The FCC reiterates that 5G is safe to use

Humza

Posts: 861   +162
Staff member

As RF antennas are deployed in cities in increasing numbers for supporting 5G networks, numerous health concerns have popped up around the subject and whether human exposure to such radio frequencies can result in cancer or other ailments.

Since the technology works on higher frequency signals, an increased quantity of towers is required in close proximity to each other, which prompted a letter to the FCC from Senator Richard Blumenthal and Representative Anna G. EShoo regarding the safety of 5G technologies.

The FCC officials in a recent statement, reassured the public about 5G's safety and said that no changes will be made to the current RF exposure limits as they're already among the most stringent in the world. Jeffrey Shuren, director of the Food and Drug Administration's Center for Devices and Radiological Health, wrote to the FCC about the exposure limits and said that "the available scientific evidence to date does not support adverse health effects in humans due to exposures at or under the current limits," and that no changes to the current standards were warranted at this time.

The statement also pointed towards the FCC setting radiofrequency limits in close consultation with the FDA and other health agencies. "After a thorough review of the record and consultation with these agencies, we find it appropriate to maintain the existing radiofrequency limits, which are among the most stringent in the world for cell phones," said Julias Knapp, chief of the FCC's Office of Engineering and Technology.

Any device that produces an RF signal like mobiles, handheld gadgets, small and macro cell towers, fall under the existing RF exposure limits, said the FCC officials, with the statement put out by the agency also mentioning Chairman Ajit Pai's proposal for a set of guidelines to ensure compliance with the limits regardless of "service or technology," which will replace the Commission's "current inconsistent patchwork of service-specific rules."

The Chairman also put forward a proposal for formalizing the application of the existing standard to certain frequencies that would involve seeking comments on "establishing a rule to formalize the Commission’s existing methods of determining compliance with the RF exposure standard for devices operating at high frequencies."

Permalink to story.

 

Uncle Al

Posts: 8,042   +6,807
The FCC is definitely not the governing medical body and to say that the 5G spectrum is only "about" 3.6 Roentgens is very misleading. Exposure on the high band is all about distance, shielding, and time of exposure. By the way, at the reported exposure rate the exposure over a one week period could be enough to set off the RDA's at most nuclear sites. I suspect that at the transmission sites there will be significant shielding but at and around your home the exposure over long terms (1+ years) it could yield a far greater impact, ESPECIALLY for babies and children under 12.
We've heard plenty of Ajit Pai's diatribe in the past and his penance for lies and deception have not gone unnoticed. Pay attention to their wording:
"the available scientific evidence to date does not support adverse health effects in humans due to exposures at or under the current limits," and that no changes to the current standards were warranted at this time.
That is by no means an assurance of it's safety, only that they haven't found any issues .... yet. I'm sure the mothers of so many "thalidomide babies" can vouch for the level of comfort they received from the government.
Like buying any first generation anything, a good amount of caution is advised until we have enough history to verify these claims of "safe to use".
 

wiyosaya

Posts: 6,076   +4,304
I am surprised (sort of) that the FCC is stating this. It should be the FDA.

For me, its about to be a moot point with fiber in my horoscope! :laughing:
2G is baaaaad!! You're gonna die!
3G is baaaaad!! You're gonna die!
4G is baaaaad!! You're gonna die!
5G is baaaaad!! You're gonna die!

Same paranoid tinfoil hat crap year after year. Lather. Rinse. Repeat.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/new-studies-link-cell-phone-radiation-with-cancer/
I am sure that tinfoil hat will protect you! ;)
 

yRaz

Posts: 3,717   +3,720
2G is baaaaad!! You're gonna die!
3G is baaaaad!! You're gonna die!
4G is baaaaad!! You're gonna die!
5G is baaaaad!! You're gonna die!

Same paranoid tinfoil hat crap year after year. Lather. Rinse. Repeat.
We use wavelengths close to 5g for doplar weather radar. We've exposed to extremely high levels of a very similar wave length for decades.
I am surprised (sort of) that the FCC is stating this. It should be the FDA.

For me, its about to be a moot point with fiber in my horoscope! :laughing:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/new-studies-link-cell-phone-radiation-with-cancer/
I am sure that tinfoil hat will protect you! ;)
That article only found a correlation in male rats. It goes on to say that it did not get the same results in female animals or mice.
 

wiyosaya

Posts: 6,076   +4,304
2G is baaaaad!! You're gonna die!
3G is baaaaad!! You're gonna die!
4G is baaaaad!! You're gonna die!
5G is baaaaad!! You're gonna die!

Same paranoid tinfoil hat crap year after year. Lather. Rinse. Repeat.
We use wavelengths close to 5g for doplar weather radar. We've exposed to extremely high levels of a very similar wave length for decades.
I am surprised (sort of) that the FCC is stating this. It should be the FDA.

For me, its about to be a moot point with fiber in my horoscope! :laughing:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/new-studies-link-cell-phone-radiation-with-cancer/
I am sure that tinfoil hat will protect you! ;)
That article only found a correlation in male rats. It goes on to say that it did not get the same results in female animals or mice.
The trouble with the absence of evidence is that it is not evidence of absence.
 

yRaz

Posts: 3,717   +3,720
The trouble with the absence of evidence is that it is not evidence of absence.
Absence of evidence not being evidence of absence also does not mean that absence of evidence is evidence of the thing you want to be correct. The article was inconclusive and citing it as fact is absurd. That's all I was trying to point out.

That said, I think that non ionizing radiation causing cancer is almost as dumb as flat earthing or anti vaxxing.
 

Danny101

Posts: 1,739   +755
2G is baaaaad!! You're gonna die!
3G is baaaaad!! You're gonna die!
4G is baaaaad!! You're gonna die!
5G is baaaaad!! You're gonna die!

Same paranoid tinfoil hat crap year after year. Lather. Rinse. Repeat.
We use wavelengths close to 5g for doplar weather radar. We've exposed to extremely high levels of a very similar wave length for decades.
I am surprised (sort of) that the FCC is stating this. It should be the FDA.

For me, its about to be a moot point with fiber in my horoscope! :laughing:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/new-studies-link-cell-phone-radiation-with-cancer/
I am sure that tinfoil hat will protect you! ;)
That article only found a correlation in male rats. It goes on to say that it did not get the same results in female animals or mice.
The trouble with the absence of evidence is that it is not evidence of absence.
It's hard to prove a negative.
 

Danny101

Posts: 1,739   +755
So what is the sweet spot between spectrum and speed? They'll have to figure out something. Weather scientists are already murmuring about how 5G will make forcasting more difficult. With the supposed negative weather effects as the result of the supposed climate change, then 5G doesn't appear to be a useful development.
 

QuantumPhysics

Posts: 4,997   +5,601
So what is the sweet spot between spectrum and speed? They'll have to figure out something. Weather scientists are already murmuring about how 5G will make forcasting more difficult. With the supposed negative weather effects as the result of the supposed climate change, then 5G doesn't appear to be a useful development.


5G has a penetration issue with many building materials
 

Danny101

Posts: 1,739   +755
5G has a penetration issue with many building materials
Which would lead me to believe that they should choose a different frequency. 5G tops out at 10 gigabits per second (Gbps). That just isn't necessary at this point. And there's nothing to stop them from creating multiple channels at lower speeds, just like Wi-Fi, to account for load and load balancing.
 

bandit8623

Posts: 297   +163
2G is baaaaad!! You're gonna die!
3G is baaaaad!! You're gonna die!
4G is baaaaad!! You're gonna die!
5G is baaaaad!! You're gonna die!

Same paranoid tinfoil hat crap year after year. Lather. Rinse. Repeat.
I kinda agree. But what if all these radios are what is causing cancer rates to rise. Who knows..
 

Markoni35

Posts: 1,118   +454
Interesting. When Huawei was the only one to have 5G they said so many stupid things, including that it will render weather forecast useless. And now suddenly it's okay. Nobody finds anything weird about that?

Was mass media lying then, or are they lying now? There's no doubt they are liars, we just have to try to find out are they lying now.
 

Lew Zealand

Posts: 1,853   +2,023
TechSpot Elite
This article is about human effects and cancer fearmongering. Where is the mass media lying about that?

Weather satellites use a band of the EM spectrum to detect water vapor which is quite close to one of the 5G ranges so it's a legit concern that excessive noise from large amounts of 5G signals will drown out the very small signal which is used to detect that vapor. Is the mass media dismissing that concern nowadays?