The cell phone thread. Talk about anything related to cell phones - your phone, something in the news about phones, what you like, what you don't like, etc.
What I do not like about cell phones are the electromagnetic radiations they do cause cancer.
Yes 5G does cause cancer it has the ability to FOCUS the beam on you ( holding a phone) from different nearby antennas, strong burst signal much worse than regular cell signals.I've heard that too and I've heard that 5G is causing cancer.
There's no actual evidence to support the claim that mobile phones, 5G or otherwise, cause cancer.Yes 5G does cause cancer it has the ability to FOCUS the beam on you ( holding a phone) from different nearby antennas, strong burst signal much worse than regular cell signals.
Cheers,
Jff
There's no actual evidence to support the claim that mobile phones, 5G or otherwise, cause cancer.
So you think you can prove that 5G has been proven to have harmful effects when your own source says, ".. including novel forms of radiation from 5G telecommunications for which there are no adequate health effects studies."Scientific evidence invalidates health assumptions underlying the FCC and ICNIRP exposure limit determinations for radiofrequency radiation: implications for 5G
International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF)
Collaborators
Free PMC article
- PMID: 36253855
- PMCID: PMC9576312
- DOI: 10.1186/s12940-022-00900-9
Abstract
In the late-1990s, the FCC and ICNIRP adopted radiofrequency radiation (RFR) exposure limits to protect the public and workers from adverse effects of RFR. These limits were based on results from behavioral studies conducted in the 1980s involving 40-60-minute exposures in 5 monkeys and 8 rats, and then applying arbitrary safety factors to an apparent threshold specific absorption rate (SAR) of 4 W/kg. The limits were also based on two major assumptions: any biological effects were due to excessive tissue heating and no effects would occur below the putative threshold SAR, as well as twelve assumptions that were not specified by either the FCC or ICNIRP. In this paper, we show how the past 25 years of extensive research on RFR demonstrates that the assumptions underlying the FCC's and ICNIRP's exposure limits are invalid and continue to present a public health harm. Adverse effects observed at exposures below the assumed threshold SAR include non-thermal induction of reactive oxygen species, DNA damage, cardiomyopathy, carcinogenicity, sperm damage, and neurological effects, including electromagnetic hypersensitivity. Also, multiple human studies have found statistically significant associations between RFR exposure and increased brain and thyroid cancer risk. Yet, in 2020, and in light of the body of evidence reviewed in this article, the FCC and ICNIRP reaffirmed the same limits that were established in the 1990s. Consequently, these exposure limits, which are based on false suppositions, do not adequately protect workers, children, hypersensitive individuals, and the general population from short-term or long-term RFR exposures. Thus, urgently needed are health protective exposure limits for humans and the environment. These limits must be based on scientific evidence rather than on erroneous assumptions, especially given the increasing worldwide exposures of people and the environment to RFR, including novel forms of radiation from 5G telecommunications for which there are no adequate health effects studies.
Keywords: 5G; Cell phone*; DNA damage; Exposure assessment; Exposure limits; Federal Communications Commission (FCC); International commission on non-ionizing radiation protection (ICNIRP); Mobile phone*; Radiation health effects; Radiofrequency radiation (RFR); Reactive oxygen species (ROS); Scientific integrity.
© 2022. The Author(s).
there are more if you want to see,
JFF
Beleive whay you want, there are plenty of articles out there proving too much EM radiation if harmful in many ways. search pubmed and see for yourself.So you think you can prove that 5G has been proven to have harmful effects when your own source says, ".. including novel forms of radiation from 5G telecommunications for which there are no adequate health effects studies."
Of course, I remember people saying that 4G was going to kill us all. I remember people telling us that 3G was going to kill us all. It wasn't true then, so why do you expect me to believe you when you say it's true now? It's just the same alarmist nonsense people have been peddling for years.
That's interesting you have said that.Unlike my samsung and iphone which for some reason always have issues with T-Mobile.
In my case the Samsung s7 Edge I have was once an AT&T phone that I unlocked and therefore there are issues with the network. As for my iphone 6s, I have no explanation of why I do not get phone calls or texts while on T-Mobile network using that phone.That's interesting you have said that.
I've thought about switching carriers when I get a new phone because Verizon has issues with Linux phones. I thought about going to T-Mobile because they're nicer about the Linux phones. My mom repeatedly told me that her cousin's iPhone has call-dropping issues (she has T-Mobile). My mom thought it was the network while I thought it was the iPhone.
Show me the peer reviewed articles that describe the research showing that 5G mobile phones cause an increased risk of cancer.Beleive whay you want, there are plenty of articles out there proving too much EM radiation if harmful in many ways. search pubmed and see for yourself.
PubMed
PubMed® comprises more than 36 million citations for biomedical literature from MEDLINE, life science journals, and online books. Citations may include links to full text content from PubMed Central and publisher web sites.pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
If you were as logical as you claim, you would not ignore the research data.
Jff
Without watching the video (I'm not going to spend 17 minutes watching a video about a brand of phone I don't use), I'd say that it could be that there's something in the phone that picks up whether the part has been removed and replaced, and if it has, then it triggers a switch that makes the phone say the part is not genuine. When you get Apple to do it, they can do it without activating the switch, so it doesn't happen. In other words, the phone is not looking at the part at all.An Australian Tech Repairer takes a look at the iPhone 13. He discovers that, when he switches parts on two Apple phones, the phone claims the parts are not "genuine".
Without watching the video (I'm not going to spend 17 minutes watching a video about a brand of phone I don't use), I'd say that it could be that there's something in the phone that picks up whether the part has been removed and replaced, and if it has, then it triggers a switch that makes the phone say the part is not genuine. When you get Apple to do it, they can do it without activating the switch, so it doesn't happen. In other words, the phone is not looking at the part at all.
Of course, I could be wrong.
I sure miss the physical keyboards on phones. I struggle with the virtual keyboard on my phone.
People have been using mobile phones for 30 years and there is no evidence that the non ionising radiation from mobile phones causes cancer.I do not like about cell phones are the electromagnetic radiations they do cause cancer.