Good studies on 5G-human health long term exposure?
The review shows: 1) 5G lower frequencies (700 and 3 600 MHz): a) limited evidence of carcinogenicity in epidemiological studies; b) sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental bioassays; c) sufficient evidence ofreproductive/developmental adverse effects in humans; d) sufficient evidence of reproductive/ developmental adverse effects in experimental animals; 2) 5G higher frequencies (24.25-27.5 GHz): the systematic review found no adequate studies either in humans or in experimental animals. Conclusions: 1) cancer: FR1 (450 to 6 000 MHz): EMF are probably carcinogenic for humans, in particular related to gliomas and acoustic neuromas; FR2 (24 to 100 GHz): no adequate studies were performed on the higher frequencies; 2) reproductive developmental effects: FR1 (450 to 6 000 MHz): these frequencies clearly affect male fertility and possibly female fertility too. They may have possible adverse effects on the development of embryos, foetuses and newborns; FR2 (24 to 100 GHz): no adequate studies were performed on non-thermal effects of the higher frequencies.
I looked into their data for glioma (see page 51, table 4). They used 8 total studies. 3 studies showed glioma to be more likely in mobile phone users, 2 showed no difference, and 3 showed glioma less likely in mobile phone users. From this they concluded "probably carcinogenic for humans, in particular related to gliomas"?
This is a long paper and I didnt read it all, but I'm not sure I see how that conclusion is supported.
Also, an important quote in the description following that table:
"The association of glioma and acoustic neuroma is stronger among long-term heavy users of mobile phones, which is also the most extensively investigated exposure source, and in some cases the onset of tumours was related to the side on which the device was handled."
* if the intensity is not too high
Don't put your head inside a microwave. Don't hug the transmisor of a antena that broadcast tv or radio. ...
* non ionizing radiation
Gamma rays, X rays and some UV rays are dangerous. Try to avoid them and keep a low dose for important medical treatments. Use solar protection to block UV rays.
> Now, as I said, there’s no reason to think that five G is harmful. Indeed, there’s good reason to think it’s not [harmful], because millimeter waves have been used in medicine for a long time and for all we know they only enter the upper skin layers.
Are you afraid of red leds?
Each photons of a red les has like 1000x the energy of a photon of 5G. Most of the damage is caused by the energy of each photon, so red photons are more dangerous.
Also, a red led against your skin has more power than a 5G antena far away. You can get hurt when there are really a lot of photons, but both have very low power to be dangerous.
And a normal light lamp has even more power and higher energy photons, and they are safe.
And sunlight has even more power and higher energy photons, and it's safe if you filter UV-B rays that are the ones with more energy.
And neither of us can say it safe because as she pointed out there are enough studently to conclude that it’s safe.
c=lambda*f The wavelength of a red led is ~630nm so the frequency is ~480 THz. The energy of a photon is E=hf so proportional to the frequency. Therefore a red LED photon has approximately 20,000 times the energy of a 25 GHz 5G photon.
Admittedly I only have a high-school level knowledge of this, but my understanding is that (as the parent said) higher frequency = higher energy = lower wavelength. Hence visible light has more energy than any sort of microwave.
Did you mean the "length of the wave" instead of the "energy of the wavelength"? In that case we all agree.
I am using amplitude to describe the energy of a wave, you are using frequency.
EDIT: To expand on this further, you are materialists and think light is a particle, a photon. But light is not a particle, it is a wave and it always is a wave, until we measure it. Objectively it is a wave (a probability), subjectively it is a particle (a certainty).
What you are measuring is what you measure, so you cannot see the effects of what you are not measuring.
Because this radiation is non-ionizing you think it is harmless. That is your folly and not mine.
Because you think the energy of the wave lay only in the photon means you can see the energy of the wavelength.
It's more complicated. Anyway, when the light colide with your skin it counts like a "measurement". Most of the times, the light colides with an electron of your skin and the energy that the electron get's is the same energy that it would get in the photoelectric effect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoelectric_effect
> Is it's energy in the frequency or the amplitude?
Both. You can calculate the energy using the amplitude, and that energy determines how many photons will you count in a photoelectric experiment.
The wavelength determines the energy of each photon. The amplitudes determines the total amount of energy in all photons.
> Because this radiation is non-ionizing you think it is harmless.
Note that there are two ways in which light can be dangerous, let's call the "cancer" and "cooking".
As far as we know, non-ionizing radiation does not cause cancer.
You can cook something/someone using non-ionizing radiation but the power of the 5G antenas in not enough where people can go.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/we-have-no...
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S14384...