5G is safe, so why do people believe it makes them ill?

Nobina

Posts: 2,498   +2,089
We are the people living in third world countries want 5G , bring 5G to us if you don't want it
as we don't even have proper internet connection speeds or good mobile phone coverage or even electricity , in my country we are the number 1 for having the worst internet connection speed in the whole world
I don't think that's how it works. Why would they bring 5G to a place where probably few can afford it? It won't be cheap.
 

TheBigFatClown

Posts: 779   +297
Wow. this article sure brought out the wackos! It seems people on the fringe or people that have a strong distrust of the government and authority are the ones believing & propagating these conspiracy theories and unproven ideas. Authorities (both the government & academia) are saying something is true? Then its NOT true! They're saying it's not true? Then it's TRUE! This mode of thinking is just so adolescent, and yet some adults continue to think like this.
I see your Wow and raise you a WOW. *face palm* You need to read more. Try this link for starters if you think everybody in academia agrees:

180 Scientists warn of potential serious health effects of 5G
 
  • Like
Reactions: wiyosaya

neeyik

Posts: 998   +961
Staff member
I see your Wow and raise you a WOW. *face palm* You need to read more. Try this link for starters if you think everybody in academia agrees:

180 Scientists warn of potential serious health effects of 5G
180 (and it's probably more that that now) isn't a large percentage, out of the total number of medical scientists around the world. I couldn't find any reasonable estimates of that total figure, but I should imagine it's fewer than the total number of climate scientists, actively working in the field. Why mention that? Because 3% of that body people refute the evidence that human activity is causing global warming and climate change. There are scientists who refute evolution too.

The physiological effects of non-ionising electromagnetic radiation on humans is a rather divisive topic in the medical research world. For example, this particular study claims that there is sufficient evidence to state that having a cell phone next to the body is harmful. However, when the authors proposed that the statement should become the policy position of the International Network for Epidemiology in Policy, only 3 out of the 23 member states supported that decision (12 states did not vote at all, 6 abstained, and 2 voted against it).

Given that confirmation bias affects scientific research, just as it does with people in their everyday lives, one has to wonder whether it is playing a part here - one of the authors of the above study is also one of the signatories in the EU 5G Appeal, and that the study he took part it occurred 2 years after the appeal.

This is why, for the case of 5G, it is sensible to take the view of large organisations, whose goal is to protect people against non-ionising radiation - they're still likely to exhibit bias in their research, but that bias is in our favour. Accordingly, the International Commission on Non‐Ionizing Radiation Protection has acknowledged the concerns raised in the research, adjusted their guidelines and limits, and still conclude 5G is safe.
 
After the Lancet affair where the results were completely falsified, who can still believe in science when lobbies finance it with hundreds of millions of dollars?
 
  • Like
Reactions: wiyosaya
I mean, people have actually burnt down cell towers because they actually believe 5G is dangerous.

I'm usually all in with the fun, Flat Earthers being a great example of a group of crazies who are fun to take the p*ss out of but 5G, well it goes to show some people really will believe anything they're told regardless of facts or the science behind it.
Flat Earthers have nothing to do with 5G dude !
 

Lew Zealand

Posts: 1,381   +1,354
TechSpot Elite
After the Lancet affair where the results were completely falsified, who can still believe in science when lobbies finance it with hundreds of millions of dollars?
Doesn't matter who is financing what because science is self-correcting: you can make a name for yourself disproving other people's claims by repeating their experiments to see if you get the same result or something different. And the great thing about you doing that is someone else will repeat your tests to make sure you're not trying to cheat either. Either way, we win thanks to the scientific method.
 

wiyosaya

Posts: 5,243   +3,335
I'll play devil's advocate :laughing: -
Doesn't matter who is financing what because science is self-correcting: you can make a name for yourself disproving other people's claims by repeating their experiments to see if you get the same result or something different. And the great thing about you doing that is someone else will repeat your tests to make sure you're not trying to cheat either. Either way, we win thanks to the scientific method.
In some cases, disproving something that someone has researched might take deep pockets particularly with something like this. Not everyone has that capability which makes the use of the term "you" somewhat specious, IMO. Yes, science is self-correcting though doing so will take deep pockets from time-to-time.
This is why, for the case of 5G, it is sensible to take the view of large organisations, whose goal is to protect people against non-ionising radiation - they're still likely to exhibit bias in their research, but that bias is in our favour. Accordingly, the International Commission on Non‐Ionizing Radiation Protection has acknowledged the concerns raised in the research, adjusted their guidelines and limits, and still conclude 5G is safe.
It may be their goal to protect people which, of course, is commendable, however, the conclusion that 5G is safe is based on an absence of evidence argument; absence of evidence is not the same thing as evidence of absence.

If there is bias in the research, it is entirely plausible that evidence was suppressed.

It has happened again and again in human history - XXX was safe until humans figured out it wasn't.

Disclaimer - I am not advocating for people going out and burning down suspected 5G cell towers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheBigFatClown

kmo911

Posts: 206   +22
Now to all users.please install 56 modem and surf along. yeah dont needing 5g ever. so watching 1k-8k on low res screens and coulur was dangerous . so everything are in b & w. just pay for use of 56 modem-vdsl 2 instead. 5g on its way to space too. www.google.no norway 5g will arrive out in space too. 5g are old before it arrived https://www.technopediasite.com/2019/09/7g-and-8g-network-countries.html#:~:text=Yes we can say that,internet speed is the fastest



 
Last edited:

raypozas

Posts: 7   +1
Same people who think Trump is the 'Chosen One' and don't think QAnon are a bunch of morons. Also only listen to FOX News, OAN and a slew of nutjob conspiracy theorists.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, I know about this. You know when you have a phone close to a speaker and you can hear it making weird noises? One day I started audibly hearing those noises. I then put the phone to my ear and realized that it was coming from the phone. I looked it up and found out about this "electromagnetic sensitivity" that I'd never heard of before (and no I didn't hear about it before and then have some kind of placebo effect, it was the other way around).

Anyway, besides the health damage to humans which people are debating here - the research shows that there is a threat to living creatures like birds and bees who use internal electromagnetic compass for navigation - and also are far smaller in size and obviously have far lower tolerance. https://www.newsweek.com/migratory-...g-technology-electromagnetic-radiation-934830

But hey, **** the birds, amirite? They have no right to be living here on the planet. We can do whatever we want and not give a damn about how it affects other creatures. And all the waste and pollution a whole new generation of technology will produce - that's awesome!!
 

fadingfool

Posts: 153   +154
Yeah, I know about this. You know when you have a phone close to a speaker and you can hear it making weird noises? One day I started audibly hearing those noises. I then put the phone to my ear and realized that it was coming from the phone. I looked it up and found out about this "electromagnetic sensitivity" that I'd never heard of before (and no I didn't hear about it before and then have some kind of placebo effect, it was the other way around).

Anyway, besides the health damage to humans which people are debating here - the research shows that there is a threat to living creatures like birds and bees who use internal electromagnetic compass for navigation - and also are far smaller in size and obviously have far lower tolerance. https://www.newsweek.com/migratory-...g-technology-electromagnetic-radiation-934830

But hey, **** the birds, amirite? They have no right to be living here on the planet. We can do whatever we want and not give a damn about how it affects other creatures. And all the waste and pollution a whole new generation of technology will produce - that's awesome!!
How do you feel about windfarms?
 

TheBigFatClown

Posts: 779   +297
A post of mine was deleted accusing me of ad hominem attacks. I'd like to see the offending post please. Otherwise, I have no way of knowing whether or not its censorship or a legitimate move on the moderators part.
 

p51d007

Posts: 2,417   +1,686
Smoking cigarettes for 20 years doesn't cause your skin to melt off either. It gives you lung cancer and other issues. So, I guess cigarettes are safe.
My grandfather, was a WW1 vet, he died in 1991 at the age of 98 years old.
He went to Europe as a "kid" of 18-19 years old, where he picked up the
habit of smoking cigarettes (they came in the red cross packages etc).
He smoked UNFILTERED (because there wasn't any filters) Camel cigarettes
until the mid 70's, 2-3 packs a day. He quit because the price went up and
he said "I'm not paying any G-D 75 cents for a pack of cigarettes". He had
a pacemaker installed when he was 80. (funny sideline...when they were
telling my parents the do's and don'ts about it after surgery, my grandfather
overheard that it was battery powered. He asked how do you change the
battery. Doc said well, I wouldn't worry about it at your age. My grandfather
fired right back and said Doc...I've already outlived 3 of my doctors).
When he died, January of 1991, he had no trace of cancer. He was just tired
of living. Wife gone, all his brothers, sisters & friends gone. Just our immediate
family. He pretty much after Christmas 1990, "willed" himself to go.
I think cancer CAN contribute, but not "cause" cancer, unless you are genetically
predisposed to GET cancer.
 

TheBigFatClown

Posts: 779   +297
My grandfather, was a WW1 vet, he died in 1991 at the age of 98 years old.
He went to Europe as a "kid" of 18-19 years old, where he picked up the
habit of smoking cigarettes (they came in the red cross packages etc).
He smoked UNFILTERED (because there wasn't any filters) Camel cigarettes
until the mid 70's, 2-3 packs a day. He quit because the price went up and
he said "I'm not paying any G-D 75 cents for a pack of cigarettes". He had
a pacemaker installed when he was 80. (funny sideline...when they were
telling my parents the do's and don'ts about it after surgery, my grandfather
overheard that it was battery powered. He asked how do you change the
battery. Doc said well, I wouldn't worry about it at your age. My grandfather
fired right back and said Doc...I've already outlived 3 of my doctors).
When he died, January of 1991, he had no trace of cancer. He was just tired
of living. Wife gone, all his brothers, sisters & friends gone. Just our immediate
family. He pretty much after Christmas 1990, "willed" himself to go.
I think cancer CAN contribute, but not "cause" cancer, unless you are genetically
predisposed to GET cancer.
You're grandfather is what I would call an anomaly. For your 1 story of somebody who smoked and didn't get cancer, there are hundreds and thousands who probably did. I mean, lets be logical here. There's been a surgeon general warning on every package of cigarettes sold for several years now. Maybe he did everything else right in life to lessen the detrimental effects of smoking. It's a great story, it's just not representative of most cases. Even if you don't die of cancer your lungs can go black, you can get emphysema and COPD. So quality of life can be greatly diminished. Even if something doesn't straight up kill you it doesn't mean it's A-OK.
 

p51d007

Posts: 2,417   +1,686
Y There's been a surgeon general warning on every package of cigarettes sold for several years now.
I never said smoking was ok. I've never smoked, because I think they stink. Did my grandfather do everything correct? Hell no! He ate eggs & bacon cooked in lard (30's to the 70's), drank a couple beers every day. Heck, in his 80's, he would walk from the retirement home, a couple blocks to "the beer joint" to have a couple cold beers...it's just the way he was.
As for the surgeon general warning on cigarettes, I can find you countless photos of old cigarette ads, that show doctors recommending cigarettes. The same doctors that one year, will tell us to eat or do something to extend our lives, then the next year tell us to NOT do something as it could kill us.