# The 5G myth



## mikeyB (Apr 9, 2020)

At the moment, particularly in US celebrities, there seems to be a gathering storm about the legend that 5G phone masts and signals can affect the coronavirus illness. This is scientific balderdash, and I will explain why.

All radiation on the electromagnetic spectrum (including light) is divided into non-ionising radiation and ionising radiation.

Non-ionising radiation does not have enough energy to affect DNA or any part of the body of any living organism, or the RNA  of a virus.

Ionising radiation, which starts on the spectrum at Ultraviolet, and moves upwards though gamma rays, x-rays, and upwards, can affect DNA - that's why UV light can cause skin cancer, and it is why people get radiation sickness and die.

Radio waves, and that includes TV and satellite signals, all lie in the non-ionising range well below infra red light. Phones rely on radio and TV wavelengths that have been freed up by the conversion to digital. So they cannot affect DNA - they haven't got enough energy. We have been constantly bathed in radio waves for ninety years. That's how you can switch on a portable radio and hear music. Phones use exactly the same technology, and whether 4G or 5G, the electromagnetic waves never even get near the visible light part of the spectrum. 

And that is why mobile phones can't give you brain cancer,  nor can using a laptop on your lap give you cancer of your wedding tackle.

As a by the way, millions of neutrinos pass through your body every day, pas through the Earth and come out the other side. They don't interact with anything. They come from outer space, and have been doing since the birth of the universe. Don't ask me to explain that, or how we know about them, because that needs a working knowledge of quantum theory, and the fact that we are mostly empty space at a quantum level.


----------



## Uller (Apr 9, 2020)

Yep, so basically, sunlight is actually more dangerous than your microwave, which is more dangerous than a 5G mast...... the sun is trying to kill us


----------



## Ditto (Apr 9, 2020)

I'd never buy a house with an electricity pylon in the garden though.  I think it's all bad for us, can't be good can it? We should all live like Red Indians! Sunlight was okay before we fubarred it.


----------



## MikeTurin (Apr 9, 2020)

Actually an high voltage power line has the dreaded corona effect. So in a quet night you will hear a buzz and see a faint light emanating from cable joints.


----------



## Uller (Apr 9, 2020)

MikeTurin said:


> Actually an high voltage power line has the dreaded corona effect. So in a quet night you will hear a buzz and see a faint light emanating from cable joints.


But does it have an effect on physiology? How far does the surrounding air extend? Surely the effective distance is very limited?


----------



## MikeTurin (Apr 9, 2020)

Uller said:


> But does it have an effect on physiology? How far does the surrounding air extend? Surely the effective distance is very limited?


I think a constant buzz isn't a think that will make you relaxed, and corona effect is eerie.


----------



## Hepato-pancreato (Apr 9, 2020)

You tube has banned all 5g conspiracy theory videos. Davide Icke included.


----------



## mikeyB (Apr 10, 2020)

MikeTurin said:


> Actually an high voltage power line has the dreaded corona effect. So in a quet night you will hear a buzz and see a faint light emanating from cable joints.


What do you mean by the “dreaded” corona effect? It’s entirely local to the power line, and the buzz you hear is nothing more than sound. You can actually hear the same sound if you can manage to see the Northern Lights in the sky on a very quiet night. The faint light is just the spillage of a few electrons spilling out, hitting local atoms in the air and firing off a photon. You can sometimes hear a buzz from neon lights. They depend on the same effect.

So I ask again, what is dreaded?


----------



## NotWorriedAtAll (Apr 10, 2020)

mikeyB said:


> What do you mean by the “dreaded” corona effect? It’s entirely local to the power line, and the buzz you hear is nothing more than sound. You can actually hear the same sound if you can manage to see the Northern Lights in the sky on a very quiet night. The faint light is just the spillage of a few electrons spilling out, hitting local atoms in the air and firing off a photon. You can sometimes hear a buzz from neon lights. They depend on the same effect.
> 
> So I ask again, what is dreaded?


I'm pretty sure he was being ironic/sarcastic.  The film is pretty interesting and completely sensible including information about how the corona effect is used in industrial applications for the benefit of society.

I didn't know about the corona effect - it wasn't discussed when I did my A'Level Physics but now I understand why various numpties have associated masts with covid - it makes sense how they may have jumped to this crackers conclusion now I know about the corona effect. Up until now I couldn't even fathom how anyone could have associated the two things.


----------



## Amity Island (Apr 18, 2020)

mikeyB said:


> Non-ionising radiation does not have enough energy to affect DNA or any part of the body of any living organism.


The Stewart Report published in May 2000 came to a different conclusion.

"The possibility therefore remains open that there could be health effects from exposure to RF fields below guideline levels: hence continued research is needed". 

and that "mobile phones have only been in widespread use for a relatively short time".

Compared to say the effects of neutrinos, which have been there alongside all life as it has evolved in the universe over billions of years.

https://webarchive.nationalarchives....org.uk/web/HPAwebFile/HPAweb_C/1194947334474 

From the Stewart recommendation, research continued and four years later, a follow up report by the National Radiological Protection Board was published. It said in their opening statement after reviewing the 26 reports by international committees, expert groups and agencies that "research suggests that adverse affects may occur many years after phone use".



			https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110930071832/http://www.hpa.org.uk/web/HPAwebFile/HPAweb_C/1194947376017


----------



## mikeyB (Apr 18, 2020)

There is still no hard evidence of any damage, which I have repeatedly said, since radio transmissions began on this planet. There is no difference between radio frequencies and mobile phone frequencies. Quoting scientific speculation from a decade ago hardly strengthens your argument, such as it is. They are not conclusions, they nearly all say further research is needed. Quote that further research if you can.

And billions of people have used mobile phones in that period. And wireless headphones, as I am using at the moment. They don’t increase my exposure to microwave radiation, they merely pick up those signals that surround us every day. If you can only get that one point, you wouldn’t be so worried. I’m not worried that my Libre sensor sends signals to the reader. It’s my very own mini transmitter. Do use or want a Libre system? Or are we all fools for threatening our health with such systems? Do you think pump users who get info on their phones, or remote controllers are in danger? If not, then you are inconsistent in your thinking.


----------



## Bruce Stephens (Apr 18, 2020)

mikeyB said:


> And billions of people have used mobile phones in that period. And wireless headphones, as I am using at the moment.



If these things have effects, they've surely got to be really small effects. (When I had a (benign) brain tumour a while ago they asked whether I used a mobile phone, presumably just because that was a standard thing to ask at the time. As it happens I was one of the small proportion of people who just hadn't.)


----------



## Amity Island (Apr 18, 2020)

mikeyB said:


> There is still no hard evidence of any damage, which I have repeatedly said, since radio transmissions began on this planet. There is no difference between radio frequencies and mobile phone frequencies. Quoting scientific speculation from a decade ago hardly strengthens your argument, such as it is. They are not conclusions, they nearly all say further research is needed. Quote that further research if you can.
> 
> And billions of people have used mobile phones in that period. And wireless headphones, as I am using at the moment. They don’t increase my exposure to microwave radiation, they merely pick up those signals that surround us every day. If you can only get that one point, you wouldn’t be so worried. I’m not worried that my Libre sensor sends signals to the reader. It’s my very own mini transmitter. Do use or want a Libre system? Or are we all fools for threatening our health with such systems? Do you think pump users who get info on their phones, or remote controllers are in danger? If not, then you are inconsistent in your thinking.


Mike,

I don't disagree with a single thing you've said. I don't have a stand point or view on the matters you raise.

I'm just trying to show that there is a distinction between the phrase "no hard evidence" and the fact that having "no hard evidence" (to date) does not mean that something hasn't or doesn't occur.

It's not quite the same thing.


----------



## Eddy Edson (Apr 18, 2020)

Amity Island said:


> Mike,
> 
> I don't disagree with a single thing you've said. I don't have a stand point or view on the matters you raise.
> 
> ...



Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, sure. Except that when researchers have been looking for evidence for a long time without finding any, it is.


----------



## Amity Island (Apr 19, 2020)

Eddy Edson said:


> Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, sure.


Spot on!


----------



## mikeyB (Apr 19, 2020)

But Eddy’s follow up comment rather undermines that, and accords with my comments. Or didn’t you notice that? Or even understand it?


----------



## Docb (Apr 19, 2020)

Not quite Amity.  Include Eddy's second sentence in your quote!!

There could be elephants roaming in Avenham Park but the fact that nobody has seen any does not prove there could not be any.  Does not matter if there are no piles of elephant dung or that the trees have not been browsed to elephant height, we must keep the elephant traps fully serviced.  

Logic is about as valid as the 5G conspiracy theories.


----------



## Amity Island (Apr 19, 2020)

mikeyB said:


> But Eddy’s follow up comment rather undermines that, and accords with my comments. Or didn’t you notice that? Or even understand it?


It doesn't negate the truth of the first comment.

Mike, this is not personal b.t.w and i'm not getting at anybody or their ideas and opinions. I'm just trying to get to some kind of factual truth about the reliability of evidence or lack of it. As I said before, I have no views or opinions on the 5G thing. I'm talking about the "general" idea of evidence in any given situation.

Let me explain what I mean.

_"Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, sure. Except that when researchers have been looking for evidence for a long time without finding any, it is."_

Concluding with "*it is*", asserts that no evidence will or can ever be found in ongoing studies and research.

The point I was making in my original reply to you was that, all the official studies ended with a proviso of some kind (for good reason) and that's why they *are still* to this day carrying out further studies, tests and research.
e.g
"The possibility therefore remains open that there could be health effects from exposure to RF fields below guideline levels: hence continued research is needed".


----------



## Amity Island (Apr 19, 2020)

mikeyB said:


> There is still no hard evidence of any damage.


Hi Mike,

The other thing worth a mention is that even if there was actually "Hard Evidence" against anything for e.g "Non-ionising radiation does not have enough energy to affect DNA or any part of the body of any living organism", the hard evidence isn't always acted on or believed no matter how serious the consequences.

Cigarettes were sold (even after hard evidence was found) as been "good for you" and were "just what the doctor ordered" and were given away free to the military during the wars as a treat for the troops.

Cigarettes first went on sale in the 1920's, it wasn't until about 50 years later that people started linking heart disease and lung cancer. All the initial studies finding a link between cigarettes were ignored because the studies weren't "broad" enough. They then went on to do more extensive studies in the decades that followed.

*Still* to this day, even with all the hard evidence, cigarettes are still being sold, a hundred years later.






						The Study That Helped Spur the U.S. Stop-Smoking Movement
					

Most Americans born into the generations that came after the Baby Boom have gone their entire lives aware that smoking can cause lung cancer. But this fact has not always been well-known – and at one time it wasn’t known at all.




					www.cancer.org


----------



## everydayupsanddowns (Apr 19, 2020)

Docb said:


> There could be elephants roaming in Avenham Park but the fact that nobody has seen any does not prove there could not be any.  Does not matter if there are no piles of elephant dung or that the trees have not been browsed to elephant height, we must keep the elephant traps fully serviced.



Thanks @Docb 

That made me chuckle 

You have to watch those elephants though... they are sneaky - they line up in single file behind the tree trunks to avoid detection


----------



## Docb (Apr 19, 2020)

We knew that ED&D, so guess where we put the elephant traps.  We are switched on up here in Lancashire.


----------



## mikeyB (Apr 19, 2020)

Amity Island said:


> Hi Mike,
> 
> The other thing worth a mention is that even if there was actually "Hard Evidence" against anything for e.g "Non-ionising radiation does not have enough energy to affect DNA or any part of the body of any living organism", the hard evidence isn't always acted on or believed no matter how serious the consequences


The world is awash with non ionising radiation. from radio and TV signals, Satellite signals for TV. If it did any harm, we would have found out years ago. Radio has been around since the early 20th century. I've no idea of the serious consequences you mention, though it may be the drivel you referred to in your thread which was deleted for that reason. You seem to be immune from science. I still maintain that non ionising radiation can't harm the human body.  That, unfortunately, is a scientific fact.

I don't know what you use to send your messages here, phone? Laptop? Desktop connected wirelessly to WiFi? Tablet?  Do you watch TV or listen to the radio? Do you have a mobile phone? I assume you don't, or have you reconciled yourself to an early death?


----------



## Robin (Apr 19, 2020)

Docb said:


> We knew that ED&D, so guess where we put the elephant traps.  We are switched on up here in Lancashire.


My husband is Preston born and bred. He says the problem isn’t elephants, it’s crocodiles. So you’re quite safe....until the Ribble floods.


----------



## Amity Island (Apr 19, 2020)

mikeyB said:


> The world is awash with non ionising radiation. from radio and TV signals, Satellite signals for TV. If it did any harm, we would have found out years ago. Radio has been around since the early 20th century. I've no idea of the serious consequences you mention, though it may be the drivel you referred to in your thread which was deleted for that reason. You seem to be immune from science. I still maintain that non ionising radiation can't harm the human body.  That, unfortunately, is a scientific fact.
> 
> I don't know what you use to send your messages here, phone? Laptop? Desktop connected wirelessly to WiFi? Tablet?  Do you watch TV or listen to the radio? Do you have a mobile phone? I assume you don't, or have you reconciled yourself to an early death?


Mike,

If it is an unequivocal, indisputable, fundamental truth of absolute certainty that "Non-ionising radiation does not have enough energy to affect DNA or any part of the body of any living organism" then why are they still continuing with their research and studies into the effects on humans from non-ionising radiation?


----------



## Amity Island (Apr 19, 2020)

mikeyB said:


> I've no idea of the serious consequences you mention.


I was making the point that even when there is "hard evidence" about anything, it is ignored, like cigarettes and lung cancer.


----------



## Bruce Stephens (Apr 19, 2020)

Amity Island said:


> I was making the point that even when there is "hard evidence" about anything, it is ignored, like cigarettes and lung cancer.



There are very good reasons why the evidence against cigarettes was ignored for so long: many companies spent large amounts of money to support the denials. Similarly with fossil fuels and climate change, and our modern food industry and obesity.


----------



## Amity Island (Apr 19, 2020)

mikeyB said:


> All radiation on the electromagnetic spectrum (including light) is divided into non-ionising radiation and ionising radiation.
> 
> Non-ionising radiation does not have enough energy to affect DNA or any part of the body of any living organism, or the RNA  of a virus.
> 
> Ionising radiation, which starts on the spectrum at Ultraviolet, and moves upwards though gamma rays, x-rays, and upwards, can affect DNA - that's why UV light can cause skin cancer, and it is why people get radiation sickness and die.


Sunburn is caused by *non-ionising* radiation:

The ozone layer and oxygen in the atmosphere block the ionizing parts of the UV spectrum from the sun, so what is received on the skin at earth level is *non-ionising*.

The effect on cells from *non-ionising* UV light is very similar to that of other types of radiation like x-rays. Although it can't ionise the molecules in cells, it can excite them and cause chemical changes.  This damages the DNA and other molecules in the skin, which causes the sunburn.






						BBC - Non-Ionising Radiation - myRisks Information
					

An overview of the risks from exposures to non-ionising radiation, including UV, microwaves and electro-magnetic fields (EMF).



					www.bbc.co.uk


----------



## mikeyB (Apr 20, 2020)

Wrong again. As is the BBC. My expertise lies in causation of disease. UV light is in the ionising range, and is, as you say, reduced by those factors that you mention. Those factors do not reduce its frequency, merely its amount striking the earth.

Sunburn is merely heat damage. The fact that it is in the ionising range is shown in the damage can be caused to the structure of DNA. That’s why prolonged sun exposure can cause skin cancer, commonly basal cell carcinoma, which is benign in that it doesn’t spread to other organs, and also malignant melanoma which is particularly aggressive. Neither need a history of sunburn to develop. Merely developing a tan can do it. Both rely to an extent on bad luck, as with any cancer, such as the folk who smoke for 75 years and die at ninety without a sign of lung cancer.

High energy microwave energy (non ionising) can cause heating problems and damage to tissue - that’s the effect a microwave oven uses. Even then, the heat damage does not predispose to cancer, the problem is cell death. Burns to the skin don’t predispose to cancer. And as you can’t cook a steak with a cellphone or your Alexa, you will come to no harm. That’s why Facebook are now deleting nonsense posted about 5G affecting coronavirus. Or anything else, for that matter.

And you still haven’t answered my question as to how you post your messages here.


----------



## chaoticcar (Apr 20, 2020)

Robin said:


> My husband is Preston born and bred. He says the problem isn’t elephants, it’s crocodiles. So you’re quite safe....until the Ribble floods.


The crocodiles prefer the more fresh water up river so be careful crossing the bridge at Ribchester!!!!( Still can't do emoji )
Carol


----------



## mikeyB (Apr 20, 2020)

Aye, the crocodile steaks at the White Bull are to die for. Literally, if you like them fresh


----------



## Amity Island (Apr 20, 2020)

mikeyB said:


> I still maintain that non ionising radiation can't harm the human body.


Mike, 

I'm completely baffled by what you're saying as your statements contradict each other.

"I still maintain that non ionising radiation *can't* harm the human body" 

"High energy microwave energy (non ionising) *can* cause heating problems and damage to tissue"

Which is true?

rsvp


----------



## Amity Island (Apr 20, 2020)

mikeyB said:


> And you still haven’t answered my question as to how you post your messages here.


That is a rhetorical question. Obviously, I use modern technology including wifi, mobile phones, radios, t.v's.
As I have said previously, I have *absolutely no issue with modern technology*, as I don't know of any known issues with it and I have never said I have any issues with modern technology.

The point I've been trying to make from the very beginning, is that all government, world organisations and scientists in their reports have accepted that* they don't know everything*, that there can be things that are unknown at the moment, which might become known in the future. Thus, they ended all their reports with a proviso that research should continue.

To try and explain this another way so you might understand:

In the past, murders have been committed which at the time no "hard evidence" was found. 50 years later technology and techniques have been developed, technology that at the time would of been inconceivable and completely outside the awareness and consciousness of the people at that time.

Some people at the time of those long investigations lasting many years would have said "there is no evidence" therefore there can never be any "hard evidence", gone home to bed and forgotten all about it.

Other people would have left the "*case open*" by saying "there is no evidence available at the moment, although technology and techniques may come available in the future that will show that there is "hard evidence" allowing arrests to be made for those who are guilty of that crime".


----------



## Amity Island (Apr 20, 2020)

Hi Everyone,

I can't make myself any clearer. I've really, really tried.

Does anybody else understand what i'm saying about leaving the "case open".


----------



## Northerner (Apr 20, 2020)

(Not referring to people here!  )


----------



## Docb (Apr 21, 2020)

Amity Island said:


> Hi Everyone,
> 
> I can't make myself any clearer. I've really, really tried.
> 
> Does anybody else understand what i'm saying about leaving the "case open".



Yes. What you are doing is rehersing the philosophical debate about what constitutes certainty.  It may be fun in a seminar but a bit pointless in the real world where decisions have to be made and courses of action determined.


----------



## Amity Island (Apr 21, 2020)

Hi Docb,

Thanks, I appreciate your reply.

Yes, and if I were to put it all as simply as possible, i'd say:

"keep an open mind, accept the unknown, accept things do change and accept the possibility that evidence may be found."

and that applies to any research, study or investigation.


----------



## Docb (Apr 21, 2020)

Amity Island said:


> Hi Docb,
> 
> Thanks, I appreciate your reply.
> 
> ...



Fair enough as long as you add that you can only move forward at any time by taking the consensus view.

Here is something for you to think about.  Just supposing that  evolution had not resulted in sight but had resulted in highly intelligent beings who used sound rather than light to navigate the world.  Think, highly developed bats.  The question is, could such a species ever have come up with Einstein's equation, e=mc^2, one of the things we consider fundamental to how everything works?


----------



## mikeyB (Apr 21, 2020)

Amity Island said:


> Hi Docb,
> 
> Thanks, I appreciate your reply.
> 
> ...



That’s the Philip Schofield philosophy, for which he was pilloried and had to apologise, and also the reasons for why religion happens.

By the way, there is a difference between non ionising radiation and high energy non ionising radiation. Think of water- we can’t live without that harmless liquid - but you might not live if a lump of ice fell on your head.  Ice is just water with a higher entropy.


----------



## everydayupsanddowns (Apr 23, 2020)

mikeyB said:


> That’s the Philip Schofield philosophy



Eamon Holmes?


----------



## Amity Island (Apr 23, 2020)

mikeyB said:


> That’s the Philip Schofield philosophy, for which he was pilloried and had to apologise, and also the reasons for why religion happens.


Hi Mike,
I only mean that (allowing for the unknown) specifically to scientific report writing, research etc not in a philosophical or a religious sense. Just for future technologies, new forensic testing, instruments, new evidence etc.


----------



## Docb (Apr 24, 2020)

Hey Amity, you have not taken up my challenge on the subject of super-intelligent bats. It raises the point you are making but in a more abstract fashion quite unrelated to anything in the real world.


----------



## mikeyB (Apr 24, 2020)

Amity Island said:


> Hi Mike,
> I only mean that (allowing for the unknown) specifically to scientific report writing, research etc not in a philosophical or a religious sense. Just for future technologies, new forensic testing, instruments, new evidence etc.


Nonetheless, it still is the same thinking that has produced religions. And science always allows for the unknown. Nobody can yet explain quantum entanglement, but it’s been demonstrated time and again. It is also demonstrably true that non ionising radiation never has, and never will cause any health problem to human life. It doesn’t affect any other animal either.

We should direct our attention to the lack of scientific literacy in the population, not chase futile research.


----------



## Docb (Apr 24, 2020)

Amity Island said:


> Ha Ha! ROFL
> I have taken up your challenge, I'm still trying to figure out the abstract question. LOL
> I was thinking about bats "hanging upside down"? Energy/Mass etc?



Wrong tack.  The query is whether a species that has not developed sight could ever come up with an equation involving the speed of light. Could it ever even come up with the concept of electromagnetic radiation.  I have this vision of a highly qualified, highly intellectual group of totally blind bats who have got an explanation of the physics of existence based on what they experience, the propagation of sound.  I wonder how they would react to the free thinking bat in the corner saying, just supposing...

By the way, if you want to have a dig at mikeyB (heaven forbid that you would) you could remind him that it was not so long ago his profession considered draining blood in quantity was a sure fire cure for everything from consumption to the pox. Good job that was rethought.


----------



## Eddy Edson (Apr 24, 2020)

Docb said:


> Wrong tack.  The query is whether a species that has not developed sight could ever come up with an equation involving the speed of light. Could it ever even come up with the concept of electromagnetic radiation.  I have this vision of a highly qualified, highly intellectual group of totally blind bats who have got an explanation of the physics of existence based on what they experience, the propagation of sound.  I wonder how they would react to the free thinking bat in the corner saying, just supposing...
> 
> By the way, if you want to have a dig at mikeyB (heaven forbid that you would) you could remind him that it was not so long ago his profession considered draining blood in quantity was a sure fire cure for everything from consumption to the pox. Good job that was rethought.



My knowledge of bats = zero, but they feel heat, don't they?

I can imagine a race of aliens which can sense neutrinos directly wondering if hypothetical neutrino-blind aliens could ever ...


----------



## Bruce Stephens (Apr 24, 2020)

Docb said:


> The query is whether a species that has not developed sight could ever come up with an equation involving the speed of light.



I don't think it's unimaginable. We have instruments to measure things we can't directly sense (including things like infrared, ultraviolet, which are only a little outside visible light), so something which can't directly sense light might well develop instruments which allow them to measure it indirectly.


----------



## everydayupsanddowns (Apr 24, 2020)

Bruce Stephens said:


> I don't think it's unimaginable. We have instruments to measure things we can't directly sense (including things like infrared, ultraviolet, which are only a little outside visible light), so something which can't directly sense light might well develop instruments which allow them to measure it indirectly.



Don’t even get me started on dark matter.

“Right guys... this all works out perfectly... there’s just one small snag - most of the universe is missing. It must be there, because we can see how the whole thing works together, but the bits that we can see and measure in the universe aren’t nearly enough.”

”Shall we go with the old ’making something up and giving it a cool name’ approach?”

”Good plan! Next on the agenda... post meeting drinks?”


----------



## Docb (Apr 24, 2020)

Ah, I sneakily introduced the idea of bats (something we know about) and low and behold it's the thing that a couple of respondents have focussed on.  Illustrates the point that it's easier to focus on what is known rather than what is unknown or pure speculation.  Time to forget the bats and think in the abstract.  If seeing, and therefore the concept of light, is not part of common experience, is it conceivable that you could come up with the concept of a fundamental equation involving the speed of light.


----------



## trophywench (Apr 24, 2020)

EDUAD - I am the company secretary of a Ltd co, and at Board meetings, I have to bring the biscuits.  I hope none of 'my' Board are reading this cos otherwise I will have to start claiming expenses - I can stand the price of biscuits but Bombay Sapphire?  Nope!


----------



## mikeyB (Apr 24, 2020)

Bombay Sapphire? Cheapskate, TW. Mrs B is currently mixing her G&Ts with Berry Bros No. 3.

I’ll leave DocB to explain reality to Amity. Red capsule or Blue capsule...


----------



## mikeyB (May 5, 2020)

Just goes to show, we don’t have a monopoly on idiots who spout rubbish. They’re everywhere.


----------



## mikeyB (Dec 5, 2021)

That is utter rubbish, and i will attempt to carefully explain why.

1. You cannot avoid wireless communication, it's everywhere. That's how you watch TV or listen to the radio on a portable device. Wireless communication frequencies, including 5G are much lower in the electromagnetic spectrum than light, for example, and very much lower frequency than X-rays and Gamma Rays, which do have enough energy to damage the human body. Light,of course, can damage our bodies. And you probably don't know this, but to allow 5G on the radio spectrum, they had to free up space on the on the TV spectrum that was supplying the old 405 and 625 line television signals, and some of the space of digital TV.

2. There is not a shred of evidence of TV signals doing any harm to us. They don't have enough energy, and the energy of an electromagnetic wave  depends entirely on its frequency. 5G frequencies are lower than TV signals, and therefore have less energy.

3.  5G signals therefore cannot possibly damage our bodies. The x-rays that doctors do on the chests of Covid patients can. That is the elephant in the room. How many of the patients to which this study refers have had X-rays? 

4. Anybody can put references on the bottom of their reports. Doesn't mean they've paid any attention to them, or that those reports have been published with or without peer review. (He refers to one which he admits hasn't been peer reviewed.) And you don't know how many of those reports have been refuted since they were published. To learn how to read reports like this, read Ben Goldacre's book Bad Science.

5. Your Microwave oven (if you have one) emits microwaves which enter your body and do no harm. When I stand near the microwave oven wearing Bluetooth wireless headphones, the signal crackles and breaks up. You would only die if you stood inside the oven, when the heat would cook you.

6. We are discussing (in case you didn't know) photons. All electromagnetic waves are photons. All photons travel at the speed of light. The more energetic, the higher the frequency. It's only when those individual photons have enough energy to damage tissue in the body is when they have the energy of visible light and above. All photons lose energy when they meet a solid object - that's why sunlight warms you up. Radio wave photons don't have the energy to warm you up. That crackling on my headphones are photons that have been slowed down by the protective screens in the microwave.

7. No medical report postulating an association between radio frequency damage to the body even remotely attempts to explain the physics. Without that, they are worthless.


----------



## Burylancs (Dec 5, 2021)

mikeyB said:


> It is also demonstrably true that non ionising radiation never has, and never will cause any health problem to human life.



Surely that's just the current Hypothesis , if the evidence changes the hypothesis will have to change. The certainty of the prediction 'never will' makes you sound like Gypsy Rose Lee.


----------



## travellor (Dec 5, 2021)

I'm on neither side or the other.
Microwave frequencies are 1 Ghz to 1000Ghz
5G is 24 to 47Ghz.
Do the maths.


----------



## travellor (Dec 5, 2021)

mikeyB said:


> That is utter rubbish, and i will attempt to carefully explain why.
> 
> 1. You cannot avoid wireless communication, it's everywhere. That's how you watch TV or listen to the radio on a portable device. Wireless communication frequencies, including 5G are much lower in the electromagnetic spectrum than light, for example, and very much lower frequency than X-rays and Gamma Rays, which do have enough energy to damage the human body. Light,of course, can damage our bodies. And you probably don't know this, but to allow 5G on the radio spectrum, they had to free up space on the on the TV spectrum that was supplying the old 405 and 625 line television signals, and some of the space of digital TV.
> 
> ...



Ok, now I am.

That's utter rubbish.
Go climb a Tv transmitter.
The most powerful is about 600kw at mid 470 to 860Mhz
It's going to change your chance of having kids.

"Stanislav Szmigielski monitored the Polish military personnel for over 15 years and found that those occupationally exposed to RF and microwave radiation were 14 times more likely to develop chronic leukaemia in their old age, 9 times more likely to develop acute leukaemia and 6 times more likely to develop Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma (NHL). NHL incidence is rising steadily in Western countries for no known reason. The estimated average exposure levels of the people in Szmigielski's study were only about 5 microwatts per square centimetre, a level which can be found near powerful cellular phone base-stations and main TV and radio transmitter masts."


----------



## Burylancs (Dec 5, 2021)

Docb said:


> Not quite Amity.  Include Eddy's second sentence in your quote!!
> 
> There could be elephants roaming in Avenham Park but the fact that nobody has seen any does not prove there could not be any.  Does not matter if there are no piles of elephant dung or that the trees have not been browsed to elephant height, we must keep the elephant traps fully serviced.
> 
> Logic is about as valid as the 5G conspiracy theories.


Have you got reliable evidence that nobody has seen an 'elephant' in Avenham Park or are you just making that up as you go along ? ;-) Never been a circus there?





Docb said:


> Hey Amity, you have not taken up my challenge on the subject of super-intelligent bats. It raises the point you are making but in a more abstract fashion quite unrelated to anything in the real world.


If they were 'super intelligent' they would possibly/probably have got to the equation long  before we did ( three million years) ?


----------



## Burylancs (Dec 6, 2021)

mikeyB said:


> The world is awash with non ionising radiation. from radio and TV signals, Satellite signals for TV. If it did any harm, we would have found out years ago. Radio has been around since the early 20th century, unfortunately, is a scientific fact.



Aye, we've announced our presence good and proper. Let's hope there isn't a highly advanced imperialist civilisation within 100 or 200 light years of us. On the bright side civilisations within 61 light years are just getting the first episodes of Coronation Street. I bet they're gutted to be so far behind ;-)


----------



## Essex (Dec 6, 2021)

I always take the following type of comment with a pinch of salt,

"The possibility therefore remains open that there could be health effects from exposure to RF fields below guideline levels: hence continued research is needed".

When ever 'continued research is needed', always remember that unfortunately Science is (now, or always was?) an industry and getting funding is always a struggle for survival

I have yet to see a study that says, 'There is, therefore, no possibility that there could be [insert area of study here] and hence no further funding of my research area is needed".

EDIT: To clarify, I don't trust Scientists just cause 'they' are 'very clever'  and are morally untouchable and wear white coats, they are fallible / potentially amoral / over a barrel, and in todays climate of politicians meddling in everything and setting up 'hoops' the people at jumping through hoops or playing the system, rather than the best scientists /educators / health managers etc etc rise to the top, unfortunately.
in this case I am as sure as I can be that there are no bad effects


----------



## Essex (Dec 6, 2021)

Amity Island said:


> Hi Mike,
> 
> The other thing worth a mention is that even if there was actually "Hard Evidence" against anything for e.g "Non-ionising radiation does not have enough energy to affect DNA or any part of the body of any living organism", the hard evidence isn't always acted on or believed no matter how serious the consequences.
> 
> ...


And lead in Petrol was a real struggle for the man who originally dated the earth (I learnt that from Cosmos  )

EDIT: I was trying to say -  I don't trust business interests, BUT in this case I am sure 5G is no problem and I continue to microwave (so far less goodness lost as opposed to throwing away the boiled water) my frozen (at time of picking so v. little degradation from time of picking to table) vegetables even though my wife insists that microwaving is somehow not 'good for you'.


----------



## mikeyB (Dec 7, 2021)

Don't forget, folks, that your Sky Q controller works by using microwaves, so you don't need to point it at the set to make it work. Same with my TV in the man cave. And your remote unlocking device for the car, or you unlocking garage door. Or your wireless doorbell. or all those techie folks on the forum who are trying to set up systems for their watch to display their BG levels .Speaking of watches, electronic watches always know when the time changes. It's not governed by the watch. We are surrounded by microwaves hitting our bodies, whether that be from Sky satellites, or from the local TV transmitter. 

We are all doomed. Or not.


----------



## travellor (Dec 7, 2021)

Essex said:


> And lead in Petrol was a real struggle for the man who originally dated the earth (I learnt that from Cosmos  )
> 
> EDIT: I was trying to say -  I don't trust business interests, BUT in this case I am sure 5G is no problem and I continue to microwave (so far less goodness lost as opposed to throwing away the boiled water) my frozen (at time of picking so v. little degradation from time of picking to table) vegetables even though my wife insists that microwaving is somehow not 'good for you'.



It's not always good.


----------



## travellor (Dec 7, 2021)

mikeyB said:


> Don't forget, folks, that your Sky Q controller works by using microwaves, so you don't need to point it at the set to make it work. Same with my TV in the man cave. And your remote unlocking device for the car, or you unlocking garage door. Or your wireless doorbell. or all those techie folks on the forum who are trying to set up systems for their watch to display their BG levels .Speaking of watches, electronic watches always know when the time changes. It's not governed by the watch. We are surrounded by microwaves hitting our bodies, whether that be from Sky satellites, or from the local TV transmitter.
> 
> We are all doomed. Or not.



A Firestick is bluetooth, around 2.5Ghz, 100mW.
5G, 24Ghz to 54Ghz, maybe 4W if you are far away from a tower, 4 mW if you are near one.
Not all watches are on wifi, mine uses a GPS reciever to set the time.
And then wifi is 5Ghz, or 2,4Ghz, maximum power is 100mW.

A microwave oven is the same sort of frequency, but  the magnetron is up to 1000W.
So 10,000 Firesticks in your pocket, all transmitting, or 250 phones taped to your head on maximum power.
There is a reason the door is interlocked.

As to the 600kW tv transmitter, that's 150 thousand phones on your ear with poor reception, maybe 150 million phones in the city.


----------

