iPhone XS IS 5G DANGEROUS?

[browser740]

From what I have read and viewed on youtube, I dont think I would want 5G in my house, or in the city I live in.... High frequency, focused at me(my device), sounds like being cooked in an open air microwave...

Is 5g dangerous?

P.S. I had to pick a prefix, not related to this subject.

 

[New_Mac_Smell]

No...

Of course conspiracy theorists exist, usually to make you watch a video with zero credibility. However if you're even posing the question as to whether it's dangerous, there might be no convincing you otherwise. Try not to go too far down the rabbit hole.

 

[eyoungren]

From what I have read and viewed on youtube, I dont think I would want 5G in my house, or in the city I live in.... High frequency, focused at me(my device), sounds like being cooked in an open air microwave...

Is 5g dangerous?

P.S. I had to pick a prefix, not related to this subject.

Don't complain in the future if you can't get cell service.

Remember this. You're the problem.

 

[AppleHaterLover]

Anyway: the FCC/big corporations wouldn’t approve something like this if it were dangerous especially because it’s sort of the only thing they cannot get run away from (radiation).

 

[eyoungren]

Anyway: the FCC/big corporations wouldn’t approve something like this if it were dangerous especially because it’s sort of the only thing they cannot get run away from (radiation).

It comes down to the difference between non-ionizing radiation and ionizing radiation. The latter is what people should be worried about. That's nukes, nuclear fallout, etc.

Cellphones and cell towers aren't powerful enough to do that. They only emit non-ionizing radiation.

Non-ionizing radiation does not carry enough energy to break molecular bonds and ionize atoms. ... Ionizing radiation is the type of radiation that carries enough energy to break bonds between molecules and ionize atoms.

 

[joeblow7777]

I’ve gotten warnings for stuff like that (thinking of it I indeed said something about tinfoil hats)

Anyway: the FCC/big corporations wouldn’t approve something like this if it were dangerous especially because it’s sort of the only thing they cannot get run away from (radiation).

To be fair, there are many things that have been approved only to be discovered later that they were dangerous. Cigarettes, DDT, lead paint, asbestos...

The pattern has always been profit and convenience first ask questions later. I believe that in all likelihood wireless technology is safe, but the truth is that it may still be decades before we absolutely know if constant exposure to wi-fi, cellular signals, and bluetooth causes harm or not. The knee-jerk and defensive "tinfoil" hat responses are unwarranted. It's important to ask these questions and do everything possible to prove that new technology is safe rather than just assume it because that's what we all want to hear.

 

[New_Mac_Smell]

To be fair, there are many things that have been approved only to be discovered later that they were dangerous. Cigarettes, DDT, lead paint, asbestos...

The pattern has always been profit and convenience first ask questions later. I believe that in all likelihood wireless technology is safe, but the truth is that it may still be decades before we absolutely know if constant exposure to wi-fi, cellular signals, and bluetooth causes harm or not. The knee-jerk and defensive "tinfoil" hat responses are unwarranted. It's important to ask these questions and do everything possible to prove that new technology is safe rather than just assume it because that's what we all want to hear.

They are considered safe today, whether that changes in 5-10-50 years time is unknown. Same with anything else that is considered safe today, you can accept that it is safe, or fear that things might change down the road.

Cigarettes are a bad example though, in fact everything you gave is an example of chemicals. They were all known pretty quickly to cause issues, however there was next to no regulation at the time - and is kind of the reason things are heavily regulated today.

Anyway by the logic you were putting, you must be fearful of everything as nothing can be considered 100% safe, and anything could change. Or just develop a basic understanding of the underlying technology and form your own opinion. Personally, I don't believe the EM produced by this kind of tech is above any dangerous thresholds and so causes no damage - this is something backed up by the people that regulate this stuff. So I'm happy.

 

[1rottenapple]

I read about environmental issues. Birds dropping kinda of thing. I hope it’s not dangerous! I’ll stick with my xs max for 3-4 yrs so I could care less about 5g.

 

[jeremysteele]

I read about environmental issues. Birds dropping kinda of thing. I hope it’s not dangerous! I’ll stick with my xs max for 3-4 yrs so I could care less about 5g.

Birds drop dead all the time. Windmills are a bigger threat than cell tower radiation.

To be fair, there are many things that have been approved only to be discovered later that they were dangerous. Cigarettes, DDT, lead paint, asbestos...

Those were known to be dangerous very early on. Historians even suspect Romans knew lead was dangerous, but they kept using it due to its usefulness and availability (some think it helped caused the downfall of the empire).

It is scientifically provable that cell phone radiation poses an incredibly minimal risk. You have more of a chance of winning the lottery and dropping dead from a lightning strike while turning in your ticket than you have of getting a tumor caused by radio waves.

You know those people who claim they get headaches near wifi? They are hypochondriacs. Wifi, cell phones, etc do not interfere with your atoms that way. It is basic physics.

Heck, the potassium-40 in bananas is more dangerous. That stuff can actually kill you (In high enough doses).

I wish people would stop it with this subject.

 

[joeblow7777]

They are considered safe today, whether that changes in 5-10-50 years time is unknown. Same with anything else that is considered safe today, you can accept that it is safe, or fear that things might change down the road.

Cigarettes are a bad example though, in fact everything you gave is an example of chemicals. They were all known pretty quickly to cause issues, however there was next to no regulation at the time - and is kind of the reason things are heavily regulated today.

Anyway by the logic you were putting, you must be fearful of everything as nothing can be considered 100% safe, and anything could change. Or just develop a basic understanding of the underlying technology and form your own opinion. Personally, I don't believe the EM produced by this kind of tech is above any dangerous thresholds and so causes no damage - this is something backed up by the people that regulate this stuff. So I'm happy.

I'm not fearful. It is what it is. As you say, as far as we can tell this technology is safe, and I couldn't avoid wireless signals even if I wanted to, so I don't worry about it.

I'm just saying that no one knows the long term effects, not even the organizations that regulate it, and people have underestimated the harmful effects of products before, especially when they have every reason to want it to be safe. The fact that my examples were chemical based just shows that we've gained a much better understanding of how chemicals interact with the body over decades of study. We don't really have those decades of study on wireless signals yet, which is why (theoretically) we could still be mistaken about them.

I'm not trying to scare anyone, and I enjoy using the latest wireless tech as much as anybody, but there's nothing wrong with asking questions and more importantly, encouraging further research rather than just assuming we know everything and dismissing all concerns.

 

[eyoungren]

I wish people would stop it with this subject.

Some people hate change and try to stop it with irrational fear.

 

[jchilton]

Is 5g dangerous?

No.
[doublepost=1545135964][/doublepost]

I'm just saying that no one knows the long term effects,

Yes they do. Non-ionizing radiation is non-ionizing, meaning it physically can't break the bonds in DNA and therefore can't cause cancer.

 

[purged]

Absolutely.

 

[joeblow7777]

No.
[doublepost=1545135964][/doublepost]

Yes they do. Non-ionizing radiation is non-ionizing, meaning it physically can't break the bonds in DNA and therefore can't cause cancer.

Actually there’s currently research being done to investigate many other adverse effects, not just cancer, including things like memory loss, and research still continues regarding link (or lack thereof) to cancer.

Again, let me emphasize, I’m not trying to shake anyone’s faith in wireless technology, but there can’t be long term studies on this yet because the current extent of exposure to these EM frequencies didn’t exist until recently. I for one think it’s a good thing that people continue to question and study this to ensure that it is as safe as possible.

 

[eyoungren]

Actually there’s currently research being done to investigate many other adverse effects, not just cancer, including things like memory loss, and research still continues regarding link (or lack thereof) to cancer.

Again, let me emphasize, I’m not trying to shake anyone’s faith in wireless technology, but there can’t be long term studies on this yet because the current extent of exposure to these EM frequencies didn’t exist until recently. I for one think it’s a good thing that people continue to question and study this to ensure that it is as safe as possible.

Questioning is one thing.

Being Chicken Little and overreacting is another.

 

[TheRealAlex]

From what I have read and viewed on youtube, I dont think I would want 5G in my house, or in the city I live in.... High frequency, focused at me(my device), sounds like being cooked in an open air microwave...

Is 5g dangerous?

P.S. I had to pick a prefix, not related to this subject.

My dad passed away he left me an unused parcel of land in Illinois Which he bought 50 years ago for cheap. I live in FL it’s sat vacant for decades 10 years ago A major cellular carrier contacted my fathers estate holder aka me. Wanting to Sign a 20 year lease to put a cellphone tower on the land since new developments have been built in that area. Fine I had an attorney look at the paperwork and payments and signed the lease. Not much money but better than nothing.
Last year we get paperwork wanting to amend the lease for 5G. My new attorney says we can charge double and wants details of the health concerns of 5G and frequency and wattage 5G will operate at. She gets paperwork that she reads as carcinogenic but a person would have to be within so many feet of the tower for 8 hours a day for many years but the potential is there.
We refuse to allow 5G and the lease will terminate in 9 years or The cellular carrier can remove the equipment when they wish.

 

[revmacian]

Some people hate change and try to stop it with irrational fear.

Agreed. FEAR = False Evidence Appearing Real.

 

[joeblow7777]

Questioning is one thing.

Being Chicken Little and overreacting is another.

I don't see anyone overreacting. No one here is moving out to a cabin in the woods and shielding themselves from radio waves. We obviously all use cellular devices or else we wouldn't be on an iPhone discussion forum. But the most common response to anyone raising questions about health effects of wireless technology is a joke about tinfoil hats. Those responses aren't helping anybody. It's an emotional and defensive response, and anytime people have a knee-jerk and dismissive response to something (myself included) I make a conscious effort to stop and consider what the other other side is saying.

"When you think you know something, that is a most perfect barrier against learning."

 

[purged]

Yeah!

 

[MileHighPilot]

Don't complain in the future if you can't get cell service.

Remember this. You're the problem.

View attachment 811391

it won't just be the op who cant get cell service but people in his community as well which makes it worse

Actually there’s currently research being done to investigate many other adverse effects, not just cancer, including things like memory loss, and research still continues regarding link (or lack thereof) to cancer.

effects due to the cellular frequencies or effects due to what

 

[eyoungren]

I don't see anyone overreacting. No one here is moving out to a cabin in the woods and shielding themselves from radio waves. We obviously all use cellular devices or else we wouldn't be on an iPhone discussion forum. But the most common response to anyone raising questions about health effects of wireless technology is a joke about tinfoil hats. Those responses aren't helping anybody. It's an emotional and defensive response, and anytime people have a knee-jerk and dismissive response to something (myself included) I make a conscious effort to stop and consider what the other other side is saying.

"When you think you know something, that is a most perfect barrier against learning."

OP is using large type in his first post. OP is exaggerating, "sounds like being cooked in an open air microwave".

OP bases this on? "From what I have read and viewed on Youtube". Yeah. Not really a legit news or information source.

That may not sound like overreacting to you, but it sure does to me.

 

[jtara]

It's complicated.

Reading assignment:

https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/radiation/nonionizing_radiation.html

 

[PBz]

To be fair, there are many things that have been approved only to be discovered later that they were dangerous. Cigarettes, DDT, lead paint, asbestos...

Baby powder

 

[jtara]

Last year we get paperwork wanting to amend the lease for 5G. My new attorney says we can charge double and wants details of the health concerns of 5G and frequency and wattage 5G will operate at. She gets paperwork that she reads as carcinogenic but a person would have to be within so many feet of the tower for 8 hours a day for many years but the potential is there.
We refuse to allow 5G and the lease will terminate in 9 years or The cellular carrier can remove the equipment when they wish.

Hire a new attorney.

Have the new attorney write in a new clause (if not already there) where the carrier indemnifies you against any claims.

This would be especially silly if you actually lived on the property. They will just build on an adjoining property, and the tower might then be even closer to the house.
[doublepost=1545424350][/doublepost]Let's see what the American Cancer Society has to say:

https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/radiation-exposure/cellular-phone-towers.html

"The amount of exposure from living near a cell phone tower is typically many times lower than the exposure from using a cell phone. About 30 studies have looked at possible links between cell phone use and tumors in people. Most studies to date have not found a link between cell phone use and the development of tumors, although these studies have had some important limitations. This is an area of active research."

 

[silver_mtb]

Questioning is one thing.

Being Chicken Little and overreacting is another.

and posts like this are BS and make legitimate concerns seem like crazy-talk. Cancer rates are through the roof in this modern world. Now you can go ahead and tell us all the other reasons besides radiation and EMFs that are causing these cancer rates, ironically, especially in the developed world.