‘ There is no convincing evidence that electromagnetic radiation for mobile communications poses a danger to public health ‘, says Eric van Rongen, chairman of the International Commission for Protection against non-ionising radiation ( ICNIRP).
‘ Under the exposure limits there is no evidence for harmful effects ‘, also responds Monique Beerlage, general secretary of the Knowledge platform electromagnetic fields and health, by e-mail.However, some studies have found evidence of possible coherence with brain tumors. ‘ But it is not clear what is the cause, coincidence is also not to be excluded. ‘
Electromagnetic radiation causes heat development, similar to a microwave, but then many times smaller.The existing exposure limits mainly impose this heat development on tyres to prevent damage, according to Beerlage. Because of the higher frequency, 5G signals will penetrate the body less deeply than 4G.
The fact that the frequency of 5G is close to that of X-rays, as it is claimed, is nonsense.Between 5G and X-ray radiation are still infrared, visible light and UV. ‘ This is therefore a very end of Roentgen and thus of the kind of health effects that x-rays can cause ‘, says Van Rongen.
Because of the higher frequency, the 5G radio signal can be less easily called ‘ the corner around ‘ or through walls than the 4G signal.This makes it necessary to install more but smaller antennas than in a 4G network. The advantage is that those smaller antennas work with a lower power.
The fact that more channels are placed that are closer to the receiver does not mean that people will be exposed to more radiation.’ Whether someone is exposed more or less will depend on the situation, ‘ says Van Rongen, who does not object to the drafting of maximum exposure standards. An additional advantage of a larger number of antennas is that mobile phones can also have less power for their communication, which may result in a lower overall exposure.
Brussels may set standards for occupational exposures, but for the general public the European Union can only advise.This advice has been followed in the Netherlands for years, explains Beerlage of the knowledge platform electromagnetic fields and health. In addition, all masts, antennas and telephones must comply with European product standards, which focus on exposure limits.
It is therefore not a health hazard and thus according to the expert safer than 4G.
5G is mainly another modulation in the same frequency areas as 4G.
A little naval ship is full of radar antennas.And heavy continuous wave fire control radars can only be turned on at sea. Besides the radars there are also heavy radio stations blowing. You can imagine that if you are on deck, there is an interesting cloud radio signal hanging around you.
Oh, and by the way, the output of those antennas is a little bit more than that pathetic 0.5 watts that comes out of your phone.
I have 16 years of dangers.And like my ferns companions, I have not noticed anything.
And it is handy that you give light in the dark.If you have to do a little pee in the middle of the night, you don’t have to do the light. 🙂
No idea, if you visit sites like this Why 5g Cell Towers Are More Dangerous-Radiation Health Risks is listing a whole list of (possible) nasty side effects on our human organism, unfortunately nowhere unmodevely hot links to the studies To which they refer, so that we cannot read the study ourselves, something that I very much adhere to.
For instance, someone would have posited as this radiation is mainly absorbed into the skin, which can lead to interaction with the nerve endings in the skin, which can lead to damage to our entire nervous system again???
I get the feeling that real objections are being beaten up without us being able to read/control the investigations that underlie it.Reminds me of the highly hyping anti CMO discussion.
Will not prevent me if I find 芒 鈧劉 t needed (for the time being 4G still fine for us!) to move to 5G.
Currently there is still insufficient information.
But if there would have been a danger of 4 or 3G, it is barely detected, and therefore it is not as dangerous as a solid dose of radioactivity or prolonged exposure to harmful UV rays.
But for questions like this, you should look at the existing research.
All cell towers such as 1, 2, 3, 4, 5G emit under high power and if you are permanently in the short radiation zone your cells are slowly boiled.
So do not live in the immediate vicinity (underneath) of it.
Your mobile has a 2 watt adaptive radiation so less if not used.
This means even on 2 watts there is no danger if you know that 2 watt power penetrates up to 1 millimeter in water so as well as nil by your skin.
Apart from scientific studies that there is no danger, the amount of radiation increases.We can only know the consequences after a number of generations. The changes are going at a high rate so it is difficult to allocate certain deviations or mutations to 1 cause. This also goes for radiation from phones or WiFi. The fact is that by WiFi routers, mobile traffic and soon IOT traffic increases the amount of radiation. People search for boundaries and only intervene when the boundary is exceeded. Question is whether we are going to wait for it or that we are going to carry out an active monitoring of the amount of radiation. And compare it to spots with little to no radiation.
If you want to keep it in hand, you can adjust your house so that there is no radiation in it.You can make a Faraday cage. Only issue is that your mobile and WiFi devices don’t work. I do expect an increase in the demand for radiation-free housing in the coming years. After all, there are people who suffer from the radiation today. And that number is going to increase with time.
5G can be safe, but it’s only part of the whole.And the whole is growing.
芒 鈧?艙Identical findings in 2 independent studies strongly suggest a true and clinically important association between 4G/5G and risk of future ischemic stroke.The observed modification of the genotype effect by triglycerides may be interpreted as a gene-environment interaction. 芒 鈧?p>
The above is a quote from an official report of the Department of Clinic Medicine and Public Health of the medical Faculty of the University of Umea (with a bullet on the A) in Sweden.
On this basis, you would think it is rather damaging. And the whole report mentioned that it leads to brain infarcts.Increased risk of up to 95%, depending on hereditary factors and environment. But this report is already formatted in 2005, and is about functional 4/5 guanosine (4G/5G) polymorphism in the promoter region of the PAI-1 gene and the risk of brain infarcts.
So don’t believe everything you read.
The truth is, that there has been no or hardly any research into the long-term effects on human health of these kinds of signals.Are there, for example, since the introduction of radio and TV, mobile telephony, satellites, Bluetooth headsets, microwaves and what were more said significantly more cases of brain tumors, or other cases of cancer, or for my part chickenpox? No one has investigated that.
The 脙 漏 Chte Health Risks 芒 鈧劉 s are not so very there, but in very other areas.Digital addiction, unrest by constantly being interrupted and reachable, and-not to underestimate-hand and neck disorders.
In other cases, in my opinion, mobile communications have only brought benefits to man and saved lives.Apart from the people who perishing in the construction of masts misschien芒 鈧?娄..
So far, all previous Technologies have been claimed, but it is difficult to prove.
Yes, it’s true that you keep a transmitter/receiver on your ear.
It is also true that the transmitter broadcasts and receives something.
But whether that radiation can affect health?Maybe with overuse though., but it doesn’t seem like it.
Besides, a microwave also gives off radiation, or a televiesie.And much more DSN a phone. Radio did that too.
There are guidelines for the radiation that can be issued by devices.
So there is apparently investigated what the maximum permissible is. So long as devices comply, they can be used.