17-08-2019 03:03 PM
Care to post the link. If you seen it then you'll have the source. But YouTube isnt going to be a reliable source anyway.
18-08-2019 08:45 AM
I agree we need sources, references and links before taking assertions seriously, that is why I have asked for evidence and sources about 5G safety. While references are time consuming to follow up, unless this is done they can't be assumed to be valid either
There is a lot of information on YouTube which is referenced and valid, so I don't agree that it can never be seen as reliable. Some is reliable, some is not.
This goes for any public platform, newspapers, TV etc.
It should be remembered too that people will try to muddy the waters, posting what appear to be stupid posts in favour of a cause that in reality they oppose, in order to smear the group of people that they wish to see fail, and have the points they make dismissed as groundless .
18-08-2019 08:47 AM
Hello TiffJ, (EE community manager)
The NHS article referenced in your response, now 7 years old, is reproduced here, because in fact it does not give reassurance AT ALL It is not even about 5G but about RF and mobile phone use. I will try to annotate the most worrying parts of this - which has been given as a source of reassurance but is not. Parts of the text which I find worrying or dubious are highlighted in blue (my own comments in brackets and red)
I find it very concerning that EE would rely on this, quoting this article as any kind of reassurance. maybe you are relying on the title and that it appears to be NHS/Dept of Health sourced reassurance.
Reading it more carefully shows that it is not reassuring at all, it is out of date and 5G is not included in the review at all.
Thursday 26 April 2012
There is “no convincing evidence” (but there is evidence which can be dismissed as not convincing) that mobile phones cause cancer, according to a major report issued by the Health Protection Agency. The report has received a great deal of press attention. Most newspapers stressed the lack of clear risks but others said that mobile phones present an unknown health risk.
The report was a comprehensive, independent review of the evidence on the possible health effects of exposure to radiofrequency (RF) electromagnetic fields. RF fields are produced not only by mobile phones, but also by other wireless devices such as Wi-Fi, TV and radio transmitters. After looking at hundreds of evidence sources, the review concluded that there is still no convincing evidence that exposure to RF below international guidelines causes any damage to health in adults or children.
However, the review pointed out that mobile phones, which produce the highest exposures to RF in daily life, have only been in widespread public use relatively recently and there is little information on any health risks beyond 15 years of use. On this basis, the researchers say that more information is needed on whether there is an increased risk of brain tumours and other types of cancer with longer-term mobile use and use during childhood. In particular, the authors say a study should be undertaken to look at trends in the rates of brain tumours in the UK population by age and sex in relation to trends in mobile phone use. The overall message is that to date there is no evidence to support a risk, but that as a precautionary measure monitoring should continue.
The current advice from the Department of Health is that children and young people under 16 should be encouraged to use mobile phones for essential purposes only, and should keep any calls short. Using a hands-free kit and texting instead of calling are both ways to reduce RF exposure.What did the report look at?
The report presented findings from an extensive evidence review by the Health Protection Agency’s independent Advisory Group on Non-ionising Radiation (AGNIR). AGNIR published its previous review of the subject in 2003, and this analysis addressed a great deal of evidence gathered in the intervening years.
The report looked at evidence on the possible health effects of exposure to certain radiofrequency (RF) electromagnetic fields, produced by a range of man-made devices. The report pointed out that the general public is exposed to RF fields from mobile phones and their base stations, wireless networking, TV and radio broadcasting and other communications technologies. Although such exposure has become widespread, it still remains below internationally accepted guidelines on safety. Additional sources of RF exposure are appearing from new technologies such as domestic smart meters and airport security scanners, while some members of the public and the workforce are exposed to higher levels used in MRI scanning and intense heat-based medical therapies. In particular, it says there have been concerns about the use of Wi-Fi in schools.
The type of low-level radiation emitted by mobile phones, radio signals and Wi-Fi is called non-ionising radiation. This is different from the ionising radiation (the type that breaks down molecules and structures within cells) that is emitted by radioactive materials, X-rays and medical techniques such as radiotherapy, for example. Non-ionising radiation is naturally present at very low levels in the environment.
The potential effects of RF fields have been studied in a variety of ways and settings. The review examined many different kinds of studies, from studies that looked at cells in a lab to those that examined how RF fields affect people in the long-term. The broad types of studies examined were:
The review looked at hundreds of studies (there are now thousands of studies available, many conclude that there is cause for concern, also this is a review of existing RF research, not new independent research about 5G phones and transmitters) related to the potential health effects of exposure to RF fields. It concentrated particularly on new evidence gathered since 2003, the date of the last review. The report covered both experimental and population-based studies relevant to concerns about human health. However, the studies only looked at the direct effects of exposure to RF fields and did not cover indirect effects associated with the use of mobile phones and other wireless devices, such as the accident risks of using mobile phones while driving.
Its authors did not describe their search in detail, but said that all scientific papers were carefully examined to determine what weight should be placed on their individual findings, including consideration of their scientific quality.What did the report find?
Below are the main findings of the report for the different types of studies it reviewed.Studies on cells
The report says there is no robust evidence that RF exposure produces any effect on cells. In particular, there is no evidence that RF fields cause genetic damage or increase the risk of cells becoming cancerous at the levels tested.Animal studies
The report says that, taken together, these studies provide no evidence that RF exposures below international guidelines have health effects. Large-scale animal studies have found no evidence that RF fields are associated with cancer and no consistent evidence of effects on the brain, nervous system, blood-brain barrier or on fertility.Brain function in humans
Some studies have suggested that RF fields might affect brain function, but further research is required. The report says that at present there is insufficient good-quality evidence to draw strong conclusions about the potential effects of RF exposure on brain function in children.Symptoms in humans
The authors say current evidence suggests that RF exposure below (so there may be evidence just slightly above guideline levels, how much of a margin for safety has been provided?) does not cause acute symptoms in humans. They also say that at present there is insufficient evidence to draw conclusions about the role of long-term exposure in causing symptoms.Non-cancer effects in humans
The authors consider research in this area to be “limited”, but say that to date there is no substantial evidence that exposure has effects on cardiovascular health, fertility or death rates. There is in particular “a lack of evidence available in children in this area”.Cancer in humans
The authors say studies do not indicate that there is a cancer risk form RF field exposure – for example, from living near an RF transmitter – but these studies have weakness and provide no strong evidence against a possible increased risk.
They say that to date, the overall evidence does not demonstrate that use of mobile phones causes brain tumours or any other type of cancer. However, they add that there is little information about the risks beyond 15 years of use and very limited information on the risks of childhood tumours associated with mobile phones.What did the report conclude?
In summary, the report said there is “no convincing evidence that RF exposure below agreed international guideline levels (which the UK adheres to) causes health effects in adults or children”.Does that mean mobiles are safe?
The report suggests that to date there is no clear evidence that RF exposure might cause cancer. This is different from finding evidence that it does not cause cancer. The report calls for research to continue monitoring the effects of mobile phones. In particular, little is known about their longer-term effects and potential effects on children. A study should be undertaken to look at trends in the rates of brain tumours in the UK population by age and sex in relation to trends in mobile phone use.What are the recommendations on phone use?
The Department of Health currently advises that children and young people under 16 should be encouraged to use mobile phones for essential purposes ... and should keep calls short. Using a hands-free kit and texting instead of calling are both ways to reduce RF exposure.
Analysis by Bazian
Edited by NHS Website
18-08-2019 09:05 AM
@ant1456 Are you referring to me ?. I’m not being told to say anything as I don’t work for EE. Eating pickled vegetables and using talcum powder are classed as having the same level of risk. Alcoholic drinks and processed meat are classed as higher risk. Oh I trust THiS more than any YouTube clip.
and please use the link or you’ll not know what happened to female rats.
And what’s happening in the US about 5G deployment is in the US and not the UK, the UK not deploying mmwave 5G.
18-08-2019 11:50 AM
It is very difficult to know quite whose posts are being answered, the answers seem just to be in order of age, but I would like to let you know that the link you have embedded doesn't work. Can you re-post it, please, if it is important about the rats?
18-08-2019 10:16 PM
19-08-2019 07:47 AM
that all rings true for me.
YouTube has all sorts - scholarly and rubbish, reliable and misleading 'factual' stuff, and without checking links and references it is impossible to tell - but sometimes you can spot the misleading without much trouble.
Agree about govs - we have seen lately how very little the people to whom power has been lent, act in our interests. They have a completely different agenda and voting is just a a method of getting endorsement for that hidden agenda. That model failed with the referendum about leaving EU and they have done everything they can to override it, ever since! Clear for everyone to see whichever way they voted. I agree with you that we cannot trust those in the industry, nor those in government automatically.
Whether there is any truth in the idea that we could be controlled in some way by signals sent through mobile networks is difficult to assess. My concern is that all research is concluding that there is a mild heating effect from microwave transmission. That may affect us and may kill smaller creatures. It is not denied but any potential harm from it is dismissed or made light of.
What about eyes - a 2 mm deep microwave warming on the eye 24/7 ?
We know that men have their testicles kept outside the main trunk of the body to keep them slightly cooler. Couples are advised that men should wear loose clothing if trying to conceive (that used to be so easy!). What will be the effect of 24/7 low-level microwave heating on sperm?
I don't believe we are being alarmist, the poor quality of the research the industry has provided for backing up their claims that 5G is safe is a very worrying aspect of my findings.
One site full of scholarly papers is to be found easily
I am busy reading, but can't yet say I've seen enough, there are thousands there and some are expensive to view - but it is an important resource, a broad topic collection.
19-08-2019 07:57 AM
19-08-2019 08:58 AM
You cant hide behind dont click links here as an excuse not to back yo your evidence.
You are saying all this but not backing it up then saying dont trust links
The same can be said for google. So in your theory you shouldnt be using the internet because you can get a virus etc. I suggest you log off then.
No do you want to go and find these so called sources and link them to back yourself up?
19-08-2019 11:07 AM - edited 19-08-2019 11:15 AM
thanks for the tip re seeing who is being replied to - having clicked reply I imagined that covered it, then I was lost.
Thanks for renewing the link to the only channel you trust on YouTube
Here it is folks - it's the BBC - addressing the EU, it's very brief (see also "Why you can trust the BBC" at the bottom of the article)
here is the graphic,
(taken from SCAMP (Imperial College ScaMP (Scalable Metagenomics Pipeline) is a system for carrying out full metagenomic analysis of shotgun-sequenced samples.)
Sorry I can't get what that really means - but it is surely very scientific!
which reassures us of the safety of 5G and microwaves in our environment.
unfortunately there is no exact marker to show where these fall on the scale, it is shown as falling somewhere around mobile phones and microwaves. Is it an OK thing to have microwaves around us 24/7?
The damage caused by mobile phones to the male rats was with 9 hours a day of exposure - we are talking continuous exposure 24/7 though admittedly not as close to the source as the rats were.
Microwaves can be used as weapons, what exact wavelength of microwave would be used? If it is the very short mm waves, as some claim, that could be to harmful us and other creatures.
19-08-2019 11:42 AM
@Eve-A I see you have just copied and pasted the bits that try and support you.
It also says Pickled onions are more dangerous, Alcohol is more dangerous. Shall I carry on?
19-08-2019 11:56 AM
The thing with pickles and talcum is that those are avoidable, if they scare you, and are not forced on our children either.
I suppose I could have pasted the whole BBC article, but I thought just showing that it was a BBC article, and that SCAMP thing was good enough for now. I don't really have a 'side' except to find out how it is that we can be assured that 5G transmission system will be safe BEFORE they launch it.
I will be very happy that day they publish serious, independent study which does that.
BBC is not that!
19-08-2019 12:08 PM
19-08-2019 12:30 PM
@SORCERESS typing it and clicking it is the same thing. You are not more secure by just typing it.
And you dont recognize BBC?
Are you going to post any of your sources? I ask again because you avoided the question. Maybe theybdint exist?
@Eve-A did they do research before releases alcohol or talcum powder? No they released them and are more harmful.
You say these are avoidable? Have you ever gone intona supermarket and not seen a single bottle of alcohol on the shelves?
You are using the internet with most likely a router that has wifi.
Radio? Yet 5G are within these same limits yet you are saying are more dangerous.
19-08-2019 01:03 PM
You surely know that it is not a valid argument to say that pickles on a shelf in a shop are unavoidable, in the way that radiation is unavoidable. I can't believe that you aren't able to understand the difference!
I don't use a router with wi-fi
I have an EMF detector and my home is at the lowest level it can possibly be these days.
Just because in 'olden days' we didn't test everything doesn't make new technologies safe.
We didn't test X rays at that time either, we even used the X ray machine in the shoe shops to see if the fit was right! Just because we have not been cautious before, doesn't justify us not being so nowadays.
I don't ask for a ban on 5G, but I would like the option not to have it in my home, and I would like an assurance that it is safe before it is allowed to be used.
19-08-2019 01:09 PM
If it wasn't "safe" networks wouldn't be allowed to deploy it. There are laws against that.
And the suggestion by @SORCERESS saying Government is blocking certain (so called) sources is just plain stupid, and yet he won't supply these links.
19-08-2019 01:37 PM
I believe Sorceress meant the link to the EMF portal, that was the one she didn't recognise
You might need that though as you are happier to navigate - when you go back to the home page there is a site search bar. Volumes of research to look at there. I don't know if it's pro or against 5G being declared safe to use yet. Possibly both! Still reading
19-08-2019 01:41 PM
20-08-2019 09:47 AM - edited 20-08-2019 09:51 AM
"If it wasn't "safe" networks wouldn't be allowed to deploy it. There are laws against that"
You may be aware that many times in our history procedures, products and other inventions have been allowed to be "deployed" without first being proven safe, and which later turn out not to be safe. X rays are one example of this, and now highly regulated because of the threat they pose, without any perception of danger immediately apparent to the victim.
"deployed" ( surely that is most often a weapon word? I looked it up in case I was misunderstanding,)
20-08-2019 10:18 AM
@Eve-A yes stays are heavily regulated just like networks and their spectrum
by Jneux 30-12-2017
by Gnomeface 23-12-2019