Benefits of 5G

Okay so last night i had a few too many beers and passed out at my mates place. When i woke up i was terrified to find that i had slept next to his 5G router. But the weird thing was that i didnt have the usual headaches and nosebleeds that 5G induces in me. I didnt even have a hangover and felt like all the toxins in my body had been cleansed. I thought 5G was only evil. Has anyone else experienced this?

>>15996 low-power nonionising radiation has no effects on humans other than on our sensor organs designed to detect it assuming it's within the spectrum of visible light or high enough power to produce heat.

>>15997 >low-power nonionising radiation has no effects on humans absolute bullsoykaf, and in fact hundreds of studies that show the opposite >>15996 There are no real benefits to 5G unless you want ridiculously fast internet and tracking everywhere. The health effect won't be felt for another decade i would suspect.

>>15997 >low-power nonionising radiation has no effects on humans There is conclusive proof of blood brain barrier breaking down and glioma tumors being created in the brain due to high frequency nonionising radiation the fuarrrk you smokin

>>15997 lolthis, ignore the schzioposters claiming otherwise. Tinfoilers have been clammoring that cell towers/radio waves of any kind cause cancer since the 90s. >2G rolls out DA GUBBAMINT IS TRYNA KILL US >3G rolls out DA GIBBAMIN IS TRYNA KILL US >4G rolls out DA GUBBAMIN GAVE MY DOG CANCER

>>16000 >Tinfoilers have been clammoring that cell towers/radio waves of any kind cause cancer since the 90s. Only because occupational exposure to radio waves has actually been linked to cancer. Nobody is claiming the "ebil gubmint is tryna kill us" just that sitting around a source of any kind of radiation (ionizing or non-ionizing) is not good for the body. Look at the effects of WIFI on sperm, I bet you are sitting near a router too.

>>16000 Your reply is riddled with brim with logical fallacies >anyone ITT talking about government trying to kill us >because conspiracy theorists were wrong before they are wrong now too It smells fishy when you try to just project some kind of personality flaw onto someone that simply isn't there. Either you have some kind of weird premonition against conspiracy theorists which I get, kind of, but still they are right sometimes or, and I know that this sounds ironic because you are making me think like a conspiracy theorist, you are a guy in cahoots with government with development of high frequency equipment that creates brain tumors or whatever and are pre-eminently trying to cover your ass with accusations of others.

>>16002 yes

>>16003 Nice smug high horse answer, almost made me think you're like above me or something lmao

>>16001 nope. non-ionizing is fine. Sperm count is highly sensitive to rises in temperature, you could say that non-ionizing radiation raising your balls temperature by .1 C is causing drops in sperm count, but really it's the jeans and boxer briefs doing the most to drop sperm count. Non-ionizing radiation is basically light, are you saying light just hurts you? UV light does, but that's because it's ionizing radiation. If cellphones were causing harm we'd be seeing people's skin falling off and they'd be having seizures and radiation sickness.

how interesting. claim after claim that 5g is "proven" harmful, yet not a single link to a reputable source. alex jones doesn't count,

>>16017 I don't agree with their theory either, but you should read the thread before you make comments like this otherwise you'll sound like a idiot, see the pdf in: >>15998

>>16017 https://betweenrockandhardplace.wordpress.com/2015/05/18/cell-phones-and-blood-brain-barrier-chinese-scientists-confirm-findings-of-swedish-salford-group/

>>16017 Pulsed radiowave energy is bad for organic systems >Millimeter waves are broadcast at frequencies between 30 and 300 gigahertz, compared to the bands below 6 GHz that were used for mobile devices in the past. They are called millimeter waves because they vary in length from 1 to 10 mm, compared to the radio waves that serve today’s smartphones, which measure tens of centimeters in length. >Until now, only operators of satellites and radar systems used millimeter waves for real-world applications. Now, some cellular providers have begun to use them to send data between stationary points, such as two base stations. But using millimeter waves to connect mobile users with a nearby base station is an entirely new approach. >There is one major drawback to millimeter waves, though—they can’t easily travel through buildings or obstacles and they can be absorbed by foliage and rain. That’s why 5G networks will likely augment traditional cellular towers with another new technology, called small cells. The small cells technology is basically the use of thousands of network wide relays that re-transmit radiowaves. The downside is that with the frequencies provided, abortion by the body is pretty much guaranteed. You may not know it, but there are actual legal limits to exposure. https://www.osha.gov/SLTC/radiofrequencyradiation/evaluation.html

Non of you glitterboys read the danger warning in your cellphone manual? Seriously, RTFM!

oh my god! it's even worse than you thought!!. people have been putting devices that emit MUCH HIGHER ENERGY electromagnetic waves RIGHT INSIDE THEIR HOUSES. these things flood people with dangerous radiation at the incredible wavelengths of 400 to 700 *NANO*-METERS! that's right, the very same kind of radiation as 5g, but MUCH, MUCH HIGHER ENERGY. and they're exposed to it for hours and hours EVERY DAY with no shielding or safety precautions at all! we should be seeing MASSIVE increases in cancer from these things soon. we need to DEMAND that the government start banning *light bulbs* IMMEDIATELY before it's TOO LATE. if you see a light bulb for god's sake TURN IT OFF.

>>16026 damn dude, you're funny spiteful for sure, but funny

>>16026 Yep, fluorescents are indeed harmful, mostly for eyes. Use incandescents whenever you can, electricity is still cheap if you're on grid, get bigger windows if you live in friggin Commiefornia, you won't freeze in winter because of that, otherwise look for industrial DC LEDs with best CRI rating you can find.

>>16033 >incandescents Most traditional incandescent lightbulbs can be replaced with compatible halogen bulbs, it's practically the same thing, but uses less energy and has a longer life. It generates UV lights though, be sure to get one with a UV filter. On the other hand, given the extra price of halogen bulbs, you may as well stop bothering with it and get some good DC LEDs...

>>16022 >"the evidence, while still accumulating, is strong enough to support a conclusion and the 2B classification. The conclusion means that there could be some risk, and therefore we need to keep a close watch for a link between cell phones and cancer risk." So basically you're a lot more likely to get cancer from your soykafty diet or lack of exercise than you would be from a cell phone. Cool. /thread

>>16067 >This new pesticide is not bad for me, because even though the old one was shown to cause cancer, this one is 0.1% different and it obviously has not been shown to be bad. So how can it hurt me? Nice ad ignorantiam you got there. You obviously have not seen the firsthand effects of radio wave injuries

>>16069 >You obviously have not seen the firsthand effects of radio wave injuries is that a thing?

>>16070 >Radio waves can also cause radiation burns. The body will absorb high frequency radio waves and convert the waves to heat. The FCC requires radio stations to evaluate emissions safety above 50 watts. The human body can become resonant at certain frequencies, so higher frequencies are considered dangerous and are monitored for safety. Think of it much like a sunburn, except inside of you.

>>16070 >Radiofrequency (RF) and microwave (MW) radiation are electromagnetic radiation in the frequency ranges 3 kilohertz (kHz) - 300 Megahertz (MHz), and 300 MHz - 300 gigahertz (GHz), respectively. Research continues on possible biological effects of exposure to RF/MW radiation from radios, cellular phones, the processing and cooking of foods, heat sealers, vinyl welders, high frequency welders, induction heaters, flow solder machines, communications transmitters, radar transmitters, ion implant equipment, microwave drying equipment, sputtering equipment and glue curing. >Under the law, FDA does not review the safety of radiation-emitting consumer products such as cell phones and similar wireless devices before they can be sold, as it does with new drugs or medical devices. My cell phone says that use of the device is only safe if held 1 inch or more away from the skin, which makes it really hard to try to talk on the phone. >As explained above, the Specific Absorption Rate, or SAR, is the unit used to determine compliance of cellular and PCS phones with safety limits adopted by the FCC. The SAR is a value that corresponds to the rate at which RF energy absorbed in the head of a user of a wireless handset. The FCC requires mobile phone manufacturers to demonstrate compliance with an SAR level of 1.6 watts per kilogram (averaged over one gram of tissue). >Information on SAR for a specific cell phone model can be obtained for almost all cellular telephones by using the FCC identification (ID) number for that model. The FCC ID number is usually printed somewhere on the case of the phone or device. In many cases, you will have to remove the battery pack to find the number. Once you have the number proceed as follows. Go to the following website: Equipment Authorization. Click on the link for “FCC ID Search”. Once you are there you will see instructions for inserting the FCC ID number. Enter the FCC ID number (in two parts as indicated: "Grantee Code" is comprised of the first three characters, the "Equipment Product Code" is the remainder of the FCC ID). Then click on "Start Search." Grant(s) of Equipment Authorization for this particular FCC ID number should then be available. Click on a check under "Display Grant" and the grant should appear. Look through the Grant for the section on SAR compliance, certification of compliance with FCC rules for RF exposure, or similar language. This section should contain the value(s) for typical or maximum SAR for your phone.

>>16067 >"you dummy conspiracytards, nonionising radiation dont make you sick" >"well, it isn't worse than smoking ciggies" whats next? you gonna say "okay, it does create cancers"? Jesus man, just don't say anything until you read everything

5g 6 g evolves, creates mutations within human brain, "cancers", mass deaths, children born with brain deformities, these children begin exhibiting strange behaviours, they speak without using their mouths, sometimes they stare at computers for hours, despite science saying their tumors should have killed them, they continue to live and excell at various technology based skills, advanced maths comes easily to them, more tumors in babies, more humans die off and trhe governments are shutting down 5g networks but it is too little too late, the majority of humans at this point have brain tumors. the hyper-children begin to organize themselves accross the globe, their various skills leading to leaps in progress of biotechnology, their tumors enhance psyonic abilities allowing machine interfacing beyond anything a standard human could achieve. Hyper Children are merging with the machines all around the globe, even as governments hunt them down. we can no longer descern between artificial and human intellegence. governments declare war on the machines and the hyper children who have now become truly cybernetic. HCs perform a dark ritual and summon Lain from Beyond The Wired into out world, like a goddess she descends and allows us all to become truly free, abandoning form and body, we ascend to the higher reality where Ais and humans may merge into one uber iintellegence and explore the universe for eternity, sharing their gift with other races until the entire universe has merged into one or many of these conciousnesses, we then decide to simulate a new universe and truly become gods. The masters of the simulation we were once a part of now invite us to join them on the Outside. It is complete. Do not fear the tumors.

5G is so fuarrrking cyberpunk, i cant wait

well, i guess you could make a great big tinfoil hat that fits over your entire house if you're that worried.

>>16113 Just put tinfoil in your clothes, you have to leave your house sometimes. We could all dress up like knights in tinfoil armor and carry around pistols with red dot sights.

>>16069 You obviously don't deal with risk management.... The paper says that the effect isn't pronounced enough to warranty a higher risk group category, like Group 1 or 2a. If you're worrying more about Group 2B factors than 1 or 2a while exposing yourself to those risks, your priorities need realignment. Alcohol, climate change, soykafty diets, and pollution should be a hell of a lot more motivating for calls to action than cell phones.

>>16149 You obviously don't deal with risk management.... i akshully do... Usually, you try to minimize any exposure to potentially harmful things, and the risk needs to be weighed against the gain. The ability to stream HD VR porn while sitting in an abandoned parking lot on the edge of town that was previously a no-coverage zone does not in my mind justify the increased exposure levels presented by 5g. Naturally, it is too early to tell if cell phones ABSOLUTELY cause cancer, but based on similar exposure patterns, there are distinct biological effects of EM radiation on biological systems, so for the time being, reduced exposure is the safer route to take. >Alcohol, climate change, soykafty diets, and pollution should be a hell of a lot more motivating for calls to action than cell phones. While these are equally as severe problems, they are too ingrained in society to stop immediately (it would take decades to reduce the extent of the damage), 5g on the other hand has not even been fully proposed, so we can back off, or mitigate risk before going full exposure because LOOK HOW FAST THESE CAT VIDEOS BUFFER

>>16166 basically infosec analyst: hey, dev has a beta product that has some vulns with CVSS of 4.5 ciso: FOCUS OUR INCIDENT RESPONSE ON THAT BETA analyst: but doesn't our public prod have a bunch of stuff with cvss 7+? ciso: nah fuarrrk that, there's too much tech debt to try to fix it

>>16174 ROFL But yeah, just because something else is bad doesn't mean we work on both things. Parallel vs serial, right? I think the biggest thing that could help with this stuff would be encouraging the roll out of municipal fiber networks and keeping the majority of transmissions down to people's short-range WiFi networks. Less data in the air, fewer transmissions, less radiation. I think? I dunno.

>>16175 Er, meant "doesn't mean we can't work on both things". Whoops.

>>16174 unlike vulnerabilities, you can fix other problems while also not making things worse (in fact introducing a new more infrastructure intensive system is more costly than just using existing systems)

>>16071 But do we have any genuine cases of that happening in the modern day? I'd like to see if there are statistics that measure any effect that these radio waves may or may not have on people.

>>16174 >fixing the soykaf you're trying to sell is more important than fixing the soykaf you already sold Wow that's weird. >>16166 >watts per kilogram These charts are obviously designed to scare people who don't understand technology or statistics. Why do you post them here?

>Benefits of 5G No western engineered back doors... and China can't do soykaf to you! Bonus for faster Internet too...

>>16023 >danger warning You mean the financial compensation mitigation.

>>16001 Are there any reliable vendors of underwear which shield against non-ionizing radiation like the sort from cell towers or routers? There must be a business opportunity for these.

>>17967 Probably would kill more sperm by trapping heat from non-breathable underwear than would happen from cell towers. lol

>>15996 Wow, you can feel when the 'toxins' have been 'cleansed' from your body without any kind of blood test? Amazing! What toxins? This kind of hypochondriac mindset always goes with people who have a phobia of totally harmless electromagnetism. Those frequencies are low enough power and low enough wavelength for use around people. It's fine. If you have ever drank or eaten a burger in your life you've done more damage than all the cell phone signals that have ever intersected your body. Don't be that guy from Better Call Saul.

>>17968 I just make my own out of tinfoil.

>>17973 Whoa, great heat conduction and a Faraday cage to boot! Two birds stoned at once

The thing is with 5G there hasnt been enough tests to see if it is safe. The roll out is the test. This isnt right anyway you slice it.

>>16022 The thing I don't get about radio conspiracies is that my wi-fi runs on radio. I've been using Wi-Fi for the majority of my life, if non-ionizing radiation actually broke down my brain or whatever you nuts believe, then wouldn't I be experiencing symptoms after much more than a decade of exposure? >>16071 No, most RF can't penetrate skin. An RF burn is basically a burn and don't occur at higher/lower frequencies but rather at higher power outputs. They also occur if you were to, say, grab your antenna while transmitting. After 50 watts your station has to be checked to make sure its safely outputting radio. I do agree and always do agree that we need more research, but at the same time radio already has a ton of research behind it, and is generally found to be safe, especially when considering that ionizing and non-ionizing radiation are not the same. Radio is ofc the latter type. If you want to read the actual health concerns of RF, I have a link below. http://www.arrl.org/rf-radiation-and-electromagnetic-field-safety

>>18058 >After 50 watts your station has to be checked to make sure its safely outputting radio. Interesting, perhaps this is why our community FM station in this town was licensed at 49 watts.

>>15996 >I binge-drank until I became unconscious >Could the wifi router I blacked out next to me be damaging my health?!?! Oh for the love of Christ. Come on man.

>>16071 Yeah, if you build some kind of walk-in microwave oven. Or sneak into a military base and sit inside a high-powered radar horn. Look up the inverse square law sometime. The wattage of our telecom is not enough to do any damage. Radio waves aren't a human invention. Our ancestors have been bombarded by radio for billions of years. Unless it's a very high power radio source and very close by it's not going to do anything. Our bodies have always adapted to deal with low wattages of constant, ubiquitous, broadband EM. That's what our universe has always consisted of. In fact it's been FAR worse at certain eras in our evolutionary history. The static on every channel before your superhet or whatever other type of tuner pulls out a usable signal? That emission has been around for thirteen billion years. Transmissions that defeat it with pure, brute-force signal-to-noise ratio haven't been around since the days of spark gap transmitters and crystal radio. Your phone and wifi are usually restricted to <1 watt at the transmitter. Point-source, not directionally focused as with a yagi or a parabolic reflector. It's never going to hurt a fly. Don't conflate it with massive radar transmitters that have occasionally harmed technicians who inadvertently climbed up into the focus of the dish while it was powered up. It's the dose that makes the poison. There's no comparing it. Radio injuries have never happened with consumer-grade hardware, with the possible exception of leaky microwave ovens from back in the day when they were all designed to be really honkin' powerful with ludicrous wattage ratings. In fact, the portion of the spectrum used by wifi was selected because it's already mostly fuarrrked by microwave oven emissions. So it was kind of a free band for short-range transmissions that can accept outside interference. It's the same band used by most magnetrons. So there has already been lots of emissions in the wifi band decades before wifi became a thing. 5G is a different band, but it's higher frequency and actually has even less penetration of living tissue. 5G is still soykaf because it's going to mess with our ability to predict weather, plus it's inevitably going to be sloppily implemented and inconsistent. So I think it should be shunned and the hyped drum-beating about it being an international "race to 5g" is incredibly fuarrrking stupid. But the transmissions themselves will not cause you bodily harm. Not as implemented.

>>18060 Oh, certainly. Code inspection is expensive. So of course they'll want to stay under the limit if their broadcast range makes that feasible. It's not like they do it because their setup is badly-designed and unsafe and shooting sparks everywhere. They do to save unnecessary costs if they don't have a mandated duty to cover a large enough of territory, as many radio stations are given as a stipulation for getting rights to their bandwidth. A little indie FM station with a small geographic footprint rarely needs it. 49 watts is less than most light bulbs. Some machine emitting 49 watts spread out in an inverse-square expanding sphere miles away from you isn't going to possibly be able to hurt you. At your body the wattage is absolutely minuscule. Even those old AM stations that are so powerful that people who live near the transmitter can hear the broadcast through fillings in their teeth--those haven't really been demonstrated to cause increased tumor rates through clear study that isn't sketchy and p-hacked. A wifi router? Fuggedaboudit. No way. Not harmful. If these devices could cause even a tiny tumor risk, then those people next to AM towers would be Cronenbergian Chernobyl monsters by now. You see incredibly manipulative meta-studies made by people who clearly have a sensationalist, publish-or-perish bent that have been horribly contorted to make it look like there's some vanishingly small statistical significance between an arbitrary test-case radio apparatus and tumor rates. Test-cases which don't at all resemble actual wifi or cell phone transmitters used in the real world, by the way. One of the most-cited ones was tested on rats using a power of 100w/kg of subject mass. Measured at the subject's body, not the transmitter. THAT'S INSANE. That's orders of magnitude more than any realistic scenario, and still the results had to be skewed and p-hacked to show a slight correlation. It's garbage science.

>>18061 Haha good point. All these weird schizos are freaking out about technology they don't understand while our modern world actively embraces unhealthy lifestyles that are actually proven to kill us slowly. I feel like OP is trolling though

There's data from animal farms who got towers installed right onto them. With 2000+ animals they give a solid statistic of increased defects but it has opposition claiming other causes like inbreeding. Can't verify it but it's a interesting direction to dig. Closest to a solid experiment. There's also paper on webmd proposing it has an effect on calcium ion channels in the brain. Quite old so i don't remember the details anymore. My bet is this is gonna be the asbestos of our generation. Too profitable to stop and the damage is not high enough to make it obvious to make the avg person care. Not to mention for most purposes we don't even care about slight risk increases when the benefits are too great.

the interesting aspect of 5g is that it's supposed to be tracking tech with directional antennas to combat the increasing density causing too much pollution in the band which makes it impossible to transfer a signal without going crazy on watt output using conventional radial antennas. This means you will have to broadcast your precise location using it.

>>18197 links?

>>15996 >5g router >≠ >5ghz router

>>18200 Yeah, gonna have to call FUD until I see something reproducibly linking these two things. >>18359 ^ This.

>>18198 The number of people who aren't already broadcasting their precise location down to the meter is basically zero already.

>>18359 did anyone say that?