oh god not this crap again... To all of you who insist this stuff causes cancer: wake me up when you prove vaccines cause autism and that the world is flat. Do some actual research on the electromagnetic spectrum and how physics works, because if 5G scares you, go live inside Coober Pedy for the rest of your life and give up your interest in tech because 5G is the least of your worries in your current lifestyle.

Fox2232:

4G without concerns? Wrong conclusion. Microwave that heats your food would work even on 2/4/5/7/9/... GHz. It uses 2,4 GHz because license to use air. Your wifi at 2,4 GHz has same effects as your microwave, it is just difference in energy level and exposure time.

Yes and no, to most of what you said there. Different frequencies heat things up in different ways. 10GHz is much more effective at heating up water molecules, but if you think your 2.45GHz is bad at heating your food evenly, that temperature gradient would be much worse at 10GHz. Regardless, microwaves are non-ionizing and nothing to be concerned about.