First, I'd like to state that I'm aware of the issues associated with 5G cell towers and the health risks associated with them. Cities and communities across the world have vocally opposed and even banned their construction, and I think they are right to do so.
However, I am curious as to whether the 5G problem is associated with "5G" cell phones.
I have a based friend who may end up needing a new phone for work. Problem is, every phone on the market is "5G", and he wants to take care of himself as best as he can, hence why he's been hesitant to take the plunge on a newer phone.
Fortunately, we live in a county that recently denied multiple permit requests for 5G towers, so we're not as worried about 5G towers.
But do 5G smartphones have the same health risks as the 5G towers?
I'd appreciate feedback from people in the know.
I'm not an expert, but if the towers aren't transmitting in 5G, I don't think that there is any greater risk than there would be with a non 5G phone. I think the phone is just a receiver.
The phone is both sender and receiver, but only sends 5G when it connects to 5G tower.
Thanks!
The way I understand it is a constant ping going on.
Phone to tower: Here I am
Tower: I see you
Tower to phone: Here I am
Phone: I see you
So there is an ongoing exchange albeit a brief one.
Realistically the 5G towers could aim an energy beam at you whether or not you have a 5G phone. And they probably do beamforming with 4G as well. Wireless communication is a mature science now and many communication systems in use today operate close to the Shannon limit. Shannon's theorem sets a theoretical maximum data rate for a given bandwidth and signal to noise ratio. If bandwidth and noise levels are fixed then transmitting more data will require more power. So if a 5G tower is sending 10x the data then it will be need to transmit much more power to get the job done. *
5G uses many of the same frequencies as 4G, 3G, and 2G. 5G did add additional bands, C band and millimeter wave. Look at the bands supported by the phone. The mm-wave bands have band numbers in the n200 range. Millimeter wave is much higher frequency than the existing cellular bands. That doesn't necessarily mean it's bad. It has less ability to penetrate salt water (read "your body") than lower frequencies. Getting a phone without mm-wave would avoid one of the not so well tested features of 5G. It might be advantageous to get a 5G phone now before they all have mm-wave.
* The thing about mm-wave is that it operates with a much higher bandwidth. That is a knob that can be turned to reduce the amount of power required to send the data. So while most of us think that mm-wave is risky, it could also be a great deal for reducing RF exposure. More research is required. Beamforming at mm-wave frequencies can create a much smaller hot spot. Currently I would avoid mm-wave phones out of an abundance of caution.
Check into "Beamforming."
5G towers don't send signal to YOU by putting it out everywhere; they target you much the way a laser is used to paint a target for a smart bomb.
Saves energy, yay! Reduces EMF in the environment, yay! Targets you precisely including for any "special outputs" the 5G tower might be instructed to give you.
Look into shungite.
https://rumble.com/vdvn73-how-to-protect-yourself-against-5g-emf-radiation.html
Check out BLU phones. I am on my 5th one. I bought my current one in July and they still had some non-5G models. You can't beat the battery life, memory, charging time, and features for the price. The downsides are the only carrier options are GSM Carriers. Available with T-Mobile, AT&T (but you can purchase an unlocked pre-paid to use with any GSM carrier). Cannot use with Verizon or Sprint.
https://www.bluproducts.com/home/
Correct ---- they don't last very long.
On the apple phone you can turn off 5G. Google it and see how.
One question is regarding the use of the term towers. Did the county deny all installations of 5G transmitters into the carrier’s network, or did they just deny any new tower construction permits? Typically the majority of 5G transmitters will not go on towers. They will go on buildings, existing signage, light or utility poles, inside stadiums, performing arts centers, essentially a myriad of places as the characteristics of 5G frequency are not conducive for long distance transmissions. In otherwords, it takes a lot of network resources/base stations to implement an effective 5G network due to frequency characteristics. A minority will go on stereotypical towers. If the phone is 5G capable and it receives any 5G frequencies/network information, the phone will respond or transmit its received signal characteristics back to the network. A network base station controller will decide which network base transmitter/receiver the mobile will register on. As long as the mobile can receive some form of 5G, or any other normal cell frequency, it will continually send network mobility management reports back to the network to establish the best connection. These mobility management messages are continually sent in both idle and in call situations. Kind of interesting, but the power control on the mobile phone will increase as the signal characteristics from the network base station transmitter become weaker. In otherwords, the further away from the base transmitter, typically the higher transmit output from the phone, and the phone becomes more of a radiation concern than the network base station. The “towers” are not the only concern, as the phone must be considered part of the network as well.
If you are in a 5G dead area, the device will not perform these 5G transmissions but will perform these same type of registration and mobility messaging transmissions for the 4G network, naturally on the existing 4G frequencies (assuming there is 4G coverage). Much of the 5G implementation for certain carriers is using these existing 4G frequencies, but not achieving the data throughput that full 5G will achieve. I assume you are not concerned with the use of 4G frequencies for 5G.
If you are concerned about 5G, and reside in a 5G coverage area, you should be just as concerned about the mobile phone as the network base stations, maybe more so. You carry the phone transmitter everywhere you go.
Watch this. Then buy yourself a clean pair of underpants.
https://odysee.com/@psinergy:f/trim.83248DFE-EB56-48AB-B06F-DC870777A5E3:4
Watched it sitting on the pot...so no new undies required
Here's a critical homework assignment. Go to this apple podcast and listen starting at about 25 minutes in.
https://podcasts.apple.com/ie/podcast/beyond-dna-the-electromagnetic-blueprint-of-life/id1523643420?i=1000628183726
You can listen to the parts before that, but really I'm highlighting 25 minutes onward when the interviewee covers the history of breakthroughs of scientists who started to realize solid state physics are a more fundamental science than biology.
This then starts to connect the dots on WHY the adverse effects of the non native parts of the electromagnetic spectrum surrounding us are not studied better. It is a story of decentralized vs centralized paradigms. Robert O Becker and his story of research for the Navy is key. And his bringing information public was a watershed in not allowing scientists to raise public awareness of what is problematic for the IT and telcom and tech based economies that have been built out since the 1950s.
5G is only activated when the Smartphone detects 5G signals, but if you live in an area with only 4G your phone will only work with 4G.
...and me without my faraday unitard...
You get a couple microwatts of power standing near the most powerful 5G towers. In about a week you will have absorbed the same amount energy as you get from eating a French fry.
Nothing about 5G is any more dangerous to the human body than 3G or 4G. Sunlight is orders of magnitude more powerful and more carcinogenic.
IIRC 5G has phased array antennas that can directionally aim.
Here you go fren:
https://www.verizon.com/business/resources/articles/5g-beamforming-massive-mimo/
This could go either way --- you could reduce collateral radiation from other people's calls or bombard a pinpoint target.
5G designed to beamform to increase the range and presumably so that channels can be re-used. I expect the hit from the beam well exceeds the missed collateral from other user's calls in a more isotropic field, mainly because the general isotropic field would be so much larger in area than the beam.
Just to clarify, the above is true, but all radiation can cause tumours. Don’t use your phone on your ear if you can avoid it, and keep it away from your body when carrying it.
It is physically impossible for non-ionizing radiation to cause cancer.
UV causes sun burns and increases the probability of skin cancer because it is ionizing radiation. It strips electrons away from molecules, altering and damaging them. If that damage happens to DNA, and cellular repair mechanisms can’t fix it properly, that’s when the risk of cancer goes up. Sun burns are your skin cells committing mass suicide because they’re too damaged to repair themselves properly. X-rays and gamma rays do the same thing.
Visible light, infrared, micro, and radio waves can’t do that. They cannot alter molecular structures. At worst they impart heat, which is how a microwave cooks your food and why sunlight feels warm.
There are plenty of people who think non ionizing radiation can cause cancer, but all they have is statistical correlation, which does not imply causation and is almost meaningless unless they can explain and experimentally demonstrate a physical mechanism by which non ionizing radiation can cause cancer.
Non ionizing radiation contributing to cancer risk is known, with proposed mechanisms, just not widely known. Of course not. Talk to curious researchers trying to get more funding for those kinds of well formed studies. Rejecting the possibility of mechanisms involving NIR is, illogically, based on the assumption that no other mechanism is known beyond that of ionizing radiation, as you described.
The mechanisms are in fact being uncovered in the field of biophysics. So we should not be shocked that if non-ionizing radiation exposures, particularly non-native ELFs and RFs, are altering water chemistry in and around the cells, of course the energetics of the cell are altered and ROS will be elevated.
https://people.csail.mit.edu/seneff/Entropy/entropy-15-03822.pdf
Also no surprise for example NIR increases glucose metabolism and causes calcium efflux. Nora Volkow has done direct research on Cell Phones effect on Brain Metabolism, where NIR increases glucose consumption drastically while also slowing the efficiency of circadian clocks genes in front of every human gene and is a hallmark of a Warburg Metabolism.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3184892/
This coheres with studies going back to the 1960s and Allen Frey demonstrating how polarizing electromagnetic radiation from non-ionizing sources increases permeability of the blood-brain-barrier (which separates the circulating blood from the brain extracellular fluid in the central nervous system), and also of voltage gated ion channels in excitable cell membranes (which regulate the release of neurotransmitters and endocrine signaling among many other functions).
It is your job to prove that non-ionizing radiation can cause cancer. It is not my job to give you the benefit of the doubt. I did not say that ionizing radiation is the only thing that can cause cancer, I said that non-ionizing radiation does not have a known mechanism to cause cancer. Those are not the same claims.
I'm going to more thoroughly read that paper you linked, but keyword searching does not reveal that they even attempt to show a link between non-ionizing radiation and cancer, or any disease for that matter. Most of the mentions of "radiowaves", "microwaves", and "electromagnetic" concern diagnostic methods. I see one urge to not eat microwaved food, with no explanation given. This makes no sense as microwaved food does not give off microwaves and is not chemically altered by microwaves. I see nothing at all about cell phones or personal use of any communications device.
I'm also seeing discussion of "structured water" in this paper, which is a huge red flag. "Structured water" is a branch of pseudoscience extremely popular with New Agers and scam artists. In fact, it's not even pseudoscience; it's just wrong. Structured water is merely ice; liquid water by nature cannot be structured as it is in a constantly shifting fluid state. I'm hoping that the authors are using this term in a different sense than the New Age quantum mystic scammers.
I keep a laminated copper sheet between me an my phone .
Ah demonizing the big bad sun. In case that worries folks, just go and read about the actual studies from decades ago that are the basis of the demonization of sunlight and connecting it to cancer. What you'll find is the application of UVB bulbs in that isolated frequency. i.e. FAKE LIGHT, not the proper use of the sun since time immemorial.
Try to find one study irradiating people with UVB light combined with 630nm, 670nm, 780nm, and 810nm wavelengths, just to mimic something of the solar spectrum's protective aspects.
Nothing of the sort. Instead, daily sunlight exposure (including spectrally contextualized UVB) and sleep are the only things we know of in the published literature that REDUCE ALL CAUSES OF DISEASE AND MORTALITY. Let that sink in deeply. Across all populations, diseases, times, and places, the sun and its link to sleep efficiency are the king of the longevity hill.
Particularly fun is that Swedish study a few years back about regular sunbathers. ALl cause mortality statistically lowered, with the corollary that sun avoidance among the general population raises the risks of all cause mortality to the same level as chronic smokers.
There's also the prevalence of low Vitamin D levels among those with skin cancers and melanomas in the dermatology literature. They should have sky high Vitamin D levels if the centralized medical establishment dogma on UV and cancer is true.
Clear now why we're still here and cancers didn't wipe out our ancestors a long time ago? Because they lived like human beings were supposed to. Outside, connected to nature, under the sun including UVB. Almost like human beings are adapted to it, and can continue to be if they choose.
In fact, read all you can about melanin, POMC, the leptin-melanocortin pathway. Melanin functionally acts as a wideband semiconducter, absorbing all frequencies and getting electrons to move by splitting water molecules. It is even proposed as a chemical for such in artificial applications. Regular sunlight exposure akin to our ancestors is an absolutely essential key to health and longevity.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jnc.15765
I did not demonize the sun. I said that you absorb more thermal energy from sunlight, and that this sunlight (which is partially UV) is far more likely to give you cancer or other damage than cellular networks. These are objectively true facts.
I'd like to see any instance of someone getting sunburn-like symptoms from using their phone. I'm around phones and computers 24/7 and have never experienced any negative effects; nor has anyone else I've ever known, most of whom consistently use phones as well.
I compare cellular networks to the sun to give people a proportional sense of scale. If sunlight is generally not harmful (with the exception of sunburns), then 5G is going to be even more harmless, especially since it imparts orders of magnitude less energy.
Oh, so when studies show that UV cause sunburns and are linked to skin cancer, it's demonizing, but when other studies show a weak correlation between 5G and cancer, it's totally legit. How convenient.
Again, not only do you have to show a correlation between radio waves and (insert malady here), but you also have to 1) propose a physical mechanism for why radio waves cause it, 2) prove by experiment that the proposed mechanism works, and 3) conclusively eliminate all other possible causes (genetics, exposure to other types of radiation, exposure to other carcinogenic substances, exposure to diseases, vaccination status, lifestyle choices, etc.)
At best only a weak correlation has been established between radio waves and (insert your disease of choice here). None of the other work has been done. I've said before and I'll keep saying it until people get it: correlation is not causation. That is a shortcut for lazy people who don't want to go through the work of proving their claims.
-"3) conclusively eliminate all other possible causes..."
What an utterly preposterous standard.
What’s preposterous is to not consider all the evidence and hold to theory and conjecture over data. Preposterous and lazy.
Why do scientists hold to evolution and Big Bang cosmology despite their failures? Why do we have flat earthers, terrain theorists, and ancient alien theorists?
They all have one thing in common: they are so wedded to their pet theories that they stubbornly refuse to consider all the relevant data and refuse to consider more reasonable explanations for the data that they do consider. All they do is shoot themselves in the foot, show themselves to be intellectually dishonest, and impede scientific progress.
I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about your requirement that someone 'conclusively eliminate' all other possible causes. That is a ridiculous standard worthy of scorn.
The problem is we still live in a world when most scientists even considering this matter think that for radiation to cause a biologic effect it has to ionize DNA or RNA because they think change occurs from inside out in a cell, period, end of story.
The reality of epigenetic science shows exactly the opposite; it has been observed how incident non ionizing EMF affects hyperglycemia, permeation of the BBB, calcium efflux via alterting VGCCs, ubiquitination, and so on. So for example, part of the Warburg hypothesis is linked to hyperglycemia. Hyperglycemia is exactly what Nora Volkow found in 2011 and what Allen Frey found in the 1960’s and 70’s when the brain was exposed to nnEMF. AMPk pathways are raised. They described this process in their papers.
These observations are made because Outside -> In is the key mitochondrial effect which can result in turning on genes more than we would like. This is why ubiquitin marking and a relative pseudohypoxia are both elevated in most chronic disease states. Cancer is a chronically “turned on” version of growth that is uncontrolled; which follows from circadian light cycles (a form of non ionizing incident EMF mismanagement) being decoupled from ubiquitin cycling.
David Sinclair’s results published n his landmark 2013 paper shows that in diseases of aging low NAD+ and pseudohypoxia in the mitochondria of cells linked to a redox shift was the key change to aging and mitochondrial heteroplasmy. If you don't know what heteroplasmy means you can go find Doug Wallace's papers and lectures on mitochondrial DNA and bioenergetics. He's the one who discovered mito DNA are inherited from the maternal line only.
If researchers continue to look in the nuclear genome for answers to diseases of aging including cancer, while the mitochondria are essentially ignored even though they control all the energetics of cells and ultimately orchestrate DNA expression, how many well funded, smoking gun mechanism studies would one expect to find regarding NIR and (insert chronic malady)? We are only able to go to the papers and studies already conducted that have definitively observed effects like cited above with proposed mechanisms, and connect the dots as you educate yourself on biophysics and the mitochondria. Your criteria, incidentally the same criteria used by the telcom industry who's lawyers and leaders often end up part of the 'industry regulatory' FCC, obviously excludes that sort of work to be done, and hence you reject the precautionary principle as silly, and you use your n=1 self diagnosed experience as proof (?). Of course scientists who demonstrate something akin to potentially inconvenient truths relative to the industry paradigm are marginalized, quackified, defunded, on and on. You can pick up "Going Somewhere" by Andrew Marino for an interesting case study of that.