My understanding of physics is that 5G wavelength is much longer than visible light (millimeter vs nanometer magnitudes) and visible light only really starts to get harmful in the UV+ spectrum.
How can electromagnetic radiation in the millimeter range do anything but heat the tissue to a minimal degree? How can it be harmful?
[Effects on trees and plants]
The microwaves may affect vegetables. In the area that received radiation directly from “Location Skrunda Radio Station” (Latvia), pines (Pinus sylvestris) experienced a lower growth radio. This did not occur beyond the area of impact of electromagnetic waves. A statistically significant negative correlation between increase tree growth and intensity of electromagnetic field was found, and was confirmed that the beginning of this growth decline coincided in time with the start of radar emissions. Authors evaluated other possible environmental factors which might have intervened, but none had noticeable effects [103]. In another study investigating cell ultrastructure of pine needles irradiated by the same radar, there was an increase of resin production, and was interpreted as an effect of stress caused by radiation, which would explain the aging and declining growth and viability of trees subjected to pulsed microwaves. They also found a low germination of seeds of pine trees more exposed [104]. The effects of Latvian radar was also felt by aquatic plants. Spirodela polyrrhiza exposed to a power density between 0.1 and 1.8 μW/cm2 had lower longevity, problems in reproduction and morphological and developmental abnormalities compared with a control group who grew up far from the radar [105].
[source] https://www.pathophysiologyjournal.com/article/S0928-4680(09...
https://twin.sci-hub.tw/6759/4e3bc086c40841aacf40b068776dc0f...
> 3.3.1. Oxidation mechanism of cellular harm
> A well-studied potential mechanism of harm from radiofrequency radiation is one of cellular oxidation. Healthy biological systems require a balance of oxidation and antioxidation to fight infection and prevent disease (44, 45, 46). A review of the literature by Yakymenko et al. (2016) confirmed that in 93 of 100 studies, non-ionizing radio- frequency radiation caused a cellular stress response with excessive reactive oxygen species. He concluded, “oxidative stress induced by RFR exposure should be recognized as one of the primary mechanisms of the biological activity of this kind of radiation.”
Lol, freudian slip?
You didn't post any causal explanation, just correlation.
Assuming the correlation was significant, maybe low magnetic fields along the radar are responsible, or transient spikes, high frequency (dys-)harmonics - because it says "pulsed" but I don't know whether it means square pulse or rather probably not. Might latvias Equip is slightly out of tune, who knows. Noisy relais is no rarity at all.
Reportedly needles are about the same length as a UHF antenna, and so they tend to absorb the radiation.
5G is, I believe, somewhere in the UHF spectrum.
To... halt the 5G RF-EMF expansion until independent scientists can assure that 5G... not be harmful
To appoint...independent, truly impartial EMF & health scientists... to re-evaluate the health risks and...study the total and cumulative exposure
Among other things, they are asking for scientific voice in the public policy space rather than the only voice being corporate lobbyists. What's wrong with this again?
That they make bogus claims like: "RF-EMF has been proven to be harmful for humans and the environment."
while providing no evidence for that claim or even a hypothesis about a mechanism that could potentially cause harm. Wireless technology wasn't invented yesterday, we have been studying it for decades. If they had actually found something new, they'd publish it in a respected journal (no, Bioinitiative is not one, it's pretty much the opposite).
But they didn't do that, because they already knew what the result would be. Their statement that they want "truly impartial EMF & health scientists" simply means they want scientists who agree with their stated opinion, nothing more.
> The world’s largest study (25 million US dollar) National Toxicology Program (NTP), shows statistically significant increase in the incidence of brain and heart cancer in animals exposed to EMF below the ICNIRP (International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection) guidelines followed by most countries. These results support results in human epidemiological studies on RF radiation and brain tumour risk. A large number of peer -reviewed scientific reports demonstrate harm to human health from EMFs.
And their first citation in that paragraph [0] is a study from the U.S. National Toxicology Program.
Don't say stuff like "they make bogus claims", please - you don't know that, and it's unprofessional.
The results so far (surveyed across the literature; I'm a biophysicist who is familiar with all sorts of radiation and biology) are not convincing. most studies lack controls, or have poor study design.
But just because 'most studies' into EMF radiation at this frequency are not convincing, does not mean that they all are not. Those poorly conducted studies should be ignored, not used as mud thrown onto good studies.
I thought this one was interesting. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5376454/
As for ignoring poor studies: that's the first and best thing you should do, because otherwise, you'll spend a bunch of time trying to hypothesize your way out of a morass of contradictory, confusing, and ambiguous data.
My proposal, whatever maximum dosage regulators approve, they will get a tower installed next to their house that exposes them to that dosage. Align the incentives.
> Don't say stuff like "they make bogus claims", please - you don't know that, and it's unprofessional.
It's unprofessional to tell people they're wrong, when the scientific consensus says they're wrong? So you can't tell flat earthers the earth is round because that would be 'unprofessional'?
I mean, that's exactly what Columbus did a few hundred years ago. Should he have followed the 'scientific consensus'?
edit, since I can't reply: yes, I know that Eratosthenes measured the circumference in something like the 2nd century BCE. Swap in galileo & heliocentrism if you like, the point still stands.
That's not the point, the following quote from the article roywiggins linked you is:
“no educated person in the history of Western Civilization from the third century B.C. onward believed that the Earth was flat.”
> I mean, that's exactly what Columbus did a few hundred years ago. Should he have followed the 'scientific consensus'?
Besides being wrong, see above, that's not at all what I claim. If you think the scientific consensus is wrong, then prove it is wrong with evidence, write it up in a paper and submit it to a respected peer reviewed journal where it can be scrutinized. And don't try to circumvent review by presenting your work to the general public, who has neither the knowledge or the expertise to review your claims.
But until you've done that, your claims are just your opinion, and claiming they are 'proven' is bogus.
Ever had an RF burn from an antenna? I have. It can definitely be harmful.
This is false. Just look at the list. It's full of homeopaths, electrosensitive people, 'independent researchers', people totally outside their fields, retirees, or people with degree but no research records in the field.
As a Finn I looked at people from Finland in the list. All cranks.
I’ve always thought that an independent researcher was someone who studied within their field just had no monetary backing. Ex: a person with a PhD in X that does research on a subset of X, in their free time.
I met an independent researcher (Bob Edgar) who had sold his company to Intel and was bored. He started to attend seminars at Berkeley to find people who wanted his help, met a few folks, and ended up being one of the top people in the field of protein sequence alignment. At first, my advisor helped him by giving him an arbitrary appointment at Berkeley because otherwise journals wouldnt accept his papers because he was "independent". Eventually he reached the point where he could publish with his email address as affiliation (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15034147). Of course, these days, he'd just publish to biorxiv and put the code in github.
Reading his CV (http://www.drive5.com/papers/resume.html), it seems that even though he is a peer reviewed "Computational Biologist", his PhD is in Theoretical High-Energy Physics, who became a systems developer.
Prof. Osmo Hänninen has solid science background. After his retirement he has become a pseudo science crackpot. He supervised Dowsing PhD thesis in University of Oulu called "SPONTANEOUS MOVEMENTS OF HANDS IN GRADIENTS OF WEAK VHF ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS". It caused a scandal and the PhD thesis was rejected as pseudoscience. http://jultika.oulu.fi/files/isbn9789514297601.pdf
Health "science" is rarely either.