How Is Safe The New 5G Network

0
210

You’re being exposed to radiation right now. It’s coming at you from both space and the soil from water and food your body itself is radioactive. And you’re being exposed to microwaves and radio waves from both natural and human-made, Wi-Fi, TV, radio stations, cell phones 3G 4G, and now 5G network.

See also:




And 5G network is just getting started. Qualcomm, Samsung, Verizon, LG, Sprint all these companies and more are right now working to build out the 5g ecosystem. So, the question is what are all these things doing to your body?

Joel Moskowitz, are concerned and see cellphones as a massive risk factor to public health, said: we have no assurance that 5G network is safe. For that matter 4G is safe? I’ve only found three studies on 4G they came out of China, and they all indicated changes in brain function.

Moskowitz isn’t alone; Kamila Reese the Senior Policy Advisor at the National Institute for Science, Law and Public Policy, has spent the last 12 years of her life, trying to educate the public on what she sees as a risk greater than climate change. And concerning this 5G network she said: I’ve been really amazed at the resistance to learning the truth, the spin that the industry puts out learning that the exposure guidelines that the FCC uses aren’t totally not protective. I really would call them fraudulent.



SEE ALSO: 

The FCC requires that every phone on the market, must be tested and given a value, corresponding to the amount of radiation it emits. It says that value is well below the point at which adverse health effects could occur, but still these kinds of concerns about health risks usually cancer associated with cellphones and especially 5G are everywhere on the Internet.

Most of us are not radiation scientists, oncologists or medical physicists; so, how do we know what’s going on? The International Agency for research on cancer (IARC), is the World Health Organization’s Cancer Agency since 1971. It had a program that convenes groups of experts to look at whether specific things cause cancer, and it then defines those things cancer risks as either definite, probable, possible, uncertain or not probable.

in 2011 as a result of one of those groups it classified radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation the kind that comes from cellphones, as possibly carcinogenic. the chair of that particular group was Jonathan salmon, a pulmonary physician and epidemiologist who is now Dean of the Colorado School of Public Health.





There were several human studies, epidemiological studies, pointing to a possible link but the rest of the evidence you know the laboratory evidence and very limited animal evidence didn’t provide much of a link between the electromagnetic radiation exposure and cancer. So, put into the IARC scheme it ends up in this possible bin.
this is something that wireless safety advocates like Moskowitz and Ries, often bring up.

We know there’s tremendous evidence of connection with brain tumors, which is why the World Health Organization’s international agency for research on cancer classified this radiation in 2011 as a possible carcinogen but salmon is clear that the classification does not mean we know cell phones cause cancer these studies are reason enough to keep investigating but not convincing by themselves. To me it provides a warning and says you know we should take this serious enough to do more research he said.

His position boils down to the old aphorism. Absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence. Just because we don’t currently have evidence that cellphones are causing cancer, doesn’t mean they’re not. Scientists don’t know of a way they could be, but if they are, though, it would have to be through a mechanism we don’t currently understand.

See More Articles:  




Scientists often describe things in ways that make sense to other scientists, but are confusing to everyone else. The W.H.O’s classification from 2011 is a good example of how that can lead to misunderstandings.

When RF energy was classified as a 2B carcinogen that’s the number to the letter B, most people just heard RF and carcinogen and didn’t care what it was 2B or 1A or whatever it’s a carcinogen, so that’s bad. let’s stop it. But you know when you look at actual definitions of what a 2B carcinogen is, and look at other things that are classified as 2B carcinogens like, pickled vegetables and coffee.

And the next level up is probable and so it’s not probable because that would be 2a so it’s possible the problem is that if lay people hear that possibly carcinogenic they tend to forget that possibly and they just focus on questions genic so possibly becomes likely and that is completely forgotten. Alone that they say, W.H.O says: it’s carcinogenic and that’s just a wrong conclusion.

In support of that interpretation is the fact that the W.H.O‘s official stance is to date no adverse health effects have been established as being caused by mobile phone use and if you look to other agencies and scientific institutions that have studied this like the Centers for Disease Control the Federal Communications Commission, the Food and Drug Administration and the National Cancer Institute, they all agree we don’t have good evidence that cellphones are doing anything bad to us.





Critics say: These conclusions are not based on science, but rather, a result of ignorance and lobbying from the telecommunications industry. So, let’s try to take a clearer look at the science behind cellphone and radiation, and what we know about it. Radiation is just a form of energy that comes in different strengths, you’ve got low energy radio waves on one end of the spectrum, and super high energy gamma rays on the other, and even visible light is radiation.

Understanding the effects of radiation at different energy levels, is key when thinking about risk. the wavelengths of radiation. Like the distance between crests of ocean waves can differ, it’s these differing wavelengths that define how high energy the radiation is.

The shorter the length between crests, the higher the energy. Another way to describe radiation, is by using Hertz. A unit of frequency, which tells you how many crests in that wave are happening per second.

 

So, for example 3G and 4G radiation is around 1 to 2 billion Hertz or 1 to 2 gigahertz. 5G network moves up in the spectrum using frequencies from 1 gigahertz all the way up to 70 gigahertz. and if you were exposed to enough of any of these frequencies, it would affect your body by heating it. That’s how a microwave oven works, and why there

are limits on how powerful cell phone radiation can be.

 

At the levels that are used for example, in wireless communications or that are used for transmitting AM and FM radio or 5G network technology, the amount of RF energy that’s being transmitted is very low.

And would need to be thousands of times greater to even be felt by the body as a heat source much less cause any particular harm.

But there’s a certain point at which radiation has enough energy to do more than that, and actually makes changes to the atoms in your body.

If it reaches that point, it becomes ionizing. Which means it has enough energy to knock electrons out of atoms and do things like give you cancer and damage your DNA.

This process is also the reason radiation therapy can be used to treat cancer, by beaming ionizing radiation to cancer cells and damaging their DNA, this is the kind of radiation you probably think of when you hear the word.

If I for example took in enough energy to raise the temperature of a cup of coffee by one degree, but I took that in the form of ionizing radiation, I would be dead within probably half an hour from a very horrible acute radiation syndrome.

But if I took that same amount of energy in terms of radio frequency energy, my body would be easily dispel or easily normalize that additional heat, because, it wouldn’t produce any permanent damage. It would just be in the form of thermal energy which my body can easily adapt to.

So, there’s a point at which radiation switches from being none ionizing to ionizing and the question is: how close are we getting to that when we move up to these higher 5G network frequencies?

The answer, it turns out is not very close at all. While 70GHz is certainly higher than 2GHz, radiation isn’t ionizing until about 2.4 million gigahertz.

There’s a clear epidemiological evidence that ionizing radiation causes cancer, but it’s this lower energy radiation used by things like cellphones that’s provoked controversy. Wireless safety advocates say that not only do we already know this kind of radiation can cause effects beyond heating but that research is being influenced and suppressed by the telecommunications industry.

If you look at the energy that’s coming from current cell towers, like from 3G or 4G it’s mostly not very much more than a couple of volts per meter that you measure in residential areas. So, that’s comparable to the amount of energy that comes out from the incandescent light bulb. From all the Wi-Fi exposure and 5G network and that and the other types of exposure that we talked about visible light and radio-frequency there should not be any adverse effects.




One thing often brought up, is that cell phones are relatively new technology, and 5G is brand new. How can we possibly already understand how they’re affecting us? Wireless telecommunications is actually the combination of three old technologies that we have a lot of experience with, it’s the combination of the computer, the radio and the telephone.

We have been exposed to artificial radio frequency energies for over a hundred years now, and we’ve been studying biological Effects of RF energy for over 70 years and have what were three thousand publications in the literature specifically devoted to biological effects of RF energy and various levels of various frequencies.

it’s absolutely useless to do a lot of research for instance with the particular frequencies that 5G is going to use to see whether those frequencies will result in any health effects, because they’re not that much different from the frequencies that have been studied a lot already in the past.

Eric van Rongen: Cair of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection said: there are several thousands of papers altogether that have studied the effects of normal ionizing radiation. There may be a couple of dozen papers that give some indications for a possible carcinogenic effects, but there are not very many studies that give some indications of a possible carcinogen effect certainly not thousands. So, that’s absolutely not true, most of the studies that have been published do not show any indication at all for a question carcinogenic or whatever health effect.








So, we’ve got two people claiming to be experts who have access to the same collection of scientific research. Most of us aren’t scientist studying this so how do we know who to believe?

I go back to the literally dozens and dozens and dozens of these national and international panels that have been stood up over the last decade or two that have brought together the experts with the necessary complement of expertise with epidemiologists with engineers with microbiologist with all of the necessary cadre of expertise necessary to really completely analyze the literature.

Their view holds more weight than individual opinions.. more than my opinion… more than anyone scientist opinion, or a collection of scientists that you can find and select on a tally. and this is the crux of how you should approach things, here when faced with big complicated scientific questions.

Scientific consensus is your best option if you rely on just one, you could hear this we have some indications from some studies that there might be an association with mobile phone use and increased risk of brain cancers. but then also this if you look at a possible carcinogenic effect of radiofrequency radiation and more than 99% confident that there is no such effect.

And this is not a case of Van ronk and flip-flopping, it’s an example of a scientist talking about science. The way scientists talk about science deliberate, but not necessarily understood by non scientists. to get the whole picture, you need more than a sound byte, So radiation can be scary and deadly. but according to so many reputable organizations, we just don’t have good evidence cellphone radiation is causing us harm.

It can heat up your body if it’s powerful enough, which is why the FCC sets limits on it. But beyond that right now, there’s no good reason to think that it’s doing anything else. and according to jerrold bushberg the Clinical Professor of Radiology and Radiation Oncology at UC Davis: We have even less reason to be worried about 5G network, the nature of 5G and yours called millimeter waves, they don’t penetrate the body.

In fact they don’t even penetrate beyond the skin surface, and so they can’t get to our internal organs. There’s no RF energy that is gonna hit the liver, or the spleen, or the lungs or any of our internal organs. So, I’m not really sure, why people could be more concerned. if you had to have a concern, we should be least concerned about 5G network.





Related Articles:

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here