4g/5g causes cancer

What about 2G?

No. No. We probably won't get 5g it just requires too many antennas. I hope we get it though.

just because you don't use it, doesn't mean the radiation isn't still around you

You are constantly being bombarded with radiation of all types. Most of this radiation is called EMR (Electromagnetic Radiation) propagated from an astronomical amount of sources and is relatively low frequency. (Radio, TV, Phones, Internet, Satellites, Power Lines, and basically, wherever there is electricity flowing through a conductor, there is an electromagnetic field created around it.)

All of these sources work with a form of radiation called non-ionizing radiation. This means the EM waves contain enough energy to move the atoms around but not enough energy to break particles loose.
Ionizing radiation (harmful) removes particles because they carry a lot more energy and can break atomic bonds. These travel as UV-rays, x-rays or gamma-rays.

In this frequency range the generation and modulation of coherent electromagnetic signals ceases to be possible by the conventional electronic devices used to generate radio waves and microwaves.

Thermal energy (via EMR) can be added to a substance via non-ionized radiation in large amounts and perhaps the target material will produce some ionizing radiation in a burst, but it would not release much in comparison to how much thermal energy you would have to generate to do this. Ionizing radiation for medical devices use kinetic energy of accelerators to move particles up to ionizing levels and it is much more efficient.

TLDR;
It is IMPOSSIBLE to create ionizing (harmful) radiation using a radio antenna of any type.
PS: The average human absorbs 1000x times the amount of Ionizing radiation from natural souces (primarily the Sun) than unnatural sources.

/Thread

>/threading tour own post

nonetheless, thank you based user.

/thread

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Not applicable.

...

Jesus dude

...

Changing your phone's setting won't stop the wireless signals from being all around you

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH

holy shit

HAHAHAHAHAHA you're a complete idiot

Yes mate you know more than the scientists who are producing this study, wow you just invalidated their study! How about you wait for this to go through peer review and we actually get to read what they've produced before producing this "lol idiots this is impossible" shit?

i make it a point to keep my cellphone away from my person whenever possible. you don't absorb nearly as much if it's a few feet away.

samefag

>a slight increase of tumors in male rats
OMG ITS TRUE WERE ALL GOING TO DIE

Your next line is "Look I can inspect element"

www.superscientists.com/5g-will-make-your-dick-grow-and-give-you-plus-150IQ

phoneposter are best poster

fag

>ehtrust.org/scientists-and-doctors-demand-moratorium-on-5g-warning-of-health-effects/
"statistically significant increases"

Any radiation with a high enough frequency to hurt you would be useless for communication.

forum.jackkruse.com/index.php?threads/great-5g-article.19074/

bumb for truth

this poster is a liar

there are clear harmful effects LONG TERM from continued exposure to NON NATIVE EMF's which induce cell behaviors which alters health .

Look I can inspect element
NANI?

Prove it.

Not a liar, but doesn't understand that the claimed effect is via non-ionizing radiation.

To make a crude analogy, the vibrations of traffic doesn't have enough energy to collapse a wall, but can cause cracks in a nearby wall. Since the wall has other forces stressing it, i.e. gravity, nasty things can start to happen.

What do you think the point of this study is?

I mean, this is not new technology. We have known the full effects of these signals on our bodies for decades now.
Unless the laws of physics have changed in the last 40 years, there are no "magic particles or radiation" being created from these claimed sources.
Nothing created= nothing to affect your body.

I would love to see growth on the knowledge surrounding this topic, but as of now, i have stated the facts. So yes, I am not a liar, but I'm not really calling you or anyone else one either. Having a scientific mindset, I embrace debate and change because all we really want is truth.

That's just stupid mate, there's all sorts of stuff people used without change that we learned more about without previous knowledge. You shouldn't be so quick to dismiss a result because it disagrees with what generally makes sense. Perhaps there are long term effects that we are not yet aware of caused by factors we are not yet aware of - who knows?

Is that not in line to what I have said?
I will gladly accept these as facts when more than just a few experiments claims it as so. The scientific method must be followed.

if you read ops post, you will see that the article posts to several studies by several different authors.

>Article is written by layman
>Paper isn't finished
>Effects only found in male rats
>Exposed to radiation 12/7 (10 minutes on 10 off) for 2 years
>Article then quotes these guys who seem to be unaware of inverse square law centerforsaferwireless.us/web/main/
I'm convinced.
All we need is vgcc guy to show up and spout his drivel and this thread will be complete.