U.S. warns European allies not to use potentially-compromised Chinese gear for 5G networks

submitted by magnora7 from reuters.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Jesus 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

No, there are thousands of studies illustrating since WW2 that non-ionizing radiation, without heating has biological effects on all life forms.

Here's thousands of studies illustrating biological effects of non-ionizing EMF's w/ and without heating, under the recommended guideliens by the FCC, even though they are astronomically higher than most other countries.

https://ehtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/5g-emf-hazards-dr-martin-l.-pall-eu-emf2018-6-11us3-1.pdf

https://ehtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/Scientist-5G-appeal-2017.pdf

https://ehtrust.org/scientific-research-on-5g-and-health/

https://drive.google.com/file/d/19CbWmdGTnnW1iZ9pxlxq1ssAdYl3Eur3/view

Endocrine System Damage

Research from the links I posted above and I have read most, shows impacts to the pineal gland, adrenal gland, and thyroid gland. These glands balance hormones that involve sleep. Research has shown that low levels of microwave exposure can reduce melatonin. Melatonin is not just critical to maintaining our sleep rhythm but it is also an extremely important antioxidant that helps to repair damaged DNA and reduces the growth of cancer cells. Additionally, research shows thyroid hormone levels can be impacted by wireless radiation. It has been established that even a small change in thyroid hormones can alter the brain.

Genotoxic Effects

Radiation at extremely low levels (0.0001 the level emitted by the average digital cellular telephone) caused heart attacks and the deaths of some chicken embryos…independent, third-party peer-reviewed studies need to be conducted in the U.S. to begin examining the effects from radiation on migratory birds and other trust species. —Willie Taylor, US Department of the Interior in his February 2014 letter to Mr. Eli Veenendaal of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Dept. of Commerce.

Studies at non-thermal (no measurable temperature change) levels of microwave exposures show chromosomal instability, altered gene expression, gene mutations, DNA fragmentation, and DNA structural breaks. Genetic mutations and cellular damage can potentially contribute to cancer growth. Strong effects from microwaves have been found in stem cells. Since stem cells are more active in children, researchers are concerned that children are at increased risk.

While electromagnetic fields may not directly damage DNA, research indicates they could set into motion a series of biological impacts that result in genetic damage.

A 2015 experimental study found that 2.4 GHz (Wi-Fi radiation) can alter expression of some of the miRNAs, and the study’s authors concluded that “long-term exposure of 2.4 GHz RF may lead to adverse effects such as neurodegenerative diseases originated from the alteration of some miRNA expression and more studies should be devoted to the effects of RF radiation on miRNA expression levels.”

Dr. Lai analyzed research since 2006 and found there are more papers reporting effects from exposure than no effect: New radiofrequency studies report that 65% of genetic studies show effects and 35% do not show effects.

Oxidative Stress

Oxidative stress is the formation of tissue-damaging free radicals. A recent research review shows 93 out of 100 currently available peer-reviewed studies indicate that radiofrequency radiation increases oxidative stress. This stress response damages cells and DNA through the production of peroxides and free radicals. Oxidative stress is implicated in the cause of many diseases such as cancer and Alzheimer’s disease.

Fertility and Reproduction

Consistent evidence from experimental research, epidemiological studies, in vitro (cells) laboratory studies, and in vivo (animal) studies shows that RF exposure is associated with reduced sperm count, motility and concentration, as well as DNA damage and altered cell structure. Research also shows damage after wireless exposure to the ovaries of rats and mice, as well as changes in the eggs of flies and birds. This is possibly, although no causative evidence of the 60% drop in male fertility rates. It could however, be a contributing factor.

Scientific Evidence Documenting Increased Cancer From Exposure

The research evidence indicates that long term use of cell phones and wireless increase the risk of cancer risk. Independent longitudinal research has consistently shown that “heavy” (30 min/day) cellphone users have an increased risk of brain cancer. Such research lead to the World Health Organization’s International Agency for the Research on Cancer to classify this radiation as a Class 2 B Possible Human Carcinogen in 2011. Since 2011, the evidence has increased.

“A disservice has been done in inaccurately depicting the body of science, which actually indicates that there are biological effects from the radiation emitted by wireless devices, including damage to DNA, and evidence for increased risk of cancer, without heating and other substantial health consequences…The public the world over has been misled by this reporting.” — Dr. Ronald B. Herberman

Dr. Hardell’s research showed that adults who started using cell or cordless phones as teenagers had an 8-fold higher risk of brain cancer on the side of their head where they held the phone. A French study also found increased brain cancer in long term cell phone users. To date, the only published study of children’s risk of brain cancer from cell phone use found more than a 2-fold risk after >2.8 years of use (from billing records), combined with a statistically significant trend of increasing risk with increasing years of use.

In 2015 Lerchl et al published an important replication study which confirms that wireless acts as a tumor promoter. In this important study, lymphomas and tumors of the lungs and livers in exposed animals were significantly higher. The wireless exposure was at low to moderate exposure levels well below exposure limits for the users of mobile phones.This research is significant in that it used a larger group of mice and replicated tumor-promoting effects shown in a 2010 study.

[–]happysmash27 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

So would talking on the phone with a headset be safer?

[–]magnora7[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yes, even the cell phone companies agree that is recommended

[–]Jesus 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yes, much. The SAR limit was tested on an artifical head filled with salt and sugar based on a 6’ 1” 210 pound military man. The scientist who conducted this study later refuted his work as inadequet. But the FCC still uses this study as a RF and SAR limit to this day, despite the many newer studies showing biological effects much, much lower to the contrary of the older study, this does not even take into account non-thermal biological effects.

Bluetooth is safer than wifi in 2.4ghz or higher but it depends on the amplification and concentration of said signals. DECT phones are horrible, replace with corded phones. And yes, a head set is important. RF by the WHO is considered a class 2b carcinogen. Certain frequencies used and the concentration of these frequencies are even higher up on the classification list.

RF is ESPECIALLY dangerous to babies and kids. Do mot leave your kid near a cell phone. Their heads absorb hundreds pf times more radiation than someone who is 6 feet 220 pounds. But don’t tellvthe fcc that.

[–]magnora7[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I will have to chew on this for a while. Thanks for the information

[–]Jesus 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Your very welcome. Read the studies I linked and then read the industry studies to get an idea of the controversy.

[–]magnora7[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I mean it kind of makes sense, a lot of molecular connections have a resonant energy/frequency. This is how they manipulate chemicals in particle physics. I can imagine a complex protein acting as an antenna to a wide variety of frequencies, and if too much of a certain resonant frequency is input, the protein might permanently deform to an non-functional shape.

Like in atomic physics there is the "Balmer series" which is basically a mapping of the resonant frequencies output by a hydrogen atom. So if you bombard it with any one of these, the atom will "ring like a bell" so to speak, as the electron is energized and moves in to higher energy states. Then when it relaxes from the high energy state to the low one (which are discreet quantized levels, this is where the "quantum" in quantum physics comes from) so it always outputs the exact same energy.

So if you bombarded a hydrogen atom with all the frequencies from the Balmer Series, it would eventually ionize. Before the electron is ejected, it's non-ionizing radiation, even if the electron is dancing around the nucleus at a very high energy level. But the moment the electron gets too energized, it hops out and leaves forever, and then it's ionized. Non-ionizing radiation just gives the electron energy, and it eventually relaxes back in to the lowest-energy state, and emits a photo ("heat") in the process. The frequency of the photons emitted as the electrons jump down the various quantum energy levels creates the Balmer series.

Sooo... with all that considered, there's also molecular bonding. Like pi bonding and covalent and ionic bonding. Which themselves all have a resonant frequency and associated energy (the frequency and energy of a photon are always exactly proportional because photons always travel at the speed of light in discreet individual packets, like you cannot have 1.3 of a photon)

So I think the whole theory of non-ionizing non-heating radiation absorption working to change molecular bonds seems to depend on the energy levels of these bonds, and how responsive they are to the photons they interact with. A molecule is a distributed system, a cloud of electrons, so it has many more ways to distribute heat before electrons end up being ionized.

But in the instance of a pi bond, or something like that, it's hard to say what would happen...

I mean obviously this stuff has been tested for safety quite a bit over the decades. But it's possible there's 1 protein human beings have they overlooked, that happens to have a shape that seriously catches the frequencies put out by 5G, and thus degrades because of all the internal heat within the molecule (and basically "shakes apart" as that's what heat is).

So a good experiment would be to find whatever proteins they claim are degraded by 5G (even if that's DNA or whatever) and then expose it to very high levels of sustained 5G electromagnetic activity. Then the degradation should be able to be tested and verified in a reproducible way.

So if I found quality studies that verify that, and they can be reproduced, then I'll begin to be concerned. Then it also has to be verified that at normal 5G exposure levels, the degradation still occurs (instead of the captured energy just dissipating through heat conduction like normal).

Basically the rate of absorption has to outpace the rate of dissipation for a given protein, when exposed to 5G traffic, in order for there to be a provable health concern. Which is basically just heat tbh, but in very specific conditions.